The Church of England’s House of Bishops met yesterday and issued the following press release.
House of Bishops meeting – January 2025
20/01/2025
The House of Bishops met in person for its first meeting of the new year in London.
The House reviewed detailed updates from the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) working groups presented by Bishop Martyn Snow. After considered reflection on the complexity and depth of the proposed changes, it became clear that Bishops with views across the range of different perspectives agreed that it was unlikely all elements of the proposals would be sufficiently developed in time for Synod to make a decision in July.
They 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. The intention is still to update General Synod in February, and bring further proposals to General Synod in July, but it is likely these will not be able to be formally put to a vote until a subsequent Synod. This will also give further time for consultations with Diocesan Synods and other networks.
The House discussed the continued actions being undertaken in response to the Makin review and the proposals on independent safeguarding and the revised Clergy Conduct Measure being brought to General Synod in February. The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London discussed the importance of increased transparency, accountability and responsibility and the opportunities offered by the different proposals being brought to Synod.
In a lengthy and detailed discussion about the challenges faced, the House acknowledged the work that still needed to be done and looked forward to meeting other Episcopal colleagues imminently to work on this this further. Bishop Sarah ended the discussion reflecting that those in the Church are a people of hope who have the appetite for the work to be done.
A recent update on the process being undertaken by the National Safeguarding Team can be found here: Update on Makin Review Methodology.
Can-kicking anyone?
The LLF delays are really beyond a joke at this stage. And almost definitely doing more harm than almost any decision. Somewhere in England there will be a couple who are thinking “should we wait X months and then we can get married in our church – – or married in a civil service in the morning and then blessed in our church in the afternoon. That would be lovely”. And they are being asked to wait another X months – – not to do that – but to know if they may or may not be allowed to do… Read more »
The couple you posit can already receive a service of blessing in church. The commendation of the PLF resources means they may be used by clergy in bespoke services already. While the bishops have politely requested that clergy hold off from standalone/bespoke services for now, there is nothing to legally stop clergy from using them and indeed many already are. The bishops have commended the Prayers of Love and Faith, affirming their view that they are consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England, and therefore clergy can use them under Canon B 5.2. The delays are around what… Read more »
It would make a refreshing change if we could hear about a timetable that is being kept to, or even something delivered early. Everything seems to be delayed. A symptom of a disintegrating Church.
Could it be a sign that the LLF/PLF process is simply impossible? If you can’t actually and practically make real something that you have (at some level) agreed, might it be because the recognition is slowly dawning that you’ve made a mistake.
The PLF have been commended by the House of Bishops and are available for clergy to use within bespoke services now. The remaining areas for agreement are pastoral reassurance for those who do not agree with their bishop on the use of PLF and whether a licence to minister can be granted to a priest in a civil same sex marriage. Those last two are not insurmountable, there are technical ways to facilitate them. But there are a range of ways to approach them which require delicate discussions amid strongly held and sometimes opposing views.
“The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London discussed the importance of increased transparency, accountability and responsibility and the opportunities offered by the different proposals being brought to Synod”
Here’s to the end of irony !
You beat me to it! I’ve taken a break from posting for a while, because the antics of the Bishops started making me too angry to function well as a priest for the people here in my lovely parishes, and they deserve better than that, despite supporting me 100% in my view of them. But I couldn’t resist responding to this. I laughed out loud when I read it in the notes. I could picture them all nodding away in response to ++York and +London, taking themselves oh so seriously, patting themselves on the back at their diligence, whilst only… Read more »
They discussed the importance and opportunities – that about sums it up. I’m surprised they didn’t throw in another apology for good measure. You couldn’t make it up unfortunately and I would guess they don’t even see the irony. Good grief….
This appears to be a sign of recognition that the Nolan Committee’s standards in public life should be part of clergy conduct and how the House of Bishops and Archbishops’ Council operates.
Suddenly learning that there is a different yardstick by which they can be measured and against which they should measure themselves must be difficult.
“Bishop Sarah ended the discussion reflecting that those in the Church are a people of hope who have the appetite for the work to be done.” But just not yet.
Not quite – lets have another meeting and more tea and cake…..my dog has hope and a voracious appetite and seems to share the Bishop of London’s delay after delay around work that actually achieves anything. Meanwhile the world and anyone left in the church has moved on. Time to walk the dog…..
Or not really? Or not at all?
I know TA is not fond of importing business practice into the church but were I to under-deliver on my projects as consistently as the House of Bishops has I would have long-since lost my job.
The irony (?) is that the HoB are failing to do the very things that they themselves have initiated. Perhaps there’s a message in that, somewhere.
Fully agreed. The CofE operates under the mistaken belief that rigid bureaucracy equates to good management, and seems incapable of learning from lessons learned.