Evangelicals are responding to the news that the Church of England's contentious Living in Love and Faith discussions (LLF) about gender and sexuality will conclude by July.
However, discussions on the subject will continue, but under new structures and not the label of LLF. Evangelicals, while celebrating that revisionism has not currently advanced as much as its supporters had hoped, are nonetheless wary that liberals will continue to push for more change.
The decision follows a vote, yesterday (12 February), at the February General Synod, by 252 votes to 132, with 21 abstentions.
John Dunnett, National Director of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), said the decision was a change of branding rather than direction. "The General Synod has accepted the House of Bishops' proposal to repaint the LLF bus and keep the journey going," he stated.
"However, this runs the risk of perpetuating the pain of many unless they work out how to accommodate theological oil and water in a way that gives safe spaces for everybody.
"CEEC's conviction is that this cannot be done without a differentiated arrangement [alternative structures for Biblically orthodox Anglicans].
"We hope and pray that the House of Bishops will welcome such a discussion in order that a way can be found to resolve this ongoing and fractious disagreement."
LLF to conclude by July
On the Synod's penultimate day, five-hours were spent on what has been variously labelled as a "damaging" and "divisive" sexuality debate.
Details of the motion were as follows:
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. [1]
The motion was carried in a vote by Houses:
Bishops: in favour 34, against 0, abstentions 2;
Clergy: in favour 109, against 62, abstentions 10;
Laity: in favour 109, against 70, abstentions 9.
Theologian Ian Paul commented that the Biblically orthodox viewed the motion with suspicion, because clause "(d) seemed like a hostage to fortune, leaving the door ajar for future possible change and further damaging debate."
According to Paul, the fourth clause clearly affected Synod members' voting decisions; some revisionists voted "for" with the hope of continued discussion, and some Biblically orthodox voted "against" due to not wanting further "damaging" discussion.
Confusion?
In Paul's speech - at the start of the debate opposing liberal Charlie Bączyk-Bell's amendment (one of eight, all of which didn't pass) - he noted that the whole LLF process "after all this time, has not even delivered the basics of common understanding of the terms of the debate".
Paul told Synod: "Brothers and sisters, we need to face some sobering realities.
"After all this time, we have not even agreed on the basic terms. The Jesus of the gospels is fully inclusive (how could we be more inclusive than him?) and yet teaches clearly that marriage and sexual intimacy between one man and one woman, as a reflection of his creation of humanity male and female.
"After all this time, we have not recognised the shape of the discussion—not between two different views, as if we were standing nowhere, but between those who uphold the doctrine of the Church—and of the church catholic through all ages—‘according to the teaching of our Lord’, and those who want to see it changed.
"After all this time, there is so little recognition that gay people in this chamber do not agree, and are on both—on every—side of this debate.
"After all this time, there is so little good will across the debate. I was part of the RMC [Religion Media Centre] discussion last week, and I found Chantel Noppan’s expression of anger and disappointment deeply moving. But I honestly doubt that any here wanting change will believe me for a second. What a tragedy that is." Chantel Noppan is national coordinator of the liberal Inclusive Church organisation.
Paul added: "After all this time, we still have not had the openness from the House of Bishops that we have all been asking [for]. There are four papers we were told of in February 2024 which have still not been published.
"This amendment will cement this failure and do nothing to take us forward." [2]
'Is there still hope?'
Meanwhile, social media users have been responding to the news. On X, one individual wrote: "A surprise but a welcome one."
Another commented: "Could this be a sign the Church of England isn’t completely dead yet? Is there still hope?"
- Synod Roundup: Thursday 12 February 2026, The Church of England
- The discussion at the end of the LLF process, Ian Paul
A helpful challenge – but I don’t recognise those views
This article was written in response to the article "Same-sex attraction and identity: Are evangelicals on the right track?" …