In the light of the House of Bishops stating that there will be no further decisions on PLF in either the February or July General Synods this year and the new papers just released, this article explores what PLF promised two years ago and what has actually been delivered. It sketches the longer history (since 2011) to show how little has changed over such a long period and the over-promising that has been a hallmark of the PLF process. It then outlines ten elements which it proposes as the main reasons for this process proving so prolonged and painful:
- There was an episcopal rush to publication of a proposal without recognition of its legal and theological weaknesses and the fragility of the apparent episcopal consensus.
- The novel initial legal and theological basis for the proposal was a flawed sharp distinction between civil marriage and holy matrimony
- There was for too long a refusal to acknowledge and work on the complex doctrinal questions related to PLF and revision of the pastoral guidance.
- The addition of pastoral provision/reassurance and the promise not to proceed with PLF or Pastoral Guidance without it.
- The under-estimation of the breadth and depth of opposition to the proposals.
- Repeated process failures, lack of transparency, and widespread lack of confidence that due processes are being followed.
- The rejection of use of Canon B2.
- A belief that past legal advice could somehow be ignored, by-passed or over-turned.
- Initial confusion over the content of the church’s doctrine of marriage.
- The repeated insistence that doctrine remains unchanged and the proposals are compatible with that doctrine.
In the light of these, particularly the last two, it is claimed that what is needed now is a paradigm shift refocussing to address honestly the questions of doctrinal difference and the consequent necessary reconfiguration of episcopacy if we are not to remain stuck but find a way forward for as many as possible within the Church of England in the future.
What has happened?
Two years ago in February 2023 the House of Bishops brought forward its response to Living in Love and Faith (LLF) and a motion to General Synod (GS 2289). Its central features were:
- Lament and repentance for “the failure of the Church to be welcoming to LGBTQI+ people and the harm that LGBTQI+ people have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church”
- Asking Synod to welcome the “decision of the House of Bishops to replace Issues in Human Sexuality with new pastoral guidance”
- Asking Synod to welcome the House’s response and commitment to “further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith”.
After twenty-four months what has been achieved in terms of formal changes?
- The Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) have been commended for use by clergy under Canon B5 but only for use in regular services.
- This commendation occurred despite PLF being contrary (GS 2328, para 17) to the only amendment made by General Synod in February 2023.
- The House of Bishops have not withdrawn their past repeated statements that “clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing” for those registering a civil partnership or civil same-sex marriage (2005, para 17; 2014, paras 20 and 21; 2020, para 20).
- The PLF Pastoral Guidance is much more wide-ranging in prohibiting “standalone services” (Pastoral Guidance, 1.1.1).
- Although draft Pastoral Guidance was produced and circulated among various stakeholders back in September 2023 none has been issued and Issues in Human Sexuality (1991) remains in place.
Last Monday (20th January 2025), the report from the House of Bishops made clear that this situation is now not likely to change at either of the Synods planned for this year. Even those of us who welcome this latest development have to ask why it has taken so long to achieve so little and to empathise with the frustration of those who are seeking for their strong convictions to be recognised in some way by the Church of England.
These last two years are, of course, simply the end of an even longer process which in its most recent incarnation can be traced back to the 2011 decision (GS Misc 997) to set up the group that would produce the Pilling Report (November 2013, with a dissenting statement from Bishop Keith Sinclair) that recommended allowing “a public service” to “mark the formation of a permanent same sex relationship” but not “a formal liturgy for use for this purpose”. This then led to two years of Shared Conversations (2014-July 2016) and bishops’ proposals in February 2017 (GS 2055) that upheld traditional teaching and declined to either authorise or commend new prayers or liturgies for use with same-sex couples. Following Synod refusing to “take note” of these there were three years spent developing LLF materials (September 2017-November 2020) which were then discussed across the church for over a year (Nov 2020-April 2022).
After the bishops’ discernment between October 2022 and January 2023, there emerged the original PLF proposal which was announced as “historic” in that it meant “same-sex couples will be able to come to church to give thanks for their civil marriage or civil partnership and receive God’s blessing”. It was also clear that the plan was for changes to follow quickly in relation to the expectations on clergy. The Bishop of London said at the press conference on 20th January 2023 that the bishops “would hope that certainly by the time the Synod met in July, there would be clear pastoral guidance in place” and the Archbishop of York made similar commitments talking about how “very shortly” the previous guidance would “be rescinded” and the bishops were “very quickly” going to get on with new guidance. This massive over-promising and under-delivering has continued to be a mark of the whole process even after its “reset” a year later under new episcopal leadership in early 2024. In July 2024 (GS 2358) and again in a leaflet issued about the process only in November there was talk of “significant progress” by February and decisions in July this year. Now, it seems, “significant progress” will not even be made by July 2025 and may have to wait until February 2026. The current Synod ends after July 2026.
The practical implications of the apology offered in February 2023 therefore amount to some commended prayers, but combined with an even greater restriction on what clergy are able to provide in what are now being called “bespoke” services for same-sex couples, and the continued use of Issues in relation to clergy and prospective clergy. Why has this happened? What has led the PLF process – on the basis of the terms on which it has been announced and repeatedly sold to the Church of England and despite all the hard work and good intentions of those involved – to take so long delivering so little of what it promised?
What went wrong?
In seeking to understand why the bishops have delivered so little after so long there are at least the following ten major features of the last two years.
First, there was an episcopal rush to publication of a proposal without recognition of its legal and theological weaknesses and the fragility of the apparent episcopal consensus. The original plan in December 2022 to bring a number of options to General Synod as to the best way forward was changed to rush out PLF which appeared to have widespread support. As the bishop who chaired the LLF process quickly came to recognise this was not the case. There were “different understandings of what was being provided” and even more disagreement in relation to the Pastoral Guidance. This would later result in public divisions with a dissenting statement from more conservative bishops, calls to move rapidly to allow clergy to enter same-sex marriage, and an increasing number of bishops not supporting proposals in Synod.
Second, the novel initial legal and theological basis for the proposal was a flawed sharp distinction between civil marriage and holy matrimony. Central to the initial argument was that there were now “two different institutions by the name of “marriage”” (GS Misc 1339, paras 5 and 6). This argument was abandoned over the summer of 2023 but no clear alternative account of civil same-sex marriage has been developed and, in the new documents, the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) “expresses scepticism that a clear distinction between holy matrimony and civil marriage can withstand scrutiny” (GS Misc 1406, p. 1).
Third, there was for too long a refusal to acknowledge and work on the complex doctrinal questions related to PLF and revision of the pastoral guidance. Having rejected the offer of work by FAOC in 2022, only now in January 2025 is the wider church being provided with serious theological reflection on the proposals from FAOC in the form of 3 papers over 118 pages (GS Misc 1406), a 316 page compendium of sources in relation to the Church of England’s Doctrine of Marriage, and an initial part report (the 16-page GS Misc 1407) from the ERG (the full report will not go to the House of Bishops until May 2025).
Fourth, the addition of pastoral provision/reassurance and the promise not to proceed with PLF or Pastoral Guidance without it. When proposed in January 2023 the bishops had given no thought as to how to respond adequately to those who were conscientiously opposed to the prayers. However, during the Synod debate the Archbishop of York recognised that this was needed and said
I want to give you this pledge that I won’t be able to vote, I won’t be able to support commending these prayers when I hope we vote this through today. But I won’t be able to support commending these prayers until we have the pastoral guidance and pastoral provision…
The Archbishop broke that pledge in commending prayers in December 2023 but it is noteworthy that last week’s statement states the House “agreed to extend the timetable to ensure that all elements of the proposals are sufficiently developed for a decision to be taken on them as a whole”.
Fifth, the under-estimation of the breadth and depth of opposition to the proposals. The bishops seem to have expected wider support in Synod and believed that there may be a hard-core of opposition from the usual suspects but that over time it would diminish. This has proven a serious-misjudgement as shown by the voting figures in the three key substantive debates:
| HOUSE | Feb 2023 | Nov 2023 | July 2024 | Feb 23 Maj | Nov 23 Maj | Jul 24 Maj |
| Bishops | 36-4-2 (90:10) | 23-10-4 (69.7:33.3) | 22-12-5 (64.7:35.3) | 32 | 13 | 10 |
| Clergy | 111-85-3 (56.6:43.4) | 100-93-1 (51.8:48.2) | 99-88-2 (52.9:47.1) | 26 | 7 | 11 |
| Laity | 103-92-5 (52.8:47.2) | 104-100-0 (51:49) | 95-91-2 (51.1:48.9) | 11 | 4 | 4 |
Three other developments have been significant here. Firstly, the strong immediate response of many Global South Primates which has contributed to the recent official Nairobi-Cairo proposals that the Anglican Communion should no longer be defined in terms of churches being in communion with the see of Canterbury or sharing a common faith and order. Secondly, within the CofE there has been the formation of The Alliance bringing together a range of existing networks including some who have not in the past taken as clear a public stance. Thirdly, the dramatic fall in the numbers offering for ordination and a significant number of ordinands wrestling with whether or not they can be ordained by bishops supporting changes to church teaching and practice.
Sixth, repeated process failures, lack of transparency, and widespread lack of confidence that due processes are being followed. Here, in addition to the numerous broken promises already identified, there are multiple examples that could be given such as:
- The sudden disbanding of three Implementation Groups in June 2023 to be recreated nearly a year later.
- A meeting of the House of Bishops in October 2023 which led to a dissenting statement warning that “we believe that bishops must have due regard to the obligations of good and proper governance”.
- The failure to announce until February 2024 key decisions taken by the House of Bishops in that October 2023 meeting.
- The failure from September to December 2023 to share crucial legal advice concerning the use of Canon B2 and Canon B5A even with the House of Bishops when these issues were at the heart of decision-making.
- The continued refusal to offer General Synod more than summaries of legal advice given to the House of Bishops.
- The College and House of Bishops in June 2024 summarily rejecting a central feature of the proposals emerging from the Leicester groups that sought to recognise and work with “three spaces” in relation to attitudes to developments on sexuality (see GS2358, para 10)
Seventh, the rejection of use of Canon B2. The normal, proper and legally secure process for introducing liturgical changes – particularly if they are controversial – is Canon B2 involving detailed Synodical scrutiny and a clear (two-thirds) consensus in support. Having initially bypassed this, in October 2023 the House agreed this should be the path for “standalone services”. Most bishops then supported an amendment passed by General Synod (by just one vote in the Laity) that asked the House “to consider whether some standalone services for same-sex couples could be made available for use, possibly on a trial basis” more rapidly than would be achieved under use of Canon B2. As a result, although the published Pastoral Guidance continues to refer to the use of B2, nothing has been introduced under Canon B2 and ironically it now looks like standalone services are unlikely to be made available any sooner (and perhaps later) than if the B2 process had been followed as planned (see GS 2328, Annex A, para 30 and Annex G where final approval was thought to be possible this November).
FAOC’s Episcopal Reference Group has stated in a paper just released that “more time and reflection” is needed before being able to advise “on the congruence (or otherwise) of the PLF in bespoke services with the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage” (GS Misc 1407, para 6). This again raises the question as to who the proper final judge on these matters should be. Can this really be the ERG or the whole of FAOC or even the House of Bishops rather than the General Synod under the Canon B2 processes set up precisely to safeguard the Church’s doctrine and its expression in its liturgy?
Eighth, a belief that past legal advice could somehow be ignored, by-passed or over-turned. The decision of the bishops back in 2016-17 not to introduce any new liturgy was in large part due to the complexities of doing so without changing doctrine as set out in a legal annex to GS 2055 which has not changed (as Bishop Martyn Snow has explained). In the words of legal advice from 2018, the constraints of law and doctrine mean that any liturgy seems “unlikely” to be “considered usable by those clergy who would wish to officiate at a service of prayer and dedication after the registration of a civil partnership or a same sex marriage” because
Such a form of service would have to omit any reference to the parties’ marriage or their being married; or, if it did contain such a reference, would have to contain explanations and disclaimers as to the nature of the civil marriage and its not amounting to marriage so far as the Church’s teaching was concerned. Either way, such a service might well be considered pastorally unusable in respect of the occasion for which it was intended. It is not clear what such a service would or could actually do. Nor is it clear in what way it would glorify God and edify the people (see Canon B 1.2 for this requirement).
Underlying all this is the question of the church’s doctrine and the need for any liturgy not to be contrary to that doctrine or indicative of a departure from it in any essential matter. Here we come to the last two and most significant elements which have contributed to this prolonged PLF process.
Ninth, initial confusion over the content of the church’s doctrine of marriage. It appears that when PLF were proposed in January 2023, the bishops’ focus was on marriage as a male-female union and the question as to whether the church’s teaching in relation to sexual ethics was also part of the doctrine of marriage was not considered. The assumption appears to have been that this could be changed without this representing a change in the church’s doctrine of marriage. This explains the Archbishop of York’s response when asked “Is it still church teaching that gay sex is a sin?” in January 2023 on the Sunday programme:
Well, what we are saying is that physical and sexual intimacy belongs in committed, stable, faithful relationships…we believe that stable, faithful, committed, loving relationships are good. They are the place for physical intimacy…
It gradually became clear however that in fact the church’s doctrine of marriage included that marriage—not simply the sort of relationship described by the Archbishop—was the proper place for sexual intimacy. This is now clearly stated at the start of the Pastoral Guidance issued for PLF: “It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place”. It is also reaffirmed in the new statement from the ERG which includes among the “nine theses about the doctrine of marriage” that set out “a stable core to the doctrine of marriage”: “Marriage is the proper context for sexual intimacy” (see the commentary at GS Misc 1407, p. 9). This is important in relation to the tenth and final feature of the process that has played a decisive part in the problems faced:
Tenth, the repeated insistence that doctrine remains unchanged and the proposals are compatible with that doctrine. On their introduction two years ago, the bishops were clear that, in their final form, the PLF would “not contradict the Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony, as articulated in Canon B30” (GS 2289, Summary, p. 2) and that “we have agreed at this time to maintain the doctrine of Holy Matrimony which the Church has received” (GS 2289, p. 7). This has continued to be stated despite the two crucial developments set out above undermining the stark distinction between civil marriage and holy matrimony and clarifying that the doctrine of marriage includes it being the proper place for sexual intimacy.
The claim to be able to proceed beyond GS 2055 while keeping within its boundaries of unchanged doctrine and law always looked highly implausible to any objective observer. It is now surely unsustainable in the light of the last two years. This may be acknowledged in the work now being undertaken by the ERG (reported in July last year in GS2358, paras 43-44) to offer theological advice “on the nature, role, and creation of doctrine” as it relates to LLF and how “doctrine can develop or change within the Church of England”.
The danger is that an attempt will be made to add this work into the existing processes described here and thus perpetuate the problems. This would mean considering now “the doctrinal implications of a possible relaxation of restrictions on Clergy in Same Sex Marriages” (GS Misc 1407, para 7) and “bespoke services” and perhaps also structural provision such as proposals for delegated episcopal ministry (raised by ERG in para 8).
Is there a better way forward?
Given all these problems and growing recognition that the questions are ultimately doctrinal, would it not be more honest and more fruitful for there to be a paradigm shift in the approach being taken so as to put the fundamental doctrinal disagreement centre-stage rather than pretend we are maintaining the doctrine but differing over what is permissible within it?
It is those who are clearly committed to the church’s doctrine of marriage who – almost without exception – have resisted the developments as contrary to doctrine. In contrast, those supporting the changes and wishing to go further are almost all in one or more of the following categories:
- Those who are honest that they reject the church’s doctrine of marriage (as male-female union and/or as the proper place for sexual intimacy) and believe it is in error (and, some would say, harmful)
- Those who believe in a particular understanding of the development of doctrine and are convinced that the doctrine of marriage can and should develop in response to same-sex marriage and the experience of gay and lesbian couples.
- Those who are willing to in some degree detach the church’s practice in terms of liturgical development and discipline from the constraints of its doctrine, perhaps by appeal to a particular understanding of “pastoral accommodation”.
The PLF process has thus far not been honest about this reality. There has been no attempt by the bishops to offer a theological defence of any of these three positions (although FAOC’s new papers begin to highlight some key issues) as one which the Church of England should embrace or make space for within its common life and its faith and order. And yet, it would seem, to proceed with any of the further proposed changes being sought now requires these doctrinal matters to be addressed head-on.
Our fundamental differences are doctrinal and have practical doctrinal implications in relation to liturgy and orders of ministry. Buying more time but avoiding that fact will not solve anything.
In addition, bishops are “to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine” and act as “the principal minister” with the duty of “admitting persons into holy orders” (Canon C18). This means that—despite the reticence of so many bishops (particularly those pressing for change)—questions of episcopacy cannot any longer be kept off the table but in fact need to be made much more front and centre.
If the original promises of the House of Bishops and hopes of many in the church in relation to PLF are to be realised and we are to get ourselves out of the malaise of the last two years and where we are now stuck then we must
- recognise our doctrinal differences and how serious they are for so many in the Church of England. Here the first of the latest FAOC papers, “Ecclesiology, unity and differentiation” includes much helpful material including that “it is a failure of Christian love for one side to declare what kind of disagreement is being experienced by the other. It must surely be the case that those who disagree with a given decision are themselves determinative of what kind of disagreement is in view, not the content majority” (para 139)
- seek some form of agreement—perhaps returning to something like the “three spaces” model—on the consequent necessary restructuring of episcopal ministry to reflect our divergences over doctrine.
