On 14 January 2026 the House of Bishops published its proposals concerning LLF to be put to the next meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England. Basically nothing has changed from the documents published in October and December 2025. There are to be no stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples nor will clergy be able to marry a same-sex partner (although they can be in a civil partnership).
The statement by the House of Bishops may be read on the Church of England website. It is nothing short of a disgrace that no progress to full inclusion in the Church of England has been made, other than blessings as part of regular authorised services.
Predictably and understandably there has been reaction from clergy supportive of change. Four comments below.
---
Simon Butler:
I leave on holiday for 18 days tomorrow and there’s nothing that prepares me for holiday like a statement from the House of Bishops.
It is a convenient exercise of episcopal cowardice to hide behind theological and legal advice. As one of the Church House lawyers said recently, if the House had given it instructions to implement the decisions of General Synod the lawyers would have done it. Instead they ask for legal advice and then cower behind it, pretending they had no choice.
The conclusion I come to is that, as this is the conclusion of LLF, for me at least it is the conclusion of my pastoral relationship with bishops. I have no confidence in the bishops to exercise any pastoral care for me and I will, for the foreseeable future, relate to my bishops accordingly. They have forfeited any moral authority to pastor LGBT people. They have abandoned me; I will find my own path for the rest of my stipendiary ministry. I would caution any LGBT person to think long and hard before considering a vocation in the Church of England as it is today.
I have made it clear that, as the legal advice given to the House indicates, there is little legal power the bishops have to prevent me from conducting services for same sex couples as I judge pastorally appropriate. It will be for the bishops to decide what action they wish to take and whether they want to fight it out through the law.
---
Robert Thompson:
Bishops can dress this up all they want. But this decision reveals how incoherent our ecclesiology has now become.
The LLF statement presents its outcome as a pastoral compromise. Theologically, however, it represents an impasse. It affirms baptismal belonging, ordains LGBTQIA+ people to ministry, and invokes ecclesial unity—yet refuses to draw the doctrinal and disciplinary consequences of those affirmations.
A church that affirms baptismal equality and ordains LGBTQIA+ clergy, but then restricts our vocations for “unity”, isn’t showing patience or pastoral care. It’s simply justifying inequality sanctified by process.
“If one member suffers, all suffer together.” (1 Cor 12:26)
---
Charlie Baczyk-Bell:
Once again, for the avoidance of doubt:
The Church of England, and the House of Bishops, is institutionally queerphobic.
We your clergy are not. Come to us, and we will not turn you away.
Queerphobia is no different to misogyny, or racism, or any other kind of hatred. You, bishops, and those you compel you in fear, will face the judgement of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What you do to these little ones, you did also to me.
---
Robert Thompson
The episcopate has become a different caste, rather than order, of the ordained that make decisions in what seems to have become a moral vacuum.
The fixation on whether the Prayers of Love and Faith require Canon B2 authorisation or can be used under Canon B5 is a a convenient misdirection.
Bishops have already exercised doctrinal authority by commending the LLF prayers; they could not have done so if they believed them to be contrary to the Church of England’s teaching. The theological decision has already been made.
To continue speaking as if nothing has changed until B2 is achieved is not caution, it is evasion about their own theological and liturgical decision making.
This ambiguity serves bishops, but it does not serve not clergy or couples. It preserves episcopal room for manoeuvre while pushing pastoral risk and disciplinary exposure downwards.
Clergy are asked to carry the weight of uncertainty; same-sex couples are offered prayer without honesty about what the Church now believes; and bishops avoid accountability for the consequences of their own decisions.
If episcopal leadership means anything, it must include the courage to name what has already been decided and to stand behind it openly.
Today’s ending of LLF just shows how theologically incoherent episcopal decision making has become.
No comments:
Post a Comment