The discussion at the end of the LLF process
February 13, 2026 by Ian Paul
Yesterday in Synod, we spent five hours (yes, five!) on what is likely to be the final debate on the Living in Love and Faith process (LLF), the Church of England’s damaging and divisive debate on sexuality launched by Justin Welby in 2017. Following what was widely seen as a volte face by the House of Bishops in October—both in terms of what they said and their belated commitment to transparency—they offered this motion as ‘settlement’ for the process:
.png){kind=tracking}
The Archbishop of York to move:
That this Synod:
a) recognise and lament the distress and pain many have suffered during the LLF process, especially LGBTQI+ people;
b) affirm that the LLF Programme and all work initiated by the February 2023 LLF Motion and subsequent LLF Motions will conclude by July 2026;
c) thank the LLF Working Groups for their committed and costly work, which will now draw to a close with the conclusion of this synodical process;
d) commend the House of Bishops in establishing the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group and Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group for continuing work.’
As is customary for this debate, both ‘sides’ (excuse the shorthand) viewed it with deep suspicion—revisionists because it understated their pain, and showed no real signs of sorrow, and the ‘orthodox’ because clause (d) seemed like a hostage to fortune, leaving the door ajar for future possible change and further damaging debate. Indeed, Steven Croft, bishop of Oxford, had said as much in the Tuesday afternoon Questions session, talking about ‘affirming’ bishops (as if those believing the teaching of Jesus and the doctrine of the Church were somehow ‘denying’) and an ongoing process.
There were eight amendments tabled, ensuring that the debate would last the whole five hours. Many of them were predictable—from revisionists wanting to amplify the apology, and delete the idea that LLF is over, and some from orthodox wanting to amend or delete the possibility of continuing discussion.
There were two exceptions to that, though, the first from Christopher Landau simply recognising that the ‘LGBTQI+ people’ were actually a diverse lot with different views. This is, of course, anathema to revisionists, who repeatedly talked as though all such people were a monolith who agreed with them—despite the number of gay women and men in the chamber who were orthodox and gave very clear speeches to that effect (I include several below).
The other was a cross-party proposal from Lis Goddard, agreed with Helen King, aiming to bring the fruitful learning of the ‘Leicester’ discussion groups into the proposed working groups. No sooner had Lis proposed this, than Helen King misused a point of order to deny her support for it! It was a clear sign that even the minimum of collaboration is not politically expedient for revisionists.
But we had been told ahead of time that that House of Bishops, having painfully thrashed this motion out as the only way forward for them, would resist every amendment—and the procedure of calling for a ‘vote by Houses’ meant that they effectively had a veto, and used it fairly consistently. I did wonder whether some of the revisionist bishops would break ranks, and perhaps vote for one of the revisionist amendments, but a maximum of six out of the 38 or so present did so.
It was clear that the revisionists really did not want to vote for the unamended motion, because it said clearly that LLF had ended. But if they voted it down, they would also be voted down clause (d) offering a chink of light of continued discussion, so they held their noses and voted ‘for’. Orthodox felt similarly ambivalent for the opposite reasons, and in the end some voted for (drawing a line under LLF) and others voted against (because we don’t want further damaging discussion).
I doubt many on the outside will now sit and watch five hours of discussion. But for me there were two clear features of the debate. The first was that evangelicals and other orthodox have clearly matured and grown in the way they conduct themselves and engage in this contentious discussion over the years since 2023, 2017, and long before, and that is a good sign. I think, almost without fail, the speeches were clear, were full of pastoral wisdom and good theology, and were expressed in a sensitive and winsome tone.
By contrast, many of the revisionist speeches were full of emotion and anger—understandable—but also full of unchanging generalisations and stereotypes. Jesus was ‘inclusive’, and they are ‘inclusive’, so they are being like Jesus, which means that those denying same-sex marriage are…? It is all about love, and love means love, and love means giving people what they want. For me, the theological low point was one women saying that, when her two lesbian friends entered a same-sex marriage, this was equivalent to Simeon and Anna meeting the baby Jesus in the temple in Luke 2: ‘My eyes have seen the salvation of the Lord’.
I am sure that those I disagree with will claim that I am biased—but my strong sense is that, whilst the orthodox have travelling a long way in terms of care of language, level of engagement, and tone, revisionists have not moved one inch. I noted, in my speech at the start of the debate opposing Charlie Bacyk Bell’s amendment, that the whole LLF process, after all this time, has not even delivered the basics of common understanding of the terms of the debate.
Brothers and sisters, we need to face some sobering realities.
After all this time, we have not even agreed on the basic terms. The Jesus of the gospels is fully inclusive (how could we be more inclusive than him?) and yet teaches clearly that marriage and sexual intimacy between one man and one woman, as a reflection of his creation of humanity male and female.
After all this time, we have not recognised the shape of the discussion—not between two different views, as if we were standing nowhere, but between those who uphold the doctrine of the Church—and of the church catholic through all ages—‘according to the teaching of our Lord’, and those who want to see it changed.
After all this time, there is so little recognition that gay people in this chamber do not agree, and are on both—on every—side of this debate.
After all this time, there is so little good will across the debate. I was part of the RMC discussion last week, and I found Chantel Noppan’s expression of anger and disappointment deeply moving. But I honestly doubt that any here wanting change will believe me for a second. What a tragedy that is.
After all this time, we still have not had the openness from the House of Bishops that we have all been asking four. There are four papers we were told of in February 2024 which have still not been published.
This amendment will cement this failure and do nothing to take us forward.
So where do we go now? Interestingly, both the Guardian (‘issue is put in deep freeze’) and the BBC (‘abandons proposals for same-sex blessing ceremonies’) were very clear: the Church of England has put a stop to this debate, and abandoned the possibility of blessing same-sex relationships. By contrast, ‘Together’ (the revisionist group) has declared that it is full steam ahead, and though progress has been slow, change will certainly come.
This complete contrast between what most people see as reality, and the revisionist spin, was evident this morning when I was invited on the Radio 4’s Today programme (at 7.32 am) to debate with Charlie Bączyk-Bell, a vocal campaigner on this issue who went to the US last year to marry his same-sex partner. Here is the transcript:
Justin Webb: The Bishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, said the discussions had left us wounded as individuals and as a church. But she said the bishops’ proposals were a sensible way forward that will take us on to the next steps.
Let us talk to the Revd Dr Ian Paul, author and theologian and a member of the General Synod, and to the Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk Bell, who is a priest in the Diocese of Southwark and a Fellow of Girton College at the University of Cambridge. Good morning to you both.
Dr Paul, first of all — do you think they’ve done the right thing?
Revd Dr Ian Paul: Yes, I think they have. This is the teaching of Jesus, this is the doctrine of the Church, this is what is said very clearly in canon law and in our teaching. And this is what all of us — Charlie, myself, and all the bishops — make a public vow to uphold.
At ordination we are asked: “Do you believe the doctrine of the Church?” and we say yes. Then we are asked, “Will you uphold and teach it?” and we say yes. So in fact all that has happened in Synod is that we have confirmed that we will do what we all promised to do.
I think Sarah Mullally is exactly right — this debate has been damaging. It has hurt people on both sides. And I realise that for people like Charlie, who want to see change, it has been deeply painful. I really hope we can now put this aside, focus on other things, and stop having these bitter debates.
Justin Webb: Dr Bell?
Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk Bell: I don’t know which General Synod Dr Paul was in, because that’s not what happened yesterday. It was really clear what occurred. It’s frustrating that after ten years we’ve not got where we need to be.
But what Synod had the option to decide between yesterday was: do we continue or do we stop? And with almost a two-thirds majority, Synod said, “No — we want to continue.”
It’s not just people like me who are hurt — LGBT people are hurt, and that wasn’t heard enough in the chamber. But actually I think we have a real possibility now to move forwards because it’s clear the bishops themselves want to move forwards. This is not going anywhere.
Justin Webb: What do you think the next step is? What should happen now — and what will happen now?
Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk Bell: I think the bishops need to decide how they are going to deliver change. One of the big problems over the last couple of years is that the bishops have hesitated about structural changes in the Church of England. They’ve now said clearly they’re not going to pursue those.
So the question now is how they move forward — and I think that is what the new working group will address.
Justin Webb: Ian Paul — is that acceptable to you?
Revd Dr Ian Paul: Well, it’s strange — and I think you can see the damage this debate has done. If you read the motion, clause (b) says the Living in Love and Faith process has come to an end. Yesterday Charlie himself spoke in tears and said gay people felt utterly betrayed by this. So it’s strange to hear something different this morning.
And Charlie doesn’t speak for all gay people. One of the striking things in the debate was hearing from gay men and women who accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church’s doctrine of marriage and see it as life-giving. So even among gay people in the Church there is a wide diversity of views.
Justin Webb: For those outside the Church watching this debate — they might say churches change their teaching over time. Why couldn’t this be another example of that?
Revd Dr Ian Paul: I understand why people think that. But the Church of England is actually very conservative institutionally because it is established by law — its doctrine is part of the law of the land. Canon law roots doctrine in the teaching of Jesus in Scripture and in the Book of Common Prayer.
The Church has changed its administration over time, but not its doctrine on major issues. And because we are a Reformation church, our test always goes back to Scripture and to the teaching of Jesus.
Even liberal scholars agree that the consistent teaching of Jesus, as a first-century Jew, is that marriage is between one man and one woman. That leaves very little room for manoeuvre.
Justin Webb: Blessing prayers for same-sex couples within regular services have been approved — it’s only standalone services that haven’t. So why not take that as a win?
Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk Bell: I think we are taking that as a win. But there’s also a fourth clause in the motion — to set up a working group to progress the work. Yes, we have these prayers, but the broader question remains unresolved.
Justin Webb: But isn’t setting up a working group often just a way of kicking something into the long grass?
Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk Bell: That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that there’s a clear determination among bishops to get this done. I think it’s a question of when, not whether.
And from a practical perspective, it makes little sense to allow prayers on a Sunday morning but not in a Saturday afternoon service. I suspect many clergy will simply go ahead and do them.
Justin Webb: Dr Paul — what happens if that happens?
Revd Dr Ian Paul: Then the bishops need to decide whether they will hold clergy accountable to the doctrine of the Church and the teaching of Jesus — which is what we all promised at ordination. The bishops themselves vowed to uphold doctrine and drive away error. The question is whether they will do that.
Justin Webb: Revd Dr Ian Paul and the Revd Dr Charlie Bell — thank you both very much.So it is clear that revisionists are not going to take this lying down, and will continue to campaign. Sadly, this means that the next Synod elections in the summer will be largely based on this, and it means that orthodox Anglicans need to step up their involvement, again, in Synodical structures.
But the doctrine of marriage remains unchanged, and the main part of this damaging, divisive, and demoralisation debate has been drawn to a close. It is not the end, and there is disagreement about whether it is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning. I hope and pray that it is the former, not the latter.
Here are a small selection of other excellent speeches that won’t be reported in the media:
Laura Oliver, Blackburn, 256
When I first stood for election to General Synod five years ago, I did so with a particular conviction. As someone who is LGBTQI+ and who holds a theological position that shapes the way I live my life as single and celibate, I was acutely aware that the voice of those like me was not often heard in the debates around sexuality that the church had been having. I stood, therefore, to try and be that voice.
In God’s grace, I have been able to speak into several of the debates we have had on LLF and PLF in the last five years, and whenever I have had the opportunity to speak, I always do so with those many other faithful Christians I know, who are navigating the same combination of sexuality and theological conviction that I do, in mind.
I am very grateful that there is acknowledgement in GS 2426 of our existence and I thank the Bishops for including those comments.
However, my lived experience is that this apparent acceptance of the diversity of LGBTQI+ people does not always translate to the words said in this chamber.
There was a lot of mention on Tuesday about the ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ that (and I quote) ‘we all long for and has not been delivered’. This inclusion seems to assume that all LGBTQI+ members long for the Prayers of Love and Faith and other change to be welcomed within their local churches.
But this is not the case for me.
And this is why I welcome this amendment with enormous thanks to Christopher Landau for moving it.
The LLF process has been extraordinarily painful. My efforts to live a life shaped by my identity as a treasured child of God, accepting (and rejoicing!) in a life of singleness and celibacy as modelled by Jesus himself, have been undermined and diminished by statements made in this chamber. At times, my existence as an LGBTQI+ person who holds a different theological conviction to other LGBTQI+ members of this synod, appears to be conveniently forgotten.
I welcome the acknowledgement from the Bishops of the hurt and distress caused to LGBTQI+ people in this motion, but I would urge you all to accept this amendment that clearly spells out the existence of the diversity of theological convictions amongst LGBTQI+ Christians and the need to be sensitive to this fact.
By doing so, you will be putting positive words into positive actions and will result in me, and many others like me, feel seen and included, which I know must be the goal of the radical inclusion we are corporately striving towards.
Good afternoon. Mike Smith, Chester 87. Thank you chair, for calling me. This is my debut speech.
I’ve always been fascinated by buttons. As a small boy, to my mother’s horror, I pressed the “stop” button on the escalator in Grace Brothers Department Store – yes, it was a real place in 1970s Sydney.
Friends, we need to press the stop button on LLF – before it is reborn under a new acronym, and continues to deepen our divisions.
I became a Christian 37 years ago from an atheist home. When I wandered into church looking lost, Hitesh, the young curate, took me under his wing. He made me incredible curries, and he taught me about the Church of England. In those early months, he took me to a discussion meeting, which I now know was part of the process that led to Issues in Human Sexuality in 1991. The meeting was divisive and unpleasant.
For nearly 4 decades – and many of you for longer still – we have been on an interminable escalator. But it never arrives. We’re not really sure where it is going. But some of us want it to go faster; others are trying to reverse it. The longer it continues, the harder it is even to be civil to those who travel with us. The only thing that is new are the acronyms. It’s time to press the “stop” button, embrace the startle and try something different.
Our Lord Jesus came from the Father, full of grace and truth. For too long, it feels as though grace and truth have been set against one another in this endless debate.
Slightly over half of you suspect conservatives like me have hard hearts and don’t really believe in grace. Slightly less than half of us wonder whether the rest of you are reading the same Bible as we are when it comes to knowing the truth of our Creator’s mind on matters of sex and sexuality.
But friends, we are called to speak the truth in love. Just as the Lord is indivisibly both, so only that will unite us in our faith and mission.
After all the years of hurt, anger and discord, it’s time to shift our focus.
Here’s one suggestion. One of the few things that this Synod has agreed is that we are not going to change the doctrine of marriage. But we aren’t celebrating that doctrine either, or making the case for it in the public square.
We just want to put the fees up for the few who still come. Meanwhile, our culture is rejecting marriage in general and marriage in church in particular in greater numbers than ever recorded in English history.
So if we are agreed on the doctrine of marriage, then before the divisions are irreparable, let’s reunite around promoting that “gift of God in creation and … means of his grace” that is the union of one man and one woman that centres us again on our faithful Lord and his beloved bride. In our culture, that would be radical, missional good news.
Paul Chamberlain: Yesterday we had a really good debate, Article 7 business about the Festival of God the Creator and the commendation of the Martyrs of Libya. In that debate the Archbishop of York said: “our predecessors 25 years ago spent an awful lot of time on liturgical business. I’m not sure we do enough. As Anglicans, it is our liturgy which gives expression to our faith. Liturgical prayer unites us, expands our hearts and forms our minds. Liturgical prayer is not our is “our prayer”, not “my prayer”.”
I was really fascinated to hear that, because I wanted to ask the question: so why did we not do that for the Prayers of Love and Faith? Why did we not spend the nuanced time, as we did yesterday, looking at the liturgy that we may introduce there, on the Prayers of Love and Faith?
Instead the House of Bishops commended probably the most controversial liturgical changes in many years, but without the full proper synodical process. Do we really believe that the Prayers of Love and Faith, as they are even used in already existing services, unite us? Are they “our prayers”? No, they are the prayers of some.
So whatever we do going forwards, we need full proper process and that includes the proper synodical assessment of newly introduced liturgy. So this amendment seems to me to try to fast forward that, or to get round that. And so I encourage you to resist the amendment.
Whatever happens going forwards, and I hope we find a way forwards, we will need the full proper process, including the full Article 7 process for liturgy. Please resist this amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment