Have the bishops put the LLF Travelator into reverse?

Just over two years ago, an Anglican Futures blogger adopted the concept of the 'Travelator' as a way of explaining how the process of changing the Church of England's practice and teaching about sexual relationships works.

The blog explained how David Porter, the then Archbishop of Canterbury's Strategy Consultant, ensured that the process would itself become the outcome, by legitimising the questions being asked and preventing any 'end point', other than the introduction of blessings and/or same-sex marriage, with the expectation that those who disagree are required to 'walk together'/ 'agree to disagree'.

Just like a Travelator - once the first step is taken, there is no way off.

Today, however, some are suggesting that the House of Bishops' latest statement represents a reversal of the Travelator. If this were true it would be a cause for great rejoicing amongst orthodox Anglicans throughout the Anglican Communion.

In contrast, this blog sets out 6 reasons why the most recent missive from the House of Bishops is a very clear indicator that the Travelator is still doing its work, inching forward and carrying all in the Church of England along with it, whether or not they approve of the destination.

1) The House of Bishops are, above all else, committed to "walking together".

In their statement they write:

"Throughout the LLF process, we have found common ground in our desire to love and welcome all people; to be honest about our views and differences with humility; and to hold together as one Church, albeit with diverse views on important aspects of sexuality and relationships." (Para 9)

This is the underlying principle of the Travelator and according to the Minutes of the House of Bishops October meeting it also forms the "core" of this statement.

This is a seismic shift that has been ignored by many more conservative Anglicans, who have not yet understood that to enter into the conversation requires the tacit acceptance that the goal of the discussion is compromise.

The House of Bishops have corporately decided that issues of human sexuality can be filed in the 'adiaphora' box, and even the few, who would personally disagree with this categorisation, have no means of actually acting on their conscience without walking away from their diocese and from the Church of England. It is generally accepted that those that dare to warn others that they are in error, or that they risk an eternity without Christ, are considered unloving.

Some suggest that the College of Bishops is more orthodox now than at any time in the past few decades, but that is to ignore the fundamental error at the heart of today's episcopate - which is that unity is found in an individual who tolerates all views and who all accept as their chief pastor, rather than in being the one who teaches truth and drives away error. On paragraph 28, the bishops write:

"The wider disruption to Anglican ecclesiology and mission would be very significant and would, we believe, seriously jeopardise our calling as bishops to be a focus for unity in the church as set out in the ordinal." (Para 28)

Their distorted view of their own calling means that this 'disruption' does not relate to their desire to change the doctrine of the Church but to CEEC's request for alternative "orthodox ordinary oversight".

2) The House of Bishops continue to commend the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF).

In December 2023, a couple of months after the blog mentioned above was published, the House of Bishops, "commended the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith for use in existing services in local churches as a way of offering public affirmation and recognition of the goods which are to be found in same sex relationships".

For the Travelator to be in reverse the bishops would therefore have to 'uncommend' the use of these prayers. This option was discussed by the House in October, but instead, they reaffirmed their commendation of the PLF in regular services under Canon B2.

The bishops justify this decision on the basis of a partial quote from the Faith and Order Commission's advice that the Prayers of Love and Faith "in themselves... do not characterise the relationship of any given couple as marriage and do not therefore impinge upon the doctrine of marriage..” (Para 17).

The Faith and Order Commission actually said:

"... the PLF in themselves (considered in the light of the Nine Theses), do not characterise the relationship of any given couple as marriage and do not, therefore, impinge directly upon the doctrine of marriage. Nonetheless, the contexts in which the PLF might be used could impinge upon this doctrine. This contextual risk is likely to be higher in a bespoke (i.e., standalone) service than in any use of the PLF within existing services." (GS Misc 1407 Para 6)

For the Travelator to keep moving forward, obstacles have to be smoothed over. The word 'directly' has been removed from the original quote and the 'lesser risk' of using the PLF in an existing service has been avoided all together. It is also common knowledge that the prayers are already being used in ways that to all intents and purposes celebrate same-sex marriage, but this too appears to have been ignored in the bishops' statement.

Thus, the principle of whether same-sex couples can be invited to come to church to be affirmed in their relationship has been settled. There has been no reversal.

3) The House of Bishops only apologise for the pain caused by them by not moving further, faster.

If the House of Bishops had any intention of doing a U-turn they would need to apologise for the steps they have already made; instead the bishops feel the need to confess other failings:

• "Many, holding a variety of convictions, have felt, and still feel, bruised, hurt or unsafe by the conversations and the discussions we have had, particularly LGBTQI+ people. We are very sorry that the process has become so protracted and painful." (Para 7)

• "We are aware that, as a result, many LGBTQI+ people feel less welcome, not more so, in our churches. This is a cause for profound sorrow. The House of Bishops, for our part, must take responsibility for this situation and we apologise to all who have been harmed by shortcomings in our leadership." (Para 10)

• "We realise that the decisions communicated in this statement are the cause of profound anguish to many LGBTQI+ people and their allies, who had believed further progress was imminent. We bitterly regret the pain our decisions have caused." (Para 11)

• We want to apologise for the ways in which the Church of England has treated LGBTQI+ people – both those who worship in our churches and those who do not. (Para 12)

There is no corresponding apology to those orthodox laity and clergy who have been unsettled, or forced to leave the Church of England, because of the decision of the bishops to commend the Prayers of Love and Faith in the first place. Nor do they apologise to potential orthodox ordinands who have had to look elsewhere to fulfill their calling. The pain felt by those who uphold the current teaching of the Church of England is irrelevent to bishops whose main aim is to keep the Travelator moving.

4) The only discipline proposed by the House of Bishops for those who infringe their guidance is 'informal' and possibly 'optional'.

According to the statement, "Under guidance agreed by the House of Bishops in 2014, clergy who have entered into same sex civil marriages have received an informal rebuke. Such clergy have been able to continue in their present beneficed or licensed roles but not permitted to undertake new roles. We recognise that this is creating situations of pastoral hardship and difficulty for such clergy, their families and parishes" (Para 23)

This is just one example of the way bishops in the Church of England sidestep the formal disciplinary processes (currently the Clergy Disciplinary Measure) to avoid conflict. An "informal rebuke" does not exist in the discipline of the Church of England, it means nothing, and rumours abound about bishops who have delivered the "informal rebuke" to newly-married clergy along with a bottle of champagne.

The statement continues,

"Bishops in good conscience have a range of views on how they should exercise their responsibilities in relation to discipline and pastoral care when considering how to respond to clergy in same sex marriages in their own dioceses. However, in the context of the doctrine of the Church of England and in light of theological and legal advice, we acknowledge that a more general permission for clergy to be in a same sex civil marriage would require a formal legislative process." (Para 23 & 24)

In the Church of England, diocesan bishops have Ordinary jurisdiction, they cannot, therefore, be forced to act in a particular way towards clergy who enter into same-sex marriages within their diocese. So, it is even possible to read this part of the statement as a tacit acknowledgement that some bishops intend neither to rebuke, nor refuse to permit clergy in same-sex marriages to undertake a new role, and whilst the House of Bishops cannot give "more general permission" for such actions, they will turn a blind eye to those who choose to do so.

Thus, the Travelator moves on, making it ever harder for any form of discipline to be reinstated.

5) The only criticism is for those who have taken a stand against the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith

The bishops are fulsome in their praise for the attitude of some to the Prayers of Love and Faith:

"Many local churches and ministers welcome these modest steps toward greater inclusion, rejoice that we have reached these decisions together, and warmly embrace them as positive developments while continuing to long for further progress. Many of those who cannot themselves use the prayers are nevertheless content to be fully part of a Church which allows other parishes to offer Prayers of Love and Faith and understand that this diversity enables greater connection with more of our society." (Para 26)

Yet, the bishops feel it necessary to criticise others:

"A number of parishes have responded to the introduction of Prayers of Love and Faith and the prospect of further change by withdrawing from some diocesan events and worship and/or diverting or reducing parish share. We recognise such gestures of protest have been made in good conscience. However, at this point, we would together urge all parishes to uphold the call to worship and walk together, and to uphold the principles of mutual support and a common fund administered by and through dioceses into the future." (Para 31)

This may be another example of an "informal rebuke". This time aimed at those who have dared to suggest that there should be any consequences at all for those who teach and act in ways contrary to the gospel. Yet, this time there is no acknowledgement of the, "hardship and difficulty," this act of conscience has caused for the clergy and parishes involved.

There is no evidence in the Minutes of the October meeting that any bishops in the House spoke up against this rebuke. Instead the bishops are careful to speak with one voice saying, ""...we would together urge all parishes to uphold the call to worship and walk together...".

It seems it is no longer enough for clergy and parishes to stay in the Church of England and continue to pay their parish share in full. They are also required to fund those they believe to be in error, walk with those who they perceive will lead them astray and worship alongside those who deny the Lord's teaching. To do otherwise is to disrupt the unity of the church.

6) As the LLF process draws to a close, another process begins.

As a result of the persistence of orthodox members of Synod, the House of Bishops have had to recognise that introducing standalone services and enabling clergy to enter into same-sex civil marriages will require General Synod to follow the correct legal proceedings. They have also acknowledged that the necessary majorities would be nigh on impossible to come by with the current make-up of the three Houses. However, anyone who believed this has caused the Travelator to reverse, or even halt for a while, will be sorely disappointed when they reach paragraph 35 and 36 of the statement, which reads:

"However, it is also clear that there remains work still unresolved from LLF which needs both resources and co-ordination. The House of Bishops therefore commits to commissioning a Working Group"

One of the keys to the Travelator's momentum is that there is always another way forward. When the Pilling Report was not unanimous (thanks to Bishop Keith Sinclair), there were the Shared Conversations; when the Shared Conversations didn't provide the right result, there was Living in Love and Faith (LLF) , which itself has had innumerable Facilitated Conversations, Working Groups, and Next-Step Groups. Now that LLF has finally run out of steam, it is time for the next incarnation - the "Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group."

This Working Group will report to General Synod within the first two years of the new 'quinquennium' - in other words two years after the next General Synod is elected this Autumn. Their primary remit is to do the preparatory work necessary for Synod to follow the correct legislative processes to introduce standalone services of blessing and to allow clergy to enter into same-sex blessings. Alongside this they will consider, "questions of singleness; transgender identity; technology and sexuality; and the wider sexualisation of society." (Para 39). Meanwhile the bishops themselves will continue their "common discernment" about whether the Church of England should "solemnise the marriages of same-sex couples". (Para 19).

This is not a reversal - it is not even a slow down - it is just the continuation of a previous plan - in February 2023, General Synod voted to, "invite the House of Bishops to monitor the Church’s use of and response to the Prayers of Love and Faith, once they have been commended and published, and to report back to Synod in five years’ time."

The Prayers of Love and Faith were commended in December 2023 - the report requested by General Synod is therefore due in December 2028.

The new General Synod will be inaugurated in November 2026 - this new Working Group needs to report back by November 2028.

Same timescale, different spin.

The content of the report in 2028 will, very likely, depend on how votes are cast this Autumn.  The more progressive the make-up of the Houses of Laity and Clergy the more bullish the Working Party will be able to be. Once again, the bishops, who claim to be so committed to unity, have formented disunity in their parishes, deaneries and dioceses. Their prevarication has only increased the pressure on the forthcoming General Synod elections. In some parishes the APCM will become a battleground, with orthodox and progressive candidates fighting for deanery synod places, in order to become part of the electorate for the House of Laity.

Whatever the results of the election, the Travelator will plough on and anyone who doesn't want to stay for the ride will face the reality that, "getting off is difficult, potentially dangerous and comes with the threat of being deemed disloyal/ fractious."

---

Do you agree?

Add your thoughts in the comments below, or

sign up on the Events page for our monthly discussion group

'Close to the Edge' 7-8pm Thursday 22nd January