Prayers of Love & Faith - An update from the CofE’s General Synod
The General Synod chamber at Church House, Westminster
“The move to next business didn’t slow anything down, as the plan has always been to bring more thought-through proposals to Synod in July.”
AT GENERAL SYNOD, the Church of England's governing body, last month up to eight hours was timetabled for debate on Living in Love and Faith (LLF), its long running project looking at identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage.
During the five-day meeting at Church House in London, Synod members from the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity continued to review proposals agreed in February and November 2023 to enable clergy and churches who choose to do so to use Prayers of Love and Faith to bless same-sex relationships. Gill Ball, a member of the House of Laity for the Diocese of Chelmsford, explains:
The motion which passed in November encouraged the bishops to continue their work on LLF, and an amendment asked the House of Bishops to consider whether some stand-alone services for same-sex couples [i.e. not within regular church services] could be made available for use, possibly on a trial basis.
The House of Bishops then commended the Prayers Of Love And Faith for use within regular church services in December, and the media reported their first use within Sunday worship. However, there was a setback to the use of stand-alone services, when the House of Bishops at their meeting in December, did not come to a decision regarding their trial use.
In early February, a few weeks before General Synod was due to meet, the Bishop of Newcastle, Right Revd Helen-Ann Hartley, stepped down as one of the Co-Chairs of the LLF process, citing concerns about the recent appointment process for a new theological advisor to the House of Bishops. This left one Co-Chair, the Bishop of Leicester, Right Revd Martyn Snow. He began the debate with an apology that no firm proposals were being brought. The motion he proposed asked Synod to welcome the further work carried out on LLF and the focus on reconciliation and bridge-building; and asked that a set of proposed commitments be brought back to Synod.
Despite the lack of firm proposals, he said there was no intention to row back on decisions already taken. His hope was that the ten commitments outlined in the Synod paper on LLF might form the basis of a way forwards, however these commitments were only a suggestion and had not been finalised.
The ten commitments included a focus on honesty, transparency, and reconciliation. A commitment around prayer explained the view on stand-alone services - that the work of the LLF implementation groups on Pastoral Guidance and Pastoral Reassurance is to be finished before stand-alone services are to be used. There is also a commitment to exploring the process for clergy and lay ministers to enter same-sex civil marriages.
During the debate, conservative amendments which asked Synod to acknowledge that some of the issues under discussion are not areas in which we can agree to disagree, and a call for a settlement based on structural provision, were both lost, which underlines the previously expressed desire of the majority of Synod to avoid any sort of structural change.
This continued desire was one of the things I found most notable from my own experience of the debate. Second was the experience of inclusive clergy and laity in parishes where congregation members hold a variety of views - any sort of structural provision would drive a dividing line through these churches. The improved tone of the debate was also much commented on.
After less than four hours of debate Ven Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, Archdeacon of Liverpool (and former Rector of the parish where the first Open Table community began) proposed ‘a move to next business’. A quick note on procedure for those like me who are fairly new to Synod – this prevented the motion in its current form being brought back for further discussion during the life of this Synod (until re-elections in 2026).
Miranda’s principle concern was a lack of clarity; she felt that in supporting the motion, Synod members were being asked to write a ‘blank cheque’ and commit to an unclear way forward. Her proposition that many people on all sides of the debate would not be well served by the motion was confirmed by the vote to move to next business, which was carried by a large majority. Miranda said:
I was concerned that people on all sides of this debate feared there were some bear traps hidden in the proposed commitments and, particularly given we were told not to debate them in detail, the danger was that we’d be told we’d all signed up to them when they were described as indicative. The move to next business didn’t slow anything down, as the plan has always been to bring more thought-through proposals to Synod in July.
So where does this leave those hoping and working for greater equity for LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England?
We are still awaiting the publication of the revised pastoral guidance to replace the out-dated and widely discredited Issues in Human Sexuality (1991), and the process looking at the use of the prayers in stand-alone services continues.
Personally, I am frustrated with the slow pace of change, and mindful of the concessions already made by those hoping for full equality. However, it’s important to say that the decisions taken in February and November last year still stand.
