I attended the General Synod debate on Living in Love and Faith on Thursday 12 February 2026 arriving sometime after 15.00 and leaving at the end, 19.00. I missed the Archbishop of York’s opening speech in moving the motion (GS2426):
‘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.’
And I missed the amendment moved by Charlie Baczyk-Bell:
‘Leave out paragraph (a) and insert “recognise and lament the distress and pain many LGBTQIA+ people continue to suffer because the Church of England remains unwilling to affirm their faithful, committed and legally-recognised relationships”.’
And the amendment moved by Christopher Landau:
‘After paragraph (a) insert: “acknowledge that the LLF process has revealed theological diversity among LGBTQI+ people, and that the church and its chaplaincies should be sensitive to this diversity;”.’
Both those amendments to the archbishop’s motion were defeated as were all subsequent amendments.
Another hesitation on the way to full equality
It’s the Archbishops final clause, d), that is the key element:
“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.”
It is clear from the debate and the voting figures that significant numbers of the Houses of Clergy and Laity do not trust the House of Bishops to do anything that will achieve the outcome worked for by progressives seeking LGBTQIA+ equality over the past 8 years, or 15 years, or 40 years. As bishops speaking in the debate revealed, maintaining the unity of the Church of England is a higher priority for the House of Bishops than achieving a radical new Christian inclusion for LGBTQIA+ people – inclusion that includes equal marriage for clergy and laity.
The Working Group and the Pastoral Consultative Group are both to work on “Relationships, Sexuality and Gender.“ Whatever these two Groups do, they are doing after the horse has bolted. The lived reality is that the Church of England already, de facto recognises equal marriage because the bishops have shown themselves to be impotent in taking action against clergy in civil partnerships and marriages and those churches blessing what are, one way or another, the equivalent of same sex marriages.
A crucial question lurked in the debate: How are these Groups going to be formed, who is going to select the members, what is the time scale, and why do the bishops expect any outcome to be achieved without conservatives blocking the necessary change in Canon Law to enable equal marriage? These questions should be haunting the consciousness of every bishop. I have no doubt the two bishops who voted dissentingly against their brother and sister bishops know these are the key questions.
Harriet Sherman in The Guardian reports the debate under the headline:
Turmoil in Anglican church as synod halts work on gay equality
“The hopes of progressive Christians in the Church of England suffered a major blow yesterday, after years of bitter and divisive debate, when the church’s ruling body agreed to halt work on LGBTQ+ equality”
I think the Harriet is wrong. Work on LGBTQ+ equality, and the movement to achieve change and transformation is so strong now that nothing will ultimately stop the church affirming equal marriage for everyone.
“The General Synod backed a document from the bishops concluding that a consensus between conservative and liberal camps within the church cannot be reached.”
That a consensus cannot be reached may well be true, but the voting figures on the amendments moved by Lis Goddard and then by Helen King shows that margins are tighter.
Lis Goddard moved that:
‘At the end of paragraph (d) insert “, and that the current LLF working groups, in conjunction with the Programme Board, be asked to prepare a review and reflection on LLF, focussed on the work of the LLF working groups. This work should begin immediately and provide the foundation for the work of the proposed new working groups, with the aim of learning from the mistakes of the past and of undertaking honest reflection on the lessons that can be taken forward, so as to avoid having to apologise to members of Synod and our wider communities once again.”.'
This amendment was defeated in the House of Bishops, 2 voting for, 28 against and 6 abstaining. Clergy voted 88 for, 87 against and 6 abstaining, laity 93 for, 87 against and 4 abstentions. A motion is lost if one House votes against.
Helen King’s amendment proposed:
‘At the end, insert: “Request the Archbishops ensure that a majority of the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group are in favour of change towards standalone services of blessing and full inclusion of clergy in same-sex civil marriages; that the Group issues a report in advance of every sitting of General Synod; and that recommendations are delivered with urgency.”.’
The voting on this amendment was Bishops 12 in favour, 21 against, 3 abstentions, Clergy 81 in favour, 94 against, 4 abstentions and Laity 86 in favour, 100 against, 3 abstentions.
The House of Bishops original motion, unamended, was passed by Bishops 34 in favour, none against and 2 abstentions, Clergy 109 for, 62 against, 10 abstentions, Laity 109 for, 70 against, 9 abstentions. The majority lined up to support the bishops, but 2 bishops declined to positively support the motion.
Harriet Sherman reported:
“The issue will now be out in the deep freeze until a new synod is in place.”
The issue will not be put in the deep freeze. Progressive and conservative factions will campaign on the issue in the elections for a new synod coming later this year, and I and others will continue to campaign to beak the deadlock now by encouraging people to live and act in defiance of the bishops’ timidity. The number of churches welcoming couples to be blessed in church will expand and the number of clergy open about their sexuality and relationship status will continue to grow. The bishops are being challenged here and now because we are refusing to be inhibited by their fear that the church will be split. What the elections will not change is the constituency of the House of Bishops. What has to be changed is the mindset of members of the House of Bishops.
The Church of England bishops are trapped in a doom loop. Equal marriage is already becoming deeply established in the church. A minority of conservatives are determined not to be infected by what they think are corrupt Christians. Societies’ attitudes have changed dramatically.
Is a magic key going to be found in the course of and post the elections for a new Synod, a key that opens the door to equal marriage and celebrates the loving, intimate, faithful relationships of so many laity and clergy? It’s impossible at the moment to imagine where that key might be, but change is now inevitable.
In the context of contemporary society
The dynamic of the LLF process and the culture of the Church of England is inevitably contaminated by the dynamic that is infecting all human institutions and societies – a global virus of decadence and decay – Starmer’s government, Trump’s America, Putin’s aggression, the rise of far right, neo-fascist movements. There is a lack of wisdom people, of visionaries and prophets, those individuals with depth, love and truth in their souls, able to interpret and challenge the inadequacies of today’s cultural, social, religious, political and economic movements. They are not totally absent, of course, but neither are they plentiful.
In this context it’s unsurprising but very annoying for me that the church is infected with the same systemic viruses. So where does the transformation and energy for radical new Christian inclusion emanate from? Do we really know what this energy feels like? Together, Inclusive Church, House of Bishops, General Synod, you need to be open to the energy. Invoking the Holy Spirit isn’t adequate.
Past and present wisdom friends
Helen King asked me, as we met by chance in the street after Synod, what I was feeling.
I feel deeply confident that the majority of gay and straight people, lay and ordained, are now unashamedly, comfortably supportive of justice and full, radical new Christian equality in the celebration of love and intimacy in marriage for same sex couples.
Sitting in the public gallery I was remembering past friends: Una Kroll, mentioned by one speaker in the debate, my spiritual director for many years, a fearless supporter of the movement for the ordination of women and of Changing Attitude and Malcolm Johnson, back in the 1970s and 80s the only openly gay member of General Synod; both of them fearless trailblazers. I noted the absence of obviously pro-gay people in the gallery yesterday.
Meanwhile, my own deep, inner, contemplative spiritual life continues, more and more independently of the church which no longer has the resources to nourish spiritual depth adequately. There are rare exceptions. I carry the wisdom and depth, love and energy of the many, many queer people and wisdom people within and outside the church who have from my earliest years enriched and transformed by life and guided me into all truth, unconditional love and life in all its fulness. I celebrate the company of friends today who also live life in all its fullness.