This web page was published today:
LLF Working Groups continue: Update on membership and residential meeting
Following the decision at July General Synod to develop proposals to introduce standalone services including Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) alongside pastoral reassurance, there will be continued input from four working groups into this process. The group membership includes bishops and members of General Synod, drawn from a wide range of backgrounds. Some of the members were part of the working groups that began their work in March 2024, while others have joined since the July Synod…
…There are four working groups in total, each with a different remit, looking at specific questions connected to:
- Prayers of Love and Faith – Guidance for registration and use including arrangements for use of the PLF in Standalone Services.
- Pastoral Reassurance – Code of Practice for Delegated Episcopal Ministry.
- Bishops’ Statement – Drafting group for an overarching rationale for a settlement around current and future practice for implementing the objectives of LLF.
- Ministry and Vocations Guidance – Development of guidance as part of the work to replace Issues in Human Sexuality (in parallel with decisions on a timetable to address questions around clergy in same sex marriage).
Full membership lists are included in the web page linked above.
There are two other new documents:
And there is this video, which was published earlier
As a poorly informed, but interested, lay person I watched the new video with Bishop Martyn Snow, which is presumably targeted at people like me. A few questions, probably very naïve ones which I hesitate to put forward in this learned forum, occurred to me. The Bishop said that in “a church which does its theology primarily through its liturgy” nobody will be forced to use prayer they simply don’t agree with. But haven’t lots of priests been doing that for years? Are there are not many clergy who have had to come to grips with NOT agreeing with some parts of,… Read more »
Unfortunately, in today’s church, evangelicals think everyone else is wrong. If you can’t obey them you should leave.
That appears to be a rather widespread delusion…
Sadly Tim the impression given by conservative evangelicals in The Alliance is exactly that. That’s why they want a separate compartment and their own ‘orthodox’ bishops.
Andrew, you misunderstood my comment. I meant that ‘thinking everyone else is wrong’ doesn’t only afflict conservative evangelicals. Many progressive Anglicans feel exactly the same way. FrDavidH, for instance, is quite sure that evangelicals (not just conservative evangelicals) are always wrong.
From BCC entertainment: “Scott has made it clear that he doesn’t care if his films are historically inaccurate, however, even when they’re based on real people and events.” Evangelicals take the same approach to history. lol
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20241121-the-bizarre-true-stories-that-inspired-gladiator-ii
Well, this one certainly doesn’t!
Nor me.
“in today’s church, evangelicals think everyone else is wrong”
Although this arrogance does exist in parts of the evangelical world, I think this is too broadbrush. Not all evangelicals are like this.
I don’t think such casual inaccuracy does the progressive cause any good. It might be satisfying to type, but how does it help? – unless your end goal is a church with no evangelicals in it at all, but then you would be seeking the same degree of conformity of which you accuse them!
Thank you Nigel.
Well said.
I agree, Pam. It’s odd. I think you’re right that many priests just quietly don’t agree with some parts of official doctrine, and that hasn’t caused any difficulties. Or not so quietly: in past decades some high profile people have publicly questioned many of the fundamental things you mention. But it hasn’t caused such serious division as we see now. So why is LLF so different? Two possible answers, I can think of. One is that it’s a proposed change to an official doctrine. After all, there wasn’t a proposal to drop the official teaching of the virgin birth. So… Read more »
Thanks Nigel. A good question. I suspect the current division (which unlike you I do see as serious as other theological controversies of the past) is happening at a more febrile time. When the church feels under existential threat because of lack of congregations, priests, money, cultural heft etc. etc. So a moment of choice – with some people saying – we MUST change or we are not being faithfully Christian, and others saying – we MUST NOT change if we are to remain faithfully Christian – finds that the stakes are raised due to the historical moment.
Yes the Alliance believe in heterogeneity, it’s just that a change in traditional doctrine requires a 66% majority, but the church is split right down the middle on this issue. You don’t need any more analysis than that.
Isn’t that, in fact, an argument for withdrawing Issues in Human Sexuality since it was introduced without a 66% majority?
If it’s compatible with church doctrine, then no. If it changes church doctrine then yes.
I’d have thought that if you don’t believe the creed your best option is probably not to make ordination vows committing you to uphold the faith as received by the church of England. Or am I missing something?
Is there a working group specifically tasked with addressing trans issues, and the pastoral care of trans people and their families? Does it work to a timeline? Who heads it up? Or are we less important than gay and lesbian people? A task group was promised coming up to three years ago as part of LLF because they said ‘new views had been emerging’ since the start of LLF. In the Next Steps group meeting on 20th December 2021 it was decided “Gender identity and transition: A group of Next Steps members had met with a group of trans people.… Read more »
Having watched the LLF process, I have to admit I’m not looking forward to the time when the CofE turns its attention to us trans people, even if it is necessary…even just 10 minutes ago I saw an advert for ‘LGB Christians’ on the Church Times website, and that was enough for me. The fallout after they’ve finished chewing up gay people and decide to start on us, I’m not sure I want to know about.
Further to my comment a few minutes ago, I have been checking old emails and in June 2022 I wrote to one of the officials at Church overseeing the LLF process (who had also interviewed me), asking why the proposed working group on trans issues had not been progressed. I was told: “The further work on gender identity and transition is currently on ‘pause’ as the group works out by and with whom and how this will be taken forward. So no group has been formed, as yet, and no further work has taken place. It will, of course, be vital… Read more »
The two issues are not separate, although I agree that they are often treated as such. The heart of the “orthodox” position for both sexual orientation and gender identity is a reliance on behaviours specific to two distinct sexes arising from “male and female He made them”. Carried to its conclusion that means that women will be expected to carry children and we get disparaging remarks like “childless cat lady”. In contrast, while it isn’t expressed as such as often as it should be, the progressive position is that sex is like race and doesn’t carry with it any particular… Read more »
Thanks Kate, that’s really enlightening.
I’d always thought that the progressive position saw race as a fundamental identity, enshrining whiteness as source of problematic privilege and personhood of colour as a status conferring deplorable systemic oppression. And that the LGBT etc. labels were badges of inalienable identity based precisely around the key and intrinsic issue of sexual orientation. Thanks for putting me straight, as it were.
Quod semper, quod ubique- A rather problematic connection to KKK whiteness ?-
https://acwm.pastperfectonline.com/Webobject/D78FD579-3D23-441F-BD20-197028058838
I think you are getting confused, which is probably my fault. You were right about secular views and it’s obviously usually expressed in secular terms of equality and freedom, but if one distills the theology down to essentials the contrast is a belief that men and women are different and have different obligations and responsibilities and the contrary view that, before God, we are all the same.
Susannah, is there not a risk, in current circumstances, that revisiting the current position on welcoming people who are trans – no obstacle to ordaining them or conducting marriage ceremonies if clergy are willing (broadly as with divorced persons) – might result in going backwards? Whereas getting married to (in a way recognised by law) someone of the same legal gender is impossible in Church of England churches and may lead to an ordinand or minister’s vocation being abruptly ended, which affects some people who are trans but also others in, or open to, same-gender life-partnerships? So there is less… Read more »
I agree Savi. When LLF was first mooted there was reason to hope for improvements in the way trans people are treated but the world is very different today. The arch-traditionalists are in the ascendency; the gains even in relation to sexual orientation are meagre (and not the promised radical new Christian inclusion); and the trans-hostile gender critical movement (backed it would seem by the Christian-right in USA) is making life increasingly difficult. These days I see no likely upside but the risk of regression is real as you suggest. Best left alone IMO and wait for more propitious times.
Hi Savi, much as I often respect you, I cannot agree that the Church should do nothing about the pastoral care of trans people and their families. I believe many church communities/parishes still feel insecure and ‘all at sea’ about trans people in their midst and what issues they should consider for the best. I believe the core issue is not doctrinal (that will indeed divide) but pastoral. For example, I believe the Church of England could develop a specific and standalone help-guide for parishes (beyond the vast LLF document which is overwhelmingly focussed on gay/lesbian stuff). It could set… Read more »
I can see the value of more resources on inclusion of people who are trans and their families (or signposting to existing materials from churches in communion with the Church of England), Susannah. But setting up a working party largely made up of people who want to roll things backwards is surely not needed for this? Living in Love and Faith included a little about welcoming lesbian, gay and bisexual people (also trans people) – but the main focus, including of ‘pastoral’ guidance, is the extent to which people should be forced to discriminate against us when wishing to be… Read more »
Savi, I’m not sure why trans people were invited/persuaded to undergo interviews, exposing their raw experiences, and in some cases re-traumatising in the process… if LLF just becomes all about gay and lesbian blessings (and quite a big focus on the rights of gay priests). We were told LLF for trans people wouldn’t end and would continue into working parties – just as the gay and lesbian folks are being provided with working parties in the original post on this page. But no working party for trans people happened. It was a kind of abandonment in my view. An abandonment… Read more »
Sorry if it appears that I do not grasp how hard it is for you and many other transgender people, Susannah. I recognise that, even if a major pastoral concern for many bishops is allaying the distress of people who would prefer still greater discrimination against LGB people to be mandatory, we are a bigger, more visible minority whose experiences are better known and get more attention. And certainly LLF has jolted some clergy and congregations into being more inclusive, even if others are more passionate about exclusion. I am aware how lucky I am to have accepting ministers, be… Read more »
Thanks Savi. I am glad you have ministers who are inclusive and caring in outlook and I do wish you well. Of course, what many of us have in common is we face discrimination (or the theological vilification of our decent lives) because of sex and gender. I would far prefer not to post here, and my own life feels blessed and privileged, but there are so many people for whom that is not true.
I also admit that, while I have much sympathy for Church of England bishops and some have shown leadership on certain matters, I do not have the greatest faith in working parties made up of of these! This would be all the more acute if a policy commitment to inclusion existed but people were chosen in part to reflect opposing views. I would rather a working group or team led by people in favour of being more inclusive, and which included a reasonable proportion of people with relevant lived experience, were allowed to get on with strengthening action. E.g. on… Read more »
“E.g. on racial equality, ….– if a ‘balanced’ working party of bishops were established which might unravel some of the progress painfully made …, this would,… be a backward step.” I think there is an underlying assumption here – that racial equality progress can only be made by an deliberately unbalanced group; as white people on this group will be biased to be unhelpful. And that extends elsewhere. I can understand the fear – and I can understand why you may even say this is true taking an average western-white man and say they are now less inclusive than 10… Read more »
At the moment anything risks being a lightning rod for anti-LGBT sentiment and, if it a “trans” booklet transphobic attacks in particular. It can’t be endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and I don’t think endorsement by the Archbishop of York is worth very much. I appreciate the desire for something but I really don’t see it ending well at the moment.
Arguably, it would also be a distraction when the focus ought to be on independent safeguarding.
“the focus ought to be on independent safeguarding.” Well – – I am a bit more optimistic that the focus should still be on Jesus. I don’t think safeguarding is a uniquely bad failing (which is either good or bad I suppose). The key problems of the last 10 years seem to me to be a combination of no one wanting to take responsibility of key things; and a lot of can-kicking delays. Excessive delays and not being clear who has responsibility (/everyone who should be taking charge is trying to avoid responsibility), seems to be core parts of lots… Read more »
I was not referring to white people, TimP, but those of any ethnic group selected because they disagree with policies for increasing inclusion agreed some time ago. Likewise many non-disabled Christians are committed to improving access and opportunities: I think though that those with a contrary position which departs from already-established commitments should not be selected to a working party meant to take this forward. I agree that specific measures can be open to question and with the value of being sensitive to different positions and pastoral needs, even of people not just with views different from mine on how… Read more »
{{{Susannah}}}
God bless and defend the Children of God created trans, in God’s image!
Amen
Thank you and may God bless you too. The doctrinal divide on issues like this may be too wide to be bridged, but the Christian call to be pastorally caring is a call that can still be exercised whether people are socially ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ or feminist (of diverse expressions). We can still all try to be compassionate. What I seek is for the Church as a whole to take a lead and show responsibility. Because otherwise that vaccuum will be filled by all the media and political voices. I don’t seek precise doctrinal definition: I seek pastoral care for… Read more »