Discernment and decision following Living in Love and Faith

Andrew Goddard writes: Despite the College of Bishops being unable to meet as planned in September due to the death of the Queen, the Next Steps Group has confirmed that it is sticking to its original timetable for the discerning and deciding stages of the Living in Love and Faith journey. It will produce proposals for the February General Synod to “consider proposals from the College and House of Bishops and agree a clear direction of travel”.

That group, chaired by the Bishop of London, and now comprising eight other bishops, is tasked to “draw up scenarios for different outcomes and consider the ecclesial implications” and to “consider and bring forward to the House proposals for consideration of any motions or other business that should go to the General Synod arising from the process of learning proposed by the LLF resources”.

In addition to the LLF materials used across the church over the last two years, the bishops will also be resourced by

  • the three recent Listening with Love and Faith materials, where the feedback captures the great range and strength of divergent views but also reports (p 88) that in the focus groups which were convened “Most people…suggested that the decisions made by the House of Bishops needed to be bold, courageous, clear and honest. While some advocated strongly for change and some to maintain the Church’s position on questions of sexuality, all agreed that coming to a clear decision soon is vital”. Alongside these there is now an informative six-page response to a critique from Church Society.
  • feedback from conversations with 21 networks and organisations,
  • input from the Reference Group, and
  • a “modest piece of desk research” that has been commissioned “to explore the impacts of decisions that have been made regarding the blessing and/or marriage of same-sex partnerships in church in other Provinces of the Anglican Communion as well as in mainstream denominations in Britain”.

The inability to meet for three days of face-to-face conversations as planned has been replaced with “homework” for the bishops, “written reflections as part of their preparation for the next College of Bishops meeting at the end of October”. In addition to those imminent two days to consider “proposals for a way forward, the implications for formal decision-making, and how this will be communicated to members of General Synod and the wider Church” there will be a further two days in December (when the House—all diocesans and elected suffragans who are members of General Synod—will also meet) with the January meeting of the College then finalising proposals to bring to General Synod when it meets in London on February 6th to 9th.

Agreements, Disagreements and Areas for Discernment and Decision

Given the breadth of materials covered in the LLF resources, it is likely, and to be hoped, that this process will be quite wide-ranging in addressing matters across the areas of identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage. Alongside it there is also the imminent release of the work of the Families and Household Commission. It seems clear, however, that it is questions relating to the Church’s response to LGBT+ people and in particular to same-sex couples that will receive most attention. This will therefore be the focus in the articles that follow although it is essential that whatever is said and done here is integrated with the wider question of the church’s teaching and practice in relation to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage and that questions relating to heterosexuality are not ignored in these four areas.

It seems that there are a number of important areas of consensus across the disagreements, including:

  • the dignity of all people as creatures made in God’s image and the need for the church to bear witness to this in all that it says and does;
  • The consequent need for the church to welcome and show love and respect to all people, whatever their identity, sexuality, pattern of relationships or marital status;
  • the church’s regular failure, historically and often still today, to act faithfully in these ways in relation to sexual minorities;
  • the need for the church to be a community in which all people are able to experience transformation and growth in holiness through the love of Christ, the presence of the Spirit, and the teaching of Holy Scripture.

It is to be hoped that the bishops will be able to offer ways forward which fill out these and other areas of agreement in practice in a way that continues to have wide support across our different understandings.  It cannot, however, be ignored that how these agreements should take shape in Christian communities leads to significant divergences. These arise from the many areas of significant theological and practical disagreement threatening the unity of the church and the clarity of its message and practical witness. In an earlier article I set out how the LLF resources honestly identified and helpfully explored eight of these. It is vital such theological differences, and their practical consequences, continue to be considered. However, attention now has moved from LLF’s focus on theological reflection to the task of deliberation as the bishops have to address questions which Living in Love and Faith studiously avoided answering and relate to “what are we to do?” Here I would identify five key areas, the first relating to teaching (which will be explored in a second article) and then four relating to practice (to be explored in a third article):

  1. The teaching of the Church of England, and its biblical and theological rationale;
  2. The Church of England’s understanding of, and relationship to, the changing legal patterns and understanding of relationships and marriage in wider society;
  3. The practice of the Church of England, particularly in relation to its liturgy and expectations concerning its authorised ministers;
  4. The manner in which, in coming months, these matters will be decided and any developments or changes implemented;
  5. The implications of these decisions, and our ongoing deep disagreements, for the ordering of the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.

What is now needed from the bishops?

Three general points apply across these five areas.

Firstly, the whole LLF project was designed to enable learning and theological reflection across the church. Although its focus was matters of identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage, it demonstrated that we can only consider these and our different understandings in relation to them by setting them in a much wider theological context. One central question here—the longest section of the LLF book—is the question of how we hear God, raising questions of authority and theological method and in particular different understandings of Scripture. As the bishops move to propose a direction forward in the face of deep theological differences and are guided by the recent summaries of responses to the LLF materials and views of different networks, there is a real risk they will abandon theological reasoning. There will be a temptation simply to presume theological diversity and seek to broker a pragmatic response which they consider most politically feasible. While practical questions are clearly important to bear in mind, it is essential that both their approach and any agreement they reach are first and foremost theological not merely anthropological or sociological. 

Secondly, and following from this, whatever the bishops discern as the way forward they need to provide a clear theological and biblical rationale for it. The wider church, having wrestled with these questions through LLF, can then receive and weigh this rationale carefully. They need—drawing on the LLF book and other resources and what has been heard from Christians who engaged with these—to explain both what they believe they heard from God and how they have come to hear that. Those of us who worked on LLF were not asked to make either of these judgments and so this is a further and crucial piece of work still to be done by the bishops. 

Among LLF’s learning outcomes was to enable the bishops and the wider church to “have a deeper understanding of the Church’s inherited teaching on Christian living in love and faith, especially with regard to marriage and singleness, and of emergent views and the Christian reasoning behind them”. If the bishops reaffirm the Church’s inherited teaching then they need, drawing on LLF, to clearly provide the Christian reasoning for so doing and to explain why they are not convinced by the arguments that “emergent views” have raised against it. If instead the bishops adapt or abandon inherited teaching it is even more important that they show their workings for doing so. They will need to make clear what in inherited teaching and current practice is wrong and why. They will need to explain why they have been persuaded by whichever of the “emergent views” they now commend but not by others. To draw on the learning outcomes sought by LLF, it is important that—in setting out what they believe the church has learned—the bishops offer something that:

  • is clearly “inspired by scripture’s glorious and joyful vision of God’s intention for human life”;
  • demonstrates and enables engagement “with rich biblical, theological, historical and scientific thinking about human identity, sexuality and marriage in a way that deepens…desire to know God and follow Christ”;
  • provides “help for everyday Christian discipleship in all its diversity, physicality, messiness and grittiness”; and
  • offers an holistic and coherent vision which relates to all five areas noted above and has integrity rather than providing separate ad hoc responses which seem to some to lack obvious coherence and to enable, even encourage, duplicity.

Finally, it is important that the current period of discernment and decision-making is not starting with a blank sheet of paper. The first section of the Living in Love and Faith book, was entitled, “Reflecting: what have we received?”. The third chapter, on “the gift of marriage” explored “the biblical and historical roots of the church’s understanding of marriage as a lifelong, faithful relationship between one man and one woman” (p 10) and within this, in its discussion of marriage and the gift of sex, it explained (p 33) that 

God’s good gifts of sexual desire and intimacy, with all their power and potential for good and harm, find their proper place and freest space in marriage. Here, the ‘natural instincts and affections’ that God has planted within us are ‘hallowed’ and to be ‘rightly directed’ for the purposes of love.

It is these two elements—the definition of the pattern of relationship we call marriage and the view that it is God’s purpose that it is this pattern of relationship that provides the proper place for sexual relationship—that are central to, but also among the most contentious elements of, received church teaching. 

This current teaching is summed up in various other statements of which four are particularly important: 

  • The 1987 General Synod motion—the last substantive statement on these matters by General Synod—stated that “sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship” and so concluded that fornication, adultery and homosexual genital acts fall short and should all be met by a “call to repentance and the exercise of compassion”. 
  • The 1998 Lambeth Conference stated that the bishops held that “in view of the teaching of Scripture”, the Conference “upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”. Although never formally adopted by the Church of England, this is fully consistent with the CofE’s current teaching and in 2007 the General Synod made clear it considered it would be wrong to do “anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions (1978: 10; 1988: 64; 1998: 1.10)”.
  • The 2014 Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage sets out quite fully the church’s teaching on marriage, rooted in liturgy and law. This includes reference to the importance of the Book of Common Prayer, Canon Law (in particular Canon B30), existing liturgy in Common Worship (in continuity with the BCP), the 2012 submission to the Government opposing the introduction of same-sex marriage, and the responsibility of clergy to uphold the teaching expressed in all these places. 
  • The December 2019 Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships reaffirmed marriage as a male-female union and stated “the Church of England teaches that ‘sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively’ (Marriage: a teaching document of the House of Bishops, 1999). Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings.”

Another formulation of this teaching is found in the words of the 1995 St Andrew’s Day Statement that the church “assists all its members to a life of faithful witness in chastity and holiness, recognising two forms or vocations in which that life can be lived: marriage and singleness (Gen. 2.24; Matt. 19. 4-6; 1 Cor. 7 passim). There is no place for the church to confer legitimacy upon alternatives to these”. The opening words here helpfully capture what remains, it seems, a shared conviction across our disagreements: that Christians are called to “a life of faithful witness in chastity and holiness”. Where we disagree is over what patterns of sexual behaviour and relationship are, and can be formally recognised as, chaste and holy. 

It might be helpful to frame our disagreements and seek to address them within this shared vision: what we are called to discern is which patterns of life are forms of faithful witness in chastity and holiness, a range of patterns of life that are therefore to be offered to all people, whatever their marital or relationship status, whatever their sexuality or gender identity. In its important discussion of chastity, the LLF book (p 253) explained that chastity is not simply sexual abstinence but “A chaste life is one in which sexual activity is rightly ordered, and serves the true flourishing of those involved” and that is what the bishops need to explore and on which they need to offer the church teaching.

The second of these three articles will explore six different options the bishops might consider in relation to existing church teaching on what constitutes a chaste life. A third and final article will examine some of the practical questions and options.

You can read all three pieces together in this PDF document: LLF Discerning and Deciding Psephizo Articles

Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.  He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF.

Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.

Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

28 thoughts on “Discernment and decision following Living in Love and Faith”

  1. I would be grateful if those who have contributed very frequently in the last few days and weeks could leave off commenting until others have been able to have the chance. Thanks.

    • Just a quick comment: I may have missed something, (have I?) but a quick word search of the article seems to indicate that there is no mention of “sin”, “fall” or “original”.

      I pray and hope that the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin are not the Elephants in the Room of the whole LLF Project. The Failure of the CofE to believe, preach and teach these vital truths is more important than the Sexuality disagreement, important though that is.

      Phil Almond

      • Thank you so much for putting so clearly the weakness of much of the current flow from the bishops in that there is no acknowledgement of sin, fall & original.

        Derek Foster.

  2. I’m afraid I am unconvinced very much at all has been achieved over the last five years. Bishops still need to tell us what they believe about marriage.

    There is or maybe a need for some kind of settlement but work on that cannot start until we all know the position of the bishops.

    Until that is clear all people want to do is lobby bishops and tell everybody else the bishops will eventually agree with their side of the division

    • What was the recent Lambeth conference if not a gathering of bishops at which they were required – by the presence of other bishops with same sex lovers – to decide how they would respond to homosexuality?

      The current position of C of E leadership – and therefore the C of E – is summarised in the following words of Justin Welby’s Lambeth 2022 speech on human dignity (link below). Having described those with opposing views changing their view as ‘unthinkable’ he then ‘interprets’ Lambeth 1.10:
      “there is no mention of sanctions, or exclusion, in 1.10 1998”.

      C of E leadership say that sexual union’s existing only in the marriage of a man and woman is the official position of the church. But that isn’t all they say – they also say that it is secondary doctrine – proven by Welby’s saying that disagreement with the official position is not a reason for exclusion. Right or not Welby believes that man and woman being secondary doctrine was the case in 1998 (when Lambeth 1.10 was passed) – and again right or not it was clearly how C of E leadership behaved all the way up to the recent Lambeth – and during it. However it’s worse than that. In appointing women as vicars – as teaching elders – and as bishops (when a bishop is supposed to be a guardian of truth) – and in any number of ways since – the C of E has proved that it doesn’t actually believe its expressed position – it believes in the erasing of man and woman.

      Even if we go with C of E leadership’s expressed position instead of their actual one consider what those beliefs are in different words. God’s eternal plan is for the God human MAN Jesus to sacrifice himself in order that the God human WOMAN church be revealed – and that the two be one forever. If man and woman are functionally the same (this being the dominant view of the Church of England for at least the last twenty-five years – and Ian Paul’s view) it is the same as saying that the church need not exist – that the church adds nothing to Jesus revealed – that people can as effectively relate to Jesus individually – without the church. It is the dismantling of the church.

      The only question then is if the Archbishops and Bishops of the C of E will repent – or continue in their multi-decade plan to destroy the church.

      And if anyone else will – anyone who has remained in the C of E while it acted consistent with erasing man and woman now for decades must be considered to concur with the C of E’s expressed belief that man and woman is secondary doctrine – their choices amount to saying that the church is unnecessary.

        • I thank Ian (who I contacted privately) for allowing this comment to stand. I have had long periods where I have made no comment at all – and then bursts where I write very long posts!). I thank Ian for letting the above post stand as I believe that both the fact that man and woman is secondary doctrine in the C of E currently – and man and woman’s needing to be meaningfully distinct for Christ and the church to each be necessary – are important arguments. Thank you Ian.

        • Let me also acknowledge that while the argument I post above about the need for Christ and the church to be meaningfully different for the church to be necessary at all is mine it was Ian who contributed half of my second argument for man and woman having to be primary doctrine.

          When I pointed out that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 directly linked a right picture of man and woman with being saved (the passage proving this by saying that practising homosexuality was a sign of not being saved) – it was Ian who pointed out that Romans 1 also did this in the reverse direction – in listing practising homosexuality as a sign of rebellion against God. Without Ian’s help I don’t know if I would ever have made complete that second argument.

          Which leaves only my third argument – that 1 Corinthians 11:3 groups man and woman with Christ and God – this revealing that any attempt to undermine man and woman is actually in spirit an attempt to undermine the entire created order – Christ and God too. (I believe that the above arguments show that other interpretations of that verse are not viable).

          • I should have said less likely (if they are viable – I don’t know the Bible’s original languages).

          • There will always be sin and sinners. The ONLY thing that may yet to be determined – and which lies within our power – is whether we will allow our lives to be a venue in which our death to self leads to our being an instrument of grace (God’s undeserved presence) so powerful that it leads those who are AT ALL open to being God’s to find themselves bowing to their knees. To be broken by love.

            I hope that every single same sex attracted person on this forum and those who support the presence of practising homosexuality in the church will dare to trust that God knows what is best for them – remembering that one doesn’t have to be same sex attracted for the gospel to be offensive – it is to all of us. I hope that each will get a large enough glimpse of God’s glorious plan for his people – that plan being that a single man Jesus wishes to eternally marry both and married men and women – I hope that you will conclude that the eternal marriage overshadows all earthly marriages – and as you do that your cup will overflow with joy that never diminishes.

            And while I have concluded that Calvinism maligns God so seriously it is primary doctrinal failure – in suggesting that a God of unchanging mercy creates most people only to pour out his anger on them – let me say in the hope of offering a small bit of that Jesus grace to Phil Almond and John Thompson that I honour their efforts on this forum over months and years to defend orthodoxy on sexuality and other matters and that I am sad that things are the way they are – and that despite having reached this conclusion I remain eager that God’s blessing be yours.

          • “And while I have concluded that Calvinism maligns God so seriously it is primary doctrinal failure – in suggesting that a God of unchanging mercy creates most people only to pour out his anger on them – let me say in the hope of offering a small bit of that Jesus grace to Phil Almond….”

            Philip Benjamin
            Just to clarify. I don’t believe that God “creates most people only to pour out his anger on them”

            Phil Almond

          • Phil,
            I believe that the bible says that if God prevented anyone from coming to him in his predestining of all events (which logically cannot preserve free will – no Calvinist can show how compatibilism can be possible) that he would be guilty of partiality – and that Romans 5:18 says that Jesus died that all people can find justification and life. This is the heart of my objection. I say these things not to start a discussion (I know you don’t agree with me) but hoping it clarifies our area of difference enough for the discussion to return to the C of E and sexuality.
            Acts 10:34-35 ESV
            So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him”.

      • Hi Ian. Is this a response to my point about the last five years. I ask only because your position on GS is relevant.

        if GS members are weary that tells us something

        • Not just the last five years. The last ten or more has achieved almost nothing—because there have been endless conversations and campaigning, and no actual theological thinking.

          If the bishops had started there, we would be in a different place now.

  3. This is good stuff.

    I hope those on Baptist Council follow this carefully, as there is much to learn here (positively and negatively) about how to manage the discussion. With materials enabling consultation in the BU family due out the other side of Christmas, I hope that if nothing else expectations are managed about what the potential outcomes of it might be, and that there is clarity of objective.

    The last think we need is to fall into the trap of allowing the various lobby groups to assume the process is designed to work towards their desired end.


  4. Sadly, nothing seems to have been learned by the learned author of this article – about the so obvious desire of the Lambeth 2022 Lambeth Conference; which refused to identify itself with the Lambeth 1:10 exclusion of faithful sexual relationships in the lives of officially and legally-joined same sex couples; a situation that has existed in England since its government legislated for the Civil-Partnership (and later Civil Marriage) of same-sex couples. The outcome is that bigotry has now been defeated and justice embraced by the national Church.

    The nay-sayers to the new situation – in which monogamously-conducted same-sex relationships are no longer illegal in the U.K. (and in many other countries) – failed to reinforce the institutional homophobia and sexism that had formally condemned gay people to the penalties of criminal law and punishment that Lambeth 1:10 had sought to retain, on grounds of pre-enlightenment ignorance of the etiology of human sexuality and gender.

    That this has been the cause of a split in the Anglican Church – exacerbated by the rise and rise of GAFCON in the wider Anglican Communion; should not be a reason for the fundamentalist fringe to continue to battle against the wisdom that has come out of the meeting of bishops at Lambeth 2022. The Holy Spirit is not dead, nor is She likely to support the continued perpetuation of injustice on an issue that the civil sphere has already considered and dealt with, justly.

    • Your compassion seems to be limited. God’s compassion is endless. God’s compassion is with those who struggle to live their lives in obedience to his word. Those who open the door to s#xual freedoms cause tragedy in society. Where is your compassion for the mydered children who are the result of careless continual copulation? Where is your compassion for those children who through surrogacy will never know their mother? Where is your compassion for children in broken families? Where is your compassion for children being s#xualised through the new RSE in schools? Christian moral teaching is the sheep pen which keeps us safe from this abominable attack on western society. He is the one who leads us beside the still waters and the green pastures – not this fake freedom which leads to destruction.

  5. Really appreciate the work you are doing and have been on this. Its a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue that the COE has been engaged in over the decades and is very helpful and insightful for other denominations who are coming to this dialogue/issue later in the day. I noticed that in the comments thread that the Baptist Union are on a similar journey as Elim, the movement I belong to, as we are about to hold a Theological Conference on Human Sexuality early next year. I am a Pastor in an Elim church. I am also a PGR at York St John under the supervision of Andrew Village, Mark Dawson and Leslie Francis, Canon Theologian at Liverpool Cathedral. My research question as it currently sits is; “What is the range of attitudes and what is shaping the attitudes of Elim Pastors and Elders in England towards the degree of inclusion of LGBT+ people in sacrament, membership and ministry in Elim churches”. Your work in this area, as well as the comments thread (Generally), provides a rich source of reflection as I consider these issues. So much appreciation!

  6. Thank you so much for writing about this and for facilitating the discussions on your page. As a non theologian, lay person of no importance I am very concerned about the direction of the C of E. Whilst watching the theologians fencing, I cannot help my simple observation that we ignore biology. That God created some with a penis and some with a vagina and that the continuation of his creation of “man in his image” necessitates the fusion of these two organs. Anything else goes against nature and by inference his creation. I have homosexual and lesbian friends, but cannot help feeling that their relationships are not right. I have no answers, just unhappiness. I understand they are part of his creation too, I know a lot of his creation is cruel, including many who claim to be Christians. I also have friends whose children are same sex attracted and who have immediately changed their theology to adapt! Is it this simple, that we must change our beliefs to suit others convenience? There can be no happy ending to this dispute. Whatever we decide many will be hurt and congregations fractured. No wonder this discussion was swept under the carpet for so long. May God continue to bless you all.


Leave a comment