It has become clear that the task for those of us campaigning for the full inclusion of LGBTQI people in the Church of England is to pursue amendment of the Marriage Canon and extend marriage in church to same-sex couples.
The House of Bishops know this is the ultimate goal. This is what persuaded a small minority of members of the House of Bishops to vote against Helen King’s amended motion at the end of the recent General Synod debate.
Celebration of the love and relationships, fidelity and intimacy of lesbian and gay relationships, publicly and legally celebrated in church must now be our primary goal.
What is stopping this from happening? The House of Bishops. Voting in the recent Synod suggests that the forces hostile to the full inclusion of LGBTQI+ people in the Houses of Clergy and Laity have diminished. The House of Bishops is the problem.
Where’s my bishop?
In his recent blog on ViaMedia News about the recent debate at General Synod, Robert Thompson posed the question ‘Where’s my bishop?’ What is Robert getting at?
The House of Bishops potentially has 53 voting members. Twenty-nine bishops voted at the end of the debate. Where were the other 24?
Seven dioceses are vacant at the moment. This reduces the potential total to 46. ‘Acting bishops’ are not allowed to vote.
Robert speculates that five bishops might have been unavailable because of illness, suspension or having stepped back from ministry. This reduces the number to 41.
Robert deducted four more; one is on sabbatical and maybe three were on duty at the House of Lords. That reduces the number to 37. The recorded votes at the end of the debate show 29 bishops voted. Eight bishops were unaccounted for. Where were they?
Eleven bishops voted in favour of the motion as amended in the course of the debate. Fourteen bishops voted against, four abstained. The Houses of Clergy and Laity both voted in favour of the amended motion with clear majorities. When the bishops voted on the amendment earlier in the debate, twelve voted in favour, eight voted against, and eight abstained. Why did they change their mind? Who were they? (You will find a list at the end of this blog.)
Challenging the authority of bishops
It’s not easy for clergy and laity in active ministry in the Church of England to publicly challenge the authority of their diocesan or the authority of the House of Bishops in Synod. You risk being subjected to a complain under the Clergy Disciple Measure and/or losing your licence or PTO. It’s much easier to raise challenges when, like me, you have no licence or PTO. Robert Thompson has been unafraid to challenge his diocesan bishop before she was elevated and is now the Archbishop of Canterbury. I participated in a Living in Love and Faith meeting at which they were both present and was impressed by the mutual respect and energy shown between them.
The House of Bishops February plan of action
In February 2026 Synod approved a motion confirming that the LLF programme has been concluded and that two new working groups were to be established to continue the unfinished work: the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group and the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group.
The Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group was set up before the recent Synod. The members are:
Philip Mounstephen, Bishop of Winchester (Chair) and Sam Corley, Bishop of Stockport (they voted against Helen King’s amended motion) and Karen Gorham, Bishop of Sherbourne, Mandy Ford, Dean of Bristol, and Jonathan Chaffey, Archdeacon of Oxford. They are expected to start work on 1 September.
The Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group has a chair, the Bishop of Sodor and Man, but the membership hasn’t been announced yet and there is no date given for when the group will first meet.
Does this look like a plan?
Prayers of Love and Faih have been approved for use in certain circumstances but are taboo in others. The prayers are better than nothing, but much better material has been available for a long time and is being used by any priest with enough wisdom and courage, approved or not. There is, for example, plentiful material by the late Jim Cotter.
Conservative evangelicals are using unapproved material and liturgical forms all the time. Bishops know this and are indifferent. Why are we progressives so reluctant to act with equal independence? (Actually, we are not that reluctant – there are plenty of places where services of blessing are held).
What are the bishops going to put on the agenda of the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group and the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group? Do we on the progressive wing, we LGBTQI+ people and our friends who are most affected by the lack of progress think a lengthy period of discussion about our lives, our relationships, sexuality and gender, by the two “working groups” convened by bishops is what is needed at the moment?
I’ve gone along with the House of Bishops led processes for five decades. In all those years, I have engaged with people, gay and straight, who have thought through as Christians their ideas about God, Jesus, the Bible, sexuality and gender and the authority or otherwise given to Christian teaching in contemporary society, sacred and secular.
Did the bishops propose these two working groups in February because they still prefer lesbian and gay people to live in a closet, to have relationships in secret or semi-secret. Is this what they really want? Bishops and Archdeacons and other officials have been inviting clergy and partners to events at bishops’ and archdeacons’ houses and recognising the presence of partners at inductions for decades. Aren’t the majority of bishops, who in secret are really fine about the presence of LGBTQI+ clergy and their partners in their diocese, living in their own closet, hiding their real thoughts from conservative evangelicals?
It’s time we LGBTQI+ members of the Church of England and our tens of thousands of allies across every diocese held the bishops to account for their indifference to our presence in every diocese, to our integrity and spiritual gifts, to our fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to our incredible patience and endurance as the toxic, abusive culture has been uncovered in recent decades. I will flesh out the actions we can and should take in my next blog.
House of Bishops’ voting on Helen King’s private member’s motion on same-sex relationships, as amended:
Bishops For 11
(nine had voted for the amendment earlier)
002 Cottrell, Stephen [York] changed from against to for
011 Francis-Dehqani, Guli [Chelmsford]
018 Harrison, Mike [Exeter]
032 Frost, Jonathan [Portsmouth]
035 Grenfell, Joanne [St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]
039 Chessun, Christopher [Southwark]
043 Hudson-Wilkin, Rose [Dover] didn’t vote the first time
046 Gorick, Martin [Dudley]
049 Gorham, Karen [Sherborne]
051 Conalty, Julie [Birkenhead]
052 Arora, Arun [Kirkstall]
Bishops Against 14
(seven had voted against the earlier amendment)
001 Mullally, Sarah [Canterbury]
004 Simpson, Rick [Durham] abstained first time
005 Mounstephen, Philip [Winchester] Changed from for to against
007 Volland, Michael [Birmingham]
008 North, Philip [Blackburn] abstained first time
010 Saner-Haigh, Rob [Carlsisle]
017 Innes, Robert [Europe] changed from for to against
021 Jackson, Richard [Hereford] abstained first time
031 Sellin, Debbie [Peterborough] abstained first time
033 Gibbs, Jonathan [Rochester]
037 Wilcox, Pete [Sheffield] changed from for to against
040 Williams, Paul [Southwell & Nottingham]
050 Duff, Jill [Lancaster]
053 Race, Stephen [Beverley]
Bishops Abstaining 4
006 Beasley, Michael [Bath & Wells]
019 Treweek, Rachel [Gloucester]
024 Ipgrave, Michael [Lichfield]
048 Springett, Robert [Tewkesbury]
Those who did not vote 24
003 vacant [London]
009 vacant [Bristol]
012 Tanner, Mark [Chester]
013 vacant [Chichester]
014 Jelley, Sophie [Coventry]
015 Lane, Libby [Derby] – on sick leave
016 Clark, Sarah [Ely]
020 vacant [Guildford]
022 vacant [Leeds]
023 Snow, Martin [Leicester]
025 Conway, Stephen [Lincoln] – suspended
026 vacant [Liverpool]
027 Walker, David [Manchester]
028 Hartley, Helen-Ann [Newcastle]
029 Usher, Graham [Norwich]
030 vacant [Oxford]
034 Rumsey, Andrew [St Albans]
036 Lake, Stephen [Salisbury] – stepped back
038 Hillas, Patricia [Sodor & Man]
041 Williams, David [Truro]
042 Nelson, Hugh [Worcester]
044 Nelson, Hugh [Forces]
045 Hollinghurst, Anne [formerly Aston, but so far as I know still an elected suffragan]
047 Baker, Jonathan [Fulham]