1 - The Church of England

Transcription

Report of Proceedings 2010
General Synod
February Group of Sessions
Volume 41 No. 1
Officers of the General Synod
Presidents
The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of York
Prolocutors of the Lower Houses of the Convocations
Canterbury
Ven. Norman Russell
York
Revd Canon Glyn Webster
The House of Laity
Chair
Dr Christina Baxter
Vice-Chair
Dr Philip Giddings
Secretary General
Mr William Fittall
Clerk to the Synod
Revd David Williams
Chief Legal Adviser and Registrar
Mr Stephen Slack
Secretary to the House of Bishops
Mr Jonathan Neil-Smith
Standing Counsel
Sir Anthony Hammond KCB QC
Secretary to the House of Clergy
Dr Colin Podmore
Deputy Legal Adviser
Revd Alexander McGregor
Secretary to the House of Laity
Mr Nicholas Hills
Legal Adviser
Revd Judith Egar
Officers of the Convocations
Synodical Secretary of the Convocation of Canterbury
Revd Stephen Trott
Registrar
Mr Stephen Slack
Synodal Secretary of the Convocation of York
Ven. Alan Wolstencroft
Registrar
Mr Lionel Lennox
Staff Directors of the Archbishops’ Council
Cathedral and Church Buildings
Miss Janet Gough
Human Resources
Mrs Su Morgan
Communications
Mr Peter Crumpler
Ministry
Ven. Christopher Lowson
Education
Revd Janina Ainsworth
Mission and Public Affairs
Revd Dr Malcolm Brown
Contents
Full Synod:
First Day Monday 8 February 2010
Introductions and Welcomes
1
Progress of Measures and Statutory Instruments
1
Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and
Draft Amending Canon No. 30 (presentation)
2
Report by the Business Committee
5
Questions
9
Second Day
Tuesday 9 February 2010
Legislative Business:
Draft Amending Canon No. 29
Draft Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure
Draft Mission and Pastoral Measure
Draft Care of Cathedrals Measure
Codes of Practice under Section 8 of the Ecclesiastical Offices
(Terms of Service) Measure 2009
60
63
72
75
80
Crown Nominations Commission
97
Presidential Address
98
Clergy Pensions: Proposed Scheme Changes
105
Clergy Pensions: Ill-health Retirement
125
General Synod Elections 2010: Report by the Business Committee
134
Mission-shaped Church: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council
136
Third Day
Wednesday 10 February 2010
Private Member’s Motion: TV Coverage of Religious and Ethical Issues
159
44th Report of the Standing Orders Committee
Private Member’s Motion: Anglican Church in North America
180
193
Military Chaplaincy (presentation)
215
Liturgical Business:
Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects 226
Fourth Day Thursday 11 February 2010
Address by the President and the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference
243
Fresh Expressions (presentation)
259
Realizing the Missionary Potential of Church Buildings (presentation by the Cathedral and
Church Buildings Division)
267
Diocesan Synod Motion: Repair of Church Buildings
273
Ecumenical Representatives
288
The Bishop of Rwenzori
289
Going for Growth: Transformation for Children, Young People and the Church: Report
from the Board of Education/National Society Council
289
Private Member’s Motion: Parity of Pension Provision for Surviving Civil Partners
308
Legislative Business:
323
328
Private Member’s Motion: Violent Computer Games
329
Fifth Day
Friday 12 February 2010
Diocesan Synod Motion: Compatibility of Science and Christian Belief
344
Diocesan Synod Motion: Confidence in the Bible
358
Farewells
375
Index
378
Full Synod: First Day
Monday 8 February 2010
THE CHAIR The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams) took the Chair at
4.15 p.m.
The Chairman led the Synod in prayer, mentioning in particular Revd Canon Glyn
Webster (York), recovering from surgery.
Introduction of New Members
The Chairman: I introduce and warmly welcome the Bishop of Southwell and
Nottingham (Rt Revd Paul Butler), the Bishop of Hull (Rt Revd Richard Frith) and
the Bishop of Carlisle (Rt Revd James Newcome), who has attended previously on
behalf of Carlisle during the vacancy in see and who is not here yet. Although it is by
no means his first time here, I think it is appropriate to ask the Bishop of Dover
(Rt Revd Trevor Willmott) to stand to be welcomed. Then we have Revd Johannes
Arens (Ripon and Leeds), Revd Professor John Barton (Oxford University), Revd
Canon Richard Franklin (Salisbury), Revd Dr Jonathan Gibbs (Chester), Revd Canon
Giles Goddard (Southwark), the Archdeacon of Bath, Ven. Andrew Piggott (Bath and
Wells), Revd Dr Philip Plyming (Guildford), Revd Anthony Redman
(St Edmundsbury and Ipswich), Ms Michelle Sulkey (Manchester), Revd Jennifer
Tomlinson (Chelmsford), together with two new ex officio members of the
Archbishops’ Council who are joining us for the first time, Mrs Mary Chapman and
Revd Dr Rosalyn Murphy.
I welcome also the Bishop of Bradwell (Rt Revd Laurie Green) who is acting for the
Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Brixworth (Rt Revd Frank White) who is acting
for the Bishop of Peterborough and the Bishop of Tonbridge (Rt Revd Dr Brian
Castle) who is acting for the Bishop of Rochester. I remind them that those who are
acting during a diocesan vacancy in see have speaking but not voting rights in Synod!
May we welcome them all. (Applause)
Progress of Measures and Statutory Instruments
The Chairman: The second item of business is that I report to Synod on the progress
of Measures and Statutory Instruments, so – deep breath! – the Church of England
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, the Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other
Ecclesiastical Offices Measure and the Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives)
Measure have been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament.
The Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2009, the Parochial
Fees Order 2009, the Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2009, the Ecclesiastical
Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009, the Church of England Pensions
(Amendment) Regulations 2009 and the Church Representation Rules (Amendment)
Resolution 2009 have been laid before Parliament and came into force on 1 January
2010. Section 8 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure came into
force on 24 November 2009.
1
Draft Women Bishops Legislation
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Colchester (Ven. Annette Cooper) (Chelmsford)
took the Chair at 4.23 p.m.
Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women)
Measure and Draft Amending Canon No. 30
The Chairman: We come now to a presentation by the Bishop of Manchester, who
will tell us of the progress of the Women in the Episcopate legislation and the work of
the Steering and Revision Committees. Before the Bishop gives his presentation, I
need to inform Synod that, under SO 97(b) I am able to ask the Bishop of Manchester
to answer questions from members only if the Business Committee so agree. In this
case the Business Committee has agreed that the Bishop should not be invited to
answer questions at this point.
The Bishop of Manchester (Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch): I am very grateful to the
Business Committee for providing this opportunity to brief Synod about the draft
legislation on Women in the Episcopate which it committed for revision in committee
a year ago. I speak with the agreement of the Revision Committee and its chair, Clive
Mansell. My role has been to chair the Steering Committee which, under SO 49, is
assigned the task of being ‘in charge of the Measure’. If only it were that simple!
The Steering Committee and Revision Committee held their first meetings on
23 April and 1 May respectively, once the submissions from Synod members had
been received and studied. Because of the exceptional significance of the task the
Appointments Committee had chosen eight people to be members of the Steering
Committee and a further 11 to serve with them on the Revision Committee, making
both Committees the largest in recent history. In accordance with convention the
Steering Committee was appointed from among those who had signalled their general
support for the legislation by voting for the July 2008 motion. The other members of
the Revision Committee were drawn from a wide variety of viewpoints.
In just over nine months the Revision Committee has now met 13 times, most recently
on 22 January. It was clear from the outset that we all faced a daunting task. We had
received nearly 300 submissions, including 114 from members of Synod, who, under
the Standing Orders, have the right to come and speak to their representations and be
present while they are being considered. Many of the submissions inevitably covered
a large number of points and so some Synod members have had the right to attend a
large number of the meetings. Happily not all of them have chosen to do so but, even
so, it has been an extraordinary logistical challenge for the Committee and especially
the staff supporting it to ensure that everyone has the say to which they are entitled.
In the normal course of events Revision Committees quickly settle down to the task
entrusted to them by the Standing Orders which is to ‘consider the Measure
committed to them, together with any proposals for amendments, Clause by Clause’.
In this instance, however, both the Steering Committee and the Revision Committee
were clear very early on that it would not be sensible to try and move straight into
clause-by-clause consideration. We agreed that we needed first to take representations
from those who wanted the shape of the Measure to be of a significantly different
kind from what the earlier Drafting Group had prepared.
2
Some submissions argued for the creation of additional dioceses. Others proposed the
creation of a new, officially recognized society. Others involved the statutory transfer
of certain functions, while others proposed dropping the statutory Code of Practice
and instead having the simplest form of legislation that would do nothing more than
lift the present legal impediment to women becoming bishops. These were all
submissions that Synod members were perfectly entitled to make, and the Steering
and Revision Committees had an absolute obligation to take each of them seriously.
The specific mandate given by the Synod in July 2008 was of course to the earlier
Legislative Drafting Group, but, as I made very clear to the Synod last February, once
the legislative process started all the earlier arguments could be run again, alongside
fresh arguments and proposals. The consideration of draft legislation always allows of
such possibilities. Indeed, it is not uncommon for Synod members to vote to send
draft legislation to a Revision Committee not because they agree with all of it but
because they support the general direction of travel and want to try to secure
significant changes to it in committee; and the Revision Committee has had to listen
to and weigh every point.
I hope all that gives some insight into the nature of the task that we have been
engaged in and some of the exceptional challenges with which we have had to
wrestle, so against that background let me now come to explaining where we have got
to and what comes next.
It was only at the tenth meeting, on 26 November, that the Revision Committee
completed the first phase of its work, namely considering whether to substitute a
significantly different approach for the one reflected in the initial draft of the
Measure. What we had done in our earlier meetings was to adopt a kind of ‘traffic
light’ system of red and amber. Having heard representations in favour of creating
additional dioceses, the Committee decided before the summer to give that idea the
red light; but proposals for a recognized society, for some sort of transfer or vesting,
or for adopting the simplest possible legislative approach all got amber lights initially,
that is to say, at that point we agreed to consider them further. We then did some
serious work on the various models, particularly to tease out the pros and cons of the
society model and to understand exactly what it might mean in terms of who
exercised what jurisdiction and on whose authority.
After much discussion we came to the point of decision on 8 October. The Revision
Committee voted by a clear majority to reject the society option but, by a similarly
clear majority, to go for the transfer or vesting route. This meant that, in relation to
petitioning parishes, certain functions (though the Committee had not agreed which)
would be exercised by bishops by virtue of the Measure rather than by way of
delegation from the diocesan bishop. We were then confronted with a dilemma over
what, if anything, to say about such a significant decision. We had confirmed at the
outset of this exercise that, as is the normal custom with Revision Committees, we
would seek to maintain confidentiality and not offer a running commentary on
progress. Nevertheless, we have no sanctions to enforce confidentiality; with 19
members we are a big group; and in addition there are usually several other Synod
members present at our discussions. We were also conscious that people who had
made submissions would be attending subsequent meetings and would need to know
the changed context in which they would have to present their proposals; so it was
clear that news of what we had decided would get out and not necessarily accurately.
3
After discussion there was agreement across the Revision Committee that the least
bad option was to put out a short factual press release.
Even with the benefit of hindsight I am not sure that we could have done differently,
but it did, in the event, create difficulty for us and necessitate a further statement
when, on 13 November, further work resulted in all the specific proposals for the
vesting of particular functions being defeated. The Revision Committee was simply
unable to identify a basis for specifying particular functions for vesting which could
command sufficient support both from those in favour of the ordination of women as
bishops and those unable to support that development. This meant that, after more
than six months’ work, the Revision Committee had rejected all the options which
would have involved conferring some measure of jurisdiction on someone other than
the diocesan bishop. The legislation that the Revision Committee sends back to the
Synod will, therefore, be on the basis that any arrangements that are made for parishes
with conscientious difficulties about women’s ordination will be on the basis of
delegation from the diocesan bishops. That much is already clear.
What the Committee has been doing since November is to look at the Draft Measure
and Amending Canon clause by clause to see how much of the original drafts should
be retained, whether some provisions should be dropped or modified and whether
others should be added. It has been a huge task, and I know I speak for everyone on
the Steering and Revision Committees in expressing publicly what we have often said
at our meetings: a heartfelt tribute to William Fittall, Stephen Slack, Sir Anthony
Hammond and all the staff for their enormously hard work, their scrupulous
objectivity and the outstanding way in which they resource us.
Now a few words about what happens next. We very much regret that the scale of the
task has made it impossible for us to conclude the Revision Committee stage in time
for this group of sessions. That was always our target and we really did do our level
best, although I have to correct the suggestion that we have missed a deadline set by
Synod. In July 2008 Synod asked the drafting group to conclude its work by February
last year, which it did; but the Synod set the Revision Committee no such timetable.
Indeed it never does when sending legislation off for revision because each
Committee has to manage its own affairs as best it can, consistent with Standing
Orders.
We have now to complete the detailed scrutiny of the draft legislation and to agree the
terms of our report to Synod, and that will need to be a comprehensive document,
setting out what we decided and why in relation to all the 114 submissions we
received from Synod members. Our aim is to issue this document, together with the
revised draft legislation, so that Synod members have several weeks to consider it
before July. Decisions on the amount of time to allow for the ‘take note’ debate on
our report and the revision stage which follows will of course be for the Business
Committee, but that Committee has already signalled that it is prepared to make as
much time available in July as is needed.
What happens thereafter depends on what decisions the Synod takes. At the revision
stage it is open to Synod members to table amendments, whether on large matters or
on small, inviting the full Synod of course to take a different view from that reached
by the Revision Committee. The key point is that the work of the Revision Committee
4
is just one of many important stages in a long process. The task of the Revision
Committee is to send back to the Synod something that will provide a coherent basis
for the next (and potentially most crucial) stage of the discussion, in which the whole
Synod will have to revisit many of the arguments over which we have agonized for so
long.
Last, I want to pay tribute to Clive Mansell, chair of the Revision Committee, for his
unfailing care and his utter fairness, and also to each member of the Committee itself
who, as they move into the last lap of their task, need Synod’s continuing prayers and
encouragement.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Bishop. Synod, I have just made enquiries and
that presentation will be available to you, probably by tomorrow, with typing and
some tidying-up to do. I have asked and been reassured about that.
Report by the Business Committee (GS 1757)
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick (Hereford) (Chair of the Business Committee): I beg to
move:
‘That the Synod do take note of this report.’
At this point in the quinquennium it is the responsibility of the Business Committee to
make it possible for members to bring to a satisfactory conclusion as much of the
outstanding business as can be addressed in these final two groups of sessions. The
wild card in our planning has, of course, been the legislation on Women in the
Episcopate because the way forward depended very much on the timing of the
publication of the Revision Committee’s report. It was for this reason that we had a
Plan A and a Plan B and that we warned members some time ago that both of these
would require a long group of sessions in February: in plan A in order to take the long
debates needed for the revision stage of that report or, in Plan B, to clear the decks as
far as we could to leave as much space as possible in July to do the same. So we are
on Plan B. We have a long and full and very varied agenda, and we hope that by
Friday we will feel not just exhausted but also pleased to have achieved much in these
five days and that there will consequently be no need for panic that time will run out
in July for the important work we will have to do then.
The Archbishop of Canterbury will give a presidential address on Tuesday afternoon,
and there will be one addition to the agenda on Wednesday morning at the beginning
of the session immediately after the Eucharist, when the Archbishop of York will give
a statement, under SO 4(b), concerning the subject of interviews in relation to the
process for appointing diocesan bishops.
The varied nature of the business before us this week is partly due to the fact that we
are taking five Diocesan Synod Motions and four Private Member’s Motions, so
picking up on the concerns of individual members and of Church members in the
dioceses. Much of the work we will do will touch on matters of nationwide topical
concern: the important debate on the Church’s work with children and young people,
and our response to recent reports on childhood today, the debate on violent computer
games and their influence on children and young people, the presentation from the
5
senior chaplains to the armed forces on military chaplaincy, at a time when our armed
forces are facing danger and loss day by day. Other debates concern our engagement
with our society and our communities: the compatibility of science and belief, TV
coverage of religious and ethical issues, the Mission-shaped Church report from the
Mission and Public Affairs Council, a presentation on Fresh Expressions and a
presentation on the missionary potential of church buildings. Some of our debates, of
course, are about our relationship with other Christians – we will welcome the
President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference on Thursday – the ordering
of our own Church, as in the repair of church buildings, and the real needs and
concerns of our own clergy, in three debates on pension provision.
One of the debates which, though important, may turn out to be a bit less riveting than
the others (although one can never be sure about these things) is on the allocation of
seats for this Synod; but this reminds us that the elections are not far off, and the
Business Committee has been working with the Communications team on plans to
publicize these elections well and to encourage plenty of people to stand, by
explaining what are the opportunities and responsibilities of elected members of
Synod. There will be a new dedicated website, a DVD, posters and leaflets to
encourage people to participate in the elections. We are also working on the induction
process for new members in November.
The Committee has also looked at the question of declaration of interest, and we hope
to have a paper on this ready for old and new members at the start of the new Synod.
Finally, a word about the questionnaire. I hope you have all received notification of
the online questionnaire mentioned at the beginning of our report. I do hope that
members will take time to fill it in – it should take just about ten minutes – and, if you
wish, to add comments at the end about how Synod does or should do its work.
Computer facilities for completing the questionnaire are available in the basement in
the Coggan Room, and, for those who really prefer pen and ink, paper versions can be
picked up and returned to the information desk. We will provide members with a
summary of the results and it may even be that we can have some discussion on it in
July, but certainly it will, we believe, be a great help to the new Business Committee
in planning groups of sessions in the next quinquennium.
Mr Tom Sutcliffe (Southwark): I congratulate the Business Committee on providing us
for these sessions with a potentially meaningful and joined-up programme of debate
which will enable us to refine our sense of why we are here and what we are for.
However, I am more than disturbed that there is so little historical sense of the nature
of our national Church informing the Committee’s four introductory paragraphs
because, without a clear understanding of what it means to be the national Church in a
multicultural, poly-religious society, with an increasingly weak grasp of its own
ethnic culture, it will be hard to make much sense of quite a few of our debates.
In answer to the question in paragraph 2 about common reflection without votes, I
think it is mistaken, however interesting it may be to have introductory presentations
or speeches by the leaders of other Churches, for us to waste time at our meetings
doing things we can do in advance or in a different way, especially now that
communication is so much easier than it was 20 or even 30 years ago. I also doubt
that we need to do a lot of worshipping together, though I regret the loss at York of
6
the services in the University church, where there was a tangible sense of being in
touch with the imaginative tradition that we represent but which is almost entirely
absent from a debating chamber lay-out. Since we went from three sessions of
General Synod a year to two a year we have less chance to fraternize and therefore we
are less of a coherent social group than we were. Meeting together is, therefore, I
believe, more important than services together, and I regret the changes that have
made York a less good social event.
I also do not like ‘apple pie’ Private Members’ or Diocesan Synod Motions where the
General Synod unanimously, or nearly unanimously, declares what you would expect
it to say. Anglican unanimity is a very artificial and unlovely phenomenon, and
uncharacteristic too, and I do not think we should waste time on it generally or
pretend to the people of England who, by and large, are equally healthily divided in
their opinion, that its rare instances mean very much or mean any more than our
disagreements, which are actually the substance of our faith.
The things about which the Church has traditionally agreed to agree are not in fact the
important things, in my view. What matter most for all of us are the difficult questions
to which the answers are unclear or ambivalent. That is why we all need the
communal experience of belonging to a faith forum like this Church of England,
created to give voice to totally conflicting traditions that would readily have burnt
each other if they could, which tries to manage the arduous challenges that we must
face with genuine difficulty. This view also provides a perspective on Diocesan
Synod Motions which have a place but not because, if a particular membership of
General Synod votes for them, they can be regarded safely as the voice or view of the
Church; the opinions of this meeting are only opinions, and our purpose is not to erect
new barriers to membership or new assertions of truths that must be universally held.
As for the old saw about cost, given as the universal justification for every change and
every decline, the cost is simply a way of exercising choice over what should be
priorities. I happen to believe that the Church is the parishes and the individuals in
those parishes and that the votes taken in General Synod are only a legislative
phenomenon as required and not a way of development of the faith. Even in the field
of reform of our institutions and of the role of women within them, with which we
have been concerned throughout the 20 years I have been on Synod, we are displaying
clear symptoms of fatigue. We are always hearing that this or that reform is what God
wants, but since we are human all reforms are fallible. So I am very unsure about the
value of opinion-polling of the current membership or any membership.
I believe this General Synod urgently needs a recreated Standing Committee distinct
from the Archbishops’ Council, but we have to face the reality that we have as our
leaders, for the first time in our history as a reformed Church, two outsider
archbishops who do not share the ethnic and native certainties about the value of our
national Church project that some of us still possess. It is for them to continue and
refine the perceptions of Randall Davidson about the process in which we are
engaged; and that process was not primarily to do with legislative mechanisms but to
enfranchise the laity to take a full part in the continuing discourse that is the
foundation of Anglicanism.
7
Speaking as a layman – which has become, since the ordination of women, the lowest
form of life here but probably is where we need to attach a bit more of our obsession
with equalities – I think it is the freedom of the laity to understand, value and believe
our religion as we please which provides the real and most significant bridge between
belief, semi-belief and unbelief in our country. That is the way to carry out discourse,
when it deserves it, into the hearts and minds of the people. This is what I think
Bonhoeffer meant when he talked about religionless Christianity, a concept that is
perhaps a little more at home in Germany, despite Lutheranism’s 20th-century long
night of the soul, than it is here. However, we do have the chance to debate such ideas
at these sessions when we consider the power of science, the bizarre games we may
play with, the nature of the worldwide Communion, the Bible itself and the role of
BBC television. This should be an effective and fascinating forum this week.
The Chairman imposed a speech limit of 3 minutes.
Professor Helen Leathard (Blackburn): I am simply standing to seek assurance that
the questionnaire online is now functioning. I had the exciting experience of
progressing page by page a few days ago until I got to page 13 and then the ‘next’
button no longer worked and I could not complete the questions. I sent an e-mail to
the Church House office to see if this could be sorted, and I just wondered if Synod as
a whole could be assured that it was now working.
Revd Canon Chris Lilley (Lincoln): Last year I made the same point as I am going to
make this time, and was told by Prebendary Kay Garlick that it would be looked at
sympathetically. It is to do with the Progress of Measures and Statutory Instruments
that the Archbishop took a deep breath for, and then said very quickly. It would be
enormously helpful to those of us who have to report back to know when it is that
these various Measures actually come into force; it is something we are asked, as
Synod members, and it would surely not be that difficult to produce a notice paper to
tell Synod members what has come in and when?
The Chairman: I see no one standing. I ask Prebendary Kay Garlick to respond and
she may have another ten minutes!
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick, in reply: Actually, that is probably what I need for
Mr Sutcliffe, is it not, another ten minutes? Whenever Mr Sutcliffe makes a comment,
I always want to sit down and talk to him about it, and it is very difficult just to give a
reply. He started by congratulating us and he finished off quite happily, which is
really good and I am glad we have done something right!
I would take issue with his comment that it is more important for us to meet than to
worship together. I think both are very important. We meet together in our worship
and that is the best place we can. There are lots of times when we can meet and in five
days I am sure you will have plenty of time for a cup of tea with people.
Mr Sutcliffe talked about the difficult questions being the best ones, and I know just
what he means; but we do have plenty of difficult questions in these five days and in
every group of sessions: there are always those really hard questions. Of course there
are also what he calls the ‘apple pie’ debates, and we have asked Synod to let us know
what you do think about that. Of course there is an argument which asks why
8
Questions
we spend our time on something when we know we are all going to vote for it, but the
truth of the matter is that, not today but tomorrow, there will be media people in the
gallery, there are members here who will go home and report on what we have talked
about, and if there are things that we as a Church feel strongly about this is one of the
places where we can make that known. This is one of the few places which actually
has bishops and clergy and laity in it where we can make it known.
I would also take issue about ‘outsider’ Archbishops. They are not outside but in our
hearts and the absolute middle of everything we are trying to do, so I could not
possibly call them outsiders. (Applause)
On the other hand, I do thank him for his congratulations: it is unusual and it is
lovely!
Helen Leathard asked about the questionnaire. I think it is functioning. Other people
seem to be doing it. I did it when it first came out, on the basis that if I could do it
anybody could, and I did have a little problem: where there is a page and you think, ‘I
don’t want to answer that one’ or you think it does not really apply, so you leave it
out, it is really clever and will not let you turn the page until you have answered that
question. I just wonder whether perhaps Helen maybe did not answer one of the
questions. We will look into it, but I think it is working fine.
To Chris Lilley, the place to look is the Business Done where it says exactly what has
been done and where we have got to with legislation, and when something has gone
all the way through it does say so. It may be that we need some other kind of separate
document, but at least it is in the Business Done.
Thank you very much. You have been very kind to me, all of you.
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIR Revd Canon Ruth Worsley (Southwell and Nottingham) took the Chair
at 4.57 p.m.
The Chairman: We come now to Questions, and you should have them in front of you
in that weighty bundle on your seats.
Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. It has been
the custom that those of us who have a Question down are also given the answer, but I
have not received mine yet. Have I been selected as an unworthy recipient?
The Chairman: We shall ensure that you get it.
Questions
Questions asked in accordance with Standing Orders 105-109 were answered as
follows, those for written answer being marked with an asterisk.
9
Questions
Ministry Division
1.
Revd Canon Gordon Oliver (Rochester) asked the Chairman of the Ministry
Division:
Could the Ministry Division please explain what is the researched educational
evidence basis for the proposed policy of top-slicing the funding allowed to the
theological colleges and courses in order to sustain higher levels of funding for preordination theological education offered by theological colleges associated with
certain universities; and if such evidence is not available could the Ministry Council
account for such a policy being proposed in the absence of it?
The Bishop of Norwich (Rt Revd Graham James): In fact, there was no top-slicing of
the block grants to colleges and courses in 2009-10, and decisions about the coming
year have yet to be taken. More broadly, following guidance from the House of
Bishops on this point, the Ministry Division has continued to seek to provide
appropriately stimulating training for the whole range of ministerial candidates, and
this is bound to include equipping some candidates to be the theological educators and
leaders of the future.
Revd Canon Gordon Oliver (Rochester): I am grateful for the information that topslicing has not yet been applied, but would the Bishop give an assurance that should
such funding decisions have to be made they will be made in relation to candidates
irrespective of the institution in which a candidate is currently studying, rather than in
relation to the funding of institutions?
The Bishop of Norwich: We will not be limiting this to the ancient universities, if this
is what Canon Oliver was suggesting. We are one Church, training all our candidates
for one ministry, and that is a very important theological point, which is why the
resources that we have need to be shared and why we need, for our most able
candidates, wherever they train, to provide the most stretching training. I would agree
with Canon Oliver that it is not related to supporting particular institutions; it must be
related to providing the best available training for the best and most creative
candidates.
2.
Revd Canon Gordon Oliver (Rochester) asked the Chairman of the Ministry
Division:
Could the Ministry Division please explain to the General Synod what contingency
proposals are envisaged with regard to the pre-ordination phase of theological
education for ministry for a situation where serious cuts in central Government
funding for universities and the imposition of tighter limits on allowable student
numbers may result in a significantly lower contribution to the costs of IME 1-3 from
the resources of the Higher Education Funding Council for England?
The Bishop of Norwich: What is clear is that the Government intend to make cuts in
the funding of higher education, but it is not possible to predict precisely how such
cuts might work through to the public funding which is a very welcome but secondary
source of income complementing the Church’s own investment in the funding of
training. In the coming months – indeed, it has already begun – the Ministry Division
10
Questions
will be reviewing the options for the Church’s continuing provision of training as the
situation clarifies.
Revd Canon Gordon Oliver (Rochester): Would the Bishop undertake to ask Ministry
Division to make a statement to the July sessions of the General Synod - which will
come after the General Election and probably very early on, when budgets of national
Government are being made - on the possible effects that those cuts in higher
education may have on our plans for our pre-ordination training of candidates?
The Bishop of Norwich: I shall certainly consider with the Ministry Council making
such a statement. If the Ministry Council does not do so, then I am sure there will be
an appropriate Question that will cause it to make a statement.
3.
Dr Peter Capon (Manchester) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
How many ordinands in training currently attract HEFCE funding and how many fulltime-equivalent students does this correspond to?
The Bishop of Norwich: As the applications to HEFCE are made by universities and
not ministerial training institutions, the Ministry Division has not had routine access
to this information, so I cannot actually answer, I am afraid.
Dr Peter Capon (Manchester): If his information is lacking, how can we be confident
that Ministry Division can plan adequately for funding in the future?
The Bishop of Norwich: I think that if Dr Capon waits for the answer to his next
Question he will know why.
4.
Dr Peter Capon (Manchester) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
How many HEFCE-funded places have training institutions applied for in the current
round of allocations?
The Bishop of Norwich: In contrast to the past, because of the special allocation to the
Church of additional student numbers, we know that institutions have applied for 492
places in the current round of allocations.
Dr Peter Capon (Manchester): I am sorry I do not know the number of places there
are in the special allocation, but if this is more than the number that HEFCE has
allocated, or we are allocated by HEFCE in the future, what criteria would the
Ministry Division hope to see applied when the decisions are made as to how these
places will be allocated?
The Bishop of Norwich: I think it would be much more related to the institutions
themselves, and the universities themselves, than to the Ministry Division in terms of
the allocation of HEFCE monies and HEFCE places, so I do not think that it will be
the Ministry Division that will be determining the number of places.
5.
Mrs Christina Rees (St Albans) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
11
Questions
Is it the policy of the Ministry Division to fund the core costs of training in colleges
and courses, or are colleges and courses now required to fund a systematic shortfall
(e.g. by diversifying their activities or by seeking charitable donations); and, in either
event, what is the response of the Ministry Division to the evidence that the way the
present funding system is applied appears to discriminate against the more successful
training institutions?
The Bishop of Norwich: It is the policy of the Ministry Division to fund the core costs
of training in colleges and courses. The Ministry Division does not believe that the
present funding system discriminates against successful institutions. It is the case that
institutions which recruit more students and hence move up a funding band get only
half the increase of the new band in the first year, but that is balanced by the point that
those which drop into a lower band equally reduce by only half a band in the first
year. In both cases this is because institutions are unlikely to increase or reduce
staffing for the first year when the size of the student body has changed rather
marginally. More broadly, the institutions are encouraged to diversify where
appropriate and to seek other sources of funding to enrich the training they offer on
behalf of the Church.
Mrs Christina Rees (St Albans): Is the Bishop aware that there is at least one
theological college that I know of which currently finds itself in a situation where it is
being penalized financially for doing all that is being asked of it and attracting the
right number of students, and also, as part of that, that the staff/student ratio is now
under threat? It seems as if specific problems are being created as a result of this
college doing precisely what it has set out to do according to the rules it is trying to
follow.
The Bishop of Norwich: I do not know to which college Mrs Rees is referring but I do
know that, to take one rapidly expanding college in recent years, we have worked
very closely with it, increased the bishop’s allocated maximum, and that college has
grown and prospered as a result of the work that has been done with the Division. I
really cannot answer a hypothetical case but I find it difficult to believe, because the
banding system rewards growth but does so more gradually than was the case at one
time. That kind of smoothing mechanism is, I believe, beneficial to the whole
provision of theological education in the Church of England, whereas in the past there
have been some very successful institutions which have grown rapidly but which have
led to the diminishment of some others; it has been very difficult then for those which
have diminished to recover.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (University of London): Given that that was part of
the purpose of the recommendations of the Structure and Funding of Ordination
Training working party, otherwise known as the Hind report, precisely to prevent that
kind of competition to which reference has just been made, will we be getting any
further reports on the implementation of the Hind proposals, particularly with regard
to the regional training partnerships?
The Bishop of Norwich: I will take that back to the Ministry Council as to whether
there ought to be a further report to the Synod. There are constant reports to the
Ministry Council about the implementation of regional training partnerships and so
12
Questions
on. I would welcome that: if Synod wants a debate on the subject, it would be a very
welcome one.
6.
Dr Anna Thomas-Betts (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
Is the Ministry Division aware of the unhappiness that many colleges and courses feel
about the uncertainty and shortfall of funding per student that still exists, and would it
consider (a) restoring the representation of colleges and courses on the Finance Panel
and (b) setting up a group to review how the funding system has been working so far
and to explore methods and means of funding for the diverse modes of training that
institutions now offer?
The Bishop of Norwich: The Ministry Division is in regular touch with colleges and
courses and has discussed these issues with them. Given the need to live within the
financial constraints of the Church as a whole, the Division continues to believe that
the level of funding per student is adequate and that the working of the block funding
scheme has proper arrangements for transitional funding if numbers in individual
institutions change. These matters, of course, are always under review. Given the need
to avoid conflicts of interest in the Finance Panel, it will not be reverting to its former
membership but the Division will keep talking to the institutions through regular
meetings and through the new national Ministerial Training Forum which is in the
process of being established.
7.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (University of London) asked the Chairman of
the Ministry Division:
Given that over the past couple of decades various working parties of this Synod have
debated Vote 1 funding and the fluctuations in the number of ordinands, and their
reports and Synod debates have decided against imposing a cap on numbers in
training as a way of providing a solution, is it now the case that such a cap has been
decided upon and, in addition, that recruitment should be related to deployment by
accepting for training only those ordinands who have already been accepted by a
diocese; and, if so, what was the process by which this decision was arrived at, and
which bodies or groups were consulted during this process?
The Bishop of Norwich: A report brought to the Synod in July recorded the
Archbishops’ Council’s conclusion that the amount asked for by way of the
Apportionment for Vote 1 each year should not be more than one per cent above the
overall increase in the Apportionment, which itself would be strictly controlled over
the next five years. The primary motivation of this policy was to control the rapid
changes up and down in the size of Vote 1 that have been experienced in the past and
so help dioceses to plan their budgets more carefully in a time of financial difficulty.
Since then the Ministry Division has been working on a further set of proposals, yet to
be approved, which seeks to relate the numbers entering into training to the ministry
plans of dioceses. These proposals are at an early stage of development and include
consultation with dioceses and training institutions; this is already under way, which
is probably why Professor Burridge has heard about it.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge: – King’s College, University of London and not,
as it says on the sheet, Southern Universities (that is out-of-date information from 15
13
Questions
years ago). Thank you for saying that it is in the early stages of development and
consultation. Will that consultation also please include those of us who are involved
in vocation advice, particularly those in universities, who are often fostering the
vocations of students in one diocese, where the university is situated, who have come
from a different diocese, their home diocese, which therefore impacts on the intention
to relate the diocese to the student prior to training? Will these proposals, after the
consultation, come back to this Synod for approval in line with the previous Synod
discussions, or will they be decided elsewhere?
The Bishop of Norwich: It would be almost certainly a matter for the House of
Bishops who will get a report in May. I can certainly give Professor Burridge the
assurance that we would include him in any consultation. How widely we would go
into the university sector I do not know: it depends on DDOs, I think, also consulting
those with whom they work. Certainly it would be very surprising to me if the whole
question of relating deployment and recruitment did not come to this Synod in one
way or another, but it will be primarily the House of Bishops which will consider it
and approve any system first.
Revd Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Durham and Newcastle Universities): Please
could the Ministry Division assure us that any such plans seeking to relate the
numbers entering training to the ministry plans of dioceses will be formulated in such
a way as to maintain maximum flexibility, recognizing that over two or three years of
residential training an ordinand’s churchmanship or gifting, for example, may change
and develop in unforeseen ways, and also, particularly, that their family circumstances
may change considerably, with significant implications for their deployment? I am
thinking, in particular, of the many ordinands who meet and marry one another in the
course of their training and so need to move dioceses to find training parishes which
are reasonably near each other.
The Bishop of Norwich: Yes, this is not intended to lock people into their dioceses.
What we are attempting to do is to look to the future to actually get dioceses to say
how many stipendiary titles they think they can offer in the future, how many clergy
they need, and then recruit according to that total, which would reduce the anxiety
that the Synod has expressed that we are sometimes training people for whom we do
not have employment at the conclusion of their training. What we are also attempting
to do, of course, is to distinguish between a vocation to the ordained ministry and the
calling to have a stipend: the one is not the same as the other.
8.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (University of London) asked the Chairman of
the Ministry Division:
Given that there have been consistent appeals for younger ordinands in recent years
(for example, through the ‘Call Waiting’ initiative, among others), what thought has
been given to the impact of the decisions regarding capping of numbers and the
relating of recruitment to future deployment with regard to university students and
recent graduates, particularly those on one-year pastoral/parish/chaplaincy assistant
schemes who would traditionally expect to attend a BAP towards the end of their
year’s placement?
14
Questions
The Bishop of Norwich: First, younger candidates on gap years do not have to wait
until later in their gap year to attend a bishop’ advisory panel. The bishops’ advisory
panel process is about assessing potential, particularly in the case of younger
candidates, and we seek therefore not to disadvantage younger candidates at a BAP at
all. If they have a discernible vocation they can and indeed perhaps ought to be sent to
an advisory panel earlier rather than later. Second, if candidates do wait until the end
of such a gap year before coming to a panel there is a possibility, as with other
candidates coming later in the year, that they may have to wait to enter training until
the following year. The main point is that we want to encourage younger vocations,
and it was good to hear, for example, that a 19-year-old candidate at a panel a
fortnight ago was recommended for training.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (University of London): Thank you for that reply on
gap years, which are traditionally understood as the year between school and
university when a young person may well have discerned their vocation in that one
diocese for some time. My Question was more about the years after university, on a
one-year placement, or current students, who have been in one diocese for their
degree and then in a completely different diocese for their placement. Can
consideration please be given for such students and placement assistance to be
processed through increasingly long diocesan procedures much more quickly if we
want to get them to a BAP rapidly in the year (and then of course have to find yet
another diocese to accept them before their training starts), given that dioceses with
major universities, such as London, always produce more ordinands than they can
have back and have sought to serve the wider Church in that way?
The Bishop of Norwich: I think the answer to this is that directors of ordinands need to
work together, and they are increasingly doing so, especially in relation to younger
candidates. My view is that it is best to send a candidate at the beginning of their gap
year to their advisory panel, so that they do not have it hanging over them, as if the
maturing process or whatever it is thought to be in that gap year is then tested at the
panel. That is not what the panel is about. It is about discerning vocation rather than
whether they have had a successful gap year.
9.
Revd Canon Dr Alan Hargrave (Ely) asked the Chairman of the Ministry
Division:
Can a report be given to the Synod, whether in response to this Question or otherwise,
on the current position of St Luke’s Hospital for the Clergy, with particular regard to
the trustees’ proposals for the use of their remaining funds, including whether they
have considered using them to support proactive health care for the clergy, such as by
providing regular medicals, occupational health consultations and work-life balance
consultations?
The Bishop of Norwich: St Luke’s is an independent organization and I have placed a
copy of a recent report of their future plans on the notice board.
10. *Mr Terence Musson (Truro) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
15
Questions
What national guidance or codes of practice exist regarding the appointing of housefor-duty clergy and where is it to be found? If no such guidance or codes currently
exist, what would be the best avenue by which they might be requested?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds replied: There is no national guidance or code of
practice regarding the appointment of house-for-duty clergy, although we believe that
some dioceses have local guidelines.
The Retired Clergy Association has suggested to the Deployment, Remuneration and
Conditions of Service Committee that some work might be done to develop national
guidance. Before making a decision to allocate resources to this work we plan to
canvass dioceses to see whether there are already local guidelines in place that might
usefully be shared.
In 2009 we asked dioceses about their numbers of house-for-duty priests. According
to their figures there are around 400 house-for-duty clergy across the country. Of
these, just over half are in receipt of a clergy pension.
11. Mrs Margaret Tilley (Canterbury) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
Did the College of the Resurrection consult the Ministry Division before announcing
a decision not to admit to the college ordinands who are unable in conscience to
attend celebrations of the Holy Communion at which a woman presides but who
nevertheless wish to engage constructively with fellow ordinands of other traditions
and train alongside them; and, if so, what advice, if any, was given?
12. Mrs Anneliese Barrell (Exeter) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
Has the Ministry Division considered the decision of the College of the Resurrection
to exclude from consideration for admission those ordinands whose conscience
prevents them from attending celebrations of the Holy Communion at which a woman
presides and, in particular, whether that decision complies with the Episcopal
Ministry Act of Synod 1993; and, if it has not, will it now please do so?
The Bishop of Norwich: With permission, Madam Chairman, I shall answer these
Questions together.
Theological colleges are independent institutions with their own governing bodies and
they are primarily responsible for the policies that they adopt. Nevertheless the
Ministry Division works closely with colleges and courses to ensure that they provide
theological formation that is consistent with both secular and ecclesiastical legislation
and the policies which the Church has established at a national level. So far, only
informal discussions have taken place between the College of the Resurrection and
the Ministry Division on this matter; no formal advice has been given or, as far as I
am aware, sought. The Ministry Council, however, will be considering the matter –
including the question of whether Mirfield’s policy complies with the Episcopal
Ministry Act of Synod – at its next meeting in March, and is consulting the Legal
Office. There may well be more to be said then.
16
Questions
Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): Would the Bishop underline yet again to
the Synod that the concept of reception remains the doctrinal basis not just of the
Episcopal Act of Synod 1993 but of the 1993 Measure itself, enabling women to be
ordained, and as it is reaffirmed in my amendment to Synod of July 2007, that both
traditions in this matter are of equal right and have an honoured place in the life of our
Church, and therefore this must be reflected in the life of our theological colleges,
especially those of a Catholic tradition where this remains a disputed question, and
that it will continue to have fundamental significance to us as we go on with our
discussions on women bishops – (The Chairman rang the bell.)
The Chairman: I am afraid that that question is ruled out of order. It does not relate to
the original answer.
The Bishop of Beverley (Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett): Notwithstanding the controversies
over its theological college’s policy, is the Bishop aware that the ministry of the
Community of the Resurrection is greatly valued by those on both sides of the debate
on the ordination of women and especially in the northern province?
The Bishop of Norwich: As Visitor to the Community of the Resurrection as well as
chair of the Ministry Division I would fully endorse what the Bishop of Beverley
says.
House of Bishops
13. Revd Ian Chandler (Chichester) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Has the House considered the decision of the College of the Resurrection to refuse
admission to any prospective ordinands who are unable in conscience to attend
celebrations of the Eucharist at which a woman presides and, in particular, whether it
accords with the express wish of the General Synod that ‘the integrity of differing
beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be
mutually recognized and respected’ (Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993) or, more
generally, provides an appropriate model of mutual recognition and respect for those
preparing for ordination in the Church of England; and, if not, will it now do so?
The Bishop of Norwich: This is not something that the House has considered.
However, as I said in reply to the previous two Questions, this is a matter that the
Ministry Council will be considering at its next meeting, and the House may well
wish to hear what the Council has to say on the matter.
Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee
14. Mrs Gill Ambrose (Ely) asked the Chairman of the Deployment, Remuneration
and Conditions of Service Committee:
Following the publication by DRACSC of the model policy in Dignity at Work in
2008, (a) what information has DRACSC been able to gather from dioceses as to
whether they have a policy in place in relation to bullying and harassment at work,
and (b) how many bishops and members of diocesan senior staff teams have
undertaken training in relation to the issue of bullying and harassment and from where
has this training come?
17
Questions
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): In May 2008 we circulated
almost one thousand printed copies of the Dignity at Work booklet across the Church,
and several dioceses have since purchased more copies from us. It is also being
downloaded from the Church of England website. We have not asked dioceses to tell
us what action they are taking, but some have been in touch to tell us that they are
developing diocesan policies, and all dioceses have counselling services that clergy
can access confidentially for support. I know that a number of clergy, including
bishops, have undertaken the Bridge Builders training in conflict resolution and
mediation.
Mrs Gill Ambrose (Ely): Would members of the Committee be prepared to meet some
people who have been in this position to hear their experiences and to work together
to identify appropriate training opportunities, so that when these sorts of issue arise
they can be dealt with swiftly, appropriately and professionally rather than dragging
out, injuring individuals, parishes and the institutions?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: It is important to continue to assert that one case of
bullying matters and that there can be no place for that within the life of the Church.
We are involved in discussions with a number of people and groups on development
within the area of dealing with bullying, and indeed people may like to be at a fringe
meeting on Wednesday lunch-time in order to pursue that further.
15. The Archdeacon of Bournemouth (Ven. Adrian Harbidge) (Winchester) asked the
Chairman of the Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service
Committee:
What issues relating to common tenure remain to be resolved by the Terms of Service
Implementation Panel, and will the number or nature of those issues have any impact
on the date on which common tenure is introduced?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Tomorrow Synod will consider the capability and
grievance directions. The Panel is working on directions for parental leave, which will
come to Synod in July, and is also running regional workshops on the implementation
of common tenure and the drafting of statements of particulars. Feedback from the
workshops indicates that preparations are generally well in hand. The Panel will
contact dioceses to review progress in the autumn.
We fully expect common tenure to be implemented at the end of January 2011.
The Archdeacon of Bournemouth: I speak on behalf of the southern archdeacons, who
have discussed this. Can I ask that the role of the patron be mentioned in despatches
somewhere there? LEPs: will this apply to a minister of another denomination,
common tenure; and will second curates have unlimited common tenure? Finally, who
will own the role descriptions and the statements of particulars over the years and
centuries that follow?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I am not sure how many questions that is, Chair!
The Chairman: He asked four questions. You need answer only one.
18
Questions
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I think the most helpful thing actually is for the
southern archdeacons or Adrian to put those questions down on paper and we will
ensure that they are considered by the Terms of Service Implementation Panel.
16. Revd Alan Bashforth (Truro) asked the Chairman of the Deployment,
Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee:
Following the publication of the second report of the Retirement Housing Review
(GS Misc 919) what, if any, progress is being made to implement its
recommendations?
17. Revd Alan Bashforth (Truro) asked the Chairman of the Deployment,
Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee:
Will the issues relating to clergy retirement housing addressed in GS Misc 919 –
which is a very important matter for clergy and their families – ever be brought before
the General Synod for debate?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: With permission, I will answer these Questions
together.
Mr Bashforth is absolutely right that these are important matters. There is no plan to
debate the report itself but it is relevant to tomorrow’s debates on pensions.
The retirement housing group’s recommendations fell into two broad areas. The first
is on work to ensure the sustainability of the CHARM retirement housing schemes;
this is being progressed by the Pensions Board and includes putting in place new
funding arrangements following the Church Commissioners’ decision to cease
funding the scheme with effect from July 2010. The second is on work to equip clergy
to make well-informed financial decisions. DRACSC is taking a three-strand
approach: providing advice to an independent working party that is developing a
clergy credit union; piloting and disseminating information about personal financial
education through the CMD network; and identifying sources of good quality
independent financial advice for clergy.
Revd Alan Bashforth (Truro): Has the review group now completed its work, or
should we expect report number three?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: There will be further reports from DRACSC on
developments in all those elements.
Revd Alan Bashforth (Truro): Supplementary, Madam Chairman? I think I am
allowed two, am I not?
The Chairman: Unless anyone else wishes to ask a supplementary question? On this
occasion, we shall allow it.
Revd Alan Bashforth (Truro): That is very kind. Seeing as we are debating this item
on retirement housing, we are also looking at pensions; the issues of stipend and
stipend levels are alive in our dioceses and at the same time we are beginning to
19
Questions
consider who is responsible for what particular parts of maintenance of clergy houses,
and as Generosity and Sacrifice is ten years old next year, is there any intention of
revisiting the entire clergy remuneration package rather than dealing with it in this
piecemeal fashion?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I recognize the issue. I think at the moment we are
not convinced that another – yet another – full examination of the whole package
would actually be of value. There is a good deal of work going on in a number of
different areas, and I would like to see that producing rather more in the shape of a
way forward before we dig it all up and start looking at it all over again.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (University of London): On a point of order,
Madam Chairman. You just said that on this occasion you would permit Mr Bashforth
to ask a second supplementary. Did he not ask two Questions? Is it not the case that
you are allowed to ask two supplementaries? Can we have that clarified?
The Chairman: For clarification purposes, as we understand it, two Questions were
asked and there was a supplementary for each Question. However, it is at my
discretion and on that occasion I gave it.
Central Readers’ Council
18. Mr Nigel Holmes (Carlisle) asked the Chairman of the Central Readers’ Council:
In the debate on Reader ministry in July 2008, the then chairman of the Central
Readers’ Council said, ‘The report [GS 1698] with some extra items [should] be given
or made available to all Readers.’ As Readers have not received the report, nor has
much coverage been given to the report, survey or debate in The Reader magazine,
how can the diocesan responses due this coming July adequately reflect the views of
their Readers?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man (Rt Revd Robert Paterson): The report has been made
available to all diocesan Readers’ wardens and is available for anyone to download
through the Reader website. Most diocesan Readers’ boards have purchased numbers
of copies of the report and discussed it in detail. Any Reader who wishes to take part
in the debate ought to have ample opportunity to do so through his or her diocese;
dioceses which have not so far taken part in the debate are strongly encouraged to do
so.
The Archdeacon of Newark ( Dr Nigel Peyton) (Southwell and Nottingham): I enjoy
reading The Reader magazine. I think the original report that we had back in 2008
was a somewhat more difficult read. If we recall, it was encyclopaedic in its coverage
and perhaps less helpful in strategic direction. May I ask the Bishop if there are any
plans to bring a bit more strategic focus and options for strategic direction which will
help us with this, so that we do not keep going round in circles? Perhaps that will
answer the following Question and make it unnecessary.
The Bishop of Sodor and Man: I think there has been some question about whether
this report should have been published more widely than in The Reader magazine.
The magazine is essentially a tool for reflecting on Reader ministry and not so much
an information bulletin. The abbreviated report is now available and in it the Bishop
20
Questions
of Norwich and I pose some questions which are not addressed in the report but which
we believe need to be posed formally. Responding to the 30 recommendations of the
report, we believe, will not achieve the state of Reader bliss that may be desired by
some. It requires a lot more work but I can assure the questioner that the work is
already initiated.
19. Mr Nigel Holmes (Carlisle) asked the Chairman of the Central Readers’ Council:
The average age of Church of England congregations is now 61, almost the same as
that of NSMs and Readers, and that of stipendiary clergy is 51 (Church Statistics
2007/8). Given these disturbing figures and the facts that the number of Readers in
training has fallen by 28 per cent between 2000 and 2008 and that a similar proportion
of licensed Readers say that they are under-used, will the function and nature of
Reader ministry and the use of this valuable and experienced but ageing group of able
volunteers be addressed as a matter of urgency?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man: Yes. Indeed, the implication of the Question that the
matter is not already being considered is itself erroneous. The Executive of the
Central Readers’ Council recently set up a small working group to discuss the key
underlying issues relating to authorized lay ministry, including that of Readers.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): Would particular consideration be given to mobilizing at
least some Readers, especially those who feel under-used, as missioners in their
communities and in the workplace and as equippers of other laity for their mission
and ministry in their places of work?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man: Without any doubt. The initial Question and this
Question relate to an issue behind the whole lot, which is the use of Readers in a
whole range of different ministries today. A few Readers feel threatened by this range
of ministries and simply cling to the old view of Readers. I think those threatening
times will soon be over. My work and that of the Central Readers’ Council is to
encourage exactly this kind of diversity and to urge all authorized lay ministers to
work together and to get used to the fact that between ministries there will be many
blurred edges. This is happening.
Mission and Public Affairs Council
20. *Revd Canon Gill Calver (Canterbury) asked the Chairman of the Mission and
Public Affairs Council:
The Palestinian Kairos Document was launched on 11 December 2009 in Bethlehem
by a group of clergy and laypeople representing all the Christian Churches in the Holy
Land. It calls on Church members round the world to stand alongside the suffering of
the Palestinians by visiting them, and endorsing their cry for resistance to the evil of
occupation. Has the Mission and Public Affairs Council of the General Synod
responded to this call and, if not, when will it be in a position to do so?
Dr Philip Giddings replied: Given the timing of its publication, the Mission and
Public Affairs Council has not yet had an opportunity to consider the Palestinian
Kairos Document. The Council next meets in May and we hope that some time at that
21
Questions
meeting will be given to a preliminary reflection on this report. The Palestinian Kairos
Document is an important document emerging from the Churches in the Holy Land
and needs to be treated seriously. In the meantime the Council’s framework position
on the Holy Land remains that which was agreed by the General Synod in 2002.
21. Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public
Affairs Council:
What consideration and what response in terms of evangelistic strategy has been, or
will be, given to the latest figures showing a fifth year-on-year decline in average
weekly attendance, from 1.187 million in 2003 to 1.145 million in 2008, and that the
average age of a member of a Church of England congregation is now 61, with men a
diminishing proportion, and to the slight acceleration in the rate of decline in the past
twelve months?
Dr Philip Giddings: Careful perusal of GS Misc 938 shows that the headline figures
do not tell the whole story. Patterns of attendance are changing and current figures do
not include those attending Fresh Expressions of church. Given such factors as the
aggressive secular attacks on all faiths and the deepening time pressures on people in
work, evangelism in parishes and dioceses is bearing fruit from difficult ground. The
number of under-16s attending weekly actually rose by three per cent over the year,
we are told. As noted in GS Misc 938, the Church’s age profile raises deep questions
about attitudes to faith and community commitment at different stages of life;
certainly more research is needed here.
There is no room for complacency. Strategies to reach younger people and men of all
ages are vital to our witness and very much on MPA’s agenda. We continue to seek
ways to encourage and support the front line of evangelism in parishes and dioceses.
Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells): In thanking Philip Giddings for that answer, may I
also thank the Synod staff for the personal delivery of my envelope!
Has the research that he mentions included any study of the apparent ability of many
of the newer community, independent and other Churches to attract younger adults in
much greater numbers than most Church of England churches, to see what the Spirit
might be saying to us which might then be communicated to our parishes?
Dr Philip Giddings: I do not know the answer to that but I will find out and write to
the member. I recognize the thrust of the question.
22. Mr John Freeman (Chester) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
Does the Council support Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals to give married couples a
payment of £20 a week through the transferable married couple’s tax allowance, and
what benefits does it think this will bring to the stature of married life?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Church of England is committed to marriage as the best
context for raising a family and as the bedrock of society. The Council has
consistently called on Her Majesty’s Government to acknowledge that the quality of
22
Questions
adult relationships is key to the well-being of families and children. This includes
addressing the financial penalties placed on marriage by the tax and benefit system.
While it is wrong for fiscal policy to penalize marriage, it would be sad if the political
rhetoric gave the impression that major life decisions should be influenced by
relatively small financial benefits. Marriage is a lifelong undertaking in love and
fidelity, not a calculation of tax advantage.
23. Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public
Affairs Council:
As the Islamic Viva Palestina Convoy of aid to Gaza has hit the press substantially
recently, what is the Church of England doing to support and help Palestinian
Christians?
Dr Philip Giddings: Church of England humanitarian support for Palestinian
Christians is expressed through a variety of channels such as the work of Anglican
mission agencies, voluntary associations and specific diocesan companion links. In
addition there is the assistance provided by ecumenical development agencies like
Christian Aid and Tearfund. The support offered through these channels is ongoing. It
is not restricted to Palestinian Christians but is provided to all who find themselves in
need. It will be remembered that, with the encouragement and support of both
Archbishops, General Synod last February held a collection to support the Al Ahli
Arab hospital in Gaza.
Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield): Thank you. I wish, though, that Question 20 had been
for oral answer. However, my Question was broader than finance, as I visited the
Holy Land in August. What is the Church of England doing to protect the access of all
Christian sites to all Christians, as Palestinian Christians have difficulty reaching
Jerusalem and Bethlehem? Could you perhaps encourage churches to twin with
Palestinian Christian communities?
Dr Philip Giddings: As chair of Mission and Public Affairs Council, I often find it
difficult to answer questions like ‘What is the Church of England doing?’ It is, thank
God, doing many things that I do not know about. I am sure we need to hear what lies
behind that supplementary question. I will find out whether there is anything more I
can usefully share with the Synod by a notice. Thank God, however, that we can
respond to these needs in all kinds of ways without waiting for a National Institution
to take action. We will support where we can.
Dr John Dinnen (Hereford): Will the MPA produce a new report to stimulate debate
on human rights and self-determination of Palestinians and Israelis in Gaza, the West
Bank and Israel?
The Chairman: I am afraid that supplementary is out of order as it does not relate to
either the Question or the answer.
24. Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
23
Questions
Is it true that the Church of England has only appointed for the first time this year an
official representative at the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of
Women, whereas many other provinces of the Anglican Communion have had official
representatives for some years, and what arrangements have been made for paying the
expenses of our appointed representative?
Dr Philip Giddings: The answer to the first part of the Question is No. The Anglican
Observer has for many years asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to nominate
representatives for an Anglican delegation to the UNCSW. The Mothers’ Union also
sends delegates. Since 2003 Lambeth has consulted MPA over nominations. Each
year since then, one or two Church of England representatives have attended.
Until 2009 the expenses of the whole Anglican delegation were covered by the
Anglican Observer’s office. In 2009 the MPA Council was asked to cover the travel
expenses of one representative. In 2010 representatives from developed nations are
expected to find their own funding for the costs of the visit. The invitation this year
came too late for consideration by the Appointments Committee and, as a member of
the General Synod was already attending at her own expense, she was asked to
represent the Church of England on this occasion.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): The answer talked about the Anglicans and the Mothers’
Union as well as the Church of England. It also talked about representatives as well as
official representatives. Can Dr Giddings confirm that the Church of England did
have official representatives in the past and, if so, say who these were? Can he also
confirm that the Church of England’s official representatives in the future will have
their expenses paid?
A member: May I just say something – ?
The Chairman: No, you cannot. Please let Dr Giddings answer.
Dr Philip Giddings: No I cannot give those confirmations because I suspect that there
is a subtle distinction between official representatives and others on which I will need
careful advice before I can answer the supplementary question.
25. Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough) asked the Chairman of the Mission and
Public Affairs Council:
What role is the Church of England Parliamentary Unit playing in alerting the
Government to the widespread concerns triggered by its apparent belief, reflected in
the Equality Bill, that people can separate their personal religious beliefs from their
behaviour in the workplace?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Parliamentary Unit sent briefing material to a large number
of MPs and peers in connection with this Bill. MPA and other colleagues have also
been active in discussions with Government about the Bill’s provisions. We should be
grateful to the Lord Bishops who have played a significant part in the debates in the
House of Lords. The Parliamentary Unit and the Division will continue to brief MPs
and peers as parliamentary consideration of the measure proceeds.
24
Questions
The broader question of upholding the public role of religion and the place of the
Church of England in the public square is a crucial priority for the Parliamentary Unit,
for the wider team at MPA and for the whole Church. We are engaging with this
important matter on many fronts.
Appointments Committee
26. Revd Canon Tony Walker (Southwell and Nottingham) asked the Chairman of the
Appointments Committee:
How many members of the House of Laity and how many members of the House of
Clergy have not been appointed by the Appointments Committee to bodies (including
Revision Committees) and roles so far this quinquennium, and how many of each
House have been appointed to more than one body or role during this quinquennium
(numbers for each House to be broken down by gender, please)?
Revd Prebendary David Houlding: The Appointments Committee has appointed
around half the members of the House of Clergy and around half the members of the
House of Laity to various roles this quinquennium. Women have been appointed to 25
per cent of those roles in the House of Clergy and 50 per cent in the House of Laity.
As a whole, women represent around 25 per cent of the membership of the House of
Clergy and 40 per cent of the House of Laity. In the House of Clergy around half the
men and half the women appointed have been appointed to more than one role. The
figures for the House of Laity are around one-third and one-half respectively.
The Committee takes care to consider all the factors which have to be taken into
account in making any appointment, but in the final decision we must always appoint
the person who, in our judgement, is the most appropriate to the task.
Revd Canon Tony Walker (Southwell and Nottingham): Given that a significant
number of members of the House of Clergy and the House of Laity have been
appointed to more than one role by the Appointments Committee, could the chair tell
us what steps will be taken to ensure that the voice of all members of Synod, whether
or not they have particular technical expertise, is heard in the bodies and roles behind
the scenes in the life of the Synod?
Revd Prebendary David Houlding: I can most certainly give the assurance that in our
work a great number of considerations are taken into account always, and before
anyone is appointed to another role, having already been given one in the first place,
even further consideration is given as to whether that is appropriate. In the end, as I
said, it is as it were our bottom line that we always try to appoint the person who is
most appropriate for the task in hand. That is always the point that we come back to in
making any appointment. We also take into account the various submissions that
members make at the beginning of a quinquennium about the interests they have in
doing any further work for the Synod.
Business Committee
27. Mrs Christine McMullen (Derby) asked the Chair of the Business Committee:
What steps are being taken to ensure that the work being done by the women bishops
Revision Committee will be debated by this current Synod rather than by the new
25
Questions
Synod, many of whose members will not have been party to all the earlier work and
debates?
28. Mrs Christine McMullen (Derby) asked the Chair of the Business Committee:
Assuming that the Revision Committee considering the draft legislation on women in
the episcopate completes its work in time, can we be assured that the Business
Committee will include the debate on its report and the subsequent revision stage at
the July group of sessions and that, in that event, the Revision Committee’s report will
be circulated as early as possible so that informal consultations can be held in the
dioceses before the debate takes place?
29. Mrs Madelaine Goddard (Derby) asked the Chair of the Business Committee:
Assuming that the Revision Committee considering the draft legislation on women in
the episcopate completes its work in time, can we be assured that the Business
Committee will include the debate on its report and the subsequent revision stage at
the July group of sessions and that, in that event, the Revision Committee’s report will
be circulated as early as possible so that members have sufficient time to study it
thoroughly before the debate?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I will, if I may, answer these three Questions together.
The Business Committee has prepared a long and full agenda for this group of
sessions in order to leave as much time as possible in July to progress the revision
stage of the women in the episcopate legislation, if that is Synod’s wish. If Synod
takes note of the report and is able to complete the revision stage, it will be possible to
send the revised legislation to the dioceses in July. The timing of the publication of
the report depends on when the Revision Committee finishes its work, but I am very
much hoping that it will be possible to circulate it before the House of Bishops and
the Business Committee each meet in the week of 17 May.
30. Mr Clive Scowen (London) asked the Chair of the Business Committee:
The College of Bishops having now considered the ARCIC report Mary: Grace and
Hope in Christ, why is the debate on the report which this Synod specifically
requested neither on the agenda for this group of sessions nor forecast for the next?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: The Synod requested that all the reports of the second
phase of ARCIC should be brought to Synod. Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ is the
last of these. The Business Committee considers requests for debates on ecumenical
texts from the Council for Christian Unity which, in turn, consults with the House of
Bishops. When such a request is received, the Business Committee will decide, in the
light of advice from the CCU and the House, when the report Mary: Grace and Hope
in Christ should be brought to the Synod.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): Is the chairman of the Business Committee telling us that
an express request from Synod is ignored unless supported by the CCU, and what
right does the Business Committee have to ignore indefinitely a request from Synod
for particular business to come before the Synod?
26
Questions
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: No I am not saying that at all. Mary: Grace and Hope
in Christ will come to Synod; Synod has requested that and it will happen. However,
the timing of it is in the hands of the Business Committee, who will decide when a
request comes from the CCU in consultation with the House. So we are not talking
about whether it will come; we are talking about the timing of it.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): Would the chair of the Business Committee undertake
to bring a report to the next meeting of the General Synod explaining what are the
difficulties of timing which are holding this important business up?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I am afraid I am not the one who needs to be asked to
bring the report. It would need to be, probably, the House of Bishops.
31. Mrs Anne Toms (Peterborough) asked the Chair of the Business Committee:
As part of its consideration of whether guidance should be issued to members on the
declaration of interests in debates, has the Business Committee sought to establish
how many of the House of Laity could have interests, through spouses who are
members of the clergy, of a kind which in other walks of life they would be expected
to declare, and will any guidance which the Committee issues deal with that situation?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: The Business Committee has discussed the issue of
declarations of interest by those participating in debates and intends to issue guidance
to existing members and, through the induction process, to new members of Synod in
November. No ‘register of interests’ is envisaged, but members will be advised that
declaration of a relevant interest at the beginning of their speech is welcomed and
expected. The Committee has not sought to identify the number of members who
might have interests of the kind referred to but, plainly, any guidance will have to take
into account the possibility of interests that arise through a spouse.
Mrs Anne Toms (Peterborough): Thank you for the answer relating to the future
guidance and arrangement. How significant an issue is this among members of the
present House of Laity who, in other spheres of public life, would be expected to
declare a personal and prejudicial interest linked to that of the House of Clergy? The
relevance of this to a debate on clergy pensions is clear.
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I think what we are talking about here is convention
really, and there is a convention that people will declare an interest that may affect
what they say or what they feel about an issue; most people do abide by that
convention; but it may be that we actually need to write something down.
Canon Peter Bruinvels (Guildford): I am very grateful for that answer. Should not that
guidance also take effect when Questions are being asked? Should there not be a
declaration there as well?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I did not say that it would not be done for Questions as
well. Questions are part of what we do.
Canon Peter Bruinvels (Guildford): With respect, you talked about ‘in debates’; you
did not specifically mention Questions.
27
Questions
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I beg your pardon.
The Chairman: You are asking for an opinion, I think, so we will leave it there.
32. *Mrs Wendy Kinson (Lichfield) asked the Chair of the Business Committee:
Bearing in mind that 2010 is the 40th anniversary of the General Synod, are there any
plans to recognize the long and faithful service shown by the small band of members
who have served on the General Synod since it began in 1970?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick replied: No long-service awards exist, but I am sure it
might be deemed appropriate for these members’ long and faithful service to be
mentioned during the farewells. Perhaps the customary ‘revue’ will function as a 40th
birthday party.
Legal Advisory Commission
The Chairman: Question 33 is for the Legal Advisory Commission.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I originally
submitted this Question as one for written reply rather than oral reply and I am
therefore prepared to waive the right of an oral reply in order to get a longer written
one.
The Chairman: Dr Hartley, I think you have the reply you have.
33. Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford) asked the Chairman of the Legal Advisory
Commission:
In the period of concern about swine flu we were advised (a) not to offer the wine at
Communion and to administer only the bread, and (b) that it was not lawful in the
Church of England to consecrate the wine in a lipped chalice or flagon and then to
administer it by pouring it into individual glasses and offering each communicant an
individual cup. Has the Legal Advisory Commission considered the arguments that
(a) it is a principle of the Reformation, and required by canon law, that in the Church
of England the Sacrament should be offered to communicants in both kinds, and
although the individual communicant may decline to accept both kinds, the priest may
not decline to offer both kinds; and (b) the justification (in Legal Opinions, page 348)
of the practice of intinction as ‘lawful where a communicant or the congregation as a
whole is fearful of contracting or communicating a contagious disease through
drinking from the cup’ by ‘the doctrine of necessity’ would imply that the use of
individual cups, in which the wine is held in a cup instead of in the bread, would also
be lawful in these same circumstances; and if it has considered these arguments, what
is its view of them?
The Bishop of Guildford (Rt Revd Christopher Hill): – speaking on behalf of the
chairman of the Legal Advisory Commission.
The principles of law and theology that the Commission considered are set out, as I
think Dr Hartley is aware, in its opinion of 1991, which was revised in 2003. The
Commission distinguished between a method of intinction – which it considered
28
Questions
would be ‘consistent with the custom and law’ that is set out in the opinion – and the
use of individual cups which would not be consistent with that custom and law. The
Commission has not considered the question further since 2003.
The legal position is principally governed by section 8 of the Sacrament Act 1547.
That section – which remains in force – requires that ‘… the … most blessed
Sacrament be hereafter commonly delivered and ministered unto the people … under
both the kinds, that is to say of bread and wine, except necessity otherwise require
…’.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): In view of the fact that there is now considerable
experience of this question up and down the country and that the Commission has not
considered it since 2003, would it either do so or alternatively write to me with its
reasons for not doing so?
The Bishop of Guildford: I can assure Dr Hartley that these questions will be drawn to
the attention of the chairman and the Commission, and I shall do so myself.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): Thank you.
Liturgical Commission
34. *Mr William Nicholls (Lichfield) asked the Chairman of the Liturgical
Commission:
Why is the proposed authorized use of the Additional Eucharistic Prayers for use
when children are present restricted to occasions when significant numbers of
children are present or when it is otherwise pastorally appropriate to meet the needs of
children present, rather than extending to use on a weekly basis at the main
celebration of Holy Communion in the parish church, with the result that those of us
who live in areas where congregations would value their language will not be able to
benefit from what are excellent prayers?
The Bishop of Wakefield replied: The motion brought to the General Synod by
Durham diocese in February 2008 asked for ‘… the expeditious preparation of a
Eucharistic Prayer suitable for use on occasions when a significant number of children
are present or when it is otherwise pastorally appropriate to meet the needs of children
present’. This motion was carried in an amended form which asked for prayers rather
than a single prayer. The Liturgical Commission has since worked to draft prayers in
line with the Synod’s request.
One of the primary contexts envisaged for the use of such prayers is school worship,
where the majority of those present are children. In its drafting the Liturgical
Commission has had in the forefront of its mind the intended contexts of those who
asked for them. It is for that reason that Note 1 on ‘the use of the prayers’ makes clear
that the intended context of their use is not the weekly celebration of Holy
Communion in the parish church. The intention is that they should not supplant the
eight existing authorized Eucharistic prayers provided for use with Holy Communion
Order One, but rather be an additional resource for use on appropriate occasions.
29
Questions
This is not to say, however, that the prayers must never be used at a Sunday
celebration of Holy Communion in the parish church. There could well be occasions
when a parish priest might decide that to use one of the prayers on a Sunday would be
both appropriate and desirable. Note 1 does not forbid this but rather stresses that
these prayers should not become the sole diet at eucharistic worship in a parish.
I am delighted that, during the period of trial use, we have 721 parishes and other
places of worship authorized to ‘road test’ the prayers, and trust that this will enable
us further to refine the texts prior to introducing them into the Synod in due course.
Archbishops’ Council
35. Mr Robert Hammond (Chelmsford) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
Given the value of the work undertaken on behalf of the Church by the staff of the
NCIs and that, for the first time ever, some staff of the Archbishops’ Council are
holding a ballot on industrial action as a result of the decision to offer a zero per cent
pay settlement in 2009, can it be confirmed whether the Archbishops’ Council was
consulted on the pay settlement being offered to staff this year?
Mr Andrew Britton: The staff of the National Church Institutions are on common pay
systems. Responsibility for taking decisions about their terms of service has been
delegated by the various bodies corporate, including the Archbishops’ Council, to a
joint board consisting of the First Estates Commissioner, the chair of the Pensions
Board and me. The Board reports regularly to the Council and the other governing
bodies.
We very much regret having to freeze the pay for 12 months from last July, not least
given the hard work and commitment of staff, but the NCIs cannot be immune from
the same financial pressures that have led many dioceses to take similar steps in
relation to clergy stipends and lay employees. In addition we are having to make
substantial additional contributions to the closed defined benefit pension scheme.
Mr Robert Hammond (Chelmsford): Noting that responsibility rests with the joint
board but that accountability remains with the Archbishops’ Council, can Mr Britton
confirm which, if any, members of the Archbishops’ Council, as opposed to its
officers, are involved in decisions on staff members’ terms and conditions?
Mr Andrew Britton: The responsibility for setting pay and conditions was delegated
by the Archbishops’ Council and the other bodies to the JECSB which I chair, and I
represent the Archbishops’ Council on it. The remit of JECSB was, as it happens,
reviewed last year so I think it is absolutely clear to all trustees how these decisions
are taken.
Revd Canon Anne Stevens (Southwark): Would Mr Britton kindly convey to the
Archbishops’ Council the concern that many members of Synod are feeling over the
position of the staff here, and would he raise with it the question of what might be
done to raise staff morale?
30
Questions
Mr Andrew Britton: I am certainly happy to report back both to JECSB and the
Archbishops’ Council itself what has been said in relation to this Question and the
concern of the staff, of which we are well aware. I think we have to recognize that we
are going through a time of unusual financial stringency when measures have to be
taken which we regret having to take, and in this we are no different from many
Church bodies and indeed other organizations in this country and elsewhere.
Church Commissioners
36. Mr John Ward (London) asked the Church Commissioners:
Given the value of the work undertaken on behalf of the Church by the staff of the
NCIs and that, for the first time ever, some staff of the Church Commissioners are
pay settlement in 2009, can the Commissioners confirm whether the Board of
Governors was consulted on the pay settlement being offered to staff this year?
The First Church Estates Commissioner (Mr Andreas Whittam Smith, ex officio):
The chair of the Joint Employment and Common Services Board has explained the
general background to this regrettable decision, and the Church Commissioners share
that regret, as does the Pensions Board. Speaking for the Church Commissioners, we
could not ignore the drop in the value of our portfolio in 2008 – although it has
recovered since – nor the substantial cuts in dividends which provide our income.
Like the other NCIs we remain committed to maintaining a fair deal for staff and
ensuring that we are sufficiently competitive to recruit and retain the people with the
skills and the expertise that we need. With price inflation running at below zero for
part of the year, a pay freeze combined with increased employer contributions for the
old pension scheme seemed to us a reasonable settlement in the circumstances.
Mr John Ward (London): Given the importance of corporate governance, would you
confirm precisely for me which Church Commissioners, as opposed to officers, were
involved in decisions on staff terms and conditions?
The First Church Estates Commissioner: I represent the Church Commissioners on
the JECSB but I report my actions to the upcoming board of governors’ meeting that
follows that of the JECSB, and the board of governors has every opportunity to quiz
me about the decisions which we take and to comment on the annual report which we
publish.
Pensions Board
37. Mr Robin Stevens (Chelmsford) asked the Chairman of the Pensions Board:
In the light of the considerable amount of work undertaken on behalf of the Church
and its clergy by the staff of the Board, and the fact that some of those staff are
pay settlement in 2009, is the Board satisfied that the terms and conditions of service
of its staff are adequate?
Dr Jonathan Spencer (ex officio): The Pensions Board, along with the other governing
bodies, receives regular reports on decisions taken by the Joint Employment and
31
Questions
Common Services Board under the powers delegated to it. The Pensions Board
supported the establishment some years ago of common terms and conditions of
service across the National Church Institutions and is satisfied that the process of
reviewing these each year is carried out with proper regard to external comparators as
well as the Board’s need to recruit and retain good quality staff. The Board regrets
that it has been necessary to freeze staff pay for 12 months from last July, particularly
given the hard work and commitment of staff. The overall remuneration package for
NCI staff does, however, remain fair.
Mr Robin Stevens (Chelmsford): I declare an interest in that I am a beneficiary of the
Church Administrators’ Pension Fund. Has the Board had to freeze any other
payments that it makes?
Dr Jonathan Spencer: The only staff that we employ are the staff covered by these
arrangements, so there is no other comparable group of individuals involved.
Mr Robin Stevens (Chelmsford): I was thinking of pensions.
Dr Jonathan Spencer: Well, in the case of pensions we have a debate tomorrow on
adjustments to the clergy pension scheme which is mirrored in various ways by the
other pension schemes for which the Board is responsible, and where we are having,
as members will see from the papers, to balance questions of affordability, on the one
hand, against potential dilutions of pension entitlements for future service.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (University of London): Given that this pay freeze
and the regrettable decision to explore the question of a ballot is also taking place in
the context of a spending review and potential redundancies, can Dr Spencer,
Mr Whittam Smith and Mr Britton please convey to the staff of the National Church
Institutions the high regard in which all members hold them in the current situation?
(Applause)
Dr Jonathan Spencer: Of course I shall be glad to pass on those remarks which indeed
mirror the views of the Board itself.
Church Commissioners
38. Dr Edmund Marshall (Wakefield) asked the Church Commissioners:
What risk assessment was undertaken by the Church Commissioners in 2007 before
investing in the American property group owning the Peter Cooper Village –
Stuyvesant Town development in Manhattan, and how much was that investment?
The First Church Estates Commissioner (Mr Andreas Whittam Smith, ex officio): I
have kept my reply deliberately short, Madam Chairman, so as to leave room for
supplementaries if members care to ask and if you care to grant their requests.
In common with all investments the Commissioners make, we undertook due
diligence regarding the financial, market, ethical, legal and tax risks associated with
our investment of approximately £40 million in the Peter Cooper Village – Stuyvesant
Town partnership. This work was done in conjunction with a number of external
professional advisers.
32
Questions
Dr Edmund Marshall (Wakefield): Have the Commissioners now written off the entire
value of this £40 million investment and what lessons have they learnt from such a
massive loss?
The First Church Estates Commissioner: We have written off the entire value; we did
it in two steps, in 2008 and we will be writing it off in our 2009 accounts. Even so the
value of our property assets in 2009 will have risen by five per cent, after this writeoff, and that will be quite well ahead of most other property funds.
As to lessons learnt, the lesson obviously is that this partnership, although it is no
safeguard, had very formidable partners – the Government of Singapore, the
California Teachers’ Pension Fund and so on – but the amount of borrowing which
the partnership undertook – and which I have to say was convention at the time,
though that is no defence – was too great. That was the reason why our investment
was wiped out. There were other reasons but that was far and away the main reason.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): Andreas, on the second page of GS Misc 941,
which is here attached and which I think is part of your answer, you give the
impression (in the top paragraph) that the ‘legal ruling that many [of the] apartment
rents would continue to be regulated regardless …’ was a surprise. Is that the
impression you are trying to convey and, if so, could you say something about the
advice you receive overseas with this kind of thing?
The First Church Estates Commissioner: Two things went on at the same time: one
was the thing which you can receive advice about, which is the state of the market and
the quality of the asset, and the second thing was the change in the politics of New
York State, which swung from Republican to Democrat and substantially changed the
atmosphere in which owners of residential property in New York work. Not only was
an important case, regarding rents which could be charged to market or must be
protected, lost, but what, from the perspective of the Church Commissioners, I recall
is that legislation hostile to landlords was also making its way through that legislature
and affecting the value of the assets.
39. Revd Canon Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich) asked the
Church Commissioners:
What has been the cost to the Church Commissioners of implementing the new SAP
accounting and business software system from the time it was decided that a
replacement was required, year on year; what percentage of the total cost to the
National Church Institutions of implementation does that represent; and what are the
ongoing costs each year in operating and maintaining this system?
The First Church Estates Commissioner: SAP, which successfully went live across
the NCIs in 2009, is an enterprise-wide system which replaced some 20 different
‘legacy’ business systems used to manage property investments, loans management,
the CHARM housing portfolio and retirement homes as well as accounting. Since
2003 a total of £4.5 million has been spent acquiring and implementing SAP, of
which £2.8 million will be capitalized and written off over five years. The rest has
been charged to revenue in the year in which the cost was incurred. Of the total £4.5
million expended, £2.1 million has fallen to the Church Commissioners, which is 47
33
Questions
per cent. The ongoing cost of running and maintaining SAP is budgeted to be
£400,000, of which the Commissioners’ share is £180,000.
Mr Philip French (Rochester): Given the £400,000 per annum cost of operating SAP
and other enterprises also supplying software which would be comparable, have the
Church Commissioners and other National Church Institutions considered different
means now of delivering the same end, for example, Software As A Service, in which
the software is hosted elsewhere but our staff operate it, or Business Process
Outsourcing?
The First Church Estates Commissioner: Frankly, we have been through so many
trials and tribulations with introducing this system, over a number of years now, that
now we have got it working very well, a great deal of training has taken place and it is
beginning to produce very good results, I think you would find it very hard to
persuade us to look at any alternative system.
Pensions Board
40. The Archdeacon of Lincoln (Ven. Tim Barker) (Lincoln) asked the Chairman of
the Pensions Board:
I understand that clergy pension contributions are payable by dioceses even after the
maximum contribution for a pension has been paid in respect of an individual clerk in
holy orders. If so, why is this the policy, given that it represents a significant cost to
dioceses for their senior priests?
Dr Jonathan Spencer: Excluding those members who have completed maximum
pensionable service from the requirement on employers to pay contributions would
not reduce the overall cost of the scheme since the contribution rate is derived by
dividing the total cost of providing for the benefits for all members by the total
pensionable payroll. Removing those with full service from the calculation would
reduce the total pensionable payroll, but not the total cost. The contribution in respect
of the remaining members would, therefore, be correspondingly higher. You might
call it a zero sum.
The Archdeacon of Lincoln: Will the chairman invite the Board to consider,
notwithstanding his helpful reply, whether greater transparency about the linkage of
contributions to individual clergy might be appropriate?
Dr Jonathan Spencer: I am not sure there is very much that could be done to meet
what I think is the point of the Question here. The nature of pension schemes is that
they are collective: there is money paid in at a rate designed to produce the required
level of benefits at a later point. However, in a defined benefits scheme of the kind we
operate there is not a precise match between the contributions that are paid in in
respect of any individual clergyperson and the benefits that they personally receive at
a later point. If we went to a defined contributions scheme of the kind that we may
find ourselves discussing tomorrow, in that case the contributions are always paid
precisely in respect of the individual and what they get back at a later point in benefits
is much more closely matched to the contributions that have been paid in their respect
(ignoring little questions like mortality, of course).
34
Questions
41. Revd Canon Susan Booys (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Pensions Board:
The proposals in GS 1758 involve the replacement of the contracted-out status of
clergy by participation in the State second pension scheme. Is the Board aware of
concerns by women approaching the age of 60 and men approaching 65 who have not
earned a full Church pension and who plan to continue holding stipendiary office, for
whom dioceses would not be able to continue National Insurance contributions, and
are there any plans to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by the new provisions
affecting work after the ages of 60 and 65 respectively?
Dr Jonathan Spencer: The Board is aware that further accrual of benefits under S2P
stops once someone reaches their State pension age. The Pension Task Group has
received legal advice that any additional provisions would be open to legal challenge
on the grounds of age discrimination. It is important to note that those working
beyond their State pension age do not pay employee’s National Insurance, which
represents a saving to them of 11 per cent of their stipend compared with what other
scheme members pay. Such people would be able to earn extra pension by investing
this saving in the AVC scheme offered by the Board or through other personal
pension plans. In addition, individuals can received increased State pension payments
if they delay drawing their entitlement while they are still working and receiving a
stipend.
The progressive increase in the women’s pension age to 65, and subsequently of all
pension ages to 68, will eventually eliminate this issue altogether.
Church Urban Fund
42. Revd Canon Dr Alan Hargrave (Ely) asked the Chairman of the Church Urban
Fund:
Can a report be given to the Synod, whether in response to this Question or otherwise,
on the Church Urban Fund’s current financial position, with particular regard to how
many staff are currently employed compared to, say, two years ago, how much capital
the Fund holds and how it intends to apply it?
The Bishop of Dudley (Rt Revd David Walker): The Church Urban Fund is completing
the process of moving from being a traditional grant-making trust to being a
development organization and has now, as was always planned, successfully spent its
endowment. As a development organization it has to raise the money it spends and, in
line with current best practice, provide services in addition to grants. Poverty, of
course, is about more than money.
A restructuring of staff is presently taking place and this will enable CUF to fulfil its
new role and continue to ensure that costs are kept to a minimum without detriment to
local churches. The staff budget for 2010 is £160,000, or 18.4 per cent below what the
actual costs were in 2007 without adding anything for inflation. That budget figure is
probably a better representation of staff costs than a simple head count.
The draft accounts for 2009 show unrestricted accumulated capital of £2.1 million,
£600,000 above the reserves policy level. CUF’s long-term plans show the
35
Questions
accumulated capital falling to the level of reserves policy over the next two to three
years.
Archbishops’ Council
43. Mr Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
Given that it is now over two-and-a-half years since the General Synod endorsed the
relevant recommendations of the Pilling review of senior appointments, contained in
Talent and Calling (GS 1650), invited those responsible to give effect to them and
invited the Archbishops’ Council to report to the Synod during 2008 on progress with
implementation, (a) have those recommendations now been implemented; and
specifically (b) which, if any, of the six recommendations relating to fostering
diversity (chapter 4 of the report) have not yet been fully implemented?
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): The recommendations have
been for the most part implemented; there are monitoring processes in place; dioceses
need to be aware of the information they need to be reporting centrally; and bishops
are aware (and indeed are occasionally reminded) of the need to ensure that
appointments to all senior vacancies are made in the light of the Act of Synod. I hope
that they and their advisory groups continue to abide by this in the making of
appointments.
The area where probably most remains to be done is in ‘talent management’, as the
report put it, and a framework for that has yet to be finalized. Perhaps one of the most
acute problems in that area is to do with the recommendation about bishops
identifying clergy from minority constituencies who could be developed for senior
office. The Archbishop of York and I have commissioned a report reviewing the
situation with regard to black and minority ethnic clergy in relation to senior
appointments.
Mr Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London): Given that it is now over two and a half years
since this Synod endorsed the Pilling report, what is the timetable for fully
implementing the ‘fostering diversity’ recommendations?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I am not aware that there is such a timetable, but I do
not think that we are unaware of the urgency of completing the work that I have
mentioned. I shall note that and pass it on.
Sister Anne Williams (Durham): If dioceses are aware of the information, they should
be reporting centrally. Are they actually reporting it?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I am afraid I cannot comment on that. They are aware
of this.
Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark): When was the last black or Asian member of
the clergy appointed to a senior position, and what percentage of total senior clergy
does this represent?
36
Questions
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I do not have the information here, but I shall see that
it is conveyed.
44. Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Archbishops’ Council:
What arrangements are there for employees of the National Church Institutions to
declare an interest when they are advising or working for a board, council or
committee of the Archbishops’ Council or the General Synod or another National
Church Institution, including Revision Committees?
Canon Dr Christina Baxter: The organizations’ values statement and compliance
policy impose specific obligations on staff, including considering whether they can
properly be involved in relevant meetings or casework where there may be a conflict
of interest or loyalty. Declarations of interest are also required where necessary at
particular meetings from members and staff alike. As part of their contractual
responsibilities staff are expect to act professionally, impartially and in the best
interests of the body they serve. My experience is that they do just that.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): Are these declarations of interest and the other things
Dr Baxter has just mentioned published anywhere, or to whom are they actually made
available?
Canon Dr Christina Baxter: I do not have to hand the answer to that question, but I
will make sure I find out and I will make sure that you find out.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): Thank you very much.
45. Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
Has consideration been given to the possibility of the Church of England working
with other Christian organizations to supplement the existing range of church
attendance statistics by developing a series of indicators of Christian engagement in
community life to show current levels of involvement, and subsequently changes over
time, using measures such as the number of church-based youth workers, the number
of street pastors, levels of volunteering by Christians, and other relevant indicators for
which national estimates may be derived from national or regional surveys?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Church of England and other Churches co-ordinate
attendance and membership statistics collected locally. We also have research roundtable links with several Christian research agencies to co-ordinate exercises such as
national surveys. The Research and Statistics department sets diocesan and national
statistics in the context of results from wider national surveys among the public.
We also work with Church Urban Fund and the Commission of Life and Faith to
develop toolkits for local churches of any denomination to quantify the social capital
they bring to their community through youth workers, volunteering, community
groups and opening buildings for community use. This is maintained on the CUF
website and can be used by local churches to monitor changes over time.
37
Questions
More detailed work is being done regionally among ecumenical Christian fora to
quantify the social capital contributed by Churches. They are necessarily diverse in
their approach. There is a lot of work going on, and there is more work which will be
done.
46. Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
The number of minority ethnic clergy has increased significantly in several dioceses
since 2005. When will the results of the 2005 Clergy Diversity Audit be updated?
The Bishop of Norwich (Rt Revd Graham James): The Archbishops’ Council is
committed to regular diversity monitoring across clergy and congregations. Synod has
among its papers for this February group of sessions the report of the recent diversity
monitoring among core parish congregations. This has established better methods of
monitoring congregation profiles and points towards the benefits of continued efforts
to develop robust and rigorous methods of monitoring in liaison with the dioceses. It
is intended that the monitoring of clergy diversity in particular should become an
integral part of the annual statistics of licensed ministers.
Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark): I refer to the last sentence: when will this be
implemented?
The Bishop of Norwich: It is in the process as I understand it of being implemented
now. We hope that the next group of annual statistics may contain this information.
47. Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Would the Archbishops’ Council consider rebalancing the basis for ministerial
deployment throughout the Church so as to include provision to recognize and
encourage success in mission, and build such an approach into both training and
diocesan support arrangements?
The Bishop of Norwich: Patterns of ministerial deployment are primarily the concern
of the dioceses, supported by the Archbishops’ Council in terms of a national
framework and guidance. Dioceses are encouraged to reflect on their emerging and
future needs in mission and to deploy their ministers to meet those aims. I am sure
that dioceses already relate their provision to their mission priorities and align the
deployment of ministers with their ministry development plans.
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): The Question, of course, relates particularly to the
Sheffield formula which allocates numbers of clergy between dioceses. Would the
Bishop address this far-reaching but specific aspect of ministry deployment in respect
of relative diocesan success in mission?
The Bishop of Norwich: The Sheffield formula - the clergy share system - is a
practical but rather blunt tool to provide fair access to the Church’s ministry: it is a
guide and not a rule. I think how you define success in mission is significant in itself
and we probably ought not to go into that here, but population, area, membership,
38
Questions
numbers of churches, they are the things that determine the Sheffield formula; but it is
not an imposition on the dioceses.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): Is it not the case that, because we have a Sheffield
formula, dioceses have a kind of mini-Sheffield thought pattern when they are
thinking about deploying their clergy, and is not the point of the Question to try to
find some way of addressing that?
The Bishop of Norwich: If you look at the Sheffield formula and then you look at the
distribution of clergy in the Church of England, it does not match what the Sheffield
formula says. In a characteristic way in the Church of England, we have a guide but
we do not always follow it!
48. Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
In the debates on the Equality Bill currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny, the
Church of England has expressed a desire to maintain exemptions in respect of the
recruiting of ministers of religion, or others to a small number of senior lay posts.
Concerning appointments by the Archbishops’ Council to its boards, councils,
divisions and Central Secretariat, can the Council inform the Synod of those posts to
which, if they were to become vacant today, this exemption would currently apply?
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): There is no list. Any genuine
occupational requirement in relation to religious affiliation can be determined only at
the time that a particular post is advertised. Since discrimination on grounds of
religion and belief became unlawful in 2003 only a small proportion of the
Archbishops’ Council’s posts which have been advertised have required applicants to
be Christian, and only a few of these – for example, the Director of Ministry post –
that they be a communicant Anglican.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): My understanding is that there are two sets of
regulations, one concerning religion and belief and the other concerning sexual
orientation. When the Council determines that there is a genuine occupational
requirement in relation to religious belief, does it always apply that any candidate who
is sexually active in a same-sex relationship will not be considered?
The Archbishop of York: If Mr Butler will wait for the answer to his Question 49, he
will hear what I am going to say to him about it. Do you want me to go ahead?
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): You are going to answer that question under
49, Your Grace?
The Archbishop of York: Yes.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): My view would be that you have not
answered that question under Question 49.
The Archbishop of York: Pardon?
39
Questions
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): My view would be –
The Archbishop of York: Well, if you do not think so you can ask another
supplementary!
The Chairman: Let us move on then to Question 49.
49. Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
Given the Church of England’s support for amendments to the Equality Bill which
maintain the current exemptions, can the Archbishops’ Council indicate (a) what steps
it has been taking since the implementation of the 2003 Regulations to ensure that,
when seeking to appoint people to ‘senior lay posts that involve promoting and
representing the religion’, candidates ‘are able to demonstrate an ability to live a life
consistent with the ethos of the religion, as well as sharing the faith’; and (b) whether
any changes to this historical practice are now to be made?
The Archbishop of York: There were two sets of Regulations in 2003, one relating to
discrimination in relation to religion and belief and the other to discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation. The Equality Bill will bring together into a single
framework these regulations and other legislation in relation to a number of other
characteristics, including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil
partnerships, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual
orientation.
The proportion of Archbishops’ Council’s posts that are advertised with a religious
genuine occupational requirement is small. There is no expectation that the Equality
Bill, as now amended, will lead to any change in that or to the way in which the
requirements are applied.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): With respect to the Archbishop, my Question
concerned the way the Church of England has implemented the regulations, not what
the regulations actually say. So could the President inform the Synod, for example on
the question of same-sex sexual activity, how it goes about discovering whether a
candidate meets the genuine occupational requirement? Is it in the advert or in the
personal –
The Chairman: I am afraid this question is out of order.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): On what grounds?
The Chairman: Because the question relates to religious affiliation and not to sexual
orientation.
Madam Chairman. In the light of your previous ruling about asking two questions and
getting two supplementaries, and given that Canon Butler’s supplementary to
Question 48 was not answered, would you now permit him a second supplementary?
40
Questions
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): My understanding of my Question is that it
relates to both sexual activity, outside of marriage, and religious affiliation, in
Question 49. With respect to the latter, could the Archbishop please answer the
Question?
The Archbishop of York: Yes. For the small number of posts where a Christian or
Anglican affiliation is specified, candidates would be expected to confirm their faith
affiliation during the application stage. It would be only in an exceptional case that
issues about a candidate’s marital history or lifestyle might be considered. In general,
there are a very small number of roles where it would not be credible to appoint as a
representative of the Church someone who chose to act contrary to its teaching. So it
is in the application stage.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford) rose –
The Chairman: I think we have had enough supplementaries at this stage. Can we
move on to Mrs Alexander’s Question?
50. Mrs April Alexander (Southwark) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
Can the Archbishops’ Council spell out the nature of the exemptions currently
available to the Church in respect of equality legislation and employment law as they
apply to lay employees which are referred to by the Bishops of Winchester, Exeter
and Chester in their recent statement and which might be lost under the present
Equality Bill?
The Archbishop of York: The 2003 Regulations generally make discrimination,
whether on grounds of religion and belief or of sexual orientation, unlawful in the
field of employment, save where there is a genuine occupational requirement or
where an exemption indeed applies. Employment includes for this purpose the
holding of an office. The law does not distinguish between sexual orientation and
sexual activity. The Regulations exempt posts which are for purposes of an organized
religion and where a requirement in relation to sexual orientation is imposed so as to
comply with the doctrines of the religion or to avoid conflicting with the strongly held
convictions of a significant number of its followers.
Mrs April Alexander (Southwark): Since the House of Bishops’ statement of 1991,
Issues in Human Sexuality, concerns itself with clergy in this respect, is Synod right to
infer that there has been a further development in the thinking of the bishops on the
employment of laypeople beyond that statement and the 2003 publication A Guide to
the Debate?
The Archbishop of York: I think, if I hear you aright, there is a widespread
misunderstanding that Issues in Human Sexuality applied a different principle for
clergy and laity. It in fact established a common principle that applied to both but
went on to affirm that gay and lesbian laypeople who in conscience decided to order
their lives differently should nevertheless be welcome within the fellowship of the
Church. That is not establishing a different principle.
41
Questions
Where laypeople are appointed as evangelists, youth pastors or in high-profile
representational roles requiring a Christian affiliation, those responsible for the
appointment are entitled to form a view whether the person’s life and beliefs are
consistent with the teaching of the Church of England. The 1987 Synod motion
affirmed that ‘all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, and
that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders’.
House of Bishops
51. Mrs April Alexander (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
In the context of the current debate about the impact of the Equality Bill on
employment, particularly of laypeople, would this Synod be correct to assume that the
1991 distinction between the ‘sexually active’ and the ‘sexually inactive’ as applied to
clergy who are gay will be equally applied to lay employees who are gay, should the
law allow?
The Archbishop of York: In representations from Church of England bodies on the
Equality Bill and on previous anti-discrimination legislation, it has consistently been
made clear that the Church’s concern is solely in relation to sexual activity and not to
sexual orientation. The difficulty is that the law makes no such distinction.
52. Revd Stephen Coles (London) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Was the statement by the Bishops of Winchester, Exeter and Chester relating to the
employment of homosexual persons, made on 23 January in connection with the
debate in the House of Lords on the Equality Bill, made on behalf of the House of
Bishops?
The Archbishop of York: The statement from a number of Lords Spiritual was issued
to draw attention to the important debate due in the House of Lords on 25 January. It
reaffirmed the consistent line on the Equality Bill taken by Church of England
representatives, including in submissions from the Archbishops’ Council, statements
from various bishops, conversations between both Archbishops and Ministers of the
Crown, briefing from our Parliamentary Unit and my own speech at Second Reading
of the Bill in the House of Lords. The issue at stake was not what the Church of
England’s policy should be on homosexuality but whether, in relation to those who
represent Churches and other religions as ministers of religion and more generally, the
law could prohibit the imposing of requirements on a range of matters including
gender, marital history, being a transsexual person and sexual activity.
53. Mrs Gill Ambrose (Ely) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
In view of the slow progress towards the development of legislation to enable the
consecration of women as bishops, would the House of Bishops consider inviting a
number of female observers to its meetings so that the insights of women are not lost
to the Church at this high level of leadership and policy development?
The Archbishop of York: The simple answer is No. Although I regret the length of our
legislative processes, there are no short cuts. Granting some women – however they
were chosen – observer status now would not grant them a full voice in the House and
42
Questions
would risk being a diversion from the central task, namely how to find a way of
admitting women to the episcopate which also enables as many people as possible to
remain in the Church of England whatever their theological convictions on that issue.
We must continue to hold on to the view held by the Synod and the rest of the
Anglican Communion that those who are in favour and those who are opposed are
both loyal Anglicans.
Mrs Gill Ambrose (Ely): Are we to assume then that the Church can still afford not to
hear the voice of women at this level when issues on which women have important
things to say come up for debate in the House of Bishops?
The Archbishop of York: Many women are, in any event, members of bishops’ staff in
their dioceses. Members of the House will consequently have had the benefit of their
insights in policy discussions within the diocese which will inform the thinking that
they bring to the House of Bishops’ discussions.
The selection of women observers would itself be invidious, I think. Other interest
groups, for example young people, could also argue for such representation.
Women have been present at the House as supporting staff: currently the assistant
secretary to the House is a woman in holy orders. Policy matters are regularly brought
to the House on appointments matters, educational issues, HR and training matters by
women in advisory roles.
Pursuing this further, it would be invidious to suggest, for example, that when the
House of Laity is considering some rather difficult theological issue bishops should be
there as observers.
54. Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield) asked the Chairman of the House of
Bishops:
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the view that the gender balance in
Church of England congregations is getting seriously out of line. Given the
importance of this matter, and its neglect by comparison with other important issues
such as age and ethnicity, has the House of Bishops (a) discussed changing the
information required in statistical counting to include gender, in order to gain hard
evidence on this matter; (b) debated the profound theological issues which
characterize a Church with a gender imbalance; (c) considered the significant
missiological issues that emerge when a Church experiences a testosterone deficit?
The Bishop of Bristol (Rt Revd Michael Hill): As GS Misc 938 shows, we are trying
to move beyond anecdotal evidence and build our mission policies on something more
substantial. This monitoring survey of core parish congregations already includes
information on gender. We also need fuller profiles for Fresh Expressions,
chaplaincies and wider congregations, which may be different and certainly suggest
other missiological approaches to the problem.
I do not know which theological issues the questioner has in mind, since every soul is
precious to Our Lord and the gospel is the same for men and women alike. There are
certainly some ecclesiological questions about structures and leadership, best left,
perhaps, to the Revision Committee at this stage.
43
Questions
The social analysis here is complex and there are no quick fixes in terms of mission
practice. However, I believe every bishop is concerned to build a well-balanced
Church, and mission amongst men and younger people is on everyone’s agenda.
Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield): This Question is not about the ministry of
ordained women, but I think many Anglicans now recognize that in many churches up
and down the country many men are now feeling culturally alienated from Church life
in all traditions. In the light of that and of the Bishop’s answer, can he point
specifically to any actions and initiatives for mission among men which the House of
Bishops is aware of and could approve?
The Bishop of Bristol: I think there would be a number of initiatives that are not
produced by the central Church in relation to mission among men, and here I should
declare an interest, for Mr Bruinvels’s sake: I am a man.
I think bishops are very well aware of this; members will have read some of the books
that have been produced, and a number of ministries a member of this Synod, whose
expertise has been brought to bear on this subject, has done quite a lot of speaking
about, on exactly the subject that you raise.
55. Mr Gerald O’Brien (Rochester) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
In view of the 30 per cent decline in the number of confirmations over the past 10
years, what action is being taken to arrest and reverse this trend?
The Bishop of Bristol: In the recent strategy document Going for Growth the Board of
Education identifies the Church’s specific intention at every level to ‘work towards
every child and young person having a life-enhancing encounter with the Christian
faith and the person of Jesus Christ’. In its plans for 2010-2011 are actions to ‘develop
resources that will enhance support for parents, god-parents and confirmands’.
A group of diocesan youth officers has researched young people’s views and
expectations of confirmation, reflecting on its importance in their lives today. A
publication and resource materials are being developed with Church House
Publishing, for release in September.
Mission and evangelism strategies in the dioceses help bring new people to Christ:
they are a key source of confirmation candidates. Diocesan advisory staff continue to
support parishes in preparing candidates for confirmation, offering training for
parishes and clergy to develop young people in their faith and bring them to
confirmation.
Mr Gerald O’Brien (Rochester): Thank you for that answer, Bishop, but has the
House of Bishops considered whether the practice of some dioceses of encouraging
Communion before confirmation may have some bearing on the decline in the number
of confirmations?
The Bishop of Bristol: I think that is a very valid question. I cannot recall myself that
we have specifically looked at that, although of course we have discussed
Communion before confirmation in great detail, and at that point in the discussion
44
Questions
those issues were raised, as I think they are raised in dioceses which seek to allow that
practice to happen. I am sure that the bishops present have heard your Question and
will give some further thought to that, but I cannot recall that we have specifically
looked at it.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): Given Bishop Colin Buchanan’s description
of confirmation as a rite in search of a theology, and given the expanding different
patterns of Christian initiation that there are now, when was the last time that the
House of Bishops had a serious look at the part that confirmation plays in various
pathways towards full Christian initiation?
The Bishop of Bristol: I cannot answer that because I honestly do not know, but I will
try to find out and let you have a written reply to that.
Mr Clive Scowen (London) rose –
The Chairman: I think we will move on if that is OK, Mr Scowen.
56. Mr Gerald O’Brien (Rochester) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
What steps are being taken to ensure that the availability of title posts matches the
number of those expecting to be ordained in 2010?
57. Mrs Gill Morrison (Peterborough) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
In what ways is the House of Bishops encouraging dioceses to find title posts for
ordinands?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): With permission, Chair, I
should like to answer these two Questions together.
The House had a good discussion of this issue in December. Bishops affirmed their
desire to provide sufficient title posts for our future clergy in order to complete their
training. Work has been going on since the summer to support the successful
placement of the 334 stipendiary students we expect to be ordained this year.
Last year Ministry Division met with the Association of Ordinands and Candidates for
Ministry, along with some DDOs and college principals, to discuss ways to improve
our support for the placement process. As a result, this year we have launched web
pages to help deacons find title posts. These contain answers to questions about the
process and between January and Petertide are being updated on a weekly basis with
information about available title posts in dioceses. The website address has been
placed on the notice board.
Mr Gerald O’Brien (Rochester): I am delighted to hear that work has been going on
since the summer to support the successful placement of 334 students. Could the
Bishop confirm that dioceses have allocated sufficient financial resources to fund 334
stipendiary posts?
45
Questions
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: We are very close to that position at the moment. It is
normal at this time of year for there still to be a number of posts which we are looking
at and trying to ensure that they will actually be available to people; and the situation
this year is much as it has been in recent years.
Revd Canon Chris Lilley (Lincoln): Did the House in its discussions go on to consider
the position I am concerned about: when stipendiary curates have completed their
curacy will there be sufficient further posts for them in the stipendiary ministry?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: This is one of the things the clergy share system is all
about. This is a continuing topic within the House of Bishops and within our
explorations, and we are aware of the need to ensure that dioceses do achieve those
numbers which are implied by the share system.
58. Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield) asked the Chairman of the House of
Bishops:
Given the likely expectation that (a) stipendiary clergy will have to work additional
years for a full pension, and (b) will be unable to retire before 68 or 70, and (c) that
most clergy already work a six-day week, has the House of Bishops considered the
possibility of rebalancing stipendiary clergy lifestyle stresses by promoting the
provision of an additional two weeks’ holiday per year in order to help them extend
their working lives in a more sustainable manner?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: The House has not considered this directly but I am
happy to refer the suggestion to the Terms of Service Implementation Panel. It is
worth pointing out that the Terms of Service legislation provides a right to 36 days’
annual leave for the first time ever. I hope that clergy will take this leave.
Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield): Has the House of Bishops considered the
whole issue of helping stipendiary clergy to sustain extended working lives:
appointments, developing, going further on, scaling down?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I do not think that the House of Bishops as such has
discussed that recently, though individual bishops are very aware of the issues. They
are among those which the whole Terms of Service development is looking at and is
considering, and the House of Bishops, like the Archbishops’ Council and others, is
involved in those discussions.
Mrs Sue Johns (Norwich): In light of the information you have just given us about
annual leave entitlement, does the House of Bishops have any evidence to suggest that
clergy patterns of work and retirement ages are any different from those in secular
employment? For instance, is there any difference between what is expected of the
laity in their employment and what is expected of clergy?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: It will depend which laity. It is not something which
the House of Bishops as such has been looking at, but it is something which
DRACSC frequently looks at.
59. Mr Tom Sutcliffe (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
46
Questions
What precedents are there in the history of the Church of England for limiting
candidates for ordination and salaried employees to those holding or not holding a
particular opinion about humanity, and for proscribing membership of a political party
or of any other organization?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: The Bible teaches that God made us in his own
image. The second Article of Religion teaches that Christ took our nature upon him,
being wholly God and wholly human. This incarnational principle makes the
Christian understanding of humanity wholly inconsistent with practices or policies
which diminish the image of God in others.
Ministers of the Church of England make the Declaration of Assent on ordination and
at the taking up of new appointments. This affirms belief in the faith which is revealed
in Holy Scripture. That faith asserts the breaking down of racial and other barriers.
We belong to a global Church. In 1977 the Lutheran World Federation, and in 1982
the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, issued a status confessionis declaring the
responsibility of Christians to oppose racism and apartheid. Racist views are
inconsistent with public, paid roles within the Christian community.
Mr Tom Sutcliffe (Southwark): Proscription is a historically tainted word. In applying
it both to non-PC views about aspects of racial difference and to the BNP as such, did
the House of Bishops take any account of worries expressed in some ecumenical
quarters, such as that put by Elizabeth Simon of the London Churches Group for
Social Action to the effect that Vasantha’s motion was a gift to the BNP which could
then portray itself as the persecuted underdog, as it did in its poster campaign for the
European elections, and is the BNP today a threat comparable to Mosley’s British
Union of Fascists in the 1930s?
The Chairman: You have already put one question, Mr Sutcliffe.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Which one would you like me to answer?
Mr Tom Sutcliffe (Southwark): Take the second – it is much more important. Does the
BNP pose a comparable problem to the British Union of Fascists?
The Chairman: Please sit down, Mr Sutcliffe, and let the Bishop answer.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I think there is a real issue as to the way in which the
BNP can describe itself, portray itself, as a persecuted minority, but I think it is
absolutely crucial that the Church should affirm the scriptural and theological position
which it owns, and if some of the results of that are undesirable we should tackle
those results when we come to them.
60. Mr Tom Sutcliffe (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
On what basis does the House of Bishops consider itself bound to implement opinions
expressed in successful Private Members’ Motions, and has the House received legal
advice on the implications under current employment law of itself (or a committee of
bishops and advisers it may set up) determining what constitutes support or promotion
for a party or organization whose policies or objectives it itself defines as
47
Questions
incompatible with Church of England teaching, especially considering that Church of
England ministers of religion have never hitherto been obliged to affirm anything not
to be found in the Bible, Book of Common Prayer and Articles of Religion, where the
words ‘race equality’ and ‘racial equality’ do not appear?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Where any motion has been passed which requires
the Church to take action and this is explicitly agreed by Synod, then the House of
Bishops (or the relevant Church body) will implement it. Legal advice on the relevant
area of law, including the Human Rights Act, was given to the committee on these
issues prior to the committee making its recommendations to the House.
Mr Tom Sutcliffe (Southwark): Did the House of Bishops, with regard to the big stick
it aims to apply to ordained and professional Church workers but not to laypeople,
consider that equivalent differential restrictions in 5.17 and 5.18 of Issues in Human
Sexuality, about which there may be some doubt, have been widely ignored and may
even explain why the wider British public is now twice as tolerant of homosexuality
as it was 25 years ago?
The Chairman: I am afraid this is not relevant to the Question, Mr Sutcliffe, thank
you.
61. Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Would the House of Bishops encourage Christian communities to engage actively
with love and compassion towards Muslim communities in their neighbourhood,
thereby (a) witnessing the love which is God, in practical ways, without introducing
concerns or fears which may be raised through direct evangelization; and (b) helping
to reduce suspicion and the seeds of conflict in the Middle East, including
Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a result of communication within networks of
families/friends?
The Bishop of Bradford (Rt Revd David James): The House of Bishops already
encourages Christian communities to engage actively with love and compassion
towards our neighbours of other faiths, including those who are Muslims. This was
illustrated by contributors to the debate in February 2009 initiated by Mr Paul Eddy.
The report requested then by Synod will be published and is complementary to the
General Synod’s Presence and Engagement programme described in GS 1577 (2005)
and GS 1720 (2009). These make clear the Church of England’s commitment to
remain present in all neighbourhoods and to serve the spiritual and material needs of
all parishioners in the name of Christ.
The relationships of trust that grow from such local engagement help to reduce the
anxieties and misunderstanding, and this has a positive impact on inter-religious
relations internationally.
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): While I agree that this is the Synod’s wish, is there any
evidence that it is happening? Is the task group monitoring engagement at the local
level, as my experience suggests that people are fearful and in need of guidance in this
respect?
48
Questions
The Bishop of Bradford: There is monitoring taking place through the Presence and
Engagement group which meets every year with diocesan representatives, and the
reports which are coming back from that are certainly about an engagement which is
helpful to community cohesion and helpful to the sharing of the gospel, in a way
which is not threatening. I recognize that in certain organizations there can be, shall
we say, a crusading spirit, but within the Church of England what we pick up is that
what is happening is very much in the spirit of love and service and a desire to engage
with people responsibly and respectfully.
62. Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
If John Humphrys in the Daily Mail (Friday 23 January 2010) can acknowledge hope
at the heart of Christianity, through the ‘risen Christ, the belief that it is possible to
roll the boulder away from the tomb and overcome the cross’, can this Synod have
assurance that our leading clergy will have sufficient confidence in their beliefs to do
the same, as the Great Commission at the end of Matthew’s Gospel commands us to
do?
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): Having been at the receiving
end of John Humphrys’s probing mind on a few occasions, I was very encouraged
indeed that he should see fit to make this reference in his recent article, which was
prompted by the extraordinary survival of some of the earthquake victims in Haiti.
Triumph over death is at the heart of our Christian faith, and I am confident that my
colleagues will proclaim this without compromise, especially in the Easter season
which is not too far away from us. I am confident also that members of this Synod
will seek to shape their lives and actions by that same belief. I dare to hope that one
expression of shaping lives and actions in that respect will be a generous contribution
from the Synod to the Haiti appeal.
Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield): Thank you. My Question was not specifically about
Haiti but about Christian hope in general, and thank you for your reassurance. So via
an article in The Guardian, the views of Muslim colleagues and my taxi-driver last
night, the supplementary is this: can the Archbishop confirm that it remains
appropriate in our current multi-faith climate for all Christians not just confidently to
wear that faith in our victory over death on our sleeves but actually to proclaim it
constantly? It refers a bit to the earlier Question, whether we are doing it to Muslims
or whoever. Do we really need to wear our faith on our sleeve?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The questioner has already referred to what was said
in relation to the previous Question, and the answer is really there. We have in this
Synod had a very good and robust debate about the need to be unashamed about our
Christian commitment, and the need to be able to draw the distinction between
confidence in the gift we have been given and bullying or manipulation in respect to
people of other faiths.
63. Mr John Freeman (Chester) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Given the wisdom and Christian leadership the Lords Spiritual bring to the nation, has
the House of Bishops considered whether it needs any help from members of the
49
Questions
Synod to encourage the Government to help it retain its presence in the House of
Lords following any changes in the membership of the House of Lords?
The Bishop of Leicester: The most important support members of Synod can give is to
continue making the case for the role of the Lords Spiritual in people’s communities,
congregations and networks, basing their arguments firmly on facts, countering
misinformation, and remaining reasonable and polite in the face of occasional
provocation.
Canon Peter Bruinvels (Guildford): In thanking the Bishop of Leicester for his
response, does he accept that the bishops play a vital, valued and unique role in the
House of Lords, that their presence should not be taken for granted and that, whether
or not there is a change in Government, this matter must not be left under the radar as,
either way, they are talking about reducing the number of bishops to as few as
seventeen?
The Bishop of Leicester: Yes I certainly do accept that and, I think, so do Members of
Parliament of all parties, as I can witness to in my conversations with the party leaders
in the House of Lords over recent weeks.
64. Mr John Ward (London) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Does the House of Bishops intend to reflect on and produce a report on the role of
bishops in the legislative process, whether in Synod or in Parliament?
The Bishop of Leicester: Much reflection on this subject has taken place and continues
to do so. There have been a number of public skirmishes and debates recently, notably
the debate set up by the Labour humanist group in Parliament on 27 January, where I
was ably assisted by Baroness Butler-Sloss in rebutting the attacks of Polly Toynbee
and Jonathan Bartley (of the think-tank Ekklesia) on the motion ‘Should the bishops
be evicted from the House of Lords?’ The case we were able to make in that debate
was the product of much thought, prayer, reflection and preparation by a number of
people: we have our arguments, and the facts, closely to hand.
The terms of the debate are changing as the wider arguments about parliamentary and
constitutional reform evolve. I am not convinced that the time is ripe now for a
published report, although such a report is by no means ruled out at a future date.
Mr John Ward (London): In any such report in the future, would the House consider it
appropriate to reflect on whether it is appropriate for the Lords Spiritual to represent
the Church in all its diverse glory and to make it clear when there are differences of
theological view on any particular point firmly held within the Church?
The Bishop of Leicester: The point implied in the question is at the heart of much of
the debate about the place of bishops in the House of Lords, but it is certainly clear
that the role the bishops play in the House of Lords is one in which they represent a
wide diversity of views from their many contacts and connections in their dioceses
and regions and in their national work; and that representative role is appreciated at
many different levels, not only in the Church but in other faiths and in other
organizations.
50
Questions
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): The Question refers to the role of the House of
Bishops in Synod as well as in Parliament, Bishop. You have answered about ‘in
Parliament’. Could you answer about ‘in Synod’, particularly the role of the House in
the final stages of legislation and liturgical business?
The Bishop of Leicester: I am not sure that I can answer on that because I did not read
the Question in that way. The Question is open to two interpretations, and I took it to
be a Question about the place of the bishops in the parliamentary process, and it is
certainly capable of that interpretation.
The Chairman sought leave of the Synod to extend the sitting by not more than 15
minutes. (Not agreed)
65. Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Has the House discussed, or does it plan to discuss, the figures published in October
showing that during the ‘credit crisis’ the running costs of our 113 bishops rose in
2008 to c.£16 million, spent on staff salaries, office expenditure, legal costs and
travel, compared to £14.1 million in 2007 (at a time when the Church’s assets plunged
from £5.67 billion to £4.36 billion), and the fact that two national newspapers noted
that this came at a time when bishops were calling for the nation to live a more frugal
life; and, if and when it does so, will it bear in mind the call at a recent group of
sessions seriously to consider a reduction in the number of dioceses and senior
appointments?
The Bishop of London (Rt Revd Richard Chartres): I am grateful to Mr LeRoy for this
Question. The bishops have indeed discussed this financial situation. The increase in
the 2008 bishops’ office and working costs included both one-off adjustments and
exceptional costs, notably a contribution of £700,000 towards the cost of the Lambeth
Conference. Excluding these adjustments, the increase in bishops’ office and working
costs was due to bishops employing their full allocation of support staff to enable
them to undertake an increasing burden of administration, tasks that are required of
bishops.
Synod, however, will want to know that the House has agreed that bishops’ and
archbishops’ office and working costs should be fixed in ratio to the Commissioners’
funding for parish ministry: there should be a fixed ratio and this will obviously
enable the Commissioners’ support to be balanced and not escalate out of control.
When considering these matters, the House has indeed borne in mind all the views
expressed in last July’s Synod debate.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): What will this fixed ratio be?
The Bishop of London: It is going to be adopted in 2011. It is the ratio that currently
obtains, which balances the support for the administration of the Church of England –
that is what we are really talking about – with the distribution to parishes. So it is a
freeze on the present situation so that we do not get into the scenario that the
administration ever exceeds the distribution to parishes.
51
Questions
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): Given that the bishop’s work is more likely to be in
ratio to the number of benefices, would that not be a better measure than to the
number of parishes?
The Bishop of London: I think that is a very arcane matter! We are not discussing
duck houses or moats here, you know (with the possible exception of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells who really cannot help it!). I think I can assure you that frugality and
parsimony are in control, both in the Church Commissioners and in the House of
Bishops.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): Is the Bishop able, perhaps with the assistance of the
Church Commissioners, to put some quantity on the much heard-of (and, I think,
widely understood) assertion as to the dramatically increased administrative task now
being placed on bishops, so that we can have some understanding of what this Synod,
among other bodies, is adding to, in terms of the work of bishops in their day-to-day
ministry?
The Bishop of London: I think that is a very helpful Question indeed. Clearly, when
you look at things like the clergy discipline procedures and what is round the corner
in the shape of the terms and conditions regulations, the capability procedures, I think
there is a large amount of evidence for this; at the moment it is only anecdotal, and
perhaps, following your helpful Question, it would be right to try to quantify it rather
more and produce some specimen diaries. Certainly in the discussions in the House of
Bishops it is clear that almost all bishops regard their own workloads as having
increased very considerably in recent years.
66.
Mr Robert Hurley (Church of England Youth Council) asked the Chairman of
the House of Bishops:
Can the House provide information on (a) the number of bishops who have made
directions under the Admission of Baptized Children to Holy Communion
Regulations 2006 allowing applications to be made in their dioceses under the
Regulations; (b) how many parishes have made such applications within those
dioceses; (c) how many of those parishes have had their applications granted; and (d)
how many parishes have had their applications refused and on what grounds?
The Bishop of Lincoln (Rt Revd John Saxbee) : With the exception of the diocese of
Carlisle, where a review of current policy is now in process, all diocesan bishops in
England allow applications from parishes to be made under the Admission of
Baptized Children to Holy Communion Regulations 2006.
The total number of parishes which have made application is not known. In
November 2009 the number of parishes which have had their applications granted was
about 2,013. The number of parishes which have had their applications refused, and
the grounds for that refusal, is not known.
67. Mr Robert Hurley (Church of England Youth Council) asked the Chairman of the
House of Bishops:
52
Questions
Can the House provide information on (a) the number of bishops who made policies
under the former House of Bishops guidelines set out in GS Misc 488 allowing
applications to be made in their dioceses; (b) how many parishes made such
applications within those diocese; (c) how many of those parishes had their
applications granted; and (d) how many parishes had their applications refused, and
on what grounds?
The Bishop of Lincoln: The number of diocesan bishops who made policies under the
former House of Bishops Guidelines set out in GS Misc 488 allowing applications to
be made in their dioceses was 39.
The total number of parishes which made such applications we do not know. In 2005
the number of parishes which had their applications granted was about 1,546. The
number of parishes which had their applications refused, and the grounds for that
refusal, is not known.
68. Dr Peter May (Winchester) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
In the light of the reassurance given at the July group of sessions in York that the new
Canons and Constitution of ACNA had been tabled for consideration by the
Theological Group of the House of Bishops, how many meetings has that Group held
and what progress has been made?
The Bishop of Chichester (Rt Revd John Hind): The House’s Theological Group has
met three times since last July. The Canons and Constitution of the Anglican Church
in North America have been considered by the Group and its discussion was reported
to the Secretary General to inform his note, circulated as GS 1764B, as background
for the debate on the relationship between the Church of England and the Anglican
Church of North America to be held in this group of sessions.
The following Questions were answered in writing:
Secretary General
69. Dr Anna Thomas-Betts (Oxford) asked the Secretary General:
What is the position under the Standing Orders as regards (a) the attendance at
Revision Committee meetings of members who have made submissions on the draft
legislation concerned and (b) the information they are entitled to receive?
The Secretary General replied: Under SO 53(b) a member of Synod who submits a
proposal for an amendment has the right to speak to the Revision Committee about it
and to be present while it is being discussed. If unable to attend, he or she may
authorize another member to speak and attend. The one other entitlement in the
Standing Orders is for the member concerned to have 21 days’ notice of the time and
place of the meeting.
70. Mrs Christina Rees (St Albans) asked the Secretary General:
53
Questions
Will the Secretary General clarify what the requirements are (whether under the
Standing Orders or otherwise) as to the confidentiality of submissions to, and the
papers, business and decisions of, Revision Committees considering draft legislation?
71. Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) asked the Secretary General:
When and how are submissions made by Synod members to legislative Revision
Committees, the papers considered by those Committees and the minutes of those
Committees made available (a) to those Synod members making submissions; (b) to
other Synod members; and (c) to the general public?
The Secretary General replied: I will, with permission answer these two Questions
together.
The Standing Orders require each Revision Committee to include in its published
report a list of all proposals for amendment received in time from Synod members
which raise points of substance and to summarize the Committee’s reasons for
accepting or rejecting them. Beyond that the Standing Orders are currently silent on
these matters, so each Revision Committee has the power to determine its own rules
of procedure. The long-standing custom has been that Committees do not meet in
public and do not make details of papers and proceedings generally available, though
there has been some variety of practice over the supply of papers to other Synod
members. The current Revision Committee decided, after discussion, to follow the
traditional practice and not to sit in public. Later in this group of sessions the Synod
will be invited to agree a change in Standing Orders which will mean that in future all
submissions to Revision Committees will be made available on the web.
72. Mr Clive Scowen (London) asked the Secretary General:
In the event of a Revision Committee in future wishing to make an interim statement
as to its provisional conclusions, will the Secretary General give an undertaking that
any such statement will be communicated to the members of the General Synod
before it becomes the subject of a press release?
The Secretary General replied: Any decision to make a public statement about its
work is the responsibility of the relevant Revision Committee. In the absence of an
amendment to Standing Orders I cannot, therefore, give an undertaking that would
bind present or future Committees. There could also be practical difficulties if
statements had to be issued to Synod members before release to the press. I can,
however, give an assurance that staff will endeavour to ensure that Synod members
whose e-mail addresses we have will in future receive any such statements as quickly
as possible.
73. Revd Canon Susan Booys (Oxford) asked the Secretary General:
Given the acknowledged ease and regular use of e-mail by Church House to
communicate with members, why did Church House staff not advise the Revision
Committee for the legislation on women in the episcopate to seek a means of
communicating with Synod members to prepare them for the Committee’s
unprecedented action in issuing press releases during the life of the Committee?
54
Questions
The Secretary General replied: In his statement to Synod the chair of the Steering
Committee has explained why the Revision Committee concluded on 8 October and
13 November that reports of particular decisions were bound to get into the public
domain quickly and that it needed, therefore, to put on the public record straightaway
a statement that reported its decisions accurately and set them in context. Synod
members who have signed up to the free RSS link from the Communications Office
are alerted to copies of all Church House press releases as soon as they are issued so
will have had access to these statements straightaway. With the benefit of hindsight, it
would have been sensible in this case to have e-mailed the statements to all Synod
members, and I regret that this was not done.
74. Mrs Sarah Finch (London) asked the Secretary General:
What recourse is there for patrons when a notice of vacancy is not issued for several
months after the vacancy has occurred, and who then find that the nine months during
which they can present are deemed to have begun from the date of the vacancy as
specified on the notice?
The Secretary General: Section 7 of the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 requires
a bishop to give notice to the designated officer of an impending vacancy arising from
a resignation before that resignation takes effect, except where the living has been
suspended. In the case of a vacancy arising as a result of death, notice must be given
to the designated officer as soon as practicable after the bishop becomes aware of the
vacancy. The designated officer must in turn serve notice on the patron as soon as
practicable after receiving the bishop’s notice. Since these are statutory obligations,
the charitable assumption must be that the situation referred to in the Question could
have arisen only by oversight rather than design. In the event of failure to comply
with those obligations, a remedy is available by way of judicial review in the
Administrative Court.
75. Revd Canon Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich) asked the
Secretary General:
Is the Secretary General aware that many mortgage providers are insisting on chancel
repair insurance being taken out as a condition of acceptance of new applications, and
preventing applicants from investigating whether it is required, and what action will
be taken to stop this practice?
The Secretary General replied: We are aware of no cases in the past 25 years when
someone has discovered a chancel repair liability that they were not aware of when
they bought the property. In the case that has attracted much publicity, the House of
Lords were clear that the purchasers had been aware of a liability. It is, however,
theoretically possible for someone to acquire a property for which chancel repair
liability is not apparent from the deeds or the registered title. That will no longer be
the case after 13 October 2013 so, to the extent that the purchasers of unaffected
properties are currently being made to take out insurance, that should stop in threeand-a-half years’ time.
76. Revd Stephen Coles (London) asked the Secretary General:
55
Questions
Has any advice been issued to the national and diocesan institutions of the Church to
ensure that they act in accordance with the law when seeking information, in
application forms and at interviews, about an applicant’s marital or other status?
The Secretary General replied: The Archbishops’ Council sent guidance on the two
new sets of Equality Regulations to all dioceses in 2003 and in 2005 copied them for
information the latest version of the National Church Institutions’ own equal
opportunities policy.
The NCIs ask for information on marital status only in the confidential part of the
application form for employment which is not shared with the selection panel but, like
information on ethnic background, is kept for monitoring purposes. The current
national clergy application form does ask a question on marital status. This is,
however, being reviewed with the whole appointments process for clergy as part of
the Terms of Service work, and new guidance will be issued later this year.
77. Revd Ruth Yeoman (Bradford) asked the Secretary General:
Soon all parishes will be individually registered with the Charity Commission. Have
discussions taken place at a national level with the Charity Commission to build a
significant relationship towards good communication about our situation and their
work?
The Secretary General replied: Only PCCs with an income of at least £100,000 have
to register with the Commission. The Government agreed that the threshold should be
set at that level following Archbishops’ Council representations that a proposal to set
it at £50,000 would be too burdensome for the Church. Council staff have had many
meetings with Charity Commission staff both to secure an orderly introduction of the
registration requirement – working together on a standard application form and
related guidance – and to help the Commission in developing its guidance on public
benefit in relation to the advancement of religion. There have also been a number of
helpful discussions about a range of issues with the chair of the Charity Commission.
78. Dr Edmund Marshall (Wakefield) asked the Secretary General:
What advice is available from national Church organizations of the Church of
England to dioceses considering the formation of new team parishes which have
passed Resolutions A, B or C, about the consequential limitations on having female
team rectors?
The Secretary General replied: Paragraphs 26-29 of the Code of Practice on the
Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1994, issued by the House of Bishops in
January 1994, deal specifically with appointments in such parishes. In the light of
experience over the past 16 years there are aspects of the guidance which might
usefully be updated, but there are unlikely to be resources to devote to that for some
time. I have arranged for a copy of this section to be placed on the notice board in the
Bishop Partridge Hall.
Clerk to the Synod
79. Revd Prebendary Colin Randall (Bath and Wells) asked the Clerk to the Synod:
56
Questions
Given that very few parish clergy – including none of my acquaintance – possess
convocation robes, i.e. an academic gown and/or preaching bands, and in 34 years of
ordination I have never seen them worn let alone worn them myself, can consideration
be given to suggesting a different mode of formal dress for clergy for the formal
opening of Synod at the new quinquennium in November?
The Clerk to the Synod replied: Every five years the members of the newly elected
Convocations are summoned by Royal writ to assemble in Westminster Abbey. At
meetings of the Convocations, convocation robes are worn unless the President
dispenses with the wearing of robes. In the recent past, the Presidents have dispensed
with the wearing of robes at meetings of the Convocations held during groups of
sessions of the General Synod but not for the Inauguration or for meetings of the York
Convocation held separately from a General Synod group of sessions.
The Presidents will, I am sure, take all the relevant considerations into account when
deciding whether to dispense with the wearing of Convocation robes at the
Inauguration, including the points made by Prebendary Randall. Any change to what
constitutes Convocation robes (as distinct from dispensing with the wearing of them)
would fall to be considered by the Convocations themselves.
Board of Education
80. Mr Edward Keene (Church of England Youth Council) asked the Chairman of the
Board of Education:
In the course of assisting schools with their legal obligation to provide regular
services of a broadly Christian character, and/or in equipping diocesan boards of
education to do so, what is the Education Division doing to ensure that the unique
characteristics and beliefs of the Christian faith – and the unique claims of Jesus
Christ – (principally that of salvation by faith alone) are effectively communicated to
pupils?
The Bishop of Lincoln replied: Collective worship in Church schools is inspected
under the Statutory Inspection of Anglican Schools (SIAS) where the question asked
by inspectors is: How well does the collective worship develop the learner’s
understanding of Anglican traditions and practice? All aspects of the worship
programme are assessed in the context of Christian belief.
The National Society supports schools and dioceses by training inspectors, revising
the inspection process, highlighting issues in the annual report and producing a toolkit
for school self-evaluation. Dioceses also provide support for their schools through
guidance on collective worship, training and resource materials. Diocesan advisers
maintain best practice through their annual conference resourced by the National
Society.
Collective worship is only one of the many ways in which pupils in a Church school
grow to understand the unique nature of Jesus Christ: the distinctive ethos
characterized by commitment to Christian values and religious education plays a key
part.
57
Questions
81. Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the Board of
Education:
What response has the Church of England made to the Maurice Smith review of the
provisions which prevent the promotion of racism in schools?
The Bishop of Lincoln replied: Maurice Smith was asked by the Secretary of State to
carry out a review of the provisions in place and, in particular, to consider whether a
ban on membership of groups and organizations that promote racism is appropriate.
Due to the very short time-frame the Education Division was able to consult only with
those most immediately involved in schools when framing its response.
The response considered the framework within which teachers work, especially the
duties laid on governors and staff in ensuring equality of opportunity and community
cohesion, and a range of policies including anti-bullying and valuing diversity. In
addition, the Code of Practice and Conduct identifies the professional expectations on
teachers.
The conclusion reached in the submission was that the safeguards in place governing
the life of the school and the conduct of teachers were sufficient to prevent teachers
with racist views from promoting these views in the classroom.
82. Canon Alan Cooper (Manchester) asked the Chairman of the Board of Education:
Would the Board agree that much of the criticism directed against faith schools during
the past twelve months has been selective and generally ill-informed, and will the
Board ensure that the good work carried out in the Education Division and in dioceses
to promote and protect the good name of our Church schools will be reinforced as we
approach the General Election?
The Bishop of Lincoln replied: The Board of Education acknowledges that, while
opposition to faith-based schools can be a matter of principle, the evidence called in
support is often misleading. The Board has a number of strategies for maintaining
positive communication about Church schools: regular meetings with Ministers and
Department officials to enable an accurate picture to be held and acted upon;
responding to press comment to correct inaccuracies and promote a less biased view;
the use of NS News and website to inform Church schools of good practice and
events; commissioning and publishing research, for example Strong Schools for
Strong Communities (November 2009), which highlights the strength of Church
school approaches to community cohesion; contact with leading politicians to inform
the formation of policies in relation to Church schools; and promoting new schools,
especially academies, where the commitment to the service of deprived communities
is visible and successful.
Finance Committee
83. Revd Ruth Yeoman (Bradford) asked the Chairman of the Finance Committee:
As parishes are being encouraged to use the good work developed in Giving for Life
at a local level, what is happening at a national level to encourage the dioceses
58
Questions
towards greater financial transparency and a sharing of resources across diocesan
boundaries towards our mission as a national Church?
Mr Andrew Britton replied: The Charity Commission encourages all charities to
improve the quality of information available about their activities, outcomes and how
they provide public benefit. The NCIs aim to rise to this challenge, which is
commended to dioceses. We aim to build on the evaluation work on the use of the
Commissioners’ funds in dioceses and parishes: see
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/missionandministry
Diocesan resource per stipendiary clergy member helps determine the Council’s
allocation of ministry support for low-income dioceses made from the
Commissioners’ funds. In allocating mission development funding, diocesan resource
per person is a key factor. The Council’s budget, considered by Synod each July, is
apportioned between dioceses on a formula taking their financial resources into
account.
The NCIs support and encourage collaboration between dioceses where this can be
mutually beneficial, partly through the Diocesan Secretaries Liaison Group and the
Procurement Group. Examples of such collaboration include HR, IT, finance and
education.
84. Mr James Humphery (Salisbury) asked the Chairman of the Finance Committee:
Has consideration been given to whether there is anything in Scripture or the
Anglican tradition which encourages borrowers to tithe from the amounts they
borrow?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds replied: 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 offers a wealth of
guidance on giving, including that ‘the gift is acceptable according to what one has,
not according to what one does not have’. While we are called to be wise stewards of
all our wealth, nevertheless tithing is usually taken as referring to income, and
borrowed monies are not ‘ours’ as they need to be repaid in due course. The recent
Giving for Life report took as a key principle that our generosity should impact on
every aspect of our lifestyle. That will affect decisions on borrowing, saving,
spending and giving; but it will do so in different ways for different individuals.
After the closing act of worship, the Synod was adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
59
Second Day
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) (Rochester) took the
Chair at 9.30 a.m.
Revd Rhiannon Jones (Ely) led the Synod in prayer, remembering Mrs Gill Ambrose
and Mr Frank Knaggs, who were ill.
Legislative Business
Draft Amending Canon No. 29 (GS 1639B)
Draft Amending Canon for Final Drafting and Final Approval; Approval of
Petition for the Royal Assent and Licence (Revision February 2008)
The Chairman: You will see from the order paper that this particular piece of business
has a sequence of stages, five, potentially, in all, which we will seek to accomplish as
speedily as possible. I call Mr Geoffrey Tattersall to speak to the Steering Committee
report.
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall: I beg to move:
‘That the Synod do take note of this Report.’
Amending Canon No. 29 is the last of three legislative instruments which together
provide the structure to support the introduction of common tenure and, following
approval by Synod and Parliament of both the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of
Service) Measure and the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations, the
Amending Canon is now before Synod for final drafting and final approval.
As it is some time since Synod last considered this Amending Canon, it might be
helpful to remind you of what it is all about (if my voice lasts that long). It sets out to
make those changes to the Canons which are necessary to bring them into line with
the Measure and the Regulations. In particular, it removes the bishop’s power to
revoke at will a licence granted to an office-holder where the office is held on
common tenure; in future, it will be possible to terminate the appointment of such an
office-holder only in the circumstances set out in section 3 of the Measure, so
ensuring the improved security of tenure for non-freehold office-holders which had
been one of the principal aims of this legislation. The Amending Canon also seeks to
align with the Terms of Service Regulations those provisions in the Canon which
govern the circumstances in which an incumbent may be absent from the benefice
and, last but not least, it incorporates some miscellaneous revisions which have
nothing to do with common tenure at all but which have been usefully swept up in the
exercise: two minor corrections as set out in paragraphs 10 and 15 and a change to the
qualifications for ecclesiastical judges which will enable candidates for those offices
to be drawn from a wider field.
60
Members will see from our report that the Steering Committee proposes two drafting
amendments and two special amendments, and I will come to the special amendments
later. Of the drafting amendments, the first simply reflects the change to the text of
Canon C 12, which has been made since this Amending Canon was first drafted. The
second, paragraph 5 of the draft Canon, amends the original wording but without
changing the substance of what was in the earlier draft: it defines the circumstances in
which an incumbent on common tenure may be absent from his benefice by reference
principally to the regulations, which make detailed provision concerning leave.
Mr Clive Scowen has helpfully pointed out that the opening words of paragraph 5,
namely ‘Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to a beneficed priest who is subject to
Common Tenure’, are not incorporated into the text of Canon C 25 itself and that this
might lead to confusion when the amended text is published. I am happy to undertake
to Synod that the position will be made clear in the published text by means of a
footnote.
New paragraph after paragraph 5
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall: I beg to move the following special amendment:
‘After paragraph 5 insert –
“6. For paragraph 4 there shall be substituted the following paragraph –
‘4. The bishop of the diocese may, if he considers it appropriate in all the
circumstances, permit a beneficed priest to reside in a house of residence
other than the parsonage house, whether or not that house is situated in
the benefice held by that priest”.’
This amendment replaces the present paragraph 4 of Canon C 25 with a new
provision. At present a bishop may permit an incumbent to live in a house other than
the parsonage only in circumstances where there is either no parsonage house at all or
the house is not fit to live in, and the alternative accommodation must be within a
prescribed distance of the church. The Deployment, Remuneration and Terms of
Service Committee told us that this does not reflect changing patterns of clergy
deployment. In particular, there is no discretion for a bishop to allow a clergy couple,
both of whom are incumbents, to live in the same house! So this special amendment
proposes to broaden the scope of the existing paragraph 4 to give the bishop the
general discretion to allow an incumbent to live in a house other than a parsonage
when he considers it to be appropriate in all the circumstances.
I want to emphasize that this amendment is not intended to undermine the basic
principle set out in paragraph 1 of the Canon, which is that the incumbent should live
in the benefice and in the parsonage house: it simply provides for flexibility where
that is needed in particular circumstances.
The special amendment was put and carried.
61
New paragraph after paragraph 16
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall: I beg to move the following special amendment:
‘After paragraph 16 add –
“17. This Canon shall come into force as follows –
(a) Paragraphs 1 to 5 and 7 to 13 shall come into force on the day on which
section 1 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009 comes
into force, and
(b) paragraphs 6 and 14 to 17 shall come into force forthwith.”.’
This amendment provides for the Amending Canon to come into force in two stages.
It is important that those provisions which are consequential on the introduction of
common tenure should come into force only when common tenure itself is
implemented. In particular, we would not want the bishop’s power to revoke licences
to be curtailed before then. So this amendment provides that the relevant paragraphs
of the Amending Canon will come into force on the same day as section 1 of the
Terms of Service Measure which brings common tenure into effect. However, there is
no reason why the remaining paragraphs should not come into force on promulgation
as usual, and this amendment so provides.
Final Approval
‘That the Canon entitled “Amending Canon No. 29” (as amended) be finally
approved.’
Tempting though it is to address Synod at length, I do not believe that it is necessary
for me to say more than that I warmly commend Amending Canon 29 to the Synod as
a further step towards the implementation of common tenure, and I express my thanks
to all those who have been involved in the process, particularly the staff.
Before I put this item to the vote, there is something to be said here. Under
SO 36(c)(iii) a division by Houses is required for the vote on final approval of a
Measure or Canon unless I give permission and the Synod give leave for that
requirement to be dispensed with. It is important to have accurate voting figures for a
vote on final approval and also to establish how far the Canon has the support of all
three Houses. I am therefore not giving my permission for the requirement under
SO 36(c)(iii) to be dispensed with for this motion.
The motion was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(c)(iii), ordered a division
by Houses, with the following result:
62
Ayes
25
98
108
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Noes
0
2
2
Abstentions
0
0
1
The motion was therefore carried.
‘That the petition for Her Majesty’s Royal Assent and Licence (GS 1639C) be
adopted’.
The Chairman: The petition will now be presented to Her Majesty.
THE CHAIR The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent) took the Chair at
10.04 a.m.
Draft Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure (GS 1715B)
Draft Measure for Final Drafting and Final Approval (Revision July 2009)
The Chairman: We continue with the unconfined joy of legislation. I am asked to
draw your attention to the financial comments which you will find in the 11th notice
paper, paragraphs 5-10.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): I beg to move:
The report in question is GS 1715Z. I want to do this briefly and reserve my more
general points for final approval which I trust we will come to in a few moments.
As far as this report is concerned, members will see that the Steering Committee
identified the need for two drafting amendments to the Draft Ecclesiastical Fees
(Amendment) Measure. They are in bold type in GS1715B, and Annex A of the
Steering Committee’s report contains a concise explanation of each of them. That is
probably where you need to be, on page 2 of GS 1715Z.
The first of the two drafting amendments simply improves the form and manner in
which clause 5(2) is expressed. The second adds to the consequential amendments in
Schedule 2. If members have particular points about either of the amendments, they
can raise them now and I will try to answer them when I reply to this debate.
The Committee also identified the need for two special amendments, and I will
explain those when I move them in a few moments.
63
Mr Tim Allen (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): I have never experienced the launching
of a ship but I suspect that the sensation may be rather as I feel now: at long last Part 2
of this Measure, which reforms the Fees Advisory Commission, is moving down the
slipway and into the water. It has yet to be fitted out and equipped with engines: one
hopes that the Ecclesiastical Committee will approve, that the nine members of the
new-style Commission will be appointed and that the new Fees Advisory Commission
will start its work soon. The new Commission will then take the place of the present
old-style Commission of which I have been a member since shortly after being first
elected to the Synod in 2000.
I soon became convinced that the constitution of this old-style Commission was so
inappropriate that it was inherently incapable of carrying out effectively its main role
of setting the remuneration of the diocesan registrars for the essential work which
they carry out for the diocesan bishops and for the DBFs. Most oddly, you might
think, Chairman, the present membership of the old-style Commission does not
include a single registrar or a single bishop or a single DBF chair. For reasons that are
decently obscured by the mists of time, the present members are mostly lawyers of
several kinds other than registrars, plus a representative of the Church Commissioners
and a representative of the General Synod: me. A registrar appears at the table only in
the non-voting capacity of consultant. There is thus at present no possibility of
discussion or negotiation between the directly interested parties, i.e. the registrars who
do the work, and the bishops and the DBFs who are the clients.
The registrars’ retaining fees are fixed not by negotiation between the parties or
according to the volume and type of work done but by an arcane formula and by a
measure of inflation. Not surprisingly, as General Synod members have seen in many
depressing annual reports from the old-style Fees Advisory Commission, the fees are
wholly disproportionate to the work done: in most cases, apparently, too low. Not
surprisingly, it is said to be difficult to recruit new registrars.
It took a long time to get it established that reform was needed. Church lawyers are
profoundly conservative and tend to move slowly. Now at last, however, the
reforming legislation is being launched. Round the table of the new-style Commission
all the parties will be directly represented. There will also be, to see fair play,
independent members, including a chair whom the registrars very much hope to
persuade the Appointments Committee should be a senior judge. Talking and
negotiating together, the parties should be able to sort out the present mess.
So I hope that Synod members will join me silently in wishing well the new
legislation and soon the new Commission and, to go back to the ship-launching
metaphor, all who sail in her.
The Chairman: I see no one standing.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, in reply: Thank you very much to Tim Allen for
those comments on Part 2 of the Measure and for the reminder to us that this Measure
is concerned not just with parochial fees but equally with ecclesiastical judges’ and
legal officers’ fees. I am delighted with his approval of where we have got to.
64
Clause 1
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I beg to move the following special amendment:
‘After subsection (13) of section 1 inserted by clause 1(1) insert –
“(14) Subsection (1) shall apply in relation to banns of matrimony published
by a layman under section 9(2) of the Marriage Act 1949 (12, 13, & 14 Geo. 6
c. 76) as it applies in relation to banns of matrimony published by a clerk in
holy orders.”.’
This deals with the publication of banns of matrimony: in certain limited
circumstances these banns can be published by a layperson, referred to, I regret, in the
Marriage Act 1949 as a layman, and this amendment will preserve the status quo so
that parochial fees can continue to be payable where banns are published by a
layperson. It is simply a matter of tidying up.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I beg to move the following special amendment:
‘After subsection (14) (as inserted above) of section 1 inserted by clause 1(1)
insert –
“(15) Subsection (1) shall apply in relation to searches allowed to be made in
a register book of baptisms or burials and to the giving of certified copies of
entries in such a book by a churchwarden under section 20(1) of the Parochial
Registers and Records Measure 1978 (1978 No.2) as it applies in relation to
searches allowed and copies of entries given by an incumbent or priest in
charge.”.’
Another tidying-up amendment: this deals with the situation where a benefice is
vacant and there is no priest in charge. In those circumstances the churchwardens
have custody of the parochial registers and they are responsible for allowing searches
to be made and for the giving of certified copies of entries in registers. Again, this
amendment preserves the status quo so that parochial fees can continue to be payable
where searches are carried out and certified copies given under the authority of the
churchwardens, where there is no incumbent or priest in charge.
Final Approval
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I beg to move:
‘That the Measure entitled “Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure” be
finally approved.’
In July 2008 the Synod debated a report from DRACSC on parochial fees. That
report, which was supplementary to the earlier report of the Fees Review Group, Four
Funerals and a Wedding, contained a number of recommendations. They fell into
65
three categories: fees legislation, Fees Orders and the collection and disbursement of
fees.
We have now reached a point when we can establish the framework of legislation for
later Fees Orders. Part 1 of this Measure implements the recommendations that
related to fees legislation. Members will recall that the Measure received First
Consideration last February and that the Revision Committee reported last July when
the revision stage was taken. Now that the Synod has dealt with the final drafting of
the Measure, it may be useful if I remind members of what it is about.
Following the recommendations in GS 1703, Part 1 of the Measure makes
amendments to the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1986 for the following purposes. It
replaces the current highly problematic statutory definition of ‘parochial fees’ with a
definition based on a list of services and other duties carried out by the clergy and
authorized laypeople. That list is contained in Schedule 1 of the Measure. It covers a
wide range of duties – in particular, the occasional offices – that currently attract fees.
Because things change as time goes by, the Measure contains a power enabling the
Archbishops’ Council to make Orders amending that list. Any amending Order has to
be laid in draft before the Synod and approved by it before it can be made by the
Archbishops’ Council. That will mean that we will be able to make amendments to
the list without the need for further primary legislation and also that Synod will
always have a decisive voice in whether any amendments are made.
The Measure continues to provide for fees to be payable to parochial church councils,
but the fees that are currently payable to incumbents become legally payable to the
diocesan board of finance. The Measure deliberately does not prescribe how those
fees are to be collected. There is no reason why current arrangements under which
incumbents who assign their fees forward them on a regular basis to the DBF should
not continue, where that is the best way of doing it. An alternative approach, which is
favoured by the National Association of Funeral Directors, might be for fees to be
paid directly to the DBF through banks. The practical arrangements that are put in
place, or remain in place, are entirely a matter for local decision.
The Measure makes transitional provision for existing incumbents who have not
already assigned their fees to the DBF. They will be able to give notice that they wish
to retain their entitlement to fees. If they do that, they will be entitled to receive the
fees that would otherwise go to the DBF. (They will need to continue to account to
the DBF for the fees they have received so that their augmentation can be adjusted
accordingly.)
The Measure will permit Fees Orders to continue in force for up to five years, with
inbuilt increases. As the law currently stands, Fees Orders can remain in force
indefinitely; in practice, they have had to be made annually so that the levels of fees
could be increased. This Measure allows greater flexibility. It will continue to be a
decision for the Synod whether to approve a draft Fees Order, with or without
amendment, but it will not necessarily have to do so more than once in each
quinquennium, since increases in fees can be built into the Order.
The Measure clarifies an existing area of doubt in relation to the waiver of fees in
particular cases. As the law currently stands, it is unclear whether incumbents who
66
have assigned their fees are legally able to waive the payment of a particular fee. The
Measure provides that an incumbent or priest in charge can, in a particular case, waive
the fee payable to the DBF.
In accordance with one of the recommendations approved by Synod last year, the
power to make Parochial Fees Orders expressly includes the power to specify costs
and expenses that are included in the statutory fees. I emphasize that this is a power,
not a duty. It will be up to the Archbishops’ Council, when preparing a draft fees
Order, to decide whether to make use of this power and, as with Fees Orders
generally, the Synod will have a decisive voice as any Order has to be laid in draft and
approved by the Synod. Whether and to what extent the Council will seek to make use
of this power remains to be seen. DRACSC is undertaking work on that question, in
consultation with a wide range of interested parties, as part of its wider work on its
policy in relation to the setting of parochial fees.
We plan to report back to the Synod in November on that work and on the
implementation of the other non-legislative recommendations contained in GS 1703,
when there can be a full debate on the policy issues before the Archbishops’ Council
brings to Synod for its consideration the first Order to be made under the new
Measure. What this Measure does is confer the power to prescribe the matters that a
fee covers. The Measure provides the overall statutory framework, and that is what
Synod is being asked to approve today.
The final recommendation approved by the Synod and which the Measure implements
is that funeral and burial fees for children under 16 should be abolished. This is a new
provision which we hope will be helpful.
Part 2 of the Measure implements proposals for reform of the constitution and
functions of the Fees Advisory Commission, and Tim Allen has already spoken to
this. That is the body that sets fees payable in connection with proceedings in the
ecclesiastical courts and prescribes the retainers payable to diocesan registrars. The
amendments made by Part 2 of the Measure establish a Fees Advisory Commission
with a tripartite membership representing users of legal services, the providers of
those services and an independent element. Users will be represented by a diocesan
bishop, a Church Commissioner and the chair of a DBF. Providers will be represented
by a diocesan chancellor, a diocesan registrar and a provincial registrar. Three
independent members will be appointed by the Appointments Committee. The chair
will be chosen from among the independent members.
I am very grateful to all those who have contributed so much thought and energy to
this Measure. That includes members of Synod, Alex McGregor, Sarah Smith and the
Bishop of Lynn and his team.
I am delighted to commend the Measure to the Synod.
The Chairman: The motion is now open for debate. I remind members that this is a
debate on final approval and therefore motions for closure, speech limit and Next
Business are not in order, although I retain discretion to impose a speech limit if
required.
67
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham): I have no comments at all to
make about the legislation which I am sure is perfectly splendid.
I have probably marked too many essays, but I think there is a letter surplus to
requirements on page 3, Part 2, section 3, 4 (1)(c): ‘one member shall be the chairman
of a diocesan board off finance nominated by representatives of dioceses’. Could you
tell me whether we can remove it or would the bishop be kind enough to tell me what
it means, please?
Revd Paul Ayers (Bradford): There is much to welcome in this draft Measure and the
need for it has been made clear, but I regret that, in particular, subsection (7), about
the definition of parochial church councils, has remained unchanged. This allows a
fee to be paid to a parochial church council where a funeral has been taken of a
parishioner but not by their vicar or in their church.
I recently took a funeral of a lady who was living in an adjacent parish – actually, in
an adjacent diocese (actually the diocese of Ripon and Leeds) – because the sister of
the deceased had been attending our church, because it was easy to get to in the snow,
and the neighbouring parish, in which this lady lived, was vacant, so they would
rather have a vicar that they’d met than a stranger. If this was in place, imagine the
look on the funeral director’s face when I tell him that, instead of the normal one
cheque he has to issue or, depending on the funeral director, brown envelope, he will
now have to issue three cheques: one for the Bradford Diocesan Board of Finance,
one for my travelling expenses and one for the PCC of the neighbouring parish.
Imagine the look on my face when he asks me to whom this latter cheque should be
made out and who it should be sent to and who will be seeing to it that it was sent. Or,
more likely, imagine the look on my face when he asks me why on earth should this
neighbouring PCC and neighbouring diocese receive a fee for a funeral that has had
absolutely nothing to do with them.
I equally regret that the move towards setting a flat fee to include matters such as
heating, lighting and cleaning is still pushing forward. We are told that this is only
enabling: it will give a power but it is a power we will not have to use. That is an old
trick in Synod, is it not? At the moment, we say, ‘It’s only a power and we won’t have
to use it. We could set these fees at nil’ and, several months down the line, we will be
told (because we will have forgotten about this debate) that Synod has already
generally approved that we should do this, otherwise why would it have passed the
legislation in the first place, so we therefore should do it because otherwise it will
have been a waste of time to give ourselves the power to do it.
So I am at a loss how to vote, and I hope the Bishop will tell me!
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): Paul has made the first half of my speech in his
remarks about the PCC fees. It seems to me that there is no moral justification for
giving fees to a PCC where the PCC has not been involved in any way in the conduct
of the service or the follow-up of the bereaved, and although the hope was expressed
in the debate that the following-up of the bereaved would be easier, in fact there is no
mechanism for that to take place in the kind of instance that Paul has just outlined.
68
I would like to say one other thing. From the front it was said that part of the aim of
this was to have one go at legislation which would enable us to be flexible for the
future, but subsection (7), the definition of a PCC fee, does not achieve this either.
Suppose that, in the future, we as clergy are asked to go to hotels where a civil
marriage has taken place and, after the civil marriage ceremony – so that there is no
risk of confusion between the sacred and the secular – to conduct a short prayer of
blessing or of dedication or of something. To which PCC would any fee for such a
hypothetical service be dedicated? The truth is that subsection (7) does not cover
anything like that, does it? So if we wanted a Scheduled Matters Amending Order
under subsection (6), we would also have to amend legislation in order to decide who
that PCC fee should go to.
There is something fundamentally wrong with subsection (7) about the PCC fee. I
know it is difficult to fix it, but let us not kid ourselves that we have it right. I shall be
voting in favour of this because I recognize the good consolidation measures which
this Measure manages to do in various other areas of the law, but the truth is that we
have not got the right answer to this question yet.
Mr Jonathan Redden (Sheffield): The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, for whom I have
not a little admiration and affection, has described the debates which used to take
place in July, debates about parochial fees, as desultory. Indeed, they may well be
perfunctory and boring but they are no less important. Many have expressed concern
about the transfer of governance from this Synod to the Archbishops’ Council, and I
regard parochial fees as being a levy by this Synod on the nation, indeed a form of
taxation. If it is that, we should be discussing it every year and indeed we should have
the power to change the fees every year, a power which we have once or twice
exercised in the 21 years I have been a member of this Synod. In fact, I think the only
thing I have ever done in Synod is to suggest a change which actually did take place.
We have devolved powers to this Archbishops’ Council which we rightly should
have. I am not going to suggest that members should vote against this Measure: so
much time has been spent on it, so much discussion has been carried out in
committee; indeed such a suggestion is doomed to failure. However, the only way in
which we now will be able to address these fees is by a Private Member’s Motion –
and I suggest that one goes down every year to be discussed at the July group of
sessions – or you could have discussions and debates on Archbishops’ Council or you
could put Questions about it, but we will have no governance, no power to be able to
change it such as we have had in the past.
The ship is, we are told, going down the slipway. May I suggest that as regards
governance, which is the order of this Synod, it is sinking without trace.
The Archdeacon of Salop (Ven. John Hall) (Lichfield): I feel a kind of schizophrenia
coming on this morning. All along I have said quite clearly against this Measure that
it is signing blank cheques, and the one thing that an archdeacon always tells
treasurers and churchwardens and others never to do is to sign a blank cheque. I want
some assurance on the things that bother me about it - because there are some things
that I really want to agree to in this Measure – and they are what levels of fees are
going to be set and what areas are those fees going to cover? Are we really going to
take away from PCCs the authority to set levels of local fees, as they have done for
69
years, and say to them, ‘We no longer think you are capable of doing this. We must
do it centrally’ at a time when we are telling PCCs, ‘You are the Church, you are the
diocese, this is a bottom-up Church and we want you to feel you’re in control of it’?
We are still going to say to them, ‘You are responsible for raising the money to
maintain this church building and do all the necessary work on it but we no longer
trust you to set levels of fees’.
I want some clear guidance that we will know very soon the level of fees and what
those fees are going to cover.
Revd David Primrose (Gloucester): I want to refer to subsections (9) and (10) on the
third page and ask if the Bishop will just give clarity to what is meant by ‘particular
case’. I trust many will listen to that, but few will listen to what I am about to say,
which is about a colleague of mine who, in support of marriage – this is marriage
support week – was able to let the parish know that he would waive all wedding fees.
That happened on a regular basis. The diocese suffered through the loss of fee
income, but as he got the bridesmaids to make a collection for the church the PCC
was OK.
Revd Brian Lewis (Chelmsford): My question is about page 2, subsection (7)(b) in the
second part, defining which diocesan board of finance collects the fee. I have in my
parish a very large crematorium and very occasionally I am asked to take services for
people who used to live in the area but who now live perhaps two or three dioceses
away. The hearse travels across several dioceses and takes a good part of the day to
get there, but of course the local parish priest does not come as well, for somebody
who was not part of their church. Preparing for those sorts of service, I, or the
colleagues I train, will often make several phone calls and have even sent prayers so
that the friends gathering in the elderly people’s home, or wherever, can join in those
prayers at the time of the service. So there is quite a bit of time involved in
preparation, and of course we try to exercise the fullest Christian ministry we can in
the circumstances.
My time is paid for by the diocesan board of finance in Chelmsford diocese, but, as I
understand it, that DBF will not be receiving the fee but perhaps the diocese of
Guildford will. I bear no ill-will to the diocese of Guildford, but it is not paying for
my time.
Revd Alan Bashforth (Truro): This does not really relate to the legislation but to the
Bishop’s introductory remarks. He mentioned that these things were going to be
revisited in November. Is one of the things that we are to revisit in November the very
important and unresolved question of who can and who cannot receive fees, which
continues to be an issue in many parishes and dioceses? I refer particularly to selfsupporting ministers, Readers and so on.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, in reply: The Chair of the House of Laity is, as
always absolutely right, and we will remove the offending ‘f’.
Paul Ayers and, later, Brian Lewis were concerned about exactly where the money for
a parish or indeed a DBF should go, to which parish or DBF it should go. The primary
responsibility for the pastoral care and the liturgical services when someone has died
70
lies with the incumbent of the parish where they have died, and it is on that basis that
this legislation is constructed. A certain amount of common sense is going to be quite
helpful in a number of issues, and I am very happy for the diocese of Bradford and for
Mr Ayers’s parish to have the fees in the circumstances which he himself quoted. You
cannot get every single example into a piece of legislation, and common sense
matters.
Paul Ayers’s other point about heating and lighting: I shall be very surprised if
Mr Ayers allows us to forget that this is simply enabling legislation, and I think we
shall have a robust debate in November as to what is covered by that. That is also a
response to the Archdeacon of Salop. There will be discussion in November about
which fees, and the specific level of fees we shall be able to discuss in, I hope, July
2011, in the debate on the Fees Order then, which really should delight Mr Redden,
because I anticipate that being a far from desultory debate. We are not devolving
power to the Archbishops’ Council - the power remains here in Synod – but we are
revising the arrangements so that we do not have to have that particular debate every
year.
To Dr Hartley, there will be guidance issued. I shall be very surprised if his prayer of
blessing, long after a civil ceremony, actually produces any sort of fee at all, but there
will be guidance as to what fees and in what circumstances.
To David Primrose, waiving of fees is in a particular case; it cannot be a blanket
waiving of fees.
Finally, to reassure Mr Bashforth on the question of who can and who cannot receive
fees, questions of Readers and questions of self-supporting ministers will indeed be
tackled in our November discussions.
I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I look forward to a
range of these issues coming back again in November, and with that I hope that we
shall give this enabling legislation a fair wind.
The Chairman: Under SO 36 a division by Houses is required for the vote on final
approval of a Measure unless I give permission and the Synod gives leave. It is
important to have accurate voting figures for the vote on final approval of a Measure,
to establish how far the Measure has the support of all three Houses and to make that
position clear to the Ecclesiastical Committee and both Houses of Parliament. I
therefore do not give my permission to waive the requirement for a division by
Houses.
The motion was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(c)(iv), ordered a division
by Houses, with the following result:
Ayes
22
99
115
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
The motion was therefore carried.
71
Noes
0
10
9
Abstentions
1
11
4
The Chairman: The Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure now stands committed
to the Legislative Committee.
THE CHAIR Mrs April Alexander (Southwark) took the Chair at 10.45 a.m.
Draft Mission and Pastoral Measure (GS 1740A)
Draft Measure for Revision (Deemed First Consideration in July 2009)
Consolidation Measure
The Archdeacon of Leicester (Ven. Richard Atkinson) (Leicester): I beg to move:
A Consolidation Measure, by its very nature, is not the most exciting matter on the
Synod’s agenda; it does not even have the thrill of Anita Roddick’s quoted business
strategy - ‘you don’t look back, you advance and consolidate. But it is such fun’ –
even when the business is transacted by e-mail. Nevertheless, the Revision
Committee’s deliberations on this Measure have not been dull.
Members of Synod will see from our report that we received a number of helpful
proposals within the scope of the ‘corrections and minor improvements’ which
Standing Orders permit. Most of these were entirely uncontroversial, but two of the
points raised by Mr Clive Scowen took us into more interesting territory. I am grateful
to Mr Scowen for agreeing that the Committee might consider these issues in
correspondence. We had a stimulating e-mail debate to which Mr Scowen
contributed.
Mr Scowen’s first suggestion was that the Measure should be reordered so that the
provisions relating to mission initiatives should be placed before those relating to
pastoral reorganization and church buildings. This, he submitted, would better reflect
the duty imposed in clause 1 upon those exercising functions under the Measure to
have due regard to the furtherance of the mission of the Church. The Committee
rejected the proposal, not because we do not share Mr Scowen’s concern for the
priority of mission – we certainly do – but partly because pastoral provisions are the
major content and partly because we felt that the distinction between pastoral and
mission matters implied by his proposal was not a real one in today’s context. I chair
an archdeaconry mission and pastoral committee which has its fair share of pastoral
reorganization but which has also recently helped to implement our first Bishop’s
Mission Order and which supports a number of mission initiatives. We see our work
as a whole. We make the pastoral changes to promote mission, just as in practice a
Bishop’s Mission Order is both a pastoral action and a mission action. So the
Committee did not feel that any reordering of the Measure was necessary or
appropriate.
Mr Scowen also asked us to consider amending the Short Title to ‘Mission and
Pastoral Measure’ rather than the other way round. A majority of the Committee
considered that this was a helpful suggestion, as it would reflect the language of
‘mission and pastoral committees’ used in the Measure itself and would also serve to
72
promote the recognition that everything in this legislation, rightly used, is as a tool for
mission. So we agreed to make this small but significant change.
I should like to thank my colleagues on the Committee for their engagement in our
discussions, to thank Judith Egar in particular, and to invite Synod to take note of this
report.
The Chairman: As no notice has been given of amendments to particular clauses and
no members have indicated that they wish to speak against any clause, I give my
permission under SO 55(c) for the clauses to be taken en bloc.
Clauses 1-112
Mr James Humphery: I beg to move:
‘That clauses 1-112 stand part of the Measure.’
Canon Peter Bruinvels (Guildford): I am fully in favour of both the clauses and the
Measure, but I have two particular queries. I want to start by saying that I used to be a
member of the Dioceses Commission and I am a Church Commissioner, as you are,
Madam Chairman, but also I have served on the Pastoral Committee for the past 18
years.
I think the aim of this particular Measure, as was said in the report, was to resolve
ambiguities and to remove any doubts. I want to refer specifically to clause 16, about
joint boundary committees, and clauses 37, 39 and 40, to do with new benefices,
dispossessed clergy and compensation. I will not speak to Schedule 4 because that is
covered under it.
I have always believed that we should be much more proactive in our pastoral work
rather than reactive. I think it is crucial, therefore, that dioceses talk to each other and
that deaneries within the dioceses – the deanery pastoral committees of neighbouring
parishes and dioceses – should be actually working together; but they do not normally
do so. It is also important to work closely with the Dioceses Commission. I find it
astonishing that in some of the cases – and I name but one, the diocese of Gloucester local deaneries next door to each other never spoke to each other. It is very important
that they should be working together and talking to each other. Once a scheme goes
forward from the Pastoral Committee, if it is challenged, it is very important there as
well that issues are resolved and, if there are any difficulties, yes, it will come to us,
but it is again important – I keep using the word ‘important’ today but that is what it is
– for the Commissioners to know later on what happens afterwards.
My question on the joint boundary committees in clause 16 is about the reassurance of
the membership that there will be joint deanery committee members from the
respective deaneries and that there will be cross-border relations and negotiations, to
ensure that we know where we are.
Moving on to the other provisions as to clergy and ministry, it is of concern here that,
when new benefices are established, sometimes one of those particular clergy will not
73
be happy at being part of the new benefice and, as it says, they are likely to be
dispossessed if they are not happy with the churchmanship and all of that. I am not
certain that the legal rights are properly detailed both in those clauses and in the
Schedule. My concern, therefore, is that there should be inserted – and I am not
proposing an amendment but I ask people to think about it – a need to signpost, a sort
of code of practice for the common tenure and compensation for loss of office; it
should be mentioned, perhaps under 40, but I am not actually moving that because
time has gone on.
We also need to know what the likely costs are to us all when the clergy are
dispossessed. Schedule 4 does not talk about that, and I know we are not really doing
the Schedule. I want to know what happens to the parishes if they fail to resolve their
differences. It is clear to me that the common cause is there, that the clergy want to
work with each other, and everyone is working now from one hymn-sheet, it seems to
me. So I support the Measure and this item, but I feel that those points still need to be
clarified.
Mr James Humphery: I thank Canon Bruinvels for his comments. Certainly in respect
of his first comments about dioceses and deaneries talking together, he has made a
very interesting point; I hope all members of Synod have heard it and will take it back
to their dioceses and deaneries because I think the answer is really common sense: if
deaneries find themselves in the situation of needing to talk across boundaries, I hope
they do not need anything in a consolidating Measure to tell them to do so; I hope
they will get on with it and do it. The phrase that springs to mind is common sense.
Canon Bruinvels’s second point again has a very strong streak of common sense
running through it and, while I hear what he says, I have to say that we are dealing
with a consolidating Measure here and much though he may wish to see additional
provisions it is not within our power or remit to insert them at this stage. So again I
say, let common sense reign, but thank you for raising the points.
Schedules 1-9
‘That Schedules 1-9 stand part of the Measure.’
The Chairman: The item is now open for debate. I see no one standing.
Long Title
‘That the Long Title stand part of the Measure.’
74
The Chairman: That completes the revision stage of the Draft Mission and Pastoral
Measure. The Draft Measure now stands committed to the Steering Committee in
respect of its final drafting.
Draft Care of Cathedrals Measure (GS 1727A)
Draft Measure for Revision (Deemed First Consideration in July 2009)
Consolidation Measure
The Archdeacon of Leicester (Ven. Richard Atkinson) (Leicester): I beg to move:
As members will see, the report of the Revision Committee is very short. This reflects
the fact that this Measure, again, is a Consolidation Measure. There were no proposals
for amendment from members. The only amendments that were made were drafting
amendments in Schedules 1 and 2, to use gender-neutral language: provisions from
the 1990 Measure, which had used the more traditional style, were inadvertently
copied over without the language having been updated. That has now been put right.
I thank my colleagues on the Revision Committee and Alex McGregor for their work.
The Chairman: We now move to the revision stage in respect of this Measure. As no
notice has been given of any amendments to clauses 1-25, and no members have
indicated that they wish to speak against any of those clauses, I give my permission
under SO 55(c) for clauses 1-25 to be taken en bloc.
Clauses 1-25
Canon Peter Bruinvels (Guildford): - declaring another interest: I am a member of the
Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. I want just to draw attention to clause 3
and to encourage all cathedral deans to work even more closely with the Cathedrals
Fabric Commission for England. I know they get disheartened sometimes when we
ask them to go away and think again. Sometimes, if they were to come to us earlier,
we might have a better consultation. It is perfectly correct, and I have noticed that
sometimes some of us have been lobbied, and I think that is incorrect, and that is
advice that the Association of English Cathedrals needs to know (and I am looking at
the chairman now, the Dean of Leicester). There are some fantastic cathedrals on
offer at the moment, and the plans that they have really are for the future; but we
always have to safeguard the history and the deep memories of so many people who
continue regularly to attend our cathedrals, indeed in increasing numbers every year.
So the plea is that you work closely with us. Do not give up if you think you are on
the wrong track. Come back again. Do not be disappointed. As a member for the past
five years, I have been astonished at the expertise – the architects, the specialists –
who give all their time freely, and I just want to say that it does work.
75
I fully support this particular clause and the Measure and will be voting in favour.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): In almost all the clauses, whenever there is a (c)
and then presumably there is intended to be a paragraph marker to indent the
paragraph correctly, in fact the paragraph marker has been missed off. I can only
assume that the person doing the word-processing found that the word-processor
would automatically have inserted the copyright symbol © instead of (c). I wonder if
the typography could be sorted out before the Measure receives its Royal Assent.
The Dean of Leicester (Very Revd Vivienne Faull): – to respond to Peter Bruinvels.
We are grateful for his comments which we will certainly take up at the Association
of English Cathedrals. I am also very grateful for the wording of the Measure which
talks not only of care, conservation and repair of cathedrals but also their
development. We are aware that the Commission is now working very actively with
cathedrals from the first moment that chapters, capitular bodies, begin to think about
how their buildings might be developed. We at Leicester have received two very
helpful visits from members of the Commission.
I endorse what Peter Bruinvels says and I will carry that back to the body I lead.
Mr James Humphery, in reply: Thank you again to Canon Bruinvels, and I
congratulate him on getting in his plug for the Cathedrals Fabric Commission, which I
am sure does excellent work. Far be it from me to intervene in the mutual admiration
going on between him and the Dean of Leicester. I am very glad that such a dry legal
Consolidation Measure has actually provoked that little debate and got the two of
them talking together publicly on the floor of this Synod. I will say also that I was a
little bit concerned, sitting there, hearing Canon Bruinvels talking about cathedrals
‘on offer’. I have this image in my mind of ‘For Sale’ signs going up outside
cathedrals up and down the country. I hope that is not what he meant, and I see that he
is shaking his head, so I presume he did not.
Thank you to Dr Hartley for pointing out what he did. There is nothing of any greater
significance in this, I am afraid, than a fault in the software. Even as I speak, I think
men in white coats are trying to sort it out. Rest assured that we will sort it out before
the final versions are printed.
Clause 26
Mr James Humphery: I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In clause 26(4), leave out the words “the first date referred to in subsection (3)
above” and insert “1st January 2008”.’
This is a drafting amendment. Clause 26 of the draft Measure replicates provisions
that were made by the Draft Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure 2005. Those
provisions imposed duties on cathedral chapters in relation to reports and inspection
by cathedral architects. Reports had to be produced within a limited period of time,
calculated as beginning on the date on which the relevant provisions of the 2005
Measure came into force. When the 2005 Measure was passed, that date was of course
76
unknown and so references in that Measure were to the yet-to-be-determined
commencement date, and there were cross-references to the same effect.
When clause 26 of the draft Measure was prepared, instead of referring to the
commencement date it made obvious sense simply to insert the date in question,
because of course it was known by that time, and that date was 1 January 2008. Those
of you who have studied clause 26 in close detail will have seen that we got it right in
clauses 26(1) and 26(3). However, there was as simple oversight which led to this not
being done in clause 26(4) and an old cross-reference was inadvertently retained. I
apologize for that and ask that this amendment be passed because it corrects that
oversight.
The amendment was put and carried.
‘In clause 26(4), after “subsection (1)”, leave out the word “above”.’
In drafting the consolidation Measure, the opportunity was taken to use more
straightforward – I use that word advisedly – and up-to-date drafting conventions in
line with those used by Parliamentary Counsel. It is no longer the practice, when
cross-referring to other provisions within the same legislation, to use the expressions
‘above’ or ‘below’, it simply being understood that the provision in question is to be
found where one would expect to find it. However, on this occasion the word ‘above’
was accidentally retained in clause 26(4). This amendment is therefore simply to
remove that one unnecessary word.
‘That clause 26, as amended, stand part of the Measure.’
Clause 27
‘That clause 27 stand part of the Measure.’
Clause 28
‘In clause 28(3), leave out “(if made)”.’
The words that this amendment would leave out are a further and I hope, fingers
crossed, final, inadvertent copying error because we have inadvertently copied over
words which are already contained in the existing legislation. They are no longer
77
needed because the time limit within which the report to which the words ‘if made’
related has now expired, and therefore all such reports must by now have been made –
and I can see the Dean of Leicester nodding sagely. Thank you, Dean. This
amendment is therefore to remove two redundant words from the section.
Canon Elizabeth Paver (Sheffield): On a point of order, Madam Chairman, may we
enquire if the Synod is quorate in all three Houses?
The Chairman: We are quorate in all three Houses.
‘That clause 28, as amended, stand part of the Measure.’
Clauses 29 – 34
Schedules 1 – 3
‘That Schedules 1-3 stand part of the Measure.’
Canon Peter Bruinvels (Guildford): I am a member of the College of Canons and I
have already declared an interest with regard to the Cathedral Fabric Commission for
England.
I want to talk about two important points. A moment ago I praised the work myself –
not my work but the work of the Cathedral Fabric Commission for England - and I
said that there was a tremendous experience on that particular commission. I want to
refer members to Schedule 1.3 and the membership and to flag up one of the
dilemmas that I find as a member of the Cathedral Fabric Commission as concerns
some of our advisers.
We have to have, quite properly, architects, chartered building surveyors, painters,
sculptors, musicians, liturgy specialists, English Heritage. Some of those people have
more than three interests in particular cathedrals, deans and chapters, and that does
trouble me a bit. I am not certain how we get round that but the rules are very clear
that, if you were involved in any particular one, until recently – and I moved an
amendment at the Cathedral Fabric Commission – you were not even allowed to stay
to hear the plan put before members of the Commission. We could have a ridiculous
situation where top experts are not able to be present at all or where they have so
78
many conflicts. Of course, experience covers both provinces and we are very lucky to
have those experts. However, I think it is something that does need to be looked at.
Moving to Schedule 2 and the fabric advisory committee, looking particularly at the
role of the Cathedral Fabric Commission and what we do in nominating up to five
members – I declare an interest here as a member of the appointments committee for
the Cathedral Fabric Commission for England – I am always being asked to put
forward people to support the dean and chapter and to be members of the local fabric
advisory committee. The problem here is that the same people tend to be put forward.
I would again urge the deans and the Commission to come up with other names than
the usual suspects. They are not suspects actually; they are extremely good people:
conservationists, architects, surveyors, people who can bring wider experience to our
particular fabric advisory committees at cathedral level. It is important to get that
right. With so many conflicts of interest, I feel that sometimes we do not always get
the best candidates. Sometimes we can appoint only the candidates who come forward
via the dean and chapter. I feel that there should be a campaign to encourage other
people who are rather too shy at the moment to put themselves forward.
I support Schedules 1, 2 and 3 but I give those as provisos.
Mr James Humphery: I understand Canon Bruinvels’s point but I am quite sure that
in a consolidation Measure we should not be going down the road of deciding which
individual people can sit on which individual committee. I think it is a level of detail
that is quite improper for us to deal with at this level; it is really something for deans
and chapters themselves, and their representatives will have heard what Canon
Bruinvels has just said. I think he can regard his campaign as effectively having been
launched, but I have nothing further to add.
Long Title
‘That the Long Title stand part of the Measure.’
The Chairman: That completes the revision stage of the Draft Care of Cathedrals
Measure. The Draft Measure now stands committed to the Steering Committee in
respect of its final drafting.
79
Codes of Practice
THE CHAIR Canon Margaret Swinson (Liverpool) took the Chair at 11.15 a.m.
Code of Practice under Section 8 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms
of Service) Measure 2009 (GS 1774)
Code of Practice for approval
The Bishop of Hull (Rt Revd Richard Frith): I beg to move:
‘That the Code of Practice issued under section 8 of the Ecclesiastical Offices
(Terms of Service) Measure 2009 for the purposes of Regulation 31 of the
Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 be considered.’
The work on the terms of service for those holding ecclesiastical office has from its
beginnings in 2002 been about three things: protecting the vulnerable, developing the
clergy and strengthening accountability – all of which improve the Church’s ability to
deliver its mission through ministry.
Giving office holders ‘rights’ – an overused and easily misunderstood word – in order
to protect them must be balanced by ensuring that they discharge certain obligations
to the Church. A fundamental one of these obligations is competence in how they
discharge the duties of their office. Maintaining this competence can be helped by
enabling them to participate in regular ministerial development review and continuing
ministerial development and, where sustaining competence fails, being subject to a
capability procedure.
The procedure contained in this Code of Practice is first and foremost about
encouraging and supporting improvement. Experience in the employment world has
already shown that it is unlikely to be used very often. The reality is that few people
have such serious performance problems that the formal procedure will need to be
triggered. However, it is likely that in each diocese there are a few clergy to whom
bishops, archdeacons and other senior clergy are no doubt already offering support
and training, thinking up imaginative interventions, cajoling, persuading, and so on –
sometimes in the face of non co-operation. In effect, they are already doing all the
things they will be required to do under the capability procedure but with limited
prospect of resolving the really hard cases. This new procedure gives us, for those few
cases, the ability to require co-operation and, where all else fails, to remove from
office.
This procedure is not about abandoning the essentials of vocation and ministry but it
will actually help us to fulfil the vows made when we were ordained. It is a reminder
that we are expected to perform the duties of our office to at least an adequate
standard. When we do not and things go wrong, there is now a defined procedure to
follow – and this is right.
Fairness requires a procedure and fairness is what this is about: fairness for those
who are hardworking and competent, who watch those who are not; fairness of
treatment for those who have the problem; fairness for people in parishes who are
faithfully serving the kingdom and deserve adequate clergy; and fairness for those
who are struggling to do better but are finding that difficult.
80
Codes of Practice
I want to know and feel that I have been or will be treated fairly. I want an open and
clearly defined process that allows me to explain my position; be represented by
someone who knows more about these things than I do; a process that helps me
understand clearly what is expected of me and how long I have to try to put things
right; and I want to be able to appeal to impartial people if I think the decision about
my future is flawed.
The first draft of the capability procedure was published in the Review of Clergy
Terms of Service report in 2004 and went to Synod in that year. The review groups
and then the implementation panel, which I have been chairing, have received many
comments and suggestions over the years. What is now before Synod is the result of
our careful consideration of those views. The procedures are consistent with the new
ACAS code of practice on discipline and grievance and represent what an
employment tribunal would expect to see.
Members will see that the bishop is encouraged to delegate the operational parts of the
procedure to his senior staff but remains involved only in judging the outcome of
cases at each formal stage – and that is right. Bishops share the cure of souls with the
people who may find themselves the subject of this procedure and are also subject to
it themselves. Surely it is only right that they devote time to being involved in what is
likely to be the most serious incident in the working life of a priest?
To those who say that this is all too much extra work I would reply that bishops and
archdeacons are less overburdened when clergy are flourishing in their ministry.
Proper processes all help that flourishing to happen. It may feel like a lot of work in
setting up the system to deliver it but this will quickly reap benefits. All dioceses now
have access to professional HR advice; many senior clergy are receiving information,
training and help with planning how this will be implemented; and there is a growing
acceptance among the clergy on the ground that these things should happen in our
Church.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham): I want to speak particularly to the context of this type
of activity and to turn to GS Misc 940, page 2, 1.4 in the Introduction. The connection
is between my work as a GP across the northern region, looking at under-performing
doctors, and to some degree dentists and pharmacists, and parallels with the context in
which under performance can occur.
We have experience of eight years of the National Clinical Assessment Service,
which is the national body the NHS uses for looking at doctors, dentists and
pharmacists and finding ways of assessing their clinical competence and performance.
I think that paragraph 1.4 makes a very important point: that the context in which
performance takes place is vital.
I was interested to hear in the bishop’s introduction that the main focus seemed to be
on parish clergy and he did not comment on performance issues in others, from
bishops down – but there we go. Actually, it is across the whole system and the
context that matters. For instance, when NCAS considered eight years of looking at
under-performance where they were doing an assessment on a clinician, they found
the organization – perhaps here the bishop – gave the following statistics of
expectations: that about two-thirds had problems with their clinical knowledge and
81
Codes of Practice
skills; about two-thirds had issues of behaviour that did not fit in with their
performance; and about one-fifth where the map of the organization itself was the
problem. What surprised me was that those figures for clinical knowledge and
behaviour were almost right: perhaps a little more than two-thirds, about 70 per cent.
What was most interesting, however, was that in 80 per cent of situations the
organization in which the people were working was also significantly part of the
problem.
What 1.4 on page 2 picks up is this very point. If you put someone in a situation
which is going to fail them – surprise, surprise! – they may actually fail. Part of the
safeguard in this Measure must surely be looking at the context of the ministry,
whether it is the ministry of a bishop, an archdeacon, a dean or a member of the parish
or other clergy. If the organization is key, I just hope that we can keep this in our
mind’s eye as we move forward.
I have had some experience of assessing a number of doctors recently for the region,
where there were clear signs that these doctors were being scapegoated by their
organizations. When they were assessed, they showed appropriate levels of
competency but they were unable to perform because the context did not allow them.
While very supportive of the whole thrust of capability procedure, therefore, I would
want to sound a warning that we must be very careful that the context is explored and
that correction to context is brought about early on.
Revd Canon David Felix (Chester): At first sight, our debate today brings to a
conclusion our discussion over many years of clergy terms of service. The legislation,
Code of Practice and other documents which come before us now give those affected,
clergy and laity alike, clarity and certainty in the way in which licensed ministry is
practised, as the bishop outlined at the beginning. Our debate is a conclusion but not
the end. Now the work really starts.
The implementation process and the consequent cultural change that will be needed
will be almost as difficult, if not more difficult, in the minds of those affected as it has
been for those of us here who have put the framework together. My concern is that I
am not yet convinced that we are prepared to provide sufficient resources, human and
financial, to make it happen. After four-and-a-half years of chairing a large housing
association in which we had at least 230 members of staff and with eight people
working in human resources, I am not sure how many dioceses of comparable size
can have that level of provision.
For too long we have allowed the understanding of how clergy and stipendiary
Readers understand their terms of ministry to be formed and developed at the time of
training, whether in theological college or course, and then to be supplemented by
what is learnt during the first two or three years of initial ministry. For too long we
have allowed this debate, and the attitudes formed and practice developed, to be left to
the world of Church party politics, as developed and preserved by the patronage
system. The capability process can bring about the necessary change of culture, if and
only if we put the time and effort into developing professional ministry before
problems arise.
82
Codes of Practice
MDR is well established and crucial but can be effective only if we ensure that the
continuing training and development is of the highest possible quality and, in certain
areas, child protection being one obvious example, made compulsory. We need to
grapple with the concept of ‘continuing’. We need to ensure that ongoing training and
development is not a mere tick-box exercise but that it is as relevant and appropriate
for the Church, for the people of God, as it is for the individuals who do it. We need
to ensure that our managerial systems and processes allow the professional ministry to
flourish and grow, to meet the challenges of the 21st century and to meet the
expectations of all who come into contact with the Church, both inside and outside the
fellowship of faith.
The professional ministry is a sacred trust and a privilege. Let us ensure that, when we
practise it in all its manifestations, the evidence of that sacredness is for all to see.
Revd Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool): I welcome the Code of Practice and all this
legislation that is going through. A few years ago in our diocese I was asked if I
would chair a working party to see how this whole agenda would affect the clergy and
what impact it would have on their lives.
The first conclusion we made was that the tone needs to be set by the bishop and the
senior staff of the diocese, because all of this also applies to them. We were trying to
make the point that, if it is consistently applied and if everyone knows that it is right
across the board, parish clergy need not fear, because bishops and archdeacons
themselves will be under capability, discipline, grievance and all the rest of it. First of
all, I would make a plea to Synod to remember that and, when bishops and senior staff
are developing these policies in their dioceses, for them to remember that they set the
tone.
The second thing I want to say, having become an area dean about a year ago, is that I
am surprised that area deans are not mentioned anywhere in this legislation. It seems
to me that across the country area deans are increasingly being given more
responsibility, and not only could there be issues of capability, because they have
their own parish and then take on another job of area dean or rural dean, whatever you
want to call it, but they are having responsibility for their deanery to lead in mission
and planning. If they are also, as in Liverpool, being bishops’ reviewers under MDR,
they have a crucial role.
I would also welcome more clarity in the role of bishop, archdeacon and area dean in
this question. I was doing some maths earlier – forgive me if I have got this wrong –
and I would estimate that one in ten of the clergy are either an archbishop, bishop,
archdeacon, dean or area dean in the country. That is quite a high figure when you
think about it.
So that we do not get confusion in role and archdeacons having chats with area deans
about pastoral difficulties, I would like to see reference to the role of area dean in
dioceses, and I wonder if the Code of Practice being issued by the Archbishops’
Council could reflect this. Otherwise, I am very supportive of this legislation.
The Archdeacon of Dorking (Ven. Julian Henderson) (Guildford): In the section on
the relationship between continuing ministerial review and capability, to be found on
83
Codes of Practice
page 4 of GS Misc 940, there are some very important words about the ownership of
the role description, which is signified as a significant part of this capability
procedure. I would want to draw Synod’s attention to it. There is a whole new culture
to be learnt as to how we are going to operate.
I am glad to hear the assurance that some are suggesting that this will not be used very
often. I have to say that the massive amount of work in getting it in place does feel
somewhat disproportionate to those very few occurrences that may come our way.
Archdeacons, I am sure, will be keen to report in due course on how they are
managing this extra workload, that is if they are alive to tell the tale.
Section 2.4 on page 4 of GS Misc 940 draws our attention to the issue of agreement
about role descriptions. It says, ‘Usually … a role description will have been agreed’.
I would ask the question, when will a role description not be agreed and what are the
criteria that will be used to say that a role description is not necessary and therefore
does not need to be agreed?
Secondly, how will that agreement be achieved? What is the process involved? There
are three different parties mentioned in that section: the office holder, the PCC and the
bishop. It is a question of how that role description will be agreed between those three
parties.
Then what happens when that role description cannot be agreed? Each of those parties
may have rather different agendas, especially if an issue of capability is coming to the
fore. The bishop may have one view, the PCC another and the office holder a third.
What happens when that cannot be agreed? Who decides in the end? Who decides
whether the role description will be developed or changed once it has been agreed? I
feel that there are a whole number of areas here that are very significant and important
as we try to work this through. It is work in progress; I understand that. However, all
three parties have a claim in the ownership of the role description. We have discussed
this in our diocese and it is probably best described as falling into the responsibility
ultimately of the bishop, with consultation with the PCC and the office holder.
Wording to that effect may be helpful, if that could be changed.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): The first speaker in this debate spoke very
helpfully about the context in which under-performance can sometimes take place and
the fact that the context can contribute towards that under-performance. I would ask
that that whole area be given some further thought.
When I was a member of the Revision Committee for this terms of service legislation,
I recall that the issue of the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure was raised
with the committee. We were advised that effectively the Measure would lapse, as it
were, because there would be no incumbents under common tenure in future and also
the Measure in itself was rarely used. Having said that, it was a Measure that in some
sense gave a mechanism for addressing the context in which problems might arise. I
think that the fact that there is no replacement or follow-on to that is something which
needs to be addressed. I am not suggesting for a moment that we simply replicate the
Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure but that we look at ways in which the
context of under-performance can be formally addressed; in particular, perhaps, where
the context is being contributed to by lay officers or members of PCCs in parishes in a
84
Codes of Practice
situation that might have been addressed before by that Incumbents (Vacation of
Benefices) Measure.
I would ask that that whole area of context be looked at, because I think there is a gap
there at the moment.
Revd Peter Hobson (Leicester): I want to speak to paragraph 12 of GS Misc 940,
about the right to be accompanied in the various stages of these procedures. Members
of the House of Clergy will be aware that at its meeting yesterday there was
discussion about whether, in this changing climate in which we live, the case for some
form of professional association for clergy, or alternatively an enhanced arrangement
with trade union representation, is becoming more compelling. There is a working
party, of which I and others are members, looking into this and it will report back.
Here we have one example of exactly where these things come into question.
Paragraph 12.1 talks about office holders being given the right to bring a lay or
ordained colleague or trade union representative to accompany them and goes on to
say in which circumstances, the role that this person has, and how it works. This is all
standard stuff in other professions but it is new to most of us. At this point I want to
highlight how the legislative framework in which we are living requires more and
more that not only the Church on its side has all its HR ducks in a row but that the
clergy, as individuals who are subject to this process, are properly resourced.
It is not, I suggest, a matter for the diocese or the Church of England centrally to say
to the clergy, ‘… and we will do this for you as well’. Particularly to clergy, but also
to Synod as a whole, there is a corporate interest in our clergy being as properly
supported in these processes as they can be and I think that there should be a
corporate interest in this working well.
Mrs Debbie Sutton (Portsmouth): I want to make a minor point about CME. I can
quite see the importance of CME, lifelong learning and all the rest of it, as part of this
work that we are discussing but I would ask that, when it gets to the point of
implementation and process, work looking at training and how it will be undertaken
should include the laity, and that should be given some consideration.
Portsmouth is currently developing a ministry strategy and we recognize quite clearly
that there is a need to train ordained and lay people together, not in parallel. Although
it is very laudable that this work is taking place, there is a possibility, if not a danger,
that when it comes to the point of putting this Code of Practice into practice the two
could become unhelpfully dislocated. I would encourage those who have to do with
arranging the training to try to see to it that that does not happen.
Revd Paul Ayers (Bradford): I welcome this legislation and I want to draw attention
to what I think is a weakness that still needs to be addressed. In GS Misc 940,
paragraph 2, there is a helpful section about the relationship between capability and
MDR. I think the weakness is that we still do not have any clarity about how MDR
will be improved and implemented.
At the moment, what the regulations will give us is that MDR schemes must be made
by the bishops, and they can make more or less whatever scheme they like. No doubt
85
Codes of Practice
they will think that it is good, as they probably do at the moment. The question is how
do the rest of us know whether it is?
According to conversations I have had with staff, the evidence about the
implementation of this seems to be rather patchy and varied across the dioceses. There
is still no real clarity about what MDR is. Is it something that is being done peer to
peer, in which case how does it relate to being part of the information that is used in
capability procedures, or is it being done as a kind of line management? If it is, how
can we have the resources to provide line management if review is done by a bishop
or an archdeacon, for example, who never really sees you operating in the parish, does
not see you visiting people, preaching, or taking funerals, and has only a certain
limited amount of evidence to go on? Whichever case it is, how are those reviewers to
be trained and monitored? It is all right to say, ‘That will be up to dioceses and up to
bishops’, but that is what we have now and I do not think there is anything that shows
how we will improve this. Many organizations separate review on a peer basis from
issues of pay, promotion and appointments.
It is regrettable that we have had to break this whole business up into separate chunks,
because they are vitally related – as this report says. I therefore want to ask when we
shall have a chance to discuss in Synod how the implementation of MDR and CME is
going on the ground.
I would also briefly refer to paragraph 1.5 of GS Misc 940, about appointments
procedures. I wonder what can be done to improve appointments procedures as they
are at the moment. The helpful report From Frustration to Fulfilment, which I
mentally tag as ‘grumpy old vicars’, says that many clergy are alienated by review
and appointments processes. I wonder when we will have a chance to discuss in
Synod that very important area of appointments.
The Bishop of Hull, in reply: Thank you to all those who have made contributions. I
will comment briefly on what has been said.
I am very grateful to Dr Harrison for his comments. Although I referred directly only
to parish clergy, it is of course true that this procedure applies to all clergy. We very
much agree that context is absolutely vital. Competence is in relation to a particular
role rather than just competency as a priest.
To Canon Felix, I very much agree that this is not the end and I applaud his emphasis
on the change of culture and the time and energy that will be needed to make this
work. That is really why there is so much emphasis on ministry development and on
ministerial review.
Canon Spiers’s point about area deans is a very fair one. The difficulty is that area
deans play significantly different roles in different dioceses. However, it is intended
that area deans should specifically be included in the training that is being provided.
Regarding Archdeacon Henderson’s comments about the role description, this is very
much a matter for continuing discussion and I fully accept that more clarification is
needed here.
86
Codes of Practice
To Fr Killwick, I understand that the Archbishops’ Council is doing some more work
on pastoral breakdown issues generally, but I would applaud all that he says about the
context in which these issues are set.
I agree very much with the points made by Mr Hobson about clergy training and the
need for clergy to be up to speed on these issues. I would thank Mrs Sutton for her
helpful comments, and we very much take the point about the implications for
training and for it to be done in a multidisciplinary way.
Responding to Mr Ayers’s concerns about Ministry Development Review, the new
MDR guidance has just been issued. An enormous amount of work is being carried
out in a large number of dioceses regarding this matter and a great deal of training is
happening. With regard to when the Synod will have an opportunity to discuss how
the implementation of it is going forward, that is not for me to say. However, I am
very grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate.
Mr James Humphery (Salisbury): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘Leave out paragraphs 4.6-8.2.’
My first four amendments are designed to make the Code of Practice more workable
by making it more flexible. However, I want to begin by acknowledging that the
document we have before us this morning is a huge improvement on its predecessors,
and it has been a great privilege to see it evolve over the last two or three years. The
fact that we have a document this morning, which in terms of its content and layout is
so much better than the original, reflects very well on the implementation group.
I also want to share the implementation group’s hope that the vast majority of
capability cases will be dealt with informally. That is absolutely right. My point in my
first amendment, however, is that the Code sets out a formal process for a minority of
cases. By including two pages of informal process, we necessarily formalize that
which we meant to keep informal. In doing so, we will lose all the benefits of
informality and make it much more difficult for bishops, HR advisers and appointed
persons to discharge their responsibilities, while at the same time unnecessarily
upsetting the office holders they will be trying to help.
I ask members of Synod to look at the informal procedure for a moment. It starts off
by the appointed person reaching for the Code; then discussing the case with the HR
adviser; then reviewing the role and the MDRs; then checking a variety of potential
issues; then writing a letter, complying with Regulation 31(2) of the Ecclesiastical
Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009. Remember this is the informal
procedure. Then the appointed person holds a meeting with the office holder; then, if
there is a capability issue, the appointed person works through some more topics; then
holds yet another meeting with the HR officer; then, in clouds of incense and to the
strains of the Hallelujah chorus, he can give an informal warning.
87
Codes of Practice
That sounds to me like a formal procedure. When you look at it on paper in the Code
of Practice, it looks like a formal procedure and I think that it will be taken as a
formal procedure by all those who have to use it.
The practical consequences will be an office holder in a high state of anxiety as he or
she sees this freight train coming down the tracks and threatening to squash him or
her. That initial reaction is bound to make it much more difficult for HR advisers to
deploy their skills and, before you can say ‘Ecclesiastical Office holders (Terms of
Service) Regulations’, you will be locked in adversarial conflict. That is bad for
everyone, not least of all the chairmen of the DBFs who will have to pick up the bill.
I acknowledge that there is some extremely good material in the informal procedure
but I say the proper place for that is in the guidance, which is not before us this
morning. I therefore ask Synod, when the time comes, if the time comes, to vote for
my amendment and I ask the implementation group to put these paragraphs in its
supporting guidance, which is their natural home. As the first step to that end, I do
hope that 40 members will stand so that we can explore this a bit more.
The Bishop of Hull: As we have heard, this amendment would have the effect of
deleting the informal elements of the procedure from the Code of Practice. It is true to
say that this suggestion has been made several times and has been very carefully
considered by both the Revision Committee and the implementation panel.
We could put the informal elements in the supporting advice but I would nonetheless
recommend to Synod that we reject this amendment and keep them in the procedure,
for the following reasons. We want to ensure that informal means of addressing
capability issues are explored first. Putting them in the procedure will help this to
happen in a structured but still informal way. Even though it is informal, it needs to be
done fairly and consistently and so it should be part of the procedure. Finally, in the
employment world almost every employer’s disciplinary procedure has an informal
stage.
The Chairman: Are there 40 members standing? There are 40 members standing.
The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent): I admit to being torn on this one.
I suspect that we have to have the informal procedure in the Code for the most
important reason, which is that we have to be seen to be doing our procedures in ways
that employment tribunals will expect.
I would just pause, however, and say that there are a few of us here who want to
dance round and say, ‘The king’s got no clothes on’. I know that we have to do this; I
know that section 23 of the Employment Relations Act requires us to take this route.
From talking to most of my episcopal colleagues, I know also that we are fearful of
what this will entail: that we will spend our time ticking boxes; going through
procedures; finding ways of dealing with our clergy which actually detract from a
proper relationship. I think that we have reached a stage where we are overprofessionalizing the whole Church. I would love a role description to say ‘parish
priest’ and that is all that is needed. I know we cannot do that, but I regret where we
have got to and I think that many of us are adopting this with a hugely heavy heart.
88
Codes of Practice
Given that we are going this way, however, Mr Humphery’s amendment is asking us
an interesting question about how much you codify what you are doing. The difficulty
for us all is that, when dealing with a priest whose performance you want to help
improve, in the present climate you need to be seen to have gone through all the
requisite procedures. We will therefore need an informal code. Whether it is on the
face of the procedure or as guidance notes seems to me to be slightly irrelevant. In the
end, you will have to set down that you have done all these things.
I would therefore resist this series of amendments and say that we need the informal
procedure. I do not really want it there. It is with a heavy heart that I urge it upon
Synod, because I do not like the territory that we are entering into; but, given that we
have to go this route, we need this kind of guidance and we need it in the place where
it is. I would therefore ask Synod to reject this series of amendments, though I am
very sad about the whole thing.
Revd Robert Cotton (Guildford): In all these discussions over the years on terms of
service, I have been caught between understanding whether this is a culture change or
whether it is expressive of our culture. The bishop used the phrase ‘culture change’
just now. However, there is a way in which the paragraphs that Mr Humphery wants
to delete are expressive of the culture that we value in the Church.
I can play the same game as him. Looking at paragraph 6 on page 7, these are naming
precisely the sorts of thing that are within our culture and the culture of bishops
dealing with priests, priests dealing with one another – coaching, training,
counselling, mediating, mentoring. These are precisely the things that we want named
and named upfront, explicitly. That will be expected of us.
I too will be resisting these amendments, therefore; though I do not do it with a heavy
heart at all and I want to take issue with that sort of phrase. On a number of occasions
recently I have been taken aback by some of the employees I have in a parish asking
quite explicitly for the sort of conversations that are outlined in the whole terms of
service package; taken aback by the parish secretary and people employed in a
housing association I work in; but now finding that curates for whom I am responsible
are also asking for the same conversations. These conversations, I believe, are
expressive of the sort of relationship I have with them. It is a matter of fulfilling the
promises we made on our ordination.
No, I do not do this with a heavy heart, therefore. We need guidance; we need to do it
fairly; we need to do it explicitly. I urge Synod to resist this amendment.
Revd Peter Hobson (Leicester): I also confess to being torn as to the best way to
proceed on this. Having thought about it, however, I am unpersuaded by those who
are resisting this amendment. At the moment, I am persuaded by the thought that
informal procedures belong in as informal a place as they possibly can be, granted
that we need to say something about them.
There will be guidance and I think it is entirely appropriate that guidance about the
informal stages should be given. However, I feel quite uncomfortable, as the mover of
the amendment suggests, that what is called an informal process is being made as
89
Codes of Practice
formal as it is; that it has, as it were, upped the ante in terms of the hierarchy of
documents.
With reference to the point I made in my earlier speech, for example, there is no right
to be accompanied in these informal conversations. There is a right in formal
processes and that is a proper safeguard, but somebody can deem that you have no
one with you in these. The more I think about it, the more I think that there should be
a requirement for some informal process and something should be said in the Code;
but I think that ‘informal’, if it is to mean ‘informal’, does not belong in a Code of
Practice.
The Bishop of Burnley (Rt Revd John Goddard): We are dealing in the whole of this
debate with a very difficult subject, into which many of us fear to tread. Having
recently been involved in the restructuring of a very large Board for Social
Responsibility and having capabilities and competence as part of that restructuring,
having an informal process, which was laid out with the assistance of HR, enabled us
to have a transparent method of dealing with the issues before us. It not only protected
any person who was brought before a discussion group – let us call it that at this stage
– to begin to look at the capabilities or competence issues; it also protected me as
chair of that board as I engaged within it.
The result of having a carefully laid-out procedure for informal discussions meant that
not only did we have transparency but, when in one case we had to move to the
formal issues, we were able at the end of the process – as said by all participants – to
have a fair and just pattern. The informal enabled us to put aside some people who
were brought before us and, in that transparent way, everyone felt satisfied. What had
to be taken further could well have ended up in an employment tribunal if we had not
gone right through the proper and careful procedures.
This is new territory. Many of us were not ordained to this, but we will have to deal
with it carefully and properly. I recommend that, despite what we might feel, both for
the protection of priests and of those who are conducting the procedures, we do not
accept this amendment.
Revd John Hartley (Bradford): I would like to say two things in support of what
James has proposed in this amendment. The first is that he is not proposing that there
should be no discussion of what happens before invoking the informal procedure.
Paragraph 4.1 to 4.5 will still stand and they do give a proper basis for what will
happen in the Code.
The second thing to say is that he is not proposing the deletion of the other clauses; he
is proposing only that they be removed from this document and put somewhere else,
in order to make it clear that they are informal. I regard what he has said as a very
constructive way of drawing the distinction between formality and informality. I urge
Synod to vote for this amendment.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): I was one of the 40 members who stood
to hear more debate on this subject. Our problem is that, as the Church of England, we
90
Codes of Practice
do not always do ‘informal’ very well. It all too easily becomes a kind of ‘make it up
as you go along’ in which fairness can then disappear out of the window.
I think that I am now persuaded that we should resist this amendment. I, for one, if
there is a freight train coming towards me, would like to know that the driver will
observe the signals and the speed limits on the line.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): I just want to remind Synod how we got
here. The Government produced employment legislation for all people. Because we
can legislate by Measure, Professor McClean and others worked very hard on the
terms of service. The promise was made that we would replicate what happens at the
moment in the secular world but we would legislate for ourselves in terms that we
understand.
If we say that an informal procedure is not part of the Code of Practice, then I am with
Fr Killwick. It will be messy; it will be unclear, whereas, if you set it out, someone
knows how that informality will be conducted and it may then lead to a formal
procedure. Because of where we were, therefore, and the promises made that we
would not put the employment legislation into our own Measures but create our own,
we owe it to ourselves to follow the best practice out there. It may not be our culture;
it may be a new way of working; but it would be a very grave mistake for us to think
that ‘informal’ simply means that you cannot lay out how you are going to do it.
If I were to be facing an informal procedure – and that would be done by the
Archbishop of Canterbury and vice versa for him – I would want to know from the
word go how this was to be done, and then we could proceed properly. Without it, we
will be left naked. Please resist the amendment.
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham): I believe I am right that in
the whole of this debate about the amendment we have not heard a lay voice, and I do
not want to let that remain the case. I think the reason why that is how it has worked
out is because this does affect the clergy very closely, but it also affects laypeople.
I hope and pray that it will never be the case that I have to lay allegations of
incompetence about any clergyperson with whom I have any dealings in my parish or
anywhere else. However, if it were to be the case that I had to do so and if the person
who was the adviser came back to me and said, ‘We have followed an informal
process and we are not taking it any further’, I would be more assured if it was where
it is now and not where it is proposed that it should go. That assurance may be really
important because, if we are talking about a parish priest who is on the borderline of
competence – and we can all imagine such a scenario – there is quite a lot of give and
take in parishes and one needs to be sure that it is right that we give a little more in
relationship to this person, who may have just been raised up above what is required
and has not quite reached the place where they might become a bishop or an
archdeacon.
I hope that, for the assurance of laypeople who may have this awkward task laid upon
them, we might leave it where it is.
The amendment was put and lost.
91
Codes of Practice
‘In paragraph 11.12, after the words “whether a warning is justified or not”
insert “and, if it considers that a warning is justified, whether the warning
should be a first formal written warning or a final formal written warning”;
Leave out paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2; and in the Annex leave out the table and
insert –
Parochial and cathedral
clergy (except Dean),
including NSMs,
OLMs, (stipendiary)
Readers and other
licensed clergy
Dean or Archdeacon
Bishop
Archbishop
Diocesan Bishop with
1 cleric(1) and 1
layperson(1)
Archbishop with 1
cleric(2) and 1
layperson(3)
Senior bishop in the
other province with 1
cleric(4) and 1
layperson from the
other Province(4)
Other Diocesan
Bishop(2) with other
Suffragan Bishop(2) and
1 layperson(3)
Other Archbishop with
the Prolocutor of the
other Province and the
Chair of the General
Synod House of Laity
Dean of the Arches
with the Prolocutor of
the other Province and
the Chair of the
General Synod House
of Laity
Capability Panel
Suffragan Bishop with
1 cleric(1) and 1
layperson(1)
Appeal Panel
Diocesan Bishop with
Chair of Diocesan
House of Clergy and
Chair of Diocesan
House of Laity
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Nominated from another parish by the Diocesan Bishop.
Nominated from another diocese by the Archbishop of the Province (the Vicar-General
where the complaint is against a priest in the Diocese of Canterbury or York).
Nominated from another diocese by another Diocesan Bishop.
Nominated from another diocese by the other Archbishop.’
In this package of three amendments, my objective is to address the structural rigidity
in the procedure. The first leg of my amendment acknowledges that doing justice
means that sanctions must be proportionate and appropriate. In that context, I am
uncomfortable with a model which prevents a first capability panel from saying that a
situation requires more than a first warning. The effect of that is to tie the panel’s
hands and that could easily be a denial of justice, because an essential part of justice is
carefully to consider and then to apply an appropriate sanction.
The ACAS code puts it like this. ‘Where some form of formal action is needed, what
action is reasonable or justified will depend on all the circumstances of the particular
case.’ I know that there is a shortened procedure in paragraph 19 but I do not think
that works, and I will explain why in a moment.
If Synod agrees that the rigidity in the procedure must be broken, we must go on to
revise the Annex, because the Annex as it currently stands works only because of the
92
Codes of Practice
very rigidity that I want to remove. At the same time, my amendment to the Annex
greatly simplifies it by reducing the number of panels from 24 to 8.
In proposing my amendment to the Annex, I am trying to remove what I see as a
structural unfairness of a panel whose membership is determined solely by the penalty
it can impose. It is not – repeat, not – my intention to provoke a debate about who
should sit on which panel, however interesting that may be. I want to focus on the
principle of flexibility, to make the procedure workable and consistent with the good
principles which are set out in section 3 of the Code. In short, I want to give space for
reasonableness to reign and to satisfy the test which an employment tribunal will
apply; and do not forget that the employment tribunal is the ultimate check and
balance on the procedures that we follow.
I turn to paragraph 19, the shortened procedure. There are no short cuts to justice and
I can illustrate my concerns here by the examples given in subparagraphs (a) and (b)
to paragraph 19.1. If, as the paper posits, ‘an immediate improvement can be
expected, through an easily acquired…pattern of behaviour’, why are we reaching for
the capability procedure? We should not be in that territory at all.
The procedure then goes on to mention the absence of mitigating circumstances, but
how is that to be determined if not through a full investigation, a hearing and an
opportunity for the office holder to come along and present his or her case to a
capability panel?
Thirdly, if someone still wearing L-plates is placed in the wrong post, a mature
response is to recognize that mistakes are sometimes made. We address them and
move on but, please, let us not descend into the sort of hunt for a scapegoat which has
so blighted the secular business world.
I do not mean to be facetious, Madam Chairman, but it does seem to me that if, after
all our very carefully crafted selection procedures and training, we end up by putting
someone in the wrong post, there is quite a strong case for putting those who made
that appointment through the capability procedure, not the office holder!
Then we come to paragraph 19.2 and the point at which, for me, this section strays
into institutionalized unfairness. It says that ‘the appointed person … may decide that
a shortened procedure should be used’. Can I remind Synod that the appointed person
is normally an archdeacon and the archdeacon is appointed by the bishop to
investigate and present a case against an office holder. The appointed person is
therefore both detective and prosecutor, and I have no problem with that at all.
However, paragraph 19.2 adds the roles of minister of justice and regional secretary
of tribunals – and that is before one brings in the effect that all of this will have on the
nature of the appointed person’s relations with office holders in his or her patch.
It does not end there, however. How is the appointed person to make a decision about
shortening the procedure? I suggest that he or she can do so only by forming a view of
the case on the basis of his or her preliminary investigation. However, it then gets
worse. The appointed person is required to go into cahoots with the HR adviser, so the
two of them decide where the case is going before – note, ‘before’ – any hearing takes
93
Codes of Practice
place. Then they fix the procedure that should be followed accordingly. Madam
Chairman, that must be unreasonable by any standard.
Any decision about shortened procedures should only, in my view, be taken by a
properly constituted capability panel and not left to a couple of members of the
bishop’s staff, however well intentioned they may be. That is not my idea of the
natural justice that we quite properly embrace in paragraph 3.1 of the Code.
I would therefore ask that, when the time comes, members stand to support this
amendment.
The Bishop of Hull: We would strongly resist this amendment for the following
reasons. First, it is contrary to natural justice to invite someone to a hearing when they
will not be clear if they would get a first or a final written warning.
Secondly, it complicates what the panel has to decide and, thirdly, it means that there
is the potential for shortening the procedure in every case, not just the exceptional
cases. This amendment would give too much flexibility. I would therefore urge Synod
to resist the amendment.
The Chairman: Are there 40 members? There are not. The amendment therefore
lapses.
‘Leave out paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2.’
I now find myself in the uncomfortable position that many of my colleagues who are
lawyers will recognize, because I acknowledge that when this amendment is
uncoupled from its predecessors it leaves me arguing against the flexibility that I
asked Synod to accept earlier. That is a delicious dilemma for me, but my point in this
is that paragraph 19 now gives us the very unfairness that I mentioned a few moments
ago, by enabling the appointed person and the HR adviser to set the procedure.
We need to be worried about that because it is a short cut in an area where there are
no short cuts and so carries a high risk of leading the diocese to the employment
tribunal. We have heard mention of the employment tribunal this morning. I am not
sure we have taken on board that employment tribunals will second-guess our
decisions under the Code and they will do so with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. The
mechanism in these paragraphs is unreasonable and, in my judgement, that is a greater
threat to us and to our dioceses than the rigidity which we will have if we drop this
provision in paragraph 19.
The choice before us is as difficult as it is stark. Synod can vote for my amendment
and accept the dubious safety of rigidity or reject my amendment and embrace a
process which may put dioceses on a fast track to the employment tribunal. Let me
put it another way. Members should vote for this amendment if they want to
safeguard their dioceses against awards of compensation by the employment tribunal.
Members should vote against this amendment if they want to safeguard the interests
of their local employment lawyers!
94
Codes of Practice
The Bishop of Hull: We would resist this amendment too because, as I believe
Mr Humphery has acknowledged, this seems to go to the other extreme and make it
impossible to use the shortened procedure in any case, even the exceptional ones. This
is not something that anyone would want to do very often and will generally be
limited to situations where you do not need a long period for the improvement to take
place; in training posts, which are for a limited period in any case; or in cases of ill
health, where it may be necessary to move through the stages of the procedure quite
fast.
As I say, this amendment would make it impossible to use the shortened procedure in
any such case, even the exceptional ones. We therefore recommend that Synod resists
this amendment.
The Chairman: Are there 40 members? There are not. That amendment also lapses.
The Bishop of Hull: I beg to move:
Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 be approved.’
The Chairman: The Code of Practice is accordingly approved.
Code of Practice under Section 8 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms
of Service) Measure 2009 (GS 1775)
Code of Practice for approval
The Bishop of Hull: I beg to move:
Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 be approved.’
The draft grievance procedure was presented to Synod for the first time in February
2007, although there has been an interim grievance procedure in operation since
March 2005.
Much of what I said in the previous debate about the fairness and clarity that
procedures bring with them applies equally to grievances. However, as well as
fairness and clarity this procedure provides opportunities for mediation and
reconciliation, and a means of ensuring that people’s concerns are properly heard and
not brushed under the carpet. Like everyone else, I want to feel that I can raise any
serious issue about my treatment in a way that will be taken seriously. I hope that
such an issue would be resolved informally, but on the rare occasions where it cannot
then there must be some recourse to a formalized process.
95
Codes of Practice
Yes, there will be the vexatious, the frivolous and the irresolvable, but there will also
be the opportunity to iron out misunderstandings, clarify ambiguities and give people
the chance to be heard, with the hope that these things may help resolution.
This procedure aims to ensure that we take proper account of the needs both of those
who have grievances and of those who are the subject of those grievances.
Revd Dr Meg Gilley (Durham): Section 4.1 lists the areas in which clergy may wish
to raise a grievance. I want to explore what the ‘may’ means. ‘May’ can mean, as in
Common Worship, may or may not; but it could mean that these five examples are
only examples and there may also be other areas in which a clergyperson could suffer
grievance. I am concerned that because these five situations are listed they may come,
through custom and practice, to be regarded as the only five areas in which a
grievance could be raised. I would like it to be clear that there could be other
situations from which a grievance could arise.
All five relate to experience in the licensing diocese. There could be situations where
a priest wants to raise a grievance in another diocese because of recruitment practices.
Someone I know was very tempted to raise a grievance in another diocese three
months ago. She felt that the archdeacon had been unprofessional in telling her she
did not get the job because they had made the decision based on an instinctual
judgement of best fit. The trouble about making appointments based on gut instinct
and best fit is that this perpetuates stereotypes. As everyone who works in the public
services knows, a panel has to be able to give reasons for their choice. In this case,
there were three women and one man short-listed, and the man got the job. My friend
did not go down the route of making a complaint because she said that there were
better things to do with her time and energy, but there may be circumstances when
someone does need to raise a grievance about poor practice in recruitment.
Mr Bill Nicholls (Lichfield): I have worked all my life, until June last year, and
worked for a number of organizations and companies in HR, personnel and training. I
have to say that this is the first grievance procedure I have seen without any kind of
timing. I think that is a real issue. What does ‘quickly’ mean? I feel that there ought
to be some timing in terms of how long people have to resolve grievances and so on,
particularly as it will be formal or possibly lead to formal. In other words, the number
of days or whatever ought to be stated throughout this document.
The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell)(Rochester): I understand that for
employment lawyers a grievance procedure is very often not just, for some
individuals, a question of trying to resolve their grievance. It can be a means of
paving the way for a constructive dismissal claim later on.
I would be grateful for some comments from the bishop about how this issue may
feed into our own situation concerning somebody leaving a post rather than purely
dealing with an issue of grievance, which may very well need properly to be resolved.
Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn): In paragraph 8 of the procedure, where the formal
procedure is to begin, it says, ‘the matter should be referred to the diocesan bishop,
who has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the grievance is heard’. What I am
96
not clear about is what happens if the grievance is against the diocesan bishop
himself. Perhaps that could be answered.
The Bishop of Hull, in reply: To Dr Gilley, yes, there may be other examples of
grievances. I believe it is clear that the phrase ‘may include’ means may or may not
include and the list given there is for illustrative purposes only.
To the Archdeacon of Tonbridge, constructive dismissal applies only when
employment matters are in hand, when there is a contract at stake, and so it is
inappropriate to talk in terms of constructive dismissal.
To Fr Benfield, I would just assure him that grievance procedures can be taken out
against all clergy, including diocesan bishops.
Mr Bill Nicholls (Lichfield): On a point of order, could I have a response to my point
about timing, please?
The Bishop of Hull: I am so sorry, Mr Nicholls. It is true to say that ACAS does not
have set timetables and we have followed their lead there. The advice makes it clear
that we do expect these issues to be resolved as quickly as possible but, of course, it
also has to be done thoroughly. As I say, we have taken our lead from ACAS on this
matter, and I apologize for overlooking that response.
The Chairman: The Code of Practice is accordingly approved.
Order of Business
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick (Hereford): We have a little bit of time and I would
make a request. I am not sure if it is a change in the order of business because this was
not actually on the agenda, but Synod will remember that in my speech yesterday I
mentioned that the Archbishop of York wished to give a statement under SO 4(b)
concerning the subject of interviews in relation to the process for appointing diocesan
bishops. It seems to me sensible that we ask him to do that now, with your
permission, Chair.
The Chairman: That has my permission. Does it have the agreement of the Synod?
(Agreed)
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): I would like to make a statement about
the work of the Crown Nominations Commission and the role of interviews in the
discernment process.
Longer-serving members of the General Synod will be aware that consideration of the
role of interviews as part of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) process has
been ongoing since 2002. The report Working with the Spirit (GS 1405)
recommended that the CNC process should not include interviews but, when the
97
Synod debated the report, it requested that the candidates considered at the second
CNC meeting should be interviewed before a vote is taken.
In July 2003, my predecessor Archbishop David Hope made a statement explaining
the decision of the Commission’s central members not to implement this at that time
but gave an undertaking that they would continue to keep the issue under review.
In 2007, at the end of their period of service, the then central members reviewed their
position and again decided not to introduce interviewing at that time. The debate was
left open-ended, however, in order to allow the ‘new’ central members of the CNC to
pursue discussions, if necessary. At the July 2008 group of sessions I indicated that
the central members of the CNC would make a decision either way about interviews
and inform Synod at the February 2010 group of sessions.
The existing group of central members, during their two-and-a-half years of service,
have continued to monitor the discernment processes of the CNC and, taking into
account the views of diocesan members, have decided to pilot the introduction of
interviews. Candidates will also be asked to make a presentation and to give a homily.
The central members will make a report to Synod in two years’ time with an
evaluation of this new step in the process.
The central members were very clear that an interview will be but one step in the
discernment of who might be called to a particular see. As members of Synod are
aware, there are a number of other stages, including the nomination of candidates; the
work of vacancy in see committees and the two Appointment Secretaries in
determining the needs of the diocese; the role of the Crown and Her Majesty’s
Government; the paperwork provided by candidates and the deliberations of the
Commission itself; the individual’s consideration of the position and then the election
of the candidate; the confirmation of the election and, where the candidate is not
already in episcopal orders, his consecration. These are all significant stages in the
discernment process and it is important that the interview does not dominate that
process.
The interviews will be held at the second meeting of the Commission. As members of
the Synod are aware, there are a number of episcopal vacancies currently under
consideration and, having reviewed the stages of the vacancy in see process, it has
been decided that the first see to be considered under these arrangements will be
Bradford in the autumn of this year.
(Adjournment)
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) (Rochester) took
the Chair at 2.30 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): In the last few weeks we have
seen a number of topics coming up in public discussion, all centring on one set of
questions, a set of questions which I think reflects painfully accurately some of the
problems we face in our Church locally and internationally. The heated debates
98
around the Equality Bill brought this out in one way; some of the renewed flurries of
pressure and anxiety about euthanasia and assisted dying in other ways. As we look
forward to our own debates later in the year on women bishops and on the Anglican
Covenant, we may see the parallels. In the middle of all the frustration that so many
feel about deferring the debate on women bishops, perhaps we can at least ask how
we can spend the intervening time constructively, looking again at whether we might
learn anything from the way our culture is moving that will help us maintain some
level of health or maturity in our Church. That is the task I am going to attempt, with
some trepidation, this afternoon.
What are the questions that link these apparently diverse issues? I would say that the
main thing is something to do with the nature of freedom in society, and thus also
with how we talk about our ‘rights’. Of course, this was most in evidence in the
Equality Bill debates, though it was obscured by fantastic overstatements from zealots
on both sides. The basic conflict was not between a systematic assault on Christian
values by a godless Government on the one side and a demand for licensed bigotry on
the other; it was over the question of how society identifies the point at which one set
of freedoms and claims so undermines another that injustice results.
As in fact the bishops’ speeches in the Lords made quite clear – despite the highly
coloured versions of the debate that were manufactured by some – very few
Christians were contesting the civil liberties of gay and lesbian people in general: nor
should they have been. What they were contesting was a relatively small but
extremely significant point of detail, which was whether Government had the right to
tell religious bodies which of the tasks for which they might employ people required
and which did not require some level of compliance with the public teaching of the
Church about behaviour. Government had difficulty seeing that this was not just about
clergy and official teachers of the faith; the Church had difficulty explaining that there
might be positions not covered by the neat definitions offered by the Government,
which had some kind of semi-official standing such that it would be very strange for
someone to hold such a position when they were manifestly in dispute with some
aspects of the Church’s teaching. However, as our own ongoing discussions about
office holders in the Church and membership of the BNP and similar organizations
demonstrates, it is by no means easy to define at what point you want to identify the
posts that have such a public and symbolic character that you need to require some
kind of compliance.
That underlines a number of important things about the equality debates. One is that
we all in fact recognize that communities and organizations have a certain liberty to
define what belonging to them might entail. Those who belong have to some extent
chosen to live with the limits that a community has settled upon, even if they want to
argue with those limits or seek to shift them. The limits may thus be a bit fluid, but
whether and when they change is not to be decided from outside.
The second point, arising from the first, is that if we concede the right to Government
to settle matters for religious bodies in some areas, how do we resist it in others? The
rights and dignities of gay and lesbian people are a matter of proper concern for all of
us and we assume with good reason – even, I should say, with good Christian reason –
that the securing of these rights is obviously a mark of a civilized and humane society.
99
When those rights are threatened – as in the infamous legislation that was being
discussed in Uganda – we quite rightly express repugnance. However, not all
governments are benign and rational, and it is a short-sighted Government that creates
powers for itself which could be used by a later Government for exactly opposite
purposes. Not the least irony in the recent controversy is in the echoes of debate 20
years ago about another Government’s attempts to regulate teaching about sexuality
in schools, but of course in a quite opposite direction to what we now see prevailing.
The freedom of Government to settle debated moral questions for the diverse
communities of civil society is not something that we should endorse too rapidly.
Governments and political cultures change and it is a mistake to grant to governments
authority that could impact on us in other and even weightier areas, whatever
authority we grant Government to define fundamental and universal legal entitlements
in society at large.
It cuts both ways. The diverse communities of civil society cannot and should not try
to determine for the whole of society what legal freedoms should be granted to any
particular category of people; but they will argue stubbornly for the freedom on their
side to settle for themselves, not at the Government’s command, how they define the
jobs people do publicly on their behalf as specific communities of belief or interest. It
is blindingly obvious that there are grey areas here and that this formulation does not
absolve us from argument. It is equally obvious that civil society communities, even
religious ones, may change their expectations and conventions. However, looking at it
strictly from the rather abstract viewpoint I have been taking here, what matters is that
Government acknowledges that there is a boundary that it is risky to cross without
creating ideological powers for the State that could be deeply dangerous for liberty in
general.
In this case, the balance of liberties seems to come out in favour of the liberties of the
religious community. Granting such communities freedom to define their own
position does not negate the general legal freedoms of anyone. Attempting to bind
such communities by legal definition arguably does negate the liberties of the
community to be what it says it is.
What about the second major ethical matter that has again been in the public eye
lately? You will hear many people saying that the Church’s opposition to legalized
assisted dying is precisely an attempt to ‘determine for the whole of society what legal
freedoms should be granted’ – which would imply that the balance of liberties here
comes out against the Church. I think that this is wrong. The Church does not assume
that it has the right to impose any solution but it will argue fiercely, so long as legal
argument continues, that granting a ‘right to die’ is not only a moral mistake, as I
believe myself and have said repeatedly, but the upsetting of a balance of freedoms.
The question is not about disadvantage to the Church – no one, yet, denies the
Church’s freedom to have a view and even a discipline about this; it is about the
liberties of some of the more vulnerable of the general population. The freedom of
one person to utilize in full consciousness a legal provision for assisted suicide brings
with it a risk to the freedom of others not to be manipulated or harassed or simply
demoralized when in a weakened condition. Once the possibility is there, it will not
only be utilized by the smallish number of high-profile hard cases but will also create
an ethical framework in which the worthwhileness of some lives is undermined by the
100
legal expression of what feels like public impatience with protracted dying and
‘unproductive’ lives.
I do not think that anyone in this hall would be unmoved by some of the agonizing
cases that have been in the public eye lately; and, as Andrew Brown shrewdly noted
in the Church Times last week, the anxieties are also about our own future and our
own capacity to bear prolonged pain and disability. However, I suspect that most of us
here would say that the balance of liberties still comes out against a new legal
framework and in favour of holding to the principle, not that life should be prolonged
at all costs, but that the legal initiating of a process whose sole or main purpose is to
end life is again to cross a moral boundary and to enter some very dangerous territory
in practical terms. I suspect that most of us would still hold that the current state of the
law, with all its discretionary powers and its nuances about degrees of culpability in
extreme cases, serves us better than an opening of the door into provision for the legal
ending of lives.
You may disagree with the conclusions I have sketched on these two issues but I hope
you may also see that there is indeed a fundamental complex of concerns here about
the balance of liberties in society. The questions are not best addressed in the
megaphone tones we are all too used to hearing. In language I want to come back to
later, they require a three-dimensional approach. The debate over the status and
vocational possibilities of LGBT people in the Church is therefore not helped by
ignoring the existing facts, which include many regular worshippers of gay or lesbian
orientation and many sacrificial and exemplary priests who share this orientation.
There are ways of speaking about the question that seem to ignore these human
realities or to undervalue them. I have been criticized for doing just this and I am
profoundly sorry for the carelessness that could give such an impression. Equally,
there are ways of speaking about the assisted dying debate that treat its proponents as
universally enthusiasts for eugenics and forced euthanasia and its opponents as
heartless sadists, sacrificing ordinary human pity to ideological purity. All the way
through this we need to recover that sense of a balance of liberties and thus a conflict
in what may be seen as real goods; in other words, something of the tragic recognition
that not all goods are compatible in a fallen world. If that is true, our job is not to
secure purity but to find ways of deciding such contested issues that do not simply
write off the others in the debate as negligible, morally or spiritually unserious or
without moral claims.
Something of that ‘tragic’ awareness is hard to avoid when we look at the decisions
that face us in our Church. Most in this chamber hold that the ordination of women as
bishops is a good, something that will enhance our faithfulness to Christ and our
integrity in mission. However, that good is at the moment jeopardized in two ways: by
the potential loss of those who in conscience cannot see it as a good and by the
equally conscience-driven concern that there are ways of securing that desired good
that will corrupt it or compromise it fatally – and so they would rather not see it at all
than see it happening under such circumstances. For both many women in the debate
and most if not all traditionalists there is a strong feeling that the Church overall is not
listening to how they are defining for themselves the position they occupy, the
standards to which they hold themselves accountable. What they hear, justly or not, is
101
the rest of the Church saying, ‘Of course we want you, but exclusively on our terms,
not yours’, which translates in the ears of many as ‘We don’t actually want you at all’.
And in the Communion? There is an undoubted good in the independence of local
provinces and there is an undoubted good in the fact that some provinces are
increasingly patient, compassionate and thankful in respect of the experience and
ministry of gay and lesbian people, entirely in accord with what the Lambeth
Conferences and Primates’ statements have said. However, when the affirmation of
that good takes the form of pre-empting the discernment of the wider Anglican, and a
lot of the non-Anglican, fellowship and of acting in ways that negate the general
understanding of the limits set by Bible and tradition, there is a conflict with another
undoubted good, which is the capacity of the Anglican family to affirm and support
one another in diverse contexts. The freedom claimed, for example, by the Episcopal
Church to ordain a partnered homosexual bishop is, simply as a matter of fact,
something that has a devastating impact on the freedom of, say, the Malaysian
Christian to proclaim the faith without being cast as an enemy of public morality and
risking both credibility and personal safety. It hardly needs to be added that the
freedom that might be claimed by an African Anglican to support anti-gay legislation
likewise has a serious impact on the credibility of the gospel in our setting. In the
Communion, in case you had not noticed, we have no supreme executive to make the
decisions that might settle how the balance of freedom might be worked out.
The Anglican Covenant has been attacked in some quarters for trying to create an
executive power and for seeking to create means of exclusion. This is wholly
mistaken. There is no supreme court envisaged and the constitutional liberties of each
province are explicitly safeguarded. The difficult issue that we cannot simply ignore,
however, is this. Certain decisions made by some provinces impact so heavily on the
conscience and mission of others that fellowship is strained or shattered and trust
destroyed. The present effect of this is chaos: local schisms, outside interventions, all
the unedifying stuff you will be hearing about, from both sides, in the debate on Lorna
Ashworth’s motion.
What are the vehicles for sharing perspectives, communicating protest – yes, even
negotiating distance or separation – that might spare us a worsening of the situation
and the further reduction of Christian relationship to vicious polemic and stony-faced
litigation? As I have said before, it may be that the Covenant creates a situation in
which there are different levels of relationship between those claiming the name of
Anglican. I do not at all want or relish this but I suspect that, without a major change
of heart all round, it may be an unavoidable aspect of limiting the damage we are
already doing to ourselves. I make no apology, though, for pleading that we try,
through the Covenant, to discover an ecclesial fellowship in which we trust one
another to act for our good, which is an essential feature of anything that might be
called a theology of the Body of Christ.
This, you see, is where the Christian understanding of freedom has a distinctive
contribution to make to the broader discussion of liberties in society. Christian
freedom, as St Paul spells it out, is always freedom from isolation: from the isolation
of sin that separates us from God and the isolation of competing self-interest that
divides us from each other. To be free is to be free for relation; free to contribute what
is given to us into the life of the neighbour for the sake of their formation in Christ’s
102
likeness, with the Holy Spirit carrying that gift from heart to heart and life to life.
Fullness of freedom for each of us lies in contributing to the sanctification of the
neighbour. It is never simply a matter of balancing liberties, therefore, but of going to
another level of thinking about liberty; and the purity of the Body of Christ is never to
be thought of apart from this work. It is not to put unity above integrity but to see that
unity in this active and sometimes critical sense is how we attain to Christian
integrity. The challenges of our local and global Anglican crises have to do with how
this shapes our councils and our decision-making. It is not a simple plea for the
sacrifice of the minority to the majority, but it does mean repeatedly asking how the
liberty secured for me or for those like me will actively serve the sanctification of the
rest.
Sometimes that may entail restraint – as I believe it does and should in the context of
the Communion – though that restraint is empty and even oppressive if it then refuses
to engage with those who have accepted restraint for the sake of fellowship. The
Covenant specifically encourages and envisages protracted engagement and scrutiny
and listening in situations of tension, and that is one of the things that, in my view,
makes it worth supporting. If one party accepts restraint, it must be in the hope that
they and the rest of the fellowship are then prepared to engage and to look critically at
their own assumptions as well as those of the others. For Christians, therefore, the
balance of liberties is never static.
Here in the Synod we face not only the question of how we are to frame legislation
that, as I think I have said before in this context, has something of good news in it for
everyone, not only for one group, but also we face the longer-haul question of how we
go on learning from each other beyond the point of decision. Whatever we decide, we
need to be looking for a resolution that allows some measure of continuing dignity,
and indeed liberty to all, in something like their own terms.
It is not enough to brush aside the problems some find with codes of practice or the
problems that others find with the need for women bishops to transfer authority
automatically. People have a claim to be heard in their own terms, just as we have
been arguing in Parliament. We have to make difficult judgements about whether
granting this freedom to this group is more likely to undermine someone else’s
freedom than if the position were reversed; only, as Christians, we somehow have to
add to that the question of how granting any freedom to anyone anywhere is going to
set free the possibility of contributing to each other’s holiness.
Earlier, I mentioned three-dimensionality. Seeing something in three dimensions is
seeing that I cannot see everything at once. What is in front of me is not just the
surface that I see in this particular moment. Seeing in three dimensions requires me to
take time with what I see. That may therefore help us look more critically at solutions
that seek to do too much all at once and it may help us perhaps to search for structures
that will keep open our ability to learn from each other. Sometimes those structures
may embody what seems to some an unwelcome degree of distance. That would be
true of some possible consequences of the Covenant and some proposals for the
minority in the women bishops debate. What matters, though, is what they would
make possible if used creatively over time, because we cannot predict what future
reconciliations may be helped to happen by imaginative and empathetic policies now.
103
There is the simpler sense of three-dimensionality, however, which just reminds us
that the other we meet is the person he or she is, not the person we have created in our
fantasies. The priest from Forward in Faith finds himself going to a woman priest for
spiritual counsel because he has recognized an authenticity in her ministry from which
he can be enriched. The Christian feminist recognizes that the Resolution C parish
down the road has a better programme for community regeneration than any other in
the deanery.
The week before last, I spent a morning in the parish of St Ann’s, South Bronx, New
York, one of the most violent and impoverished communities in that city. I watched
them feeding several hundred people. I was taken to the after-school club where local
children learn the literacy and other skills they do not get in their public schools. I
spoke with an astonishing Hispanic woman who has single-handedly created a
campaign against gun crime in the Bronx that seeks to bring a million women on to
the streets, and I saw how prayer unobtrusively shaped every aspect of this work and
how people were being introduced to Jesus Christ. I was reminded of another parish
in New Orleans that I visited a couple of years ago: a local church planted as a result
of the relief work of the diocese, when local people begged for a church to be opened
because they had seen the love of Christ in the work done with and for them – threedimensionality in the Episcopal Church, which some are tempted to dismiss as no
more than a liberal talking shop. I know, of course, that similar stories could be told
of parishes in the Anglican Church in North America.
I think of a telephone conversation in December with the Archbishop of Uganda,
discussing what was being done by Ugandan Anglicans in the devastated north of the
country, in the rehabilitation of child soldiers and the continuing, intensely demanding
work with all victims of trauma in that appalling situation – work that no one else is
doing and no one else is trusted to do – and the ongoing work of care for those with
HIV, where the Ugandan Church was in the forefront of African responses to that
crisis: three-dimensionality in a Church that has been caricatured as passionately
homophobic and obsessed with narrow Biblicism.
It is only a three-dimensional vision that can save us from the real betrayal of what
God has given us. It will oblige us to ask not how we can win this or that conflict but
what we have to give to our neighbour for sanctification in Christ’s name and power.
It will oblige us to think hard about freedom and mutuality and the genuine difficulty
of balancing costs or restraints in order to keep life moving around the Body. It will
deepen our desire to be fed and instructed by each other, so that we are all the more
alarmed at the prospect of being separated in the zero-sum, self-congratulating mode
that some seem to be content with. If, as Our Lord says, the blessed are those who are
hungry for God’s justice, perhaps we shall discover our blessedness, as we hunger for
what the neighbour, the stranger and the opponent has to give, and find the time for
them to give it and for us to receive it, doing justice to them in their three-dimensional
reality. We may then be able to show to the world a face rather different from that
anxious, self-protective image that is so much in danger of entrenching itself in the
popular mind as the typical Christian position. I deeply believe that this Church and
this Synod is still capable of showing that face and pray that God will reveal such a
vision in us and for us. (Applause)
104
THE CHAIR Canon Professor Michael Clarke (Worcester) took the Chair at 3 p.m.
Clergy Pensions: Proposed Scheme Changes: A Report from the
Archbishops’ Council (GS 1758)
The Chairman: As the first part of this item we take a presentation from Shaun
Farrell, Secretary to the Pensions Board, under SO 97.
Mr Shaun Farrell (Secretary to the Pensions Board): My role today is to set the
scene for the debate which is to follow, with a particular focus on the financial context
in which this review takes place. Bishop John will then speak to the Task Group’s
report and recommendations. (PowerPoint presentation)
In terms of pension schemes generally, the flight from schemes where benefits are
based on final salary continues. Very few organizations now have such schemes that
are open to new members and an increasing number are now having to close them to
existing staff as well. In terms of the Church’s own scheme, the formal valuation as at
the end of 2009 is now under way but it will be another two to three months before
the results are known.
What I have tried to show in the first slide is what has been happening in investment
markets more generally in the three years since the last valuation. The area shaded
blue shows the movement in share prices over that period. It shows very clearly the
dramatic plunge in share values that took place between the middle of 2008 and the
first quarter of 2009 and the partial recovery that took place over the last nine months
of 2009. However, note that share values are still significantly below the level they
were at the time of the last valuation. The black line running across the graph shows
the yields on Government securities, which is one of the crucial assumptions on which
an actuary values the liabilities of a pension scheme. In very simple terms, the lower
the gilt yield the higher the liabilities and, as can be seen, these yields have also fallen
over the period concerned.
The other thing to note from this slide is the extreme volatility we are seeing in the
markets at the present time as a result of the great uncertainties regarding the
immediate prospects for the economy and the huge amount of debt that has been
incurred to stabilize the banking sector.
The next slide homes in on our own clergy pension arrangements. It shows the
payments being made over the next 30 years out of the two sources of pension
funding currently in operation. The blue line shows the Commissioners’ obligation to
fund all pensions earned up to 1998. That currently exceeds £100 million a year and is
expected to peak in around 2020, after which it will very gradually fall away. We
cannot tell for certain when their obligations will have been completely eliminated,
since that depends on how long people live. However, it will have reduced to a low
level by around 2060. That is something to look forward to, is it not? (Laughter) The
problem, of course, is that in doing so they will spend away 40 per cent of their
capital base. That is money that is gone for ever.
105
The red line shows the predicted pension payments being made from the funded
scheme set up in 1998. Current payments amount to only £13 million a year but will
grow steadily. We are currently predicting that in around 2028 payments from the
new funded scheme will overtake those being made by the Church Commissioners.
The slide also reaffirms the relative immaturity of the funded scheme in terms of its
liabilities to pay pensions and why, despite recent ill-informed press criticism, the
Pensions Board remains entirely comfortable with its investment strategy to put all the
fund’s money into shares at the present time, which over the longer term have always
provided the best overall return. That strategy is explained in more detail in GS Misc
933. However, that document also explains that we already have a strategy to move
some of the investments into bonds as that liability to pay pension grows. This is an
entirely conventional way of managing pension fund assets.
My last slide tries to show what this might mean for the funding position of the
scheme and, in particular, the level of the deficit. Some members may remember this
slide from my presentation in York last July. The red line shows the deficit recovery
plan, as agreed at the last valuation in 2006. The blue line shows what has actually
been happening as a result of movements in financial markets up to the end of 2008. I
have now added, via the dotted line, where we now predict the deficit will be at the
end of 2009. Members will see that we are now expecting that figure to be just below
£300 million. This reflects the more recent stock market recovery and represents a
welcome improvement from the £350 million estimate at the end of 2008.
Unfortunately, it is still around double the level of £141 million at the last valuation
and we are still some considerable distance away from where we would need to be on
the basis of the current recovery plan. I am afraid this means that action is still needed
if we are to avoid having to set a contribution rate in 2011 which dioceses have
confirmed they simply cannot afford.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod
(a) endorse the recommendations at paragraph 2 of GS 1758, subject to the
necessary statutory and other consultations that the Archbishops’ Council now
needs to conduct; and
(b) in the light of those consultations invite the Archbishops’ Council to
submit to the Synod in July final proposals, including such changes as are
necessary to the funded scheme rules.’
Mr Chairman, I want first to apologize to you for the need to return to this important
issue today. When I asked Synod to agree changes three years ago, I hoped that we
could avoid further debates about pensions for many years to come; but for us, as for
all organizations with defined benefit schemes, the past three years have not been
kind. Such schemes are vulnerable to sharp movements in the markets, not least given
the very demanding regulatory framework within which pension trustees now have to
operate.
106
I am very grateful to Shaun for his scene-setting presentation and to the Task Group
for the clarity with which it has set out the position in GS 1758. A dependable pension
and the knowledge that help with retirement housing is available if needed are crucial
to the confidence of clergy, and here I declare my interest as a member of the pension
scheme that we are debating today.
In proposing the motion in my name, I want to address three questions. First, why
must we make changes? Second, are these the right changes now? Third, will they
mean that we can be spared a further debate in three years’ time?
First, why must we make changes? Shaun has explained the numbers and they are
compelling. When we introduced the funded scheme only 12 years ago, the
contribution rate was 22 per cent of the minimum stipend; now it is 45 per cent and is
likely to be well over 50 per cent from next year if we take no action. That is
unsustainable, given all the other financial needs that parishes and dioceses have to
meet, including maintaining stipends at reasonable levels.
We would all prefer it if we could simply wait, in the hope that the situation will
improve; but the Pensions Board has to set a contribution rate that reflects the facts as
they are, not a hope of what they might one day be. It also has to be able to persuade
the Pensions Regulator that the deficit recovery plan is prudent.
We might also regret that the Church Commissioners cannot ride to the rescue but, as
Shaun emphasized, they are already due to spend out nearly 40 per cent of their asset
base in meeting past pension liabilities, and giving them any further commitments –
which would require legislation – would immediately and permanently reduce what
they can make available for ministry support in the poorer dioceses.
Second, are the four changes proposed the right ones? I believe that they are.
Contracting back into the State second pension enables us to save money without
worsening the position for clergy in general. It means that retiring clergy will in future
earn the second State pension in addition to the basic State pension, thereby enabling
the occupational pension coming from the Church to be reduced.
One additional advantage of the second State pension is that Government policy is to
increase it each year, in line with the RPI. This means that, if inflation rises sharply,
this part of the overall pension would increase at a faster rate than the Church pension,
where increases are now capped at RPI up to 3.5 per cent. It also means that the State
is taking on some of the funding risk.
The second of the changes is to cap future increases in the national minimum stipend,
on which the pension is calculated, so that it increases on average in line with annual
changes in the RPI. This does not mean that actual stipends will have to be pegged to
price inflation. It does mean that, if stipends increase faster than price inflation, clergy
will receive a pension on retirement that is a smaller proportion of the actual stipend
which they were receiving immediately before they retired.
Over the past 40 years clergy minimum stipends have on average increased at a
compound rate of 0.5 per cent above RPI. Because the minimum stipend used in
setting pension levels will now increase simply in line with inflation, it therefore
107
means that in the long run pensions will not increase as fast as they would have done
if the previous trend had been continued. This is a step that has already been taken by
some employers to reduce costs. Marks & Spencer is the example quoted in the Task
Group report. I need to stress, here as elsewhere, that nothing I propose today affects
pensions which are already in payment now.
The two other changes involve moving the pension age from 65 to 68 and the accrual
period for a full pension from 40 to 43 years. They do not affect the value of the full
pension, but to earn it clergy will need to work longer and retire later. I need to stress
again that both changes apply only to future service after the date of the change,
which is proposed for 1 January 2011. They will therefore have the least impact on
those who have already earned most of their pension. Clergy will still be able to retire
at 65, or indeed earlier, if they are willing, as many currently are, to take a reduction
for early payment.
In saying that I believe these are the right changes, I do not want anyone to draw the
conclusion that I like any of them: I do not sense that anyone who has worked on
them likes them. However, even with these four changes to benefits, the indications
are that a contribution cost in the region of 42 per cent will be required from 2011
onwards. Although this is slightly below the interim precautionary rate set by the
Pensions Board with effect from 1 January this year, it still represents a significant
increase on the contribution rate set at the last valuation three years ago, and that
change will cost dioceses and parishes £4 million every year.
Will these changes work or will we all be back here again in three years’ time? It is
not acceptable, in terms of the morale of the clergy or of the demands that we place on
those who are funding the Church through their giving, to keep having to change the
pension rules and increase the costs; we need a sustainable scheme. However, we
also want if we possibly can to preserve a defined benefit scheme, or at least a strong
defined benefit element in a hybrid scheme, and that means that there is an intrinsic
level of uncertainty about the long-term costs. That is why most organizations outside
the public sector have given up on defined benefit and switched to defined
contribution arrangements. There is an amendment on the order paper proposing that
we should move to that for new clergy, but that was not the view of the dioceses and
it is not the view of DRACSC or the Task Group. The advantage of a defined benefit
scheme remains that there is less risk for the clergy whose stipends remain
comparatively small, making it difficult for them to save for retirement.
I believe that the changes before you today offer a good chance of stabilizing the
scheme and enabling us to stick with defined benefit arrangements. They are certainly
worth trying. I find it hard to think that the aftermath of the worst financial crisis in
decades would be a sensible moment for taking irrevocable steps, but the Task
Group’s proposal to work on what a purpose-built hybrid scheme for the clergy might
look like is a sensible way of keeping our options open and being prepared for
whatever the future may throw at us.
I can give no guarantee that we will not have to return to this in three years’ time: we
shall certainly have to think hard about the hybrid option once that work is done.
However, the proposals before you today offer the prospect that, after 12 years of
running to catch up and falling ever further behind, we may at last achieve a stable
108
balance between what our hearts lead us to promise and our heads tell us we can
afford. I commend the Task Group’s recommendation and urge Synod to support this
motion.
The Chairman: Thank you, Bishop John. You started off with a generous apology. If
you are looking for absolution from the Chair, you have it!
Mrs Sue Johns (Norwich): I was prompted to take part in this debate following a
conversation I had with Bishop John last night and also following Questions, in which
we had a great deal of information that made me realize how things fitted together.
First of all, however, may I declare my own conflict of interest? I take part in funding
this.
The information that prompted me to respond to this debate was the concern I now
have about how we treat our lay staff, the statistics about the average age of the
people in our parishes and, ultimately, the misconception that clergy are hard done by
in comparison to the laity. I want to take this opportunity to set this discussion in the
context of how I see it from my point of view of secular employment. I do not want to
use the words ‘real world’ but sometimes I feel tempted to. However, before I say
anything else, I want to underline the fact that I passionately believe that we need to
be excellent employers. I believe that we should be exemplary and set a standard for
other people to follow.
I am not unsympathetic to the clerical situation, therefore, but the reality that lay folk
face is key. Going back to the average age being 61, it means that many of us are fast
approaching retirement or have already retired. I would suggest that many of the laity
will find themselves considerably worse off in terms of pension than the clergy are;
but they are keen and willing to play their part and they understand the need for
realistic, even sacrificial, giving in response to a generous God. Ultimately, there is a
limit on their often-diminishing resources and, before we make an albeit laudable
decision to go ahead with our changes – and I am sure that we will – I would like us
to reassess our ability to do it.
I have been on Synod for nearly twenty years and sometimes I hate personal situations
as an illustration, but on this occasion I am going to bore you with my own. I made no
personal pension provision before I left work to have children. I did something called
‘paying half stamp’, which I still do not understand. I had an 11-year career break
during which I did not earn any money; then I returned to work on a fixed-term
contract. Because it was a limited fund, it was suggested to me that I would be in
employment longer if I did not have a pension contribution coming out of that.
Eventually, in May 1994 I started to pay into a scheme. As many members know, I
am lucky enough to be a civil servant. It is not often you hear that! Even so, in my
current situation, if I work until age 65 I will get 27 per cent of what I earn at the
moment as a pension.
To balance that, I should also add that I am the main financial contributor in our
family – significantly so – because my husband unfortunately faced redundancy and
then had six jobs in eight years. He was badly advised in the 1990s and consequently
our pension situation is not good. I do not think that I am alone. There are any number
of people who attend our churches regularly, who diligently listen, respond, and pay,
109
who want to do more but who also feel that they are reaching the point where they
just cannot.
While I totally agree – and I come back to my first point, which is that I believe we
should be excellent employers – I just want to set it in the context of what I think is
achievable.
Canon Alan Cooper (Manchester): I am one of those people who must cause
actuaries absolute nightmares, because we live beyond the given date. They must
wonder about the whole thing and about the people who stand up when really they
should not be standing but lying down!
We simply must get on with it today and, in July, have an absolute, positive vote on
the matter. I am chairman of Manchester’s diocesan board of finance. One engages in
two things at the present time: getting in the parish share and explaining, as far as
possible, the demands of the pension provision. I am not certain of a lot of things
except this: we cannot contemplate a 50 per cent increase in 2011; it is beyond the
capability of what we want to do. Further, I do not believe that we will ever get to a
golden plateau where pension provision and arrangements are set out firmly, if not
forever then for a very long time.
I well remember the heady days in the 1980s in this chamber when we tackled the
question of pension provision. It was the first big attack upon the question. I would
commend to colleagues page 15, paragraph 88. The words ‘were not adequately
costed’ jump out of the print. This is not a perfect science that we are engaged in; it is
doing the best we can. I do not believe in the absolute certainties of many things in
pensions, therefore. What I do believe in absolutely is that we cannot ask the Church
Commissioners for any more bail-out money. The Commissioners have other matters
to deal with as well as pension provision. Those siren voices asking for that must
therefore be resisted.
I would look further in the report at the possibility of a hybrid scheme. This is an
interesting development and one that I hope the Pensions Board will work on
carefully and quickly. It is very interesting to note the result on page 21 and that in the
Northern Province we declared by two-thirds that we were in favour of Model 3, the
hybrid scheme. I wonder why that was.
I hope that we will resist any further call on the Commissioners and allow them to
help out the dioceses which are in need to spread the gospel. I hope too that we will
not feel that we will arrive at the absolute answer to all our problems. I guess that we
will be back again in three or four years’ time, dare I say. Will I be here? One must
not tempt fate or the electorate! Further, I hope that the red light will not be shown to
those who are in favour of looking at the hybrid scheme.
Revd Dr Philip Plyming (Guildford): I declare a very specific interest. I am one of
those mentioned in the report who will be most impacted by the changes being
proposed and those being considered for the future. With nine years of pensionable
service behind me and, God willing, over 30 years in front of me, my pension
arrangements are entirely in the hands of the funded pension clergy scheme.
110
My comments and concerns are slightly less about the four specific changes being
proposed – although with the increasing retirement age I wonder if I will ever retire! –
but rather more with changes being discussed for the future, as outlined in paragraph
5 of the recommendations in the report.
I have two principal and related areas of concern, pastoral and strategic. First, I think
that the pastoral implications of these changes for clergy morale, and the future
possible changes being discussed, are insufficiently understood and expressed. When
I was 22 and went forward for ordained ministry, I understood that my income levels
would be very significantly below those of my fellow recent graduates. That was one
of the costs of ministry I was glad to bear. Nevertheless, I responded to God’s call to
ministry in the Church of England conscious that the Church was making certain
commitments to me: to house me and my family as long as we were in active ministry
and to make adequate pension provision for me, recognizing that my own modest
stipend would not allow me to make my own provision. Together with many other
clergy, I have understood this to be an implied covenant between Church and clergy. I
now find that, after almost 10 years in ministry, the goalposts have been moved twice
already, as the number of years required for a full pension has gone up from 37 to the
now-proposed 43, and there are more fundamental moves on the table.
The four changes proposed in this paper represent a strain in the implied covenant
between Church and clergy, as the pension benefits are materially reduced and the
clergy are being asked to bear the whole cost of a deficit they have not created.
However, I believe that the hybrid scheme, under active discussion in the months
ahead, would represent a fundamental break in that Church-clergy covenant. Were it
to be adopted, one must imagine that over the years the financial risk would be
increasingly transferred from the pension fund to the clergy. One can see why the
result would be, to quote from the report, ‘stable, sustainable and affordable’ for the
Pensions Board but I cannot see how, given the vagaries of the stock market, the
Church of England could any longer claim to be fulfilling its commitment to ensure
that clergy have an adequate income in retirement. It could hope some things; it could
ensure nothing.
At stake here then is the covenant between the Church and her clergy. The willingness
of the Church to honour this has, from my perspective and that of the other younger
clergy I speak to, a direct and immediate impact on clergy morale at a time when
ministry is becoming more demanding, not less – not to mention of longer duration
than we previously thought. Moreover, one can only imagine that it will make
fostering vocations among younger women and men – which, as the Bishop of
Norwich reminded Synod yesterday, is of considerable importance – a significantly
harder task. That must be bad for the mission of the Church.
Given the impact of the pension changes on the relationship between Church and
clergy, I am both surprised and disappointed that a wide-ranging review of the whole
clergy remuneration package – a review explicitly requested by over a third of the
dioceses – is not taking place. By focusing exclusively on the hybrid scheme as a
potential way of reducing the Pensions Board’s liability, it seems to me that the
working group seems to be avoiding the more important, strategic, wide-ranging
discussion about how clergy are supported in their ministry, involving stipend levels
and retirement housing as well as pensions, and how the Church can fund this. To use
111
a phrase from a previous speaker this afternoon, it is failing to look at it in 3D. This
strategic discussion might involve genuinely radical proposals about how the Church
of England’s considerable assets are employed, rather than proposals about simply
how to make the clergy retire with less.
I appreciate the significance of the financial crisis. I recognize that this is part of a
much wider debate on pension reform. However, I believe that, given the unique
nature of the clergy-Church covenant, the Archbishops’ Council should commit to a
more wide-ranging review than that currently proposed. Until that happens, I for one
will find it hard to have confidence that the Church into which I was ordained nine
years ago will, when I retire, be as committed to showing the care to its clergy that it
once promised. I look forward to the debate on the later amendments, but I cannot
support this motion in its present form.
Revd Canon Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): I begin with
two points of embarrassment. I have served in a parish where I was one of five people
who had an income. It is incredibly embarrassing to ask people who are already on
fixed incomes or who are employed to make a contribution to a Quota, a large amount
of which will go to a pension they could only dream of. I therefore have a lot of
sympathy with what an earlier speaker said on that matter.
I am equally embarrassed by clergy couples, both of whom are professionals, both of
whom have given up very well-paid jobs and pension rights, who have not been able
to continue them and have to rely entirely on the pension fund they will receive, at a
time when many of their contemporaries will have a far more comfortable lifestyle
than they have. They have really made that sacrifice. It was their choice, but
nonetheless we have to honour them in what they have done.
I want to accept the proposals without amendment. I do accept that it will be hard for
me to retire at 68 when I was planning to retire at 65, and I may feel a little aggrieved
that I have earned full pension rights far earlier, but I accept what happens. We must
preserve the scheme broadly as it is because, as I understand it from my actuary
friends, if we go to some hybrid scheme it will actually cost us more. For the clergy to
contribute to it directly, they will have to be paid more and there will be a tax on their
contributions.
I welcome the news that they are going to look at it but it will be very difficult and it
will be a very hard look. However, it is not unreasonable to ask the clergy to make a
contribution. That is why opting in to the Government’s second pension scheme is
good, because the clergy will be making a contribution through their increased
National Insurance contributions. Remember, the State is not some alien
organization; we are all part of the state; we all pay our taxes. It is perfectly
reasonable for the clergy to be involved in that way, to receive the remuneration due
to them, and for that to be part of our package.
There is something larger here, however, which I want to focus on. Why has God
brought us to this place? Let us be honest. Finance and the lack of it sits behind many
of the decisions we make about training, provision, equipment, salaries, and a whole
range of things. The answer is that we do not have the confidence to put our trust in
God as we should. There is a place for financial planning but financial planning is not
112
the whole answer. We do have to embrace reasonable tithing. The clergy have to
teach it and to live it, in order to inspire the laity to do the same. I promise Synod that,
when God says, ‘Bring the whole tithe into the barn and I will open the heavens and
shower down blessings’, he does, and that is my experience. I do make a contribution
to my pension scheme because I do pay a tithe to my parish and that does go towards
my Quota. I do it gladly and I have never been genuinely without since I have done it.
I want Synod at this moment to look prayerfully beyond the minutiae of the report and
ask the bigger question: what sort of Church do we really want to be? A Church that
plans carefully financially? Of course. Also, a Church that sets strategies and
opportunities for God to bless us. I think it is significant that our investment
portfolios, both Church Commissioners and others, have significantly outperformed
what the world can do. God is dropping us a very big hint. Let us not degenerate into
a fight about who gets this and who gets that and who is paying. Rather, let us all
together put our trust in God and start living to the biblical teaching he requires of us.
Professor Helen Leathard (Blackburn): My contribution arises from a meeting that
was thoughtfully convened in our diocese of General Synod members with members
of the bishop’s council. What I would like to do is suggest a means by which some of
the dire pensions situation might be ameliorated, at least sufficiently to enable the
clergy pension age to be aligned with the State pension age and therefore for the
abrupt increases proposed to be phased in more slowly.
What am I going to say? I was in a very fortunate position as I approached the
glorious age of 60 to find that I had actually paid into two separate pension funds in
my academic career, each with a reasonable number of years. What I was then able to
do as I reached 60 was to start drawing one of those pensions while continuing to
work part-time and I continued to pay in to the second of the funds, which is the one
of my present employer. It strikes me that there may well be many members of the
clergy of the Church of England who are in a somewhat analogous position, in that
they have accumulated a reasonable pension fund from secular employment before
their ordination. It may well be that, as they approach 60, they are feeling the stresses
and strains of very hard work in multi-parish benefices and so on, and would very
much like to change to a part-time contract.
The contribution that I would like to make to this discussion, which needs to be taken
away for further work, is that the working group gives some thought to creating a
possibility for that sort of person to move on to a part-time stipendiary mode of
working. If people like that were able to change to part-time, their stipends would go
down, their pension contributions would go down, but they would still be contributing
to that scheme rather than drawing from it and, on a part-time basis, may well be more
than willing and happy to work well beyond the pension age, thereby reducing the
demands on the pension scheme.
I came here with something of a mandate or suggestion from my diocese that I might
oppose today’s motion. I am very much open to listening to the debate and deciding in
due course, but I would be interested to hear what the proposer thinks about my
suggested scheme and whether that may come into future discussions.
113
The Archdeacon of Malmesbury (Ven. Alan Hawker) (Bristol): The feast of
Michaelmas in the year 2005 was a very significant day for me. It was the day on
which I qualified under the existing pension scheme for a full pension. I had to wait
another three and a half years before I was allowed to get near it and in fact it will be
later this year when I do get it. I was one of those unusual people who was ordained
very early, at the age of 24, at a time when many were being encouraged to go out and
learn a bit about the world. I suggested that to my sponsoring bishop, the Bishop of
Barking, and he would have none of it. He suggested, I think very naïvely, because I
had a degree in social administration and social counselling, what could I possibly
learn in the world that I had not already learnt in my degree! I think he was
profoundly wrong in that presumption but it meant that I was ordained at the age of
24.
I want to bear in mind some joined-up thinking, which I do not think is taking place at
the present time. If we are going up to 43 qualifying years, it means that nobody over
the age of 25 at the point of ordination will ever get a full pension. Only those who
are 27 and who are prepared to slog it right through until the age of 70 will get a full
pension. That is on the presumption that, like me, they have been continuously
employed by the Church from the day of their ordination to the day of their
retirement. That is highly improbable in the future. There will be a much greater
amount of coming in to stipendiary ministry, going out to secular employment,
coming back. In order to get a full pension – and you appreciate that I am not
declaring an interest, because my pension is already in the bag – you have to meet
very tight considerations.
As a young man, it did not cross my mind what the pension would be. I took it for
granted, naïvely, that the Church would look after me. I discovered in my first curacy
how foolish that was, and I have to say that it is the Lord who has seen me through
rather than the Church. However, I appreciate and value the Church pension, which is
in the top 20 per cent of pensions in this country at the moment. We have very few
young people coming forward and those young people, like me as a young person,
will not be thinking too much about pensions at that stage. However, we have a
responsibility to think for them and to ensure that, if they are going to give us 40, 43
or 45 years of continuous service, something has to be in place which is rigorous and
which is satisfactory for them.
I am not in a position to discuss the financial side of this package. I have serious
question marks about relying upon the Government with a second State pension. All
the evidence is that they are trying to wriggle out of their pension responsibilities
rather than taking them up. If we are genuinely asking for a lot more younger
vocations, however, I do not see how that meshes in with what is being proposed here.
Mr Stephen Barney (Leicester): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (a), after “endorse” insert “, in relation to existing members of
the funded scheme,”; and at the end insert –
“(c) invite the Archbishops’ Council and the Pensions Board, in parallel, to
develop proposals for submission to Synod to secure that, from a date to be
determined, all new clergy will be admitted to a defined contribution scheme”.’
114
I speak as a DBF chairman and someone who manages a pension fund. First, I want to
address the covenant between the beneficiaries and the funders; then I want to draw
out the different covenants which are implied with different groups of potential
pensioners.
The parts of the covenant that seem clear to me are that there should be no
contribution to the scheme from the clergy and that any scheme for existing members
should maintain the current value of a full service pension in real terms, as the main
motion proposes. The issue I want Synod to debate is who in future should bear the
risk and why.
First, I re-emphasize the point that funders are actually present, past and future
congregations. There is nobody else. The funding risk can be borne only by Church
members or the potential pensioners. Second, regarding the funding risk, many are
worried about having to bear the risk of a defined contribution scheme, otherwise
known as a money purchase scheme, and think the defined benefit scheme is risk-free.
There is no logical reason why a defined contribution scheme should be worse than a
defined benefit scheme; indeed, if it does better, the gain is retained by the pensioner.
Defined benefit schemes are not risk-free, as we see now. We are having to top-slice
ours and, as other speakers have said, we may have to do so again. Maybe this quote
from Donald Rumsfeld speaks to that: ‘The past was not certain when it started’.
Moving to moral commitments, the covenant with a clergyperson who 40 years ago
was told, ‘Sell your house to pay for ordination training and we will look after you’,
bad advice though it was, is, I suggest, entirely different from that with a new curate
who is offered, as in Gloucester diocese, assistance to buy a house and who can then
build up equity in the housing market during their ministry. The other difference is
that 40 years ago it was the norm for people to enter the ministry younger and for
spouses not to work. Today, the average age of ordinands is over 40; most spouses
work; many have housing equity and past service pensions from previous employers.
The first group are clearly more dependent on what is provided by the Church than
the second; therefore the two groups are not the same and, of course, there are shades
of grey in the middle. The question is should everyone be treated the same for pension
purposes? The Southwell survey of clergy perhaps shows how things are changing in
respect of property. Of 99 clergy surveyed, 60 per cent owned property, a further 18
per cent said they intend to do so before retirement. Of those who have property, 80
per cent have no mortgage.
The provision of pensions was enhanced in the late-1980s, an enhancement to the
covenant given freely and generously. The CHARM scheme has also been improved
and is used by a third of clergy either to provide rented or an equity stake in property
in retirement, valued up to £200,000 and £225,000 in the south-east.
It is a significant benefit too that we subsidize housing provision and retirement
homes to clergy to the tune of £3 million per annum. In the light of this, I want to ask
whether either a defined benefit or a hybrid scheme for people entering the ministry in
the future is actually the right answer. We know that defined benefit schemes are
increasingly closed to new entrants. Only three FTSE 100 companies provide them.
Of course, our own defined benefit scheme is already closed for lay Church of
115
England employees. Is it realistic for funders to bear the risk of greater demands in the
future, as well as paying for the entire clergy pension from their giving?
As we have heard, most who pay for the clergy pension scheme do not have anything
like this scheme for themselves. Many earn less than the full value of the total clergy
package. If they are making any pension provision for themselves, they will be paying
an employee’s contribution or even fully funding a personal pension, which may well
provide considerably less in pension in most cases than the clergy scheme.
I want to suggest that all DBFs should provide assistance to younger curates to
purchase their own houses and the funders provide a non-contributory defined
contribution scheme at a similar level of probable benefit to the existing scheme. I
therefore commend this amendment to Synod on the basis that it is rational for the
future potential pensioners to bear the risk in the light of their reasonable
expectations, their likely personal circumstances and what is an equitable moral
covenant between the clergy and their congregations today. I therefore invite Synod to
debate the amendment standing in my name.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I am grateful to Mr Barney for his amendment
because it will test Synod’s mind on a very important point; that is, whether it would
be right for the Church to move away from any element of defined benefit in future
pension arrangements. The Task Group’s clear view is that it would be best at the
moment to keep all clergy in the defined benefit system, as modified. I share that
conclusion and I hope Synod will resist this amendment.
Mr Plyming’s powerful speech demonstrates just how important it is that we retain a
strong element of support for our clergy and for those who are entering the ordained
ministry. It is worth noting that among the diocesan responses only two favoured a
defined contribution system. There was significant support for a hybrid scheme with a
defined benefit element.
The main motion calls for the Archbishops’ Council to report to Synod in more detail
on how a hybrid system might work. Whether we find ourselves having to consider
introducing such a scheme for everyone or just new entrants would be an issue for
another day. However, it is important to remember that the obligation to fund the
benefits of existing clergy and eliminate the past service deficit means that doing
something for only new entrants is of very limited help in tackling medium-term
costs, especially in an organization like ours where the workforce turns over relatively
slowly.
The overall thrust of the main proposals before us today is to have a defined benefit
arrangement both for existing and future clergy. While I therefore look forward to
hearing the debate on this amendment, I very much hope that we shall resist it.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): I am currently the deputy vice-chairman of the
Pensions Board but speak today in a personal capacity. I am not convinced that
defined contributions (DC) is the right way for some clergy and some clergy alone.
During my first quinquennium on Synod I spoke about pensions, having worked in
the industry since the early 1970s, and was able to include some jokes in the speeches
116
that led up to the formation of the new scheme. There will be no jokes today. It is with
deep regret that the proposals that we have today have had to come before Synod so
soon after the previous set of changes. There has been lots of discussion and
consultation and it is quite clear that the mood has changed since last time and that a
hybrid scheme is closer to being more acceptable. What I think is really disappointing
is that some people are still not able to face that reality.
I was one who fought hard to maintain the view that a pension is continued reward for
work done. There should be a link to the way in which we value people after they
have given their all in the task during their working life. The traditional way was
through a defined benefit (DB) scheme, with the pension directly related to the years
of service and the pay that they received; but, of course, whilst the scheme benefit is
known, the cost is dependent entirely on the vagaries of the stock market and other
things and the risk is borne entirely by the contributor, principally the employer.
This way has proved untenable to the world at large, as Bishop John has already said,
and very few DB schemes are still open to new entrants, and those that are closed to
new entrants are elongating retirement dates and reducing accrual rates. In many
cases, my own included, staff in a DB scheme will get no benefit from future
promotions. For me that is unlikely to be an issue but for younger staff that could well
put a different light on their ambitions. My pension age has increased by five years in
the last seven.
New members of staff nowadays will typically join a defined contribution scheme,
that is true. Here the cost is known but the benefit is now dependent on circumstances;
the risk is borne entirely by the beneficiary. A hybrid scheme would enable the risk to
be shared, and it is a question perhaps of freedom of liberties.
What is clear to me are two basic things. Secular employers would love to be in a
position of being able to sustain a defined benefit scheme for all of their employees
but increasing longevity, reduced returns and increased regulation have forced them to
move away from this desire. Secular employers would not countenance a defined
contribution scheme with an overall contribution rate of anything close to 42 per cent;
and, even allowing for the grossing-up of stipend to allow for the lump sum, this still
equates to probably around 31 per cent.
A contributory DC scheme in the secular world might offer employee matching of
their six per cent contribution, i.e. another six per cent from the employer on top,
together making 12 per cent. There was recently a suggestion from the Principal of
Wycliffe that a person may be deterred from entering ministry due to the reduction in
benefits from the proposals that we have before us. I cannot believe that somebody
would genuinely prefer to enter a secular employment and get a pension based on 12
per cent of salary, as opposed to 42 per cent of stipend and, in terms of stability of
purchasing power post retirement, there is no contest.
Doing nothing is not an option to choose, as it will inevitably lead in a few years to
the closure of the defined benefit scheme and its replacement, even if only for future
service or for new members, with a DC scheme. Going for a hybrid is worth pursuing
but there is still a lot of work to be done to identify the right balance of risk between
clergy and employers. Maintaining the DB scheme with the changes proposed today
117
is the only option that will enable the clergy to have a reasonable benefit level, while
maintaining contribution rates at acceptable levels.
I make no apologies for painting such a stark picture. When Synod agreed back in the
late 1990s to go for a low contribution rate, it sowed the seeds for some of the deficit
we see today. Robert Maxwell and Gordon Brown helped as well! We are where we
are and now we just need to get on with it.
Revd Canon Stuart Currie (Worcester): I wish to speak against the amendment and
for solidarity, for unity in the Body of Christ, and I regret very much anything which
would drive a division between clergy and laity in this. We are all in the same boat
together, as Sunday’s gospel reminds us, and we need to hold that in our thoughts.
As a matter of fact, in either scheme, defined benefit or defined contribution, the risk
is always borne by those who stand to benefit from it. When you hear a passive
pronoun, always ask who is doing the ‘doing’ of that pronoun. The question is who is
doing the defining? We are. The overall effect is that, if there is an insufficient
amount of money available to fund the scheme, the benefits will be redefined, which
is what we are in the process of doing now. Whatever the scheme is called, we who
will benefit from it will suffer if it means a reduction.
The amendment would specifically identify newly ordained people as being in a
different category just at the time when we have brought in common tenure – and that
would be a real shame. If we moved it over to any sort of defined contribution
scheme, then the amount would vary from one clergyperson to another and there
would be no necessary mechanism for bringing it back to this forum. Those of us who
are in that scheme would receive our fate on earth and Synod would no longer think
of us. If it were defined benefit, or at least with a defined benefit element in the
scheme, it would have to be brought back to this Synod for further discussion, thereby
maintaining the solidarity of the clergy and the laity and the unity of the Body of
Christ.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): I beg to move:
‘That the question be now put.’
This motion was put and carried.
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘At the end insert –
“(c) recognizing the aims of encouraging younger ordinations and of providing
adequate pensions for those who commit all or most of their working lives to
the Church and noting the much higher annual cost of providing pensions for
older members, invite the Archbishops’ Council to ensure that the work to be
done under recommendation (v) explores a restructuring which uses the money
available in a way which gives greater priority to these aims”.’
118
I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Christopher Daws in preparation
for this amendment and what I am about to say.
We are hearing today about a big cost-saving plan. It is about how to keep control
over the amount of money the Church has to find for its clergy pensions. We are
hearing about later retirement, longer working lives and a steady cutting-back of the
size of pension by limiting the national minimum stipend. That last element will be
particularly damaging. For the last 30 years, the State pension has been losing its
value and I am afraid that that is the way the clergy pension will go under these
proposals.
What we are not hearing today is whether the limited amount of money available for
contributions is being used in the best way. The cuts are across the board. All clergy,
young or old, early entrants or late, are equally affected, but the Task Group has left
the door open in its plan to do further work. What my amendment seeks to do is to set
aims for that further work. I would like Synod to set a direction for the Task Group as
it gets back to work.
There are two big, unspoken truths about clergy pensions. The first unspoken truth is
that saving for a pension gets much more expensive as you get older. Funding this
year’s entitlement for a 64-year-old costs three times as much as funding for a 25year-old. We can all see the rates quoted in the paper before us, but these single
contribution rates are just averages of a wide range across the ages within the scheme.
The second unspoken truth is that there are lots of old clergy in the pension scheme.
We hear that the scheme is young and immature but its members are not young and
immature, in fact quite the opposite: they are unusually old and full of wisdom. For
every two members in their thirties there are seven in their fifties. That is a great
preponderance of older, more costly members.
Does it make sense for members of all ages to be promised the same pension,
particularly when the older members cost so much more and when many clergy
entering late in life have already built up reasonable pensions from their previous
occupations? I doubt it. Does it make sense to devalue the pension across the board?
We particularly wish to encourage young ordinands, not least to be able to engage
with children and young people. Should we not be most concerned about those who
serve the Church throughout all or most of their working lives? They are the clergy
who are in most need of assurance of reasonable comfort in retirement at the end of a
long ministry.
My amendment does not say how the scheme should be restructured to achieve these
aims. I would like to suggest that younger members accrue their pensions faster and
older members more slowly. That may present problems under age discrimination
law, which is bizarre since it is exactly what happens in a money purchase or defined
contribution scheme, with level contributions for all. There are legal ways to address
this issue, however, and the Task Group, with its advisers, can explore these.
My amendment simply puts down the markers. It does not stand in the way of the
work done so far or in any way slow down the momentum, but it sees that further
work is to be done and is concerned at the potential erosion of the pension as
119
presently constituted across the board. It therefore asks the Task Group to come up
with a plan which keeps an adequate pension for those who join early, when it is
anyway much cheaper to provide it, even though it means cutting back a bit for those
who have joined later in life. It asks the group to give priority for the longest-serving
and the least able to make other provisions for themselves.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I want to resist this amendment, though I do not
regard it as a wrecking amendment. Indeed, many of the points which Mr Oldham
makes will be considered under recommendation (v) of the main motion. However, I
do not want us to leave the impression that the purpose of a pension scheme is to
encourage young ordinands. I do not want it to work against the needs of young
ordinands but I think that, along with a number of speeches made this afternoon, this
needs to be a scheme for all. I think that the words in Mr Oldham’s speech about
cutting back on the pensions for older clergy are unhelpful. All of us were young
once, Mr Chairman!
Turning to one or two specific points, there will need to be considerable discussion as
to what is legal under the age discrimination legislation. We shall need to look at
questions of inter-generational fairness – back to Mr Plyming’s point – and whether a
higher rate of accrual for one group rather than another, for the same work at the same
time, is legal or appropriate. We need to deal with the past deficit and that is for the
benefit of us all.
I shall not be overwhelmed with distress if this is passed but I hope that we will leave
the group with the wide options which the main motion gives.
The Chairman: I am sure that many of us are grateful, Bishop John, for your
reaffirmation of our former youth!
The Archdeacon of Berkshire (Ven. Norman Russell)(Oxford): I am sorry to say that I
am also old enough not to have to declare an interest and I achieved a full pension
two-and-a-half years ago. However, it was with a very heavy heart that I supported
the proposals for pensions brought to the Synod by the Archbishops’ Council, of
which I am a member. I recognize that everyone involved has sought to do their best
for the clergy. The truth is that, if you feed in the various parameters that there are, to
a very large degree what comes out the other end is little more than a matter of
arithmetic.
At the Archbishops’ Council, however, I did speak in favour of giving special
consideration to pensions for those young clergy who will give 40 years of ministerial
service to the Church. I am not quite so keen on reducing the pension of those who
come in later, but I do think that we have to give serious consideration to those
coming in to give the whole of their life to the ministry of our Church. I will not go
through the reasons again because Gavin has outlined them, and the Archdeacon of
Malmesbury has also made a very eloquent speech. When Gavin asked me if I would
second his amendment, I agreed to do so instantly. I do hope that the Synod will
support this amendment because I think it is very important indeed.
120
I would also like to support Robert Cotton’s amendment which follows. That
amendment, among other things no doubt, will be able to pick up the interesting
initiative we heard of earlier on from the diocese of Gloucester about helping younger
clergy to purchase their own homes, because in the end all of these things do have to
roll up together.
Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield): I want to challenge the idea that all late
entrants to ordination are professionals with big pension schemes behind them. I had
an ordinand in one of my previous parishes who came from a very tough council
estate, who went through to selection, eventually through training, and then became a
curate. The moment he became a curate he had far more money in the bank than he
had ever had before, because suddenly he was on a far higher wage level than ever
before. As far as I know, he had no pension provision before that. Therefore, the idea
that everybody who comes in late already has a big scheme and a house paid for is not
always true.
Revd Robert Cotton (Guildford): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘At the end insert –
“(c)
ask the Archbishops’ Council to consider the preparation of a report
which describes and explores the overall clergy remuneration package”.’
In all the pension meetings and conversations of the last two years, I have picked up
two constant messages. One is the need for change. That is well articulated by the
Pensions Board and we are acting on it urgently. The second is the need for
understanding. Clergy want to know what their stipend means; certainly they want to
know what their stipend is; but they also want to know what it signifies – the stipend
together with the other financial support: pensions, CHARM scheme, ill-health
benefits. That is what I refer to in my amendment as the ‘package’.
Though it is easy to quip, we barely comprehend the sort of amendments here in this
pensions reform. The equivalent comment of ‘Yes, but what is the Church paying me
for?’ is deadly serious. This contributes to the often-heard remark, ‘This is not the
Church I was ordained into’ or, indeed, ‘The Church assured me on ordination that it
would look after me while I work and afterwards’. It is this covenant – the word that
Philip Plyming used – this package of expectations that is changing and that needs
describing now. Without such a description, there is continuing uncertainty and
anxiety, and that only continues to demoralize many clergy.
The most obvious example is that a stipend means reasonable provision during our
working life – and in retirement? Maybe it was once said, ‘The Church will provide
for you’ but is it now being said, ‘The Church will simply contribute to the provision
that you will need in your retirement’? That is significantly different and that needs to
be described.
121
This matters. I refer Synod to paragraph 84 of this excellent report, where the
Pensions Board says that it will explore in detail how a hybrid scheme will work. We
need more than simply clear facts and figures. We need to know how it works but we
also need to know what it will mean. I would ask, in relation to paragraph 84, not only
that it explores it in detail but also explores in detail what it would mean to have a
defined contribution scheme. We know how that works, that is easy enough, but what
would it mean to have a DC scheme? If both schemes are described with their
consequences and with the rationale that underpins them, then I think that the clergy
and the dioceses will be much more ready to move. By having two fully worked-out
options we will have much more confidence when the time comes that we will make a
right decision, which is not just driven by what is financially affordable but by what is
right for all of us.
Moving to either of those schemes will be a major change, with deep, profound,
symbolic significance certainly for all the clergy in the scheme. Do not let this be
driven by finance alone, even if the numbers are very difficult. That is what it will feel
like if it is driven only by finance, if we are given only facts and figures. If the
thinking is done in advance, if the emotional thinking, with some theological
significance, is described and explored in advance, then any change will be much
more likely to be accepted – even if it is being forced upon us financially.
All of this was said very eloquently by Philip Plyming, and people have been asking
for this at many other meetings. As well as a follow-on report, therefore, please let it
include this sort of description and exploration; but please note that my amendment
specifically asks the Archbishops’ Council to consider. I am not trying to bounce
either this Synod or the Council into immediately giving us the equivalent of
Generosity and Sacrifice Mark II on a very short debate. The Archbishops’ Council
will need to consider the scope of this description but I believe that this is what the
clergy are asking for. An increased understanding will guide us through necessary
changes.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Mr Cotton is right that the clergy remuneration
package needs to be seen as a whole. Much of our work over the past decade has been
exploring how the elements of stipend, housing and pension fit together. It is
important that we are always aware of the context in which our decisions are made.
That said, I would not like us to think that we can produce a solution which provides
an overall clergy remuneration package for the foreseeable future. I remind Synod of
Sue Johns’s opening speech this afternoon, in which she spoke of the pressures and
uncertainties which are, I suggest, on everyone within our society.
In this afternoon’s debate, therefore, there has been reflection on stipends as well as
pensions and how far, if we put money into pensions, that will affect the amount that
we can spend on stipends. I would be content if Synod wants to carry this amendment,
noting the amount of work that it will involve and the way in which we shall be able
to explore the overall package.
My caveat is that we do not lose the excellent work that has been done on stipends in
recent years since Generosity and Sacrifice, over Aspiration 2 for example, on
housing – see the answers to yesterday’s Question – and on pensions, as in today’s
debate. I do not want us to stop while we dig up the roots all over again. That said,
122
Mr Cotton’s amendment is a reminder and I do not oppose it, if Synod wants to add it
to the motion.
Mr James Humphery (Salisbury): On a point of order, under SO 33 I wish to move a
special procedural motion for the adjournment of this debate.
The Chairman: Advice has been taken. Mr Humphery has moved a procedural
motion that the debate be now adjourned. Under SO 33, Mr Humphery has not more
than two minutes to give us his reasons. I will then ask the mover of the main motion
to speak. When I have heard these two speakers, I will decide in my discretion under
SO 33 whether to allow any more speakers on the procedural motion.
Mr James Humphery (Salisbury): I beg to move:
‘That the debate be now adjourned and resumed at the July 2010 group of
sessions.’
I propose this motion because I am holding a brief from the bishop’s council of my
diocese and the timing of my motion is quite deliberate. I think that we have done
something very important in passing Mr Cotton’s amendment.
One of the concerns that my bishop’s council has is that, without a wider review of
the sort that Mr Cotton has mentioned, we face the death of our pension scheme by a
thousand cuts, and we have already seen a number of cuts and changes in it in the few
years of its existence; maybe we will also see some adverse implications for stipends,
which is perhaps signalled by the third recommendation in the Task Group’s report,
and it is perhaps a little surprising that no one has spoken about that in the debate so
far.
The other reason I seek an adjournment is that the papers we have seen focus on the
central costs of the scheme and the different models of pension schemes available to
us. I may have missed them but I do not think that I have seen any illustrations of
what the proposed changes and their alternatives mean to individual members of the
scheme. I certainly would not accept a fundamental change in my employment
benefits without an explanation of what that change may mean to me in terms of
pounds and pennies, and I do not think that we should ask the clergy to accept that
change without that sort of illustration as well.
It may be said that illustrations can be supplied with the consultation papers but that
does not go quite far enough for me, because we are being invited as the Synod to
endorse a proposal, and I do not think that we should do so without some illustrations
123
and examples of what those proposals mean in practice to members of our pension
scheme.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I hope that we shall resist this motion. We are having
a good debate. There has been clarity of thought coming through the various
contributions in the way we have listened to one another and in the way that we look
to the future.
We need to make a decision today because the timescale is that we then have a 60-day
statutory consultation on the proposals with the members, all of whom will have a
personal assessment of their position along with the consultation document. Details
have already been circulated to dioceses of the effect on individuals in general terms.
They will go specifically to members during the consultation proposals. We need then
to make the final changes in July in order that the Pensions Board can set the
contribution rate in October of this year for 1 April 2011. If we do not do that, then
the Pensions Board will have to set a rate based on the present arrangements and that
will be well over 50 per cent.
The Chairman: Colleagues, the issue is fairly clear. I am not going to invite further
speeches on Mr Humphery’s motion but will now put the motion to Synod.
The procedural motion was put and lost.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, in reply: My thanks to all those who have
contributed to this debate and I have referred to a number of them in the discussions
which have taken place over the amendments.
I am grateful to Alan Cooper for his encouragement to get on with it. I have already
said that I am very grateful to Mr Plyming for what I think was a very powerful
maiden speech and a real reminder of what we need to do, and the caution about
exploring a hybrid proposal.
Thanks to Sue Johns for putting it all into the context of a realistic situation in which
all of us live. I was grateful to Canon Alderton-Ford for his reminder that the clergy
also tithe; that we too contribute, so that our interest is not simply in terms of our
pensions but also in terms of our contributions.
I very much welcome Helen Leathard’s appeal for more part-time jobs: it is
happening already. I hope that that greater flexibility will grow. In response to Alan
Hawker I would say that if people do move out of the clergy scheme and then back
into it again, they will either be earning some pension in the intermediate time or they
ought to be making arrangements to make sure that that is covered. The element of
personal responsibility is important to this.
I need to say too that there are complications, as ever, with regard to the Channel
Islands, the Isle of Man and Europe, and there need to be and will be conversations
and discussions with the relevant dioceses over exactly how this becomes real within
those different jurisdictions.
124
Clergy Pension: Ill-health Retirement
I have already referred to the timescale from now. If we pass this resolution, the 60day consultation with members will begin. We shall look at final changes in July and
the Board will set the new rate in October. Thank you for the debate and I hope that
we shall now give these proposals a fair wind, while continuing to recognize that we
do not bring them with any sense of delight and are aware that, for a significant
number, these are quite difficult proposals for people who have given their lives to
ministry within our Church.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): On a point of order, Chairman, in view of the
interest that particularly members of the scheme will have in this vote, I wonder if you
would consider ordering a division of the whole Synod.
The Chairman: I need to see if there are 25 members of Synod standing. There are 25
standing. I shall order a division of the whole Synod.
The motion was put and carried in the following amended form, 273 voting in favour,
14 against, with 8 recorded abstentions:
‘That this Synod
(a) endorse the recommendations at paragraph 2 of GS 1758, subject to the
necessary statutory and other consultations that the Archbishops’ Council now
needs to conduct;
(b) in the light of those consultations invite the Archbishops’ Council to
submit to the Synod in July final proposals, including such changes as are
necessary to the funded scheme rules; and
(c) ask the Archbishops’ Council to consider the preparation of a report which
describes and explores the overall clergy remuneration package.’
THE CHAIR His Honour Judge Bullimore (Wakefield) took the Chair at 4.35 p.m.
Clergy Pensions: Ill-health Retirement: A Report from the
Archbishops’ Council (GS 1759)
The Bishop of Dudley (Rt Revd David Walker): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod
(a) endorse the recommendations at paragraph 1 of GS 1759;
(b) subject to consultation with scheme members, invite the Pensions Board to
submit to the Synod in July such changes as are necessary to the funded scheme
rules; and
(c) ask the Archbishops’ Council to report to the Synod in 2011 on progress
with arrangements for implementing national occupational health standards.’
125
Knowing that there will be some financial support from the Church if chronic illness
or accident strikes and they are unable to work is an important security for those who
have dedicated themselves to stipendiary ministry, and indeed for those who are
considering answering God’s call.
The present clergy scheme provides that, regardless of how much service you have
done, if you become unable to work you will start to receive, from the point of
retirement, the pension and associated benefits you would have got if you had worked
right the way through until pension age. This is a very generous provision; it is not
one that will be found in many other pension schemes. However, it has not always led
to the best overall outcome either for individuals or for the Church, and it raises
increasingly pressing questions about equity. I would like to begin by briefly
explaining why before saying something about the review group and its
recommendations.
First, all the research evidence tells us that, where they are possible, rehabilitation or
adjustments to enable people to stay in work produce better outcomes for an
individual’s long-term physical and mental health. The present provision, however,
can make it seem kinder to help someone into early retirement rather than to try and
engage them and their parish in the often tough work of recovery and rehabilitation.
We end up by putting our energies into helping people out of ministry rather than
showing how ministry is possible and fruitful across as wide a range of health and
disability contexts as possible. We must remember that God calls us to minister from
the totality of our being, not just from our strength and our fitness. We need a system
which honours that as far as possible.
Secondly, the scheme works against good stewardship. Stipendiary clergy are a very
precious resource, called out, invested in, nurtured and formed, to be deployed in
ministry for many years. The current average of 66 ill-health retirements each year
represents a significant loss of resources. Replacement costs in terms of the IME years
1-7 alone would be £20 million today. At the same time, enabling this loss of resource
has cost the Church £2.5 million per annum in contribution rate, and those on a full
ill-health pension do not qualify for State incapacity benefits.
Thirdly, by providing the most generous benefit to those who have done the least
service it raises questions of equity of treatment when compared with other clergy
who, for one reason or another, are unable to complete the necessary service required
to earn a full pension. These questions become sharper as funding pensions gets more
difficult and reductions are made, as we have been considering just now, to the
benefits of all members.
Recent changes that have been made to selection procedures in order to comply with
the Disability Discrimination Act have increased concerns about equity, as candidates
who have a pre-existing health condition or disability who are affirmed as fit for
stipendiary ministry may now be excluded from some benefits that others have, in
order to protect the pension fund.
It was therefore with a concern about these issues in 2008 that DRACSC and the
Pensions Board began a review of the ill-health provisions. I was a member of the
126
review group chaired by Bishop David Jennings, who has since retired – not on illhealth grounds, but I am delighted to say that he is in the chamber today to hear this
debate. We took advice from ill-health lawyers, from retirees, actuaries, occupational
health experts; we deliberated carefully over questions of fairness and justice, before
making the eight recommendations that are set out on pages 1 and 2 of GS 1759.
Some of them deal with minor technical changes, and I will not go into them here: I
will happily respond if there is debate on them. The four key recommendations are
these: recommendation 1 is that there should be a rigorous application of
occupational health standards at selection and first appointment, to ensure as far as
possible that candidates will be fit for the job of ministry. The Ministry Division has
recently published medical standards for assessing medical fitness for ordained
ministry, which will be helpful in implementing this. It does no one a favour if we call
them out of their present occupation into stipendiary ministry and are simply setting
them up to fail.
Recommendation 2 is that a national minimum standard of occupational health
provision should be agreed and made available in all dioceses. We believe that this
will foster a culture of early intervention and support: one that will keep people
healthy in their work, benefiting priests, their families and the Church. It is consistent
with the arrangements for regular ministry review, required by the terms of service
legislation. In relation to this, recommendation 7 calls for a funding mechanism to be
agreed, and my motion specifically asks for Synod to receive a progress report on this
in 2011.
Recommendation 3 is that the terms of service capability procedure becomes a
necessary preliminary to any application for ill-health retirement. At first glance,
some have thought that this may seem a harsh approach but in fact it is intended to
ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to restore and enable ministry, so that we
do not get into the situation where in retrospect someone feels that they were
pressured into taking ill-health early retirement. Indeed, it underlines the point that the
capability procedure is primarily about sustaining clergy in their ministry and only in
the last resort about enabling someone to leave stipendiary service. For clarity, let me
note that while the terms of service capability procedure will not in general apply to
those not on common tenure, we are proposing that all clergy will be subject to this
process in the case of potential ill-health early retirement. Because it is a pensionable
procedure, the lawyers assure me that that is lawful.
Let me assure Synod also, particularly since we agreed this morning to continue with
a shorter procedure for capability in some cases, for those who are plainly unlikely
ever to be well enough to resume stipendiary ministry the process will not be one that
creates unnecessary and inappropriate delay to their much-needed retirement. We can
continue to have the short version of the capability procedure in the majority of these
cases.
Finally, recommendation 5: that in future ill-health benefit should be more closely
related to length of service. Let me say a little more about this. Pages 13 and 14 of the
report show how it would work. It is the arrangement originally designed to provide a
fair balance between scheme risk and individual risk for those pre-existing health
conditions. It reflects our view that, in an environment of limited resources, the fund
must stand a greater call for those who have done many years of pensionable service
127
than for those who have done fewer. There is no avoiding the fact that this will mean
that those retiring early due to ill health will receive a smaller pension from the
Church than they would have done under the existing arrangements. However, by
adopting this arrangement for all members – essentially, clergy doing the same job –
we restore one of the founding principles of the scheme, that the benefit structure is
the same for all. I was originally a mathematician; I can explore the formula in more
detail if anyone requires. Dr Hartley, who used to sit next to me in maths lessons at
school, assures me that it is a parabola – or at least part of a parabola. I am sure that
Synod will be grateful for that!
Before I finish, I would like to say something about the context. It is an accident of
timing that we began our work just as the financial markets collapsed, with the serious
consequences for the pension fund that we have been debating. The Archbishops’
Council was faced with a dilemma: was this the best time to be asking Synod to look
at a quite different set of questions about ill-health benefits? The Council reached a
view that it would not be wrong to debate the report now and I am pleased about that.
The review group members were always clear that our work was not focused on
finding contribution rate savings, although cost is an unavoidable issue; it was driven
by questions of individual well-being, good stewardship and equity. Those were what
prompted the review and continue to drive it.
I believe these recommendations provide the framework for changing attitudes to
occupational health to something that more strongly reflects our Christian and
theological principles and keeps ill-health benefits provision in line with the costs and
benefits of the scheme overall. I urge Synod to support the motion that stands in my
name.
The Archdeacon of Newark (Ven. Dr Nigel Peyton) (Southwell and Nottingham): I
hope that we will wholeheartedly support this motion. I would just like to make some
comments about recommendations 1 and 2 in GS 1759 in relation to the curacy years
of ministry.
If I have understood this correctly, recommendation 1 commends rigour in the interim
medical assessment at the end of the penultimate year of training, ‘to ensure so far as
possible that the candidate is fit for the work of ministry’. If that means at the end of
ordination training and just prior to ordination, it seems to me that this will tell us
only so much. As Toyota cars are currently and painfully discovering, road-testing
clergy in the early years of ministry is likely to be more revealing. Pre-existing
medical concerns may become less or more of a problem. Completely unanticipated
concerns may arise, as new clergy and their households inhabit ordained life in real
contexts that make demands which disturb their well-being.
That is why recommendation 2 is so important in the early years of ministry. An early
occupational health review towards the end of curacy training, by which I mean IME
4-7, may be extremely helpful in advising clergy themselves and their bishops as they
seek their next appointment, where more likely than not they will be exposed to
greater ‘in chargedness’ and the potential for mismatches in ministry deployment.
I chair the first appointments team in our diocese, and we find ourselves more and
more monitoring these concerns ever more closely and, on occasion, intervening
128
much earlier. Indeed, in our diocese I find that the archdeacons and also the area
deans are more routinely conducting back-to-work conversations with all clergy who
may be off work for any period beyond, shall we say, a moderate bout of flu.
In the final paragraph of this report on page 8, we are reminded that prevention is
always better than cure and, in both psychological and physical illness, intervention is
more effective the earlier it is undertaken; hence my thoughts about occupational
health during the curacy years.
I am glad that this report helps us make some sense of the pension fund implications
and the technicalities of clergy ill health but, much more importantly in my view, it
promotes occupational health for clergy on a more professional basis. It is important
not to ‘medicalize’ the clergy but clergy well-being is, I believe, closely related to the
heartbeat of the holy and missional Church that we seek to serve. I hope that Synod
will support this most warmly.
Mrs Janet Bower (Bradford): Like the Archdeacon of Newark, I welcome this
report’s emphasis on the value and importance of occupational health, its emphasis on
adjustments that should be made and its understanding of the pension implications for
clergy who have health problems. I am also delighted that the Disability
Discrimination Act has increased the awareness of those involved in selection that
people with disabilities also have ministries.
In his introduction, the Bishop of Dudley separated those who have pre-existing
health conditions from those who have a disability. My concern is that this is not
highlighted in the report. One could almost say the implication is that if you have a
disability you are more likely to need early retirement on health grounds and could be
a drain on the pension fund. On page 21, reason 3 reads, ‘Concern has been
heightened by recent changes in the selection procedures for ordained ministry made
in response to the Disability Discrimination Act, that have resulted in more candidates
with existing medical conditions entering training for stipendiary ministry’. The
reality is that many people, as the archdeacon has just said, have unanticipated
medical concerns.
Another reality is that many people with disabling conditions, as defined by the
Disability Discrimination Act, are not likely to make any more demands on health
provision than others. If I have a visual impairment, if I am deaf, if I am dyslexic, if I
have shortened or absent limbs, I am actually no more likely to have health needs than
anybody else. Therefore, while welcoming the concerns of the report, I regret that it
makes such causal links between disability and the Disability Discrimination Act
rather than concentrating where it is needed, on the medical grounds for ill-health
retirement.
Revd Canon David Miller (Truro): There is much that I welcome in this report. I
welcome the table on page 5 which, contrary to my expectation before reading the
report, indicates that the number of people retiring on ill-health grounds has reduced
over a ten-year period from almost 100 to just over 60. That is wonderful news. I
welcome the ambition of the report. The Archdeacon of Newark referred to the
paragraph that I wanted to refer to, at the bottom of page 8. The ambition is not just to
129
prevent ill health in clergy but to help those who are or who have been ill to return to
work.
My concern is with the process. This is a wonderful ambition but it will surely take a
long time to implement. It is important that this is not rushed through; that this is
something which is bedded in. If the dioceses are to pay for it, it is necessary to take
the concerns of those dioceses into account. That is why the responses to the
consultation of dioceses on pages 26 and 27 need to be looked at carefully. Only 33
dioceses out of a possible 43 responded and none of the recommendations was
favoured by all 33 dioceses, though a large majority were in favour of almost every
recommendation. Where there are reservations, however, these must not be skated
over but must be taken seriously. For instance, recommendation 3 speaks of the link
with capability procedure and that recommendation was supported by 26 of the 29
responses; but then it goes on to say, ‘although several raised some concern about the
use of the capability procedure’. No number was specified, but several concerns need
to be identified and sorted out – and there are other such reservations in other
responses to other recommendations. That is the first thing, therefore: that the
dioceses’ concerns are taken seriously.
The eleventh notice paper talks about a financial concern and, in paragraph 22, the
estimated additional cost of occupational health provision for stipendiary clergy could
be anywhere between £170,000 and £800,000 per annum. That is a huge difference.
An archdeacon speaking in this morning’s debate said that one of the roles of an
archdeacon was to say ‘There are no blank cheques’. 2011 is quite close, budgeting is
already taking place, and nobody involved in financial matters would want anything
like uncertainty. There has to be some clarification on the amount of money that is
required from dioceses.
Thirdly, there is always a housing component to the ill health, particularly acute if
people have dependant children when they are forced to retire on ill-health grounds.
One of the themes of the last two days has been that everything seems to have a
housing component, and this does too. If you have to retire from the parsonage on illhealth grounds, then any alternative provision will surely be more costly than what
you were doing before. There would be increased charges for such housing while the
work of ministry would have to be undertaken by somebody else in the parsonage.
I therefore welcome this report but, in terms of section (c) of the motion which refers
to 2011, how much progress can be made in the intervening period with arrangements
for implementing national occupational health standards?
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham): I would also like to follow on with regard to part (c) of
this item in relation to national occupational health standards. It needs to be national;
it needs to relate to an occupational health service; I do not think that we can have a
so-called ‘postcode lottery’ in this context. I support the general thrust and direction
of this report, particularly in relation to recommendation 2 as it stands, but would
want to take us back to some of the text at page 8.
130
My experience as a GP over nearly 30 years is of working as an occupational health
doctor at a factory for 20 of those years, particularly benefiting from an occupational
nurse input. This is the person who does all the work and I occasionally get some of
the credit! It is in the context of the value of this sort of service that I want to make
my remarks, particularly as the Church of England could be spending around £1
million a year on this scheme. It needs to be smart; it needs to be cost-effective; it
needs to be evidence-based. On the GP end of this, I often get reports from so-called
‘blanket’ health screening, when in fact very little turns up of significance which
would not have turned up otherwise quite quickly, and certainly would not have
proved to be very important. The simple things you can do are checking blood
pressure, diabetes checks, checks for bowel and bladder cancer; these are very
inexpensive but also need to be done fairly often, and again we have the idea of a twoyear assessment, which is one recommendation here. I suppose the danger of asking a
company which provides health checks ‘what should we do?’ is that you get the
answer, ‘Well, you should give us £20,000 a year, please’.
That is a cynical view, but I do want to respond to that with the following point.
Increasingly, these tests are becoming more sophisticated and you may have heard
reports both in relation to brain scans – which can show up all sorts of apparent
abnormalities on scans, which actually are of no significance but increasingly cause a
lot of worry and anxiety and further investigation for things which have been there for
years and have no significance – and also some of the noise about breast
mammography screening, where again the value of that is unclear, although I
personally would support it: there is certainly an element of things appearing which
may otherwise be not very significant. This is the danger of screening tests, which
need to be both highly specific – i.e. test the thing you are trying to test – and not
throw up lots of false positives or, worse, false negatives, which can falsely reassure
you. Again, the examples would be for prostate cancer, androgen testing for men and
cholesterol testing in general, and what you do with the result; and it can cause a lot of
issues to do with further investigation, damage to patients and anxiety.
However, I do not want to knock this because I think it is the way forward: we should
have a proper, consistent, national occupational health service for clergy. We do not
have it for GPs: we have been trying to get one for some years but it has not moved
forward on a national basis. I am highly supportive of the evidence on page 8; and I
think the benefits are absolutely clear-cut. Good occupational health will save the
Church money in the long run; it will improve the lives of clergy and their families;
and, equally, it will improve the lives of those who have to deal with the
consequences in the Church of illness and ill-health.
So what options might I want to suggest? I have suggested that it should be a
balanced, cost-effective, evidence-based service. I do not quite know what the
thinking is here, but I wonder whether an alternative might be a nurse-led service,
particularly spread over a number of neighbouring dioceses; I am sure even an
employment and occupational health nurse might fit into these sorts of costing.
Obviously, we should encourage health in general, again preventive: having a day off
a week for clergy (would not that be good?); having proper ways of addressing
anxiety, stress and worry; having examples of good practice in keeping fit, and so on.
131
So I would want to endorse and encourage part (c) particularly of this motion, looking
for that response from the Archbishops’ Council and being aware that there are other
models; albeit the one before us may be as good as any.
The Chairman: After the next speaker, I would be glad if someone would move the
closure on this item.
The Bishop of Brixworth (Rt Revd Frank Wright): I would like to commend
particularly recommendations 2 and 7 which relate, as Jamie Harrison has just said, to
the possibilities of occupational health provision and, generally speaking, to give a
very warm welcome to the document as a whole, which is a very significant
contribution to the issue of the morale and welfare of the clergy.
I want just to reflect on two personal experiences, first as a full-time hospital chaplain,
being in a situation where occupational health provision was automatically provided
and the benefit that gave me in a particular situation, and, more recently, as a bishop,
having a regular medical every two years, which has given me a great deal of
confidence that my health is actually being observed and monitored. I believe that the
issue of confidence is crucial in terms of people’s well-being and confidence about
their health, so I want warmly to commend the suggestion that Bishop David has
spoken about, that of seeking a report in 2011 in relation to the funding possibilities
for occupational health.
I would like to draw Synod’s attention particularly to the concern that I think this has
in relation to parochial clergy. Notwithstanding what Jamie Harrison as a GP has said,
one of my experiences over the years, as an archdeacon and as a bishop, is that when
clergy, particularly parochial clergy, go sick, they are not always met with
understanding at the GP’s surgery about the implications that sickness has for them in
terms of the whole of their life rather than just of their work. It seems to me that a
good occupational health service which understands where clergy are coming from,
and the pressures on them, would be of huge benefit for us in terms of the future
morale of clergy.
I warmly commend this. I believe it will be challenging for us as a Church, but it is
very much part of the new age into which we are moving as far as clergy terms of
service are concerned and I believe it is a very positive and constructive piece of work
for the long-term benefit of the Church.
A member: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Would you please clarify when I was
intended to speak, because I thought you pointed to me.
The Chairman: I am sorry, sir, I had not indicated that I was going to call you to
speak, so I am sorry.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Mr Chairman –
The Chairman: Ah, Mr Freeman!
132
The Bishop of Dudley, in reply: Thank you to all who have contributed to the debate.
The tenor has been very much one of welcoming the report that Synod has received
today, and I am very grateful for that as, I am sure, are the other members of the
working party who have worked with me on it, together with our chairman.
Bishop Frank raised the question of regular medicals and the value that bishops gain
from that. I found, when I became a bishop, that whereas until then I noticed that,
where two or three clergy are gathered together they will talk about the local
undertaker, I discovered that where two or three bishops are gathered together they
talk about the House of Bishops’ doctor and buy one a drink!
Most people have talked about the occupational health service. That is the thing that
we are trying to get going and that is what we will be reporting back on in 2011.We
cannot tell you exactly what it will cost at the moment because that is still to be
worked out: the exact processes that we shall have for that and what we want to do
more work on. I think, Dr Harrison, you have talked yourself into membership of that
working party with the very helpful and wise comments that you made just now.
Janet Bower asked about disability and those with pre-existing health conditions. It is
the present interim system we have which treats people differently as to whether they
have, and retire as a result of, a pre-existing health condition or not. What the
proposal before us today does is put all clergy back on a level playing field in that
regard so, effectively, if you have to retire early it will not matter whether you do so
through a pre-existing condition that was known about before you were ordained or
through something which arose later on: you will be treated exactly the same in terms
of the pension you would get. We are correcting something we had to address because
of particular circumstances a year or two ago; we are now suggesting a way of putting
everybody back on to a level playing field.
David Miller talked about the processes in occupational health and the need to consult
with the dioceses. Yes that would be part of working up the occupational health
system from here on, and we are happy we can do that by 2011. He also mentioned
housing. The CHARM scheme is very important; I am currently the chair of the
housing committee of the Pensions Board, and we are looking very hard at how we
deliver the CHARM scheme in an effective way, so that it meets the needs of clergy
who are retiring at whatever age. I spent quite a bit of my own time last year with a
member of the clergy in my own diocese, working with him and his wife as they
sought housing in really quite an early ill-health retirement. It was lovely to spend a
morning last week with him and his wife in their CHARM house, still in the city of
Worcester where they have lived in recent years, and it was good to see how that
transition had been concluded, as successfully and as happily as it could be, given that
someone was having to retire from the stipendiary ministry when they would have
hoped to have many years ahead of them. So the CHARM process is very important.
133
General Synod Elections 2010
Archdeacon Nigel Peyton made sensible suggestions about the occupational health
work that we are doing and the various checks that need to take place. What we are
proposing are checks in training before people are ordained; it may well be that there
are other times when appropriate health checks should be made and they can be
looked into as the working party goes forward. I liked the allusion to Toyota. My
recollection of curates is that there seem to be two sorts – those who have problems
with the accelerator and those who have problems with the brakes – but we never
proposed that either group should be recalled!
THE CHAIR Mrs April Alexander (Southwark) took the Chair at 5.12 p.m.
General Synod Elections 2010: Report by the Business Committee
(GS 1760)
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick (Hereford): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod approve the recommendations set out in paragraphs (i) and (ii)
on page 4 of GS 1760.’
The report in front of Synod about the allocation of places for directly elected
representatives to the Synod in the next quinquennium may have taken quite some
time and concentration to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest, but I am sure
members have. It comes from the Business Committee but, as always, it represents
hours of work by the staff, and indeed what you read is just the tip of the iceberg in
terms of the work that has been done, because the Business Committee asked that
calculations be made using various different scenarios before reaching a decision
about what to recommend in this report. Let me explain.
The allocation set out in Appendix A and Appendix B is calculated on the basis of a
70:30 split between Canterbury and York provinces. This represents a slight
weighting towards York, based on electoral roll numbers and total numbers of
proctors in each province, and it is the same weighting as was used in 2005. However,
it is right that the method of calculating electoral representation should be continually
open to challenge and question, and the Business Committee therefore asked for the
calculations to be made with and without the weighting added, and also using
attendance figures rather than electoral roll figures to calculate laity representation,
and even trying a combination of attendance and electoral roll figures. The last two
calculations, those about the attendance figures and electoral roll figures, resulted in
only one or two very small shifts in allocation, but removing the weighting resulted in
a net shift in both the clergy and the laity of about six or seven seats from York to
Canterbury. So the Business Committee discussed all these scenarios but concluded
that the present formula is what we would recommend, as on page 4 of the report,
where allocation is made on the same basis as in 2005.
Our report also outlines the timetable approved by the Archbishops for the elections,
following the dissolution of this Synod in July. This debate, though not that exciting,
is important in setting the ground rules for the election later this year, and we hope
that, through the work of the communications team, through the creation of a
134
General Synod Elections 2010
dedicated website, a DVD and other promotional material, and of course through the
enthusiasm and communication skills of present members of Synod, many will be
encouraged to participate, whether by standing or by encouraging others to stand, to
ensure a truly representative General Synod for the next quinquennium.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): I appreciate that it is too late now to do anything about
the 2010 elections, but I want to enter a plea that in the next quinquennium questions
of principle might be considered rather earlier and brought to the Synod for decision
in principle before calculations are finally made and before it is too late to change
anything.
It seems to me that we are the national Synod of the Church of England. If we are
that, surely it should be a fundamental principle that those of us who are elected by
dioceses should be equal, at least within our respective Houses? A lay member from,
say, the diocese of Canterbury surely should represent roughly the same number of
laity as one from, say, the diocese of Bradford, and the proctors likewise, with respect
to the numbers of clergy that they represent. Surely that is basic fairness? However,
from the figures before us, it would seem that in the 2010 elections Canterbury
proctors will represent 81 clergy whereas Bradford proctors only 54, and Canterbury
laity will represent 6,864 laity, whereas Bradford will represent only 3,428: twice the
number being represented by Canterbury laity than is the case in Bradford. I have
nothing against the diocese of Bradford or indeed anybody else: all I want is that we
should have a level playing field, and broad equity between the dioceses.
It seems to me that this disparity results from a combination of the 70:30 split
between the provinces and the minimum allocation of three seats in each House to all
dioceses apart from Europe and Sodor and Man. I find it difficult to see what
justification there really is for these constraints, which distort the democracy of this
Synod, and I hope that in the next quinquennium – perhaps within the first two years
– a report on these issues of principle will be brought to Synod by the Business
Committee, so that a view can be taken about how we want things done in 2015.
Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells): Madam Chairman, I stand before you as a
somewhat surly son of Somerset, suffering from a self-esteem sensitivity situation,
seeking a satisfactory solution despite these salutary statistics about our electoral
rolls; and it is a similar point to Mr Scowen’s. Why is this when I have no interest to
declare or axe to grind because I am not planning to stand for the next election?
All the best Synod reports start with their theological basis clearly set out, but not this
one. The problem is that it fails to ground itself in good theology: that we are all of
equal value in creation and redemption in the eyes of God. The result? Lancastrians
and Yorkshire people seem to be of greater weight and value than the good folk of
Somerset. Mere scousers are far more valuable than my Somerset friends. We good
people of Somerset – 35,000 electoral roll of us – will now have only five reps,
whereas the mere 32,000 or 33,000 electoral rollers of Manchester, Blackburn and
York will have all of six reps. Is this because these north country people are more
wise, more godly, of greater value in the eyes of the Church of England than us
wassailing, cider-swilling, cheese-making, muck-clearing folk of Somerset? We have
great needs.
135
Mission-shaped Church
All, it seems, because of this blunt 30:70 instrument, which has already been
mentioned.
Unlike our clergy friends, divided into two chunks, we laity are all one in the House
of Laity. Maybe our hands are tied at this stage, and maybe it is an old principle, but
why could the principle not have been sorted first so that the laity at least could be
treated as all equal in creation and redemption? Good theology is a better start for a
report like this.
So, Madam Chair, I will retreat down west, dismal, devalued, into dismissal and
dotage – but justice for the Somerset Six, I cry!
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): – the ever-decreasing diocese. I make no apology for
standing here after Peter LeRoy. I would also like to ask that those of
St Edmundsbury and Ipswich join forces with us in the condemnation of the current
system.
It was interesting that we had a number of Questions asked – was it only last night? –
and there seemed to be a contest between Southwark and Oxford, who seemed to ask
the majority of the Questions. Did we complain? No we did not. We did not mind that
there was a slight imbalance because most of the Questions were quite good. What we
do need to do is to sort out Rule 36 of the Church Representation Rules and make sure
we put right what I thought I heard Kay describe as a slight imbalance; I personally
believe that the difference between 6,429 and 5,382 is slightly more than slight.
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick, in reply: I thought it was not going to be exciting, but
it is!
Thank you to all three people who have spoken. They have all spoken on the same
question, of course, that of the weighting and whether it should be there or not. I
would like to say that that weighting has been there for quite some time. It certainly
has come to Synod before, to another Synod, but I am sure that many members were
there, as I was. Of course, we can look at it again. The Elections Review Group
reports to the Business Committee, and it will be quite possible to ask them to begin
work on a report which could come to the new Business Committee at the beginning
of the next Synod in order, as Mr Scowen has said, to make sure that it comes earlier
to the Synod.
As for whether the people in the York province are wiser and more godly, I could not
possibly say!
Mission-shaped Church: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs
Council (GS 1761)
Dr Philip Giddings: Now for something completely different! I beg to move:
136
‘That this Synod:
(a) affirm the mixed economy of traditional churches and fresh expressions of
church, working in partnership, as the most promising mission strategy in a
fast-changing culture;
(b) encourage those responsible for vocations and training in dioceses and
parishes to promote the imaginative recruitment, training and deployment of
ordained and lay pioneer ministers in and beyond title posts;
(c) commend the making of Bishops’ Mission Orders to integrate suitable fresh
expressions of church in the life of the dioceses; and
(d) request the Mission and Public Affairs Division and the Research and
Statistics Unit to gather evidence on the spiritual and numerical growth of the
mixed economy church in general and fresh expressions of church in particular,
and to bring a further report or reports to Synod in the next quinquennium.’
The themes of the report I present to Synod today and of the motion standing in my
name are movement and change. We are on the move, on a continuing journey of
mission in a world of constant change, with a gospel of eternal truth. The report has
had and continues to have a substantial impact on the Church, not only in this land but
across the world. Rachel Jordan, who contributed so much to our report today, has
just returned from sharing its thinking with the Church in Canada. Mission-shaped
Church and Archbishop Rowan’s seminal expression ‘the mixed economy Church’
have found a ready response. Churches of all kinds and in most places have caught the
vision of recognizing church where it appears and are showing the willingness and
skill to work with it. We are recognizing the need for flexibility in a complex and fastmoving landscape. This is not succumbing to every passing fashion nor deifying the
way we have always done things; it is being open to discern how the Spirit is leading
us in his work of mission and ministry today.
There have been many papers written about mission-shaped church, much debate and
discussion, not a few reports and even the passage of legislation by the General Synod
to enable this greater flexibility, and for all that we are profoundly thankful to
Almighty God, but we must not lose sight of the fact that words, though necessary,
are not enough; it is action, the delivering, that matters. Therefore I am hoping that in
this debate today we can look forward to the many ways in which we can follow up
the impetus to mission which Bishop Graham Cray’s report gave us six years ago.
The report before us today sets out the substantial progress which we have made so
far. Bishops’ Mission Orders have been made in three dioceses and are on the way in
six more. Most dioceses are making their strategy for mission clearer and more
explicit and giving it extra impetus from senior staff leadership. Cross-cultural
mission and evangelism is being given fresh emphasis in the planning and
development of ministerial training. The new pathway for pioneer ministers is in
place. By the end of January a total of 94 had been recommended for training, 70 of
whom are currently in training and 17 of whom have been ordained. The cutting-edge
work of fresh expressions continues, and we will hear more about that on Thursday
morning. Research and development initiatives, like the Weddings Project, are
137
offering ways to support and refine our traditional ministry so that it can be an
effective vehicle for the mission and love of God in these days, reaffirming, to
paraphrase Archbishop Temple, that we are here for those not yet here.
In those and other ways up and down our land, in parishes and deaneries large and
small, urban, rural and suburban, bishops, clergy and laypeople are grappling with the
challenge of shaping up for mission in a country in which two-thirds of adults have no
connection with church: two-thirds of adults.
At this point I want to underline a key message. Mission-shaped Church is for the
whole Church not just for the few who are, as it is sometimes put, ‘into that sort of
thing’. It is the particular privilege of the Church of England to minister to all the
people of England, wherever and however they live, whether they live in communities
defined by place of residence or by place of work or where they take their leisure, or
whether their communities are shaped by the several social, economic and cultural
networks of which they are a part. In all these communities it is our privilege to
minister and our responsibility under God to share the good news of his love. Our
vocation is – is it not? – to share that good news, that God in his grace can and will
transform our lives, our communities, his world, so we can faithfully reflect the divine
image in which he created us. That vocation we all share, that call to God’s mission
we all share, wherever we minister, with whomsoever we live and work and have our
being.
That vocation is not new. That work of mission began long before the Mission-shaped
Church report. Much has been done and much is being done, and part of our intention
as a Division, in bringing MPA’s report to Synod today, is to invite Synod and the
wider Church both to affirm what has been done and to reflect upon it, drawing
lessons from our past practice for the future.
While we can and should affirm what has been done and thank God for it, we dare not
be complacent. Let us not delude ourselves or bury our heads in the sand. There is so
much more remaining to be done. That sobering statistic from Tearfund is confirmed
by similar surveys from other sources: we live in a country in which two-thirds of
adults have no connection with church, and we know from the research analyses done
by our own Statistics Unit that that position is much more critical at the younger end
of the age range.
It would be easy to be daunted by the scale of the challenge, like most of the men
Moses sent to spy out the land of Canaan in Numbers 13, or dear old Elijah when he
fled to Horeb in 1 Kings.19. We should not be daunted. Let us remember that the
ministry on which we are all engaged – bishops, clergy and laity alike – is not our
ministry; it is God’s ministry, and God specializes in upsetting the odds, turning
apparent failure into success, routing evil just when it seems to triumph, transforming
the broken, rescuing the lost. It was, after all, just 12 Apostles who were empowered
by God’s Holy Spirit at Pentecost to launch the movement which turned the world
upside down, and he is continuing to do so in many parts of the world today. I need to
wear glasses nowadays but I am fairly confident that there are more than 12 of us
present today, and a lot more members of our Church outside.
138
Finally and briefly to the motion. I invite Synod to affirm the mixed economy,
working in partnership, as the mission strategy most appropriate to the fast-changing
culture in which we serve. I invite Synod to encourage the vital work of nourishing
and promoting vocations to pioneer ministers, lay as well as ordained. I invite Synod
to explore all the opportunities open to us through Bishops’ Mission Orders. I invite
MPA to continue our work of gathering and analyzing evidence of this mixed
economy so as to inform future debates not only in this Synod but across the Church.
God willing, after the debates, I hope that that material will resource our share in
God’s work of transformation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): I want to make three points
about the motion and about the whole area which we are discussing. The first is to
pick up what Dr Giddings has just said so importantly in his introduction by stressing
the words ‘working in partnership’ in part (a) of the motion. The mixed economy
takes both elements seriously, both traditional forms of Church and emerging forms
of Church, but it is very important that we do not nurture any illusion that there is
only one really important bit of this. Needs are different in different contexts, and to
say that partnership is the most promising mission strategy at the moment is to take
both elements in the partnership seriously. It is tempting and easy to talk about the
‘cutting edge’ being in fresh expressions, but the cutting edge is wherever people are
brought into living relationship with Jesus Christ; and when we think about how
partnership best works we must surely realize that it is when both elements are taking
each other seriously and gratefully and interacting with each other. I say that simply
as a reminder to some who perhaps too readily either think that fresh expressions is
everything or on the other side who feel perhaps patronized or marginalized by the
enthusiastic language about what is new. Working together creatively in partnership is
indeed the most promising mission strategy.
That being said, I want, second, to underline the fact about the history and
development of the follow-up of Mission-shaped Church and of Fresh Expressions.
For the first few years of the life of Fresh Expressions initiatives we depended very
heavily on the generosity of private donors, whose contribution to this deserves to be
recorded and acknowledged publicly; it has been a wonderfully, inspiringly generous
history of support. However, the Commissioners and the Archbishops’ Council are
now, so to speak, mainstreaming this, and that is one reason why it is time for this
Synod to look at the whole question again and be aware that after that first phase of
heavy dependence on donors we are now asking the Church once again to own this as
something absolutely part of its own lifeblood. That is, if you like, to redress the
balance of what I said first: it is important not to forget the traditional but we are
asking that partnership be mainstream in the next phase of the work that Fresh
Expressions does and all those involved with it. So I want to thank the Commissioners
and the Archbishops’ Council also for the enthusiasm with which they have picked up
this particular initiative and want to go on supporting it.
The third and last point I want to make in connection with this debate is that a great
deal of the work of building new congregations, building new networks, the Fresh
Expressions agenda, is deeply counter-cultural, not only in planting Christian
churches which, as you have heard, is just a tiny bit counter-cultural these days, given
the statistics we have heard, but also in terms of the patience and discernment that it
requires. There are no quick fixes in mission. We have to be patient. We have to allow
139
initiatives to develop at their own pace, and sometimes that means patience with trial
and error. Once again, it is easy enough to think that if you take these particular
tablets you will develop muscles overnight. What happens in the world of fresh
expressions is very often risky, adventurous and vulnerable, and all that is very good
because it is entirely biblical; but it does mean that you will not immediately, within
six months, see the results that you might fantasize about. So, patience and
discernment in a rushed, results-obsessed culture, is actually a good counter-cultural
mark to put down, and I hope that, in backing this motion with all the enthusiasm I
hope you will give to it, you will also be aware of that element of commitment, to
being alongside enterprises that need your patience and need your understanding and
discernment in that vulnerability, that riskiness, which belongs to the sharing of the
gospel in new contexts.
Revd Canon David Bird (Peterborough): Mission-shaped Church recognized the dire
situation that we face as a Church. The statistics and analyses in the report and in
previous reports and from people like George Lings have told us that the Church has
been in decline; but Mission-shaped Church has been for the Church a wake-up call,
and it is not simply that we have seen fresh expressions; we have seen reinvigorated
traditional churches. Patterns of worship have changed. The biggest change that has
happened in the traditional church is that there has been much more awareness of the
need to welcome people and make church much more accessible to people who come,
together with the offering of hospitality and the diverse outreach courses which are
happening in different churches, but they are happening in traditional churches as well
as in what we might call fresh expressions or mission-shaped churches, for the
traditional church is also shaped for mission if we are intentional about it.
We have seen fresh expressions which have been able to reach different people who
are far away from what we would call traditional models of church, and we have
talked about a mixed economy; but what I want to say is that it is not a mixed
economy which is either traditional or fresh expression but a huge spectrum, and I just
want to give you a bit of a picture from what has happened in the parish where I am
vicar over the past 13 years. Our mid-week traditional service has grown. It has grown
because we have added to it a lunch and an afternoon activity which has drawn people
in. We have a service called ‘Hymns of Praise’, which was registered on the Fresh
Expressions site but I have often wondered whether it ought to have been because it is
not particularly fresh: it is like Songs of Praise with tea and cake afterwards and a
sermon and testimonies and things like that. What has been dramatic about it is that it
started with services in a day centre for the elderly and has grown to a monthly
congregation of 100-120 people, all of whom had become de-churched and all of
whom are now part of what goes on at St Giles.
Our Sunday worship has changed; we use multi-media; we have actually taken
seriously some of the stuff that comes out of education theory about learning styles,
so we do not just offer a ‘you listen to the person who stands at the front and speaks’.
We have done quite a bit to help people whose learning style is not auditory.
We have a youth congregation. Recently we started something called Street Church,
which was based on a group of people in a local day centre for homeless people, who
were very upset because one of their members had died, and I was asked to go in and
do a sort of memorial service of some sort. Out of that I had a real burden on my
140
heart, and another layperson in the parish did, about trying to do something for those
folk who are homeless, who would not come to our normal services. So we started
Street Church at Easter 2008, and we are now getting 80-90 homeless and vulnerably
housed people every Sunday afternoon. We have just appointed a worker part-time,
and we have been reaching people whom the Church has struggled to reach or not
reached at all. We have a café church.
There is a whole spectrum there, is what I am saying. A lot of it has come about
because of the initiative which Mission-shaped Church and other thinking of that sort
has given to the Church.
So there is lots that is positive. There are one or two things which I think are negative,
though, and which we need to take cognizance of. We have not seen massive
progress: things have been slow. I do think we have begun to turn a corner, but there
is still decline going on and so we need to think carefully about how we can speed the
progress, if you like. As an institution we do not find it easy to be radical and
different, and we need constantly to challenge ourselves about that. The task is huge.
What should we do? I think we need to learn to release laypeople for mission in their
contexts. Clergy need to be entrepreneurial and permission-giving.
First and foremost, although strategies are great I believe we need to turn to prayer as
the way forward for our Church in mission.
The Chairman: I call the Bishop of Sheffield for a maiden speech.
The Bishop of Sheffield (Rt Revd Steven Croft): You will know, Madam Chair, that I
have an interest in this matter, and more than an interest: a passion. I want to thank
Mission and Public Affairs for their report and just add a few perspectives which I
hope may texture it a little as we consider it this afternoon.
The first is to pay tribute, if I may, to the courage of the pioneers who have led fresh
expressions of church. I have met thousands of them over the past five or six years.
They come in all shapes and sizes, lay and ordained - Church Army evangelists must
have a special mention - those in mid-life, those in old age, those who are young, who
are sensing a call to do something here. The word ‘strategy’ is mentioned quite a lot
in the report and in the motion, and I do not quarrel with it because we need to be
strategic in our emphases and our use of resources; but all that is happening is not
happening because of a strategy. It is happening because I think there is a movement
going on, made up of thousands of individuals discerning a call, which I believe and
discern is a call of God and part of the mission of God. I think what we are now
calling fresh expressions of Church would be happening whether or not Missionshaped Church had happened, but they might not be happening as substantially and
creatively, and what we are doing is making space and attempting to join in.
My second point is just to highlight the deep theological engagement which has been
going on over the past six years and more previously about mission and ecclesiology.
There has been over the past six years a helpful process of challenging and testing the
theological foundations in mission-shaped Church and much of that has been
extremely good and helpful. My reflection, having travelled all over the Church of
England and the Methodist Church, is that we are actually held together at the
141
moment by a common missiology which is in no small part due to the benefits and
blessings of the Anglican Communion and the stream of missional thinkers, John
Taylor, Newbigin and others, who have resourced our thinking so that this kind of
missiology seems natural to us. However, we are much weaker in the area of our
ability to think about ecclesiology - the nature of the Church - and that weakness is
not only or even mainly in fresh expressions of Church but across the whole Church,
where we have assumed our ecclesiology and not thought it through from first
principles.
One of the key tasks of the next five years must be to deepen that theological
engagement with our thinking about what the Church is. It seems curious, looking at
the recommendations of Mission-shaped Church with hindsight, that there was no
recommendation to do further work on ecclesiology. The Faith and Order working
party referred to in the report is, I think, a very important piece of work on
ecclesiology and fresh expressions, but the task of reflecting on the nature of the
Church is not about part of the Church but about the whole.
The third and final thing is that, very much as a bishop with large L-plates coming
into post, I find that the Church has given me through its reflections and in its
partnership with the Methodist Church, in particular, a strategy and approach for
mission and engagement which, once again, has the potential to connect with and
touch the whole of the communities which we are called to serve. There are no no-go
areas for the gospel or the Church. We have stated publicly that we are concerned for
the whole of our communities, to connect with them through service, through forming
contextual communities through mission and in that engagement. So as I stand near
the beginning of that ministry and near the beginning of that learning, I look forward
with great hope and anticipation and I feel equipped because of the work that has been
done to carry that and lead that forward.
I wholeheartedly commend this motion.
Revd Douglas Galbraith (Ecumenical Representatives, Church of Scotland): The
skateboarders on the level courtyard at the backdoor of the Dundee city centre church
would no doubt have once been a nuisance to worshippers and told to go somewhere
else, but in these new days they are part of the mission-shaped Church. They are
known as ‘Hot Chocolate’, this being the original currency of the encounter. Like
yourselves, the Church of Scotland grapples with the responsibility for delivering the
ordinances of religion to a nation, and there are now new contours to negotiate. That
being so, colleagues have sent with me here a message of warm gratitude for the
original Mission-shaped Church report, a captured moment of imagination, and
thanks also to both Church of England and Methodists for its development into Fresh
Expressions, with which we now work closely, with the people as well as with the
ideas.
Out of your initiative has come, in our parlance, the Emerging Church, with three
projects of significance. There are two pilot mission-shaped ministry courses to
reorient existing and train new ministers, involving 43 persons from several
denominations. There is the setting aside of £300,000 for each of five years for new
models of ministry, some 20 projects being identified. The third, however, recognizes
that much needs to be clarified about what makes such expressions real emerging
142
churches and not just local church projects for people on the fringes of the
congregations, an issue referred to in today’s report. This research will analyze
existing projects, asking ‘What makes a particular expression outward-facing and
missional? What makes it genuinely experimental? What makes it truly ecclesial,
ecclesial in the sense both of what marks of the Church are present and how this
relates to existing patterns?’ Questions of how progress can be evaluated and what
kind of supporting partnerships are required will be part of this. The outcome of your
own Faith and Order discussions in this regard, referred to in Appendix E, will be
eagerly scrutinized when they come next year.
Our experience matches the assertion in the same appendix, by Dr Paul, that such
initiatives are inevitably ecumenical, as eyes are lifted above the solid patterns that are
often too solid to the terrain beyond: mission and unity are indeed indissoluble.
Concluding in a different vein, if I may, Madam Chair, at this, my last, group of
sessions as an ecumenical representative, I thank the Synod most warmly for the
opportunity of spending three years with you, long enough to get to know, appreciate
and be inspired by the witness of another Church.
The Chairman: I call Dr Jo Spreadbury for a maiden speech, with a three-minute
speech limit, please.
Revd Dr Jo Spreadbury (St Albans): I warmly welcome the work that is being done to
revitalize and re-energize our sense of mission as a Church. As we are talking this
evening about a mixed economy for mission, I am grateful that Synod is taking this
opportunity to re-emphasize and revalue the importance of inherited and traditional
expressions of Church. In the report and the motion before us the emphasis is a good
deal on fresh expressions, and the potential of inherited expressions to be dynamic
and transformative is perhaps rather understated. So I would like to make three points,
if I may.
First, I would like to reaffirm the sense that traditional work in parishes by priests and
ministers is essentially about mission, declaring and demonstrating God’s presence
and care, even in the remotest reaches of our parishes and communities. The
wonderful mission opportunities of the occasional offices are very clear when joyfully
and sensitively handled, and this is borne out by the Tearfund research we have in
Appendix B. The most unreachable third of our population, the closed non-churched,
we are told, do not go to church except for weddings, baptisms and funerals. What a
God-given mission opportunity we have here to reach out to those that even Fresh
Expressions is struggling to engage with.
Second, with reference to paragraph (b) of the motion, I earnestly hope that all
ordained and lay ministers are imaginatively recruited, trained and deployed in this
day and age, and not just pioneer ministers. Might we not be inviting judgement on
ourselves to let it be thought that some ministers, lay or ordained, have not been
imaginatively trained or deployed? The report mentions some angst among parish
clergy about the introduction of fresh expressions, and such unease will not be helped
by anything that could be read into this particular wording of paragraph (b).
143
Third, I applaud the request, in paragraph (d), that evidence of spiritual growth as well
as numerical growth be gathered, though quite how spiritual growth can be measured
I wait to see. I believe that it is worship, and especially sacramental worship, that is
fundamental to growth, worship that challenges us to go deeper into Scripture, deeper
in prayer, in repentance, in thanksgiving and in holiness. Pioneer ministers, I would
suggest, should be especially deeply rooted in the rich tradition of transformative and
authentic worship, but so should we all, to nourish and equip each of us for our part in
God’s mission. By their fruits you shall know them, and I pray that our mixed
economy for mission will indeed bear much fruit, fruit that shall last.
Ms Kathryn Campion-Spall (Southwark): I welcome this report and this motion and,
as one of the generations of ordinands to enter training since the publication of
Mission-shaped Church, I would also like to comment on paragraph (b), specifically
regarding the training of ordained pioneer ministers.
Before entering training I was a member of two churches, a traditional parish church
and a fresh expression which was in another diocese. Both were enriching, nurturing
and formative, and I was involved in the leadership of both. In discerning my
vocation, I did not discern a calling to be a church-planter or a pioneer minister but to
be a parish priest, a parish priest, I hope, whose ministry in a more traditional form of
church will be complemented by a focus on mission that will incorporate the wisdom
and insights of fresh expressions. In that, I am sure I shall be far from alone as many,
if not most, clergy leading fresh expressions do so as part of their parish ministry. So
while welcoming the development of specialist training for pioneer ministers, I would
ask that some consideration be given to those of us in mainstream ordination training.
My concern about the focus on a separate track for pioneer ministers is that it can give
the impression that the Mission-shaped Church report need not impact too much on
the rest of us. In my two-and-a-half years at theological college so far, while mission
and evangelism are definitely on the agenda, fresh expressions have been covered in
one two-hour session. Even someone like me, open to and enthusiastic about the
Mission-shaped Church report, has been unable to access more than this.
One way of allowing Fresh Expressions to inform thinking on a broad range of issues
in theological training is to train traditional and pioneer ordinands together. One of
my peers at Westcott (only one) from the same fresh expression as me is training to be
a pioneer minister. While the rest of us have mainstream Life and Service, the classes
which prepare us for ordained ministry, he has specialist pioneer ministry Life and
Service. These classes run at the same time so he cannot attend both. (Pioneer
ordinands at Ridley are in the same situation.) He is concerned that he is missing out
on being rooted in the Anglican tradition in order to receive specialist training in
mission, and we have the idea reinforced that fresh expressions are somehow in a
separate box and need not inform our discussions on priestly ministry, mission,
ecclesiology, liturgy and Anglican identity: Fresh Expressions is something that
‘other people’ are trained to do.
The title of this report and other paragraphs of this motion talk about integration,
partnership and diversity. I hope that the imaginative training which paragraph (b) of
the motion calls for may also involve integration and partnership. It need not only
mean a separate pathway of training in specialist colleges and courses for these much-
144
needed specialist ministers. Imaginative training could mean integrated training which
encourages pioneer ministers to be rooted in the riches of the traditional Church and
equips traditional ministers to be more creative in their own ministry. This would
better equip everyone the Church trains for ordained ministry to develop the positive
partnerships that a mixed economy requires.
Dr Elaine Storkey (Ely): I am speaking not as president of Tearfund, which collected
the statistics that you have seen, but as director of training for Church Army, where
we are busy training pioneer ministers for deployment within the Church of England.
I just want to share something about my experiences as director of education and
something about the training programmes we have.
We have initiated something called mission-based training which has successfully
completed its pioneer year and now begins the serious stuff of validation and earnest
work, learning from the mistakes of the past. Currently nine trainees are located in
training bases, mission bases, in some of the most difficult and demanding areas of
the country. They work there, they worship there, they worship in a local church, they
study with an experienced Church Army evangelist, a training enabler, and they return
to Sheffield, to the Wilson Carlile centre, six times a year, where they do a thorough
academic programme integrating academic study with their practical work as
evangelists week by week. There they will get all the normal ingredients of a
competent theological education, including ecclesiology, including worship and
prayer and song, within the Anglican framework but in a way which stays practically
relevant and intensely reflective and in touch with what they are doing in the mission
bases.
That goes on for four years, four years of intense training, at the end of which they
will, hopefully, have a university foundation degree in evangelism, and they will be
admitted to the office of evangelist by the Archbishop of Canterbury and
commissioned into the Church Army. More important still, they will be experienced
in incarnational ministry on the very edges of our society. Certainly, at the moment,
as the report points out, this is just for full-time deployment within the Church of
England; we are very much hoping in the Church Army to be able to devise a training
method that we can actually encourage a lot of people to come for, people who are not
seeking full-time deployment within the Church but who want to be, and feel called
by God to be, ministers of evangelism in their area.
Two issues I want to raise. What are we training them for? What do we need from
these pioneer evangelists and what support must we offer them? What we need from
them is the willingness to do this very demanding work where they are taken out of
their comfort zone, where they require flexibility, vision, patience, tenacity way
beyond what is normal, an ability to integrate an orthodox Christian theological
outlook with involvement in some of the hardest and messiest problems our current
culture can throw up. We need people with incredible patience to stay alongside
those, and with minimal support networks themselves, people who have the love and
tenacity not to give up on people but just to stay in there.
What do they need from us? I think lay pioneers need to be accepted as full colleagues
by ordained colleagues in the Church of England and not made to feel second-class.
They need visionary dioceses who realize the vital need for pioneer ministry. They
145
need visionary bishops who are willing to take risks and take on people with criminal
records and literacy backgrounds that are not the norm. Most of all, they need support
from us, so that we can pray for them, and, when they produce fresh expressions of
Church, we can recognize that this is indeed the Spirit of God moving us forward.
The Chairman: I call Revd Paul Langham for a maiden speech.
Revd Paul Langham (Bath and Wells): Given the previous debates this afternoon, I
cannot resist the question: Will you still need me, will you still feed me? Maybe it is
better not to ask.
A warm thank you to those who have compiled this report and through its words
given us the gentle but pressing voice: ‘this is urgent’. In the words of Dr Philip
Giddings, words are not enough; action is needed. I will not rehearse the statistics
which many others have already mentioned. Emil Brunner once famously wrote, ‘The
Church exists by mission as fire exists by burning’, and just as a fire can burn only to
the extent that it is fuelled so the Church can engage in mission only to the extent that
it is prepared to devote its resources of finance and people. I wonder whether an
honest assessment of this deployment might suggest that we have not yet fully
grasped just how urgent is the situation which faces us. Most organisms which
recognize a threat to their continued existence – and surely that is what we face? –
respond with urgent and swift action, often moving against type, taking great risks, in
order to survive. I believe that we need to respond with similar urgency in two
particular key areas.
One is to introduce even greater flexibility and imagination in the identifying,
selecting, training and deploying of all forms of licensed and ordained ministry. Yes
great strides have been made but fruit remains patchy across the national scene. All
too often anecdotal evidence suggests that the gifts and ministry offered by candidates
for our various forms of ministry are still bound in too much regulation and control.
Like Saul, we seem determined to burden our modern-day Davids with the inflexible
armour of a previous age. Allowing more freedom may seem like a risk, but nothing
like so great a risk as not becoming more permissive. Second, and most important, I
believe we need to institute some form of national, not just diocesan, strategic review
of the viability and potential future of all our parishes as vehicles of mission such as
that which has been carried out to such significant effect in the dioceses of Toronto, in
Canada, and here in London. Perhaps the Archbishop has identified a key test, where
people are being introduced to a living relationship with Jesus Christ.
Robin Gill commented some years ago that no gardener can successfully plant
without a willingness also to prune. May God grant us, through the work of Missionshaped Church and other initiatives, the vision, grace and boldness to make the very
tough decisions which this report and, I believe, the Holy Spirit, demand. I urge
Synod to give this report its fullest and warmest support, and I hope that the
Archbishops’ Council, the House of Bishops and others will respond not just with
words but with bold, imaginative and swift action.
Brigadier Ian Dobbie (Rochester): I am delighted to see the Mission-shaped Church
return to our agenda. I have found it the most uplifting debate during my nine years
on General Synod so far. I have been delighted to hear of progress.
146
It is my good fortune to belong to a church in Rochester diocese who have some
experience of a church plant four years ago: three married couples pioneered this in a
school, the style is contemporary, the gospel that is proclaimed is orthodox and it has
been so encouraging to see it develop that, four years later, we are seeking to do a
plant from that plant. Even more encouraging has been an initiative which has
particularly affected men in the age group 25-40, and this came about as the result of
our church being joined by a man who worked for the BBC and who saw that a lot
was done for mothers and toddlers and came up with the idea of doing something for
fathers and toddlers. I would never have expected this to achieve lift-off but once a
month, on a Saturday morning, these fathers gather in the undercroft of our church
with their little ones; they are given a bacon buttie and a newspaper and their toddlers
play with toys; their wives have discarded them and their offspring while this activity
takes place and go off and do the shopping. Fortunately the shops are only a golf-shot
away. It is quite extraordinary, the number we are getting: somewhere around 30, I
think, on every occasion. Some of these have now graduated into Christianity
Explored courses and are also coming on Sundays. This 25-40 age bracket of men is
notoriously difficult to penetrate, and we are much encouraged by this initiative which
God has blessed.
The last point I want to make refers to paragraph (c) of Dr Giddings’s motion and that
is to encourage more use of Bishops’ Mission Orders. I get the impression that there is
a reluctance to apply these, but I think they are particularly useful in the urban
situation. I say this because I believe that parish boundaries in the urban situation now
have a minimal usefulness. I am aware of their purpose historically, but I think that
now they can be almost a hindrance to the furtherance of the gospel. I say this because
our population today is so much more mobile, and people now attend the church
which simply is not the one closest to them but the one to which they are attracted.
This may be through friendship or fellowship; it may be due to doctrinal emphasis; it
may be due simply to the programme that that church has. Congregations in the urban
situation are, I believe, now gathered ones and do not necessarily come from within
the normal parish boundaries.
Obviously, the application of these orders has to be done with sensitivity. It would not
be appropriate to set up a church plant outside the front door of a traditional church –
that would be grossly insensitive – and obviously there must be consultation as well,
but I believe that more use of these Orders in the urban situation would be applying a
responsible mechanism which would exploit the gospel opportunities which the
mission-shaped Church debate has encouraged.
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham): I declare several interests
which may become apparent as I speak, and I have been provoked into saying a few
things by the earlier contribution about training.
At St John’s, where I am Principal, we have been enabling everybody to have fresh
expressions opportunities right from the very beginning, but Synod needs to know
that the reason that happened was because I went out and raised money, because the
national budget for training does not allow it. First one trust gave us some money and
then we were given money from another trust. The training will continue as long as
we have the finance, but as yet that finance is not forthcoming in a national way. I
believe that we need to ask ourselves some very serious questions about whether we
147
are willing to invest in the things that may make a difference in bringing people to
faith. So I want to issue that challenge to us all, about whether we are willing to do it.
Second, we already experience in college some of the disturbance that happens when
people are engaged in this kind of cutting-edge mission alongside those who are doing
more traditional training. We have two kinds of sandwich course at college: one is for
ordained training and the other one is for youth workers, and both kinds of people
have been involved, some of them, in this kind of opportunity. Their sitting alongside,
from time to time, other people who are training has raised all kinds of questions for
them and for us, and I believe that we have a lot more work to do yet, to think out
what will be the best way of approaching some of the issues, and how to handle
people who are excellent at this kind of pioneer work but who do not fit easily into the
shape that sometimes the Church wants in its more traditional ministers. How we
encourage and bless that is an ongoing question for us.
Third, we need to recognize the immense challenge to our ecumenism that this kind of
work will involve. About nine or 10 years ago now, I was one of the leaders of the
churches in Nottingham who set up a project called the Malt Cross project, which is
ministering to the night-time economy, because in Nottingham more money comes
into the city at night-time than does in the day-time. It has been the most
extraordinarily stretching project I have ever been involved in. It has pressed us to
learn in different ways how to love one another and stay together in the face of quite
simple challenges where churches from very different traditions would go other ways.
Yet we have stuck at it because we know that the challenge of young people, drunk,
using drugs and getting involved in all kinds of other things at night-time in the city
centre, is bigger than any of us can cope with by ourselves. It has not been an easy
task.
So if we are going to be involved in these things, we need, as somebody else said, to
learn to pray and love one another as Christians, if we are really to make an impact on
a society which is a long way from the kind of society which I, as a nearly retired
person, inhabit.
The Bishop of Blackburn (Rt Revd Nicholas Reade): Just three quick points. We do
not have to be too self-conscious about what is traditional church and a conventional
way of doing things and what is a fresh expression. Many fresh expressions in our
dioceses have actually started up as something else, indeed traditional church, if you
like, and a fresh expression developed. Look at Messy Church, for example. This is
really taking off in many areas in Lancashire. I am well aware that there are various
motives behind Messy Church, but mostly it has been taken up because in some (by
no means all) places traditional Sunday School is not working, and here is something,
in Messy Church, which is bringing families together and is a way of passing on the
good news. Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury came with me and a group to the
Boathouse project in Blackpool. This started up as a scheme to help young
unemployed people; now worship, prayer and discussion are a really important part of
the project.
Second, on page 38 in the ecumenical section of the report, at the top of the page you
could really have been describing one of our LEPs in Blackburn diocese. So could we
148
encourage CCU to publish as quickly as possible their recommendations for
ecumenical mission?
If I may say, there was one slight disappointment in the report for me. There could
have been more about prayerful support. Whether it is traditional or a fresh
expression, it is God’s mission we are engaging in, and I would commend prayer
days, a daily mission prayer and perhaps, like us in Blackburn, a credit-card-size
prayer card so that the whole diocese, wherever it is, on a Friday at 12 o’clock can
pray together. At the heart of our mission action plan in the diocese, we have a prayer
and holiness group which not only arranges prayer events but ensures that prayer will
drive the mission, and it is that prayer which feeds the life and mission of the Church,
be it traditional or fresh expression.
Mrs Elnora Mann (London): I fully welcome the report as it has certainly proved a
good resource for parishes to work on as we take mission forward in the 21st century.
However, I have one area of disappointment. It saddens me that there is no mention of
or reference to the Mothers’ Union, which has been and indeed still is today an
integral part of the Church of England, its mission to our nation and also worldwide.
When we look at the work of the Mothers’ Union we find that positive action under
its banner is taking place all over the globe. As we move forward in a post-modern era
of a mixed-economy Church, the Mothers’ Union has much to offer. Where would the
Church of England be without the Mothers’ Union?
Revd Professor Paul Fiddes (Ecumenical Representatives, Baptist Union): As an
ecumenical representative from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, I want to give the
warmest welcome to this report, to the four parts of the motion and especially to all
those new developments in mission that the report documents. The foreword places
up front the formal ecumenical partners in the Fresh Expressions initiative: Methodist
Church, United Reformed Church and the Congregational Federation, but I want to
ask Synod and all those involved in fresh expressions at the local level also to be alert
to the possibilities of working in mission partnership with other Christian
communions like my own which have not formally joined Fresh Expressions but are
still working at being a mission-shaped Church. There are often good links with fresh
expressions outside the formal structures. My own communion urges its lay members
to take advantage of the mission-shaped ministry course, and many have done so.
Appendix E of the report – E for Ecumenism – tells encouraging stories of new
expressions of Church through local ecumenical partnerships, in many of which
Baptists and Anglicans are involved, together with others.
The Baptist Union has recently launched an initiative which we hope will be
complementary to Fresh Expressions called Crossing Places. The aim is to make
intersections between areas of social need and opportunities for people to make their
spiritual journey, and I know from conversations with our mission department that
they would value working with Church of England parishes in this venture. I do hope
that co-operation might happen in a creative way. However, the report suggests in 3.2
on page 5 that there has been little strategic ecumenical work developed in the
majority of diocesan strategies. Perhaps a clue lies in issues of ecclesiology. I have to
say that a local church formed on congregational lines tends to make its own decisions
about mission: though it should be listening to and learning from the wider fellowship
149
of churches, it can get quite baffled by the Anglican ethos of Bishops’ Mission Orders
and even deanery units for mission.
Appendix E tells four splendid stories of BMOs which have enabled ecumenical
mission activity, in three of which Baptists are explicitly mentioned, but there have
been other occasions when talk of BMOs has reinforced what the report itself calls the
perception of a centralized strategy. It would help if Anglican partners were aware of
what can seem to others a very Anglican orientation, and if they were patient with
those who find this unfamiliar and even forbidding. At the same time, it would help if
Churches with a congregational emphasis were to remember that it is Churches
together, as the whole Body of Christ, and not single congregations on their own that
are usually granted a vision of God’s mission.
Mrs Ruth Whitworth (Ripon and Leeds): My husband is a lay pioneer minister. That is
my declaration of interest out of the way. He started work four weeks ago on a large
housing estate in a parish in Clacton-on-Sea. Prior to that, he ran his own business for
20 years. He is not ordained; he has had no training whatsoever for the job; and he is
55 years old. Before members start wondering what on earth the Church of England is
doing, employing someone on that basis, I should add that he is a Reader, although I
am not sure that Reader training 20 years ago equipped anyone for pioneer ministry
today. So I do commend paragraph (b) of this motion to Synod. Imaginative
recruitment is going on. The advert for the job, which my husband answered, was not
in any C. of E. publication. Training through the usual channels is not always
necessary, and deployment can often be faster and more reactive because of it.
We have a lot of work to do over the next three years, establishing a viable Christian
presence on a large unchurched housing estate, but that is only what good parishes
have been doing for years, whether they called it pioneer ministry or a fresh
expression or whatever; and, in bringing to Synod’s attention this one small example,
I would like to thank Great Clacton parish, its vicar and PCC for having the vision to
see what was needed and the imagination to look outside the box in the matter of
recruitment and selection. If this is the mixed economy, long may it continue, and I
would encourage other dioceses and parishes to do the same.
I support the motion.
Sister Anne Williams (Durham): Six years ago in this debate I began my speech by
asking how can any evangelist, albeit a trainee one, speak against mission,
particularly with her chief executive in the gallery. I have to say to my chief
executive, who is even closer to me now, that I am not going to speak against it today.
However, six years ago I was concerned that what we would see was ‘There is only
one way to do mission’, and that that was fresh expressions; of course, now that we
have a mixed economy I am much more comfortable, because I spent the first five
years of my Church Army ministry working with traditional parishes – and I am
sorry, the House of Laity heard this earlier this week – helping the congregations see
their giftings, helping them to have the courage to go out and do mission in their
communities. I have seen some amazing things happen. I am also glad to say that my
colleagues and I – those doing fresh expressions and me being on the traditional bit –
support each other wonderfully; without their prayers, and our prayers together, it
150
would be so much harder. However, we can work together and it can all be done
together.
What I actually want to say to Synod today – and I think Ruth touched on this a little
– is to do with paragraph (b), which talks about encouraging those responsible for
training in the dioceses, and for ‘recruitment, training and deployment of ordained and
lay pioneer ministers in and beyond title posts’. I want to challenge Synod to do more
than that. Years and years ago I went through a Spectrum course, and the youth
adviser then said to me, ‘I’d like you to go on a course to learn to tutor this course’, so
I learned how to help other people to do what had been done for me, and I am still
doing it. I am so grateful to Jonathan Roberts for what he did for me all those years
ago, and I think we can do that again. We can get the laity, we can train them; they do
not have to go into ministry, they can be the volunteers who can help others in their
parishes to do the work. I do not know what happens in other places, but in Durham
we will give certificates in youth leadership to people who have gone through a youth
leadership course. Why can we not have certificates that will recognize that people
have had some training in extended mission and perhaps in fresh expressions but
perhaps in other ways of doing it? I am challenging Synod, please, to look at that, to
give a bit of recognition – a bit of training followed by recognition – to some people
so they can then go out and meet more people and do more. Please, take up the
challenge.
The Bishop of Oxford (Rt Revd John Pritchard): Not only do I want to pay tribute to
the tremendous work that has been done in the whole follow-through of Missionshaped Church and particularly to thank Bishops Graham Cray and Steve Croft for all
they have done, I also want to make two points.
The first is about pioneer ministry. At diocesan level the introduction of pioneer
ministry has seemed to be rather confusing. We have been selecting pioneer ministers,
for example, before we have had adequate training programmes for them. We have
had information that seems to have dribbled out, and it has been difficult to get the
coherence. I think we are now at a point where we need consolidation and coherence
on the training front. One thing is clear: ordained pioneers need much more than an
ordinary three-year curacy; they need much more like a five- to seven-year span,
some of which could of course be incorporated into the training process. It is quite
clear, however, that pioneering takes time. In Oxford diocese, for instance, with our
cutting-edge ministries that we had a few years ago, we found that very few of our
projects were really taking root, even after five years.
The second point is about Bishops’ Mission Orders. I am sure that it is right to have a
way of embedding fresh expressions in diocesan structures – of course it is – but the
BMO does seem to be a rather heavy-duty method of doing that. It has, I think,
alarming parallels with the clunky process that we have in local ecumenical
partnerships and setting those up. The BMOs are in danger of draining the vitality out
of energetic fresh expressions. I know we in Oxford have looked at BMOs a number
of times for particular initiatives, but each time we have felt that it was over the top as
a methodology in the way we wanted to get things going. I think I prefer something
like BMIs rather than BMOs: I prefer Bishops’ Mission Initiatives rather than Orders,
something that is much more light touch, much more dependent on trust and
partnership and the timetable of the Holy Spirit, more permissive than legislative. So
151
while I do absolutely appreciate that in some cases we need more welly and a
Bishop’s Mission Order is necessary, now of all times we must not quench the Spirit.
Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield): I was a member of the Steering and Revision
Committees which helped make the new Mission and Pastoral Measure and helped to
implement the Mission-shaped report. Also I have a curate who is an ordained pioneer
minister.
The opposite of fresh expression is not a stale expression; it is an inherited church in
mission mode, and we must emphasize that there is still plenty of mission capacity in
inherited church. I refer to 4.12 on page 12 of the report: mission action planning as in
Blackburn and other dioceses, growth funds as in Lichfield and elsewhere. There is
some evidence now that these are beginning to make a difference and turning decline
into growth. I do commend them, and we must emphasize that area too.
Second, selection and training of ordained pioneer ministers: the opposite of pioneer
ministry is not maintenance ministry. It must be all ministers being missioners.
Paragraph 4.4 on page 10: the separate selection track for ordained pioneer ministers:
I am not totally convinced. If the Church is the army of God, are the ordained pioneer
ministers the SAS? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We need some careful
thinking.
Third, choosing priorities and resources for new fresh expressions: it seems to me that
when the Mission-shaped Church report was published in 2004, a window of
opportunity was opened. The truth is that it probably is going to close at some point.
The demographics of our Church, the ageing, the numbers, means it is very likely,
unless something changes very radically, that in the future – in 10, 20 maybe 30
years’ time – there will be fewer people and less money, and I think inevitably some
churches will come to that point of closure; but before that happens, perhaps we need
to discern sustainability and, where appropriate, bishops need to make some very
tough decisions. It will be a very hard call but we need to reallocate resources for
fresh expressions among those who are completely unchurched.
Revd Canon Celia Thomson (Gloucester): The Mission-shaped Church report of 2004
made only one passing reference to cathedrals, and that was that their congregations
seemed to be going up a bit. I am glad to say that that is still the case. At Gloucester
Cathedral we have actually had experience of a pioneer minister curate based at the
cathedral, setting up FEIG – Fresh Expressions in Gloucester – and the FEIG
community is right across the city, and they frequently use the cathedral. That pioneer
minister has now moved to teach at a theological college in Durham, and we are
expecting a second pioneer minister to be based at the cathedral, to take the FEIG
community on to their next stage. However, there are of course many other mission
initiatives and opportunities that are happening in cathedrals up and down the land,
including our own breakfast club for the homeless, which has borne wonderful fruit in
getting us links with local government and voluntary agencies, served entirely by
volunteers.
So could any future report of the Mission and Public Affairs Division please include
all the many and varied mission activities that are going on in our mixed economy
Church in cathedrals as well as churches and other partnerships?
152
Revd Canon Jeremy Fletcher (York): - having just spent seven years in just such a
cathedral, amen to the previous speaker! I now serve a parish which has within it
Beverley Minister, three daughter churches, one of which is an LEP, and a parish next
door which is deeply rural and has a network church, now four years old. I think it is
the mixed economy of the C. of E. at its best; it is inherited and emerging; it is
ecumenical and imaginative. I said so at my interview for the post last year, and I still
believe it five months in. However, in the parish of Beverley Minster imaginative
mission has met a bit of a brick wall in the falling numbers of stipendiary clergy
because the Minster Way network, now four years old, as I said, was led by a
stipendiary priest. When he left in the summer there was a dilemma: one stipendiary
post needed to be saved in the deanery. The choice: take the ministry away from the
network – 180 people on its database – or keep the ministry there and lose it in the
many villages in the deanery. So it was that at the last diocesan synod, in the autumn,
I applauded Bishop Graham’s vibrant presentation on Fresh Expressions and then
voted in a budget which, among other things, cuts a post in my own fresh expression.
It has taken imagination, not by the people referred to in paragraph (b) but by the
bishop, archdeacon, rural dean and my fellow clergy on the chapter to enable some
stipendiary ministerial provision for the Minster Way network; there has been great
support; and we are off and running again.
I am sure that many of the fledgling mission-shaped initiatives referred to in the report
will be facing that or will face it at some point. My plea is not just for those
responsible for vocations and training but for all members of staff in dioceses to take
this seriously, to use their imaginations not just to provide for the start-up of these
things but for their development stage too. I did not envy my bishop his task in
deciding where such ministry would be deployed, given the reality of funding in the
diocese. We fool ourselves if we think that the mixed economy will not require such
difficult choices. I would want to encourage all staff in dioceses to go for a
courageous strategy, as well as having the best of intentions, for what is indeed a
work of the Holy Spirit in our time.
I commend this report.
Revd Moira Astin (Oxford): When the Mission-shaped Church working party first
met, there was a Methodist who was a member of the working party. It was
intentionally ecumenical from the beginning, and one member of the working party
said that part of the point of it was to ensure that the Church of England did not do
Methodism again – which sounds very negative, particularly when you know that that
person is an ecumenical officer, i.e. me. However, the whole idea was to make sure
that as God moved the Church into new ways it was not necessary for the Church to
fracture but that actually the relationship should stay strong, and I have been delighted
to hear the ecumenical words spoken so often in this debate. This can be a way not
only of avoiding further fracture within the Church but of healing some of the
fractures that we have, sadly, allowed to happen over the centuries.
One way forward is not just to think of the ecumenical dimension as the big picture:
Fresh Expressions as the partnership with the Methodists, United Reformed Church
and so on. That is grand at that level, but I think that, practically, at the local level is
where it really makes a difference. So our Churches Together group in Woodley had
153
someone from Fresh Expressions come to present that in October, and at the end I
said, ‘Well, let’s do something together then’. A month or so ago we had a meeting of
those people who were willing to work together to do something new with our young
families, particularly with the men in our young families, doing it at such a time as
they could be involved, with their children. To that meeting 13 people came and
another three or four said they would have liked to be there. They represented three
different churches: two Anglican and one Methodist/URC. I think we are going to
have a group of 18 when we get this going in a month’s time, and that is going to be
so much more sustainable than if it had just been one of those three churches with a
group of six.
So when it comes to mission over the coming decade think ecumenically, not just
because mission is about introducing people into the whole kingdom of God and not
just our patch but also for the very practical reason that your resources will be so
much greater if you work together and have partnership locally.
Mr Mark Russell (Archbishops’ Council): I think we all know and recognize that
mission is getting harder. Doing what we have always done just does not work the
same way. Someone once said that a definition of madness is doing the same thing
again and again but expecting different results.
Mission-shaped Church calls us to double listening: with one ear to listen to culture
and to our society and with the other ear to listen to our tradition and Scripture. In
Bradford my Church Army colleague Andy Milne created a church with
skateboarders. He did not just show up there; he did three years’ work on the ground,
skateboarding (hard work when you can get it), going round schools doing chaplaincy
work, building relationships, earning the right to be heard. He had to break open
concrete, never mind begin to tend soil. Yet last year the Bishop of Bradford baptized
and confirmed eight young people who have come to faith through this project.
Across this country we have heard examples of how we have caught the wind of the
Spirit of God.
The scary thing for church leaders is that what emerges might not look very Anglican
(whatever ‘Anglican’ looks like). We have a fresh expression of Church, in a diocese
which shall remain nameless, which perhaps does not look very Anglican. It is in a
rural area, and over 30 people have come to faith through it. The bishop of the area –
told me not to quote him by name – said, ‘Mark, if God is growing a new flower, even
one I don’t recognize, I don’t want to stomp my episcopal foot on it’.
We as a Church have done well; this has been a great five-year programme, and I
want to thank Rowan Williams and Steve Croft in particular for their leadership; but
we need in this new phase to put our money where our mouth is. How much
ownership is there by our dioceses of pioneering work and of fresh expressions? As
the chief executive of a charity, my biggest tool is my budget, and my budget needs to
reflect the priorities I say that we have. I know that is true of other organizations like
CMS: we are trying to put our money where our mouth is. Within our organization we
have, with George Lings and his team, a bunch of people who can help with
paragraph (d), with the research.
154
I go to the gym whenever I am not being a CEO, and when I go there the people there
do not know me as a CEO; they know me as a bloke. They think I am a vicar – I have
tried to tell them I am not! Those guys are not bad people; they want to live good
lives; they want peace and they want hope; but they do not want to come to church on
Sunday morning. They do not want to preached at. They want a safe place to talk
about faith. Where is that space? Where can we help to create it, in the gym, in the
supermarket or wherever else? For so long we have relied on our belief that
attractional church works for all. 80 per cent of those who come to faith in Britain do
so having had a part in the Christian story already. We cannot just turn our churches
into big magnets, hoping people will come in; nor can we just go out and steal people
and bring them back – that is the Viking method of evangelism! We need to do
inherited church alongside fresh expressions. We have done well. Let us congratulate
ourselves. Mission-shaped Church has moved us forward, but we have a lot more to
do.
I dream. I dream that we grow a Church where we do not flounder but flourish, a
movement and not a monument. It has been a good news story for this Synod,
Mission-shaped Church. Thank you.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. After the next
speaker, may I move a motion for the closure?
The Chairman: I think you could, Mr Freeman. Thank you very much for your help.
Revd Richard Moy (Lichfield): I also am looking forward to baptizing five people the
Sunday after next, all of whom have come from almost totally unchurched
backgrounds and one of whom was converted. He had a dream and in his dream he
felt God asked him to go and help a lady who was stranded on the street, a pensioner.
He went and he found the pensioner was stranded by her car which had been brokendown since six o’clock in the morning, when he had had the dream. He helped her and
then he thought to himself, by some miracle, ‘I ought to go to a church’, and he found
on the web the church where I did my curacy, and he and his wife came along and
have been discipled there. They even came to the eight o’clock morning service when
they could not make the 10.30, and the vicar specially gave them a half-an-hour
sermon, to make sure they were getting some good, solid teaching!
I want to talk about three Ts - training, team and timing – if I may and if I do not run
out of time. Training: two-and-a-half years into doing a fresh expression, having done
a curacy in Wolverhampton, I delivered a report on what we have been doing, and my
first chapter was training: what on earth was I trained for? I finished college three
years ago and my wife finished college two years ago. If we want to reach people who
are not Christians, does it not seem mind-numbingly stupid to put people for three
years in places where there are no non-Christians? Is it not a brain-boggling thing? (I
must apologize: I am sleep-deprived because my baby kept me up all night last night,
so I may be out of order!) It does, however, seem to me to be a bit thick, if you want
to reach people who are not Christians, to put them in places where there are no nonChristians so that they forget all their ways of interacting with people who are not
Christians. So in Wolverhampton we are looking, with the Church Army, to set up
one of these centres of mission with Dr Storkey over there, because we are finding
that, as we train people on the job, they are really good at it. It has grieved my heart to
155
send people off to ordination colleges over the past few years; we keep sending them
off, and I hope the colleges are doing a good job with them, because they were doing
a good job before they went to college. I hope, when they have finished college, they
will still be doing a good job, having had one or two hours of training on fresh
expressions during their three years there!
My second point is team. In Luke 10 Jesus sent people out one by one? No, he did
not: it was always two by two. I have sat in rooms of people doing pioneer ministry
whose hearts have been breaking and grieving, not because they feel as though they
are in a lovely partnership, the 87 pioneers with the 12,000 other people – they are the
yeast in bread, at best – but because they feel alone, stranded and hurt. Jesus sent
people out two by two. Where these things are working, a team has formed really
well. Where our Oxford diocese put Reading on, they bunged a whole load of people
together: they sent a team. Where HTB are doing church plants, they are sending a
team. Where people are just causing people to burn out and stress out, they are
sending them one by one, and it is shameful. It is not what Jesus did. It might be
financially easier, but it is not right, it is not Godly, it is not biblical, it is not gospel.
The last thing is timing. I believe that sometimes God moves faster than slow. We do
not always have to wait ages to see fruit. I find that when we take people out as street
pastors, sometimes on their first time out they have incredible conversations with
people. It does not have to take forever to do, some of it; and some of it will bear fruit
when we are doing things right and when we are praying for it.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I beg to move:
Dr Philip Giddings, in reply: From time to time there are criticisms about motions in
the General Synod being ‘motherhood and apple pie’ because everyone is going to
agree with them. I think we have had an excellent debate this afternoon, which shows
the value of a different kind of approach. What has impressed me most – and I want to
thank everyone who has taken part – is the sheer variety of contributions that we have
had, which has demonstrated what mission-shaped Church is about. Some people
were not called, and I hope they will take the opportunity to write in with their
contributions.
I am not going to be able, in the time available, to comment on everyone’s
contributions, but I can assure you that all contributions will be taken away, carefully
analyzed and as it were fed into the right direction. For example, there were quite a
number of points about pioneer ministry, selection, training and so on; and I
understand that the Ministry Council is going to undertake a review of selection for
pioneer ministry, and we can contribute to that. I certainly want to endorse the
comments made, of course, by my own diocesan bishop on the importance of rooting
pioneer ministry; and that goes with how we discern ‘pioneer’.
I was very grateful for the endorsement of Archbishop Rowan, at the beginning of the
debate, about partnership. Partnership is a theme which comes through the debate in
156
many ways, particularly in terms of the ecumenical dimension. Someone in the course
of the debate – I think it was the Bishop of Sheffield – raised the importance of our
thinking about ecclesiology. No doubt when we reflect together with the Church of
Scotland that might enable us to think through our ecclesiology and how we explore
it, along with our Baptist friends: Paul Fiddes gave the same challenge. We need to do
work in that area.
I hope we have heard enough from one another to discern that this is not either
traditional or fresh expressions; it is about mission in whatever way we seek to do it,
as long as we are doing mission and sharing the love of God.
It is also about trial and error. We will make mistakes; the important thing is to learn
from mistakes. An even more important thing is not to be put off taking risks because
of a possibility that we make mistakes. In a country where two-thirds of adults have
no connection with Church we have no alternative but to take risks again and again, to
reach out with the gospel with which we are entrusted.
I was very glad that in the course of the debate the point was picked up which I
deliberately omitted from my introductory speech: the hard question of resources. If
we are going to take the challenge of mission-shaped Church and the challenge of
reaching out to our communities with the gospel, we are going to have to look at our
resources, at our priorities. The language of priorities, even when we are not in a
financially tight spot, is the language of doing some things rather than others. There
are going to be hard questions which we will have to face: in dioceses, nationally, in
deaneries and in parishes, that in order to release more of our resources – time,
people, money – for mission and evangelism, we are going to have to redirect them
from elsewhere. That point was made, in different ways, by Christina Baxter, by
Jeremy Fletcher and by Mark Russell. Our budgets are an important mission tool.
I was very glad to hear the point made about cathedrals. We know that there are lots
of exciting things going on there, in several cathedrals, and we need to encourage and
affirm that.
I particularly want to pick up the point which was made, I think, by Ian Dobbie about
reaching out to men, and particularly men between the ages of 25 and 40. That is a
huge challenge for us, and we need to find ways of doing it and to learn from one
another what works, what does not work, what goes in particular contexts and what
does not in others.
Last, I hope we all heard the very important point about prayer. This is, first and
foremost and last, a spiritual issue. It is a spiritual battle, and spiritual battles are won,
by the grace of God and through his Spirit, in prayer. We need to pray, generally and
specifically and regularly. I hope, with your indulgence, Madam Chairman, that we
might spend just one minute in silent prayer before we finish our business today, to
commit to God the work which we are affirming, that we have done, are doing and
will do, and ask him to bless that which is in accordance with his will and give us his
grace to discern what more we can do and how we can do it effectively for the
building of his kingdom in this land.
I invite the Synod to endorse our motion.
157
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr Giddings, I am always keen to encourage people to
pray, but it would be good, first of all, to take the vote on this item. Perhaps we can
have a moment of silence before the Archbishop concludes our evening.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I suggest that we stand and pray in silence for the
work God has given into our hands, of sharing the good news of his Son to the ends of
the earth, giving thanks for all that has been achieved in recent years and for the
challenges that we have heard this afternoon.
Silence was kept.
Following an act of worship, the Session was adjourned.
158
Third Day
THE CHAIR The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent) took the Chair at
10.45 a.m.
Private Member’s Motion
TV Coverage of Religious and Ethical Issues (GS 1762A and
GS 1762B)
Mr Nigel Holmes (Carlisle): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod call upon the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British
television, which was once exemplary in its coverage of religious and ethical
issues, now marginalizes the few such programmes which remain and
completely ignored the Christian significance of Good Friday 2009.’
Ten years ago, on leap year day 2000, I introduced a Private Member’s Motion on
religious broadcasting in this way: ‘Synod speechmakers are fond of saying that they
love the Church of England before proceeding quite often to launch into a savage
attack on the object of their affections. I love the BBC and the principles of public
service broadcasting that go with it and indeed I was proud to work for the
Corporation for many years; so what I say is said with love and the words are those of
a devotee’.
When I said that 10 years ago, I had found that in the previous 10 years the total
output on BBC One and BBC Two had increased by a half, yet religious television
output was down by a third – and they were the BBC’s own figures. The key figure
now in 2010 is that over the past 20 years the total output of general programmes on
BBC television has doubled, yet the hours of religious broadcasting on television are
much the same as they were and generally scheduled at less accessible times. The
BBC tends to ignore those facts and stresses the exceptions which prove the rule.
Since tabling my Private Member’s Motion in July the strongest series for a long
time, A History of Christianity, was screened just before Christmas on BBC Four and
is at present being repeated on BBC Two. In those same weeks Channel 4 is running a
series on the Bible, and according to the two-page feature in this week’s Church
Times by Aaqil Ahmed, the new head of religious broadcasting, it would appear that
Holy Week and Easter 2010 will indeed be a season to savour – and people say that
Synod no longer has influence!
As members will have realized from my background paper, unlike 10 years ago, this
time my motion concentrates on television. The BBC Radio’s national religious
output is stronger and healthier than it was ten years ago, so why the disparity? I can
only conclude that it comes down to the outlook and viewpoint of individual channel
controllers. In radio they have tended to value spiritual subjects; in television a lack of
innovation combined with marginalized scheduling would appear to suggest that they
have largely shunned them. That, frankly, is not good enough when it comes to a
public service corporation that receives an annual income for its domestic services of
159
TV Coverage of Religious and Ethical Issues
no less than £3.6 billion, that is three and a half times the cost of running the Church
of England, and whereas the Director General of the BBC takes home £834,000 a
year, the poor old Archbishop of Canterbury gets only a tenth of that.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): Not quite! (Laughter)
Mr Nigel Holmes: I know that when approaching issues of this kind Rowan Williams
tends to ask to good effect not ‘Why is this happening?’ but rather ‘What is this a
symptom of?’ The answer, I am coming to think, lies in part inside and in part outside
the broadcasting world. Inside, the pressures of the pace of continual change
combined with an easy disregard for specialist understanding of religious
backgrounds, knowledge or sensitivity have led to a decreasing ability of
commissioners to distinguish good religious programmes and so they tend to be less
confident about them. If forced, they will talk about ratings and audience appeal, but
Mel Gibson’s commercially successfully film The Passion of the Christ rather
suggests how passion and commitment can both communicate and make money.
Effectively scheduled and well-promoted programmes made to high production
standards – Son of God, The Passion, A History of Christianity and Around the World
in 80 Faiths – all built audiences and all were BBC programmes.
Jumping back into history, Songs of Praise will mark its 50th anniversary next year. It
is interesting that the head of religious broadcasting in 1961 was opposed to Songs of
Praise. It was the director of BBC Television programmes, Stuart Hood, who
overruled him. I cannot imagine that happening today, but the motives of the head of
religious broadcasting were pure; he wanted a programme that would appeal more to
young people. How times change!
Then broadcast worship was in the bloodstream of the broadcasters ITV and BBC.
Where is televised worship now? Gone altogether from ITV and seldom seen on the
BBC. There appears to be an unspoken presumption that sport, natural history and the
arts are at heart good in themselves and worthy of coverage. Those who find religion
to be a valuable part of their lives today always appear to be on the back foot, having
to justify their very presence, to justify that it is indeed a force for good. We know it,
they often do not, but then only 21 per cent of people who work in television say that
religion is important in their lives. The comparable figure among the general public is
71 per cent.
Sadly, in contrast with 10 years ago, ITV has virtually withdrawn from religion, as
has Five, and Channel 4 is shrinking its Dispatches strand, where the programmes
have been placed, and significantly has not replaced its commissioning editor for
religion, who last May moved to be the head of BBC Religion and Ethics. We very
much hope that Aaqil Ahmed will be prepared to engage with us and we look forward
as a Church to helping him in his task. We can hope that the BBC will want to ensure
that its new champion for religion will prove successful in obtaining in-house
commissions, for the very future of maintaining a creative specialist core in
Manchester may be at stake. BBC controllers must ensure that he is able to gain
access to peak time slots, which he did achieve at Channel 4. I was a member of the
panel that discussed religion at the BBC News Festival last month – an off-the-record
briefing for BBC journalists. It was disappointing that BBC Religion and Ethics,
which was invited to send a representative, declined that offer to discuss its work.
160
What external social attitudes could be affecting the state of religion on British
television? How far we can afford to be counter-cultural is an important debate for
another day, but the negative stereotyping across the media, from the bumbling clergy
of the comedy shows to views about equality, practising homosexuality and assisted
suicide, sometimes implies that Churches are out of tune with sizeable sections of
society.
A fortnight ago the BBC announced that it was commissioning research with a view
to improving the representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.
Perhaps it could do the same for those who proclaim a faith and particularly for
younger people, for whom nothing spiritual is to be found these days on either
television or the radio. When the former BBC Governors initiated such a study of
religious coverage five years ago their report was impressively supportive of
strengthening religion in both news and current affairs as well as in programmes; yet a
year later the Governors were abolished and that report on religion appears to have
been shelved and forgotten.
There are times when Christians have to put their heads above the parapet. I hope that
this debate will raise public awareness and understanding and will initiate wide
discussion about the way in which religion is portrayed on British television across
the denominations and indeed across other faiths. I was glad that the Muslim Council
of Britain wrote to me in relation to this debate to share its perceptions of
broadcasting, which largely chime with ours and differ from Aaqil Ahmed’s view
expressed in both the Church Times article and the Sunday Telegraph. The Muslims
say that the broadcasters should be more sensitive to the needs and understanding of
all faiths. The BBC Trust must ask itself why BBC Radio is so much better in this
respect than BBC Television. As I said earlier, I suspect that it comes down to
whether people in key positions are favourably disposed.
Simply because of that increasingly vital significance of the BBC to religious
broadcasting, there are those who suggest that it is unwise to criticize; I disagree.
Indeed, five years ago, before he became the Director General of the BBC, Mark
Thompson said, ‘It’s true that there is an enormous prevailing prejudice inside
broadcasting about religion. It’s not really based on hatred of religion – I’m sure that
exists to some degree as well – but there’s a presumption that religion is boring ... I’m
in favour of mandating religious programmes on television because it’s the only way
of offsetting the prejudice and making sure that religion, which is a big part of many
people’s lives – and goodness knows a big part of our world – is represented …
Religion is pretty interesting and it is by no means obvious that religious programmes
get tiny audiences.’
I think that there must be a place for a polite but firm and well-argued case to be
presented. The BBC Trust has a different role from that of its predecessor, slightly
more at arm’s length than the Board of Governors. As I see it, in the future it will be
in the Corporation’s own instincts for political survival that prompt it to write, ‘public
service broadcasting’ in rather larger letters. I very much look forward to the debate.
161
The Bishop of Manchester (Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch): I congratulate Nigel Holmes
on securing this timely debate and on his witty, informative and penetrating speech.
My amendment simply strengthens his purpose by broadening the context of the
motion and focusing its aims in a way that would make the outcome of this debate
more effective.
First, the wider context: As Nigel has indicated, we have lost much in the past decade.
I think of programmes such as Everyman and Heart of the Matter, but also afflicted
are children’s programming, arts and even science programmes. As a member of the
House of Lords Select Committee on Communications for the past six years, I have
witnessed the whole breadth of public service broadcasting under corrosive attack.
The impact of the recession and the proliferation of media have exacerbated this, with
slashed advertising revenues resulting in huge pressures on programme makers to
attract the highest ratings above almost any other consideration.
The BBC is somewhat shielded from these pressures, but perhaps less so than some
may think. Their internal focus on public value testing means that tough decisions
have to be made. In such a climate we need to speak into the debate about the future
of television in a way that is visionary rather than protectionist. I do not think that one
has to be living in the past to articulate why television channels should more clearly
reflect the extent of religious affiliation in this country and why Christianity rightly
demands the largest slice of that pie. This dialogue need not be adversarial, but that
relies on those with an interest being heard to speak in a way that takes seriously the
concerns and challenges that face the broadcasting industry, including those
responsible for religious programmes.
Of course we must press hard for the best possible religious programming, scheduled
in reasonable slots and put there by both good in-house specialists and independent
producers, but we have to recognize and cherish, as Nigel has done, what we already
have. He has mentioned some of the good things on both television and the
complementary broadcasting part, the radio, and we must not underestimate the subtle
differences between the ability of radio and television to communicate issues to do
with religion.
Secondly, my amendment re-casts the call to industry in a way that reflects the
contemporary regulatory framework. The fact is that Ofcom has no statutory role in
religious programming. Many of us regret what has happened to ITV, which has
shrunk back significantly in the broadcasting of its religious programmes, and that is a
very serious issue. Let us therefore identify it more clearly. I want to encompass all
mainstream broadcasters – the BBC, yes, but also ITV, Channel 4 and Five. Religious
programming has a proper place across all the public service broadcasters, so I urge
Synod not to let them off the hook by naming only the BBC in the motion.
Thirdly, my amendment underlines the importance, as Nigel has already indicated, of
television worship and output around major festivals, but his motion actually only
hints at that; in my view, we need to sharpen it. Good Friday television last year was
very disappointing – we all recognize that and, as Nigel said, the BBC has promised
greater things – but my amendment seeks to take us beyond 2009 and to spell out the
continuing importance of portraying worship on television. The BBC especially has a
162
public purpose to sustain citizenship and civil society, and reflecting an activity
engaged in by three million people in this country in worship is surely part of that
duty.
Let us appreciate those making religious programmes at a difficult time of change in
the industry, let us express our concerns about reductions in the genre across all the
broadcasting channels, and let us press for high quality religious content that
specifically includes worship. That is why I hope that Nigel Holmes will accept my
amendment and that Synod will support it.
Revd Prebendary Stephen Lynas (Bath and Wells): As members of Synod will be
aware, media people and television people in particular are very keen on gongs – the
awards that are dished out across the media circus. Some years ago I was awarded a
television gong; it was the Peter Freeman prize for the best act of worship broadcast
on ITV in the year in question. As a religious programmes producer working for an
ITV company in Plymouth, I produced an hour-long live service on ITV from
St Matthias Church, Torquay in the diocese of Exeter. It was a jolly good service and
we were very proud indeed to be given that award. Such a thing would be unheard of
nowadays. As Nigel Holmes has told us, ITV’s commitment to live broadcast worship
is practically non-existent. In speaking from experience this morning, I am therefore
conscious that I speak as something of a dinosaur – a dinosaur from the age when
there was a good deal of religion on television.
A couple of years before receiving that award I had moved to ITV after six years
producing religious programmes for the BBC. Those were the days of the religious
duopoly at teatime: Songs of Praise on BBC One, Sir Harry Secombe’s Highway on
ITV, tea and toast by the fire – all very cosy. That was then, and this Synod is now.
Then when you switched on your television you could choose from Channels One,
Two, Three and Four and you needed the Radio Times to tell you what was on. Now
you switch on your Freeview set and there are three dozen channels, and that is before
you get to Sky. It is not possible to go back to the age of dinosaurs like me.
We in Synod have to decide what we make of the current crop of religious
programmes and what we need to say to the people who make them. Here I pay
tribute to Nigel Holmes, who has quietly and doggedly kept this subject on the Synod
agenda for 10 years and in doing so has enabled a very large and wide public debate
on what religion in broadcasting is about – debate that starts in this chamber and
thanks to the ladies and gentlemen in the gallery spreads across the nation.
It seems to me however that Nigel’s motion has already done its work. Someone in
the know said to me yesterday, ‘The BBC is watching this debate very carefully. It
has already gained a lot of press coverage and comment’. Indeed if members look to
the gallery they will see that that is the story: there are the BBC’s religious
programmes reporters, media reporters and camera crews; it is on the front pages. Is it
me, or has the BBC launched a charm offensive in the past couple of weeks? I may
say to Robert Piggott and Nick Higham that they are entirely charming people.
In last week’s Church Times, referred to by Nigel, there is a very informative article
about Aaqil Ahmed, the new head of religion and ethics. It is a very revealing piece.
His formula for success in religious programming is instructive. Reflecting on his
163
time at Channel 4, he said: ‘The first thing was: you’ve got to make the broadcaster’ –
by which he means the channel controllers – ‘fall back in love with the output,
because if they’re putting the stuff out at five o’clock in the afternoon or at midnight,
they’re not happy. Once they’re happy with it, they’ll invest more and put it out in
prime time’. That is a message that we need to hear. It is not just about lobbying to get
more time and get our cosy thing back on the air. Special pleading and lobbying will
not make good programmes. If the broadcasters do it only because they have been
lobbied to do it, it will not be very good. We do not want what Gerald Priestland, that
great BBC figure of a generation ago, used to call party political broadcasts on behalf
of God. No one likes party political broadcasts.
We therefore need to press for good programming and notice when it is there; Nigel
has given us a list. We do not want to be seen as finger-wagging at just the BBC or
indeed at Ofcom and the other broadcasters. The tide appears to be turning, charm
offensive or not. I encourage Synod to support the Bishop of Manchester’s
amendment and, rather than criticize from a distance, to engage with broadcasters in
this new multi-channel and iPlayer world.
The Bishop of Norwich is chair of the BBC’s Standing Conference on Religion and
Belief – hurray! Among his many difficult tasks, the Bishop of Manchester serves on
the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications. My parting shot is simply
this: how will members and their parish churches engage with the broadcasters to
make sure that they are saying constructively, ‘Where is religion in your output?’
The Archdeacon of Norwich (Ven. Jan McFarlane) (Norwich): I wear two hats in the
diocese of Norwich, one of which is as director of communications, and it is in that
capacity that I wish to speak in support of the Bishop of Manchester’s amendment. I
am fully behind Nigel Holmes in all that he has said, but I support the bishop’s
amendment because it sets the tone for our engagement with the media in a more
positive and encouraging light. I work closely with the BBC at a local level. I talk to
them and I recognize and understand the unprecedented pressures that they face. The
explosion of IT with iPlayer and the like has fragmented their audiences; the licence
fee is likely to be under increasing pressure; they face the challenge of keeping older
viewers on board while trying to attract a younger audience. The similarities between
the challenges facing the BBC and those facing the Church of England do not escape
me – both are institutions grappling with what it means to reinterpret our historic
mission for a rapidly changing world.
I am not suggesting for one minute that this means we should excuse the media, but I
would hope that in encouraging better coverage of religion we might at least
demonstrate that we understand the pressures faced by the media. I suspect that
putting the BBC on the naughty step just will not do. We also need to recognize, as
the background paper from the Archbishops’ Council’s Communications Office
suggests, that the BBC is actually putting out more religious programmes than the
BBC Trust, its regulator, asks it to do.
I wonder too whether we might begin to reflect on what we actually mean by religious
broadcasting. Following conversations with BBC Radio Norfolk, we concluded that
we were not happy to have only the Sunday morning religious slot, so we started a
programme called Life’s Like That. I co-presented it with the BBC’s regular presenter
164
and we took what was in the news on that day and reflected on it from a faith
perspective. It meant that the people who normally would switch off the radio or
switch off the television when it came to the religious slot remained engaged.
I also support this amendment because in it the Bishop of Manchester calls for a
nurturing and development of expertise concerning religion. When my post changed
last year members of our local media, with whom I have worked for the past 10 years,
phoned to congratulate me, and the conversation usually went like this: ‘Hey, Jan,
great news about you becoming an archdeacon! Er, what is an archdeacon?’ We
cannot assume anything – not an understanding of religion or Christianity or the
peculiarities of the Church of England.
The media need to get their house in order in that respect, but there must be a twoway engagement. When did your church last engage with your local media? When did
your vicar last meet with the local radio station or a local journalist? We like to
criticize the media for not being involved in religion, but how often do we involve
them in the Church? The Communications Office here at Church House and the
network of diocesan communications officers throughout the Church of England are
doing a brilliant and often underestimated and hidden job of engaging with the media,
and I am proud to represent them here this morning. The Church’s engagement with
the media has to be a two-way relationship, perhaps one of critical friendship,
certainly one of mutual support and encouragement, which is why I wholly support
the Bishop of Manchester’s positive and encouraging amendment.
Mr Colin Slater (Southwell and Nottingham): It has become fashionable here in
Synod this week for members to declare an interest. I do so with respect to the BBC,
with which I have had a long love affair consummated by 42 years at the microphone,
as I still am. As I used to say to BBC hierarchy at a time when I was the chairman of
one of its advisory councils, ‘I wish the BBC would understand that when some of us
criticize what we think is one of the greatest institutions in our country we do so with
all the enthusiasm of criticizing a favourite son or daughter’. It is in that spirit that I
say to the BBC, ‘You really cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to have been
right last year to largely ignore Easter in your television coverage and right this year
when, we are assured, there will be to a much greater extent a reflection of the
importance of the Easter message to the world in your television scheduling’.
Since many contributions will inevitably criticize the BBC and other broadcasting
institutions, it is right that we should also readily say what pleases us about the BBC’s
coverage of religious issues. Here – and I speak from personal experience – I want to
pay tribute to the values and fairness espoused by Robert Piggott as the BBC’s
religious affairs correspondent. I believe that he does a first class job for the BBC and
for the Church.
Nigel Holmes has quoted Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC. I do so
as well, because as I left Nottingham on Monday morning the Evening Post, which is
now available from 9.30 a.m. – another decline in the media, one edition calling itself
an evening paper! – contained a whole page of readers’ questions put to Mark
Thompson. I was intrigued by the fact that the following question came first and
would love to know why it came first: ‘Why do comedians on the BBC ridicule
Christianity and the Royal Family?’ I did not find the answer but I will quote the
165
relevant parts of it, and what I quote does not slant it at all. Mark Thompson said:
‘Britain is known for the quality of its satire around the world. One of the traditions
we have had for many decades in this country is that neither religion nor senior
figures in public life are off limits, but that does not mean there are not boundaries’.
What a pity the sentence stops there, because, like me, perhaps members of Synod
would love to know what those boundaries are.
As he nears the end of what I suppose is about a 200-word response, he says: ‘We
also produce hundreds of hours of religious programming on TV and radio every
year’ – he does not break them down between radio and television; too wise a man for
that – ‘and cover all significant events regarding the Royal Family’, to which the
answer of some of us, including me, is a little like my old school reports: ‘Yes, and
we want you to do even better’.
The Bishop of Worcester (Rt Revd John Inge): I welcome this motion and I welcome
even more heartily the Bishop of Manchester’s amendment, which sets a proper
balance in recognizing what is good but also notes that there is a problem. It seems to
me that the BBC and other providers of media should take account of the fact that
research conducted for Ofcom for its second public service review in 2008 suggested
that audiences recognize the value of all sorts of public service content in helping
them to understand the world. Given the extent to which faith shapes many decisions
and actions, public service content that fails adequately to reflect the complex realities
of faith in the modern world will surely fall short of its purpose to help people
understand themselves and their communities. When the BBC’s own recent research
has suggested that 85 per cent of its audience describe themselves as Christian and
other surveys regularly show that a similar proportion of the population self-define as
belonging to a faith, religious programming must surely be one of the cornerstones of
such provision.
There is perhaps a perception that religious programming is boring. My predecessor
Charles Gore was once criticized for preaching the same sermon on two consecutive
Christmas days. His response was, ‘I have not changed my views on the incarnation
of our Lord since last Christmas!’ It is not necessary for the same thing to be done nor
is it necessary for worship broadcast to be boring. Although Ofcom’s audience
research suggests that religious programming is not regarded by many as a priority
genre, this may be down to a public perception of what religious programming is and
what it could be. There are many fine examples of output that gain considerable
audiences and show remarkably high levels of appreciation, such as the BBC’s Helen
House and The Boys from Baghdad High, which might not automatically be seen as
religious programming. The Church has a role to play in assisting the BBC in moving
on public understanding of what constitutes religious affairs, and as a Church we can
perhaps start by being a little less precious about what we view as appropriate
religious broadcasting.
I am heartened by Bishop Nigel’s call for more worship to be shown on television and
more phlegmatic output focused on the major Christian festivals, but his amendment
also hints at a broader and more creative interpretation of what constitutes religious
programming. Indeed the recent attention paid to the interview of Tony Blair by Fern
Britton during Advent shows what far-reaching impact original religious
programming can have. There are very real questions about achieving the right
166
balance between comfort programming that feeds the faithful and challenging
programming that stretches those of faith and none to consider complex religious and
ethical issues.
Finally, we have a responsibility in all this not just now but in the future. The Church
has a role to play in encouraging young Christians to discern a vocation to the media
so that we can continue to have a pipeline of talented, committed individuals who can
bring their understanding of religious belief and practice to their work.
Mrs Christina Rees (St Albans): I speak as someone who has one foot in the Church
and another in the media, and at times that requires a bit of suppleness. Over the past
few years the executive and editorial structure of the BBC has become a heavier hand
on creative programme makers and creative programme making: there are more
layers of BBC bureaucracy. Budgets for programmes seem to be falling while salaries
for the top executives seem to be rising. Recently one programme maker said to me,
‘We were expected to make bricks without straw and now even without enough clay’.
Even people in the media confess to a sense of vertigo at how quickly their industry
has been changing.
Yes it is important to make the BBC aware of its commitment to religion and to hold
it accountable to the public as part of its public service broadcasting remit, but as far
as I am concerned the BBC fulfils its remit better than anyone else in the media. We
cannot expect the media in general or the BBC in particular to do the Church’s job to
raise the profile of what we want to say about religion and faith in the national public
discourse; that is our job. So where are we in all this? More than one media insider
has the strong impression that the Church is ridiculously defensive about the media.
Have we considered that actually there is resistance on our part as well as on the part
of the media? After all, the media are a hungry brood with an almost insatiable
appetite.
As we heard from Jan McFarlane, we have good diocesan communicators – and Lord
knows there are enough of us – and we say that we have good stories to tell. We
believe that we know the greatest story on earth. Day in and day out we are witness to
despair being turned to hope, the ability finally to forgive, comfort and strength being
found in sorrow, hurt being healed, the lost knowing themselves to be found. We
know that the audience is as hungry as ever, with an increasing hunger in spiritual
things, if not also in matters of religion and faith.
It is – or is it? – the case that there is an aggressive, humanist, secularist, atheist
conspiracy trying to purge religion from the airwaves; or is it more likely that
generally programme makers are rather ignorant about the Church and the Christian
faith and struggle to come up with new ideas about how to do religion, particularly on
television? Through the media we, the Church, can help people to do their own
theology, not tell them what to believe; the time for that has passed, if it ever really
existed. If we are not happy with what we hear on the radio or television, we need to
do more to enable an informed public critique of the media and what they are
delivering to us, and in the case of the BBC delivering to us at our expense. There is
little point in pillorying individuals or organizations because they do not do what we
want them to do or feel they should do.
167
An informed debate on editorial standards, agendas, bias and inaccuracy is needed in
order to hold our media to account. By all means let us hold the BBC to account, let
us remind ourselves of its responsibilities and remit, but what else? How about if we
were part of the conversations with organizations such as Facebook, Google’s Buzz
launched yesterday, and other new media and social networking sites? Churches need
to take a seat round the table at which such conversations are held. We should be
helping them as they wrestle with the changing moral and ethical issues involved with
the new landscapes that they have created. What standards would we like to see in this
expanding, exploding arena?
Let us also remember that there is much more religion on television and radio than the
programmes that come from Religion and Ethics. Last week I listened to the stunning
first part of a four-part drama series on Radio 4, Bad Faith, in which Lenny Henry
plays the lead role, which I found very compelling and thought provoking. It deals
with huge issues of faith, but it happens to have been made not by Religion and Ethics
but the drama department. Instead of focusing on hours of output and opportunities
missed, let us open our eyes and ears to religion whenever and wherever we find it. I
shall vote for the amendment.
The Archdeacon of Italy and Malta (Ven. Jonathan Boardman) (Europe): Like so
many, I want to begin by expressing my thanks to Mr Holmes for having kept this
topic before Synod and the Church for what are now decades, even though what I will
go on to say is critical of the way that his motion does it on this occasion. Surely,
despite our disclaimers on finger-wagging and charm offensives, what we see here is
an unseemly and all too ridiculous punch up between Victorian dad (us) and Auntie
Beeb (them). Most importantly, elderly people should be beyond fisticuffs. As it is
expressed, the motion is entirely unlikely to have any effect on those public service
broadcasting providers with whom the Church has a duty to engage in dialogue. Many
speakers have of course already noted that, and indeed it is the thrust of the
amendment.
I have always considered that encouragement, not loud and bombastic upbraiding, is
the best way to improve under-achievement, so why not start by applauding the
BBC’s explicit commitment to the coverage of religious and ethical issues and the
provision of religious broadcasting? In the field of public service broadcasting where
new pressures on funding and policy for a digital and multi-cultural age press hard,
surely such an assurance is of the first importance. Then, as this debate has already
opened up, let us be a little more generous in assessing the evidence. Programmes that
have a religious impact or express a spiritual vision need not be explicitly or
exclusively religious in tone, from the slightly ridiculous Dot Cotton’s stoical
adherence to a Christian faith in EastEnders to the sublime, the recent appearance of
the Archbishop of Canterbury and other faith leaders as commentators in episodes of
Neil MacGregor’s marvellous A History of the World in 100 Objects. Religion and
Christian faith, its expression, are not as invisible as they might at first seem. I wonder
whether Synod really could think that the Church’s mission might be better served by
a return to the syrupy sentiment of programmes that I remember from my childhood,
such as Stars on Sunday, than by the breath of fresh air represented, say, by the
comedy show from the 1990s, The Vicar of Dibley.
168
In an important speech at the Santa Croce University in Rome last week, Mark
Thompson committed himself to coverage of religious issues and religious themes
across the five areas that are currently open for development in the BBC’s
programming. He was very explicit about it. He was rather more discreet and less
easy to be drawn on commenting on the state of Italian television. I have lived in Italy
for 10 years and have been exposed to the output there. There is a good deal of ringfencing of explicitly religious content in Italian TV, but the general tenor of what is
portrayed, what is actually provided, is scandalously smutty and ethically dubious.
Yesterday in his Presidential Address the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out the
difference between safeguarding or promoting purity and interacting with others so
that sanctity is to be found.
I urge Synod to support the Bishop of Manchester’s amendment but note that any
attempt to secure specifically religious broadcasting to the detriment of the coverage
of religious issues across the BBC’s output may seem like promoting purity as
opposed to encouraging sanctity.
Mrs Gill Ambrose (Ely): We have been asked to declare interests and I have two to
declare. The first is that I cannot actually turn on the television. I gave up when it
moved from four little buttons on the front of the box to the dreaded remote control
with its mysterious numbers. That means that I can watch the television only when
accompanied by someone more skilled than I and therefore with whom I can talk
about it, and that is really helpful.
My second declaration of interest is that, as many members of Synod probably know,
I edit a liturgical worship and preaching resource, and what I want to say about that is
that I am surprised by how many of our writers refer to the media as examples for
sermons and for all-age worship. The great joy of that is that I have to check their
references and I can do it on my computer. We therefore need to understand that when
we talk about television broadcasting it is not simply about what we watch on the box
when we sit down after dinner in the company of a friend, a partner or a husband but
about the fact that people can watch programmes again and again while travelling on
trains or going to work or whatever. As Stephen Lynas suggested, we need to broaden
our understanding of what television is.
Because I could not turn on the television and I was brought up in a family that did
not have a television, I am not a particular TV addict, but shortly before Christmas a
young broadcasting friend of ours turned up with a satellite dish and said, ‘I think you
need this’. I did not really want a satellite dish, and my son-in-law told me that it was
not the kind of thing that one had on the outside of one’s house, so I was not terribly
keen on it. However, I have to say that it has revolutionized my understanding, and I
want to help us to broaden our understanding of what television does for us. We now
watch science programmes, we watch beautiful output broadcasts on nature, the
world, the lost kingdoms of Africa and so on, and they are equal to anything in Psalm
104, if you have that kind of mindset. Clearly other people may watch them as simply
scientific, historical or geographical programmes, but as Christian people we are
seeing those through the eyes of our faith. We can talk about them through the eyes of
our faith, and if we are preachers or leaders of worship we can draw on them through
the eyes of our faith.
169
Finally, I want to suggest that in our Church we are not always terribly kind to
broadcasters. Peter Owen-Jones, who developed and presented the programme
Around the World in 80 Faiths, which received a Sandford St Martin award, lived as a
parish priest in a parish adjacent to the one where I lived on two occasions, once in
the north of the diocese of Ely and once in the south of the diocese of Ely. He talked
relentlessly about how we need to be able to present the Christian faith in ways that
ordinary people can access, and he had a very tough time indeed in both his parish
and the diocese as a whole. Before we become pots calling kettles black, I think that
we need to look at ourselves and reflect on the way we do this. I therefore heartily
request Synod to support the amendment so that we can carry this motion with a good
conscience.
The Bishop of Norwich (Rt Revd Graham James): As Stephen Lynas has already said,
Nigel Holmes has prompted a debate much wider than in this Synod chamber, which
has already been valuable, and it was very good to share a platform with him at the
BBC News Festival last month. Our only difficulty was that we were competing with
a session in the adjacent room led by Peter Mandelson, and I discovered that even
Nigel Holmes and the Bishop of Norwich cannot compete with God himself!
As Nigel Holmes pointed out, the production of good quality, indeed often excellent,
programmes continues on the BBC, especially on the Today radio programme, though
even in radio there is serious concern in one area, the World Service, where the
religious content has gone down considerably.
My difficulty with the main motion is that it concentrates too much on television. It
seems to assume, as does our culture more generally, that television is what matters,
and I wonder whether we should take television quite as seriously as it often takes
itself. It is now difficult to find space on BBC One for any serious programming at
peak times, whether about religion, the arts or culture, and the quest for ratings shapes
everything. As the Bishop of Worcester pointed out, Religion and Ethics recently
scored a hit with the interview by Fern Britton of Tony Blair – not that everyone
would have thought it was religious broadcasting. Credibility within the BBC is not
earned by high quality programmes which no one watches; it is determined by how
far the output of a department commands national or international attention, and we
have to understand that culture. Aaqil Ahmed, the head of Religion and Ethics, is well
aware of it, and indeed the history of his commissions at Channel 4 shows how he
manages to acquire broadcast time for religious programmes in a competitive
environment.
I should declare an interest as chair of the BBC’s Standing Conference on Religion
and Belief. It was set up only last year and essentially is the successor body of the old
Central Religious Advisory Committee. It is unique in the BBC that an advisory body
of this kind exists at all; no other genre possesses such a thing. It is in its very early
days. The Director General and senior members of BBC staff attend its sessions and
engage with a wide range of people from the faith communities. Most recently we met
with the head of science programmes to talk about religion and science, because
programmes dealing with religion, as we have heard, now come from all strands of
the BBC, a good example of which are the programmes about Darwin that have been
broadcast over the past year. However, they often presented religion and science as
though they are in permanent conflict, which is simply not true. We also talked about
170
the many other interesting dimensions that can be explored. Our next session will be
held at the new Media City in Salford, where we shall consider the power of faith in
local communities – well reflected in the high profile of faith on local radio.
Let us not imagine that the BBC is to be judged simply by BBC One. What works
best on television is often the observation of a community of faith, suggested by the
old Central Religious Advisory Committee many years ago, and we have seen plenty
of it. Seaside Parish, Island Parish, The Monastery and various programmes on
cathedrals have been popular and have scored high viewing figures, as does the
present series The History of Christianity, but schedulers are sometimes timid about
religious programmes drawing audiences when they need not be, and that is a real
challenge.
As others have said, what I believe the BBC and its Religion and Ethics Department
needs from us in this debate is encouragement. There needs to be a fresh challenge to
everyone in the BBC and in the wider media to recognize that religion is not some
kind of public service loss leader but a fascinating and absorbing feature of our world.
The Bishop of Manchester’s amendment retains the force of Nigel Holmes’s valid
point but puts it more positively. A note of gratitude ought to be sounded from this
Synod as well as a challenge laid down.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I declare an interest as a viewer, a listener, a licence
payer and a signatory to support Synod’s debate of Nigel Holmes’s motion.
I am rather surprised at the one-way traffic in the debate this morning, which seems to
be ‘Do not be too critical of the BBC. If they get upset we might not get as far as we
want to’. I appreciate and support what the Bishop of Manchester has tabled in his
amendment, but I think that we would make a serious mistake if we were to take out
of Nigel Holmes’s motion the explicit reference to the BBC; we would be letting the
BBC off the hook. The BBC is our prime public service broadcaster and it should be
held to account for its exercise of that role.
If the culture of the BBC is so dominated by ratings, we do not need to go with that
culture. Part of our role is to take the opportunity to challenge it and continue to
challenge it. Yes we should do so constructively; yes we should support those who
exercise their creative gifts to make good programmes, and only good programmes
are what we want to see. However, the effect of deleting virtually the whole of Nigel
Holmes’s motion so that only the words ‘That this Synod’ remain would be to send a
wrong signal to the BBC. In my very limited experience of engaging with it, the BBC
is not composed of people who are afraid of a bit of criticism, and they will not be
overly moved by more polite, gentle criticism. I believe that we should stick to our
guns, to put it crudely, and name the BBC; and if Ofcom wants to hide behind its
statutory limitations, we should not let it or Her Majesty’s Government get away with
that either. The quality and breadth of broadcasting in this country needs to be
addressed properly, and this Synod is one of the places in which that view can be
expressed publicly to encourage a proper public debate.
We used to discuss religious broadcasting and refer to the Religious Affairs
Department. It is now the Religion and Ethics Department. The two are linked but
they are not the same. A very serious dilution has taken place and we appear merely
171
to let it pass by. Now I know that that is not true, I know that members of this Synod
and others are engaging directly and privately with the BBC and broadcasters on these
matters, but this is a public forum and I think that we should stick to our public guns.
The BBC does many good things but it could and should do better, and it should make
a better case for the defence in response to the entirely proper factual criticisms that
Nigel Holmes has brought to the fore.
I hope that Synod will be more supportive of Nigel Holmes’s motion than the debate
so far has suggested.
The Bishop of Manchester (Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch): I beg to move as an
amendment:
‘Leave out all the words after “That this Synod”, and insert –
“(a)
express its appreciation of the vital role played by those engaged in
communicating religious belief and practice through the media, at a time of
major changes within the industry; and
(b)
express its deep concern about the overall reduction in religious
broadcasting across British television in recent years, and call upon mainstream
broadcasters to nurture and develop the expertise to create and commission
high quality religious content across the full range of their output, particularly
material that imaginatively marks major festivals and portrays acts of
worship”.’
Mr Nigel Holmes (Carlisle): I forget who said recently that the House of Bishops
comprised two principal types – the prefects and the rogues. I think it was a former
bishop, so he should know. Without doubt Nigel McCulloch falls into the former
category, every inch the prefect.
There is a touch of déjà vu here, because Nigel did this to my motion exactly 10 years
ago. That was my first, this is my third Private Member’s Motion, and I thank
members for their support in giving me this small record. On that occasion I felt a
little chary of the sentence ‘Leave out all the words after “That this Synod”.’ I have
since come to appreciate that there is one art in devising the pithy emotion to attract
signatures and another in stating policy and making things happen. What happened
last time was the establishment of the religion and broadcasting group, which Nigel
chaired and of which I was a member; together we served on that body for eight
years. This time he has filled out the motion to express appreciation in favour of
encouraging and praising people, and indeed that has come across fairly effectively in
the debate so far.
One of the prompts for my motion was Nigel’s letter to The Times last Holy Week in
which he pointed out that the BBC’s flagship television channels seemed to have
overlooked Good Friday that year. Incidentally, another prompt was a letter that
appeared in the BBC’s staff newspaper Ariel from Hannah Bayman, a television
presenter in my region, based in Newcastle. From within the corporation she said how
much her grandmother missed televised worship, and I am sure that many of us have
heard that sentiment expressed. We also need people to see and experience spirituality
and sense people participating so as to grasp something of the community that is the
172
Church. Deep concern is implicit in the picture that I painted at the outset. Much more
now than 10 years ago I consider this to be a make or break time, and for me it is
certainly a final fling, for after 25 years I shall not be seeking re-election. I would love
to leave the legacy of the BBC once again prizing religious television.
With regard to the specific references to the BBC and Ofcom, I would be particularly
sad to see the Ofcom one go, because I think that the BBC is implicit in much of what
Nigel is saying – Ofcom perhaps less so. Religion is one of the categories of review
that Ofcom must undertake every five years. Even though the quotas were abolished,
there remains an expectation of some religious output, particularly in relation to
Channel 4, which remains a publicly-owned channel with obligations even if ITV
seems a lost cause. However, one does not take on someone of Nigel McCulloch’s
stature lightly and I felt that I really needed to bow to his judgement. He after all
fought the corner as best he could in the House of Lords, he has indeed been a great
champion of the cause and I have long admired his work and wisdom.
Finally, I note that yesterday the Government banned tobacco and fatty foods from
product placement on television. It does not say anything about Bibles, prayer books
and crosses, but it would be a sad day indeed if that were the only way in which
religion could be seen on commercial television screens.
In spite of what Philip Giddings said, I feel that overall it is wise to support Nigel
McCulloch’s amendment.
Revd Mark Ireland (Lichfield): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. At your discretion
would you allow us to vote on the Bishop of Manchester’s amendment as an addition
to rather than a replacement of Nigel Holmes’s original motion, so that it would then
contain three paragraphs to reflect the point made by Dr Philip Giddings? (Several
Members: Hear, hear!)
The Chairman: I will take advice. The consensus is that the amendment deletes all
but the very first few words of the main motion and that therefore it would not be in
order.
Mrs Vivienne Goddard (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to
move:
The Chairman: I would first like to see whether any members stand to speak
specifically to Item 50 and then I would be willing to hear from you again after a
couple of speeches.
Revd Canon Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich) – and an awardwinning international broadcaster, on the internet!
A word on behalf of broadcasters: they face a real problem, which is that religion is
not sexy, religion is prohibitive and therefore oppressive, religion is confusing, but it
173
is not mysterious or even magical; religion is at best dull and at worst dangerous, and
that is why they do not want too much to do with it. I am not suggesting that we
should sex up religion. We all know the dangers of sexing things up. However, our
contribution to the future of religion and media in the public service broadcasting
sector should be more than whining about programmes that only Christians would
want to watch, when they are not at church, and services for old people whose local
church is too mean to give them a lift.
The real big issue facing the Church and the media is: what sort of society is forming
around us at the moment? Are we a multi-faith, multi-cultural liberal democracy or
are we a Christian parliamentary monarchy? – and none of those terms is exclusive.
This debate will not be decided in the universities or on the playing fields of Eton or
in the ballot boxes or even at Westminster. It will be decided on all the various media
platforms by those who get to speak and those who are excluded, and on the value
that is placed on what they say. We as Christians should be as much concerned about
the cutbacks in news coverage by the BBC as the cutbacks in religious broadcasting,
because if all news is now owned by corporations, a corporation bias will come into it
to the detriment of our democracy. We should see the BBC as a natural if not
uncritical ally in the process about which we should be concerned.
There are some who believe that in time independent Christian broadcasters will fill
that cultural gap. It is good that we now have our audience in hundreds of thousands,
but we are many years from having them in millions or tens of millions. Therefore, I
commend this amendment to Synod because it not only broadens the scope of what
Mr Holmes is suggesting but also reminds us that there is a far bigger task than just
the number of programmes on television.
Revd John Chorlton (Oxford): My only interest is that I am a BBC licence fee payer
and that I come from a parish in which the highest crime is the non-payment of that
fee.
When Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal opened our new church in Slough last
October Radio Berkshire featured us for three whole hours. In a few weeks’ time
Crimewatch will feature a good news story that is to be filmed at our church. Each
week I write to NewsWatch because of my concerns for the BBC. I therefore rise to
say to Nigel Holmes, ‘Repent. Do not be swayed by the Bishop of Manchester. Vote
for your own motion’.
In my small relationship with the BBC I find that certain assumptions are made. We
all know that the BBC has certain mantras such as ‘Climate change is happening’ and
‘Iraq was a mistake’, but also among its mantras is ‘Christianity is quirky and a
minority’. When eventually you come to be interviewed or appear on a BBC
programme you discover that the presenters are not reporters or interviewers but
actually the news shapers. Their questions tell you what they actually believe, and by
the time you get round to saying what you want to say they cut you off and tell you
what they want to say. Immediately after you have appeared a celebrity, who happens
to have been taking drugs and is regarded as a role model in our society, is
interviewed, and that celebrity can say nothing wrong and the presenters just bow to
him or her.
174
I welcome Nigel Holmes’s motion. I think that the BBC hierarchy needs to change its
mindset about Christianity and that we need to reject the Bishop of Manchester’s
amendment and go back to Nigel Holmes’s original motion and say ‘Let us point our
finger at the BBC. They are the ones to whom we pay our licence fees’.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
Dr Elaine Storkey (Ely): I want to address the two aspects of the now amended
motion, especially where we are calling on the mainstream broadcasters to nurture
and develop expertise across the full range of their output, and the issue of major
changes in the industry referred to in paragraph (a).
I particularly want to address the World Service. In 2001 the BBC World Service had
five weekly dedicated religious programmes – Focus on Faith, In Praise of God,
Reporting Religion, Patterns of Faith, Heart and Soul and so on – with a total air time
of one hour and 45 minutes. Since 2008 it has had only one dedicated 26-minute
programme per week, namely Heart and Soul. There have been all kinds of reasons,
which I cannot mention in a three-minute speech limit, as to why this has taken place.
The idea of reporting religion is said to have been integrated into the whole World
Service output. As far as one can see, there has been almost no increased reportage of
such events by World Service broadcasters across the globe, and especially in
countries such as Africa, where religion is so very important, the downplaying of
religious output has been enormous.
There is a second, even bigger issue for us – that of the changing media. A BBC One
television documentary may attract an audience of approaching 2 million, but
Facebook, which did not even exist when this Quinquennium commenced, now has
350 million users. Every minute of every day, even while we have been having this
debate, 13 hours of mostly home-produced content is uploaded on to YouTube,
unsorted, unedited and completely unregulated. For most young people, and older
ones, digital media such as social networks, forums, comments, download of films,
response to films, events, politics on the web and so on are already far more
significant than television. On YouTube one can receive coverage of just about any
disaster as it happens anywhere in the world. When I left the chamber yesterday
having heard the Archbishop’s Presidential Address, I found on my BlackBerry three
copies of his speech kindly sent to me from friends of my children who are dotted
around the country, just in case I was having tea and had missed it!
If one asks the average teenager whether he or she would rather give up watching the
television or using the internet, they will almost invariably say that they could not do
without the internet. We talk about not having spirituality on television for young
people, but just look at what is going out on the internet in terms of spirituality – read
it, look at it, watch it. All the fundamentals are being raised, questioned and answered
in that context. Television simply tells us stories; the internet allows people to tell
175
their own stories. Even reality television is edited, manufactured and manipulated.
The digital culture means that broadcasting is no longer solely the province of these
old professionals.
In the lifetime of the next Synod we will see further media development in the entire
digital culture. It is quite likely that the computer will migrate into the living room.
What are we going to do about it? Are we going to carry on debating television for
ever or give our own media department and the Church and media network the
authority, the space and the funds to get ahead and engage with this new form of
media? We owe it to the next generation to do something drastically and urgently.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Would you,
under SO 26(b)(i), accept as an amendment to insert the deleted words of Nigel
Holmes’s motion as a new part (c) at the end of the motion, because when you ruled
earlier there was a distinct air of disappointment round this Synod?
The Chairman: I recognize your attempt to be helpful, Dr Hartley, but I am afraid that
is procedurally not possible.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): Last night in the House of Lords we
completed the Committee stage of the Equality Bill which had to pass very quickly
from Second Reading, through Report stage, Third Reading and passing the Bill, on
seizing the assets of people involved in terrorist activities, within a very short period
of time; and most of the things we wanted to discuss we could not really get into
during discussion of the Bill, so they were in the end left to what were called ‘the
usual channels’.
I just wonder whether, Chair, through you, I could speak to Nick Higham, who is up
there, and Robert Piggott, to take it back to the BBC, and say that it would be in their
interests to do what Nigel Holmes is asking for? We do not have to pass a motion for
us to actually get it. It would be good for them to explain why BBC Television, which
was once exemplary in its covering of these particular areas, does not do so now to
the same extent. If they do explain actually because of the motion we pass, I think we
will be in a better place.
So, Robert, press it! Nick, press it! They can do it through ‘the usual channels’ and
get the explanation that Mr Holmes wanted. Then, when that happens, we will feel a
sight more comfortable. After all, the BBC has a responsibility as a public
broadcasting authority not only to entertain but to inform and to educate. I believe that
the educating and information part of it under religious broadcasting is important.
So I look forward to your influence, through the Chair, getting this exploration
through the usual channels. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: I suspect actually not through the Chair but through the Presidents, if I
may bat the ball back!
Mr Clive Scowen (London): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Really pushing my
luck but I am inspired by Dr Hartley, under the same Standing Order would you
accept a minor amendment to the text which is currently before the Synod, to insert in
176
part (b), in the third line, after ‘and call upon’ the words ‘the BBC’, so that it reads
‘the BBC and other mainstream broadcasters’? Then we will at least have referred in
the motion to our particular concern about the BBC in the way that Dr Giddings
outlined to us earlier.
The Chairman: I think, Mr Scowen, you just heard the speech by the Archbishop of
York and, although there obviously is some desire on the part of some members of
Synod to insert a specific reference to the BBC, I have to say to you that procedurally
we have already dealt with that: it has been taken out of the main motion and I am not
prepared to reopen that particular question.
Revd Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden (Southern Universities): I am almost embarrassed to
interrupt this drama about Standing Orders, but there are two points I would like to
make which have not yet been made.
I have three hats - one as a member of Faculty at the University of Sussex and another
as senior chaplain there - but about two years ago I was telephoned by the BBC local
radio station and asked to present their BBC Sunday morning radio and ethics
programme. I was surprised. I was more surprised to discover the reason for it: it is
that BBC local radio are losing attendance numbers and are very keen to try to get
them up, and the managing editor of the radio station had this wonderful idea, ‘Who
were the largest number of people represented locally who might listen?’ and the
answer was, ‘The Christian community’, so why not a Christian behind the
microphone and see if the Christian community could be engaged to listen. I am
pleased to say that, to some extent, it has worked. We have the largest reach on the
programme with the exception of the gardening programme, which follows us, but we
live in such a beautiful part of the world that that is perhaps only to be expected!
One of the things which has been said and which needs highlighting, though, is that
the media are hungry for us, and I have been surprised at the extent to which the
Churches have almost found it difficult to get over their surprise that the radio
platform is now there for the asking on local radio, and that producers are waiting
with enormous appetite to be given material from the local community; and the local
Christian community, on the whole, is not standing up to do it. I assume it is surprise;
I hope it is nothing else.
Given that the BBC share the same difficulties as we do, with falling numbers, it is
really essential that we engage with some support for this programme of local radio
because it is no great secret that, with its falling numbers, partly leaching towards the
internet, local radio itself is under some shadow in terms of the resources the BBC put
into it. We have two or three years, if you like, to buttress that part of local radio
which has become suddenly friendly to Christianity, to the Church and the gospel.
One more thing, to add to what Elaine Storkey said: of course things have now shifted
towards the internet. The BBC have just produced a new podcast called Faith in
England; they will put money into it and they will develop it if you subscribe to it. It
is the best of the local radio performances, so to speak, round the country each week,
and it is really worth listening to. It will be developed if we listen to it but if we ignore
it and pay no attention and do not subscribe, it will disappear off the map. One of the
things we find ourselves faced with now is the challenge to have our attention and our
177
weight and the presence of our numbers and interest registered in those parts of the
internet where it really can make a difference. A BBC podcast like Faith in England
is a very good example of that.
Mr Nigel Holmes, in reply: Thank you very much indeed for what has been a very
interesting debate. I was a little bit concerned that 10 years ago I knew that there was
quite a good number of people in this Synod who had past broadcasting experience
and I think what this debate has brought out is that there are a number that I did not
know and who have come to the debate and informed it in the way that they have, so
thank you very much for that. Foremost among them is somebody I have known for
many years, Stephen Lynas, former BBC religious broadcasting producer and also
with ITV. I think what I would say to him, though, is that perhaps you do not
necessarily need to be a dinosaur to speak about worship or to see it as informative
and educative.
This is slightly off the point in relation to the thrust of the debate but a number of
people I was glad to hear raising the importance of BBC local radio, coming from that
in terms of my own experience, and certainly I would endorse what Jan McFarlane
and Gavin Ashenden said about the problem there in relation to diminishing
resources, diminishing audiences, religious programmes having a smaller speech
content and therefore maybe not communicating what is going on at a local level as
effectively as before. Colin Slater falls into this category as well, again somebody
who has been on the Synod as long as I have, who reminds us of the excellent news
reporting of Robert Piggott. I would endorse that; I have come to know him in recent
weeks much better than before. Colin Slater also mentioned the boundaries of
humour; maybe that is something else, and I hope that this debate will prompt the
BBC Trust, above all, to think again about these issues. Perhaps there is another issue
that could be addressed in due course to the BBC Trust.
Jonathan Boardman, from the wonderful (or not so wonderful) world of Silvio
Berlusconi, asked us not to be critical but to encourage. I am certainly there as a
critical friend and one who does encourage where I can – I think I said that at the
outset – and he obviously had recent experience of what Mark Thompson was saying;
I would simply reiterate the quote that I had from Mark Thompson which I was very
glad I had noted down a few years ago and which I think is very powerful indeed, and
he needs holding to that.
I thank the Bishop of Norwich very much for all he does. It was an interesting
experience there to be watching the Peter Mandelson show and the off-the-record
Candid Mandy, as certainly we had nothing like the charisma (I speak for myself as
well as for him!): he drew 200 people and we drew about 50, I think, but still it was
good that the BBC wanted us to be there and was listening to us and, as a result, the
BBC staff newspaper Ariel devoted a whole page to our session at that news festival. I
would just remind him, though, that Songs of Praise does get in excess of 2 million
178
people; it would not if it were not on BBC1; it is important that we remain on the
mainstream channels. A History of Christianity, grand though it was, only got
500,000: a very good audience for BBC4 but still small in total BBC audiences.
Members might like to know that BBC1 had 20 per cent in a recent week, ITV 17 per
cent, share of viewing, and then you immediately drop down to Channel 4 – eight per
cent – and BBC2 six per cent. So to get the big audience you still have to be on those
key channels, even in a multi-channel world (or perhaps because of a multi-channel
world).
I am glad that Elaine Storkey raised the World Service issue. I had no time to do this
in my own speech, but at the BBC news festival the producer of that programme came
up to us and spoke movingly about the responsibility that falls on her shoulders:
effectively, to reflect religion to the world, single-handed. It is really quite amazing
and disturbing. Elaine Storkey also spoke about the next generation, as indeed did the
Bishop of Worcester, and that is so important. Vocations to working in the media are
so important. One bishop said to me once that ‘Christian journalist’ seemed to be a
contradiction in terms. I replied, ‘You can’t say that. I know many who are’.
Nevertheless there is that feeling abroad that really we should shun that world; I think
we have to engage with it more than ever.
I would like finally and in the last minute just to thank those who have helped me
over the past six months: Andrew Barr, sitting next to me, has an encyclopaedic
knowledge of and enthusiasm for religious broadcasting, gained over many years as a
practitioner both in ITV and the BBC, where he was once head of religion and
education, BBC Scotland. He has an impressive critical faculty and is unfailingly
courteous and full of encouragement, and he and his wife Liz have written numerous
books, particularly linked to Songs of Praise. John Forrest, also with me, we have
been friends for 45 years from Durham University days; indeed I introduced John to
broadcasting; he became a BBC local, then network, religious radio producer and
then, for 17 years, produced Songs of Praise; he was also my best man 38 years ago.
Finally, Peter Crumpler, director of communications, and his broadcasting officer,
Ben Wilson, have been most helpful and supportive over these months, and they have
asked me to mention the largely unseen work of the diocesan communications
officers, and those they work with in local newspapers and local radio, both BBC and
commercial, which reflect a different slant on the life of the Church from the national
mass media.
One final paragraph, if I may – I think it is worth hearing. I leave you with the words
of the then editor of the BBC College of Journalism, Kevin Marsh. He wrote 15
months ago, ‘An understanding of religion and its importance in the lives of its
adherents is more important to good journalism than it has ever been ... it’s difficult, if
not impossible, to get beneath the surface of many under-reported communities
without understanding their faiths’. As this will almost certainly be my last speech in
the General Synod – and the red light is on – thank you very much indeed for this
enlightening debate and for your friendship and fellowship over the past 25 years.
The motion was put and carried in the following amended form, 267 voting in favour
and 4 against, with 2 recorded abstentions:
179
‘That this Synod:
(a) express its appreciation of the vital role played by those engaged in
communicating religious belief and practice through the media, at a time of
major changes within the industry; and
(b) express its deep concern about the overall reduction in religious
broadcasting across British television in recent years, and call upon mainstream
broadcasters to nurture and develop the expertise to create and commission
high quality religious content across the full range of their output, particularly
material that imaginatively marks major festivals and portrays acts of worship.’
THE CHAIR His Honour Judge John Bullimore (Wakefield) took the Chair at
12.16 p.m.
44th Report of the Standing Orders Committee (GS 1763)
The Chairman: This is a ‘take note’ debate. I am going to allow members a good deal
of latitude to speak to the items which follow on the order paper. Members will need
for the purposes of this debate the report GS 1763. The matters we are actually going
to look at and debate are set out on the order paper, but members will see that all the
proposals of this report were contained on the first notice paper, and those of you who
read through to the end will have seen a note which indicates that the Business
Committee has determined, under SO 39(c), that all the proposed amendments to
Standing Orders contained in Items 28-33 and 36-46 need not be debated. Under
SO 39(c) those amendments are accordingly deemed to have been approved by the
Synod without amendment unless due notice is given by not less than five members
that they wish a proposed amendment to be debated. Not less than five members have
given notice in respect of Item 33, and that is one of the items we will be looking at.
The Business Committee has not made that designation in regard to Items 34 and 35,
and we will be looking at those as well. I hope that is all very clear.
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall (Manchester): I beg to move:
The 44th report of the Standing Orders Committee (GS 1763) is the fourth in this
quinquennium and deals with, as you may see, many and various matters. They fall
into a number of categories, and it may be easier for Synod if I refer to the items as set
out in the first notice paper; but, before referring to them, I need to reiterate what is
the role of the Standing Orders Committee as set out in SO 117(c), which is to ‘keep
under review the procedure and Standing Orders of the Synod and submit to the
Synod such proposals for amendment as they may think fit’, and to ‘report to the
Synod on all such proposals’. So what are we proposing?
First, there is a large number of items – 29, 31-33 and 36-39 - (we will come to 33
later on specifically) which relate to the consolidation of legislation (see paragraphs 310 of our report). You will remember that SO 47 contains provisions relating to
consolidation – Consolidation Measures – and that the purpose is to prevent
180
amendments being made to such a Measure during the course of its synodical
consideration if their effect would be to alter the existing law but not if their effect is
to make a correction or a minor amendment. What is proposed is this. First, an
amendment should be permitted if its effect is to bring a provision into conformity
with existing law, hence Item 31. Second, the procedure specified for Consolidation
Measures should to some extent replicate the procedure in Parliament where such
Bills are rarely debated at the stages we describe as First Consideration and Final
Approval and are rarely committed for revision. Hence Items 32, 33 and 36. They
provide, for example, for a deemed first consideration procedure and the absence of a
Revision Committee. Any new procedure will not apply to any Consolidation
Measure which has already been printed and circulated to members under SO 48.
Moreover, the Standing Orders Committee believes that it would be beneficial for a
consolidation procedure limiting the extent to which amendments can be moved to be
available in relation to provisions which consolidate either instruments of the kind to
which SOs 68-71 apply – that is rules, orders, regulations, schemes and other
subordinate legislation – or the Standing Orders themselves, hence Items 29 and 3739.
Second, there are items, as in 40 and 41, which relate to financial business (see
paragraphs 17-19 of our report). In February 2009 Synod agreed to some detailed
amendments in respect of financial business but, I have to say, there was an error on
the first notice paper, which nobody spotted. It had been intended to repeal the
existing SOs 98-103 but in fact Synod was asked to repeal only SOs 98-101. To
remedy this error, Items 40 and 41 propose the repeal of SOs 102 and 103.
Third, there are some items which relate to the procedures of the Business,
Appointments and Standing Orders Committees (see paragraphs 20-22 of our report).
Thus Item 44 proposes an amendment to SO 117 which will give the Standing Orders
Committee the same power to regulate its business and procedure as that currently
enjoyed by the Legislative, Business and Appointments Committees in SOs 114-116.
Items 42 and 43 simply make it clear that SO 115(f) and 116(f) are indeed subject to
SO 118A, and Item 45 is a consequential amendment.
Fourth, Item 46 puts into effect the recommendations of the report of the Elections
Review Group, dated May 2008, that candidates in elections held under SO 120
should be required to state their date of birth. This will mean that there is a degree of
conformity between such elections and elections to diocesan synods and General
Synod.
Fifth, there are items relating to quorum (Item 28) and decorum (Item 30) (see
paragraphs 1 and 2 of our report).
Synod will understand from that very helpful analysis – I say with a smile on my face
– why no one wanted to debate most of those matters; they are really inconsequential,
important but not really worthy of any great controversy. I think it would, however,
be helpful if I were to say at this stage something about the procedure of Revision
Committees because I think this is something which will exercise the Synod’s mind
and indeed has prompted some amendments by three members of the Synod.
181
As a matter of general legal principle, it is for a Revision Committee to regulate its
own procedure, subject to any relevant provision made by the Standing Orders, and at
present the provision made in SO 53 in relation to the procedure of the Revision
Committees is very limited. Heretofore the absence of much prescription has worked
very well. Therefore the Standing Orders Committee has considered whether, in the
interests of certainty and consistency, it would be desirable to make more elaborate
provision. At the moment it concluded that it was better to leave matters to individual
Revision Committees and their chairs. It did so because, although we do get a
reasonable postbag about very many things, we have had no postbag relating to the
conduct of Revision Committees. I suspect that that is likely to change, about which
more later. So such a conclusion prompted Item 35, which is a new express provision
in SO 53 that a Revision Committee has power to regulate its own business and
procedure and that the chair may determine conclusively any questions of order,
business and procedure. We are going to deal with that later, but it is necessary to give
somebody, the chair, the power to take action, particularly between meetings, because
sometimes things do happen between meetings and somebody has to make a
responsible decision.
Although the Standing Orders Committee believes that it should be for each Revision
Committee to decide whether any and, if so, which papers prepared for it are to be
circulated to non-members – and that may be a matter which we may have to look at
again – the Standing Orders Committee believes that it would be desirable for copies
of all submissions made to a Revision Committee to be published on the General
Synod website, and Item 34 will impose an obligation in this respect, subject to the
exercise of a necessary power to redact certain information. The Business Committee
supports this proposal and the Liturgical Commission is content about it. This is a
major innovation which I hope Synod will warmly endorse. Such a proposal will
allow submissions to Revision Committees to be seen by all members and the public
at large, and it may encourage the more economic presentation of all submissions to a
Revision Committee, given that members who are making the same point will realize
that they are so doing.
Finally, I need to record that the Standing Orders Committee, believing that it would
be desirable if guidance were prepared for Revision Committees and their chairs,
desires that a draft of such guidance should be prepared for consideration by the
Business Committee and the Liturgical Commission. Any member wishing to offer
comments on this is invited to submit them to the Chief Legal Adviser.
We hope that the combination of placing all submissions on the General Synod
website and the production of guidance for Revision Committees and their chairs will
improve the conduct of Revision Committees, but I have to stress that the Standing
Orders Committee stands ready further to review SO 53 when the current Women
Bishops Revision Committee has completed its work, and indeed at that stage there
will be a very large number of people, both on and off that committee, who will have
a very good insight as to how the provisions for the working of a Revision Committee
might be improved. Accordingly, I give an undertaking that in early course the
Standing Orders Committee will reconsider whether it is desirable further to amend
SO 53 and will, in particular, consider each of the matters raised by Mr Benfield
relating to what documents should be given, Mr Lee relating to whether the chairman
should have the role as set out in the proposal and Mr Boyd-Lee as to whether
182
proceedings should be held in public, and that we will return to the Synod with our
recommendations in due course. I hope that Mr Benfield, Mr Lee and Mr Boyd-Lee
will find my comments helpful and constructive. We think that it would be a better
way to approach matters, to consider all matters in the round, having considered
submissions of members of Synod, rather than necessarily to consider them piecemeal
on the floor of Synod.
Mr Tim Allen (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): I speak in this part of the debate so as to
be able to welcome the whole of paragraphs 11-16 of the report in relation to the
procedure of Revision Committees, which play a key part in the General Synod’s
work.
When the General Synod met last July at York, I had the good fortune of proposing
the relatively minor Revision Committee report on the Draft Ecclesiastical Fees
(Amendment) Measure. In this role, the Standing Orders happily allowed me a longer
speaking time than usual, and since the Draft Measure itself was short I gave myself
the luxury of discussing the Revision Committee procedure and, in particular, of
grumbling, from my privileged position on the platform, about the way in which the
fair and efficient conduct of that particular Revision Committee’s business had been
hampered by an illiberal administrative decision not to allow Synod members who
were taking the trouble to appear before that Revision Committee to see the written
evidence of the others who had made written representations. I was given to
understand that this administrative decision had been taken at a high level in this
building, so as to provide a precedent for the deep secrecy in which the relatively
major and shortly following Revision Committee on women bishops has been
conducting its business.
When I became aware, only at the very last minute before the Ecclesiastical Fees
Revision Committee was to begin its meeting, that the previously normal procedure of
circulating all written submissions to the witnesses had not been followed, I was most
unhappy. I considered whether I should, as chairman, insist that the start of the
meeting be delayed for the considerable period of time that would be required to make
further copies of the voluminous papers. Rightly or wrongly, I judged that, even if I
insisted on this, the witnesses would not have sufficient time to read and absorb the
evidence of the others and that it was important also to ensure that the committee had
enough time to finish its business before the end of that day and so avoid the expense
and waste of time involved in a second meeting. So we began on time, with papers not
available to the witnesses. The witnesses, who included Fr Trott, Fr Benfield and
Dr Hartley, acquitted themselves manfully but were clearly handicapped by the
absence of papers.
Happily, Chairman, the excellent Standing Orders Committee listened and in its
report is recommending that, in future, submissions to Revision Committees are not
hidden from sight but are made available to all via the website. Thus, whoever
decided to clamp down in an illiberal way on my little Revision Committee, in order
to set a precedent, has been hoist with their own petard, because what the Standing
Orders Committee now proposes is just the sort of openness and transparency that
should, in my view, be shown in the work of the Synod and its committees, unless
there is some exceptional reason for confidentiality. The Standing Orders Committee
is right to want to let light and air into our proceedings. The Committee is right also,
183
as I suggested last July, to prescribe use of the website for publication so as to
minimize staff costs and extravagant use of paper.
Finally, I welcome the Committee’s decision, as I understand the rather Delphic
paragraph 16 to mean and as the chairman has confirmed, to consult inter alia on
whether those giving evidence to Revision Committees should have access to relevant
documents such as minutes of earlier meetings and such as the legal and policy advice
given in relation to evidence to Revision Committees by the staff. When I raised this
last July, I accepted that the case for opening up procedures in this way was not clearcut, so consultation rather than decision now seems to me to be entirely right.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): I refer, as the previous speaker has done – and I support
everything he has just said – to paragraph 16 of GS 1763, where at the end it says, ‘If
members wish to offer comments in that connection’ – that connection being the
connection of Revision Committees - ‘they are invited to submit them to the Chief
Legal Adviser in the first instance’. I do encourage people to do that, especially in the
light of what I and others are going to be saying. If I understand Geoffrey Tattersall
correctly, he has now said that the Standing Orders Committee will look thoroughly at
the procedure for Revision Committees and come back with further suggestions. In
the light of that, I am very happy, with your permission, Chair, to withdraw the
amendment in my name later on, though I would like to speak now to my concern.
Just before I get on to that, I want to speak to the concerns of the other amendments. I
have not previously been involved in Revision Committees – they have not excited
me – but the Women Bishops Revision Committee did excite me because I feel very
strongly that we should have women bishops and that we should have them in a
sensible way; and therefore I sent in a very long submission. So I am delighted that I
have been invited to several meetings of that Committee to speak to my submission.
However, not only have I not known what other people have submitted, unless they
have happened to tell me, but it has become apparent during the course of listening to
the debate on my submission that the Committee has in front of it a totally different
draft Measure from the draft Measure on which I was submitting my submission (I do
not say ‘totally different’ but ‘a different’ Measure). Therefore it has become very
difficult for me to comment or make a sensible oral submission because they are
talking about something different from what I have in front of me.
So I very much hope that when such things happen in future those at least making
submissions – and it would seem to me sensible to include the rest of Synod – should
have access to these papers so that we all know what is going on rather than fighting
each other in the dark: sparring in the dark, shall we say.
I now come to my particular amendment, which is concerned with the powers of the
chair. I fully understand that it makes sense, in order to get on with business, for the
chair to make decisions and, as would normally be expected, for the chair to get
advice from the secretariat, from the legal staff and so on; but there are times when
that is not democracy, when the chair is advised by somebody, ‘Oh, you can do this’,
‘This will be quicker’, ‘Let’s get on with it that way’, and the chair, because they are
understandably busy people – they are chosen because they have plenty of other
experience – says, ‘O.k. yes, fine’, and on it goes. However, while there is plenty of
experience, when a whole committee is asked, ‘Do you agree with this advice?’, of
184
everybody saying, ‘Yes we do agree with this advice’, there are times when
somebody on that committee says, ‘Ah, just a moment. What about if this or that
happens?’ and the person giving the advice says, ‘Oh, I hadn’t thought of that one’.
So it does make democratic sense for there to be provision for the whole committee to
make decisions in certain instances rather than for the chair to make certain decisions:
about procedure, about what papers should be published et cetera.
My amendment is rather blunt because that was all that was available to me, so I am
delighted that, rather than the whole of Synod making legislation without due thought
and consideration, it should go back to the Standing Orders Committee and that
something better than my amendment is put forward; but I would like to see the
opportunity for some of these procedural things to be discussed in the whole
committee and decided by them rather than just by the chair.
The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) (Rochester): – and involved in
some measure with a certain Revision Committee at present. I do not really want to
touch on that particular Revision Committee because, as you said, there is some
reflection on that in due course; I just wanted to ask, Chairman, through you, if the
proposer of the motion, Geoffrey Tattersall, might clarify to the Synod what is
intended when we come to the amendment at Item 34 about material to be published
on the General Synod website.
Experience says that there are three sorts of communication that we receive. There are
submissions for amendment which come from Synod members, and I am sure that is
intended to be the focus here. We also get letters seeking amendments, later
submissions, which come from those beyond the Synod membership itself, and that
has certainly been the case with the Women Bishops Revision Committee. Is it
intended that those should go on as well, or not, whether or not they are made the
subject of discussion in the Revision Committee? Third, of course, there are some
people who write in after the official period for submitting amendments has closed,
and the Revision Committee will need to make its own decisions about what it does
with that sort of correspondence. I am assuming that this third group will not go on
the website, but I think it could be helpful to Synod to understand just what is being
proposed to be put on the website if this amendment were to be debated and go
through.
Mr Paul Boyd-Lee (Salisbury): I would like to speak to Item 51, the amendment in my
name. Let me say in simple language that the purpose of the amendment, I hope,
would be to enable members to make a fuller use of their skills and decently complete
the business which they have been elected to do. We owe a huge debt to the lawyers,
the members of the Revision Committees, the Standing Orders Committee and so on
for the work which they do in preparing us on Synod, but it would be abrogating our
duty if we just left it all to them.
As far as the Consolidation Measures are concerned – Item 51 here - there is a feeling
that in the zeal to compress the words in bringing one, two, three Measures together,
the intent behind the original Measures, the spirit in which they were crafted, could be
lost, maybe through the people on the committee being just too close to the subject.
185
Unfortunately, with the system which we are now using, there is no first consideration
stage – it is deemed business – and further, if we have new members they may not
know what the original Measures said and, as we approach a new quinquennium, that
is highly likely to be the case. Thus the time taken to look at the proposals is, I
believe, crucial for a successful outcome to them, and also that we will have avoided
problems in the future of maybe having to make amendments if we find they are not
working very well.
At present the best chance of considering these consolidations is three, two, maybe
only one week, as we get them with our papers prior to a group of sessions. Then if
you have got them and you find there is something which really needs to be looked
into you have to find five other members to support what you are bringing forward. I
feel that that really is putting unfair pressure which could be avoided, so my
amendment seeks to extend that time just a little to 41 days. I do not want to put more
work on the Synod Office nor to cause expense by this, but I am sure that there is a
way forward to do this in a way perhaps with communications in the future – I do not
know – but even if it is put into place, my amendment is accepted and we find later
that it is not required, or there is another way of doing it, it should be quite easy to put
an amendment down to adjust as necessary.
So I hope that members will be pleased to support my amendment.
Mr Jim Cheeseman (Rochester): I speak now and I shall not want to speak again.
At Christmastime a churchwarden had a drinks party for people he thought had been
helpful in the church. For some inexplicable reason I was invited, and a young lad
who apparently thinks I am the fount of all knowledge and wisdom – I hope he has
got over that now – looked at me in absolute astonishment when I said, ‘I do not own
a computer. I cannot work a computer. I have never seen a website in my life’ et
cetera. Of course it saves a great deal of time because I cannot play violent computer
games, nor can I search for the pornographic material which people say is on these
websites! That aside, I appear before you as a wolf in sheep’s clothing because, whilst
I am here, my secretary is busy sending e-mails and putting stuff on the Kent Cricket
Board and other cricket websites for me.
The result of getting someone else to do it and of getting stuff on the website is that I
get constant phone calls about it, and I just wonder how a similar proposal is going to
affect the life of General Synod members who put things in to a Revision Committee
if Uncle Tom Cobley and all are going to phone them up and argue the point. The
worst experience I had was when an angry council employee phoned me up to ask me
why the hell I had put his name down for selling tickets for 20:20 cricket matches: it
was an entire misreading of what was on a website.
I just mention this to point out that if you are putting something in the public sphere it
has an enormous spin-off which might be intrusive to the individual. Perhaps that is
what is meant by withholding personal details, but does that mean that General Synod
members will not know the name of the person who has put forward the proposal? If
you know a person’s name it is not impossible to discover details of how to contact
them. If you know my name, if you look at the Kent Cricket Board website and see
186
the e-mail address that I use with regard to cricket, you could use it; it is not published
anywhere else.
Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn): I wish to address the question of the availability of
papers for those making oral submissions to Revision Committees. When a Synod
member makes a submission to a legislative Revision Committee, the staff will
generally prepare a paper setting out the effect of the proposed amendment and any
practical or legal difficulties which the proposed amendment might cause. That paper
is circulated to the members of the Revision Committee to help them in coming to
their decision as to whether the amendment should be agreed to. It is obviously
sensible if the member proposing the amendment can have sight of that advice so that
he can answer any points made in it. If he has the advice before the meeting of the
Revision Committee, he may even consider points raised and, once made aware of
matters he had not previously been aware of, decide to withdraw his proposal, thus
saving the time of the committee. What is unsatisfactory is for the member to appear
before the committee to make oral submissions and not to have sight of the advice
before the committee.
The Revision Committee is supposed to scrutinize the draft legislation and make
amendments so that it is improved. The committee is not there to defend the draft
legislation against all suggested amendment at all costs, making it as difficult as
possible for those proposing amendments to argue their case, yet that is what seems to
have been happening recently. Suddenly, obsessive secrecy has crept into the
procedures of Revision Committees.
I give just one example from the Women Bishops Revision Committee. Fr Trott made
a submission that the proposed Code of Practice would fall foul of sex discrimination
legislation. The legal staff quite properly produced a paper dealing with the issue,
which was circulated to the members of the Committee, but Fr Trott was not allowed
to see it. He was forced to attempt to make submissions and answer points of which
he was unaware, having not seen that document. How sensible is that? How is that
process likely to produce legislation which all can be sure has been properly
scrutinized? How will Parliament react when it finds out that that is how we decide on
the legislation that we send off to Parliament for its approval?
These are important matters, to which my amendment was directed, but in the light of
the assurances given by Geoffrey Tattersall that the Standing Orders Committee will
look at these matters, I no longer propose to move my amendment.
The Chairman: I see no one else standing, and I will ask Mr Tattersall to reply to the
debate, but in view of the fact that we are due to complete the business before us in a
few minutes, after he has spoken and the vote has been taken on taking note of this
report, I am going to propose that we extend the sitting for up to 15 minutes, in the
hope that we can deal with all these various matters that still remain. So I give you
warning of my intention to do that after Mr Tattersall has spoken.
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall, in reply: It is good to realize that we are all trying to achieve
the same thing: good, working Standing Orders which serve us and not the other way
round.
187
I am grateful to Tim Allen for his comments about the wisdom of a better way of
telling people what submissions are made to Revision Committees by putting them on
the website. He gave the example of one Revision Committee where he was less than
happy. The difficulty is that over the past 10 or 15 years the practice has not been
consistent, so that you could find an example which almost justified anything; that is
why we need carefully to address this. The second point I make in response to what
he said is that we will have to bear in mind that there are very many Revision
Committees and probably the Women Bishops Revision Committee is atypical. That
is not to say we cannot learn lessons from everything, but it would be idle to pretend
that everything is as complicated and as difficult as the women bishops legislation.
To Hugh Lee, I am very grateful for his not moving his amendment. The Standing
Orders Committee will, of course, reflect on everything he said, as we do after every
debate on Standing Orders in this Synod. We too are concerned that decisions which
are made about practice and order and so forth are decisions which, generally
speaking, must be made by the committee as a whole and not just the chairman; on
the other hand, I think that Mr Lee himself recognizes the good sense in having some
residual power in the chair to take action when it is necessary.
To the Archdeacon of Tonbridge, the simple answer to the question about which
submissions will go on the website is that it is submissions from members of Synod:
they are the only people who trigger the Standing Order mechanism. There will not be
submissions put on the Church of England website from non-members.
Mr Boyd-Lee made a point, which we will come to in due course, about timing, and
perhaps I am better dealing with that in terms of timing. At the moment, there is a
period of at least 14 days under SO 48(b). He wants 42, and I really need to hear from
him at some stage precisely why because I think that is a discrete issue which the
Synod will have to decide.
Mr Cheeseman has, sadly, not got a computer. I am glad you have somebody to
operate one for you. You are quite right: if we put everything which a member writes
on to the General Synod website, for example, their address, their telephone number,
their email address, they will become inundated. That is why personal information
will be redacted, so the name of the proposer will be there but personal information
will not be there for others to glean.
To Mr Benfield, again I am grateful for what he said and for the generosity of spirit
which means that he will not move his amendment. What he raises about what
documents people should have are real issues which we need to address. Indeed I did
say to him this morning that, while it is not easy to accuse Fr Benfield of not being
bold, actually if he wanted to be bold he could be a lot bolder than his amendment,
because one can think, for example, of the word ‘directly’ in his amendment – is that
really necessary? – or that it applies only to those members who attend – is that
restriction really a sensible one? - so I think that what we need to do is genuinely
consider all these matters with an open mind, and with help from Synod, because
those who have attended the Revision Committees need to write in and tell us about
their experiences and where they think it went wrong. In this way I hope we can
improve our Standing Orders.
188
The Chairman: I am now going to deal with this question of extending the sitting, but
I think I would be assisted, and perhaps Synod members would be, if I could be clear
from Mr Boyd-Lee whether he is intending to move his amendment, Item 51, and also
his amendment, Item 54.
Mr Paul Boyd-Lee (Salisbury): In view of the assurances given by the mover of the
main motion, particularly concerning Revision Committees meeting in public, and
thoroughly looking into that, I would be prepared to ask leave from you to withdraw
the amendment.
The Chairman: The position is, then, that we will, if we extend the sitting, be able to
look at Items 33, 34 and, I hope, 35 as well, and so complete this item of business
without having amendments to deal with. In the light of that, may I exercise my
power, with your general consent, to extend this sitting until 1.15 p.m.? (Agreed)
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall:
After Standing Order 51 insert:
‘First Consideration Stage – Consolidation Measures
51A. (a) A Consolidation Measure shall be deemed to have been given First
Consideration without debate unless:
(i) the Business Committee determine to the contrary (in which case the
procedure in Standing Order 51(a)-(d) shall apply); or
(ii) five members of the Synod give notice not later than 5.30 p.m. on
the first day of the group of sessions at which the Measure has been laid
that they wish the Measure to be debated.
(b) Where a Consolidation Measure is deemed to have been given First
Consideration without debate in accordance with paragraph (a), or if the motion
set out in paragraph (d) below is carried, the Measure shall not be committed to
a Revision Committee (and Standing Orders 52 to 58 shall not apply) but shall
stand committed to the Steering Committee in respect of its final drafting for
the purposes of Standing Order 59.
(c) Should such notice as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) have been received,
when the item on the agenda is reached the Chairman shall call upon a member
of the Steering Committee to move “That the Measure entitled (Short Title) be
considered” and paragraphs (b) and (c) of Standing Order 51 shall apply in
relation to that motion as they apply to the motion set out in paragraph (a) of
Standing Order 51.
(d) If paragraph (c) applies and the motion set out in that paragraph is carried,
a member of the Steering Committee may, if he thinks fit, immediately move
“That the Measure be committed to the Steering Committee in respect of its
189
final drafting” in which case the Chairman may allow such debate upon that
motion as he thinks fit before putting the question on that motion.
(e) If the motion set out in paragraph (d) is either not moved, or moved and not
carried, a member of the Steering Committee shall move “That the Measure
entitled (Short Title) be committed for revision in committee’ and if that motion
is carried the Measure shall stand so committed”.’
‘That this amendment be made with effect from Saturday 13 February 2010,
but not so as to have effect in relation to any Measure which has been printed
and circulated to members pursuant to Standing Order 48 before the date on
which they would otherwise come into effect.’
I can be brief. I indicated in my opening speech that part of the proposals relate to
Consolidation Measures; this is part of what we are proposing and I do not think I
need to say any more.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Are we quorate in
the House of Bishops?
The Chairman: I am assured that we are, Mr Barnes, thank you. Is there any debate on
this item? I see no one standing.
Mr Paul Boyd-Lee (Salisbury): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. My apologies,
Mr Chairman. I think I was misled when you asked me about withdrawing an
amendment earlier. If I may clarify that – and I think I did make it clear in what I was
talking about, namely Revision Committees sitting in public – it is that amendment
which I wish to withdraw, but not the previous one, concerning the number of days
allowed for Synod members to have papers.
The Chairman: I did ask you to make matters clear. I thought you had. Would you
move this amendment formally, please? You have spoken to it already.
Mr Paul Boyd-Lee (Salisbury): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (a) of Standing Order 51A as proposed to be inserted by item 33,
at the beginning, insert “Subject to paragraph (f),”; and
after paragraph (e) insert –
“(f) A Measure shall not be considered under this Standing Order unless copies
of the Measure in the form to be considered have been posted or delivered to
every member not less than 42 days before the first day of the group of sessions
at which the Measure is laid.”
190
but not so as to have effect in relation to any Measure which has been printed
and circulated to members pursuant to Standing Order 48 before Saturday
13 February 2010.’
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall: The essential difference between what Mr Boyd-Lee proposes
and what we propose lies, I think, in the fact that this is a Consolidation Measure. The
whole point about a Consolidation Measure is that we are putting together
conveniently material which has already been through the Synod. It is not intended to
be a hostage to fortune for something to come through the back door. So unless
somebody tries to pull a fast one, this is something which members will read, no
doubt, at length but find very little. At the moment, they have 14 days to do that.
Mr Boyd-Lee suggests they need 42. I do not think that that is right. There may be
arguments about longer periods of notice for other items of business, but surely not
for this business? Can I also ask members to bear this in mind, that if they were to
accept this it will require a separate circulation of any Consolidation Measure in
addition to the already existing two circulations, and that will obviously add
significantly to the cost and expense. I would ask Synod to conclude that this is an
unnecessary extra layer of timing.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): – speaking with diffidence as a member of the Standing
Orders Committee who did not think of this point at the time. There is an issue here
because what is now going to happen is that when the Synod comes to receive the
copies of Consolidation Measures, unless five people put in to say that there ought to
be a First Consideration debate and therefore, conceivably, a revision stage, that
simply will not happen and it will go straight to the final drafting stage.
I do not know what other members do, but certainly for myself, given the amount of
stuff there is to read prior to a group of sessions, one tends to prioritize those things
which are really focused on for the main debates, and things like calling for the detail
of legislation one normally leaves to the period between Synod and the date when we
have to send in submissions, if we want to, to the Revision Committee. That simply
will not be possible, and it is going to require anyone who does take an interest in how
legislation is being consolidated to trawl through very lengthy documents – and you
will recall how lengthy the Mission and Pastoral Measure and the Cathedrals Measure
were – in that short period when we have to do everything else.
That is why, because this is a new procedure, because this is taking away from Synod
the normal leisure we have to look at legislation in detail to decide whether we feel
things need to be looked at by a Revision Committee, because of that it seems to me
that there is a case for a longer period of notice. Whether it should be 42 days of
course one can haggle about but it certainly needs to be a great deal longer than 14. So
I urge Synod to support Mr Boyd-Lee’s amendment.
The Chairman: I see no one else wanting to speak on this item.
191
The Chairman: Mr Benfield has indicated that he will not move his amendment to this
next item.
In Standing Order 53 after paragraph (a) insert
‘(aa) The Clerk to the Synod shall cause all such proposals for amendment to
be published on the General Synod website, subject to the deletion of such
personal information and such other content as the Clerk may consider to be
libellous, insulting or unseemly.’
‘That this amendment be made with effect from Saturday 13 February 2010.’
I have already explained, Mr Chairman, what this is about: it is about putting all
proposals from members on the General Synod website, and I hope that Synod
members will think that this is really a bit of a no-brainer.
The Chairman: How dare anyone speak against that!
Mr Timothy Cox (Blackburn): I trust, first of all, that it will be ‘(a)’ and not ‘(aa)’ as
we have on the order paper.
Second – and an entirely unrelated point but one which the Standing Orders
Committee will no doubt hear – on the question of the quorum perhaps we could
make use of electronic voting to decide whether or not we are quorate when the
question is asked.
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall: We do unfortunately need ‘(aa)’ because we already have
one ‘(a)’ and, if we have another ‘(a)’, it gets very confusing. So we need ‘(a)’,
followed by ‘(aa)’.
The Chairman: I’m beginning to feel like that!
The Chairman: Mr Lee has already indicated that he does not want to move his
amendment to the next item, and Mr Paul Boyd-Lee has also indicated that he does
not want to press his amendment at this stage on this matter.
In Standing Order 53 after paragraph (g) insert
‘(h) subject to paragraph (i), a Revision Committee may shall have power to
regulate its own business and procedure.
(i) The Chairman of the Committee shall have power to determine conclusively
any questions of order, business and procedure.’
192
Anglican Church in North America
‘That this amendment be made with effect from Saturday 13 February 2010.’
You will know I am getting fractious, Mr Chairman, because of the thought of coming
to Sheffield and being near you for two whole weeks! It affects the brain a little.
I have already dealt with this item. You will of course all have spotted the
typographical error in that most paragraphs like ‘(h)’ do not have both ‘may’ and
‘shall’ in the same sentence. They were cut out in one draft but they seem to have
reappeared. As I understand it, Mr Chairman, we are crossing out the word ‘may’ on
the basis that it should not have been there in the first place.
Ms Dana Delap (Durham): I know you want your lunch. I am glad we have cut out
‘man’, though not ‘men’. I have a question about expense. If we are going to have
public meetings – I have nothing against meetings of Revision Committees being held
in public – I just want some thought to go into who pays for a room that might need to
be big enough to hold those public who are drawn to some of the more important
Revision Committees. My guess is that a liturgical Revision Committee is not going
to draw a huge number of people but it may be that when we discuss women bishops
as a Revision Committee it does.
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall: I think that probably dealt with Item 54, Mr Boyd-Lee’s
amendment, rather than this item. That is one of the issues we will have to look at.
Obviously, if you have public hearings you have to provide spaces for the public and
you probably need bigger accommodation and so forth, but that is all we have to
consider.
The Chairman: We have completed this item of business. Thank you all for your good
nature and forbearance so that we could finish it.
(Adjournment)
THE CHAIR Canon Margaret Swinson (Liverpool) took the Chair at 2.30 p.m.
Anglican Church in North America (GS 1764A and 1764B)
Mrs Lorna Ashworth (Chichester): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in
communion with the Anglican Church in North America.’
The other night I shared that I had once jumped out of an aeroplane and my parachute
would not open all the way. You will have gathered by now that I survived. It is funny
how that memory began to resurface as the time for this debate drew closer and
closer. However, I think I might just survive.
I have heard that some are wondering what secret, hidden agenda there is underlying
this Private Member’s Motion, and I am sorry to disappoint: there is no hidden
agenda, and I hope I can make it as clear as possible why I chose to table this motion.
193
The first reason is this: why not? Why would we not take this opportunity to stand by
and affirm our brothers and sisters in Christ who are seeking to practise faithfully
historical, biblical Anglicanism such as has been practised for hundreds of years?
They have not diverted from the doctrine, creeds and formularies of the worldwide
Anglican Communion. They have, like others, been getting on with the mission of the
Church. It would seem obvious at this point to stop and simply ask: why the debate?
What is the problem if they are just doing what Anglicans do?
Let me put it to you this way. Half a lifetime ago I was sitting in a presentation by a
visiting speaker at the theological college I was attending in Kelowna, British
Columbia. I was not really paying attention and was a bit distracted. I remember this
so well because a year or so later I read a book Knowing God by J.I. Packer, and I
realized that the visiting speaker had been that man. I was gutted because I had missed
the opportunity to learn some of his humility, godliness and wisdom in person. This is
something I have sought to rectify by reading his books, as so many other thousands
have done round the world. Packer has been an honorary assistant minister for over
two decades in the largest Anglican Church in Canada, St John’s in Shaughnessy,
Vancouver. On 13 February 2008 the congregation met and voted, 475 for, 11 against,
with nine abstentions, to accept the episcopal oversight of Bishop Donald Harvey,
who is with us here today. They, and many other churches in Canada and in the
United States, have sought alternative oversight in order to continue to be historical,
biblical Anglicans and in order to remain in communion with the rest of the
worldwide Anglican Communion.
The provinces to which ACNA members once belonged have strayed from the
fundamental core teaching of the Anglican Church. They have either rejected the
uniqueness of Christ or they have questioned it. The same goes for Christ’s virgin
birth and his physical ritual death and resurrection as providing the only means of
salvation to those outside the Kingdom of God. Scripture is not seen as the
authoritative word of God to his people and the biblical standard of marriage is not
upheld.
The unrest in the Communion has not been sprung upon us. There have been many
meetings of leaders and panels and many statements issued, one of which came on
15 October 2003 from Lambeth Palace, after a meeting of worldwide Church leaders:
‘Actions of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church do not express the mind of
our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardize our sacramental
fellowship with each other’.
Earlier in 2003 the Bishop of Yukon, Terence Buckle, offered alternative oversight to
parishes of New Westminster after the diocese, with its bishop, Michael Ingham,
authorized same-sex blessings and showed no signs of honouring the request for a
moratorium. Bishop Buckle was threatened with disciplinary action if he intervened.
Then on 19 September of the same year, the Metropolitan of British Columbia,
speaking about Bishop Terence Buckle, said, ‘Many of us are deeply grieved and
embarrassed that a bishop who has sworn an oath to maintain order in the life of the
Church is himself the author of disorder’. Surely I cannot be the only one who sees
the irony of this statement?
194
Back to 2008: the day after the parish vote at St John’s in Shaughnessy, Dr Packer,
with other clergy at St John’s, was served with a notice of presumption of
abandonment of the exercise of the ministry under Canon 19, and the notice is based
on the following facts. First, that he publicly renounced the doctrine and discipline of
the Anglican Church of Canada and, second, that he had sought or intended to seek
admission to another religious body outside the Anglican Church of Canada. More
irony. Many of us fail to see how Anglicans like Dr Packer have publicly renounced
the doctrine of the Church. We fail to see how being a practising Anglican outside the
jurisdiction of the ACoC constitutes ‘another religious body’. Could it be that Packer
and others like him have become doctrinally delinquent? On the issue of discipline,
those who would elevate the infringement of order, made to preserve doctrine, to the
same level as violations of doctrine itself are not elevating order but dumbing down
doctrine.
The following question begins to surface. Who is it that is causing division: those who
remain unchanged in their doctrine and practice as Anglicans, or small minorities in
the worldwide Anglican Communion who are imposing doctrinal innovations and not
allowing space for traditionalists to remain? On 13 July last year in The Washington
Times the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is recorded as reminding the
Church of England that schism is not a Christian act. I would agree.
The second reason I chose to table this motion is that I would like Synod to be able to
express its own mind on the subject. The whole point of Private Members’ Motions is
to bring matters of concern to this gathering for discussion and debate. Most lay
members like me have little understanding of the technical ins and outs of canon law,
with its uses or misuses, but as a layperson I can clearly see that there is a problem.
Men and women, clergy and lay, had been left uncertain as to where they belonged in
the Anglican family. They now have come together, with the support of many other
Anglican provinces, to form the Anglican Church of North America. They once again
have a home.
This motion is not about formal procedures of entering into institutional communion.
I am very happy that those processes take their proper course. I fully understand that
certain aspects of Church life are matters for bishops and archbishops, and I have no
intention of treading there. However, I would remind Synod that this elected body did
have a role in the process of entering into communion with the Church of North India,
the Church of Pakistan and the Church of Bangladesh, after consulting the dioceses in
1970 and 1971. I do not remember (I had just been born). In 1994-95 it did the same
with regard to the Lutheran Porvoo Churches. In 1974 Synod also sanctioned
communion with the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar.
This is our opportunity to affirm others who believe what we believe as Anglicans, to
affirm that we recognize in them the marks and life of a faithful Anglican Church.
We have been debating Mission-shaped Church and will be discussing fresh
expressions of Church in our commitment to make the good news of Jesus Christ and
his kingdom known. The Anglican Church in North America has set itself the goal of
planting 1000 congregations in the next five years. They have already established 37
new congregations among the unchurched in North America. My prayer is that that
would be our vision, that we would have the same detailed and practical plan. They
195
have set themselves a bold target. They may miss it, but let us not stand by as
observers. Let us do what we can – and that can be giving our support as a Synod –
for them. We share the same gospel of the same Lord Jesus Christ according to the
same tradition that has shaped us all.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. (I
understand what Mrs Ashworth means about jumping out of a plane.) Under SO 32, I
beg to move:
‘That the Synod do pass to the next business.’
The Chairman: Canon Butler has moved the procedural motion that the Synod do
pass to the next business. If that motion is carried, Mrs Ashworth’s motion lapses and
the matter cannot be brought up again for debate in the lifetime of this Synod except
with the permission of the Business Committee and with the general consent of the
Synod. Canon Butler, will you now speak to your motion? You have two minutes to
do so.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): The climate surrounding the painful divisions
among Anglicans in North America means that everyone who speaks is assumed to
have an agenda, so in moving Next Business let me be absolutely clear that this is
solely a personal request. I have not consulted anyone about this and I am here on
behalf of no interest group: no one but myself. For what it is worth, broadly my
sympathies lie with the Episcopal Church but I want to pay warm tribute to those like
Mrs Ashworth whose integrity and concern for the gospel lead them to sympathy with
ACNA.
We all have our beliefs about sexuality. We all have our beliefs on the current
divisions. However, I believe that we have a higher calling than either of those
beliefs, namely a commitment to be truthful.
I am moving Next Business because of the ninth Commandment: you shall not bear
false witness. In the current politicized atmosphere of claim and counter-claim, with
papers circulating from Mrs Ashworth and equally firm rebuttals from the Episcopal
Church and the Canadians and counter-claims from ACNA, it seems to me almost
impossible for Synod to be able to separate truth from falsehood. Like an acrimonious
divorce, where both sides believe the best about themselves and the worst about their
opponents, there is a real danger that, instead of building one another up we risk
tearing one another down by making claims about one another that are less than
wholly true. Instead we would do better to promote the fullest meaning of truth by
allowing what Archbishop Rowan called three-dimensionality to enter our perception.
For me at least, to pay heed to his moving request requires me to want to avoid the
risk of bearing false witness against my brothers and sisters.
I invite us thoughtfully to consider whether it is in Synod’s best interests or in the best
interests of Anglicans in North America to allow this Synod to become a place where
truth is contested and politicized. You shall not bear false witness.
196
Mrs Lorna Ashworth (Chichester): I would like to say I was surprised, but … I
appreciate the concern that this Synod does not want to become prematurely involved
in disputes of other Anglican provinces or throw ourselves into what might look like
disunity, but I just want to make clear that this motion is not about separating from
TEC or ACoC. It is not about pointing fingers, but this is a place to start, and I made a
couple of comments in my opening speech. This debate is not even about sexuality. If
our fellowship in the worldwide Anglican Communion means anything at all, then
when one part of the body suffers we all suffer. I would submit that moving to the
next business would send an unhelpful signal of complete provincial autonomy and
suggest that what one part of the Anglican Communion does has no effect or bearing
on the witness and life of another.
This situation is a real situation in real time, and that time is the present. The whole
point of having Private Members’ Motions signed by so many people is to have a
debate and a discussion. So if we choose not to have a debate or discussion, we are
just going to continue doing the business that is placed before us but we, as laypeople,
are not allowed to come here and talk about real issues.
The Chairman: I propose to allow one speech in each direction on the procedural
motion.
Mr Justin Brett (Oxford): This debate has the grisly inevitability of watching a train
wreck in slow motion. If there is anybody in this room who has been concerned about
the outcome of the debate, if there is anybody in this room who has asked themselves
what might or might not happen as a result of speeches that are heard in this chamber,
if there is anybody in this room who is worried about the view that other people in
other places might take of what we say and do in this chamber, this is the time to stop
it. By moving to the next business now we make no comment about support for or
opposition to Lorna’s motion or any of the amendments thereto.
So if, like me, you are scared to death about what happens next, you end it now and
support this procedural motion.
Mrs Helen Morgan (Guildford): I had planned to speak in the general debate but I am
speaking now because I am deeply offended at being told that what I was going to say
was a lie. I was actually going to put in what I thought was a rather irenic – is that
right for the opposite of warlike? – plea for understanding on both sides. I am by
nature a traditionalist; those who have read my election addresses will know that I am
a traditionalist. However, I have family in Canada, I worship with them in Canada in
the neighbouring Anglican church, which I have found to be good and kind and
welcoming, and I have to admit that I have never stopped to ask about the affiliations
because, as my family has wandered round Canada, so I have worshipped with them
in many denominations, because I believe that if you find several Christians together
in a household it is a better witness to go together and worship together than to set off
in different directions in different cars, using up different tanks of petrol.
I had wanted to make a speech asking for recognition that both our brethren in ACNA
and our brethren in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are our fellowChristians. I was not planning to tell any lies.
197
The Chairman: I am now about to put to Synod the motion that the Synod do pass to
the next business. Before I do so, may I again make the position clear? If the motion
is carried, Mrs Ashworth’s motion lapses and the matter cannot be brought up again
for debate in the lifetime of this Synod, except with the permission of the Business
Committee and the general consent of the Synod. If the procedural motion is lost,
debate on Mrs Ashworth’s motion will resume.
The Chairman: I would like to remind members at this point that the procedural
motion that Synod do pass to the next business cannot now be moved again in this
debate.
Revd Johannes Arens (Ripon and Leeds): Ecumenism is a very good thing, as the
basis for my being part of General Synod is an ecumenical agreement between the
Church that ordained me and the Anglican Communion, which came to fruition
almost 80 years ago. Although some people may regret this in my personal case, I
assume that most of this Synod will agree that ecumenism can also be inspiring and
enriching, potentially taking all participants closer to Jesus, in whom our unity is a
given.
However, in spite of deeply believing this, it disturbs me that this proposal does not
only seem to be about costly relationships of love and a sacrificial and painful search
for unity but about other things as well. The document makes accusations against the
practice of a fellow Anglican province without their having the opportunity to defend
themselves. These accusations are, as members will know, quite controversial.
Members of Synod have been sent comments by Simon Sarmiento and Alan Perry
and ACNA has made counter-comments. The Private Member’s Motion apparently
uses questions of ecclesiology and ecumenism to meddle in the internal politics of
another Anglican Church which ironically has a particularly strong tradition of
democratic government. It is particularly unfair to do this in the absence of any formal
representation from the recognized Anglican Church of that province. It is not
acceptable to use ecumenism and Our Lord’s command for unity with the hidden
agenda of quotation that ‘in some cases it might help parishes to retain their property’.
I had the bizarre experience of serving in continental Europe and needing the
permission to officiate of three different bishops to serve in one German town, in
order to be able to help my fellow and neighbouring clergy: the Bishop of Gibraltar in
Europe, the Bishop of the Convocation of the Episcopal Churches in Europe and the
Catholic Bishop of the Old Catholics in Germany. Those three entities are actually in
full communion with each other and the relationship between them is mostly a very
positive one. The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe, who is here, is actually an
Episcopalian honorary assistant bishop and an Old Catholic honorary assistant bishop
and vice versa. However, particularly the Old Catholic dioceses in continental Europe,
which are territorial dioceses, are not happy with this messy ecclesiology. Care has
been taken to make clear that the two Anglican bodies are not territorial dioceses, in
order to avoid double or triple overlapping jurisdiction, but in practice this situation is
a pain; it is ecclesiological nonsense; it is contrary to Catholic tradition; it is an
impediment to mission; and it is a hindrance to the common witness of Churches who
are in full communion.
198
So far, this mess is anything but solved and should serve not as a positive example of
how things could work but as a dire warning about departing from the principle of
having one bishop, one city, one church, as set out early in the Apostolic canons and
constitutions.
The Anglican Church in the United States is the Episcopal Church. In the case of the
recognition of ACNA, the possible outcome would be much worse than the situation
in continental Europe, as ACNA is specifically founded against the Episcopal Church.
The recognition of ACNA at this stage would not only mean an unprecedented
departure from Catholic order but also be an arrogant interference with the affairs of
the Episcopal Church. If ACNA desires to be Anglican, the only way forward is
reconciliation with the Episcopal Church, to join or, in some cases, to rejoin, and to
engage canonically and democratically with the issues they feel strongly about. It is
about learning to live together.
This is an internal American matter and it is for the Church of England to support the
Church it is actually in full communion with, the Episcopal Church. I urge the Synod
to reject this and all its amendments.
Canon Linda Jones (Liverpool): At our Holy Communion service I was unable to sing
the opening hymn because my heart was so heavy, knowing that this debate would
happen this afternoon and from experience of being in the diocese of Virginia, where
many people, loyal Episcopalians, cannot worship in their own houses of prayer; they
cannot dwell safely there, nor can they bury their relatives there.
This, I know, is peculiar to Virginia because of its laws but I believe that passing this
motion would cause dreadful hurt to the Episcopal Church in America and in Canada
at the local level, to those who are trying to be faithful. At the very least we should be
hearing from all sides, and we are not. To take a vote on this, whichever way it goes,
will indicate that we, as the Church of England, will be siding with one side or the
other, although of course I know that legally it is the Archbishops of York and
Canterbury who have this decision.
I have been speaking to people in the diocese of Virginia about this, and the diocesan
secretary allows me to quote the following: ‘To recognize ACNA as part of the
Anglican Communion will constitute interference in the polity and life of TEC,
undermine its integrity and invite further division’. I urge members to resist this
motion and, if the unamended amendment by the Bishop of Bristol is carried, ask that
the process will be continued by listening to all parties, so that we may move to not
learn war any more.
The Archdeacon of Berkshire (Ven. Norman Russell) (Oxford): As members know, on
my own initiative, having spent some time in the United States, particularly in
Virginia – and I know a number of the churches in Virginia quite well – I decided to
go to the inaugural meeting of ACNA in Bedford, Texas. I went on a purely
individual initiative: I paid my fare and went, and I was there as an observer. I really
wanted to see what was going on because I had a high regard for quite a lot of the
churches that I had visited when I was in the United States for a period of time about
20 years ago. I just really want to report on what it was like.
199
For me – and I had not expected this when I went – my few days there were a time of
spiritual renewal. I came home and I said to my wife, ‘I really do believe that there is
a movement of spiritual renewal going on in that Church’, and she said to me, ‘I
haven’t heard you talk like that for several years’. What I really want to say to Synod
today is that I do believe that there is a movement of biblical and spiritual renewal
going on in the North American Church. Part of that is in TEC; part of that is in the
Anglican Church of Canada; and some of it has found its way into ACNA. It depends
on where people are, what the prevailing situation is, as to whether they are still in
one of the traditional Churches or whether they have joined ACNA, and I am very
grateful that Lorna, in her paper and again in her speech, has made it quite clear that,
in voting for her motion, we are not voting against TEC or against the Anglican
Church of Canada. What we are saying is that we recognize that there are faithful
Christians in three different Churches at the moment, and we want to affirm that they
are there and to support them.
When I say that there is a movement of the Holy Spirit, what was the evidence? There
were certainly at that assembly people who were hurt, but they were not bitter. Some
had lost their church property, some were going off to meet in gymnasiums and so on
for the first time in their lives. The clergy I met were quite serious. It was not done
lightly. Most of them had taken a big hit in their pensions and indeed – and this is
important in North America – in their health plans. A theme which ran through it was
a very serious one: that God found it much easier to get Israel out of Egypt than Egypt
out of the Israelites. They were not wanting to leave the past behind in terms of
leaving behind all that was good; they wanted to take that with them; but they wanted
to go forward, not in a spirit of bitterness but focusing on Christ and reaching out to
those who do not know Christ. There was a unity of spirit. Some were Evangelicals;
some were Anglo-Catholic; some were ordinary, central church people. The AngloCatholics that I met were evangelists and church planters. The Evangelicals I met
were liturgical Evangelicals, and many of the clergy clearly had a much better
understanding of classical 17th-century Anglicanism than would be true of most
Evangelicals in the Church of England today.
These folk were people who were alive in the Spirit, classical Anglicans, four-square
on the Declaration of Assent, four-square on the Lambeth Quadrilateral, together with
a certain Prayer Book interiority, though of course they used modern services. As I
met with these folk, I thought, ‘This is the kind of Anglican I want to be’. Obviously,
I do a lot of appointments. I do not mind if people are High Church, Low Church or
Middle Church, though naturally we try to fit them into the right places, but what I do
look for are clergy who are people of prayer and clergy who have a passion to help
others find a living faith in Jesus Christ. That is what I was encountering, and I
thought that that is what most of us want the Church of England to be.
My final comment is this – an 18th-century comment – going back to the Wesleys,
relatively High Church Anglicans by the standards of their day: what did we get out
of it? Another Free Church. The Church institutionally is not always good at dealing
with movements of spiritual renewal, and canon law and ecclesiastical processes are
not the way to deal with these things imaginatively.
The Bishop of Bristol (Rt Revd Michael Hill): I beg to move as an amendment:
200
‘Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert –
“(a) recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican
Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the
Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues
which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.’
I stand before Synod with a somewhat heavy heart this afternoon to ask Synod not to
vote for Lorna Ashworth’s motion before us, as it is. We are often accused in certain
situations in our wider Church of offering too little too late. While I understand the
impatience that has built up over the past few years in relation to the issues in the
wider Communion, my anxiety is that this motion would commit the Church of
England to too much too soon.
I am not myself without sympathy for the intent of the motion, as I understand it. Like
others who have spoken, I have travelled to the USA on a fairly regular basis, as well
as served the Church of England as the House of Bishops’ representative on the
Anglican Consultative Council. I hear first-hand the accusations and the counteraccusations. Getting to the facts is hard, partly because – and of course we all do this
– apart from being complex they are told by people on both sides who in part tell
those facts to justify their own actions. We all tend to listen to the people that we
agree with. As we know from ACNA’s own publicity, they stand for a traditionalist,
biblically orthodox expression of their faith. So do I; so do many other congregations
and clergy in the Episcopal Church who have decided, at least for the time being, not
to leave the Episcopal Church but to engage in ongoing debate about the matters that
divide us.
These congregations find themselves between a rock and a hard place. I have a real
worry that this motion as it is will make life more difficult for them. It is clear that
there has been much anger and bitterness in this schism within TEC. In that ferment
facts and, more significantly, the interpretation of those facts, have been hard to
ascertain. This should invite caution from us over formally taking sides, however
much our sympathies may be more on one side than on the other.
I have looked carefully at the constitution of ACNA. Its section on belief is something
I personally have no problem with, apart from its approach to the ordained ministry of
women; but its section on governance is, as one might expect, provisional and in its
infancy. The word ‘initially’ occurs with a frequency that implies that all this is very
much a first attempt at dealing with issues of governance. In that sense it is
provisional. It is early days. So can we really at this stage commit ourselves, as Lorna
Ashworth would have us do, to express even a desire to be in communion with ACNA
when we have little idea whether it will settle down as something that is recognizably
a Church in the Anglican tradition rather than simply a loose coalition of autonomous
bodies? History has shown us clearly that orthodox movements have emerged from
Anglicanism, indeed from within the Church of England, which have expressed the
kind of credal orthodoxy we read about in the ACNA constitution. However, we can
201
also see that such movements have often gathered round an approach to church order
which is clearly not Anglican.
My amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to affirm those Church leaders
and congregations who have realigned with ACNA by welcoming their intention to
remain within the Anglican family. Second, it seeks to put decisions about our future
relationship with ACNA into a process which includes the appropriate communion
process and making decisions about future membership of any group within the wider
Communion. Third, it seeks to make clear, by inviting the Archbishops to report back
to Synod next year, that Synod is not kicking this into touch but wants to follow
developments closely and have the opportunity to think further about things, as events
unfold. It is worth adding that, in parallel with this, Synod will be having to engage
with the Covenant adoption process.
I believe that my amendment provides a better framework than the main motion for
addressing all those interconnected issues in an orderly way. I feel a bit like Groucho
Marx: these are my principles and if you don’t like them I have others! This is not in
the sense that I am a turncoat but in the sense that there is much more I could say but I
am limited by time. Those of you who read blogs and other websites will be aware
that Anglicans round the world are watching today’s discussion. I encourage Synod to
affirm ACNA’s desire to remain in the Anglican family and to do it in a way that will
help rather than hinder the difficult challenges facing the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the other Primates and the ACC.
Mr Jacob Vince (Chichester): I beg to move as an amendment to the amendment:
‘After the words “Leave out everything after ‘That this Synod and insert’
insert –
“( ) express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the
Anglican Church in North America;” and
in paragraph (b) leave out “this aspiration” and insert “these aspirations” and
leave out “raises” and insert “raise”.’
I was one of over 100 signatories to Lorna Ashworth’s Private Member’s Motion. I
have heard something over this group of sessions about the plight of brothers and
sisters in the Anglican movement in the United States. As I have considered the
matter further, I have grown in my understanding of this plight and of the imperative
behind the establishment of the Anglican Church in North America. As best as I have
been able to determine, those within this body are in substance faithful Anglicans,
faithful to the historic formularies of the Anglican Church, faithful to the Scriptures
and doctrines as received by the Church. As such I am attracted by the simplicity of
the text of Lorna Ashworth’s motion, that this Synod ‘express the desire that the
Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America’.
Then, like all of us, I received the amendment of the Bishop of Bristol and found
myself also in agreement with his text which seems to take the sentiments in Lorna
Ashworth’s motion to the next level. I was, however, disappointed at the loss of the
text of Lorna Ashworth’s original motion and I saw no reason why they could not
202
complement each other. In essence, in Lorna Ashworth’s text the initiative comes
from members of this Synod as members of the Church of England, whereas the
Bishop of Bristol’s text is responding, albeit positively, to the perceived desire of the
Anglican Church in North America, thereafter following through a process with
which I am in accord.
The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to favour the conciliatory approach, to
give the Synod the opportunity both to affirm our desire and then to respond
positively to the desire of the Anglican Church in North America. I anticipate that the
Synod may debate the whys and wherefores, but I do not want us to lose the essential
element of fellowship or communion with our fellow-believers and fellow-Anglicans
now found in the body of the Anglican Church in North America.
I therefore urge Synod to support what I hope is my helpful amendment.
The Bishop of Bristol (Rt Revd Michael Hill): I am very grateful to Mr Vince for his
partial support of my amendment and I listened very carefully and thought very hard
about his proposed amendment to my amendment. However, my inclination is to
resist that amendment at this stage, for the very reasons that I am uncomfortable with
Lorna Ashworth’s original motion. I do not think that it will help our debate today for
me to include that. My hope is that at least a majority of us will be able to gather
round a motion, which I believe mine is, that will enable us – as many of us as feel
able – to send a message of encouragement to Christians who feel that they have been
put out of their church, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, put that
encouragement into a process. So my feeling is that I will resist it.
Mrs Lorna Ashworth: I understand the Bishop of Bristol’s comments. I appreciate
where he is coming from, but Jacob Vince’s amendment to the amendment I like,
because it offers mutuality. We get the opportunity to embrace the faithful members
of ACNA while at the same time affirming their desire, and we can embrace them and
also look forward to the opportunity of finding a way forward for them to belong
officially.
The Chairman: This is obviously a very important part of this debating process. Will
those of you who would like to speak on this matter make sure you are standing now,
so I can see how many of you there are? Thank you. I am imposing a speech limit of
three minutes.
Revd Canon Tim Dakin (Oxford): I believe that this Synod should affirm that we are
in fellowship with all faithful Anglicans, without entering into the internal struggles
of other provinces. I think that we should also acknowledge that there are major
struggles going on in the North American province but accept that the processes for
recognizing a new province need to go forward through the Anglican Communion
structures so that they can run their course and also be part of the development of the
new Covenant. In the meantime, there are existing powers under the Overseas and
Other Clergy Measure for recognizing the ministry of visiting ordained leaders of
other provinces, and that is the prerogative of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Standing back from these three affirmations that I hope we could make and from the
specifics of this particular and painful debate focused on ACNA, I wonder if we
203
might also discern and receive this crisis as in some way a formative process for us as
a global Church.
Yesterday we endorsed the Mission-shaped Church report and the movement that
goes with it. Could it be that our current Anglican struggles are part of the formation
of the global mission-shaped Church which is Christ’s body? We are learning about
partnership for local mission-shaped Church; perhaps we are also learning more about
global partnerships for a global mission-shaped Church. Partnership has certainly
been part of the companion links and the mission societies, but these only point to the
depth of partnership, of the whole Church’s global partnership, as a worldwide reality.
The way we relate to those who are different from us reveals the sort of world we
want, were the Church’s mission to result in all coming to know Christ as Lord and
Saviour. It is this challenge which is at the heart of the modern missionary movement
which has so shaped our global Anglicanism. What sort of world do we want if Jesus
were, as in fact he is, Lord?
I would therefore connect the Mission-shaped Church report with the work that Janice
Price is doing for the Church of England world mission policy on behalf of the World
Mission and Anglican Communion Panel. Amidst all our struggles this emerging
policy might help us to discern how Christ is being formed in our mission
partnerships, in which mission is the permanent priority because of the ultimate
significance of Jesus.
So the global mission-shaped movement is an unfinished process. Christ’s global
body is still being formed among us. Even this struggle we are having today is part of
that: we are struggling over deep issues. Let us therefore be mindful of this and
respect each other’s work among us.
I would wish to affirm, acknowledge and recognize as much as we possibly can, and
deal with each others’ differences, plots and plans and intrigue. We are struggling to
work out how to recognize each other’s freedoms and self-identities. It is out of this
rather messy process that something holy may come. Indeed, that is why we are so
passionate about the issues raised in this debate. I do not think I am being naïve. I
would like to think that I was being hopeful about how we can find each other in new
ways. We are on holy ground. Christ’s body is being formed among us by which the
ultimate significance of Jesus will be revealed in us for others. Let us find the best
way forward, that Christ’s body may be discerned among us.
I shall be voting in such a way that makes that the best possibility.
Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): On a point of order, Madam Chairman.
Would you clarify again which part of the amendment or amendments we are meant
to be speaking to?
The Chairman: We are addressing Item 56, the amendment in the name of Mr Jacob
Vince. It is an amendment to Item 55, and on the order paper you will see what the
text would look like if this amendment were passed, so that it is absolutely clear for
everybody.
204
The Bishop of Winchester (Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt): I am grateful to you,
Madam Chairman, because that is what I thought we were addressing and it is what I
want to speak to.
I am glad to have been among those who supported Lorna Ashworth by signing on a
piece of paper. I think her motion needs the development of Bishop Mike’s motion,
but it needs also Mr Vince’s because I want Synod to have the opportunity of
expressing its own wishes and not just affirming other people’s wishes. So I want to
vote for Bishop Mike’s amendment, so as to vote for Mr Vince’s.
I do not believe that this is meddling in the business of TEC or hostile to it. We are
not at the point of recognizing ACNA, as somebody put it, as a part of the Anglican
Communion: that is not our business. I do not believe, either, that were that to come
in the future, as I hope it would, there is zero sum gain in this because I have more
hope for overlapping jurisdictions as a way perhaps of recognizing there is something
of the Gamaliel principle in all this, as did an earlier speaker. Nor do I believe that in
doing what I hope we shall do this afternoon, in passing Mr Vince’s amendment et
cetera, and in affirming ACNA in this way, I am attacking my other American
friends, whether the Communion partner bishops in dioceses, or others, who all are
facing many of the same realities, and who are persevering within TEC.
I am speaking as I am speaking for much the same kinds of reason, though from a
different experience, as Archdeacon Norman Russell. I have had nearly 10 years of
very good experience, experience in the sense of enlivening and deepening – and I am
grateful for it – my own discipleship and ministry, experience both of the leaders of
ACNA as manifestly deeply Anglican friends and colleagues in the gospel and of
friendship with others within TEC, particularly within the same kind of gospel
framework that Archdeacon Norman described.
Last, I believe that this Church will benefit as it seeks to continue to work in however
fuzzy but positive a relationship with ACNA because, as I heard yesterday and at
other times, ACNA is exploring, in my view, a quite remarkable intention to be
inclusive of a range of disparate groups and Anglican traditions. Yesterday we heard
how this was a matter of learning, mutual submission and collaboration from Bishop
Don Harvey. There are remarkable ecumenical initiatives opening out precisely
through the particular kind of witness that ACNA is seeking to live, to offer, to
explore in North America. They have a particularly pronounced mission and churchplanting focus from which all of us in this Church will benefit if we are in some kind
of relationship with them.
Revd Brian Lewis (Chelmsford): It happens that the first conversation I had with these
types of issue was with a bishop from the Episcopal Church who described himself as
a conservative. He said, ‘For example, I voted against the confirmation of Gene
Robinson’s election as bishop’, and that seems to be the touchstone these days for
everything that matters. He spoke to me of his great disappointment and even anger
about what he perceived to be the actions and moves of those that he saw as
attempting to split the Church. As I speak today against this amendment to the
amendment, I hope members will think of him and the many members of the
Episcopal Church who are still members of the Episcopal Church and who feel deeply
betrayed and hurt by those who have left, regardless of their own theological position.
205
There are many of us in this Synod and in this Church who think about leaving. I
think about it a lot. I have thought about it a lot since 1987. I thought about it again at
the 1998 Lambeth Conference, I thought about it when Issues in Human Sexuality
came out from the bishops, I thought about it when Jeffrey John was so badly treated.
I think about it a lot, but I stay. It is painful; it is difficult; it is spiritually quite
destructive, but I stay. There are Episcopalians in the Episcopal Church who, for very
different reasons, find it difficult to stay, but they stay.
I ask you to direct your first thoughts, your primary responsibility, to those of us who
stay, and reject this amendment to the amendment.
Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford): I wish to support this amendment to the amendment.
I come at this from the position of somebody who has a number of good and close
friends, both clergy and laity, in the Anglican Church of Canada. They have not left.
They are not leaving. They have not expressed any intention of leaving. They wish to
remain within the Anglican Church of Canada. However, they are telling me to
support this motion, expressing the desire that the Church of England be in
communion with the Anglican Church in North America, because they recognize that
those who have left the formal structures of the Anglican Church of Canada and of
TEC to form ACNA have, in their various different local situations, found themselves
in a position where they simply had no choice: they felt they could no longer continue
their ministry and continue to teach the faith as delivered, in the way that the Church
of England has received it; and, in order to be able to do something positive, rather
than simply being overwhelmed by internal battles, those people felt that they had no
choice.
My friends in the Anglican Church in Canada have fortunately not found themselves
in that position. Though there may have been times when they have needed to keep
their heads down a little, they are able to continue with what they are doing and to
engage positively and constructively within the Anglican Church of Canada, which is
what they feel able to do and what they want to do. This motion, however, is no threat
to them, and that is because they wish to embrace that generosity of spirit which says
that people who have been very often friends for many years, who are now in the
Anglican Church of Canada, all have something in common, which is our Anglican
identity, and that we are not separate.
I would urge Synod to support this amendment to the amendment.
The Bishop of Chichester (Rt Revd John Hind): I am speaking not only as a bishop but
am also following a discussion in the House of Bishops theological group – though
not strictly on behalf of the group – which was a very nuanced debate and discussion;
and members will already have realized that the members of the House of Bishops do
not speak with a single voice on this.
Human beings are at their best when they enter into the joys and the sorrows of
others, and that is very close to the heart of what we mean by being in communion
with each other. The adversarial nature of debates in General Synod is not the best
way of illustrating and celebrating that entering into each other’s joys and sorrows,
and indeed it might make matters worse, which is why, although I think he shot his
206
bolt far too early, I had a great deal of sympathy with Simon Butler’s attempt to save
us from what might be a destructive exercise; he might have been better doing it later.
Nevertheless this issue of the joys and sorrows of others lies right at the heart of this
matter. The debate so far has not quite highlighted the muddle and lack of agreement
we have about what it means to be in communion with each other, although I have to
say that the use of the phrase in the original Private Member’s Motion seems to me to
be rather clumsy. I also, in Bishop Mike Hill’s amendment, draw attention to the fact
that we have the words ‘family’, ‘membership’ and ‘Communion’, and I think we
have some serious work to do about what we actually mean when we talk about being
in fellowship and communion with each other. That work needs to be done.
I want to give cautious support to Jacob Vince’s amendment to Mike Hill’s
amendment, for three reasons. First, it conforms to the orientation of Lorna’s original
motion and to the desire to express a view on behalf of the General Synod and not
simply respond to the aspirations of others. We ought to be able to do that. It also
conforms to the resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, that Anglicans ought to
be reaching out to members of the continuum, as they call themselves, to all those
who are of Anglican inheritance, whether they are still in full fellowship with us or
not; and I think we do owe something to that Lambeth Conference resolution.
However, it also alerts us to the complexities of this matter and the need for further
work and, without tying the Archbishops’ hands at the moment, does invite us to do
that serious work on what we mean by being in communion, in ecclesial communion
with each other, which we so desperately need to do.
Mr Anthony Archer (St Albans): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. After the next
speaker would you accept a motion for closure on Item 56, the amendment to the
amendment?
The Chairman: Thank you. I will test the mind of Synod after we have heard the next
speaker.
The Bishop of Oxford (Rt Revd John Pritchard): I want, reluctantly in a sense, to
oppose the amendment to the amendment, because I want just to draw out one
particular phrase that might almost have been left in what Mike Hill said in speaking
to his amendment, and that is when he referred to the Covenant. I want just to draw
out this issue of the sequencing that we are in.
We are plotting our way through a very new and confusing landscape, and we could
lose our way in this. I think the next logical step is quite clearly what we consider
about the Covenant. How that will play out, we just do not know. We do not know
how provinces will respond; we do not know how dioceses will respond; we do not
know what it will look like afterwards. That is part of the mapping of the new
landscape that we need to do. Before this, it seems to me to be highly desirable and
wise that we just keep an open space available, a space that would enable us to keep
issues fluid and not get ourselves over-committed too soon. It is really a matter of
sequencing.
Of course we want to be in fellowship or in communion with brother and sister
Christians, of course we do; but that is only one signpost in this complex landscape.
207
There are many others, and we would do well to get the signposting right, because it
is complex, and take the Covenant first.
The Chairman: Mr Archer indicated that he would like me to test the mind of Synod
on a motion for closure, which has my consent, on this amendment, Item 56.
The procedural motion was put and carried.
Due to the failure of the electronic voting system, the voting was through the doors.
The amendment to the amendment was put and lost, 166 voting in favour and 223
against, with two recorded abstentions.
Revd Prebendary Gordon Oliver (Rochester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman.
I beg to move:
‘That the debate be now adjourned.’
I have two reasons for saying this. First, I think that the arguments we have heard
have been passionate and important, and I am glad that the earlier motion to move to
the next business was not carried at that point. However, I think it would be very sad
indeed and not part of our work for the Kingdom of God to press this case to a vote at
this stage in the life of this Synod. The Bible tells us the Lord delighteth not in any
man’s legs, and on the basis of the evidence of the past half-hour he has not got much
time for electronics either. It could be that the divine intervention among the
electronics has given us time to find some sanity in this chamber, and to take the
adjournment now and allow under SO 33(f) for the matter to be considered with
maturity by other bodies – Archbishops’ Council, ACC and so on – could be the right
move.
We are here to promote the unity of Christ’s Church – at least, I think I understood
Tim Dakin’s speech to mean that! – and maybe by entering into the mystery of this
we will serve the Church better than by pressing the matter to a vote at this point.
The Chairman: Could you please confirm whether you are wanting indefinite
adjournment, just for the record?
Revd Canon Gordon Oliver (Rochester): Yes I am.
The Chairman: Under SO 33, Canon Oliver has already explained his reasons. I will
ask the Bishop of Bristol and Mrs Ashworth to comment on the procedural motion,
and when I have heard those two speakers it is my intention that we will go
immediately to a vote on that procedural motion.
The Bishop of Bristol (Rt Revd Michael Hill): I think this would be a source of
disappointment to members of Synod, and I just do not think it would be the right
thing to do at this stage. My reason for saying that is that what we are aware of – and I
have been grateful for the tone and volume with which people have contributed to this
debate – is that we are at a point now where I believe the world is watching what goes
208
on here and consequently I do not know how it would be best interpreted if at this
stage I were to say I would be happy with a motion for adjournment.
Mrs Lorna Ashworth: We have got this far, and it is important for Synod to express its
mind. So let us finish it.
The Chairman: I will now ask Mr Ward to move his amendment to the amendment. I
would just remind members that the motion for adjournment of debate cannot be
moved again during this debate without my consent.
I am conscious, Synod, that we have lost a lot of time this afternoon and I ask your
forbearance in being as succinct as possible with your input for the rest of this item of
business.
Mr John Ward (London): Madam Chair, we are asked to affirm the desire of some
folk to remain within the Anglican family. My amendment would allow us to
recognize this fact and call for further work, if the Bishop of Bristol’s amendment is
also passed, but not affirm that desire. Ordinarily, affirming fellow-Christians, despite
our differences, is of course what we are all about, but in this case we are talking
about people who have left, who have walked away, who have refused to play by the
rules and to struggle together. When the going got tough, they did not come to some
of the Anglican meetings; they organized their own. Now they are asking to return.
I have just discovered that Mrs Ashworth and I were born at about the same time. I do
not understand why the Lord makes me believe in my heart passionately that some
people in this Synod are theologically wrong on some issues, and I also do not
understand why the same Lord does not make them think exactly the same as me. One
Synod member at one meeting asked if she could pray for me and my civil partner to
change. I said No because I believed that that prayer would be wrong and that she
would be judged for that, but I asked if we could both pray for one another as sinners,
standing together at the foot of the cross. I have kept that prayer, and perhaps that is
all we can do together in a Church; but perhaps that is what being in a Church is all
about.
The Church of England, for me, is a bit like a comfortable old pair of shoes: it feels
right, I love it as the embodiment of the Holy Spirit for me in my nation. I have dear
memories of my parish life throughout my family life, whether it is crumpets during
fêtes or me doing the Once in Royal David’s City solo, with candles ablaze in the
nave, or watching children at our parish school growing up. We all have similar
stories to tell. However, like an old pair of shoes, when you inspect the Church
carefully from the inside, it is not always quite so terribly pretty. We have our
differences and our difficulties, but we are still here, struggling.
People say to me, ‘I can accept you as a Christian only if you repent of your civil
partnership of 14 years’. One might ask why I should affirm someone’s desire to be
part of the Anglican family unless I know that they have repented of their actions in
splitting away from their Church. On the other hand, I think it is clear that I am
accused of splitting away from Scripture (falsely, in my view, but that is my view).
209
This is all for me beginning to feel perhaps like playground politics, and I must
confess that the Prodigal Son is troubling me. The key thing is that I need more time. I
need more time for the talking.
My starting-point is that I cannot affirm people who split, and I need to know more.
On the other hand, having listened to the debate, I welcome a desire to return to the
fold, if that is really what is wanted; and perhaps I can affirm a desire to return to the
fold without deciding whether or not you can, at this stage.
I have thought very hard, Madam Chair. With your leave, I would like to withdraw
my amendment, if I may.
The Chairman: You may do that, provided that no one objects. Does anybody object
to the withdrawal of that amendment? (No response) Your amendment has been
withdrawn.
Revd Andrew Dow (Gloucester): I beg to move as an amendment to the amendment:
‘At the end insert as a new paragraph –
“( ) express its desire that in the interim the orders of ACNA clergy be
recognized and accepted by the Archbishops subject to their satisfaction as to
such clergy being of good standing, enabling them to exercise their ordained
ministry in this country, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy Measure
(Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967”.’
My speech will argue first of all for removing Lorna Ashworth’s one-liner motion, in
line with the Bishop of Bristol’s amendment and, second, for retaining the Bishop of
Bristol’s amendment verbatim while adding a preamble (Item 59 on the order paper)
and a clause about ministry (Item 58). My aim today is to build a working bridge on
which I hope the majority of us can stand – and how we need that!
In the course of visits to the USA and Canada I have visited churches which now
belong to ACNA, so I do understand and sympathize with their current struggle.
Therefore I want to be in strong fellowship with my brothers and sisters there.
However, I have also stayed at a TEC cathedral for a two-week mini-sabbatical, and I
want to be in fellowship with my brothers and sisters there too, loyal Anglicans. So
fellowship, yes, but Lorna’s motion does not use the word ‘fellowship’; it talks about
‘communion’ and, however much you try to de-formalize that word, the fact is that in
our context ‘communion’ is a word heavily loaded with legal and institutional
connotations. That is why my amendment retains all the Bishop of Bristol’s wording:
it correctly shows an amber, or maybe amber/green, light at this time.
However, I want to suggest to Synod that the Bishop’s amendment is lacking. I feel
that it comes across as rather cold and dispassionate. The Body of Christ over there is
really hurting in all groupings. As some of them would say, they are “hurtin’ real
bad”. Therefore, as I see it, we as a Synod must not, cannot, send a transatlantic
message that bears no trace of what the New Testament calls ‘brotherly love’, in
Greek, appropriately enough, philadelphia.
210
Hence my preamble, Item 59 on the order paper: ‘aware of the distress caused by
recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and
Canada’.
My final clause, Item 58, is also important for the sake of the Body of Christ. I want
to suggest that we can learn from history here. Just over 450 years ago, at the
Reformation, we, our Church, broke away from the Church of Rome. Did we jump or
were we pushed? It probably depends on how you look at it, as in North America
now; but, however you view it, the Church of England has some marks of a
breakaway movement, and a breakaway done in a manner that must, at the very least,
have caused some eyebrows to be raised in heaven. (Henry Tudor, if you are listening
to that, please note my mother of all understatements!) Yet, down the ensuing
centuries we Anglicans have grieved that Rome has not recognized our orders. It has
continued to maintain this position long after the bitter Protestant and Catholic
polemics of earlier centuries have evaporated in the warmth of increasing ecumenical
co-operation. So this refusal to recognize our orders seems to us doctrinaire and
uncharitable, harmful to the witness of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I hope members see the lesson I am trying to draw. Even if we wish to be cautious in
our institutional approach to ACNA as an institution, we can, as one flawed limb of
Christ’s Body to another flawed limb, offer some kind of gracious recognition by
welcoming their ministers, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy Measure
1967. Do please note that my amendment at Item 58 is very carefully worded. In
practice, the Archbishops up to now have considered each case on its individual
merits and, I am informed, will continue to do so. My amendment here does not lay
down any law about their doing that – it cannot – but what it does do is broadcast this
charitable intention, and in the fraught atmosphere of this debate that needs to be
broadcast today.
I invite Synod to support my amendment which, while rejecting the main motion,
accepts one amendment and adds two further items. Such an approach, I would
suggest, could be called three-dimensional.
The Bishop of Bristol: I am going to make a 10-second comment which is completely
out of order, but I would just like to thank John Ward for the clarity, compassion and
honesty of his remarks, and I am grateful to him for his graciousness in withdrawing
his amendment and in some ways making the hospitality of my amendment. So I
would like to say thank you to him for that. (Applause)
Moving on to Andrew Dow’s amendments, I want to say two very quick things. First,
the legal situation is that anybody who wants to come and minister here from an
overseas province has to apply under the Overseas Clergy Measure. That is properly a
matter on which the Archbishop deliberates, and I think we probably need to be a bit
wary about telling the Archbishop what he ought to do, at this stage of the debate! In
fairness to Andrew, it is a question that does need some clarification at some stage but
I do not think it is the right time to do that, so I am resisting his first amendment.
His second amendment –
The Chairman: Please wait and leave the second amendment until later.
211
The Bishop of Bristol: I will do as I am told!
Mrs Lorna Ashworth: I do like the heart of this amendment and what it expresses but,
like the previous speaker, I just want to acknowledge that that prerogative stays with
the Archbishops and, at this stage, I think it ought to be left there.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): I think the problem that I have with this amendment
is again to do with the matter of language and process. What I see here is a reaching
out to the clergy but nothing towards the laity in this situation. If you are saying that
people are hurting, it is not just the clergy but presumably the clergy and the laity.
That leads me to the process point. What I believe we are doing here is talking about a
single issue, a single instance, where we need to do some reparatory work; but
actually we have a bigger problem that we need to solve, and we have a process that
we are going through already to solve that. The Archbishop of Canterbury has already
appointed people in the States to look into this, and Bishop Peter Price, through his
pastoral visitor ministry, is already engaged. I believe that we ought to be engaging
through the process to resolve the problem and not trying to sort out individual
problems as they occur.
The amendment to the amendment was put and lost.
The Chairman: We are now back to the Bishop of Bristol’s amendment which has not
been amended. (Some dissent) Item 59 is an amendment to the main motion, not to the
Bishop of Bristol’s amendment, which is why I did not ask him to comment then. So
we are back to his amendment, and I would like at this stage to ask Mrs Ashworth to
comment.
Mrs Lorna Ashworth: The amendment I understand, and I appreciate the thought that
has been expressed; I understand that perhaps the wording of my motion indicates
something stronger. However, the Bishop of Bristol’s amendment takes out the very
heart of what I am trying to communicate, which is that we desire to be in
communion.
I am not stating anything about being out of communion with TEC or ACoC. I would
like to emphasize again that it is a desire for fellowship, and that is what I believe the
amendment lacks. Yes, it goes on to say we will come back to it, perhaps in 2011. So
is the response to say that we are not going to shove this under the carpet? However, I
guess I would point out that this is something that has been going on for some time.
Why are we delaying it again? Yes, proper processes need to happen, that is true, but I
have not been arguing for those proper processes now. I am asking for the desire.
So I am kind of torn here. I realize that perhaps some of the bishops feel in an
awkward situation about this. I would have to say therefore that I am agnostic about
this amendment, because it misses the heart of the motion, the desire: nothing
technical, nothing specific, but a desire for fellowship; it is not a desire for fellowship
for people who want to come back into the Anglican fold but those who are still there
212
and have not left. I do not want to forget that, and I do not want that to be
misunderstood.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I beg to move:
The Chairman: I would like to hear a couple of speeches, one each way, before then,
because we have not actually had a debate on this absolutely key issue.
The Archdeacon of Dorking (Ven. Julian Henderson) (Guildford): I would like to
speak against the amendment for one or two reasons. First, it denies us as Synod to
express our desire, and I think that that is what we are here for. One of the functions
of Synod is to express its views, and the amendment takes away that opportunity. I
therefore think that we should oppose the amendment for that reason. Secondly, it is a
current matter and the needs of our colleagues, our friends, our brothers and sisters in
America are current needs. It is a beginning, and for us to express our support at a
beginning is very significant. Therefore, I want to resist the amendment on that
ground too. I would also resist it because the issue of support for our colleagues is not
a problem for me, because they believe the same things as I believe. There is no
doctrinal difference and no liturgical difference either.
Finally, if we carry the original motion it may unblock the logjam that there seems to
exist at the moment. We have taken a huge amount of time in negotiation, a lot of
effort, energy, working towards a Covenant around which people may gather, but it is
taking a very long time and I think that now is the moment for this Synod to express a
view. The communal issues will not go away, they will not be resolved by anyone
else, and I think it is right that we express our view. The original motion gives us that
opportunity and I would therefore resist the amendment.
Mrs Anne Martin (Guildford): I support the amendment because I believe that it gives
us a way forward. In the diverse groups of churchmanship in the Church of England
we have on the whole maintained our respect for and courtesy towards each other. I
was frightened that this afternoon’s debate could somehow threaten that. In spite of
some of the hiccups over the past four-and-a-half years, I think that we are still
listening to each other and still have respect for each other. I believe that this
amendment provides us with the possibility of continuing to listen, respect and
consider, while addressing the issue raised by Lorna Ashworth. I urge Synod to
support the amendment.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I beg to move:
A member: On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Would you consider a vote by
Houses on Item 55?
213
The Chairman: Are there 25 members standing? There are not.
Revd Andrew Dow (Gloucester): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘After “That this Synod” insert, “, aware of the distress caused by recent
divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and
Canada:”.’
Mrs Lorna Ashworth (Chichester): I support the amendment.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I beg to move:
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Under SO 36
will you order a division of the whole Synod?
The Chairman: We first need to hear a reply to the debate by Mrs Ashworth.
Mrs Lorna Ashworth, in reply: I shall be brief. I want to thank all those who have
taken part in this debate. It has been a good debate and we have aired the issues – not
all of them, but we have had a good, short stab at it. We know that we shall have to
address this issue in the future and the Bishop of Bristol’s amendment will help that to
happen. We have a process by which the Archbishops will come back and report to us
next year if this motion is passed, and Synod can count on it that I will be waiting for
the reply. I support the motion as amended.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Will you
accept a motion for a division of the whole Synod?
Madam Chairman. May we know whether the electronic system is functioning before
we establish whether there are 25 members standing? It makes rather a difference as
to whether we do this instantly or whether it is likely to take 20 minutes.
Canon Elizabeth Paver (Sheffield): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Some
handsets are working, some are not.
The Chairman: The system may be working, but the proof of the pudding will as it
were be in the eating. I would not like to offer any guarantees at this particular time.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Are we
quorate in the House of Bishops? That would enable us to test whether the system is
working! (Laughter)
214
Military Chaplaincy
The Chairman: We are visibly very quorate in the House of Bishops, and we know
that the system is working! Are there 25 members standing in order to have a division
of the whole Synod? There are.
Madam Chairman. If those who stood did so on the basis that the system was
working, could we establish whether they would still want to stand if we had to go
through the doors?
The Chairman: We cannot do that. The direction has been given that there will be a
division of the whole Synod.
and 69 against, with 17 recorded abstentions:
‘That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the
Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada:
(a) recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican
Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the
Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues
which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.’
Military Chaplaincy
Presentation under SO 97
The Chairman: We come now to Item 15, a presentation by our Service chaplains,
which we have all been keen to receive, and we look forward to learning more from
them. I am told that the presentation will take about half an hour, after which there
will be time for questions.
Major General Patrick Marriott (Armed Forces Synod): – and the lay representative
for the Army. The good news is that this will be a short presentation, but the really
good news is that members do not have to vote on it at the end!
In my day job I am the Commandant of Sandhurst, but I have been set up by the three
Service archdeacons to give the warming up act for what is to follow. I will be very
brief. What they have asked me as a serving soldier to do is tell Synod why we regard
padres as so important. However, I am not going to talk about stress, shock, pain,
terror, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, terrorists or terrorism. Instead I want to give members
just two personal pointers from which I would like them to draw their own
conclusions as to why the Services value their padres so very, very greatly.
215
Military Chaplaincy
First on leadership, the context of operations in which padres serve is now very
complex, dangerous, enduring, perceptional, where understanding and empathy are
now as important as weapons of war, and conduct is as important as skill at arms.
Such operations demand the highest leadership and that leadership must be based on
moral authority. So what drives that leadership? I thought that I would read very
briefly from a short talk given by a General whose memorial service was held last
week at Sandhurst, which he gave to cadets some 40 years ago: ‘Some day you may
have to lead men into battle and ask them to do their duty, and you will do it through
love. You must always put them first. If you arrive somewhere half destroyed, half
exhausted at the end of a hard march, do not worry about your food, your bed and
your rest; you must not. You must make sure that they are fed, rested and have
somewhere to sleep. You must make sure arrangements are made for their safety and
guards placed, runners sent, whatever is necessary, and it will be a lot. But if you do
this you will find that you never have to worry about yourself because as you look
after them so they will look after you. As they come to know that you love and care
for them so they will love you, and through love for you and for one another they will
be the best soldiers the world has ever seen’. Who better to advise us soldiers in war
on love than our padres?
My second point – and I will be briefer here – is on mercy. Why? Because when there
is peace and we have prevented al-Qaeda having a safe base from which to threaten
us, we must show gracious magnanimity, about which the Archbishop of York so
wisely spoke to all of us in 2006 in More than Justice, the text of which I carry in my
briefcase today; and who better to teach us soldiers about that gracious magnanimity
than our padres?
That is the warm-up act. I will now hand over to the three Service archdeacons.
The Chaplain General HM Land Forces and Archdeacon for the Army (Ven. Stephen
Robbins): The three Service chaplaincies have grown up in quite different ways and
have quite different cultures, and that is something that all Synods should remember.
One thing that we have in common when we look at chaplaincy is that where our
soldiers, sailors or airmen are our chaplains are. They are there in the danger areas,
they are there facing the dangers and they are there without any arms. We do not carry
weapons, and that is a very important point to emphasize, because in the end war says
something about a failure of man, not about his greatness. If you had observed a battle
in the Middle Ages you would have seen the chaplains, the priests, of the warring
parties on the edge of the battlefield, invoking God for the victory of their own troops
and calling down curses on the other side. God was used as a weapon and in some
parts of the world is still seen as a weapon.
Before the First World War the cry from some chaplains, some padres, was that our
cause was just and that God was on our side, or even better, ‘We are on God’s side’,
but in many ways the First World War changed all that, and it is important to
remember this. If God was on our side, why was the British Army losing on average
3,500 men a week? If God was on our side, why was a British soldier killed every
three minutes? Easy theology does not work in that context, and to say ‘God is on our
side’ or ‘We are on God’s side’ is at best a delusion and at worst blasphemy. Padres
and soldiers who witnessed the slaughter asked a valid theological question: ‘What is
216
Military Chaplaincy
God like who lets this happen?’ The answer given by one chaplain, Revd Geoffrey
Studdert-Kennedy (better known as Woodbine Willie), is encapsulated in a book
entitled The Hardest Part, which I recommend. It is a series of reflections of incidents
in the trenches, a book that Moltmann says was the most important theological work
published in 1919, which, when one considers that Barth’s Epistle to the Romans was
published in that year, says a lot.
Studdert-Kennedy’s conclusion – for Christians it should not be a surprise – is that
God is as he is in Jesus, not some eastern potentate sitting on his throne dictating
things but the God who loves, the God who cares, the God who in Christ makes
himself vulnerable for us and who on the cross suffers for and with his people in the
context and hope for the resurrection – in other words the God who is love. It is this
God of love who is the motivation for chaplaincy in the Armed Forces, as I hope it is
for all ministry, because it is our calling, in fact the calling of all Christians, to love as
he loves us.
Armed Forces personnel actually know an awful lot about love. They make closer
relationships with one another than probably any other profession, because they work
together, they live together, they often socialize together, they face danger together,
and they have to rely on one another for their very lives; they come to love one
another. I must admit that some of the best examples of agape that I have seen have
been in the Army. These people who know something of love are looking to their
chaplains to be loved by them, to be cared for by them and to be prayed for by them.
This love of Christ that the chaplain shows is for the troops far more important than
their denomination, far more important than whether they are high or low Church, to
use an old-fashioned phrase, or whether they are evangelical, catholic or liberal. To a
soldier – we in the Church quite often forget it, but St Paul says it in 1 Corinthians 13
– love is more important than faith, and it is easy to forget that.
Armed Forces personnel are not natural born killers, and they often seek forgiveness
from chaplains for what they have done. I remember a corporal who asked his
chaplain for Holy Communion. He had been out on patrol the previous night and for
the first time had killed someone – he had killed two of the enemy – and he wanted to
make his peace with God before going out again. Soldiers may not queue up at the
altar rails, but they do want the hope of resurrection when they are faced with their
own deaths, or more importantly for them their friends’ deaths. When a seriously ill
soldier is brought into the operating theatre of the hospital in Camp Bastion in
Afghanistan the chaplain is in the theatre with the surgical team, waiting at the back.
If the soldier dies on the operating table, which unfortunately sometimes happens,
everything stops, the chaplain is called forward and prayers are said, and that is a
comfort to his friends who are still at the front. If we look at the tributes paid by the
friends of those who have been killed, more often than not they include some
religious reference such as, ‘I will see you on the other side’ or ‘RIP’. So our unarmed
chaplains face danger and hardship, to bring I hope a glimpse of heaven to those
caught up in hell.
I would now like to hand over to my RAF colleague.
The Chaplain-in-Chief and Archdeacon for the Royal Air Force (Ven. Ray Pentland):
Those of us from the Church of England who serve in the Armed Forces are often
217
Military Chaplaincy
asked whether when we leave the Armed Forces we will come back to the Church! I
think we know what they mean, but actually it sometimes causes a little bit of an
issue, so I want to assure the House of Bishops that we have never left the Church,
and we might be coming back. Of course as Anglican priests we operate under the
licence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Our calling to serve as chaplains is part of
our vocation first to be priests and ministers of the gospel, to live that gospel, to be the
Church, to proclaim the good news of Jesus. This is who we are, this is what we do, it
is what we are called to do and it is how we live.
It is 11 o’clock on a Sunday morning in Lincolnshire; people gather in a community
centre for worship and Café Church, known as Re-Fresh, which complements the
traditional church service that has taken place earlier that day. There are families,
dressed casually, some with mum and dad, children, sometimes a mum with children,
sometimes a dad with children, young men, young women, indeed just what anyone
would expect in any church on any Sunday morning. Of course there might be a few
differences – the average age is 21! Although the worship may follow a somewhat
familiar format, the prayers might be focused in a slightly different way as they who
participate think of those whom they love many thousands of miles away, as children
ask that mum or dad might come home safely, that they will be kept safe in
Afghanistan, as a boyfriend waits for a girlfriend to come home, as a husband or a
wife and all those who gather live with temporary separation but always in the fear of
permanent separation through death. This happens to be a Sunday morning at RAF
Cranwell where some 70 people have gathered for Café Church, but it could be a
story that is repeated in a garrison of the Army or in a naval establishment anywhere
in the country. People have gathered and in their midst is a chaplain who wears the
same uniform, who lives among them and works day by day, and who like any other
priest shares their joy and sorrow.
Thousands of miles away it is still Sunday and a familiar yet strangely different
church service begins. Servicemen and women gather round. Maybe the service is
held outside, maybe it is held in what may be thought of as a trench, maybe it is in a
semi-permanent building, maybe the chaplain has just flown in by helicopter to visit
some troops and they have said, ‘Padre, can we have a service?’ The liturgy, the
words and the faith are the same. This time the dress includes body armour and
helmets. The congregation may be made up of those who have just returned from a
patrol, as we have heard; maybe they have just had contact with the enemy; there may
be helicopter crews and medics waiting to go to rescue their fallen comrades; there
may be fast jet crews waiting to be called in support of the Army on the ground. In
their midst is a chaplain who wears the same uniform, the same body armour, who
like any other priest shares the joys and sorrows of our people, but also on this
occasion lives with the dangers that they live with and occasionally, like them, is
absolutely terrified, but who brings a message of hope and love and lives a ministry of
prayer, presence and proclamation.
Chaplaincy is many different things: it is every form of ministry; it is very much
mission; it is very much mission-shaped Church. In 1998 a chaplain meets a young
soldier in Bosnia. He asks for a Bible and starts coming to the occasional church
service. They next see each other five years later and the young soldier says, ‘Padre, I
have been reading that Bible and I have become a Christian. Will you baptize me?’
218
Military Chaplaincy
Chaplaincy is about building relationships, living the good news of Jesus Christ and
sharing it with those whom we meet.
As we have already heard, the men and women whom we serve truly understand
sacrificial love and what it is to go the extra mile, and if necessary to lay down one’s
life for another. Some of the young men and women that we talk about are all of 18 –
the much maligned PlayStation generation. Listen to the words of one of my
chaplains: ‘It is humbling to sit next to an injured young man who has just been told
that his best friend has taken the full blast of the mine thus saving his life … to stand
with hundreds of soldiers, sailors and airmen in prayer, few of whom may know the
ins and outs of faith but who deep down know that they need spiritual support.’ It is
our job as chaplains to help them interpret and understand that need, to give them the
words that they so desire, to express that faith that deep down they seek and want. Is it
any wonder that our chaplains regularly run out of Bibles and small metal discs that
have crosses on them? Everyone wants one, not as a good luck symbol but because it
actually speaks to their hearts and minds. Weekly we give away hundreds of Bibles
and our soldiers, sailors and airmen can be seen reading them.
Chaplains constantly report that their faith becomes renewed and alive in these
situations. For all of us operations bring a rawness to everyday life and everything
takes on a sharper clarity, including things of the Spirit, bonds of friendship, a sense
of common purpose and indeed the need for God himself. We are constantly reminded
that God has made us for himself and we find our rest in him.
I leave you with the image of the watchkeeper, well known in a military context. The
watchkeeper bears news and keeps an eye on everything that is happening; he does
not sleep and is always alert. That is a great image for chaplaincy. Chaplains regularly
keep watch over their people. Sometimes they keep watch over those who have died
as they stay up all night praying before their comrades are returned home. We are
watchkeepers pastorally. Sometimes we walk a lonely and sacrificial life, sometimes
we are misunderstood within our own community, but more often we are deeply
valued and we offer a unique gift to our community. Ezekiel 33 says, ‘I have made
you a watchman’, but we are reminded too that that brings with it a responsibility, and
as chaplains we are there to guide and support the spiritual and ethical needs of our
community.
I come back to my original point: we have not left the Church. First and foremost we
are priests and ministers. We are called to proclaim the good news of Jesus. We do all
the things that any other priest does but in a rather interesting and challenging context.
We lead worship, we are pastorally engaged, and of course we nurture vocations.
Today there are some 70 young men and women from the three Armed Forces
exploring a sense of vocation to the priesthood within this our Church, and if they are
accepted and discover that that is their way, they will find themselves serving in our
parishes.
I have been asked what we would like from today. Of course we would like lots of
things, but most of all I hope that we all leave Synod today promising to pray for
those who serve in the Armed Forces and for our chaplains. We are there for you, we
represent you, we represent the more than 250,000 members of our community, many
of whom would write on their little pieces of paper, ‘I am Church of England’. We are
219
Military Chaplaincy
there to care on your behalf; we rejoice in our ministry; we are enthusiasts; it is
exciting and challenging, and I would not have missed a minute of it for anything.
The Chaplain of the Fleet and Archdeacon for the Royal Navy (Ven. John Green):
Fellow members of Synod, at the very beginning of this group of sessions we were
reminded of our historic aspiration to be the national Church. Perhaps that is at its
most authentic not when we stand at the edge of our national life and shout rather
loudly, as we sometimes do, but when we attempt to engage and provide a strong
Christian presence throughout our nation’s life, and chaplaincy with the Armed
Forces is one way in which our Church does that.
I hear that clergy in rural and especially in urban parishes are increasingly sought to
serve on various planning and development bodies because in many places they are
the only professionals left who still live in the communities that they serve. Perhaps
that is a tacit recognition of a model of building the kingdom, which is about far more
than simply passing on orthodoxy. The gospel is at its most compelling – dare I say
even infectious for goodness’ sake? – when it is lived authentically and demonstrated
rather than just talked about. Surely the living out of the gospel as a proclamation of
God’s kingdom founded on love is the basis of the ministry to which every one of us
here is called and has a share?
At this point I am rather nervous. Like all people in the Armed Forces, I realize how
much I rely on others, and at this moment I am in the hands of the IT team, but I know
that they are not going to let me down, so let me introduce one minister of the gospel
who works in a slightly unusual parish. (Audio-visual presentation 1)
I am not even going to describe what Nigel does as an extension of the Church’s
presence in terms such as frontier or pioneer ministry. The setting might be unique but
I would argue that of its essence this is mainstream ministry. Of course, as in all
ministries, there are tensions to be resolved between the needs and character of the
local community being served and the community of faith through which ministry
comes. Let us hear Nigel’s commanding officer talk about his ministry. (Audio-visual
presentation 2)
I will just go off piece for a second. At breakfast this morning I had an interesting
conversation with a former RAF officer who was talking to me about being
interviewed for a job in the city. They said to him, ‘Of course we have to work with
people. It is not like the military, you know, where you just tell them what to do and
they jump to it and do it’. I think the problem is that so many people have an idea that
anything connected with the military is basically about bullying, coercion, shouting,
ordering, rather than what I hope is coming across this afternoon both in terms of
chaplaincy and what our first speaker said – that this is very much about people and
about love and respect.
Let us be honest. We know there are those who feel that chaplains working in the
Armed Forces have betrayed their Christian principles, allowing themselves to be
seduced by trappings of military power. I was surprised to hear one person say to an
RAF chaplain, ‘I could not possibly pray for you, because you work with the military’
– an interesting concept. It may surprise Synod to know that from a military
perspective a chaplain who has gone native is of no use, of no value, but regarded as
220
Military Chaplaincy
worse than useless. Members might think about salt that has lost its distinctive taste.
Let us hear from Nigel for a final time. (Audio-visual presentation 3)
I respect and love my chaplains dearly. The thought of any of them carrying any sort
of weapon beyond the pen disturbs me greatly.
As I went for an early morning walk yesterday I noticed on the façade of a building a
quotation out of the French Revolution. It read, ‘Too many laws, too few examples’ –
a charge that might be levelled at the institutional Church as equally as at preRevolutionary French society.
I would like to put it to Synod and to the Church at large that its chaplains working
with the military are providing and revealing examples of God’s presence, activity,
and above all love, in the most unexpected and unpromising circumstances. We are
not here to beg for extra chaplains, as some media reports might have implied, or to
ask you to understand some sort of special sector ministry. We ask for no more, but
certainly no less, than your understanding and respect as priests and ministers
engaged in the core ministry of the Church in a very particular set of parishes.
We could show many more pictures and tell many more stories, but we thought that it
would perhaps be more useful in a few moments to answer any questions that
members may have or engage with them in dialogue.
In closing, I ask members to question us, engage with us and challenge us, but also to
accept us, to respect our ministry, and above all pray for us and those whom we serve
as we minister not on our own behalf but on the Churches’ behalf in some of the most
dangerous, challenging but also rewarding places that there are in which to minister.
(Applause)
Fellow members of Synod, I owe you an apology. Every year a report from the
Chaplaincy Committee of the Armed Forces is presented to the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland. Every Church of Scotland chaplain who serves in the Armed
Forces is present in uniform and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
which members may know is a unilateralist body, is still able to give its chaplains a
round of applause. Synod, I have maligned you, because in the past when I have
spoken to the Church of Scotland I have said, ‘If only the General Synod were this
enlightened’! On behalf of all my colleagues, I thank you all for that very warm
reception for what we have had to say.
The Chairman: I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that we are delighted
you got the message! We are also delighted that you are here today, and thank you for
your presentation.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): My question is to the Chaplain General
and the lay member of the Armed Forces Synod. The Royal Air Force indicates that
there is an almost 16 per cent under-manning of places, that they do not have all the
chaplains they need and that a regular intake of new chaplains is required, and I am
sure that that will be true of the Navy and the Army. What can we do to make sure
that you are getting the chaplains you need? Secondly, how could we encourage more
people to join the Territorial Army, such as Revd John Harvey from Birmingham,
whom I know, who left his parish to serve in Basra for six months? How can we
221
Military Chaplaincy
create help from such a source? I would like to know what recruitment problems you
are facing, because I think that there are shortages in all three branches.
The Chairman: The Chaplain General will respond briefly to the Archbishop and
then we will take the next three questions.
The Chaplain General HM Land Forces and Archdeacon for the Army: My biggest
problem is recruiting Church of England priests. I can get as many Methodist
ministers – actually that is not true – I can get as many Baptist ministers and other
nonconformists as I need, and I am even fully recruited on Roman Catholics, but I
have a difficulty recruiting Church of England priests. One of the problems is that we
are described as being non-mainstream, as though we have left the Church, and it is
often difficult for us to get into the theological colleges and explain what we do. I
would therefore urge Synod to remember that we have a mainstream ministry which
is both very rewarding and does an awful lot for Christ and his Church.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): Thank you very much for all
you have said and for all that you and your colleagues do. From the diocese in which
Catterick is set – I think the largest military establishment in the UK and a place
where many Army relatives and indeed families live outside the garrison area itself –
my question is: how can we better collaborate as service chaplaincy and geographical
parishes in order to serve particularly those left at home, not least when tragedy
happens? As part of that, should we be doing more together to encourage chaplains to
make themselves known to the geographical parish priests and dioceses in which the
garrisons are set, and therefore maybe we could all share that sense of being one
Church working together?
Canon Peter Bruinvels (Guildford): – and county field officer for the Surrey Royal
British Legion. I have in my bailiwick Deepcut, Keogh, Minley, Pirbright Barracks,
where we have the Royal Anglians, Sandhurst and Combat Stress and Hedley Court.
With 257 soldiers so far having lost their lives in Afghanistan and 500-plus injured in
both Afghanistan and Iraq, how can we keep up the morale of soldiers and others?
How can we encourage them? Secondly, how often does the chaplaincy signpost
servicemen to the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, ABF, RNBT and RAFBF? If it does
not, I would urge it to do so. We collect for you and we want to help.
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): Stephen Robbins pointed out that denomination or
churchmanship is not important for the troops, but I wonder whether he could say
what proportion of servicemen and women actually are from faiths other than
Christianity? How do you minister to them and what is their reaction to your
ministry?
The Chaplain General HM Land Forces and Archdeacon for the Army: The Bishop
of Ripon and Leeds made a very good point: actually Catterick is the biggest garrison
in Europe. For those who have barracks within their dioceses, I expect that in the next
couple of months the Church of England chaplain there will be writing to you, if he
has not already done so, because I expect it to happen anyway, to tell you that he is
there, to ask for permission to officiate in your dioceses and to liaise with you. We
cannot look after everyone, and fairly soon we will have a great many injured people
who will be out of the Army and back in mainstream society. I do not have enough
222
Military Chaplaincy
chaplains to look after them. It is up to the parish churches to look after them and we
will be commending them to their local parish priests, probably through the bishops.
The Chaplain-in-Chief and Archdeacon for the Royal Air Force: Perhaps I can just
say that one issue that has not materialized in the past is a joint suspicion that we have
not always felt welcome; I guess that it has been the other way. Hopefully this will
start to break down some of the barriers, and we all support Stephen’s point about
keeping in touch and being supportive.
Charities are very much in our minds – all the benevolent funds and associations, the
British Legion – and I imagine, and can more or less guarantee, that all our chaplains
would signpost people in those directions, and indeed they often seek financial help
from such charities for our servicemen and women. They do not always want to take
it, but it is important that we know those charities are there.
With regard to the question on other faiths, any numbers that I could give would be
very approximate. The biggest faith other than Christianity is Islam, and in the three
services we have approximately 300 or so Muslims. The others are in the hundreds
but very low. How do we meet their needs? We have a group of what we call civilian
chaplains to the military, one for each major faith group, who minister within their
faith concepts to those people across the three services. That group has been in
existence for only a couple of years and so is still in its infancy, and we are still trying
to integrate them into the military understanding. One of the big issues of course
relates to different understandings of what we do in terms of pastoral care. We are
very careful about what we do in terms of mission, and we meet regularly with our
civilian chaplains to the military. We are very clear that we maintain our own
integrity within our own faith groups. As Christians we proclaim the Christian faith
and we expect other faiths to be good Muslims, Sikhs or whatever. We do work
together, but our association is still in its infancy and has a long way to go.
A member: There was a point about morale.
The Chaplain of the Fleet and Archdeacon for the Royal Navy: As I am now
standing, I will answer the point about morale. As members will have gathered from
what we said, particularly from the Major-General’s opening remarks, morale is a key
aspect of what we do. It is as it were the oil that lubricates the engine. In terms of
keeping up that morale, one concern that people have when they are away serving in
difficult circumstances is what is happening back at home. It is very easy to imagine
that support needs to be in place when something tragic happens, but quite often there
is a need for understanding and support for families that are divided.
Clearly the political situation in the world at the moment is very difficult, and there
are issues of faith that touch on it. I also know that some members of Synod will have
very strong opinions on current Government policy. I am getting on the edge of the
minefield, but Synod will be relieved, or perhaps disappointed, to know that I am not
going to step into it. Some members may feel that it is appropriate to stand in the
pulpit and talk about Government defence policy in a theological context, but if and
when they do, I would urge them, please, to be aware of the position of Armed Forces
personnel and their families.
223
Military Chaplaincy
It is very important in a democracy for a national Church to engage. It is important
that people with views on pacifism, for example, on the one side and the use of
military force on the other engage in a national debate. Not only is that right but the
members of your Armed Forces rely on you to do it, but please do not engage in
megaphone or shotgun diplomacy, because quite often the people who are injured in
that sort of approach or whose morale is most challenged are those who suffer
already. I would ask that you understand the situation and be careful to differentiate
between the needs of Armed Forces personnel who are simply in a democracy, being
professional and doing what they are told, and the appropriate debate that we in this
country should be having on Government policy. I hope that answers the question
about morale.
The Chairman: Thank you. We were allowed 15 minutes for these questions, which I
have to share with members we have already used. However, I feel that we need to
take at least another three questions, and in order to redress the balance I would like to
invite some questions from female members.
Prebendary Diana Taylor (Bath and Wells): I declare a profound interest as the
mother of a daughter who has served in Ireland and Afghanistan and who lectures at
Northwood, as a mother-in-law of a Royal Signaller and a Royal Engineer and the inlaw of a military chaplain albeit retired. I therefore take this opportunity to thank the
chaplains for being in all the places that my extended family has been over the past
years, and I am deeply grateful to the Business Committee for bringing this overdue
presentation to the Synod. My question is whether you feel adequately resourced to
support the families left at home who wait on the bases while you are quite rightly in
the operating theatre with the Forces, particularly bearing in mind the high rate of
marriage breakdown in military families and the subsequent cost to society. I would
also like to put in a plea for us parents, who will not even have the camaraderie of
living on base while our sons and daughters are away and therefore can feel very
isolated and frightened in secular life.
Miss Jenny Bate (Carlisle): I am sure that I speak for the entire Synod when I say that
your presentation today was very compelling and deeply moving, especially the
powerful message that you gave to me of Jesus, his love, his care, and his light
shining in some of the places that most of us in this chamber will never experience,
perhaps taking services with sand in your mouths, surrounded by sweat and swearing
in difficult and dangerous situations in the theatre of battle abroad, and equally the
love and care of Jesus supporting those families waiting at home for their loved ones.
Your ministry is a tough one, a tough call, and I hope that our prayers will be deeply
with you in all this. In my own diocese we have many young men and women who go
into the Services, as indeed is the case with most of the North West dioceses – quite a
rich recruiting ground for these young lives – and it is good to know that your
ministry is there to love and care for them. I want to ask whether it might be possible
that some sort of presentation along the lines of that which you have given to Synod
today could be made available to all the dioceses, to go out and inform the dioceses,
the deaneries and the parishes just what your ministry is at the rock face. I think that
that would aid our prayers and support for you tremendously.
224
Military Chaplaincy
Mrs Lucy Docherty (Portsmouth): – and obviously with a strong personal connection
to the Royal Navy; I have been married to someone in the Navy for 30 years. I have
much good experience of chaplaincy support at both extremely happy and very sad
times in my own life and I know just how incredibly important chaplaincy can be at
those moments, as has been said by the two previous speakers. I also know how
stretched some denominations are in the chaplaincy services when it comes to finding
chaplains, as was mentioned earlier on behalf of the Army, but it is also true of course
of the Royal Navy.
You have talked about what steps have been taken to deal with this situation, but as
someone speaking with a background of living in an ecumenical inter-Church family I
wonder whether there are any plans to develop ecumenical chaplaincy where possible.
I am not going to delve into all the rules and so on, but I know that you share a great
deal and I wonder whether within that construct you can do anything more to share
your work.
Major-General Patrick Marriot: I have been passed the ball on resources. Do we
have enough resources for all those souls coming back wounded and slightly broken
from Afghanistan? I believe that we very nearly do but that we can always do with a
bit more. However, the greatest resource that you as a body can give us is your
prayers. That is a limitless and easily the most important resource, and I would ask
you always to pray hard for those fighting for all of us on the front lines.
The Chaplain General HM Land Forces and Archdeacon for the Army: If any
diocese would like a presentation similar to today’s, they are very welcome to contact
our offices. We in the Army are much bigger, we have barracks all over the place and
I have chaplains who would just love to go out and do this, so we would certainly say
‘yes’ to any such request.
The Chaplain of the Fleet and Archdeacon for the Royal Navy: I will answer the
question about ecumenical chaplaincy. First, it may be worth making the point that, as
I hope all members can see, we work together very closely. We do things jointly,
because at the moment we have chaplains from all three Services serving together on
operations, and we do that more and more. However, we are three distinct chaplaincy
organizations with slightly different structures and cultures. As Stephen would point
out, the Army is bigger than the RAF and the Royal Navy put together, but we do not
find that a threat and we are not paranoid at all – well, not much!
The Chaplain-in-Chief and Archdeacon for the Royal Air Force: Because it is
quality, not quantity! (Laughter)
The Chaplain of the Fleet and Archdeacon for the Royal Navy: The point about
ecumenical chaplaincy is interesting. In all three service chaplaincies we work very
closely together in ecumenical teams, and all our operational appointments are
serviced by people of any denomination. Obviously there are issues about sacramental
provision, but, to be honest, in the warship at sea or in a trench, under those sorts of
condition, matters of Church order, which are important in this setting, tend to melt
away somewhat and – I am sorry to say this to the Church lawyers present – the
imperative of the gospel even overrides the imperative of Church law.
225
Additional Weekday Lectionary
The Army has a completely unified structure. It talks about convergence, and even its
management system now is denominationally blind. The Royal Navy retains three
distinct denominational branches, but in terms of most of our appointments we are
also denominationally blind. We tend to operate all our chaplaincies on the basis of
ecumenical teams, and I guess that the RAF lies somewhere in the middle, does it
not?
The Chaplain-in-Chief and Archdeacon for the Royal Air Force: We are like the
Army – completely unified – and we too are short of chaplains.
The Chairman: Synod, we need to bring the questions to an end. Before we again
express our thanks to and our high regard for the Chaplain General of Her Majesty’s
Land Forces, Ven. Stephen Robbins, the Chaplain of the Fleet, Ven. John Green, and
the Chaplain-in-Chief of the RAF, Ven. Ray Pentland, and of course to Major General
Patrick Marriott, may our appreciation and applause be our commitment to pray for
them, for all the chaplains, for all the teams and for all the people they serve. As the
Archdeacon of Colchester I felt very privileged to chair this presentation. We really
do salute you, thank you and pray for you and for the work that you do with us.
(The Chaplains were accorded a standing ovation)
Statement by the Chair of the Business Committee
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick (Hereford): Synod will realize that we are running a
little late. I hope that we can do the Liturgical Business now as well and as speedily as
we can, but I hope that we might be able at least to begin the Chelmsford DSM this
evening. It would be much easier if we could at least begin it, so in a way we are in
members’ hands. There are re-committal motions for the Liturgical Business and it
may take a long time, but one never knows; maybe we can get through it. We will
start the Chelmsford Diocesan Synod Motion if possible, and if we do not manage to
finish it, which I expect we will not, tomorrow morning I will make another
announcement about when might be able to do so.
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) (Rochester) took
the Chair at 5.50 p.m.
Liturgical Business
Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar,
Lectionary and Collects (GS 1724A and GS 1724Y)
Article 7 Business
The Chairman: I need to tell members of Synod that it is not in order in the opening
of this item to debate any matter that is the subject of a re-committal motion. If
members have asked specifically to speak on a re-committal motion or wish to speak
on a re-committal motion topic, it would be helpful if they would refrain from
standing when we come to the ‘take note’ debate.
The Bishop of Gloucester (Rt Revd Michael Perham): I beg to move:
226
In 1996 I chaired the Steering Committee for the Common Worship Calendar,
Lectionary and Collects. Little did I think that 14 years later I would be back
supervising the revision of amendments to our own work and holding the ring
between the liturgists on the Steering Committee and the representatives of the rest of
humanity on the other side of the Revision Committee table. What is more, having
chaired the first consideration debate in the Synod last year, I feel like a poacher who
has been appointed to the role of gamekeeper after a brief spell with the local
constabulary in between.
In fact our single meeting was a very amicable occasion on which we worked well
together to improve what was before us. We were much helped in that by John
Hartley and Clive Scowen, who came to present proposals to us, as well as by Sarah
Finch, one of our members, who had submitted proposals of her own. Of course we
did not reach complete agreement on everything, as the re-committal motions on our
order paper this afternoon indicate, but I would not want any remaining disagreements
to overshadow the great measure of overall consensus that we reached. I would like to
thank them for the detailed work that they did and for the way that they presented
their proposals. What is before Synod now is better and more secure because of their
efforts.
It was hard work. Though we received submissions from only 11 Synod members and
five others, as will be seen from Annex 2 to the report, they included among other
things no fewer than 120 detailed proposals for amendment of the new Additional
Weekday Lectionary. We also had proposals arising out of 45 responses from those
who had been using the lectionary experimentally and out of a great deal of further
checking that had been undertaken by the compilers. To get through all that work in
one day was no mean achievement, and it would have been impossible without the
careful work of the Steering Committee beforehand and above all the sheer graft of its
consultant, Anne Dawtry. In fact I think that if at the end of the day I had proposed a
new Lesser Festival of St Anne of Dawtry, Liturgist and Martyr, it might have got a
majority! The synodical revision committee process is much maligned, but I believe
that on this occasion we have shown that it can work well and efficiently and can add
value.
Most of those who have used the new lectionary have responded very positively.
Prayer Book cathedral evensong in particular is a growth area in the Church of
England, and I am convinced that readings at Evensong that will stand alone and
make sense to occasional visitors and offer them inspiration and food for thought will
further God’s mission. We concluded that those who did not respond positively were
unhappy not because the lectionary failed to provide accessible and inspiring standalone readings but because they had realized that what they wanted in their own
context was continuous reading of Scripture for the core cathedral community not
only at Morning Prayer but also in the evening. Those who make decisions locally
have the freedom to decide which of the two lectionaries is most suitable to their
situation, bearing in mind of course that all the readings in the existing lectionary will
still be read, albeit over a longer period if it is used only in the morning.
Turning to the content of the lectionary, Paula Gooder asked for more readings about
women and made some helpful suggestions; we have added some readings in
response. She also asked for more readings from the non-Pauline letters, from the
227
minor prophets and from the Old Testament apocalyptic material. Some of the books
concerned were already represented and not all of them contain passages that meet the
criteria for this lectionary, but we have added readings from the Johannine letters,
Obadiah, Haggai and Isaiah. The coverage of Scripture is more comprehensive as a
result, and we are grateful to Dr Gooder.
One submission told us that there were too many obscure and difficult readings and
another said that there were not enough. We concluded that probably the balance was
about right, and in any case neither offered suggestions as to what should be taken out
or added.
There were many proposals about the omission of verses within passages – what they
call ‘filleting’ in the liturgical trade – suggesting variously that this damaged the
sense, changed the meaning or avoided difficult verses. Generally we have put the
missing verses back, so that there is no suggestion of censoring readings to cut out
verses that some might find challenging. We could not make a hard and fast rule
never to omit verses, because length and intelligibility are also relevant criteria for
this lectionary, but there are now only 10 out of nearly 700 readings with verses
omitted. Remarkably, we had to vote on only one of those passages, agreeing by nine
votes to one to keep what was originally proposed. Of course if anyone feels strongly,
there is nothing to stop them reading the missing verses, but we think that the shorter
reading will be easier to follow and will have more impact.
We also looked at the beginnings and ends of readings. We made changes there too,
but we did resist proposals to make readings longer where we felt that the passage
would be intelligible without being lengthened. There is a sense in which no reading
will ever stand alone, because everything has to be understood in the wider context. In
that sense no passage of Scripture will ever be complete in itself.
I turn to the issue of the Apocrypha. Like every Church of England lectionary there
has ever been, this one contains readings from the Apocrypha. Article VI is very clear
that we do not establish doctrine from the Apocryphal books, but it is equally clear
that ‘the Church doth read them’, which means corporate reading in public worship,
as the inclusion of readings from the Apocrypha in the Prayer Book lectionaries from
1549 shows. The Liturgical Commission’s proposal went back to the Prayer Book
practice and did not include canonical alternatives, but we decided that we should
follow recent practice as embodied in the existing Common Worship lectionaries and
made alternative provision for those who have difficulties of conscience with the
Church of England’s official position on this. This is just the sort of proper
compromise that the Church of England makes. However, these canonical alternatives
are exactly that – alternatives, not the mainstream provision – and they are therefore
printed second as they are in all the other Common Worship lectionaries.
There are 686 readings in this lectionary. Seventeen of them come from the
Apocrypha; 669 do not. One is read on 17 December because it is the source of the
Advent antiphon for that day. Six appear in the early pre-Lent weeks or Trinity 21 and
22, so in many years, like this year, those six will not be read at all. There will never
be a year in which all 17 are read, and the canonical alternatives mean that they do not
have to be read at all. I therefore hope that we will not get this issue out of proportion
when we come to discuss it later.
228
Turning to the calendar, Mr Scowen rightly pointed out that William Wilberforce was
much more than just an anti-slavery campaigner, but we also noted that a
commemoration of anti-slavery campaigners without Wilberforce’s name in it would
not make much sense. We did not feel that he should appear in the calendar on two
separate days, which would put him in the same league as Mary, Paul and John the
Baptist! Mr Scowen also rightly commented that the three who are named on 30 July
in the proposals were by no means the only anti-slavery campaigners. He suggested
that none should be named, but we felt it important to give people names to remember
rather than just a category – Common Worship dropped most of the ASB’s category
commemorations because they had proved unsatisfactory – and these were the names
that the experts had recommended, so again we have achieved a compromise.
Wilberforce is still there as a social reformer, Equiano and Clarkson are added by
name, and all three are designated as anti-slavery campaigners. We were grateful to
Mr Scowen for prompting us to improve this.
We received no submissions in relation to the five new proposed commemorations
and no one commented on the corrections to the Daily Eucharistic Lectionary, so that
was a level of detail into which we did not need to descend.
Scripture is a gracious gift to the Church; the liturgical year is a gracious gift. We are
therefore right to give time and energy to those matters even when the exercise can
feel like checking the railway timetable. The Revision Committee and the Steering
Committee have done their work with care and I commend that work to the Synod.
The Chairman: I repeat that it is not in order at this point to debate any subject that is
the subject of a re-committal motion. To give members some guidance on that, I will
therefore not take speeches on the Apocrypha at this time. They will come in the later
debate on re-committal motions.
Mr Tim Allen (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): I guess we are not unduly surprised by
the controversy surrounding the proposals from Rome to make a saint of Pope Pius
XII, but I have to confess that it came as a surprise to me to find that in the Revision
Committee there had been controversy about the proposal by the Liturgical
Commission to add to the list of those commemorated in the calendar the name of the
great anti-slavery campaigner Thomas Clarkson. As the bishop has told us, attempts
were made to persuade the Revision Committee to drop the names of Clarkson and
Equiano from the proposed additions to the calendar. Happily, the Revision
Committee took the wise decision to retain Clarkson and Equiano as anti-slavery
campaigners, coupling their names with that of William Wilberforce to be described
as a social reformer, all of them to be celebrated together every 30th July.
The Revision Committee was wise indeed to describe Wilberforce as a social
reformer, since his causes ranged far more widely than anti-slavery alone. As a
Member of Parliament from the age of 21, the very first Bill that Wilberforce brought
forward in the House of Commons was to amend the criminal law so as to provide
that women convicted of treason should be hanged. That of course was a liberal
reform since the status quo was that they should be burnt. Later, as well as doing his
anti-slavery work Wilberforce campaigned for moral reformation in England, for
229
missionary work in India, for peace with France, for prison reform and for religious
revival.
In some other important respects however one must in fairness add that William
Wilberforce did not show the same liberal instincts for reform. On a number of key
political issues he showed the conservatism typical of a rich man of his time and class.
In Parliament Wilberforce voted for William Pitt’s illiberal ‘gagging’ Acts in 1795.
Initially he voted against the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which kept
Roman Catholics and Dissenters out of public life, though it is fair to say that he later
repented. He voted for the Corn Laws in 1815 and for the suspension of habeas corpus
in 1817. However, no one would deny that Wilberforce was a great and wide-ranging
social reformer.
In contrast, Clarkson devoted the whole of his life to the anti-slavery campaign and,
as members will see from paragraph 37, the expert advice sought by the Revision
Committee confirmed unanimously that ‘if only three representative anti-slavery
campaigners were to be named, Wilberforce, Clarkson and Equiano would be the
most appropriate to select.’
I would therefore like to thank the Revision Committee and to assure it that the
decision to celebrate Thomas Clarkson will be warmly welcomed in Suffolk,
especially in the small village of Playford, where Clarkson spent the last 30 years of
his life and where his achievements in the great 19th century anti-slavery campaigns
are still valid and commemorated. Many people in Playford and elsewhere would
have been most disappointed if Clive Scowen’s proposal had prevailed.
In conclusion, there is a depressing sense of déjà vu about squabbles among
evangelicals as to which leaders of the anti-slavery campaign deserve the most credit.
In 1838, five years after his death, William Wilberforce’s two sons, Robert and
Samuel, the latter later to become the celebrated Bishop of Oxford, known as Soapy
Sam, published a five-volume life of their father. This, to quote the Dictionary of
National Biography, gave rise to an unedifying controversy with the veteran Thomas
Clarkson, who felt that his own role in the abolitionist campaign had been denigrated.
In reviewing their book, the journalist Henry Crabb Robinson wrote of the brothers
Wilberforce, ‘Such is their blindness that they see not even this, that to have been the
forerunner, associate and friend of Mr Wilberforce is much more than to have been
the fruit of his loins.’ That is just the point: as his forerunner, associate and friend,
Clarkson richly deserves to be commemorated alongside Wilberforce.
Revd Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Durham and Newcastle Universities): I very
much welcome this report and thank the Liturgical Commission and the Revision
Committee for all their work. This has been extremely helpful in the context of our
universities, where our issue is not occasional worshippers but occasional services.
The main weekday service for many of our students is a Thursday Prayer Book
evensong. Previously we had found that taking random selections from only the
Thursday bits of the normal lectionary could lead to some very odd selections indeed,
and I was given the job of choosing readings which may or may not be appropriate for
each Thursday.
230
This lectionary works very much better, and I would like Synod to resist all the
amendments so that it can be authorized as soon as possible. I have very many
students with rather more than a healthy interest in canon law and such matters, and
they are extremely edgy about the fact that it says in bold type on the front, ‘Not
authorized for liturgical use’. Therefore, it would be very helpful if it could be
authorized as soon as possible.
Mrs Debbie Sutton (Portsmouth): I am not going to say anything about the content,
but I do want to ask: does it work? The aim of this Additional Lectionary is very
clear: it is to provide stand-alone readings that will be accessible to occasional,
intermittent worshippers. The readings should convey an event, a story, a message –
something that does not require daily attendance to hear the serialized version. It is
equally clear that much hard work has gone into developing the readings, and that
work will have taken a great deal of time, expertise, scholarship and probably money.
It is quite right that all that work has been done and that so much care and attention is
being paid to refining the selections.
However, I classify myself as a scientist and will nod to a debate that is still to come,
and I would say that some scientific input is now needed to assess whether the aim
has been achieved. Many if not all of the contributions so far have been from people
with the qualifications needed to formulate the lectionary. Furthermore, my
understanding is that the responses received from churches that are trying out the new
material were supplied by the clergy responsible for the relevant services, not the
occasional worshippers who are supposed to be helped by this new approach. I have
some personal experience of qualitative data collection and analysis and I suggest that
it would be straightforward to develop a simple questionnaire that could be distributed
centrally to the occasional worshippers by the clergy, who I am sure would recognize
who they were.
As I said earlier, considerable resource has gone into this, and it seems right that some
sort of assessment is undertaken to confirm, or not, that the aim of the work has been
achieved. Otherwise it is in danger of being no more than an interesting academic
exercise.
The Bishop of Gloucester, in reply: Thank you to Tim Allen for speaking about
Thomas Clarkson. I am glad that there will be such pleasure in the diocese of St
Edmundsbury and Ipswich that his name is to be added to the calendar.
The argument from Mr Scowen and in the Revision Committee was not so much
about whether particular people were not worthy to be in the calendar but that so
many people might have been named and we could have ended up with a whole host
of names, which would have been ineffective, so the temptation to have a kind of
category commemoration without names was looked at. In the end however we were
231
quite sure that the way to commemorate heroism and sanctity is through particular
people and particular names, and I believe that we have the right ones.
Thank you to Dr Threlfall-Holmes for her point. Talking about universities helps us to
realize that this lectionary will be used not only in cathedrals but that there will be
other contexts in which it will be helpful.
Mrs Sutton made the same point as she made in her submission to the Revision
Committee. Our feeling was that we needed to trust those churches and cathedrals that
had used the lectionary experimentally and had reported back to us. No doubt some
will have consulted more widely than others, but I think that at this stage what
Mrs Sutton proposes is not possible.
I thank those three members for their contributions, and I hope that Synod will now
vote enthusiastically for my motion.
Revd Canon David Bird (Peterborough): I beg to move:
‘That the liturgical business entitled “Additional Weekday Lectionary and
Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects” be recommitted to the
Revision Committee for further revision of the New Testament passage set for
the Monday of Lent 3 with a view to including Luke 9.7-9, so that the reading
becomes Luke 9.1-11.’
I thank the Revision Committee for its work, particularly for some of the amendments
to the passages that were filleted as they say. I am especially keen to put back a bit of
the fillet in Luke 9. I shall not stand again for Synod in the next Quinquennium, so
this gives me a chance to renew some old acquaintances from the past when I
proposed re-committal motions previously. I count the folk on the Liturgical
Commission as my friends, and I am even friends on Facebook with some of them.
The reason I want to ask Synod to re-commit the passage in Luke 9 for Lent 3, the
Monday New Testament reading, is that I have a passion for both preaching and
mission, and I think that this is a cracking passage from which to preach and a really
good passage on mission. In his gospel Luke tells us how the Lord is anointed and
goes out and begins to preach, and then I think in Luke 9 – I am not a great biblical
scholar, just an humble parish priest – Jesus sends out the disciples (but in verse 10
they are ‘the apostles’) and they go to do what Jesus had been doing – preach the
gospel, heal the sick and so on. In verse 7, which would be filleted if Synod goes with
what is before us, Luke says: ‘Now Herod the ruler heard about all that had taken
place, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised
from the dead’. At the end of verse 9 he says that he tried to see him, in other words
tried to discover all that had been happening and what was going on, before, in verse
10 onwards, telling of how the apostles came back.
The reason I think we should keep these verses is that in our context, when people
hear and see what is going on in the Church, hear what the gospel is doing, hear the
testimonies of people, they have cause to ask, ‘What is going on here?’ and I think
232
that these verses would give the preacher an opportunity to say that many people
today, on hearing about what the Church stands for, what the Church preaches and so
on, might well ask the same sort of question that Herod asks: ‘I would quite like to
find out a bit more about this’. Therefore, I would like us to keep those verses, and if
other members agree, I hope that 40 will be my friends and stand. I do not think there
will be a need for any great debate, but it might help the Revision Committee and the
Synod to make a decision.
Revd Canon Jeremy Fletcher (York): I thank my old and current Facebook friend for
his comment. Paragraph 29 of GS 1724Y refers to this particular item. Every day I
share Morning and Evening Prayer with a colleague who goes bananas about filleting,
not in this but in the other lectionaries that we use, and occasionally has to be
restrained from throwing his lectionary across the choir of Beverley Minister because
verses have been omitted unhelpfully; and, as Synod heard in the Bishop of
Gloucester’s speech, we took this very seriously indeed. This was the only passage on
which the Revision Committee voted nine to one in favour of keeping out verses 7–9.
It was not out of disrespect to John the Baptist or even Herod hearing about these
things, but in that week the readings are broadly on the theme of mission and
proclamation and the key issue here was about the 72 who are sent out and return.
Given the context in which it is envisaged the lectionary will be used, very often a
one-off hearing, we wanted people to hear that point and not necessarily the other
point relating to Herod’s perplexity about John the Baptist. If we were going to treat
John the Baptist seriously in all that, we would need to go all the way through Luke 9,
or even back to Luke 7, so we wanted to keep it as clear as we could for those who
very often would hear once and once only what this passage would be. There is also a
week in which John the Baptist himself is broadly themed, and Herod’s response to
him and to what is happening in the gospel. It was for that reason of clarity that the
Committee voted nine to one in favour of keeping out these verses, so that people
would be able to hear the response particularly to the 72 and that kind of
proclamation. We are therefore keen to resist this re-committal motion.
The Chairman: Are there 40 members standing to support the re-committal motion?
There are. The debate therefore continues.
Revd Dr Peter Ackroyd (St Albans): I stand to support Canon Bird’s motion to recommit this business. I do so in the interests of transparency and integrity, particularly
given the pastoral situation for which this lectionary is designed, about which we have
heard. We have all omitted verses and I suspect that I am a frequent offender in
appointing readings, leading meetings, penning articles for the parish magazine. We
select verses that we think suit the occasion and sidestep the verses that we think
might distract, divert, give rise to awkward questions or tax the patience of our
audience or readership, but it is not a good habit. It is good to look at these issues and
resist that temptation wherever possible.
I do not think that the case before us to omit these verses is made. It seems to me that
the advantages are outweighed by the drawbacks. In paragraph 29 of the Revision
233
Committee’s report we are told that the omitted verses relate to verses 18–20 of Luke
9, and clearly they do, but St Luke has placed them between verses 6 and 10. Surely
we should give him the courtesy of assuming that he knew what he was doing?
Otherwise it looks suspiciously as though we want to second-guess the work of the
Holy Spirit. It seems to me that these relate not only to verses 18–20 but, as Canon
Bird pointed out, to verses 1–11. They interpose a dramatic pause and a change of
scene between the dispatch of the disciples and their return; they highlight the impact
of their mission across Galilee and the ferment of debate that it stirred up even in
Herod’s court; and, crucially, they spotlight the mission question, then as now, about
the identity of Jesus. It is about more than John the Baptist; it is about ‘Who is this
stirring up the whole of Galilee?’
I would ask Synod to resist the temptation to eliminate the tension and the questions
raised by keeping this reading as a whole. Tomorrow we shall be thinking about the
missionary potential of Church buildings, especially cathedral buildings, for which we
are told this lectionary is especially appropriate. We need to be as transparent as
possible in such situations with occasional visitors. If they come along and notice that
something has been missed out, the question that arises is, ‘What is being kept from
me?’ I do not even want to risk having to answer that question. Let us give them the
whole of the Scriptures. Later this afternoon we shall be invited to adopt a symbol of
confidence in the Bible. Let us do that now and keep these verses in.
Mr Timothy Cox (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Will you accept a
motion for closure after the next speaker?
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Cox. After the next speaker I want to test the mind of
the Steering Committee as to whether they want to say anything further and then I
will look in your direction again.
Revd Angus MacLeay (Rochester): I want to make two brief points. First, if I may be
so bold as to correct the Revision Committee member, Luke 10 is the sending out of
the 72 and Luke 9, which we are talking about, is the sending out of the 12, so we
need to get that right.
Second, we need to recognize that there is a very important method that Luke and the
other gospel writers also use of the inclusio, which is witnessed in the preceding
narrative in Luke 8 with the raising of the dead girl and the raising of the sick woman,
where we see exactly the same method of something interrupting the main flow but
for a very particular purpose. That is the method that Luke uses in Luke 9.1-11. What
is the purpose behind that significant section where Herod is mentioned? Surely part
of it – and we see this in the parallels in Mark 6 – is that it highlights the fact that as
the mission goes on, as people are sent out, we also see the risk involved, that there is
rejection, so John the Baptist and his beheading is integral to that story in Mark 6 as
well as in Luke 9.
Rather than mission being very easy and comfortable as people are sent out by the
Lord Jesus preaching the good news and returning with news of all that has happened,
it is actually done in a very risky environment, because people who had done that
previously, such as John the Baptist, lost their heads. It earths mission in the reality of
a world where people like Herod are variously intrigued, at other times perplexed, at
234
other times quite hostile to the preaching of the gospel. That is why Luke has included
it. It earths the whole mission of the Church, and for those reasons we need to include
the whole reading.
Revd Canon Jeremy Fletcher (York): I know that it very difficult to vote against John
the Baptist. The Committee took exactly the point that this is an insertion into another
narrative, and that makes perfect sense when you carry on to verse 20 and not to stop
at verse 11; that was all. All the other points are valid. Hearing about the response to
the gospel and what happens when we proclaim the gospel is absolutely right. That is
what that week’s readings actually do, and the reading from Joshua in terms of the
Old Testament that goes with it. It was simply to say that you almost blunt the impact
of John the Baptist by stopping there, but the lectionary needs to be reasonably short
and that is why we did it.
Mr Timothy Cox (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
The motion was put and carried, 110 voting in favour and 108 against, with 10
recorded abstentions.
The Chairman: Dr Hartley has five minutes in which to move his motion.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): I beg to move:
Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects” be re-committed to the
Revision Committee for further revision of its Old Testament Readings, so as
to remove all the proposed passages from the Apocrypha and leave the
canonical alternatives as the set passages.’
In view of a remark made yesterday, I begin by assuring the Synod that the Bishop of
Dudley is every bit as young as I am!
When Cranmer rationalized the seven monastic offices and created two, he abandoned
the Psalm 119 idea of ‘seven times a day will I praise you’, but what did he retain? He
retained the focus of that psalm on the word. His Morning and Evening Prayer put the
reading of Scripture at the centre, the psalms as the preamble, the canticles as the
framework, the creed and the prayers as a response, all to emphasize the centrality of
God’s word which is at the heart of that psalm. I therefore welcome this report, and
am grateful for the bishop’s positive comments on my contributions to it, because it
seeks to put a coherent reading of God’s word right at the heart of the service for the
occasional worshipper.
What is my beef about the Apocrypha? We put three questions to the Revision
Committee: first, ‘Could we please have only canonical readings?’; second, ‘If we
must have some, could we have fewer?; and third, ‘At the very least could we have
some canonical alternatives to them?’ I am very grateful that the Committee agreed to
235
the third without demur, and for that reason I shall vote in favour of this whatever
happens in the next few minutes.
Why am I so keen on apocryphal readings being excluded? The first Christians read
the Old Testament because they thought that it was God’s word, God’s gospel. They
did not read it simply as a background to understanding the New Testament, simply as
a prelude to hearing Jesus. They thought that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament not by
developing or building on the Old Testament but by himself being the person to
whom the Old Testament was referring. They so to speak claimed the Jewish book as
a Christian book, as their book. For instance they interpreted Isaiah 6 not as saying
that God had the character of holiness and majesty on which the gospel could build
the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather that Isaiah himself says that God is three as well
as one. Therefore, the seraphs who fly are not simply repeating themselves when they
say, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord’ but rather are saying that the three different persons
are holy. When the Lord says, ‘Whom shall I send, who will go for us?’ the ‘us’
shows that God is Trinity. We may disagree with their way of interpreting the Old
Testament, but that was the way in which they read it.
The Jews disputed with them on the grounds that in using the septuagint they had
committed two mistakes. The first was to rely on a translation that was not perfect, the
second to include books which were not part of the canon of Scripture, so the Jewish
formation of the canon of Scripture was formed because of the Christian threat and
they went back to the Hebrew. The Christian response was, ‘Very well, we will argue
only from the books that you admit are the word of God’, and the Reformation
Church and we in the Church of England are the inheritors of that. That is why we
have the canonical Old Testament from which we deduce the doctrine of the Church,
although we do not hate the Apocrypha, and I do not hate it myself; that is why we
focus on the canonical Old Testament. I have been brief on that, and I ask members to
pardon my historical glossings over, but I have only five minutes.
I put it to Synod that today we are in the same position today with the question, ‘What
is the Bible?’ Let us consider 17 December. It is the week before Christmas and
throughout the house there is no peace for the people, for the dog, for the cat or for the
mouse. The householder escapes to the local cathedral and finds the Advent antiphons
as the basis of what is being proclaimed: (singing)
‘O wisdom from God’s mouth,
Reaching all from north to south,
From east to west as far this shore,
Come teach us prudence evermore
As we await your coming.
O come, O come.’
I love this stuff and I like to set it to music.
It is a service that invites us to consider this doctrinal question: how are the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit related? How are they foretold in the Old Testament when
it speaks of God and his word and his wisdom? That is a doctrinal question. Yet the
reading set for that comes from the Apocrypha; it is the foundation for it. However,
the person goes home and says, ‘Do you know, they did not even read a passage of
236
Scripture. What are these people thinking of?’ It is to prevent that kind of thing that I
ask Synod to support us in reading Scripture, not other things, at these services.
The Chairman: I call on Dr Tim Stratford to comment on behalf of the Steering
Committee.
Revd Dr Tim Stratford (Liverpool): May I congratulate Dr Hartley on his singing? It
was lovely.
I suspected that inevitably questions would be asked about the inclusion of
Apocryphal readings in this lectionary. Members of Synod will see from paragraphs
15–19 of the Revision Committee’s report that we spent some time discussing it. We
arrived at the same settlement that our Church has arrived at previously, and the
voting figures of ten to one reflect that consensus.
In reply to Dr Hartley’s first re-committal motion, let me rehearse some positive
reasons that we have for retaining these inter-testamental Apocryphal readings. First,
we have no argument with Dr Hartley on the definition of canon, of Apocrypha, of the
Bible, and no argument about doctrine, but there are some positive reasons for the
inclusion of these readings. The Bishop of Gloucester has already mentioned Article
VI of our Church – an assertion that ‘the Church doth read them’. Second, the Prayer
Book’s own Daily Readings Lectionary – not just 1662, but 1549 and 1552,
Cranmer’s own works – includes a significant number of these readings, and
Apocryphal readings are part of the pattern of the Common Worship provision.
Third, the Additional Weekday Lectionary is geared to daily prayer and is most likely
to be used at Evensong, which is also very rich in Scripture by way of psalmody and
canticles, and we should remember that they are also from Scripture. The lectionary
readings supplement this and are not the sole scriptural content of the worship.
As I reflect on my own spiritual formation, I am probably not the only one here who
over the years has become appreciative of our Church’s wisdom in this matter. For a
time I never encountered these writings and was probably a little wary of them; that is
part of my own upbringing. It is the mainstream daily prayer provision of the Church
that has opened them up to me, especially the wisdom writings that are used most in
this lectionary. Far from eroding my appreciation of the canonical Scriptures, this
exposure has helped me to enter into the religious milieu that Jesus knew. These
writings coloured his days and illumined the early days of the Church for us too. They
are part of the backcloth of the New Testament and are used in this lectionary to
support, on a few occasions, the New Testament readings.
This motion is not consistent with the lectionary schemes that we have chosen to
adopt to date and I urge Synod to resist it.
The Chairman: Are there at least 40 members standing who wish to have this motion
debated? There are not. Item 602 therefore falls.
Dr Hartley has up to five minutes to move Item 603, but maybe he could use fewer
than five.
237
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): – and maybe not; we shall see. I beg to move:
Revision Committee for further revision of its Old Testament readings, so as to
remove about half of the proposed passages from the Apocrypha and leave in
those places the canonical alternatives as the set passages.’
On the second point I took advice from Colin Buchanan before I wrote to the bishop.
Colin Buchanan suggested to me that I should ask a question of principle on the use of
the Apocrypha and in particular the question, ‘How much should it be used?’ I asked
that question of the Revision Committee, but they did not reply beyond what has
already been said, namely that in general it is used in Anglican lectionaries. I would
like to put it to Synod that that is not really the case.
In the Table of Proper Lessons to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays
on pages xvii and following in the Book of Common Prayer, there are no Apocryphal
readings. In the Daily Lectionary in the Book of Common Prayer there are about 20odd days on which Apocryphal readings are used. This lectionary is intended to be
used on occasions when visitors come. It is intended more for those who do not attend
regularly than for those who do. We should therefore follow more Cranmer’s
procedures for Sundays than for weekdays, which he expected to be used by the
clergy. If we followed the principles in the Book of Common Prayer, we would
expect fewer than six lectionary readings from the Apocrypha, compared with the
present 17.
I acknowledge what Tim Stratford has said about the way in which he has found the
Apocryphal readings helpful in broadening his appreciation. That is great, and I too
have found that helpful since I became a Christian. However, we are not talking about
people such as me and him using this lectionary; we are talking about people off the
street who come to hear it. I submit to Synod that we have the balance wrong. Even if
it is right to use the Apocrypha occasionally, it is not right to use it on as many as 17
days to give people a 5 per cent chance of missing God’s word in the Scripture when
they come to a service of Evening Prayer. I therefore ask Synod to support this
motion.
Revd Dr Tim Stratford (Liverpool): I shall be brief. This lectionary follows the
principles of the Weekday Lectionaries, not the Sunday Lectionary, as Dr Hartley has
just suggested. In fact we have done a count of how many of those readings would
actually fall on a weekday in the current year, and six would not be read. Therefore,
we are arguing about relatively small numbers. Of the 17 in the Tables, 11 would be
read this year.
My difficulty with Dr Hartley’s motion is that it appears to be a little random and not
really a matter of principle, and it is on that basis that I urge Synod to resist it. The
Additional Weekday Lectionary proposes a maximum of 17 Apocryphal readings
from 669, and this year there would be only 11. The 17 readings in the tables are
chosen because of their particular appropriateness to their New Testament pairings
and the shape of the lectionary. A random suggestion that half of them should be
removed seems to pay no consideration at all to that point.
238
In addition I particularly want to persuade Synod to see this option not as some sort of
middle way, which members may be tempted to do when they look at the order paper.
I believe that in what it has done the Revision Committee has offered a well balanced
way. The draft lectionary that members sent to the Revision Committee has now had
inserted in it new canonical alternatives, which appear in the papers before Synod.
Those alternatives do not cast light on the New Testament readings quite as well as
the Apocryphal readings that are paired there as well, but they are there to facilitate
the use of the lectionary in a wider range of contexts, which may include some of the
contexts that Dr Hartley has in mind.
I believe that the Revision Committee has put before Synod a balanced approach and I
urge members to resist a motion that chips away at that.
The Chairman: Are there 40 people standing to have the motion debated? There are
not. Item 603 therefore falls.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): I beg to move:
Revision Committee for further revision of its Old Testament readings, so that
in all cases where a choice is offered between an Old Testament passage and a
passage from the Apocrypha, the passage from the Old Testament is shown as
the first alternative (following the precedent set by the “Revised Table of
Lessons 1922” as set out in the Book of Common Prayer.’
Before I speak to my motion, in the light of what Mr Allen said earlier, I would like to
put on record that I was persuaded by the debate in the Revision Committee that if
particular anti-slavery campaigners were to be named, Clarkson and Equiano were
certainly the right people to include. We all learnt something on that day.
Synod has decided to keep 17 readings from the Apocrypha as options in this pillar
lectionary. The question is: which option should come first, the Apocryphal reading or
the one from canonical Scripture? Like others, I am not against readings from the
Apocrypha. With St Jerome, and on the basis of Article VI, I understand that the
books of the Apocrypha are worth reading as examples of life and instruction of
manners; and, as Tim Stratford has reminded us, they can enrich our understanding of
the backdrop of the life of Jesus and the context in which he spoke and ministered.
The Apocrypha is good, but like other good things it can in some circumstances
become the enemy of the best, and I suggest that the best is canonical Scripture. As
the Bishop of Wakefield’s amendment to what was to be the next item of business, the
Chelmsford Diocesan Synod Motion on Confidence in the Bible, reminds us,
Scripture is inspired by God and reveals all things necessary for eternal salvation
through faith in Jesus Christ.
We need to remember the purpose for which this pillar lectionary is designed. It is for
use in settings where there are few daily regular worshippers and most of the
congregation are occasional or one-off visitors. Surely we should do all we can to
ensure that someone who comes to a service for the first time, or perhaps only once a
239
year or a few times during the year, hears the living and active word of God in
Scripture rather than some other material which, though good, is not the best that we
have to offer. I therefore suggest that, following the precedent of the Revised Table of
Lessons that was inserted into the Book of Common Prayer in 1922, the canonical
alternative should always be shown first, sending a clear signal that actually the
mainstream position is to read Scripture, which is the best first order material, and that
the Apocryphal alternative is just that – an alternative to the norm, to be used in
particular circumstances.
Revd Dr Tim Stratford (Liverpool): We have moved on from 1922, and I urge the
Synod to remember that we are talking about a Common Worship lectionary for the
21st century. Many members will have spotted that the Apocryphal readings included
here illuminate strongly the New Testament readings with which they are paired. That
kind of linking between the pairs of readings is a feature of the lectionary that
Mr Scowen particularly asked the Revision Committee to make more of when he
addressed it.
If it were the case that an Old Testament reading sat as well as an Apocryphal reading
alongside the New Testament readings that drive the lectionary, I am sure that the
argument in favour of the canonical alternative would prevail. Indeed in the vast
majority of cases that has been the rule. In these tables we have only 17 readings from
the Apocrypha. In the light of these re-committal motions I have again worked
through the 17 occasions and it is clear that the canonical alternatives do not
illuminate the New Testament as strongly as the Apocryphal readings. The canonical
alternative provided in the tables that members have in front of them is just that – an
alternative. It would seem very odd to print the alternative as though it were the
clearer choice. That would not improve a fundamentally missional lectionary reading
scheme. It is meant to be plain, clear and coherent.
I again urge Synod to resist this motion. Its appeal to an early 20th century revision of
the 1662 Weekday Lectionary is not consistent with either previous or more recent
decisions about lectionaries in our Church, and it is at odds with the coherence, clarity
and missional sense of this Additional Weekday Lectionary.
The Chairman: Are there 40 members standing? There are, so the debate continues. I
ask members to direct their speeches specifically to the issue of sequencing rather
than make broad ranging speeches on the Apocrypha or otherwise.
The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent): I hear the defence mounted by
folk from the Liturgical Commission about the reason why the Apocryphal readings
have been chosen, but I think that we are in danger of sliding into a kind of odd postmodernity about what Scripture is and what it is not. I listened very carefully to the
defence that of course the Office as we now have it contains all kinds of scriptural
material and pastiches of stuff that take it back to the richness of what is in the
revelation that God has given us, and I fully accept that that is the case. My devotional
life is greatly enriched by the way in which that has happened in our recent Offices.
240
Nevertheless I think it is important for us to recognize that there is something
different about those passages that we read as Scripture. They are delineated as Old
and New Testament readings, and those of us who believe that Scripture is the
normative way in which we receive the revelation of God want to suggest to Synod
that even if it is suggested that the Apocrypha throws light on the New Testament
readings, it is still not Scripture; it is still not something at the end of which I can say,
‘This is the word of the Lord’. This material might help me to understand the word of
the Lord that is coming later, but that is not the same thing. Therefore, although at one
level I recognize the hard work that has been done to put together Apocryphal
readings that will illuminate, I suggest that this might be looked at again. The
fundamental question ‘What is Scripture and how do we receive Scripture in any
service of Church of England worship?’ needs to be addressed, and the Apocrypha
does not do that for me.
Revd Canon Professor Anthony Thiselton (Southwell and Nottingham): I was tempted
to start with that banal comment, ‘Mr Chairman, I did not intend to speak in this
debate’, but several points have been missed about this lectionary, which is why I
support the motion.
First of all the Bible is transformative, the Apocrypha is instructive. I have been told
all my life that I am inclined to do too much intellectualizing of the gospel, and I am
speaking against intellectualizing the gospel especially for the particular congregation
who may hear it only occasionally. To quote David Kelsey, the Bible shapes persons’
identities so decisively as to transform them, and there are many other writers who
say that. That does not for a moment question the Apocrypha’s value as instruction,
but do we want to shape people’s lives or give them intellectual information?
My second point is that for years I have lectured on inter-testamental literature in
Judaism, and the Apocrypha contains lots of hedonistic stuff which simply conflicts
with Christian doctrine. If the people about whom we are talking have been to Church
only occasionally, I think that it would be a tragedy not to put the canonical readings
first.
Revd Dr Tim Stratford (Liverpool): In reply to the Bishop of Willesden, in what we
have put before Synod we are not equating these readings with the canon of Scripture.
Indeed offering canonical alternatives demonstrates that. There are no alternatives for
the other readings that are there – only against these Apocryphal readings. We must
remember that this lectionary is geared to daily prayer and is most likely to be used at
Evensong, where it is not the pattern of our Church to say, ‘This is the word of the
Lord’. I have not heard in any of the debate why different principles are being applied
to this lectionary from those that we have agreed in the past.
For Professor Thiselton, I have a question: does the poetry of the Wisdom readings
chosen in this lectionary illumine the New Testament? This is not just about
instruction or intellectualization; it is also about illumination for a fundamentally
missional lectionary. Remember that we are not talking about the whole of the
Apocryphal corpus but only the 17 particular selections that have been made in this
table, and they are very limited in the material that they use.
241
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): I was not going to speak in this debate,
Mr Chairman! –
The Chairman: You may have two minutes, Archbishop.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): Yes it will be two minutes; do not
worry. We are told that the Apocryphal readings illuminate the New Testament. Let
us go to 17 December. The New Testament reading is 1 Corinthians 2.1-13, which
refers to us being part of the wisdom of God; it is about wisdom. In Proverbs 8. 22 we
read: ‘The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, at the first, before the
beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth …’ and so on.
This definitely very much illuminates the New Testament, so I do not understand the
argument. As far as I am concerned, 1 Corinthians 2 actually is more illuminated by
Ecclesiasticus 24.1-9. I want to support the motion.
The Chairman: I have been told that the Revision Committee would like to make one
further comment.
Revd Dr Tim Stratford (Liverpool): I simply want to say that the 17 December
provision is of course slightly different from the rest, in that it is – (laughter). Let me
explain why. That provision simply repeats what already exists in the Church. It is the
Advent antiphon and it is material already commended by the House of Bishops for
use in the Church.
The motion was put and lost, 89 voting in favour and 149 against, with 2 recorded
abstentions.
The Chairman: The Liturgical Business entitled ‘Additional Weekday Lectionary and
Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects’ stands re-committed to the
Revision Committee for revision of the parts cited in Item 601. Members of Synod
may submit in writing specific proposals for amendment of the text in respect of that
item only. Such proposals should be sent to the Clerk to the Synod so as to reach him
not later than 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 17 March 2010.
Statement by the Chair of the Business Committee
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick (Hereford): Synod, we clearly will not reach the
Chelmsford Diocesan Synod Motion tonight, but of course we do not want to lose
confidence in the Bible! We will not lose it, and I will make a statement tomorrow
morning about exactly when we can fit it in. Finally, may I remind members to take
away their handsets and any pieces of paper when they leave?
After the closing act of worship, the Session was adjourned at 7.04 p.m.
242
FOURTH DAY
Thursday 11 February 2010
THE CHAIR Canon Margaret Swinson (Liverpool) took the Chair at 9.30 a.m.
Revd Richard Moy (Lichfield) led the Synod in prayer.
Variation in the Order of Business
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick (Hereford): Yesterday, because of matters that were
quite beyond the control of all of us, we did get rather behind and so did not manage
to deal with the Diocesan Synod Motion from Chelmsford on Confidence in the Bible.
We are very keen that we should do that at this group of sessions. The only way that
we have been able to find to do so is to ask those who were bringing the Coventry
motion on deanery synods – which was the last one to come in – very kindly to step
down and therefore, at around 11 o’clock on Friday, we shall take the Chelmsford
motion. We hope to be able to take the Coventry motion in July.
The Chairman: The chair of the Business Committee is proposing a variation in the
order of business. It has my agreement. Does it have the consent of Synod?
The motion to vary the order of business was put and carried.
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT
OF THE METHODIST CONFERENCE
The Chairman: The President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference are
invited to address the Synod under SO 112. Before they do so, though, I would like to
welcome members in the gallery from the Methodist Church. They are Professor Peter
Howdle, Co-chair of the Joint Implementation Commission; Mrs Christine Elliott,
Secretary for External Relationships in the Connexional Team; Revd Dr Roger
Walton, Director of the Wesley Study Centre, who will succeed Jane Craske as an
ecumenical representative in this Synod in July; Revd Graham Kent, County
Ecumenical Officer for Greater Manchester and a member of the Methodist Panel for
Unity and Mission; and also Revd Ken Howcroft, who is on the platform, the
Assistant Secretary of the Methodist Conference.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): I am sorry to say that the only
previous occasion when a President of the Methodist Conference addressed this
Synod was as long ago as 1993, when Dr Brian Beck, a very dear friend of mine, was
President. That was, of course, before the Church of England and the Methodist
Church began their current series of steps towards visible unity but it was part of the
long preparation leading up to the Anglican-Methodist Covenant. I may say that I am
myself looking forward to a second visit to the Methodist Conference in Portsmouth
in June this year.
It is a very happy coincidence that, after we have welcomed our Methodist guests
today, the item following is a presentation of perhaps the most visible piece of
243
Address by the President of the Methodist Conference
Anglican-Methodist co-operation in the work of the kingdom in the UK at the
moment and that is Fresh Expressions, where our partnership with the Methodist
Church has been absolutely crucial to the vitality and imagination of this work.
The Joint Implementation Commission in relation to the Covenant has begun a second
phase and it will be bringing an interim report to Synod and to the Methodist
Conference in the summer of next year. Meanwhile, the proposals of the first phase of
the Joint Implementation Commission are making their way through our Churches at
their different levels, and of course the Archbishops meet with the President and VicePresident of the Methodist Conference each year. In that context, it is perhaps a little
premature to accept the verdict passed on the Covenant by one former member of this
Synod in the Church Times recently and I hope that this morning will be an event that
galvanizes whatever energy may be lacking in our enthusiasm for pursuing the
Covenant to its proper end, which is witnessing to the unity of Christ’s Church in
mission.
I am delighted to be able to welcome the President and Vice-President of the
Methodist Conference. The president and vice-president, for those who do not know
the Methodist polity, are elected for one year, the president always being a presbyter
and the vice-president a layperson or member of the Methodist diaconal order. The
president presides at the annual conference, assisted by the vice-president and, during
their year of office, they exercise a ministry of oversight, teaching and encouragement
throughout the Methodist Connexion.
This year’s President is Revd David Gamble, also the Methodist Church’s Officer for
Legal and Constitutional Practice within the Connexional Team. A graduate in law
from Hull, he trained for the ministry at Wesley House in Cambridge, served in
Yorkshire circuits for a period, and has long experience of children and youth work
within the Methodist Connexion. He was for seven years Secretary for Family and
Personal Relationships within the Methodist Church and then in 2003 became coordinating secretary for the legal affairs that I have already mentioned. He has been
vice-chair of the National Family and Parenting Institute and was chair of Barnardo’s
Council from 1997-2002, remaining a vice-president of Barnardo’s.
The Vice-President of Conference is Dr Richard Vautrey, a general practitioner in
Leeds and also deputy chair of the British Medical Association’s General Practitioner
Committee. He studied medicine at Manchester University, was a junior doctor in
hospitals in Manchester and Rochdale, and then spent 18 months in Nigeria as a
mission partner with the Methodist Church there. He represents local GPs through his
work for the Leeds Local Medical Committee and, nationally, as an elected member
of the BMA’s General Practitioner Committee, and those roles often involve speaking
on behalf of GPs in local and national media. For 20 years he has been a Methodist
local preacher.
It is with very great personal delight that I welcome David and Richard to this Synod
this morning. I hope that you will join me in saying how very glad we are to see them
and how much we look forward to hearing what they have to share with us.
(Applause)
244
Revd David Gamble (President, Methodist Conference): If it is any comfort to you,
looking at you, if anything you are less scary than Methodist Conference – but only
marginally! (Laughter)
I would like first to thank Archbishop Rowan for his generous words of introduction
and welcome, and let me also thank both Archbishops for their invitation to us to
come and address the General Synod today. I am very proud to follow in the footsteps
of Brian Beck, who was the assistant tutor when I was at Wesley House – which
shows what a long time ago it was. The icing on the cake for this visit was singing a
Charles Wesley hymn, and the cherry on the icing was hearing it played by William
Fittall. I did not know that he played the piano!
We thought that by way of introduction it was worth rehearsing a few basic things
about Methodism and explaining who we are. Though, to be honest, the Archbishop’s
description of what the president and vice-president are is simpler than mine and I
probably should have been taking notes! However, I was comforted to know that I am
here under SO 112. That makes me feel very much at home.
The British Methodist Church, as you probably know, has churches and circuits in
England, Scotland, Wales, Shetland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Gibraltar
and Malta and, until last May, would also have included the Gambia, but that is now
our final church to become autonomous.
Each year, the Methodist Conference, our governing body under God, elects a
president and a vice-president and, as Archbishop Rowan has said, the president is
always a presbyter, the vice-president is a layperson or a deacon. How we do this
electing is that at the annual Conference there is an election, as a result of which a
president and vice-president are designated to take office the next year. You therefore
spend a year as president and vice-president designate; then pretty well the first thing
that happens at the next Conference is the election of the president and vice-president
by standing vote. As the person who has been designated by the previous Conference,
you are the only candidate; so you have quite a good chance – and it is pretty
devastating not to get in! (Laughter)
The president and vice-president hold office for a year. They then spend a year as expresident and ex-vice president, and then they become one of the ranks of past
presidents and past vice-presidents. As one of my predecessors described it, ‘You
spend a year being “it”, then a year being “ex-it” and then you become “past it”.’
(Laughter) It is because of the complications of this that we have so many Standing
Orders, actually! Next year’s president and vice-president have therefore already been
designated, and they are Revd Alison Tomlin, who will be our president, and Deacon
Eunice Attwood will be our vice-president.
It is also important that, as Archbishop Rowan has explained en passant (as they say
in Muswell Hill) because you are only ‘it’ for a year, you keep your day job and go
back to it. He only half-said what my day job is. The Methodist Church has a way
with words – it is quite a big way. My full day job is actually Conference Officer for
Legal and Constitutional Practice and Head of the Governance Support Cluster. You
cannot imagine how nice it is to be ‘President’!
245
It is probably also worth noting that we have a report coming to this year’s
Conference on senior roles within the Methodist Church. One of the things on which
the Conference is likely to be asked to express its view is whether we should remain
with this current situation of an annual presidency or move to a three-year term; and,
if we did, what that would mean in terms of how we express the collaboration
between presbyters, deacons and laypeople in our Church.
Dr Richard Vautrey (Vice-President, Methodist Conference): The vice-president of
the Methodist Conference is the highest office within the Methodist Church in Britain
that can be held by a layperson and it is a role that I have been privileged to hold since
the Methodist Conference last July. One of the things I have quickly found is that so
many people assume that I will be the president next year, but I have to assure them,
or perhaps reassure them, that that is not the case. One of the key differences between
the president and the vice-president is that, while the president takes on the role in a
full-time capacity, traditionally the vice-president continues to fulfil their lay role; so
for me that means continuing as a GP in my practice in Leeds and as the deputy chair
of the BMA’s GP committee. It makes for a busy year and you need a very
understanding family, but I think it is quite important that part of what any layperson
brings to the role of vice-president is their lay ministry, and what I do in my day job
informs and enriches how I fulfil this office. In the position of the vice-president, the
Methodist Church affirms the central role of lay ministry in its life and witness.
Dr David Gamble: The titles of certain people within the Methodist Church are a
reminder of our polity. Authority lies for us with the Conference. That is where
episcope or oversight is primarily located for us: the process of ensuring that the
Church remains true to the gospel, to Christian tradition and Methodist experience,
and to the promptings of the Spirit. The president and the vice-president are the
people who preside at the Conference. Similarly, we call the person who chairs a
District Synod the Chair of the District. So the titles president, vice-president and
chair point to the way in which authority for us lies with the corporate body, rather
than with the individual.
Of course, with a Conference that meets only once a year there is a question of where
authority lies in the meantime. We have a Methodist Council that meets regularly
during the year. It has its own responsibilities and is the employer of our Connexional
Team; but it also has certain limited powers to act as the Conference between
Conferences. Any actions it takes in that way have to be reported to the next
Conference. There are then certain powers vested in the president to act on behalf of
the Church between Conferences. The powers are set out in Standing Orders, are
strictly limited and have to be reported back to the Conference.
Much of what we actually do as president and vice-president could therefore be
described as representational or perhaps ambassadorial. We sometimes speak on
behalf of the Methodist Church to the media, the Government, or other bodies.
The president and vice-president do a lot of travelling during their year. They pay
visits to probably just over half of the districts of the British Methodist Church,
sharing in worship, meeting people and celebrating in important events in the life of
the local Church. We are shown exciting new developments and are sometimes
involved in discussions around major challenges or difficulties facing the Church in a
particular situation. Many of our visits include ecumenical gatherings, occasions and
246
services. This coming Sunday I shall be sharing in an ecumenical service in Pateley
Bridge in Yorkshire.
It also feels as though we visit half of the world as well. We have been privileged to
visit partner Churches on almost every continent. In each case we have been
challenged by a fast-growing and vibrant Church. Richard has been to Chile,
Bulgaria, Macedonia and Uganda. I have been to Brazil, India, Sri Lanka and Ghana.
In May, we have been invited to Antigua to share in the celebration of 250 years of
Methodism in the Caribbean. From Antigua we are due to go straight to Haiti, on a
pastoral visit to our sisters and brothers there.
Dr Richard Vautrey: One of the first visits that I made after the Conference was
closer to home, to the birthplace of Primitive Methodism in the early 1800s at
Englesea Brook and Mow Cop in Staffordshire. Primitive Methodists separated from
the Wesleyans in the 19th century. One of the characteristics of the early Primitive
Methodist movement was the way that lay leadership played such a prominent role.
From the early days of camp meetings, organized by lay leaders, Hugh Bourne and
William Clowes, to the widespread development of class and cottage meetings, prayer
meetings, love feasts and Sunday Schools, lay women and men played a crucial role
in the development of this movement. Laypeople were not only able to act as
preachers, as they were in the Wesleyans, but they also had a voice in the decisionmaking bodies of the Church, which was for many, if not all, a new and exciting
experience.
Over time, as the Primitive Methodist Church became more established, the voice of
laypeople, in particular women, did start to wane, although it was they who in 1872
introduced the position of vice-president of Conference and, on rare occasions, a
layperson – like Sir William Hartley of jam-making fame – was made President of the
Primitive Methodist Conference.
Much of this has fed through to our current tradition. In 1932, Wesleyan, Primitive,
United and other Methodist traditions united to make the Methodist Church in Great
Britain as we know it today. The Methodist Church is still characterized by the
tradition of recognizing and valuing the role of laypeople. Many of our major
committees are chaired by laypeople and the Conference itself in its representative
session is half lay and half ministerial.
We are also seeing a greater emphasis on lay ministry and recognizing the importance
of collaboration and working in teams across circuits; that each of us has different
God-given gifts and talents but, by bringing them together and working together, we
can often be far more effective in our work and witness. Paul's first letter to the
Corinthians makes it clear. We have different gifts; we can offer different services;
but the body is only made whole if we all appreciate and value what each other brings
and offers.
I saw this clearly on a visit I made to a small Methodist church in the north of
Scotland. A few years ago they had had 12 members and their church was literally
falling down around them. However, through the inspirational leadership of a woman
in the church working together with a supernumerary minister, they have fought
against what seemed the inevitable and have completely renovated their building.
247
Time and time again, problems have been solved better than could have been hoped
for and money has been found to support the work. They are now left with a building
that serves their mission and is no longer a burden to it. More importantly, however,
there is a renewed sense of confidence that they are doing what God intends. As a
result, their membership has almost doubled.
It is a great story that is replicated around the country, but would it not have been
better if the work that they had done had been between Churches in their area, not just
them alone? Shortly after the signing of the Covenant between our two Churches, my
own church in Leeds joined in a covenantal relationship with our neighbouring parish
church. It was the culmination of years of working together, exemplified by
St Matthew’s hosting Chapel Allerton Methodists while our own church was rebuilt.
It was wonderful that Bishop John Packer could join us in our Methodist church to
celebrate the Covenant that we signed. Since then we have continued to develop a
fruitful partnership, not least by the joint appointment of a children's worker together
with our Baptist colleagues and jointly running weekly youth groups.
Revd David Gamble: Obviously, one of the main reasons Richard and I are here
today is because our two Churches, the Church of England and the Methodist Church,
have made a covenant together. A covenant is a serious, deeply committed
relationship, not some irrelevant optional extra but something at the heart of how we
understand our present and future life as Church.
You the Church of England and we the Methodist Church are committed to each other
in a covenant relationship. Within God’s overwhelmingly gracious covenant
relationship with us and with our Churches, we are in covenant with each other – for
better or worse, for richer or poorer, but always for the gospel.
Others could tell you far better than I where the Joint Implementation Commission
has reached in its thinking and doing. It is well and truly up and running and it has
identified some of the big issues to which, as Churches, we are currently responding.
One of those big questions is what does it look like on the ground? What signs are
there that these two Churches have a covenant relationship with each other? One sign
is our presence here today, to be followed by Archbishop Rowan’s visit to our
Conference in June.
Another sign, one which you will be looking at later this morning, is the Fresh
Expressions initiative, to which both of our Churches are fully committed. Another,
with which I have direct involvement, is our work on safeguarding children and
vulnerable adults, with a joint post as national officer, increasing joint working
between dioceses and districts, and with new joint committees supporting the work.
It has to be said, however, that around the country the situation can best be described
as patchy. In some places there are very close working relationships and exciting new
initiatives. In others, you could spend quite a long time trying to find any sign of the
Covenant in practice. Some Churches, clergy and communities are very enthusiastic.
Others have theological, ecclesiological or other differences and/or reservations.
Some think we have moved beyond these ways of thinking of Church structures; for
them, the Church is post-denominational and the ecumenical movement as we know it
248
is history. Sometimes, a bad relationship, or total non-relationship, between Churches
can simply be down to how particular individuals do or do not get on.
It is also the case that ecumenical working potentially involves many other Churches
and Christian groups as well as Church of England and Methodist – quite rightly.
There is a long tradition of very valuable ecumenical working in chaplaincy to the
Forces, to hospitals, to prisons and so on. Some of the most exciting newer ventures I
have seen on my recent travels have been developments of the chaplaincy concept:
workplace chaplaincy for instance, or town centre chaplaincy. I have seen this in
several places now, most recently in Watford. Often, part of the chaplaincy set-up is
some kind of street pastor or street angel scheme. I saw this too in Wolverhampton,
but it is also possible to do this in places that do not begin with W! At its best, this
kind of work is always ecumenical, across a wide range of Christian traditions.
Another place that impressed me hugely when I visited it was Cambourne, a new
town outside Cambridge, where the Churches have worked together from the
beginning. First they established an ecumenical Church school, which provided all
kinds of links with the new community developing there. Now, ten years on, they
have opened their church building – again ecumenical, to be used by all
denominations, including the Roman Catholics. The other denominations contribute
resources of people or money to an ecumenical staff team – so it really is ‘the Church’
in Cambourne.
When I entered theological college – shortly after Wesley’s funeral actually, in
1971! – I really expected to spend my ministry as minister in a united,
Anglican/Methodist Church. I still remember the great disappointment of 1972. I
deeply hope that we can take this Covenant seriously and enable it to bear fruit as we
worship, pray and work together, wherever and whenever we possibly can.
Dr Richard Vautrey: We can and do work together on issues of social justice, on
issues where we both know God calls on us to challenge our society and our world.
We saw that clearly in December, when Archbishop Rowan joined David and me,
along with a large number of other ministers, at a service across the road in Methodist
Central Hall prior to The Wave climate change march, which was held before the
conference in Copenhagen. The President even lent Archbishop Rowan a pair of blue
gloves so that he was appropriately dressed for the cameras. What better sign of
partnership working could there be? We saw it also at the political party conferences
this year, where we both offered our support to the Citizens for Sanctuary movement,
a campaign to challenge the negative stereotypes and prejudices towards those whom
we often call asylum seekers but who are seeking sanctuary from persecution
elsewhere in the world. We have seen it in our joint working on the social impact of
gambling and the expansion of the gaming industry, and the campaign to decrease the
danger of nuclear weapons, called Now is the Time.
There is, though, more that we could and should be doing together. David and I have
just come back from a very challenging visit to Israel and Palestine. There can be few
other places in the world where the cries for justice and peace strike deeper into the
heart. We heard of the pain and hurt of individuals from all communities, not least
Palestinian Christians, who so often feel forgotten about and marginalized. We also
saw the inspiring work of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme of the World
249
Council of Churches: men and women from all denominations and none who stand
alongside their brothers and sisters as they try to go about their daily life, including
crossing the separation barrier that now extends hundreds of miles through Israel and
the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Palestinian Christians have recently articulated
their concerns in an important statement, the Kairos Palestine Document. It is a clear
call to their own people but also a bold and courageous call to the whole international
community and the Churches.
We know that Archbishop Rowan is shortly to visit Israel, and perhaps on his return
we should explore ways in which we could work jointly, Methodists and Anglicans,
to respond to the increasingly desperate cries for help coming from the Holy Land.
There is much too that we can learn together from our partners in the World Church.
There are some 70 million Christians worldwide who claim a Methodist heritage. We
as Methodists in Britain are having to rethink how we relate to this growing and
vibrant Methodist family, and how we can best support our partners when they find
themselves in difficulties. For instance, the Methodist Church in Fiji is currently
under pressure from the Government of Fiji. This year their annual Conference was
prevented from taking place, as was their annual choir festival. Significant speaking
restrictions have been placed on senior church leaders, and in August the President of
the Methodist Church, the General Secretary and seven other Church leaders were
arrested and appeared in court. We are supporting them as well as we can, but would
it not it be better if we could do it together as covenantal partners?
Revd David Gamble: I was not going to mention the blue gloves I lent the
Archbishop in December, because it sounds a bit like name-dropping! As they have
been mentioned, however, it is worth saying that when the Archbishop of
Westminster turned up he did not have any gloves either, so I lent my gloves to him!
If you see on eBay a pair of blue gloves claiming to have been worn by the President
of the Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster,
it is possible that they are genuine. They cost me £1.99! (Laughter)
Where do we go from here? That is not just down to the Joint Implementation
Commission but to all of us. Clearly, there are some very big issues with theological,
ecclesiological and other implications that we need to work on. Our Church structures
have something of a mismatch about them. You have national, diocese, deanery and
parish. We have connexion, district, circuit and local church; but it seems things that
we might do by way of connexion or district, you probably do through diocese or
parish. Some of the things we do in our daily work, therefore, mean that there is a
mismatch on how we make our decisions.
There are still all sorts of questions to work on relating to ministry and ordination.
How far can we develop interchangeability? What about women's ministry at every
level? We Methodists still have to work on how our expression of episcope relates to
personalized episcopacy in the form of bishops. Then there is diaconal ministry and
two rather different histories of a diaconate.
Both of our Churches are part of world communions where we have influence and
history but where Churches in other parts of the world are growing rapidly in size and
importance and sometimes see things very differently. As Churches and
250
Communions, we are both struggling with how we can cohere in a postmodern word,
with learning how to live with contradictory convictions. At such times, it is hard to
pay attention to those beyond us. However, it is precisely at those times that we have
things to offer each other. More practically perhaps, how do we relate to the rest of
Britain? The Methodist Church covers the whole of Britain, and we are delighted that
the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales are now involved in our
explorations under the Covenant.
Whatever happens in our discussions and theologizing at a national, or, as we would
say, connexional level, the question of what is happening locally remains of major
significance. There are many places, especially in rural areas, where we probably
have too many buildings and maybe too many services and we could go much further
towards working and worshipping together as ‘the Church’ in that place. I mentioned
Cambourne earlier and that is quite a large community, but there are many much
smaller ones where we could do so much more. The beautifully named MAPUM –
which sounds slightly like a Tolkien character –Methodist Anglican Panel for Unity in
Mission, can help us develop appropriate local covenant relationships and get the
practicalities right.
I wonder too how far we could work further on ecumenical Church schools. Again,
we have something to learn from Cambourne. Speaking from the Methodist Church's
point of view, it is interesting that we have been involved in recent years in opening
more schools, always ecumenically, generally with the Church of England, and
always where it has been a response to the needs of a particular community.
I suppose my last question, at least for this morning, is how do we together respond to
the challenges of the 21st century? A society of different faiths, different cultures,
different histories; a society where many have no history of involvement with a faith
community but where the big questions remain on the agenda: questions of meaning
and purpose; of how we shall live together; of life and death; of the future of our
planet; of right and wrong; and the value of each person.
Throughout the history of Churches working together, as I have experienced it, one of
the major and oft-repeated texts has been John 17.21, where Christ prays for the unity
of his followers not because it is a nice idea, not because it is financially a better use
of scarce resources, but that the world might believe. It is mission-led. We only exist
to glorify God, to ensure that the word is duly preached, the sacraments duly
celebrated, and the people duly formed in discipleship for worship and mission.
For Methodists, the word ‘covenant’ is very important – part of our spirituality and
our understanding of our relationship with God. Many here may have shared in our
annual Covenant Service, with these powerful words --Dr Richard Vautrey:
‘I am no longer my own, but yours.
Put me to what you will, rank me with whom you will; put me to doing,
put me to suffering;
let me be employed for you or laid aside for you,
exalted for you or brought low for you;
251
let me be full, let me be empty,
let me have all things, let me have nothing;
I freely and wholeheartedly yield all things to your pleasure and disposal.’
Revd David Gamble: Methodists approach the Covenant with the Church of England
in the spirituality of that Covenant prayer. Therefore, when we say to God ‘Let me
have all things, let me have nothing’, we say it by extension to our partners in the
Church of England.
We are prepared to go out of existence, not because we are declining or failing in
mission but for the sake of mission. In other words, we are prepared to be changed,
and even to cease having a separate existence as a Church, if that will serve the needs
of the kingdom. Are we willing to take our Covenant that seriously? It is quite a
challenge – for both of our Churches. (Applause)
The Chairman: We have some time now for questions and brief comments.
Revd David Griffiths (Manchester): It was very good to hear the President and vicePresident address us just now. It really is too long since the President was last here.
President David asked the question, what does the Covenant look like on the ground?
At the beginning of 2002 I was appointed, alongside being a parish priest, to be a joint
Anglican-Methodist ecumenical minister development adviser for Bury. The Bishop
of Bolton and the local District Chairman exercised dual oversight, together with a
support group. I retired in July last year. Much has been achieved in those seven
years, but there is a feeling of the Covenant becoming somewhat becalmed after the
initial heady days. Six years on, in his address to our diocesan synod, Bishop Nigel
asked, ‘What has happened to the Methodist Covenant, which we overwhelmingly
welcomed and which promised to bring in a new era of co-operation and joint
ministry?’. Last December our ecumenical officer Archdeacon Mark Ashcroft asked,
‘What hampers joint working and mission?’. He suggested that the biggest bugbear
was bureaucracy and that to local practitioners it often seems that senior staff, head
office staff and legal departments are lagging behind in their understanding of
ecumenical matters and the difficulties that local people face.
A parish priest and Methodist minister that I supported wanted to facilitate partnership
in worship and mission but they were frustrated by the non-recognition of Anglican
and Methodist child protection procedures. When my church and the local Methodist
church sought authority for an exchange of ordained ministers, with a Methodist
Communion in my parish church, I was officially asked if the Methodist minister had
been baptized. I really wonder what some people think about the Methodist Church!
My diocese is recommending that it would be helpful to have national guidelines,
perhaps on a website, giving legal advice on recognition of ministers, joint worship,
as well as on constitutions and sharing agreements. I wonder if the President would
agree with that.
The frustrations, hindrances and hassles are there but also tremendous uplifts, fresh
expressions and blessings. A unity focus, not on ecumenism but on God’s mission in
252
which we are invited to participate, is the key – and that, I believe is what we are
called fruitfully to share in.
Mrs Elnora Mann (London): Thank you, gentlemen, for bringing warmth into my
heart on this cold and frosty morning by making mention of two countries that I hold
dear, that is, the Gambia and Ghana.
I was born in the Gambia from Anglican parents and I went to a Methodist girls’ high
school. My brother went to a Methodist boys’ high school. These were the two
schools in Banjul. There were no Anglican schools, though there were Roman
Catholic schools. In the Gambia, as you may know, the Anglicans and the Methodists
have a sort of covenant, perhaps not official. I therefore hold the Gambia very dear to
my heart and I wonder why you mention the Gambia. As far as I am concerned, you
have been in the Gambia since time immemorial. Are you going to take over the
reins? As you know, there are problems in the Methodist Church in the Gambia.
Mr Paul Hancock (Liverpool): Thank you both very much for what you have said. It
certainly touched my heart. I grew up in a mining village in Staffordshire, not a
million miles from Mow Cop. We had two Methodist churches, both thriving and
both in splendid condition – a Primitive Methodist church and a Wesleyan Methodist
church – and the two never met.
A few months ago I was fortunate enough to go back to my home village. It has
grown a bit since then, but there is only one Methodist church now – a splendid one –
and both congregations worship together. It is really thriving. I wonder if you could
encourage us for the future, perhaps, and offer some advice on that sort of thing. You
have experience of it with the Primitive Methodists and the Wesleyans. Are we
looking to a future where we can look to one big church in my new village in a
different part of the country, near Warrington, and perhaps a more thriving Church
than the three churches we have at the moment?
Revd David Gamble: I thank all three people for what they have said. Certainly there
is frustration at how long some things are taking. I do not think that it is down to
bureaucracy and certainly not to legal departments, which I hold in very high honour!
Clearly there are complications about how one works together locally, the recognition
of ministries and so on. A lot of work has already been done on that; a lot of the
information about that is increasingly available. However, the point is taken.
Certainly there is frustration that I feel. I never believed that I would still be a
Methodist minister at the time when the Archbishop of Canterbury was younger than I
am – and it is taking all this time. Seriously, the people who are working on things
like Standing Orders and constitutions, ecumenically and within the Churches, are
doing their best to make sure that they enable rather than hamper. The points are well
taken, however.
I personally visited the Gambia three times in order to go through the process of
making it possible for the Methodist Church there to become autonomous. It is a tiny
Church: about 1,200 members in a country with a population of about one-and-a-half
million, 96 per cent of whom are Muslim. There is a good relationship between
Bishop Tilewa Johnson and our President of Conference – Tilewa is about six times
253
as tall as our President of Conference, particularly when he wears a mitre! The
relationship is also very good with the Catholics and the relationship with the Muslim
community in that country is such that I think we could learn a huge amount from
them. There are certainly no secret things going on about Methodists trying to
reinvent the Gambia, Africa generally, or the Church in the Gambia in any sense at
all. It is quite a good news story but it has taken a long time to make possible what has
happened.
On the question of our experience of bringing together Primitives and Wesleyans,
they came together legally in 1932. I can certainly remember that it was a long time
after 1932 when we still had separate churches. Indeed, in my first appointment in
Yorkshire I had a woman who had gone to the Primitive Methodist church in
Tadcaster, the town in which I was a minister, and, when they had closed it because
they decided to stay in the Wesleyan, she walked five miles every week to the nearest
village so that she could still go to the Primitives. It has taken us a long time.
However, it has to be true that, in many of our communities, trying to keep together a
number of buildings, none of which necessarily is working to full capacity, and
having different people working almost against each other – certainly in rivalry for
people’s cash – and causing confusion, cannot be as good as being ‘the Church’.
Therefore, I think that we could do a lot more work on looking at where it would be
good for us to share buildings.
The Bishop of Lincoln (Rt Revd John Saxbee): Thank you for that presentation, from
a part of the world that has a particular reason to be grateful to Methodism, being the
diocese that saw the birth of the Wesleys at Epworth. We have continued to generate
the very kind of close working that you have described, in relation to chaplaincy,
Fresh Expressions and schools. However, may I pick up the last point about
buildings?
Our real difficulty is that we have throughout Lincolnshire – and of course this is true
of other parts of the country, particularly rural parts – villages trying to support two
buildings. There is all the goodwill in the world to see the sense of one building for
the future, but the fact of the matter is that 80 per cent of our churches are Grade I or
Grade II* listed. If one of the buildings is to go, therefore, it is more than likely to be
the Methodist chapel. I want you to hear that for some of us it is a really painful
situation. When proposing some kind of rationalization of buildings, I am deeply
conscious that an awful lot is being asked of our Methodist sisters and brothers that
probably will not be asked of the Anglicans, because our building is likely to be the
one that, for all sorts of reasons beyond our control, is not able to be re-used for
another purpose.
I want you to hear that and yet, having said so, to encourage as much as you can a
sense of commitment within Methodism to see the potential of the Methodist chapel –
and thank you for your very moving final remarks about your openness to your
identity – and if in a local community the Methodist chapel is let go in order to free up
resources, perhaps to refurbish the Anglican church to become a genuinely joint place
of worship and service to the community, you would be pushing at an open door, but
you will also be twanging our consciences; because we know that the price is likely to
be borne more by Methodists than by Anglicans.
254
Mr John Freeman (Chester): Thank you, gentlemen, for an inspiring address to us. In
these days of declaring interests, I speak as a former Methodist Sunday School
superintendent and the treasurer of a newly formed ecumenical partnership.
We have welcomed our Methodist brethren. We are letting the lawyers catch up with
what the people do; so I say to the rest, ‘Get on with it if the Spirit is there and let the
lawyers catch up’.
Mrs Gill Ambrose (Ely): It is good to hear the President of the Conference speaking
to us. I want to draw attention to work that has been going on in education between
our two Churches for many years. David Gamble and I did a lot of training together in
the Federation in Cambridge, an ecumenical body made up of colleges from our
different traditions. We were doing that 20 years ago.
What I want to talk about today and ask you to celebrate, however, is the publication
for which I now work, Roots. It was set up about nine years ago by our Churches
together with the United Reformed Church and Christian Education. The work has
been ongoing for nine years and it has been taking place together, in relation to a
lectionary which we largely share – although the Anglicans have their own tweaks on
it. It is written by people from both Churches and also from other Churches. It is used
by people within Churches across the traditions in this country; it is done without any
legal necessities; it is done so that people can work together, can share the gospel
together and can join to celebrate our different traditions so that we learn from one
another. It is owned by both Churches and was set up by grants from both Churches,
but it is now self-funding. It would be good if we could recognize that joint work and
celebrate what we have done together.
Dr Richard Vautrey: Buildings will always be a challenge for all of us. As we
intimated, sometimes we need to make sacrifices on both sides. We also need to have
a sense of which building is the best for the mission that we are engaged in in that
local community. It cannot just be about heritage; it has to be about going forward and
about mission opportunities.
We have seen all sorts of opportunities in our travels over the last year, where
buildings have been refurbished and used as halls but the service takes place
elsewhere; so there is an opportunity to use buildings creatively. In my own circuit in
Leeds, a Methodist Church that has a good suite of buildings is now home to the local
Church of England community, who had quite a poor building and that has now been
closed as a result. There are opportunities for us to work together but sometimes we
do need to make sacrifices in order to move forward.
As a non-lawyer, I would certainly echo the comment that the lawyers should just get
on with it. Would not that be great? There are all sorts of complexities which we need
to take seriously and carefully, but we should not let those slow us down in our
pursuit of mission and unity.
I could not agree more about the question of the benefit of Roots. As a local preacher
myself, I know of many local preachers and leaders of worship, Sunday School
leaders and youth group leaders, who find the resource of Roots invaluable as a way
of supporting their work, their mission and their witness.
255
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): Speaking for the Church of England, I
do not think the problem is with our lawyers. Our lawyers simply do that which they
have been instructed to do; so let us not make them the fall guy for what is our polity.
It is the polity of both Churches which needs to be converted. We are still living as if
everything is o.k. and this country is growing in faith, when actually most of our
people do not care a damn about what we talk about. Please do not punish the
lawyers. They simply do that which we instruct them to do. For me, it is the polity of
the Church that needs to be converted.
I arrived in this country from Uganda, where I had indeed experienced Methodism,
and I found myself in Cambridge. Thank God, I was trained in the Federation there.
The New Testament was being taught by Brian, who was a great teacher for me when
I was learning Greek. I also found that, liturgically, the best form you could get was
from Westcott House – that is where I learned my swinging of incense and everything
else! I discovered that what Ridley was very good at was ethics, and the principal was
lecturing in ethics. I discovered the New Testament was being taught by the principal
of the United Reformed Church. Each of those colleges celebrated Communion
according to their tradition, and it was never my experience that someone did not
partake.
What was happening in that Federation is what ought to be happening in every parish
where we make covenants. Do we do it? No. May I suggest that we who exercise
polity within our communities need to be slightly more permission-giving and not
then blame the lawyers for holding us back.
Maybe what I am pleading for, President and Vice-President of the Conference –
because you were set up purely for mission, and at the heart of Methodism is the
gospel and the gospel is bigger than our polity – is can you help us to break through
some of the structure nonsense that is actually hindering the mission of the Church?
Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): I speak as a member of the JIC in its
first five years of work and I have before described the work of the JIC as unfinished
business for us. The President has reminded us of the tremendous disappointment that
took place in 1972 on both sides of the debate. We are mindful of the great pain that it
caused our Archbishop at that time and indeed Bishop Eric Kemp, who has died
recently.
I have very much enjoyed doing that work and we have, in particular, been looking at
the business of the recognition, as opposed to the interchangeability, of ministries.
Synod will recall that, when we did have a debate in this chamber, it was Bishop
Colin Buchanan who, in a follow-on motion, encouraged us to look at the question of
the interchangeability of ministries.
One of the things that we have been able to look at very successfully is the
recognition of ministries, and there is a distinction between the two; but we can
recognize the same patterns in our ministries. We have further to go on the episcopate,
of course. Both Churches are struggling with the issues that are all too familiar to us.
As we try to wrestle with our own issues in that, so the Methodist Church has to come
to terms with what it means to have a personalized episcopate as opposed to an
episcopate that, as the President mentioned, is shared within the Methodist
256
Connexion. At the same time, our House of Bishops has said quite clearly that that is
an essential part of interchangeability. We clearly understand where the Methodists
are coming from. They do have further to go and it is not an easy area for them to
wrestle with.
In the presbyterate we recognize, in our parishes and in the local mission and pastoral
care that we exercise, the similarity between our ministries; but I think that, above all,
there is real hope in the ministry of the diaconate. I hope that here we can learn from
the Methodist tradition of the diaconate being very much a religious order. It reminds
us that not only is there this tremendous tradition of social outreach that the
Methodists have but also, from their very beginning, within their DNA if you like, the
call to holiness. That too is a good reminder to us of the purpose of Christian life.
I would hope that we could begin with the order of the diaconate. As we too are
seeking to renew what it means to be a deacon within the Church, I hope that we may
well start at that point for the interchangeability of ministries, which must be high up
on the agenda of the new JIC. It was on that issue of interchangeability that, sadly,
things fell apart in 1972. The JIC previously has been careful not to make the same
mistakes, and there is still some way to go; nonetheless, that must be the ultimate
goal. I wish the new JIC every blessing in its work.
Revd Richard Moy (Lichfield): I want to declare a very warm interest, as someone
who is an authorized minister in a Methodist church and someone whose project in
Wolverhampton was recently visited by David Gamble. My team were thrilled to
have you there, so thank you very much for coming.
My question and comment are about the experience over the last three years of being
part of the Methodist Church jointly with the Anglican Church and seeing how
courageous the Methodist Church, at connexional, district and circuit level, has been
in resourcing mission. I wonder if you would like to comment on that for the benefit
of all of us here, to see whether you think it has worked.
What I have experienced is that centrally the Methodist Church has put money into
what they see as key priority posts with children, with young people and young adults.
At district level, whenever they have sold a building or a parsonage they have poured
money into mission. A circuit in Wolverhampton that has almost no money at all
recently agreed to put £35,000 into the funding of an outreach youth worker across
Wolverhampton, associated with my project and with the Church Army – when they
did not really have the money to do so. They were just courageous in their sacrifice. I
wonder, with your reflections on what you see of us as a body, whether you think that
we have been equally courageous in reallocating resources from ministers in
traditional churches to such ministry, or indeed whether you think that is the right way
to go ahead for the future. Has the strategy worked?
Finally, it was lovely to be taken out for lunch by the chair of the district. He
describes his ministry as one of encouraging, of being the cheerleader on the side. I
wonder whether – with our probably overstretched episcopal order, where people
have to manage a great many things, legislate, make regulations and so on – you think
there are things that our structure for bishops should learn from the way that the chairs
of districts do their ministry.
257
Revd David Gamble: I have enough problems trying to encourage the Methodist
Church to get things right without being the expert on what the Church of England
ought to be doing!
Responding to the Archbishop of York, clearly I agree with him about lawyers. From
our own legal position, our Standing Orders and so on, I think that people often have
an understanding of lawyers and the law of the Church that is restrictive and that it is
there to say No, which is not actually how it is. There is already far more possibility
than we normally make use of in what our rules already are and how we do things.
Having said that, we do have to do things properly. It is important that we get it right,
otherwise, we spend years trying to sort out the messes that we have created for
ourselves. He is quite right that the lawyers are there to enable us to do the things
which we as Church believe that we are here to do. My experience, working quite
closely with your legal department, is that, just like us, that is what they are trying to
do – and they do it very well.
It was nice to hear reminiscences about the Cambridge Federation. I was there slightly
earlier. I was the chair of Wesley House students the year the Cambridge Federation
happened. I was the person who sat having tea with the Queen Mother and had
cucumber and salmon sandwiches with no crusts on as the Rank Building was opened.
I was the person who discovered what we could bring together. We had this great
tradition when I was there, when it was said that Westcott House celebrated
Ascension Day but did not really believe in it and Wesley House believed in it but did
not celebrate it – and we came together!
I say that because I think it is very important that in most of what we are doing we
bring together what our traditions have, put it on the table and work on it together. I
say that particularly in the context of the question of episcope and episcopacy. Our
thinking, our experience, is certainly moving and having to move. I think that there
are questions there for you too – clearly there are. In looking openly at what we need
to learn, where we need to go, we continue to have much to learn from each other. It
is therefore not just a job where we have to do such a thing and you have to do such a
thing. It is important we do that together. Just as with other forms of shared ministry,
there are many examples already where ministry in particular places is developing in
creative ways between our denominations.
The question of where we get resources from links with the question of listed
buildings that was mentioned. For many years, our tradition had been that money
raised from selling church buildings was put aside for use on buildings. We did have
quite a lot of money stashed away for rainy days, and it never rained that much
everywhere at once. In recent years, therefore, we have tried to release more of the
money which comes from that kind of source for ministry and mission. What is being
described as money that is now being made available is very often, for us, money that
traditionally would have been much more restricted in its use. Clearly, we are very
committed to doing that more and more. If we are able to work together more closely
with our church buildings and so on, then it would be possible for us to have fewer
resources totally committed to the maintenance of buildings and more resources
towards the ongoing mission of the Church.
258
Fresh Expressions
To me, those two things are not two totally separate categories, because I know some
of the work the Church of England has done on the imaginative and creative use of
church buildings. It is really important for there to be visible signs in communities of
the presence of the Church. ‘What do these stones mean?’ – that question in Joshua is
very important, in terms of having places that people can see symbolizing what we are
about. However, places without people mean nothing.
Wolverhampton? Wonderful! I went back because it was where we had our
Conference. I was really excited by the work of the project there. I was very
impressed to hear about Bible Study groups in McDonald’s and Yates’s Wine Lodge.
You are very much appreciated by Yates’s because you actually clean up after you
and most of the customers do not. What a witness!
The Chairman: I am afraid that we are not in a position to take any more questions
because of time, but I would like to express my thanks and I am sure the thanks of
everybody here to both the President and the Vice-President for coming and for being
willing to take any questions that Synod had to ask. I always think that that is a very
broad canvas, and it requires a great deal of courage to cope with anything that we
might throw at you.
Thank you very much for your input to our business this morning. It makes a good
note on which to move to the Fresh Expressions debate, which we shall be coming to
shortly. (Applause)
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Colchester (Ven. Annette Cooper) (Colchester) took
the Chair at 11 a.m.
Fresh Expressions (GS 1766)
The Chairman: This is a presentation under SO 97. First of all, I would like to
welcome Bishop Graham Cray, the Archbishops’ Missioner and team leader of Fresh
Expressions, who will give us a presentation on the current programme and future
plans for Fresh Expressions. Alongside and with him, we welcome Revd Stephen
Lindridge, the Fresh Expressions Connexional Missioner. After this brief presentation
there will be an even briefer time for questions, but let us listen first to our Fresh
Expressions presentation.
Rt Revd Graham Cray (Archbishops’ Missioner): In February 2004, it was my
privilege to present the Mission-shaped Church report to General Synod. Now it is my
privilege to report on the progress made by the Fresh Expressions team, and to offer
some reflections on the future. (PowerPoint presentation)
Some background material is provided in GS 1766 and I will not repeat all of that this
morning. I want to begin with gratitude. If in 2004 the General Synod had not
received Mission-shaped Church so generously and had not commended it to dioceses
and boards with such enthusiasm, far less would have been achieved. You gave us
lift-off; you helped to release a movement, and I want to thank you.
It is particularly appropriate that this presentation follows the addresses by the
President and the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference. From the beginning,
259
Fresh Expressions
the Fresh Expressions initiative has been a full partnership between the Church of
England and the Methodist Connexion. The level of co-operation has been admirable
and together we have given some substance to our Covenant. As Synod has heard, the
United Reformed Church also became a partner recently, as did the Congregational
Union some time before.
Mission is the driver for the most motivated expressions of local ecumenism. We
unite locally for the sake of others and for their sake we address a shared weakness:
the ineffectiveness of many of our historic approaches of mission to engage with
many parts of our current society.
One of the most impressive developments has been the sheer range of fresh
expressions of Church. I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of lay leaders and clergy
who have launched imaginative new initiatives among their neighbourhoods and
networks over the last few years. They can be found in rural and urban settings,
among new housing developments and cathedral cities, in suburban and in city centre
parishes. Every churchmanship is represented: Traditional and Affirming Catholic;
Conservative and Open Evangelical; New Wine churches; middle churchmanship;
contemplative communities; and the majority of parishes where no one tradition
predominates.
The more unusual examples, located in skate parks and farmers’ markets or focused
on mountain bikers or surfers – a notable Methodist example in Cornwall! – get the
media attention, but the great majority are new fledgling congregations meeting at a
convenient time and in a welcoming place, and well within the capability of the
average parish. Members of Synod can find a wide range of examples on our Share
website. Wherever we travel to provide training, we discover more initiatives than we
had known existed. There is much to give thanks for.
There is a handful of fresh expressions ministering among ethnic minorities, but not
enough. I was pleased to attend the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent consultation at
Lambeth with leaders of Black Majority Churches. It was moving to hear brothers and
sisters whose forefathers had come to faith through our forefathers’ missionary
sacrifice share their calling to come to this nation for the same gospel purpose. We
have much to learn here and I pray that new partnerships will develop.
Overall, however, there is much to give thanks for. In our training courses we teach
that the mission of the Church is to participate in the mission of God – ‘Seeing what
God is doing and joining in’. The events of the last few years have convinced me that
we are involved, in part at least, in a movement initiated by the Holy Spirit. We seem
to have caught or been caught up by a wave of the Spirit and our central task is not to
fall off!
As I have reflected on the story so far, a combination of three factors has been crucial
to the progress made. First, there is a new imagination about the form or shape of
Church. Anglican Christians are imagining the possibility of new forms of church for
the sake of mission. Second, there is a new era of encouragement and permission by
Church leaders. The report prepared for Tuesday’s debate emphasized the importance
of episcopal support in particular. Finally, there have been training resources, many
provided by the Fresh Expressions team. These three combine in a dynamic ecology.
260
Fresh Expressions
Parishes can imagine appropriate fresh expressions of church; they are not just
permitted but encouraged to take the risk of starting one, and training is available to
show them how.
To give Synod some grasp of the range of our work, these maps show where we have
held introductory Vision Days, where we have made or are committed to make a
presentation to diocesan synods in our current tour, and where we have held, are
holding or are committed to hold our year-long mission-shaped ministry course for
practitioners. A very great deal of work is being done.
A number of issues emerged along the way. The first is the need to provide some
discipline and coherence to the terminology. An inevitable consequence of a highprofile initiative is that the use of its distinctive language becomes elastic. It has been
almost impossible to attempt anything new in the Church of England lately without
calling it a fresh expression of something or mission-shaped. There has also been
some re-branding of existing work! My desire to bring discipline to the vocabulary is
not to discredit good pieces of mission and ministry, but to make it clear what we
mean by the terms and what our part of the task is.
A ‘fresh expression’ is shorthand for ‘a fresh expression of church’. Our task is to
encourage the planting of new congregations or churches among those untouched by
existing Churches. We contrast that with initiatives to draw people into existing
churches, not because we disapprove of that work – it is essential – but because it is
not our task or what we mean by the terminology from Mission-shaped Church.
As we heard on Tuesday, ‘fresh’ is not the opposite of ‘stale’, nor is a fresh
expression of church to be defined as the opposite of inherited or traditional, although
it is complementary to it. ‘Fresh’ is rooted in the Declaration of Assent. The faith
uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the Catholic creeds, to which
the Church of England has borne witness in its historic formularies, has to be
proclaimed afresh to this generation. Part of that proclamation involves a fresh
embodiment of the gospel in new, contextually appropriate communities of faith;
fresh expressions of church as fresh embodiments of the faith among a community of
people who had not known it or who had lost touch with the Church.
As we have observed and participated in these developments, we have identified a
process as a form of best practice. Many fresh expressions of church begin with a
period of listening to God and the relevant community – double listening. They
develop through the consistent patterns of service, building the relationships through
which a community can form round Christ. In these relationships evangelism can
have its proper place and discipleship can be explored. An appropriate pattern of
worship and sacramental life can then emerge, in which new and restored believers
and those on the way to clearer faith can have a full part.
The planting team may have seen this as church from the beginning. For those being
drawn into faith there will be a growing understanding of what it means to be church,
while diocesan authorities offer encouragement and support to the embryonic church
or congregation from the beginning but properly delay permanent recognition until
there is evidence of stability.
261
Fresh Expressions
Fresh expressions of church are contextual. They are to be appropriate to the local or
intended context. They require a costly incarnational approach, which prioritizes the
needs of the neighbourhood or network over the preferences of the planting team. In
Mission-shaped Church we called this ‘dying to live’.
Discernment is the crucial capacity; again, seeing what God is doing and joining in.
These are to be communities for the kingdom and not just the expansion of the
church. Many are birthed through acts of service. The commitment to an incarnational
approach is to ensure that these can become transformational communities for their
wider community, rather than either existing purely for themselves or being
inculturated in, to them, an alien Christian culture.
Because many fresh expressions of church are still fledgling Christian communities,
there is still a great deal to learn about sustainability. Which are properly seasonal and
which have the capacity to become long-standing and mature congregations? How
long before they become self-supporting? How quickly can indigenous leadership be
developed? How soon could a fresh expression plant a new fresh expression? We are
inevitably very early on in this particular learning curve but it will be a vital focus for
our ongoing work, featuring particularly on our Share website. It is the theme of our
day with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Secretary of the Methodist
Church in Lincoln on 5 March, to which members of Synod would be most welcome.
If fresh expressions of church are to mature, they need appropriate support. We are
encouraging the development of FEASTs (not quite as exciting as it sounds – Fresh
Expressions Area Strategy Teams) in each area. These are ecumenical teams of senior
leaders, champions, trainers and experienced practitioners whose task is to nurture the
development of fresh expressions of church and pioneer ministry in their region. My
Methodist colleague Revd Stephen Lindridge carries a particular responsibility for
this in our team.
All that I have said needs to be put in the context of the ‘mixed economy’ church. The
language of the mixed economy is not a device to create space and permission for
fresh expressions of church to coexist with more inherited approaches. Catholicity
requires both diversity and interdependence. The mixed economy summarizes a
dynamic partnership, where inherited church has encouraged and often funded Fresh
Expressions initiatives, and where the planting of a fresh expression of church has in
turn brought renewal and encouragement to a more traditional congregation.
Finally, I want to turn to the future. It is clear that many parish-based fresh
expressions of church have re-engaged with a fringe which no longer exists to the
scale of previous generations. This has been done through the establishing of new
congregations or through the transforming of existing pieces of community ministry
into new congregations. Many of those working with young families have used the
Bible Reading Fellowship's excellent Messy Church material. This has been a
challenging task for many parishes and is precisely the degree of progress that we
could realistically have expected from the first years of this initiative. Many parishes
have done well, but most fresh expressions reach de-churched people or people who
are not immediately open to consider an invitation – and we have much further to go.
262
Fresh Expressions
As reported in Tuesday’s debate, the Tearfund survey of church attendance published
in 2007 shows that the largest group of adults, 16 and over in England, are those who
have never had more than a fleeting contact with any Christian Church in their
lifetime. The second largest category is the de-churched. Our parish churches have
had wide-open back doors for years and we have not done enough to enquire why so
many have gone through them. In Mission-shaped Church, based on research in the
mid-1990s, that de-churched category divided equally between those who were open
to return and those who were closed. This is a primary reason why Back To Church
Sunday is such an important initiative. Ten years later, however, the proportions are
five-sixths closed and only one-sixth open to return. That is why fresh expressions of
church beyond this fringe are so important for our Church’s ministry. Many children
of the de-churched become the next generation of never-churched; so the work of
Church schools in laying a foundation of Christian values in a context of collective
worship has never been more important.
If we were to add the under-16s to this chart, the never-churched might be the
majority of the population. Synod has already heard, in the papers for this session,
that the average Church of England worshipper is nearly 14 years older than the
average age of the population. If that does not amount to a challenge for a national
Church, I do not know what does – but it is a challenge we can rise to.
Dioceses need to respond to this mission context with coherent and prayerful thinking
and action. First, we need to know what we are achieving. A consistent and suitably
nuanced national system of recording fresh expressions of church in each diocese is
essential.
Most parishes, or groups of small parishes, have the potential to plant a fresh
expression of church. We have done well but we can do much more. The mixed
economy should be the norm in each deanery, not the activity of an enterprising few,
and most parish-based fresh expressions will be lay-led.
As we heard in Tuesday’s debate, there are major advantages in working
ecumenically, through local Churches Together groups and through churches working
together under the Hope – formerly Hope 08 – banner. A light-touch ecumenical
procedure that does not automatically progress to an LEP is urgently needed, as is the
capacity to make a non-Anglican appointment to an ecumenical fresh expression
under a Bishop’s Mission Order, because we have tried and found we were not
allowed to do it.
To engage with those who have no knowledge of the faith or apparent need of the
church takes time. We are challenged to long-term incarnational ministry. The gradual
separation of the church from the lives of so many has taken decades and the tide will
not be turned quickly. It is already clear that three-year funded projects are not
adequate and that there is no quick fix. Church Army experience says ‘Plan for a tenyear project and review after five’.
There will be an increasing role for pioneer ministers, both lay and ordained, which is
not to say that other clergy have no capacity or call for pioneering work. The Church
Army and its Sheffield centre and CMS – all members of the Fresh Expression
partnership – are already bringing significant experience to this task.
263
Fresh Expressions
The strategic deployment of stipendiary pioneer ministers is a crucial resource for the
future, but we need to deploy far more lay and ordained pioneer ministers than we can
possibly afford to employ. Much pioneer church planting will have to be either selfsupporting or resourced in new ways. The Church of England needs to learn how to
sustain ‘tent-making’ church planters – like St Paul. A portfolio of practical means of
help should be developed in each diocese – a whole new understanding and culture of
self-supporting ministry for mission. Self-supporting cannot be allowed to mean left
to sink or swim, or projects will fall and pioneers be damaged. Pioneers are most
vulnerable when they are isolated, particularly when they are not part of a planting
team.
With the Church Army, we have facilitated some action learning networks for OPM
curates, but diocesan networks, facilitated by a Missioner or Director of Pioneer
Ministry as in Liverpool, are best practice. People planting something new and
initially frail need to be part of a larger network.
We face the long haul, not the latest fad. A very able pioneer minister recently said to
me, ‘It’s hard work and it takes forever but sometimes you see flashes of God at work,
which keeps you going’.
We have to face the question, who will our current forms of church never reach? As a
church, we have a responsibility before God for those who do not yet know him.
St Paul described himself as ‘in debt’ to them. Our faith is being proclaimed and
embodied afresh – a practice from the very heart of our Anglican heritage. In a few
years we have achieved a great deal but there is much, much more to do. (Applause)
The Chairman: We now have a short time for questions. Bishop Graham is willing to
answer them and Stephen is willing to answer those with a particular Methodist focus.
We are learning that questions can become rather enlarged into speeches, so I
encourage members to be succinct in their questions, and we will try to handle them
in groups of three.
The Chairman imposed a speech limit of one minute.
Revd Mark Ireland (Lichfield): I want to ask a question about loneliness and burnout.
In my previous job we set up four different network churches, sponsored mostly by
deaneries across the diocese. In seeking to set people free from being linked to a local
church, we found that there was a different and opposite danger of not really being
owned in the local context. I therefore wonder whether there is a better model in terms
of seeking to place someone linked with a local hub church, which might be a place of
resourcing, with a praying community around them, rather than setting them free from
being involved in a local church to sink or perhaps swim.
Revd Canon Ruth Worsley (Southwell and Nottingham): In Tuesday’s debate on the
Mission-shaped Church report we heard from the Bishop of Sheffield that more work
is to be done in the whole area of ecclesiology. My question is: seeing your Fresh
Expressions flowchart and the goal of church-forming, what are the essentials of
Church and how is that informed by our ecumenical partners?
264
Fresh Expressions
The Bishop of Dover (Rt Revd Trevor Willmott): I am grateful that this presentation
has taken place immediately after the visit of the President of the Methodist
Conference, because I want to tell a story. My final act in Winchester was with the
chair of district to bring into being a new Covenant relationship. Much more
interesting was the fact that we left the church to go and commission for the first time
a chaplain to work in the 11 care homes in that area. The chaplaincy was actually
funded by the owners of the care homes. They were prepared to fund it for the first
time because they said, ‘Here is the Church doing something together. We will not
fund individual denominations’. The other factor is that as we talked to the people in
the care homes we found that they were in the majority untouched by the Church. The
question for that chaplain and her team is: how do we develop a spirituality that is
effective and works with the process of ageing? The point that I make to Bishop
Graham is: help us also to see that ‘fresh’ does not necessarily mean work solely with
the young, because that is a critical area for our life together.
Rt Revd Graham Cray (Archbishops’ Missioner): The replies will obviously be in
bullet point form because of pressure of time. Isolation is my biggest concern about
pioneer ministers. The best practice that I have seen – I hinted at it in my presentation
– is in Liverpool, where certainly pioneer curates at least are linked into a hub church
but their primary supervisor is the diocesan director of pioneer ministry. That
networks them together and they are placed in the community, learning from those
engaging with similar challenges as well as being rooted in the mixed economy. My
concern about locating them only in hub churches is that traditional church tends to
suck in every resource that has been given to it, and the time/price involved in that
might concern me.
Turning quickly to Bishop Trevor’s comments, I totally agree and I make two points
in reply. First, some forms of chaplaincy that used to be loitering with intent will need
to become, out of the relationships drawn, the planting of a fresh expression, and
clearly some of the boundaries between those are changing.
The Church Army’s Sheffield centre has done some excellent direct work on fresh
expressions for the elderly and I commend their work and their day conferences. They
will point out that they think there are four different generations and cultures of the
retired and that Mick Jagger is now a pensioner, and will draw attention to some of
the things that we imagine about the retired. There is some very distinct work among
the frail retired, which is part of the picture, and I take that point entirely.
What is the essence of Church? Six years ago my archbishop wrote, ‘When people
encounter the risen Christ and strengthen that encounter, they encounter one another’,
and then added, ‘as long as you have the means of ensuring that it is the same risen
Christ being encountered’. Clearly there we talk about word and Sacrament, we talk
about the Catholic creeds, and that means everything we have in common with most
of our ecumenical partners. I can report that the Methodist Faith and Order Committee
and the Faith and Order Advisory Group of the Church of England working party are
jointly doing some hard work on ecclesiology as it may impact on both historical
understandings and the understanding of Fresh Expressions, and that is making good
progress.
265
Fresh Expressions
Canon Peter Smith (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): It is very interesting to see in
GS 1766 the suggestion or report that fresh expression churches can be in schools, in
rural areas, and can take all forms of life. I want to talk about one particular fresh
expression in the small market town of Saxmundham, with a population of about
2,500, where the new school on a new housing estate has a very active fresh
expressions church on Sunday mornings called Coffee and Doughnuts. Very simply,
the curate of the parish church is a knowledgeable expert on secular films such as
those that one sees at the cinema, and this example of fresh expressions takes clips
from box office films and, over coffee, opens up some of the ethical and moral issues
raised in a particular film, and it has been very successful. Later this year however the
curate will be moving on to his first parish and the incumbent of the parish will be
retiring at the end of 2010, so my concern is that this example of fresh expressions
seems to be firmly anchored to an individual and I worry about what the future holds.
The Bishop of Bristol (Rt Revd Michael Hill): My question is about the confusion that
I constantly confront over values and culture. Members will recall that a few years
ago it took Synod only a few minutes to dispense with a Diocesan Synod Motion that
gently tried to relax the rules on the wearing of robes. My question to Bishop Graham
is: if we can achieve greater clarity about our Anglican values, surely it would be very
liberating in the work that you do, rather than investing too much time and energy in
the protection of a culture?
Rt Revd Graham Cray (Archbishops’ Missioner): I will reply to the questions in
reverse order. If what we are doing, again as the Archbishop has put it, is recognizing
Church where it is growing and appearing, we have to recognize it as Church, and that
will raise a whole set of questions about secondary and cultural practices. In my view
it is inevitable that there will need to come a time during which a different, more
relaxed set of values grows – not because people cannot be bothered but because they
are deeply concerned to relate properly to the people with whom they work – which
will lead us to revisit some of those questions, not to stop doing what we have done
traditionally but to ensure that we are very careful that we do not impose the practices
of a certain era on the missionary frontiers and growth of the Church. I am certain that
Bishop Michael is right, but I believe that we need to do it through observing and
attending to what is really good practice which everyone can recognize.
The question of what we do when a key leader moves on is something that we share
equally with the Methodist Church, so I will give my colleague a chance to reply to
that as well. I say simply that there must be succession planning; that the growth of
indigenous leadership as an early intention is vital; that the length of curacies needs to
be looked at in the case of pioneers or where pioneering work is being done; and that
we need to train people to move in quickly to take over the pioneering work started by
someone who needs to move on, in order to give it some stability. I would value
Synod hearing a little of the Methodist experience on this final question.
Revd Stephen Lindridge (Connexional Missioner): I would like to thank members of
Synod for allowing me to be here today. I do not think that we should be afraid of the
word ‘failure’. In the Mind the Gap project, of which I was a part, from the very
outset we looked to try to raise up indigenous lay leadership, but we did not know that
that actually would be the case. From stories over the past five years we know that
certain fresh expressions which have tried to begin new things and have risked new
266
Realizing the Missionary Potential of Church Buildings
things have had to face the question, ‘This might not work’. If we lose the expertise of
those individuals, if we lose that indigenous leadership and there are no others who
can continue with such work, we will have to say ‘We tried this’ and be not afraid to
go back to God and say, ‘What next? Where do we go next? We have begun this thing
but it is clear that we do not have the resources to carry it forward’. We need to find
that step of faith and to say, ‘God lead us into the next place of the journey’. That may
be the way forward. In Nailsea the story was exactly similar – a film club that began
with a certain expertise, but the person involved moved on and the project could not
be sustained.
In conclusion, I would like to comment on the previous question about networking the
people involved in fresh expressions. Part of the FEASTs’ work is very much about
the local area doing that and doing it with good relationships. The learning action
networks that you have set up in partnership with the Church Army will also be a very
effective way of networking these people to ensure that they are not isolated and left
out there on their own. My own experience in the Methodist Church is that we have
been very good at releasing people within the life of a circuit but also very good at
maintaining relationships by way of a circuit meeting, which is the governing body of
the circuit, and encouraging those relationships in a fruitful way. It is not always the
story, and we wish that such stories did not exist, but where there is good practice it
can be learnt from and celebrated.
The Chairman: I am sure that Synod will wish to express its thanks to Bishop
Graham and to Stephen, our visitor, for engaging with us today. (Applause)
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) (Rochester) took the
Chair at 11.35 a.m.
Realizing the Missionary Potential of Church Buildings: Presentation
by the Cathedral and Church Buildings Division (GS 1767)
The Bishop of London (Rt Revd Richard Chartres): This is an evergreen expression
of Church and one with very considerable ecumenical dimensions. As chairman of the
Church Buildings Division I am very grateful to Synod and to the dioceses of Ripon
and Leeds and Lichfield for this opportunity to sketch some of the recent progress in
our campaign which is relevant to every community in the country. As everyone here
knows, our churches and cathedrals offer an interface between the Church and the
people of England that has a huge continuing missionary potential.
When I was the Bishop of Stepney in the East End I vividly remember well over
15 years ago visiting a church that presented a doleful aspect. As I walked round with
the churchwardens noting the damp and the peeling stucco, the churchwarden said to
me, ‘You know, bish’ – we were very informal in those days; there is nothing new
about loosening up, Synod! – ‘I think it is only inertia that keeps us going’. There is a
lot of wisdom there.
The picture today is very different. At the end of last week I revisited St Paul’s, Old
Ford, in the heart of EastEnders territory. When I first knew that church it was out of
use with a dangerous structure order notice on it. Today, thanks to inspired leadership
from a member of this Synod, Prebendary Philippa Boardman, supported by the local
267
community and in partnership with heritage agencies, the growing congregation has a
repristinated sanctuary and a specially built ark within the cavernous church, which is
home to a variety of organizations whose aims are in sympathy with this outwardlooking church. There is a gym with services for local people who need
physiotherapy, the charity IntoUniversity, which gives access to higher education for
young people from families with no experience of college and university life, many
other services housed in St Paul’s, and a thriving café. It has once again become a
community hub in a way that has enriched worship and opened channels of
communication between Church and parish. For God love is not so much an emotion
but self-giving, and self giving is the most persuasive sort of participation in the
mission of God.
St Paul’s is in the inner city, but there are many rural examples. In January my friend
the Bishop of Hereford reopened St Leonard’s Church in Yarpole near Leominster, a
mediaeval church with a substantial detached bell tower that had become cluttered
and underused. However, as so often is the case in rural areas, local services were
contracting. The temporary building in the pub car park housing the community shop
was under threat, and the solution has been to re-establish that shop and a post office
in the west end of the church, leaving the nave clear for worship and other communal
activities whilst preserving and enhancing the handsome chancel decorated by Giles
Gilbert Scott in the 19th century. The chairman of the village working group
comments, ‘We have created an amazing new centre to the village, ensuring the future
of the church and the shop, essential to keeping a village alive’.
No one is suggesting or proposing a wholesale conversion of churches to secular uses.
The worship of God is primary, and we also recognize our responsibility to care for
the best of the past, but churches that are involved in their communities in a multifaceted way, churches that are looking to serve, can also experience spiritual
regeneration. There is a widespread appreciation of the role of our churches and
cathedrals as community hubs and treasuries of English art and culture, and that is
why an influential committee of MPs, the Public Accounts Committee, for the very
first time last month called for direct assistance from public funds to assist cathedrals
to offer free public access. Such assistance of course is almost universal among our
partners in the European Union.
We are very fortunate in the staff and membership of the Cathedrals Fabric
Commission. Frank Field MP, the chairman, has set out an impressive record of
achievement in the recent publication Creativity and Care: New Works in English
Cathedrals. At the same time several cathedrals are planning ambitious schemes with
local partners to regenerate their urban settings, drawing up plans in conjunction with
local authorities and community groups.
The Cathedral and Church Buildings Division as a whole continues to work with our
partners in English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund to preserve the best of
what we have inherited. The knowledge and commitment of the members of staff who
serve Synod, who work under the leadership of Janet Gough, is second to none; and I
say that from working closely with them and a close observation of them. Key to their
strategy is Churchcare, the website for church buildings. I hope very much that
members will visit the site, if they have not already done so. Its development has been
268
assisted very greatly by the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, to whom we owe a very
large debt of gratitude.
An important part of the work is building capacity in not only London but throughout
the whole Church. Last October the Division ran its first induction day for new DAC
members. The Gloucester DAC chairman and secretary displayed considerable
histrionic talent in the role play exercise – it is still reverberating – and a further
induction day is planned for the Northern Province, to be held on 18 March.
English Heritage has been very helpful in setting aside £1.5 million to assist with the
funding of historic buildings support officers based in dioceses, and usually they
supply half the cost of the post. There are 12 such officers in post already and more
dioceses are exploring how to make use of the fund.
In the United Kingdom, as our Methodist friends have reminded us by their presence,
we have had a free market in religious ideas and anti-religious ideas since we ceased
to be a confessional state in 1828. Christian faith relates to British citizens and to the
State in a variety of ways and the State cannot be expected to subsidize one faith
rather than another. Mission and evangelism is our business, but it is important that
MPs recognize the significant community role of our cathedrals in education, culture,
tourism, the local economy, the preservation of traditional craft skills, and very
significantly as a base for voluntary effort; and the same could be said for many
parish churches as well. We are the custodians of a country-wide infrastructure which
would take billions to replicate and has huge potential at a time of financial
stringency.
A recent report from five Government departments entitled Churches and Faith
Buildings: Realizing the Potential embraces not only Church of England buildings but
those belonging to our ecumenical partners and to other faiths. We all owe a debt of
gratitude to Anne Sloman of the Archbishops’ Council, now chair of the Church
Buildings Council, for her pertinacity in lobbying Ministers and civil servants in
advance of this report. I swim along in her wake, and with me in tow we had an
instructive series of meetings with senior Ministers and their teams. We discovered
that almost all the constituency MPs among them had a positive story to tell from
their own part of the country about a church that had opened itself up to the wider
community. What was harder for them to discern and for us to communicate was the
aggregate potential of our 16,000 Church buildings.
There was appreciation and support from across the political and faith spectrum.
Andy Burnham, at that time the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, was
the Minister charged by Gordon Brown to co-ordinate the Government response, and
the report identifies sources of funding that are already available for churches working
to enhance their role as community hubs. I was especially grateful for the enthusiastic
endorsement and practical help of Sadiq Khan – not a cradle Anglican – then in the
Department of Communities and Local Government. Unfortunately for us in some
ways, other people recognized his abilities and he was very soon promoted. That
points to one of our real challenges – the need in the face of a constant churn of
Ministers and civil servants at local and national level to make our case over and over
again to those responsible in the relevant departments.
269
Where members of Synod particularly can help is in response to the disturbing
comment from a number of those whom we met – ‘I can see the case you are making,
but why don’t we hear about it from our own constituencies?’ Our affections are
understandably engaged by the particular church that we know and support, but it is
vital, fellow members of Synod, that we all inform ourselves and participate in this
country-wide campaign to complement the huge efforts of worshippers and tens of
thousands of volunteers by a level of public funding commensurate with the public
benefit that flows from our churches. As we all know, MPs take much more notice of
the evidence in their postbags from the electorate than of any number of press releases
from central bodies.
Just now we have a particular challenge. As we struggle to maintain the community’s
inheritance of listed churches and cathedrals, it has always seemed bizarre that we are
charged VAT on such work for the public good. The extent of VAT, of course, is a
Brussels matter. My information is that in France, where the State is responsible for
the upkeep of all ecclesiastical buildings built before 1904, the VAT charge is a
simple bookkeeping exercise where no money actually changes hands. In our different
circumstances it imposes a considerable extra burden. I am not making a party
political point here, but it is impossible to ignore the personal role of Gordon Brown
in devising the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which is legal under
European regulations but has the effect of repaying the sums levied under VAT. Since
2001 more than £100 million has been returned to local churches and cathedrals
throughout the UK. However the scheme is due to expire in March 2011 and we need
Synod’s help to ensure that it is renewed, more of which we shall hear in the
following debate.
Churches are first and foremost a witness to God and a base for mission, and the
opportunities are very great. We are building on the astonishing fact, confirmed by
recent research conducted by Opinion Research Business, that 85 per cent of the
population of Great Britain had visited a church during the past 12 months for a
variety of purposes. We are also building on the work of tens of thousands of
volunteers, huge numbers of people up and down the country, but that is only one side
of the story. Some of our volunteers are close to exhaustion, and there is a question
mark over the sustainability of their achievements and our capacity to make the
optimum use of what we have inherited in a context where the responsibilities
attached to the maintenance of buildings are increasingly complex.
Of the making of many reports there is no end, and most of them lie bedridden in the
dormitory of the soul. The Church Buildings Division, working hard at the limits of
its modern resources, needs Synod’s support for a vital campaign. Members have
been handed a sheet containing some crucial facts which should help them to confute
gainsayers in the lounge bar of the Pig and Whistle and to convert the wider
community to a cause that brings benefits to social cohesion.
Our longer-term aim is not in doubt. It remains a more symmetrical relationship with
public funders as we care for 45 per cent of all Grade I listed buildings in the country
and thousands of other community assets. We are aiming for a 50/50 split on repairs
with the cash targeted at the most needy places. What is needed is nothing short of a
new financial settlement with both central and regional Government. We are looking
for recognition and representation on various regional agencies, but in the present
270
circumstances with the pressure on public finances as great as it is, our immediate aim
must be the renewal of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.
In conclusion, I look forward very much to the debate that follows and to developing
our campaign. Members will be in no doubt that the obstacles we have to surmount
are formidable. The walls of Jericho did not fall just because the Israelites passed a
resolution. This will be a long campaign to surmount prejudice and ignorance and we
shall fail unless we develop our united voice, unless we reiterate our case with proper
pride and confidence in what we have achieved. The active enthusiasm of all
members of Synod is vital if we are to succeed.
Mrs Anne Sloman (Chair of the Archbishops’ Council’s Church Buildings Council):
Thank you, Synod, for giving me this opportunity of speaking to you for the first time
wearing my new hat as chair of the Church Buildings Council.
I want to add only three points to what the Bishop of London has said. The first is to
tell you something about what the Church Buildings Council is doing, the second to
add something more about volunteers, and the third about funding.
The Church Buildings Council was established in 2007, combining the former
Council for the Care of Churches and the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches.
We have a statutory duty to advise the Archbishops’ Council and Synod on all matters
relating to churches and a duty to consider consultation by chancellors, registrars and
DACs in relation to applications for faculties. We have other duties too, but those are
the main ones. At the moment we are considering whether we have the balance right
between the former, that is bringing the huge expertise of the Council members, their
specialist advisory committees and the staff to bear on policy formation, and the
latter, which is casework, and, to put it bluntly, whether we are concentrating our
efforts on the right casework. At the moment it is rather hit and miss; some dioceses
refer everything, some nothing at all.
The director of the Division, Janet Gough, and I have therefore set up two working
parties. The first, led by Synod member Tim Allen, is examining whether we need
clearer criteria for the cases that we would expect DACs to refer to us. The second
group is led by Canon Alan Fell, himself a DAC chair in Bradford and a parish priest
with 40 years’ experience, is considering whether we can improve the advice that we
offer to parishes. We are keen to enhance the Churchcare website, to look at ways of
disseminating best practice, to develop training, and we are exploring whether a
telephone advice line could be helpful. Before archdeacons start worrying about us
impinging on their role – and some of my best friends, I hasten to say, are
archdeacons – let me make it clear that I do not see the Church Buildings Council as
yet another amenity society descending on parishes like some sort of Ofsted inspector,
but as part and parcel of the Church of England, working within its structures
transparently and in partnership with everyone involved in this task. I want our culture
to be one of service, not of policing.
By the July group of sessions we should be in a position to report to a fringe meeting
on these proposals. On the policy front other groups will be looking at subjects as
diverse as commissioning art in churches and, coming from Norfolk, a subject dear to
my heart – bats; not a widespread problem but for some churches a very serious one.
271
There is a saying of Mother Theresa that I find very helpful when thinking about
church buildings. It is: ‘We cannot do great things on this earth. We can only do small
things with great love’ – which of course brings me to volunteers. I see a myriad of
small things done with great love by lay volunteers not only to keep our church
buildings in good repair but by a host of ambitious schemes to put in lavatories,
kitchens, meeting rooms, children’s facilities better to serve their congregations and
the wider community. Our job is to put the Council’s expertise at their disposal to
ensure standards of excellence in the design and implementation of such
improvements that will stand the test of time and enhance rather than detract from our
heritage. I have to say that from where I sit the Church appears very much alive and
kicking, and as for those stories beloved of the press about the rate at which churches
are closing, the reality is that about 30 per year are closing, which is 0.19 per cent of
the total. Every year 47 pubs close for every church.
So to money: the Bishop of London and I began our negotiation with the Government.
Our starting point was indeed to secure more public funding for repairs to listed
churches, but I am afraid I have to tell Synod that this will not be forthcoming in the
immediate future, neither by this Government nor I believe, at times of huge pressure
on public spending, by any future Government. We therefore have to be smart about
this and look at other routes. As Bishop Richard has eloquently mentioned, one is the
Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. Another, which he also described, is tapping
into the funding streams identified in Realizing the Potential, which usefully
condemned the squeamishness expressed in the past by many bodies, including local
authorities that hold many of the relevant purse strings, to making funds available to
churches. It is not new money and it is not for fabric repairs, but some dioceses have
been hugely successful in tapping into these funds. Hereford for example thinks that
the figure for them is about £4 million.
As the bishop has said, politicians of all parties know from experience that in their
own constituencies there will be an enormous hole in the social fabric of this country
without the ‘small things done with great love’ by the Church. With an election
coming up, we need to get out in the dioceses and point this out to candidates of all
parties who may be entering Parliament for the first time. For our part, we in the
centre will continue to press home the same point at the highest level in Westminster
and Whitehall.
It is a challenge, and of course there are all kinds of difficulties and obstacles to be
overcome, but it is our ambition to ensure that the wonderful heritage of church
buildings is handed on to future generations as a living witness to the gospel in every
corner of the land. There is no ‘them and us’ in this great thing, but approached with
great love it is certainly achievable.
The Chairman: There is no provision for questions to follow the presentation, but it
leads us into the next item on the agenda, a debate on the repair of Church buildings,
and it may be that some issues come up in that debate which might otherwise have
featured as questions following the presentation.
272
Repair of Church Buildings
Diocesan Synod Motion
Repair of Church Buildings (GS 1768)
The Chairman: The Lichfield Diocesan Synod also had a Diocesan Synod Motion in
identical terms to that of Ripon and Leeds. It is therefore my intention at the
beginning of the debate to call a representative from the Lichfield diocese to speak
first.
The Archdeacon of Leeds (Ven. Peter Burrows) (Ripon and Leeds): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod, recognizing that:
(a) church buildings are an important part of our national heritage and provide
not only a spiritual focus for worship and pilgrimage but in many cases also
play a vital role as community meeting places, visitor centres and spaces for the
wider celebration of the arts;
(b) many volunteers raise large sums of money to help sustain this heritage;
(c) English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund and grant-making trusts make
a valuable contribution towards the cost of repairing church buildings; but
(d) the national backlog of church building repairs is still of great magnitude,
call on HM Government to:
(i) substantially increase the amount of money available for the repair of
listed church buildings; and
(ii) fully fund the repair of Grade 1 listed church buildings.’
In his presentation the Bishop of London referred to the recent recommendation from
the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee that cathedrals should receive
direct funding from the Government, but we should not be lulled into thinking that
that makes this particular debate redundant. It is after all only a recommendation
referring to cathedrals and is not as inclusive as we would have hoped. It is certainly
not guaranteed, and it is a recommendation to engage in discussions only as to how
money might be raised. In fact it may well be that our own deliberations will add
weight to those particular discussions.
One of the questions that I ask candidates being interviewed for a new post is, ‘What
do you understand to be the importance of buildings in relation to God’s mission?’ I
do not ask the question to be awkward but because our buildings are crucial tools in
the outworking of God’s mission and witness to our wider communities. Our ancient
church buildings have stood as part of the national heritage and are cherished by
Church members and many others who are not necessarily claiming a faith connection
but appreciate and value their history and architecture. Treasures Revealed, an annual
event in Leeds, opens places of worship of all faiths to thousands of visitors. The
popularity of the event demonstrates how our buildings speak to people in different
ways and at different levels. As we have heard from the presentations, our buildings
273
are huge assets that offer substantial opportunities, and of course it is always
welcoming to hear the good news stories.
What might some of those opportunities be? In an age of interest in spirituality the
increase in numbers attending our cathedrals and other churches at times of national
crises suggest that some people at least are finding answers to their searches in our
significant places of worship. Often the largest buildings in the community, our
churches, are used increasingly as resources for education, public debate, lectures and
other activities. Ripon Cathedral for example has been used to stage fashion shows,
dance and mediaeval fairs, and is presently hosting a programme to commemorate the
industrial scale of the Holocaust and more recent genocides. Such projects do not
detract from the main focus of worship and prayer but demonstrate that our churches
are living buildings seeking to serve God’s mission to be enjoyed by everyone. In
many areas our cathedrals and churches are crucial to the district economy: they draw
visitors who visit on subsequent occasions and spend money with local businesses. In
some rural areas, as we have heard, they are the essential providers of services, such
as post offices, shops and surgeries. Cathedrals and major parish churches bring
millions of pounds into the local economy and offer local employment.
Regular church attenders are acutely aware of their awesome responsibilities for the
upkeep of buildings as places of worship loved by the local congregation and of their
responsibility to protect the nation’s heritage; yet there has been a reluctance on the
part of the Government to support us in this task by recognizing that our churches are
as important as other historic buildings. As the Bishop of London has reminded Synod
in the past, 45 per cent of all Grade I listed buildings are places of worship, and of
those 85 per cent of listed places of worship in England belong to the Church of
England. We are talking about a significant number, yet the financial support that we
receive, though hugely valuable and appreciated, is small compared with Government
funding for other heritage buildings and institutions. Even what we receive has been
and is under threat. We also note the comment that the funding we have received
amounts to less than that for many of our counterparts in Europe.
As an archdeacon I rejoice in the commitment of our congregations who do so much
to maintain our buildings, but I also deal with the other side of this: I spend time with
small congregations struggling to manage the upkeep and repair of beautiful churches,
good and faithful congregations dispirited by the number of applications to English
Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund and charities, only to be turned down repeatedly.
Small congregations are seriously considering walking away from the buildings as the
upkeep of them drains their time, their pockets and their spiritual resources, leaving
little energy for other aspects of mission.
Holy Trinity Boar Lane in Leeds is a prime example – built in 1727, Grade I listed
and at the heart of the retail centre, but with no extensive residential population. It is
working hard to develop an arts centre and is engaging with local businesses. It is
hindered by the physicality of the building and the reluctance of English Heritage to
allow it to make radical changes for better community use, and it has a congregation
of eight to 12 on a good Sunday, mainly elderly, travelling in from other parts of the
city. What is a congregation of that size supposed to do? How would it grow the
human and financial resources needed to maintain the building without support from
274
elsewhere? Within a short distance there are a number of other Grade I listed churches
vying for the same funding and the same resources.
Our Diocesan Synod Motion originated from a concern for cathedrals and Grade I
listed churches, and we believe that there is a specific case for fully funding their
repair because of the vital role that they play in community life, culture, prosperity
and heritage. The same is true of our other listed churches, which play an equally
crucial part in their communities, many in deprived and already under-resourced and
hard-hit areas both rural and urban. The activities that they host are crucial to the
mission of the Church and community cohesion, which is recognized by Government.
We therefore believe that their role too should be equally recognized through
additional funding.
In preparing for this debate, some have raised the question whether the quid pro quo
payment for additional Government funding will be the loss of Faculty Jurisdiction
which for so long we have rightly fought to protect. In presenting this motion, as a
member of a DAC I would urge Synod to reiterate its support and protection for this,
because it is one of the few ways in which we can ensure that the mission imperative
remains integral to decisions relating to our buildings. It is also true that very few
secular organizations have the knowledge or expertise to deal effectively with the
sacred elements of our churches.
Our cathedrals and churches are not only important places of worship and prayer but
significant facilities that enrich our communities. If we were to lose them or they were
to fall into complete disrepair, the nation’s architectural, historical and spiritual
heritage would be impoverished. We need to stop the erosion and call on the
parliamentarians to acknowledge publicly the value of church buildings in the life of
the nation and to protect them for generations to come.
Mr William Nicholls (Lichfield): Last October the diocese of Lichfield moved an
identical motion to that of Ripon and Leeds, and on behalf of Lichfield I would like to
start by thanking them and Archdeacon Peter for taking the lead and for his
presentation.
The point made by the deanery that brought the motion to Lichfield was via a PCC.
Having provided a team of mission-minded ministers with the bit between their teeth
to implement their mission action plan, they found themselves thwarted by the need to
refocus attention on raising money for roofs, and consequently, in their minister’s
words, through their efforts were too knackered to do anything else. I am sure that
that experience can be reflected in countless parishes up and down the country. I
therefore wish to focus my speech on what local communities miss out on when
congregations have to focus on fund-raising.
I am a lay chair in the deanery of Wolverhampton, the city whose football team last
night beat Tottenham! I want to tell Synod about the work of just one parish in
Wolverhampton, a parish with a population of 10,000, one of the most deprived
parishes in the country, economically being in the bottom 4 per cent. It does however
have a strong congregation, the last average Sunday attendance being 90 adults and 20
275
children. The PCC has a mission action plan with a strong focus on working with the
local community and in particular treating children as a priority.
What does it get up to? It runs a carers and toddlers group in its church hall, which is
widely used by the local community. How much does it cost the Government?
Nothing! They provide a monthly lunch club, which helps to overcome loneliness
experienced by the elderly, particularly those who live in high-rise buildings. How
much does it cost the Government?
A member: Nothing!
Mr William Nicholls (Lichfield): With a small £200 PCC grant and £450 from the
Church Urban Fund they set up a job support group in the local tenant management
centre, helping many people to receive support and find jobs. How much does that
cost the Government?
Several members: Nothing!
Mr William Nicholls (Lichfield): For the past three years they have organized and run
a fun day for one of the most deprived estates in the country. The rich diverse group
of residents love it. How much does that cost the Government?
Mr William Nicholls (Lichfield): We are learning! Members drawn from the
congregation help to run an open youth club. They have repeatedly won funds from
grant-makers to provide it, and each week 35 young people use that club. How much
does it cost the Government?
Mr William Nicholls (Lichfield): The same church has seven acres of churchyard still
open for burials which consequently are still maintained by the congregation, so not
only do they provide pastoral care but they have to maintain the churchyard in a good
state as well. How much does that cost the Government?
Several Members: Nothing!
Mr William Nicholls (Lichfield): I could go on! (Laughter) I could tell Synod about
the work of the local schools, about the weddings and baptisms provided, about the
friendship group working on justice and social issues with the local authority.
However, members will know all that and will know about the kind of work that goes
on in hundreds if not thousands of parishes up and down this country, but I do not
think that local government or national Ministers and their officers do; and I think the
Bishop of London made that point.
Three years ago the same church had to find over £210,000 for urgent repairs to its
158-year-old spire. Although it received a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund and
did not have to pay the VAT, it still had to find over £30,000, equivalent to a full
year’s parish share. Members can imagine the job of trying to do this as well as
276
maintaining their mission activities at the same level. If through taxation the
Government strengthened their financial support for the maintenance of churches,
local communities would benefit more from mission and the Government would hit
their targets of cohesion and social improvement.
Finally, I would like to repeat the point that the Bishop of London made, that is that
neither the incumbent, the PCC, the diocese nor the patron owns the church building,
and even the Church Commissioners do not own the church building, but in this
country church buildings are owned by the people, and I think that as a Synod we
need to make more of that and say it very clearly to people locally and nationally.
They are the communities’ buildings in trust to the Church of England and they
should be kept for future beneficiaries of those communities. I urge members of
Synod to support the motion before it.
Revd Tony Redman (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): First I must declare my interest.
As well as being a priest I am a consultant surveyor with over 100 Church clients
spread over several dioceses, including Europe, and I serve on a DAC and a Faculty
Advisory Committee for a Royal Peculiar.
Although I am a new boy to this Synod – this is a maiden speech – in a former
existence, exactly 12 years ago yesterday I had the privilege of introducing my own
Diocesan Synod Motion encouraging the Government to reduce VAT on church
building repairs. The scheme has been reviewed several times since, but never before
at a time of such financial stringency as we have today. I therefore put forward the
amendment standing in my name not having been asked to do so by the Church
Buildings Council but in a very timely way, and with their full support and in
consultation with representatives from Ripon and Leeds.
I have three arguments to put. The first is theological. Whether we like it or not, our
buildings are part of the way we do theology in this place. Other denominations focus
their thoughts on God through hymns or the proclamation of the word or long
exegesis, but we have the bricks, the stones, the mortar and the stained glass; that is
what has been handed to us, and our buildings are places of encounter, experience and
communion. However, when it comes to the process of repair our theology becomes
decidedly thin. We feel that the building is our responsibility, and any notion of
shared experience or responsibility diminishes in the face of daunting bills or
immovable pews. We no longer see ourselves as stakeholders but much more as
victims. Yet we have this responsibility under God for these structures and, through
the buildings and how we look after them, we must work out what the Lord is saying
to the world about us. An abandoned church in the middle of a community sends the
wrong message to that community. When the world is saying that we are hopeless,
what are we saying in the way that we repair our buildings?
My second point is ethical. First, I am deeply unhappy that we should single out
Grade I listed buildings for special treatment. They are Grade I listed only because of
their special heritage value, not because they cost more to maintain. Indeed Grade II*
and Grade II buildings are just as costly to maintain as Grade I buildings, although
historically Grade II listed churches have been less able to attract partnership funding
from other sources. Second, Government funding always comes with strings attached,
and full funding in the present climate at least would come with more strings than we
277
would possibly want to consider. Do we really want Government to tell us what we
can do with our Grade I listed buildings more than they already do, especially when it
is already more difficult to change such buildings due to their perceived heritage
quality? Third, and most important from an ethical perspective, should we really be
asking for more money from a Government that has pledged to cut expenditure from
the centre when the country is trying to crawl out of the deepest economic crisis in
recent years? I believe that it is entirely appropriate to enter into debate on a broader
field and in a broader timescale, perhaps looking at other European models of
funding, but I question seriously whether the now is the right time to ask for more
grant money.
My third point is tactical. In 2008-2009 English Heritage gave £9.5+ million for
church building repairs, and £1.2 million to cathedrals. In the same year the Listed
Places of Worship Grant Scheme gave £13.4 million towards the offsetting of VAT;
members can do the maths. The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme is relatively
cheap to administer, comes without strings and is inflation-proof; it costs the
Government little and delivers a considerable feel-good factor among our
communities. The previous VAT campaign had three main strands: Church House
moved mountains, primed pumps, to provide detailed information for the media;
Gordon Brown was given lunch at Lambeth Palace; Treasury officials and MPs were
given good briefings. At parish level we wrote letters. Dawn Primarolo had 6,000
letters in her postbag and said, ‘What is the Church doing? I have never had this
response before’. It was the grass-roots development that actually helped the thing to
change round. I believe now that our MPs, candidates and Treasury officials are
waiting for us, as the Bishop of London has said, to tell them how much we welcome
the VAT scheme and how much we want it to continue; the future is in our hands.
My amendment seeks to introduce two deliverables: first, the maintenance of the
Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme; second, a deeper dialogue to secure future
funding for all our churches. I hope that Synod will support it.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor (The Rt Worshipful Charles George) (ex officio):
I am a member of Synod by virtue of my judicial office. A requirement that all judges
share with Synod members is the ability to endure a succession of speeches without
occasionally feeling tempted to fall asleep, but it is much more difficult for judges
because we do not have the same community participation, if I may put it that way, as
we had from the proposer of the Lichfield motion. When the camera homes in on the
occasional bishop who looks as though he may have nodded off – and it always seems
to get into the Church Times – just remember the defence of the High Court judge
who was accused of going to sleep during a summing-up: ‘Oh, I always close my
eyes. It helps me to concentrate’!
I want to preface what I am about to say with a short personal statement. Now that the
Law Lords have been removed from the Upper House of Parliament and decanted to
the new Supreme Court building just across the road from Westminster Abbey, there
may be a feeling in some quarters that my own membership of the Church of
England’s legislative body is anomalous. In recognition of that, I want to place on
record that as long as I hold the position of Dean and Auditor I do not intend to vote
on any matter, and I did not do so during my first Synod in York last summer.
Further, my contributions to debates will be confined to relatively non-contentious
278
issues and I will certainly not engage with the kinds of issue that the Archbishop of
Canterbury dealt with in his helpful address on Tuesday.
In respect of the present motion I want to start with two comments on the background
paper GS 1768. I think we need to distinguish between the positions of cathedrals on
the one hand and other listed church buildings on the other. That is because the
contribution of public funding towards the repair and development of cathedrals over
the past 20 years has been very considerable. Grants from English Heritage and the
Heritage Lottery Fund, excluding millennium and other public funding, have covered
rather more than 40 per cent of the £250 million expenditure on cathedrals.
Furthermore, last year’s English Heritage cathedrals fabric survey showed that
although some cathedrals still face repair bills running to many millions, they really
are only a handful, Lincoln, Chichester and Salisbury being the outstanding examples.
In my view, the concentration needs to be on the Church of England’s other
architectural gems – its Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings, between which I
venture to suggest it is not sensible to distinguish. Even if we members of Synod were
reasonably knowledgeable, we could not detect the difference between a Grade I and
a Grade II* listed building, and that is one of the fallacies of this motion. The position
so far as these church buildings are concerned is dire. The prediction is that £185
million a year will need to be spent on their upkeep, which would be an increase of 61
per cent above what has been spent in recent years. Given the limited funds at their
disposal, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have been generous in
respect of these buildings, providing support to the extent of over £17 million in the
past year, 2008-2009. Members of Synod should appreciate that listed places of
worship represent only 30 per cent of the total Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings,
yet they are presently receiving from English Heritage substantially more than 50 per
cent of English Heritage’s total grant funding, so there is plainly no discrimination;
the cake is being sliced fairly but the cake is too small.
I leave Synod with three final thoughts. First, surely it is pie in the sky to suppose that
a Government of any persuasion will fully fund the repair of Grade I listed buildings.
Second, expenditure on our churches, and not only our listed churches, by way of
grants has to be justified on the basis of public benefit, and that means looking
outwards in the way that has been urged. Third – and I speak here from a legal
perspective – although consecrated buildings can be used only for sacred use, there is
now a much greater understanding that the sacred can include pastoral and mission
opportunities. I therefore urge Synod to go out and take advantage of the opportunity
for those new uses; it is there to be taken.
The Bishop of Hereford (Rt Revd Anthony Priddis): Naturally I stand before Synod to
welcome the motion, but just as we are taught that we need to preach to ourselves
before to others, so I think the same applies in many ways to motions and decisions
that we take here in Synod. I am not proposing an amendment, nevertheless I think
that just as we are going to call on the Government to act, so we need to renew our
call to one another to act.
279
I am hugely grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the Church Buildings Council for its
work and for the presentation that we have heard. I shall take away with me the image
of Bishop Richard being taken along swimming in the wake of Anne Sloman!
Whilst on the subject of thanks, I also want to pay tribute to the work that has been
done and continues to be done in our own diocese. Reference has already been made
to Yarpole and Peterchurch. There are many other examples, such as Bridge Sollars,
and many members will know All Saints Church in the centre of Hereford as well.
This work would not have been possible were it not for our own community
partnership funding officer, Wendy Coombey.
Part of what I also want to say therefore is that although the focus is rightly
concentrated on buildings, the work on the buildings, as the Vice-President of the
Methodist Church reminded us this morning, could not happen but for the people. It is
the people who need to have the vision and the motivation, and of course who need to
do all the work. That point was very well illustrated for those who attended the lunchtime meeting two days ago focusing on cathedral and church buildings. We heard of
two brilliant examples, inspired by the two people who stood before us, and I must
say that I was left feeling that I wished we could clone them and put examples in all
the parishes throughout the land, because that would transform the work that goes on
in our churches. We need a vision of the needs in communities if we are to use our
church buildings to serve those communities, and that means that we must listen to
those whom we serve so that we may know their needs and work with them.
Just as we need the vision, so we therefore need partnerships. Partnerships are
fundamentally crucial to the way we use the buildings, to the way we seek to
transform and maintain them and facilitate them to be the servants of the people –
owned by the people but serving the people and therefore in partnership with them –
and that consultation always has to take place very early on. That itself is enhanced
and strengthened by a diocesan strategy, approach, commitment and therefore
encouragement. Just as we have that nationally, so we need it in each diocese, in our
deaneries and in our benefices, so that the people who have the heart for that vision
and that work and are engaged in the mission can, as the motion before Synod puts it,
use those buildings seeing them as crucial to the Church of England’s mission and
witness and the development of community cohesion. They are wonderful assets, and
we all know all that. We want them to be even better and to serve people even more,
but we need the vision and encouragement to do so. In the background paper GS 1767
relating to the earlier presentation by the Bishop of London reference is made to the
tool kit that Wendy has developed in our diocese which contains examples of that
kind of partnership. It can be downloaded and is available to everyone.
Revd Prebendary Philippa Boardman (London): I would like to warmly thank the
Ripon and Leeds diocesan synod and our wonderful orator from the diocese of
Lichfield for bringing this motion to Synod.
I must nail my colours to the mast at the outset and say that I am a late convert to the
importance of the repair and good ordering of our church buildings. My own story as
a young layperson on a PCC, and subsequently in two curacies, is that I very much
imbibed a culture of church buildings as a burden and the care of church fabric as
something that held us back from the real work of parish ministry. However I have
280
now been converted to the cause and, like many late converts, have a huge zeal for
this topic. I therefore massively endorse the point made in paragraph (a) of the Ripon
and Leeds motion concerning the vital role of our church buildings.
As Bishop Richard said in his presentation, in our parish we have seen our church
building make a huge difference, and it is now a very profound asset for mission. It
generates a profile in our parish as literally hundreds of people enter the building day
by day; it generates a place of change and transformation because it provides a venue
in which different groups, organizations and individuals can meet and think
strategically about community life; and it generates a significant amount of money,
which is never a bad thing in the Church of England these days. Most profoundly –
and this is the most important point for all of us – by the grace of the Holy Spirit it has
generated many new disciples of Jesus Christ, as people come into the building daily
for prayer and worship and encounter the love, mercy and peace of Christ in the very
broken communities of our inner urban areas.
As Bishop Richard mentioned, we have 16,000 church buildings in this country and
they have a visible role. In times of emergency, in times of celebration and in times of
sorrow people know where to find us. I like to see our buildings almost as 16,000
shop fronts, places where people can come and be offered the love and mercy of
Christ, where people can come and join in this kingdom vocation of transforming our
glorious and broken communities.
I urge Synod to support the motion. I agree with what others have said about it being
not very practical to suppose that the Government will put a lot of new money into
this, but I would like to support the amendment about continuing the Listed Places of
Worship Grant Scheme. I also urge the Church structurally to be more proactive,
more courageous and more imaginative in supporting the development of our church
buildings. I believe that they are beacons, so let us light more of those beacons and
see them shining in our communities.
Mr Roy Thompson (York): I declare an interest as an exhausted volunteer! Several
times this week we have heard how well we plan for the people who work for us, for
their pensions, their housing and their conduct. Would that we planned so well for our
buildings, especially our church buildings! It seems that we have no national policy
for the medium or long-term health of our church buildings. Any strategy is local
within dioceses or at PCC level, so one church in parish A, unlisted, with large
unlimited reserves can carry out a medium-term cost programme without pain, whilst
a nearby parish B with a Grade I listed church with minimal reserves and a high-level
urgent repair programme struggles to cope. We need a strategy for repairs. We have
16,000 churches competing in a dogfight for grants.
Our churches across the board have never been in better shape, so we are told –
perhaps than ever – but we are sailing towards some dangerous rocks: a seriously
ageing congregation with limited means; increasing costs for mission; increasing costs
of repairs; limited grant aids available; a shortage of architects and heritage craftsmen;
and limited volunteer capability and capacity.
Perhaps many members may not know what life is like at the coalface of a typical
rural, Grade I parish church, a Norman heritage church built 900 years ago and
281
extended or altered every century since. As a churchwarden I have been involved in a
score of projects under faculty, and each one has been painful yet successful: painful
often because of cost overruns due to unforeseen problems, where for example
English Heritage will not fund any extra work found during its part-funded repair
schemes; successful yes, due to work completed to high standards and a high level of
voluntary work. However, I am also concerned for grants. Heritage bodies require
conservation repair work to be carried out to museum standards. I wonder how much
work will be missed or not carried out for that reason due to the very high unit costs.
The manufacturers of cotton buds must be making a fortune! How many of Synod
members’ church cleaners use cotton buds? I doubt very many.
I conclude with two points. First, have we a strategy for church repairs? Are our
standards unaffordable unless Government bodies fund the extra cost to meet museum
standards of conservation? This will be my last chance to ask Synod to send a strong
message to Government that we have a problem, having done so regularly for the past
10 years. I will go away but the problem will not. Previously I have asked Bishop
Richard to go across the road and rattle the teacups; now he might need to start
throwing the teapots!
The Dean of Durham (Very Revd Michael Sadgrove): I very much welcome the spirit
of this motion, but I shall be supporting the amendment because I believe that it turns
aspiration into an achievable objective. I am worried however that we may not be
asking the question the right way round, though many previous speakers have urged
us to consider the question in the proper way. An Established Church ought to begin
like this: ‘Ask not what the nation can do for our churches but what our churches can
do for the nation’ – and in many places are, of course, already doing. It really does not
become us to look too greedily for public funds when, as we have heard, there are so
many competing needs. We have to show that funding historic church fabric would be
an act of enlightened self-interest which would add value to the nation’s economy and
social capital.
I therefore would like to propose a formal memorandum of understanding, a covenant,
which would state expressly what the public benefit to the nation would be, and I
would propose three points for inclusion in such a covenant: first, that our church
buildings will be open to the public. I made this point in Synod when we debated
Building Faith in our Future. The Sacred Britain project has raised the profile of
Church heritage, yet so many of our Grade I listed churches, which are public
buildings, are still kept locked for most of the week. If we are serious about mission
and hospitality as well as heritage, this is a scandal. Public funding should make it a
requirement, and we should welcome the opportunities that would flow from it.
Surely every PCC should have a policy about opening its church to pilgrims, visitors,
lovers of art and architecture, and those in search of the sacred and a place in which to
pray?
The second point that I would propose for inclusion in a covenant is that our church
buildings will be centres for the community. We have heard much about this already
this morning. GS 1767 has some splendid examples of imaginative projects, cafés,
small businesses, post offices and so on. The National Trust’s recent launch of the
282
Going Local campaign shows how heritage and community are being brought
together in its thinking. We should work up strategies like this in each diocese so that
our churches could once again be visible symbols of a community’s belonging.
The final point would be that our church buildings will foster citizenship. In this
country we are so good at recruiting volunteers, and we have heard already this
morning about volunteers. We could not function let alone flourish without them, but
we could help to recruit and train volunteers for our communities and not simply for
ourselves, because so many of the skills learnt by volunteers in our church buildings
are transferable.
Developing the charitable sector to serve the nation is a central plank in the policies of
all the major political parties. Our churches have been doing this for centuries, so let
us build our unrivalled experience into the covenant, put it at the disposal of the
nation and say loud and clear in mission, as in everything else, ‘It is more blessed to
give than to receive’.
Revd Tony Redman (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘After (d) insert –
“welcome the contribution made to church building repairs by the Listed Places
of Worship Grant Scheme, and”; and
leave out paragraph (ii) and insert –
“(ii)
give an early commitment to continuing beyond March 2011 the
Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme”.’
The Archdeacon of Leeds (Ven. Peter Burrows) (Ripon and Leeds): Having consulted
some of my colleagues from the diocese of Lichfield, we warmly welcome and
support the first part of this amendment and applaud the very valuable contributions
received through the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.
We also warm to the second part of the amendment and do not want to encourage
Synod to make a decision that would jeopardize the extension of the Listed Places of
Worship Grant Scheme or undermine the work of the Cathedral and Church Building
Division in securing it.
We also acknowledge that the amendment probably offers a practical and realistic
way forward in discussions with the Government and goes some way to securing
greater public funding for all our churches. However, in passing the original motion
the dioceses of Ripon and Leeds and Lichfield were keen to press Parliament to
recognize the significance of and the contribution made by our Grade I listed
buildings, and funding would be one way of doing that. We recognize however that
some time has elapsed since that motion was passed by the respective diocesan
synods and that discussions have taken place, and are continuing to take place, with
the Government. We are therefore content to accept the mind of Synod on this
amendment.
283
The Chairman: Before I test the mind of Synod on that, in the general debate some
members have supported Mr Redman’s amendment and we have heard the response
from the Archdeacon of Leeds. Does any member wish to stand to speak against the
amendment? If so, I would allow time for Synod to hear any such speech before
accepting a motion for closure. (No response) On that basis, I turn again to you,
Mr Freeman.
Mrs Katherine Carr (Ripon and Leeds): I would like to give Synod an example of
how church buildings contribute greatly to the well-being of an area. I come from a
part of our diocese with very few people indeed; we are always accused of having
more sheep than anywhere else in England. In the Middle Ages those sheep
contributed greatly to the prosperity of our area, in the 19th century it was the mining
of lead that brought a great deal of money to Swaledale, but now we are completely
dependent for our economic well being on those members of Synod and the many
others in England and from foreign parts who visit us. Tourism is our great economic
resource and it is there that we focus our attention.
For 30 years in our area we have organized an absolutely wonderful festival, the
Swaledale Festival, consisting largely of music but also wonderful exhibitions and
many local events. I wish I could have taken members of Synod to a performance of
Carmen at which the local children sang and the Toreador Song was sung by someone
walking up and down the aisle of a wonderful church in Grinton. The festival, which
takes place at the end of May and beginning of June, is a marvellous occasion and I
urge members to look it up on the website – the Swaledale Festival.
We have no concert halls, no exhibition centres, no large public buildings of any sort,
except our churches and a number of very fine Methodist chapels, so those buildings
are the centre of our festival. Nearly all our events are held in the churches and they
are absolutely wonderful. The local community participates, is able to welcome, and
our visitors from all over the world very much enjoy the hospitality, the beauty of the
buildings and the events that take place in them. Without our wonderful churches –
and I do recommend that members visit St Andrew’s in Grinton – such festivals could
not take place. Our festival in Swaledale is only one example of how crucially
important church buildings are to the well-being of local communities and to the
wider national and international communities.
Miss Emma Forward (Exeter): I welcome this motion because it brings the issue of
funding the repair of church buildings right back to basics. Diocesan Synod Motions
284
and speeches made by laypeople in General Synod can often have the effect of saying
something along the lines, ‘Hang on a minute!’. I am a fairly well-travelled layperson
in terms of visiting churches and cathedrals across England and on various visits I
enter a church generally wanting to pray or experience a little peace, and what is the
first thing I see? Unfortunately, often it is a request for, or an insistence on, payment
to enter that building. My response is, ‘Hang on a minute! I am a Christian and this is
God’s house, my father’s house. I have come here to pray, to escape the pressures of
the outside world or for sanctuary’. Charging me to enter the building seems to me
very wrong indeed.
I am not criticizing any church financial body or group of people who find themselves
in the position of having no choice but to charge people to enter a church building;
that is not the fault of any of those people. However, this motion can offer us an
opportunity to challenge the Government and say, ‘Hang on a minute! Why should
our churches and cathedrals find themselves in a position in which it is necessary to
make an entrance charge?’ OK, if you say that you want to go into a church to pray or
experience some quiet time, some stewards will allow you to go in with having to pay
an entrance fee. The premise of that is that if you are a religious user you can have
unfettered access to the church, and if not, you have to pay £4.50.
It is fantastic that many non-Christians visit churches and enjoy them; for them a
church can be more than just a tourist attraction. However, I think that they should
also have a right to enter for sanctuary, for peace and for prayer. Churches should not
have to rival other tourist attractions and be seen as attractions that may charge more
or less, nor should people be faced with having to choose between visiting a church or
visiting a particular museum because it is cheaper to do so. It is would be a very sad
state of affairs if people were forced to look at churches in that way. There is a limit
to the extent to which churches can compete by having to ask, ‘How much can we
offer to non-Christians when there are other more exciting attractions available?’ (The
Chairman rang the bell.) I urge Synod to support this motion.
The Bishop of Exeter (Rt Revd Michael Langrish): – and speaking as the chairman of
the Churches’ Legislation Advisory Service.
We have already heard a great deal about the importance of the Listed Places of
Worship Grant Scheme and how essential it is to secure its replacement or renewal. I
just want to point out to Synod that if it is lost it is likely to come to the Church with a
double whammy. Churches and other charities making Gift Aid repayments are
currently entitled to Gift Aid transitional relief relating to qualifying donations made
in the tax years 2008-9 and 2010-11. That too is due to end on 31 March 2011. We
have heard what the LPWG scheme has contributed to churches. It is more difficult to
estimate the impact of the loss of Gift Aid transitional relief. However, assuming that
donations stay at approximately the same level as in 2010-11 and beyond, as they are
at present, when the relief reverts to 20 pence in the pound after
31 March 2011churches and charities will lose one-eleventh of their existing
repayments.
285
Even on an extremely conservative assumption that only 5 per cent of the total annual
Gift Aid repayment to the voluntary sector as a whole goes to the churches
collectively, the ending of the transitional relief could create an annual shortfall in
church incomes across the board of £4 million. Gift Aid reclaims as a part of general
income are returned to individual congregations. However money returned under Gift
Aid transitional relief is a resource available to the churches, some of which
inevitably goes on building maintenance, so the worry is that after 31 March 2011
about £1 million that might have come to the Church of England as grant, and maybe
as much as £3 million that might have been refunded through Gift Aid, will evaporate.
I urge Synod not only to vote for the motion but to take up the challenge of the Bishop
of London to write in large numbers to their constituency MPs about both these
matters.
Mr Robert Key (Salisbury): It is never the right time to ask a Government to spend
money, especially not now, but that is why we must now establish the principle. As a
former Minister in the Department of National Heritage I can tell Synod that where
there is no pressure there is no money. We must be ready for the economic recovery
when it comes. We should think of it like this: Christian congregations in every corner
of our country are subsidizing tourism, visitor attractions, bus companies, caterers,
hotels and shops; we are subsidizing our communities, especially if we represent a
popular tourist venue.
Stewarding in the back of Salisbury Cathedral last month on a cold winter morning, I
greeted visitors from Italy, France, Spain, Argentina, Canada, the US and New
Zealand, so that is all right then for the great cathedrals, but I also know that for the
rural and urban churches it is impossible to keep our Grade I and Grade II* buildings
in decent repair.
The Bishop of London is right: the walls of Jericho will fall, as will our churches
unless we have a change of attitude in this country. I therefore urge members of
Synod to vote now for this motion in support of the Listed Places of Worship Grant
Scheme, but to use their votes too on 6 May or whenever the election comes.
The Chairman: The Archdeacon of Leeds has kindly agreed to reply to the debate in
about three minutes.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, in reply: Members of Synod will be pleased to hear that I
am not going to reply to everyone’s comments, partly because the Chairman has told
me that I cannot, in view of the way he wants to conduct the vote, and partly because I
am due to preside at the Eucharist at five past one, so I am sure that we ought to be
bringing this debate to a close.
286
What has been clear to me from the tenor of the debate is the passion and concern that
we all have for our church buildings as tools for mission and as important parts of our
national heritage. I was rather taken as well – and I hope that the Cathedral and
Church Buildings Division heard it – with the idea of a national strategy, not just a
local strategy, for the maintenance and repair of our church buildings, which I think
would be very helpful indeed.
What we now have before us is a motion that will give a clear and important message
to Parliament on where we stand in relation to our church buildings as we continue to
work with Government on the future funding of our churches, and I thank everyone
who has taken part in the debate for the passion with which they have shared their
views and opinions.
The Chairman: As this is a matter of some public interest and the motion approaches
the Government, I order a division of the whole Synod so that the voting figures can
be recorded.
and none against, with no recorded abstentions:
‘That this Synod, recognizing that:
(a) church buildings are an important part of our national heritage and provide
not only a spiritual focus for worship and pilgrimage but in many cases also
play a vital role as community meeting places, visitor centres and spaces for the
wider celebration of the arts;
(b) many volunteers raise large sums of money to help sustain this heritage;
(c) English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund and grant-making trusts make
a valuable contribution towards the cost of repairing church buildings;
but
(d) the national backlog of church building repairs is still of great magnitude,
welcome the contribution made to church building repairs by the Listed Places
of Worship Grant Scheme, and call on HM Government to:
(i) substantially increase the amount of money available for the repair of
listed church buildings; and
(ii) give an early commitment to continuing beyond March 2011 the
Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.’
(Adjournment)
287
THE CHAIR Revd Canon Ruth Worsley (Southwell and Nottingham) took the Chair
at 2.30 p.m.
The Clerk to the Synod (Revd David Williams): I will need to take two or three
minutes of the Synod’s time. This is something that falls to me once every three years
because our ecumenical representatives on the Synod by convention serve terms of
three years at a time, though some representatives have been reappointed and are
serving successive terms. I am going to pay tribute to four people for whom this will
be the last group of sessions that they will be attending, and I will do so in
alphabetical order.
Jane Craske is superintendent minister of the Leeds (North East) Methodist Circuit
and the chair of the Methodist Faith and Order Committee. She has been the
Methodist representative since the February sessions in 2007 and has made a major
contribution in the last three years, speaking in debates on Women in the Episcopate,
the Joint Implementation Commission Quinquennial Report on the AnglicanMethodist Covenant, and on the subject of human trafficking, on that occasion
speaking as a trustee of the Josephine Butler Memorial Trust. In the July sessions she
has often arrived at York fresh from the Methodist Conference or has gone straight on
to the Conference after the York sessions have ended, therefore sometimes getting a
double dose of some debates. The General Synod has certainly benefited from Jane’s
critical friendship, her theological insight and her stamina!
I turn now to Revd Gloria David. Unfortunately, Gloria cannot be with us today.
Gloria has been the General Synod representative for the Moravian Church, which is
one of the Church of England’s most long-standing ecumenical partners. She is
minister of the Queen’s Park Moravian Church in Bedford, founded as a Moravian
mission in 1893. She also serves on the Social Responsibility Committee of the
Moravian Church. She has made many friends in the General Synod since she first
attended in February 2007, particularly through her warmth, her ability to listen and
her warm friendship.
I now turn to Douglas Galbraith. Douglas has represented the Church of Scotland in
the General Synod, again since the February sessions in 2007 and, in that time, has
proved himself a good friend of the Church of England. He has been acting secretary
of the Church of Scotland’s Ecumenical Relations Committee and formerly secretary
to the Kirk’s Panel on Doctrine; but his main interest is liturgy and music, not only as
secretary to the Church of Scotland’s Music Panel but also being very prominent in
the Royal School of Church Music in Scotland. He has led worship in General Synod
and has also contributed to a number of debates as diverse as the debate in February
2009 on the ARCIC report Church as Communion and the Church and tourism debate
in the York sessions in 2009. We shall particularly miss the weight of his
contributions, his friendship and his supportive presence.
Finally, Nezlin Sterling. Nezlin is the General Secretary of the New Testament
Assembly. She has represented the Black Majority Churches in the General Synod for
many years, since July 2001. She has made some significant and important
contributions to debates in that time, notably in the debate on the 200th anniversary of
288
Going for Growth
the abolition of slavery in which she spoke powerfully from the experience of the
black community and also, more recently, she made a passionate contribution to the
debate on the uniqueness of Christ in multi-faith Britain. Nezlin’s voice has been an
important one for us to hear and we are grateful to her for the strength, the courage
and the grace with which she has spoken to us. I ask Synod to show its appreciation of
Jane, Douglas, Gloria and Nezlin, as they conclude this time at the Synod. (Applause)
The Bishop of Rwenzori – Rt Revd Patrick Kyaligonza
The Chairman: I now call upon the Bishop of Bristol to speak to us prior to
beginning the afternoon’s business.
The Bishop of Bristol (Rt Revd Michael Hill): Synod members, it is a rather
unfortunate piece of news that I have to bring to you. The Bishop of Rwenzori,
Bishop Patrick Kyaligonza, a fine man of the gospel and an excellent human being,
was sadly killed this morning in a road accident in Uganda. His wife Rose has been
injured. We do not know the extent of those injuries. They have three young children.
I was with him just three weeks ago, preaching in his cathedral, and he was speaking
animatedly about celebrating 50 years of the diocese of Rwenzori.
I invite Synod, with me, to keep a few moments’ silence and let us pray for Patrick’s
family and for those in the diocese of Rwenzori.
(The Synod prayed in silence.)
The Chairman: Perhaps, as we turn now to our business this afternoon, we will be
remembering those three young children.
Going for Growth: Transformation for Children, Young People and
the Church: A Report from the Board of Education/National Society
Council (GS 1769)
The Bishop of Lincoln (Rt Revd John Saxbee): I beg to move:
Can I ask the Synod to remain prayerful for a moment? The collect for this week, the
second before Lent, is a gift to this debate and I would like to begin with it.
‘Almighty God, you have created the heavens and the earth and made us in
your own image. Teach us to discern your hand in all your works and your
likeness in all your children; through Jesus Christ your Son Our Lord, who with
you and the Holy Spirit reigns supreme over all things, now and for ever.
Amen.’
We live in an age when people increasingly refuse to act their age. The young yearn
to be older, while the older yearn to be younger. It is certainly true that there are now
no end of cosmetic procedures and medicinal compounds promoted as antidotes to
evidence of ageing; but I am afraid it is also true that too many of our children and
289
Going for Growth
young people wish their youth away and too many adults are only too ready to
encourage them to do so.
Last July this Synod took note of a report entitled Being Adult about Childhood, based
on the findings of The Good Childhood Inquiry. Now we have the chance to take note
of a report from our own Education Division, which seeks to build on the Church of
England’s long and honourable history of work for and with children and young
people, and to breathe new life into that work as we engage with a generation growing
up in a world of many exciting innovations and opportunities, but also a world of
many difficulties and dangers. The report seeks to take seriously the nature and extent
of change in the experience of being young in the world of today and tomorrow, but it
does so in the sure and certain knowledge that God’s love for each and every young
person made in God’s image does not change, and neither does Our Lord’s instruction
to become like them if we are to gain entry into God’s kingdom.
Why a ‘take note’ motion? In this case, it is not so much about Synod taking note of
what the Education Division has put before it, although we hope it will; rather, it is
about us taking note of what Synod has to say to us as we seek to resource the Church
for its mission and ministry to and with children and young people. At a fringe
meeting on Tuesday we benefited enormously from the wisdom and experience of
those who met with us then and this afternoon we are seeking to continue that
conversation.
The title Going for Growth shows that we are ambitious on behalf of children and
young people as precious in God’s sight and precious to us as well. We are going for
growth in our understanding of children and young people as they make their way
with us through the wilderness of this world’s temptations; growth in the number of
children and young people with whom we have contact and for whom we have a care;
growth in the quality of our care and nurture of them in the Christian way, in school
and out; but, above all, growth in young people themselves that they may know
themselves to be made in the image of God, loved by the Church of God, and fellowworkers with Christ in building the Kingdom of God.
The report is in five sections. The first reminds us of the sometimes challenging ways
in which children and adolescents are changing very rapidly. There is much here to
give us cause for concern but we are glad to be able to report that, in the main,
‘children and young people are still loving, laughing, learning, growing and thriving’.
However, there does seem to be a crisis of confidence in how the Church relates to
children and young people, and so section 2 reminds us that we are in fact engaging
with them in many and varied ways, be it in school, parish church life, community
contact centres, chaplaincy, or that myriad of connections we make beyond our
Church walls through those organizations, listed in paragraph 2.11, in which many
members of Synod are actively involved. However, we note that a lack of joined-up
thinking and acting prevents these enterprises from being as effective as they could
be. We hope this report can help us to address that issue as a matter of some urgency.
Section 3 provides a theological framework within which a coherent approach to our
engagement with children and young people can take place. Three guiding principles
inform this section. They are our belief that each child and young person is valued by
290
Going for Growth
God; that each child and young person is called into relationship with God; and that
each child and young person is gifted with a part to play with us in building the
Kingdom of God. In the light of this theological framework, there can be no question
of children and young people being anything other than partners with us in discerning
God’s will and purpose for them and us as God’s wonderful future unfolds before us.
Implementing this kind of theological approach cannot be clinically precise or
formulaic when it comes to what does and does not work. As the report says, it can all
get a bit messy at times; but a messy Church making new disciples is better than a
neat and tidy Church simply comforting old ones.
The five Marks of Mission have served the Church well as a matrix against which to
monitor and measure our expressions of pastoral care, nurture, evangelism and
prophetic challenge to both Church and society. It is around these marks that section 4
marshals the commitment of the Education Division to support children and young
people and those who work for them and with them in Christ’s name. This is a kind of
job specification for the Education Division, and one to which the Education Division
is already working. Above all, however, it is a checklist which we believe will be of
assistance to all those who have a care for the well-being of our children and young
people, and who long to see them grow in the knowledge and love of God in Christ.
Note the emphasis in this section on the need for children and young people to be full
participants in all of this. It is not just about what the Marks of Mission say about
what we do for children and young people but what children and young people can do
for themselves – and for us. Be honest, we are not always as ready as we should be to
receive from young people what they are uniquely well placed to share with us. Let us
therefore heed those wise words: always pay attention to the young because they still
see so vividly the things we have long since forgotten.
Finally, of course, there is a call to action. We look forward this afternoon to hearing
how, in so many different places, the fine words here can be turned into good deeds
where members of Synod live, work and worship. This is a critical time for our
Church in relation to children and young people. We have a gospel to proclaim and
good news to share; but we have some catching-up to do if Going for Growth is to be
more than a well meaning but ultimately forlorn aspiration.
Paragraph 5.1 says, ‘The face to face ministry with, among and by children and young
people in local contexts needs to be challenged, extended, supported and resourced at
both national and diocesan level so that the Church is effective in being Good News
as well as teaching Good News’. This is the very point that Jesus made when he
delivered what has become known as the Nazareth Manifesto in the synagogue there.
The good news prophesied by Isaiah for some of the most vulnerable people in
society – and we must include children and young people amongst them – was no
longer a future hope; it was a present reality, because ‘Today’, said Jesus, ‘in your
hearing these words have come true’. Then he sat down – and so will I!
Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells): The story is told of a newly appointed head of one
of our cathedral schools. He had just arrived one April and was walking round the
grounds. Encountering a gardener kneeling by a flowerbed, he ventured, ‘Spring in
291
Going for Growth
the air again?’ and back came the terse reply, ‘Spring in the jolly air yourself!’ – or
that was the gist of what he said, as Alan Bennett’s parson would have remarked.
The title Going for Growth suggests that a good many more seeds need to be sown,
that many have already been sown, and a fair amount is already going on but often
unseen and beneath the surface. Spring may well be nearly in the air but we need
many more gardeners – and more cheerful ones than the one to which I referred.
May I offer one example of the commitment set out in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 on page
11 about enabling every child and young person to have a life encounter with the true
Christian faith and the person of Jesus Christ. It is about how and where children and
young people hear the Christian story and about, as the report says, empowering in the
training and especially equipping and training of the laity.
Many members of Synod may have heard of Open the Book, a rapidly expanding,
grass-roots, lay volunteer, Bible story-telling movement in all primary schools, not
just Church schools. What better than to open the book with children where they are?
If there is a slight shortcoming in this helpful report, which starts with our scriptural
foundation, it appears nowhere to mention the use of the Bible with children and
young people, but biblical illiteracy is rife and getting worse. ‘Why did Jesus’ mum
and dad give him a name that’s a swear word?’ said one 10-year-old boy to a Church
worker recently.
The mission statement of Open the Book is this: ‘Enabling every child to hear the
story of the Bible at school in their primary years’. It is about Bible story-telling by
teams of volunteers from local churches going into collective worship assembly on a
weekly basis, often relieving the vicar of the task, engaging and involving the
children, using drama, costumes, mime and visual aids, and having an enormous
amount of fun. I know. I was King Hezekiah being sick the other week and then an
oppressive Pharaoh the following week! It is enormous fun – but there is a serious
moment too.
User-friendly resources enable even the least confident adults to discover the
confidence to take part, and carefully crafted pre- and post-story word and reflections
suitable for the school environment help to keep people on track, particularly the
over-enthusiastic. For many children it is the most popular assembly of the week.
Open the Book works equally well in the multi-ethnic inner city, in the country and in
both Church and community school. No one is being forced to believe. Church school relationships, a great potential, are built – on the back of which another
element in the report, paragraph 4.5, the proclamation of the gospel, can take place
more openly, at holiday clubs, after-school clubs, et cetera.
I am therefore delighted to be a member of teams. What inspired me? It was the
Dearing report and its reporting that Church schools and others stand at the centre of
our mission to the nation, and that that link between Church and school needs to be
made so much closer – and here is a practical way. I never dreamt that I would be
able to do it.
We do not know how many schools Open the Book is in: it has been a national
movement for only a very short time. We think that it is in at least 600 or 700 schools
already; we think that it is reaching over 100,000 children weekly. Even Scousers use
292
Going for Growth
it. Forgive the comment I made in an earlier debate when those who were here may
have heard me abuse the Scousers, and I apologise! Gloucestershire – the home of
William Tyndale and his ploughboy – is a most remarkable example. Having raised
over 1,000 volunteers ecumenically, they go into over 160 schools, more than half the
primary schools in that county, and 22,000 children a week hear a Bible story. That,
frankly, is more than the number of adults in church in the diocese of Gloucester or in
my own diocese on a Sunday, and ten times more children. Friends, what an
opportunity there is! Forgive me for my over-enthusiasm about the potential of
springing into life in this way.
At the Coronation, I believe that the Bible is said to be ‘the most precious thing this
world affords’. May that Bible be opened increasingly in our schools by our lay
volunteers and bring great joy all round.
Miss Charlotte Cook (Church of England Youth Council Representatives): I heartily
welcome this report and wish to offer a great deal of thanks to all of those who have
worked on its development. The report outlines the importance of the Church’s role in
the lives of all children and not just those within the Church.
One of the joys of the parochial system – and there are many, of course – is the fact
that there is a wide range of individuals, whether or not those who are priests like it,
who are under their care. This includes men, women and children: all individuals with
various skills, backgrounds, hopes and fears; who all need the love of God in their
life.
I cannot stress enough the importance of open minds. Young people are at a complex
and impressionable stage of their life. They need love, encouragement and support. I
would urge members not to compartmentalize the ways in which they want them to
work. They are as varied and vibrant in their views and interests as any other person. I
understand that it is challenging, but is not the unique challenge posed by every
individual an important part of the wonderful diversity of society today?
Importantly, in my opinion, the report begins by highlighting an almost too obvious
statement in paragraph 1.5, that ‘Children too are made in the image of God’ – a
statement which, from my own personal experience, has unfortunately not always
been fully embraced, let alone practised. Yet I am still here: a Christian, a member of
the Body of Christ, and exceptionally proud to be a member of the Church of England
today.
Let us remember, as I believe this report prompts us to, that it is about much more
than solely how we relate to children and young people. It is how we, as people of
God, the Body of the living Christ, value life and the lives of all those within our
Church. It is important to remember that we are here to nurture everyone throughout
the entirety of their lives in a sensitive, Christ-like and loving manner. I therefore urge
Synod to look at this report not solely as a piece of encouragement to look after and
nurture children and young people but to see it as a bastion of hope that we should
look to for all people, for all of those who are under our care in the Church. I therefore
urge Synod to take note of this report.
293
Going for Growth
Revd Canon Jonathan Frost (Guildford): I welcome this timely report from our
Education Division and, in particular, the comments from the Bishop of Lincoln about
our need to be open and receptive to what children and young people bring us now,
not simply in the future.
At Guildford Cathedral, where I begin each day before moving on to a university
campus that sits in the precincts, we have been loaned a large Victorian depiction of
the Good Samaritan. Artistically it has very little to commend it but the picture of
what I take to be the young person being raised up is a daily inspiration.
Many flourish and the report picks this up properly but many are also at sea, on an
ocean of information, with very little wisdom to discern which way to go – to the
right or left. Most are subject to an unthinking and uncaring consumerism, media
pressure, pressure to conform to simple answers and celebrity culture, when children
and young people are so much deeper than this. We therefore need to take the risk of
being open, crossing the road and lifting up our young people now.
I particularly welcome the emphasis on listening and analysis of context. This to me
seems to be a well-winnowed theological insight, coming from a number of key
themes and strands over the last 30 or 40 years. The rabbi was right: we are given
two ears and one mouth, and we need to learn to use them in that proportion – plenty
of listening, plenty of analysis. Some of the stories, the brief excerpts, are
inspirational in the listening that has gone on, and therefore the pertinence, the
relevance and the deep connection that is formed by projects.
I welcome the emphasis on the articulation of theological principle. This is a long
haul for all of us and if we are not sufficiently grounded in our theology and values
our efforts will waver. I think that this is also a development from the report on The
Good Childhood Inquiry, which in my maiden speech in the summer I felt had underdeveloped its theological emphasis and had perhaps missed an opportunity to develop
theological literacy in some of our partners. I welcome the developments in this
report.
I also like the look of beginning where we are. I am sure that I speak not only for
myself here, but the challenge of reconnecting with young people and with children
for what they bring today to the life of kingdom and Church can sometimes seem
beyond us. This helpful section on ‘Can the Church make a difference?’ reminds us
that the answers are in front of us, in numerous contacts and relationships that already
exist. I hope that Synod will take this report home and revisit well-worn paths,
relationships at school, college and university, with children’s centres, and to build on
them for the future.
In conclusion, I would like to tell you about Michael. Michael is a real Fresh
Expressions innovator. Michael is 94 and a member of our cathedral community.
About eight years ago – and I have this out of conversation and a long-standing
friendship with him – the penny began to drop of God’s love for all and for his
creation. He therefore took some steps towards young people who were on the fringe
of the cathedral community. In the last six months Michael has been driven to Taizé
in a minibus of students. He has also paid for a silent retreat, introducing some of our
wonderful young people, who we have in every context, to some of the depth of
294
Going for Growth
Christian spirituality and prayer that perhaps they had not encountered before. The
cathedral community, particularly the clergy, dive for cover when Michael comes into
view. ‘Not another good idea for us to follow up! Not another bright spark of an
avenue for us to explore!’ – and it is our prayer that God will keep him from Twitter
and Facebook!
Mrs Kay Dyer (Coventry): Section 2 says, ‘Can the Church make a difference?’. I
would say, ‘Can children and young people make a difference to the Church?’ and the
answer is Yes. In fact, we may need to extend our Church again because the young
people are bringing in so many families and friends.
We started a couple of years ago with the young people behind the black curtain, with
their puppets popping over the top; but last year, as part of 4.8 – which is allowing
and helping young people to be not only participants but initiators – they came out
into the open with the puppets, clothed in black and with black masks, and moved
amongst the congregation. People were quite shocked to see a green recycle bin next
to the lectern, but what the young people were teaching us was the importance of our
planet and of looking after creation. The Brownies brought up their tin cans during the
service as part of their offering, to show how important it is that we care for one
another and for God’s world. Later on – and these are ideas they gave to me, and the
Church gave me the encouragement to guide the young people in doing this – for One
World Week we did not just come into the family service, we took the sermon slot in
the main Communion with about 180 adults there. They were slightly frightened but
these young people, mostly young ladies in national costumes that the congregation
had lent to them, looked beautiful. They brought home the different national products
of some of the different parts of the world, to show how we can help one another and
buy goods through fair trade, which will encourage people in different parts of the
world.
I look forward to whatever they initiate next. It will be scary; there will be unusual
things happening; but it must be doing the right thing because the numbers coming to
the services are increasing all the while, and we may need to knock down the north
side in order to build a larger church! I commend this report.
The Bishop of Leicester (Rt Revd Tim Stevens): I am also speaking this afternoon as
the Chair of The Children’s Society. I am very glad that the Bishop of Lincoln
referred to The Good Childhood report, which was published this time last year and
debated at the Synod in July. Many of us would have welcomed the opportunity to
debate that report and this report from the Board of Education at the same time,
because I think the connections between what they have to say both to Church and to
society are profound, and it will not do children any service if we separate their
spiritual growth and well-being from their emotional, psychological and physical care
and well-being. That is the point of the connection between these two reports which
we need to hold constantly in our mind.
The point was made that The Good Childhood report did not contain a fully
developed theology about childhood. It is a perfectly fair accusation but we, as the
authors of that report, felt that the responsibility for doing that lay elsewhere.
295
Going for Growth
What I would want to bring to the attention of the Synod is something that flows from
the call to action in the Going for Growth report, because The Children’s Society has
indeed been taking action in the 12 months since that report was published. Part of the
action has been the Children’s Well-being survey, probably the largest survey of the
well-being of children conducted in this country in our lifetime. Some 7,000 children
have been surveyed at their schools from years six, eight and ten on 21 different
aspects of their lives.
The report tells us that for the most part children are content with their lot and express
themselves as being ‘happy’, but there are significant areas of unhappiness and
distress, which this report reflects. Primarily conflict in the family, tensions and
disturbance between the parents, are the largest cause of children’s unhappiness by a
long way, and the Church has a responsibility for addressing that. However, listen
also to some of the other areas which children say they are most unhappy with.
‘Unhappy about what may happen to you later on in your life’; ‘unhappy about the
school that you go to’; ‘unhappy with your local area’; ‘unhappy with your
confidence’; ‘unhappy about your schoolwork’; ‘unhappy about your appearance’.
We could discuss at length what these things are telling us about children’s needs, but
The Children’s Society is to create an index of children’s well-being to track the
changes in these responses over time.
The question I therefore want to put to the Bishop of Lincoln in his response to this
debate is this. What can the Board of Education do to influence the authorities, to
influence Ofsted and, in particular, to influence those who examine our schools, so
that the well-being and the flourishing of children according to those things that they
say they are most concerned about are treated as of equal importance for measurement
and reporting as their academic attainment? If we could influence change in that
direction, I think that we would be doing something very significant as the Church of
the people of England for the children of England and for their well-being in the days
ahead.
Mr Edward Keene (Church of England Youth Council Representative): Let me say
first of all that I completely welcome this report. I think that its overarching aim as
stated in the report, for culturally sensitive mission among young people proclaiming
the good news, is entirely right. I commend the way in which the report, especially in
section 3, grapples with the Scripture behind how we treat young people in the
Church, and the way that the first two parts of section 4 echo Christ’s great
commission to us in Matthew 28.19-20 to preach the good news and to teach and
baptize new believers. However, the report, like all Church reports, is not without a
few flaws, which I hope to pick up on.
There are various minor points of emphasis and language that I could pick out, but I
will focus on just four today. First, I must say that I am slightly irked by the
assumption, as stated by section 4.14, that the Church needs to learn from children
and young people, whose values are shaped by their love of creation. This lovely idea
that the coming generation is somehow much more in tune with creation and the
natural world than preceding generations, and therefore they have a much greater care
for it, is absolute nonsense. With our computers, iPods, mobile phones, mood lights,
games consoles and what-not, we use far more electricity than my grandparents’
generation ever did – with a few notable exceptions. As a result, I think that on the
296
Going for Growth
whole, although we may talk the talk, we do not actually walk the walk quite so much
as this Synod may assume.
Secondly, in section 5.3 and also on the title of the report, I am also slightly irritated
by the idea of the transformation needed in young people and the Church. The biblical
theology is that we need transformation of our minds – Romans 12.2, ‘And be not
conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind …’ – but I
think that the idea of transforming the Church is unbiblical. I think that we should
reform the Church going back to timeless truths, rather than move forward to a new
type of Church: we do need to proclaim the gospel anew in each generation. As I
said, that has already been covered in the beginning of the report, referring to
culturally sensitive mission.
Thirdly, I must admit that I am completely befuddled by section 1.9. Let me read it
verbatim. ‘If, instead of trying to teach good news to children (and young people), the
Church tries to become good news, it will need such fresh eyes to see itself. Such a
church would need the confidence to deal with questions rather than always having to
find the answers.’ I thought that the way we dealt with questions was by finding
answers. Am I completely wrong about that?
Finally, in section 4.6 – which is the one I want to focus on mostly – there is a rather
worldly view of the idea of indoctrination here. One of the issues for the Church
stated under the title of ‘Proclaiming the good news’ is ‘Proclamation without
indoctrination or coercion’. Synod, doctrine is about truth. Our fallen world hates
truth and the enemy hates truth. However, God loves truth and educating youngsters
about truth is a crucial part of nurturing new believers.
It would certainly be off-putting to hit five-year-olds with massive tomes of
systematic theology, although it does help to keep them in line when they are being
rowdy, I must admit! However, we should recognize that there is a time, as
Ecclesiastes 3 may well say, to indoctrinate. The Bible is clear that doctrine is the
glory of the Church. Certainly, in the Church of England we have great doctrine and
we should be proud about it. It is a key part of the famous Acts 2 description of the
Primitive Church that they continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship. The Apostle Paul teaches us in Ephesians 4.14 that doctrine anchors and
protects us from the winds of the world; in 1 Timothy 6, that doctrine is God’s and it
is not to be blasphemed and, from 2 Timothy 3.16, where do we get doctrine? We get
doctrine from Scripture. I therefore commend Peter LeRoy’s comments at the start of
this debate that we need to have the Bible being properly taught in schools and among
young people.
I regret that I was not taught more doctrine as a teenager. It was only when I stumbled
across a copy of that giant of Christian doctrine, Wayne Grudem, at a Lawyers’
Christian Fellowship Students and Young Lawyers Conference that I was finally able
to reap the rich spiritual rewards of thorough and godly doctrine.
It is not the teaching of doctrine that is cruel, Synod; it is the withholding thereof. The
Bishop of Lincoln is right. There is a lack of confidence in youth work among the
Church and there is also a lack of vision and ambition. Our aim should not just be, as
section 5.2 of this report states, to give young people an encounter with Christ,
297
Going for Growth
important though that is; our aim should also be to make them disciples of Christ. We
should have faith in what God can do among young people through us. We should
also have faith in what young people can do and learn under God. Everything is
possible through God. I would ask Synod to take note of this report.
Ms Dana Delap (Durham): This report speaks really helpfully of the importance of
the relationship of children and young people to God and the relationship between
children and young people and the Church around them. Their voices, the report says,
need to be heard. How very true. However, I want to speak positively about the
contribution of our diocesan youth and children’s advisers.
In these days of stringent financial cuts, it is difficult for our dioceses to afford
children’s officers and youth officers, but they are not a luxury. I believe them to be a
necessity. These diocesan officers make a significant contribution to creating and
maintaining the relationship between children, young people, their parishes, their
deaneries, and especially their dioceses. If we cannot maintain, let alone develop, the
role of these officers, whose job is it to give voice to the children and young people at
diocesan level? How will that voice be heard?
We have already heard that children and young people come in all sorts of shapes and
sizes, with diverse needs, hopes, dreams and desires. Paragraph 2.17 of the report
talks about the importance of ‘a theological understanding which brings the
invisibility of children and young people to prominence and which recognizes that
their lives may not fit into neat compartments or categories. There is overlap and
untidiness in the reality of their day-to-day living which may sit uneasily with our
structures’. Yes, they do sit uneasily. Too uneasily, in fact, for us to stand up and say
that we know what children want; that we know what young people need. We can
speak only for the small number of children that most of us actually have time to
listen to. It is the job of diocesan youth advisers and children’s advisers, however, to
listen and to give voice to the children who they listen to, the young people who they
hear. That needs to happen in parishes and in deaneries, but especially it needs to
happen among senior staff at diocesan level. If we are to hear children and young
people and give them a voice, we need those diocesan advisers and we need them to
be taken seriously.
On page 14 it speaks of the Church at national, diocesan and parochial level at work,
transforming – transforming lives, transforming the Church. How can we do that if we
do not have diocesan children’s officers and diocesan youth officers? Please take back
to your dioceses a memory that these are people we need to value, because we lose
them and their contribution at our peril.
Mr Nick Harding (Southwell and Nottingham): I must thank Dana, because I am the
only children’s or youth adviser who is on Synod – so thank you for making that
appeal for my job!
I must also express another interest, in that I have two sons who are teenagers and still
in the Church – just about – but that is often despite rather than because of great
ministry. However, I do welcome Going for Growth – though, like many other
documents we receive at Synod, it is not perfect in my view: maybe in Synod’s, but
not in mine. Likewise, I would like to have seen more on children and young people
298
Going for Growth
getting excited by and living by the Bible, experiencing the transformation of God’s
word in their lives. Perhaps the theology of childhood, section 3, is thin, although
there are plenty of much weightier tomes that Synod members can purchase at any
time they like from the bookshop just outside.
Where this document is different from all the others that have been before Synod over
the last 30 years about children and young people – All God’s Children, Youth Apart,
Children in the Way, children’s and youth strategies, schools strategies and so on – is
that this is connected. We see children, youth and schools in one document, calling on
us all to remember the 10 per cent who go to Church schools and the 90 per cent who
do not. Where Churches think in that intentional connective way about the nurture of
children and young people for the long haul, we see success, growth, energy and
vitality. The Church can compete with anything the secular world has to offer. Let us
not be ashamed of saying that and doing that.
This report and debate also connect with other debates we have had in Synod. Fresh
expressions of Church for all ages, mission-shaped initiatives, in both urban and rural
situations, bring change and renewal, reaching the de-churched and, that wonderful
phrase from this morning, ‘never-churched’ young people and families.
Two weeks ago I said a few words at the funeral of my Sunday School teacher. (She
was old when she was my Sunday School teacher; can you imagine how old she was
last week?) I recalled that she was committed and dedicated to working with us and it
showed that she cared. This report calls us to care for and about children and young
people. We have to show that we care more than the Church treasurer who said to me
that investment in reaching the young was wasted because ‘They’ve no money to give
to pay the parish share’ or the ordinand at one of our theological colleges who said, ‘I
don’t want to have ankle-biters and hoodies in my church’, or the churches who,
through tuts and grimaces, do all they can to exclude anyone from their exclusive
club, average age 61 and growing.
Section 5 calls on us all to take action. ‘How?’ we may ask. Not, in this report, by a
long list of non-measurable and unrealistic recommendations – and I am grateful to
those who put this report together for that – but by the hard work of our national
advisers and diocesan advisers, who will be developing suggestions and guidance and
signposting the excellent resources available from Scripture Union, Bible Reading
Fellowship, Church House Publishing and so on. Most of all, however, by the visual
work of our army of thousands of youth and children’s volunteers and by each of us
going back to our churches, talking to our children, young people and their leaders,
and showing that we care.
Our rhetoric must be matched by reality and action. Going for Growth is not an
option; it is vital, both for the now and the not yet of God’s kingdom. This motion
asks us to take note. I would ask Synod to take note and to take action.
Revd Chris Strain (Salisbury): I hope that we will more than take note of this report. I
would like to begin at the beginning. The first clause says, ‘The task of Christian
nurture must be seen not only in domestic terms, as something taking place within the
families and generations of the Church, but also within the larger context of the
Church’s universal mission’. Church schools and academies, community, FE and HE
299
Going for Growth
contexts are most important but the Church needs to be present in these situations
both formally and, better, informally through Christian laypeople. However, I suggest
that we should not overlook the ‘not only in domestic terms’. We should not assume
that Christian nurture is taking place sufficiently within the homes and local Church
communities. We must not quickly go on to schools.
The home and family, both nuclear and extended, are the place where Christian faith
is lived and caught as well as taught. Schools know that parents and guardians are the
prime educators, so we must see that, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the home is the
most important context for children to be nurtured in the faith.
The evidence shows that children who are most likely to go on to teenage and adult
Christian whole-life discipleship are those who see faith not only as a religious
activity or something learned at school but for the whole family: it is not just Sunday
but a way of life.
On Tuesday Ian Dobbie made the point that we need to reach men at 25 to 40 years
old and the previous speaker, Nick Harding, has written a very good Grove booklet on
the importance of boys in church. Boys need fathers and older brothers of blood and
water – baptism – living and modelling faith and nurturing their children. The
nurturers are important. We must have a Church that is relevant to young people and
men, therefore, to be nurture-shaped as well as mission-shaped.
This report may quickly be handed to and filed by DBEs but the growth and nurture
of Christian children is the whole Church’s responsibility. We need to value our youth
ministers and youth officers, paid and voluntary. Their value is huge.
Finally, in creating a community for nurturing young people, we should point out the
vital importance of community. My experience is that the best times that we are
Church are when we are away from home. Youth weekends, going on CPAS ventures,
Scripture Union camps, Taizé, Green Belt, Sole Survivor – these are the places where
we learn the faith together in community. We share and are nurtured by God’s word,
which shapes us, and we experience the work of the Holy Spirit in our life.
Yes, let us therefore stress the larger context, but not overlook and downplay the
household and community, the oikos. We need to stress the importance of the local
Church for, within that, faith is shaped and we are nurtured and brought to deep
transformation and growth, and others will be attracted and join in, as the Church
models the way of Christ.
Mrs Catherine Wiltshire (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): The Going for Growth
report contains a great deal of wisdom. The greatest wisdom, I think, lies in the
quotations from children and young people, which were gathered through the My
Church postcard consultation exercise. They are truly refreshing.
In recent years those of us who work in schools have learnt about the importance and
benefits of listening to what we call ‘student voice’. The voice of young people is
powerful, wise and enabling – if we truly listen to it, embrace it and act upon it. If
asking young people what they think is just a tokenistic exercise, it does not help us at
all.
300
Going for Growth
This report recognizes in paragraph 1.8 the importance of listening to young people,
as emphasized by the Bishop of Lincoln and others. However, I should like to have
heard more from young people in the report. I should also like to have heard from
some of the young people in our society who are on the edge of the Church or who
have been de-churched, for whom the phrase ‘my Church’ may mean nothing; who
may have no sense of belonging to a Church but whose family background and
culture are such that they loosely identify with it. These children present us with a
mission opportunity. They are the potential future of our Church.
In order fully to implement the Board of Education’s policy in relation to children and
young people throughout our Church, we all need to listen to children and young
people at a local level; not just those within our Church but also those on the edge and
outside it. I urge those who work with children to ask them for their views and urge
them to use these views as a starting point for local work. In doing this, however, we
have to accept that what we hear may be challenging and may require us to respond in
ways that are difficult for us.
Most of the quotations in the report from children and young people present positive
views of our Church and faith, but there are just a couple of challenging comments
included – yet those are possibly the most interesting, to which we need to listen most
carefully. For example, the 16-year-old girl who was quoted as saying, ‘Don’t assume
you know what’s best for us’ and the 11-year-old boy who implies that he thinks of
Church as being weird and strange. May I add here a quote from my own 15-year-old
daughter: prior to this debate I explained to her the Church’s wish for transformation
for young people, and when I asked her for her views, she said, ‘Just let us find our
own way. You can’t tell us what the way is. You have to let us find it for ourselves’.
In working for transformation in our work with children and young people, we have
to be certain that we are working with them and not doing it to them. I am pleased that
in the report the Education Division recognizes the importance of enabling young
people to be agents of change.
The report is subtitled ‘Transformation for children, young people and the Church’. I
should like the subtitle to have begun ‘Transformation with children ...’ Let us work
with our children and young people and not alienate them by suggesting that we are
aiming to do something to them or for them. Let us do this at a local level, as well as
emphasizing the importance of it in this welcome national report.
Revd Canon Kathryn Fitzsimons (Ripon and Leeds): Conversations with our diocesan
youth officer have led me to speak today. He was very much involved over the past
three years in the conception and evolution of this document. The move from strategy
to commitments based on the Marks of Mission are what give this document some of
its energy and connection with us as the whole Church.
Picking up on what other speakers have said, the progress of the document has been
hampered by concerns regarding the available resources to support these
commitments; in particular, the funding of children’s and youth advisers. Dioceses are
301
Going for Growth
presently struggling to find the finances to maintain these posts and therefore will find
it difficult to profile the agenda in their own areas.
That has not been the case in our own diocese but it so easily could have been. Seven
or eight years ago, our children’s worker retired. The post was not to be replaced.
However, a parish in a more deprived part of the city of Leeds with a team ministry
gave up half a post to the archdeaconry for the post of children’s work adviser,
because it so valued the work with children in our Leeds archdeaconry. This led to the
northern archdeaconry, the archdeaconry of Richmond, saying that ‘It wasn’t fair’;
but we pointed out that this was a parish that had contributed part of one of their
stipendiary posts to the work involving children. We are now in the fortunate position
that we are able to have a children’s and young people’s development team, with two
part-time children’s and youth work advisers working across both archdeaconries.
I encourage those members who are in parishes that value this work to fight for the
work of your children’s and youth advisers, so that these commitments can be carried
out.
The Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham (Rt Revd Paul Butler): It was my privilege
to be the chair of the reference group that produced this report. It was a great honour
to do so. I am grateful to Nick Harding for pointing out that it is the first such one that
joins up children, young people, Church and schools. That was part of the desire
behind us – also, to join up with the five Marks of Mission.
Let me now tell Synod a story. Last week I went to see a musical, Return to the
Forbidden Planet, in our local comprehensive school. It was wonderfully, excitingly
well produced and, as usual, full of lots of delightful mistakes. I learnt later about
what had gone on behind the scenes. First night, lots of nerves. One of the leading
girls said to a friend who was also a leading man, ‘I am very worried. I’m a Christian:
I want to pray’ and he said, ‘Well, I’m a kind of Christian, I’d like to pray as well’.
They looked across and saw someone in the wings who they knew was actively
involved in a church and said, ‘Can we pray?’. They then stood in the middle of the
stage. A young Muslim girl came and joined them, because she too was very nervous.
Two members of staff then went to join them, neither of whom were regular church
members, and half a dozen of them stood in the middle of the stage just before the
audience were about to arrive and, in front of all their contemporaries, prayed out loud
for God’s help in the name of Jesus Christ. The next night they said, without demur,
‘Prayer circle?’ and, bang in the middle, they did it again – and the next night.
Our children and young people are sometimes extraordinarily brave in their witness to
Jesus Christ. They also do not worry too much about boundaries. They are
intercessors; they are missioners; they are disciplers; they are leaders. They need our
encouragement, our support, our help as fellow disciples.
Above all, that is what I want Synod to hear. When I go to schools to take assemblies,
if it is the first time I always begin by saying, ‘There are all sorts of things you may
want to know about a bishop but the only thing I want you to remember is this. A
bishop is a follower of Jesus Christ. Just like every other Christian, I am a disciple
with you. Please learn to follow Jesus’. This needs to be a vision for all ages. Every
302
Going for Growth
single member of the Church can be involved in prayer, in witness to the children and
young people alongside whom they live.
It has been a joy and a privilege to share in this. It would not have happened without
national advisers or diocesan advisers. It is important that we keep them but, please,
above all, keep praying for the children and young people of this nation – and seek to
be like the young people I worked with not long ago when a child said, ‘I saw Jesus
walking in jeans’. That is what we want them to see from us.
Miss Rachel Beck (Lincoln): Like previous speakers, I thank the Board and the
National Society for this inspiring and challenging report. However, in response to a
previous speaker, I would like to say that I warmly welcome the wording of paragraph
1.9 and also of paragraphs 3.5 and 3.13.
As a schoolteacher of 10- and 11-year olds, in my experience children want to engage
with what it means to be a Christian. They want to explore faith and discuss and
debate what it means for them. Children respond to adults being honest with them.
We must therefore respect children’s thoughts, questions and comments, and engage
with them, not simply try to indoctrinate them. This will only lead them to rebel. As
adults, we are all on a journey of faith and discipleship, and our role is to set children
on that journey; but we cannot control the direction of the whole journey, as is stated
in the report.
Here is a quick story to illustrate this. Last year, my class of 10- and 11-year-olds said
that they would like to ask the local parish priest some questions. He duly came in to
be quizzed. To start with, he was asked the sort of questions you would probably
expect. ‘Who created God?’; ‘Is there really a heaven?’; ‘Are we all related if we all
come from Adam and Eve?’. The way he answered the questions, however, sparked
further curiosity and deeper questions and engagement from the children. He was
honest and open with them. He told them what he believed; he told them what the
Bible said and what we learn from the early Church; but he also told them if
Christians disagreed on the matter. He told them, ‘At the end of the day, we don’t
know for certain’. In effect, he created an environment where there was no right or
wrong answer. In fact, there was no right or wrong question. The children felt able to
explore further. They responded enthusiastically, asking further questions, sharing
what they believed, what they were not sure about and what they had heard elsewhere.
The atmosphere was charged with excitement and was buzzing.
Most of the children were engaged for over an hour and we struggled to get some of
them to go out to play. As they left the classroom they continued discussion amongst
themselves and one boy said, ‘That was great! I could discuss God stuff all day’. Even
the adults in the room – two teaching assistants who would not call themselves
Christians – were reluctant to leave the classroom and were talking together about the
session for all of the break time. They said that the children’s questions were ones that
they would have liked to ask but they would never have had the courage to.
Children and young people want to talk about and to experience God. Let us give
them the opportunities to do so.
303
Going for Growth
Mrs Lucy Docherty (Portsmouth): Like an earlier speaker, comments from my own
diocesan youth adviser prompt my words today.
There is much to commend and appreciate in this excellent report, which I welcome;
but may I take a moment to offer some reflections on practicality? In my professional
life I have had many opportunities to set objectives for people. It seems to me that
what this document lacks, particularly in sections 4 and 5, is the little word ‘by’ or
perhaps ‘how’. For example, on page 13 the Education Division is ‘committed to
working alongside children and young people as stewards of God’s creation’ – and
that is it. There is much good aspiration but little explanation of how the aspirations
will be achieved. I think that our youth workers and advisers might have welcomed
some practical examples of how to deliver the Going for Growth vision, and perhaps
also some reflection on how the national Church and the dioceses might work to find
the resources to support the aspirations that this document has set out.
Is this document the beginning of a national strategy and plan, which dioceses and
parishes may follow in the future? If so, perhaps we could have a follow-up
explaining how.
Dr Peter May (Winchester): I had a remarkable telephone conversation last week. My
37-year-old son – I have three sons and a daughter, who are all Christians, all married
and all struggling to bring up their own children – had been to a seminar about
bringing up his own children in inner-city London. His question to me took me aback
a bit. He asked, ‘Why are all your children Christians and engaged in mission?’. I
replied, ‘Your mother and I regularly thank God for this extraordinary phenomenon,
but we don’t feel ourselves to be well positioned to analyze the mercies of God in this
way’. I put it back to him. I said, ‘What insights do you have?’ and that led to a
conversation that went on for an hour, from which I will take some bullet-point
headlines because they engage directly with our report.
He volunteered that our spirituality in the home was very down-to-earth; it was not
precious; it was not unduly pious and it was not irrelevant. All questions were on the
table and we frankly discussed things. I volunteered that we had made a conscious
policy – and my wife and I had discussed this at an early stage – that the time to
address questions was when the questions were asked. Questions cannot be kicked
into touch, dealt with another day. I remembered particularly – and I reminded him of
this – when he had come in from the youth group at church at about 11 o’clock at
night and I was halfway up the stairs, tired and ready for bed. He said, ‘Dad, we’ve
been discussing predestination. What do you think?’. I had to swallow hard, I said a
short arrow prayer, and we sat on the stairs for an hour that night, discussing the
sovereignty of God and our responsibility; we got Bibles out and we went through
relevant texts. He then volunteered that our Christian teaching in the home, which
included daily Bible reading together, was always undergirded by apologetics and
persuasion. For him – and for our other children but particularly for him – this has led
to a lifelong interest in apologetics. We now regularly go to an annual conference in
Hungary organized by the European Leadership Forum and spend a week together,
thinking about apologetic issues.
I then volunteered that his mother and I believed that the annual summer camps they
went on were pivotal. This gave them space, away from our influence, to think about
304
Going for Growth
what they themselves believed; but it also gave them opportunities at an early stage to
take on Christian leadership. They soon became dormitory leaders, then junior
officers, and they were soon teaching others the faith as they had learnt it. Realism,
discussion, apologetics and responsibility in mission were early features for them.
In the last 10 years I have been heavily involved in the Universities and Colleges
Christian Fellowship and I find exactly the same issues apply to older teenagers and
students. I would just mention our apologetics website Be Thinking, where we are
now getting over a million hits a year, to show the importance of these issues.
(The Chairman rang the bell.)
Sister Anita Smith (Religious Communities): Like everyone else, I too welcome this
report. I have to say that in general it takes me into the world inhabited by my
delightful, middle-class great-nephews and nieces, who can talk to anyone about
anything. In my neck of the woods where I work, however, it is not quite like that. We
get little ones arriving in school aged four or five without discernible speech, because
no one talks to them. If you are semi-literate, of course, you do not read to your
children either. Even ‘parent’ is a doubtful category. True, most of the children I work
with live with their biological mother but some may never know their father. A short
while ago, a threesome of half-sisters were showing me some family photographs.
The youngest asked, ‘Which is my dad?’. I quickly learned, therefore, not to talk
about the fatherhood of God.
Having spent much of my working life in some poorer regions of Africa, I often find
that I have to remind myself that the level of deprivation I see day by day is
shockingly happening in the UK and that this is the year 2010. I certainly agree with
Dana and other people who have made their appeal for children’s workers, but I
realize that our resources are limited. I would therefore suggest that, since we began
the day with the Methodists, we need the advice of that good Anglican whom the
Methodists like to claim as theirs. John Wesley said, ‘We do not go where we are
needed. We go where we are needed most’.
The Bishop of Blackburn (Rt Revd Nicholas Reade): Yes, indeed, it is an excellent
report with aims tightly connected to the five Marks of Mission. The five Marks of
Mission define what we do but, like an earlier speaker, I wonder if we need to have
something somewhere that tells us how we do it.
We all have evidence that many good things are happening but we need a real push to
challenge every parish to say what they will do for families and children in their
community. I wonder if this report does that strongly enough. I know that we are all
tired of targets and having to measure everything but, if it is God who has the
strategy, we ought to have some tactics.
The Good Childhood report showed that we had become an individualistic society,
caring for ourselves and our own, but that what children said they needed was love.
As a Church, as the report shows, we can respond to that need because we have been
loved unconditionally. Let us also get in there and help other children’s organizations.
Let us rejoice that Scouts, Guides, Boys’ Brigade, Church Lads’ and Church Girls’
Brigade are seeing a resurgence – when they can find the leaders, and we know what
305
Going for Growth
a challenge we all have there. Parents are also recognizing the values that are learned
in all these groups.
Thanks, therefore, for a very good and timely report. Unless I have misunderstood
something, we need in our dioceses to write a challenge alongside it, so that the report
really can be a programme that is rolled out.
Mr Paul Hancock (Liverpool): I beg to move:
The Bishop of Lincoln, in reply: Our thanks to everyone who has contributed to this
very lively and informative debate. It is exactly what we wanted and we do undertake
to keep our promise to take note of what it is that you have shared with us. This is an
ongoing conversation and, out there, as we knew in advance but has now been
confirmed in good measure, there is enormous wisdom and experience to share more
widely.
It is perhaps worth commenting that we are not always happy in this Synod with
anecdote. We tend to want something a little more rationally thought through as a
coherent argument. This was one of those debates where anecdote really worked;
where we heard stories from people’s lived experience, which was informing the
comments and judgements being made. Today, that was exactly the right thing.
This is not a moment to rehearse all that has been said but we will certainly take note
of all that has been said. Several people referred to the fact that this is not providing a
kind of ‘How to do it’ manual. No, it is not. It was never intended to do that. It does
not contain a long list of recommendations, and of course there were those who
welcomed that fact.
Lucy Docherty would have welcomed more and I think the Bishop of Blackburn is
also saying that there needs to be more work done; we need to help one another. A
manual of good practice will be useful but I think that it cannot be done entirely
centrally; it can also be done in the dioceses. Where Synod members come from, as
they have testified this afternoon, there are people who have enormous resources in
this area, not least the children and young people themselves. Many members have
referred movingly to how children and young people inform the kind of work that we
are seeking to undertake here. It is work with and not just for young people.
The Education Division is committed, stands ready, to working with the dioceses,
deaneries, parishes and with Synod members, in order to try to ensure that we turn
into delivery these aspirations which have been so welcomed this afternoon.
My sense of the summary of the debate is that members captured our attempt to try to
do this job in the round. ‘It is about the whole of life’, said Charlotte Cook, and it was
good that she was called early to remind us of that. Children and young people are
part of the whole richness of life and what we are about today is part of a whole. I was
glad to have that affirmed.
306
Going for Growth
The Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham – to whom I pay tribute for his enormous
amount of work on this, together with our children’s and youth officers in the
Education Division, Mary Hawes and Peter Ball – and Nick Harding were very keen
to point out that this report joins up children’s and youth work, Church and school. I
think it is the first time that has happened and so I was glad that it was picked up and
noted.
Thank you to the Bishop of Leicester. There is a real sense in which his work in
bringing to us The Good Childhood Inquiry has stimulated a great deal that is before
us this afternoon. He also emphasized wholeness: wholeness of body and spirit. The
well-being of children is a holistic issue. The well-being of young people is about life
in all its fullness – John 10.10. We are glad that that too was picked up and noted.
It is also, though, about home, parents and community. Several speakers, notably
Peter May and Chris Strain, talked about home, where the influences are there, and
perhaps the job of the Church is to support parents in that extraordinarily difficult task
of talking about predestination on the stairs at midnight. If it is predestination, five
minutes to midnight would be more appropriate: midnight is a bit late!
Several members reported on the need for this work to be resourced and a great deal
of support to be offered for children’s and young people’s workers and advisers,
nationally and in the dioceses. Sister Anita, Nick Harding – himself a practitioner –
the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, Kathryn Fitzsimons, Dana Delap and
others, thank you for talking up this important work at a time when there is pressure
on all areas of our expenditure. However, I think that enough has been shown this
afternoon to demonstrate that pressure applied on this area is perhaps applied in a
place where it can do most damage, and where good resourcing can do most good.
Finally, young people and children being listened to: we heard some lovely stories
from Jonathan Frost and about Rachel Beck’s experience in the classroom. Edward
Keene talked about his experience as a young person engaging with issues to do with
faith, answered by Rachel Beck in some ways but thereby showing how there is a
balance to be struck here. Kay Dyer also referred to the importance of children and
young people themselves being able to make a contribution to the wider life of our
Church.
Mission and evangelism – and this is all part of that agenda – in the end boils down to
‘Go and tell but not until you have been and listened’. This afternoon we have
emphasized the importance of listening to children and young people and we have
listened to one another attentively. I give the assurance that we in the Education
Division have listened to Synod and we will attempt to go on doing that, as we turn
these noble, holistic aspirations into something that can be delivered to every parish,
deanery and diocese in our Church, but delivered so that every child and young
person can have a life-enhancing encounter with the Christian faith and with Jesus
Christ.
I wonder if Synod would take up the Going for Growth document and look at page
14. On that page we see a wonderful example in the picture of somebody who is
clearly deriving enormous pleasure from listening to somebody else who has
307
Parity of Pension Provision
something to teach them about the Christian faith – and the young persons are
enjoying themselves as well! (Laughter and applause)
THE CHAIR Canon Professor Michael Clarke (Worcester) took the Chair at 4 p.m.
Parity of Pension Provision for Surviving Civil Partners (GS 1770A
and GS 1770B)
Revd Mark Bratton (Coventry): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England
Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy
pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership
Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil
partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to
surviving spouses.’
The aim of this motion is straightforward. It seeks a change in the clergy pension
scheme to backdate the pension rights of surviving civil partners so that they
effectively become equivalent to those of survivor widows and widowers whose
spouses were scheme members.
The law relating to survivors’ pension rights is complex. Under the Civil Partnership
Act, civil partners now have legal recognition of their relationship and rights and
obligations similar to those of married couples. However, because changes to
pensions benefits are not usually backdated, inequalities can persist for many years.
The civil partnership law initially stipulated that pension benefits for surviving civil
partners could be calculated only on service accrued from 5 December 2005, the date
on which the Civil Partnership Act came into force and also the date on which it
became possible for same-sex couples to notify their intention to register their
commitment to each other. This meant, of course, that pensionable service accrued
before 5 December 2005 could not be taken into account and that a surviving civil
partner of somebody who had ceased pensionable service before that date would
receive no benefits under the deceased partner’s pension scheme.
The pension position of many same-sex couples in a civil partnership was
considerably improved when the law required sponsors of so-called ‘contracted out’
occupational pension schemes to backdate the calculation of the pension benefits to
6 April 1988, the legally-required date from which widowers’ benefits were
calculated. However, even this has left some civil partners still entitled to less than if
they had been married. In 1988, the Church Commissioners, when they were
responsible for clergy pensions, went beyond what the law required of them at the
time by backdating widowers’ rights so that they were provided with benefits on a
nearly identical basis as that for widows. I am now asking Synod to ask the
Archbishops’ Council and the Pensions Board to do the same for civil partners.
308
My concern with this lack of equivalence under the clergy pension scheme was
prompted by a hard case with which I had been personally and pastorally involved. It
concerns a surviving partner who had come into the life of a scheme member some 35
years ago – a conscientious, able and effective clergyman. This partner, who was
forced on health grounds to take early retirement on a much reduced pension, devoted
himself unstintingly to the nurture and support of the deceased’s vocation. He
facilitated social and compassionate co-operation and has had a profound and lasting
impact on the spiritual life of the parishes in which his partner served. I know this on
excellent authority. The couple covenanted a civil partnership not long after the Act
came into force and shortly before the scheme member died in 2006. The deceased
member retired in 1992. As a result, the surviving civil partner is entitled under law to
only 50 per cent of the guaranteed minimum pension, calculated on the basis of
pensionable service accrued after 6 April 1988. In other words, around four years. For
the surviving partner this amounts to £125.62 per annum, that is £10.79 per month.
Had he been a survivor spouse under the clergy pension scheme he would have been
entitled to a significant percentage of the final pension of the deceased partner, which
amounted to about £950 a month.
He is treated with kindness and understanding by the diocese in which his partner
retired and has been allowed to continue to stay in the sheltered accommodation in
which he lived with his partner, but he remains in severely straitened financial
circumstances.
My proposal raises very important issues of principle. Should a surviving civil partner
be treated on the same basis as a surviving spouse for pension purposes? On what
basis does the Church believe it just to treat a civil partner of long standing as inferior
in pension provision to a spouse who may have been married to a scheme member for
only a very short time?
A surviving civil partner is already treated on the same basis as a surviving spouse for
pensionable service accrued from 6 April 1988. All members of the clergy pension
scheme will eventually enjoy parity of pension provision, whether or not the Church
of England chooses to change the clergy scheme now.
The Church of England has accepted the premise that civil partners have a special
legal status which is equal to that of a spouse for pension purposes. It is rationally
indefensible to refuse a change to the clergy pension scheme to benefit a civil partner
of long standing solely on grounds of status. Moreover, the law has conferred special
status on civil partners in recognition of their binding covenant of lifelong
commitment to each other. This distinguishes civil partners from other non-spousal
forms of committed long-term relationship, whether cohabiters, siblings,
housekeepers or resident carers.
The Civil Partnership Act exists in part to give recognition to a particular form of
long-term committed relationship and to establish a means of ensuring the post
mortem financial security of surviving partners through the regulated devolution of
the deceased’s estate, including the deceased’s pension. There is no rational basis on
which to set apart the deceased’s pension and to give it an ethical and religious
significance not accorded to other parts of a person’s financial legacy.
309
It is a commonplace that trustees are required to act in the best interests of all the
beneficiaries within the constraints of pension law and the rules of the pension
scheme. Those who hold on grounds of status alone that parishes should not fund the
pensions of civil partners beyond the strict requirements of the law have no more
authority than those who cavil at the pension benefits currently accrued by much
younger surviving spouses who marry shortly before the retirement or death of an
elderly scheme member.
In his explanatory memorandum, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds advances three
financial arguments which collectively weighed in favour of their recent decision not
to extend pension rights for civil partners retrospectively beyond what the law
required. These arguments related to the reasonable expectations of all the scheme
funders and scheme members, the need for prudence and the risk of precedent-setting.
Though their decision was carefully considered, their arguments for reaching it are, in
my view, unpersuasive. The argument that civil partners could have had no
knowledge or expectation that they would have benefits under the pension scheme
and would therefore have made their own arrangements also applies to spouses who
marry late. Moreover, the Church appears to be saying that it will not recognize the
contributions made by that individual in nurturing and supporting the deceased’s
vocation. The argument that to exceed the statutory requirements in the case of civil
partners would set a precedent is, in my view, also misconceived. The distinctive
status, character and quality of a civil partnership are that it is covenant and lifelong,
unlike other types of relationship enumerated in the memorandum.
Finally, the prudential argument is hampered by an almost complete lack of evidence
relating to the number of surviving civil partners who will benefit from any change in
the pension scheme. It is a speculative but reasonable assumption that the numbers of
survivors will be small.
To conclude, the injustice of the current arrangement is obvious. The benefit to the
reputation of the Church of remedying this injustice will be great and, I believe,
inversely proportional to the small cost to the pension scheme that will be entailed. It
will also affirm the significant but understated contribution that many surviving civil
partners have made to the flourishing of our Church communities up and down the
country.
Revd Canon Giles Goddard (Southwark): I support this motion but, to explain why, I
want first to talk a little about the wider context in which we find ourselves. Coming
to the end of my first Synod, I have been honoured and humbled to be part of such a
wide range of debates. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that there is a sort of cancer
affecting the Church of England, something which is running through our life and
debilitating all that we try to do.
It is not the presence of lesbian and gay people in loving relationships throughout the
Church, nor is it the opposition to that. No, it is the arguments we are having about all
of this. It has been going on for 30 years now and it comes out in all sorts of different
and unhelpful ways. It comes out, for instance, in the agitation in the House of Lords
about the Equality Bill. Whatever the bishops may have intended – and I acknowledge
the very real concerns about religious freedom – the result of their activities was to
reconfirm in the public mind the connection between Christianity and homophobia,
310
not surprisingly, because the Churches do have a history in this area. It comes out in
tensions within the Anglican Communion. It was clearly the elephant in the room in
our debate yesterday about ACNA; and we might have had a more realistic debate if
we had been able to acknowledge that.
It comes out again and again in the lives of those of us who are trying to do good
work in local parishes. I am based just across the river in Waterloo and we struggle to
engage with institutions like the National Theatre and the South Bank Centre, largely
because of the Church’s attitudes to human sexuality. We are forfeiting our right to
speak on any moral questions or on questions of justice, as anything we say is
undermined by this public perception of the Church’s attitude on these questions. To
be clear, the perception of homophobia is deeply undermining our mission as
Christians.
This motion gives us a chance to make a fresh start, to act with generosity and to
begin to undo the damage which has been done. We are all getting tired of this
discussion, and I honour the Archbishop’s words on Tuesday with thanks, but it is not
going to go away until we find a way of making progress. At the moment, we are
locked in an uneasy stalemate, for which we must all bear some responsibility. We
therefore need to find a new way, a way based on much deeper respect for one
another’s views, for acknowledgement of their biblical and faithful roots and for the
sincerity and deeply held Christianity across the spectrum.
We certainly also now need clearer leadership from the House of Bishops, reflecting
the various views which I know are there but of which we hear very little. Above all,
we need to rediscover in this area that Anglicanism is ‘a community of civilized
disagreement’, in the words of the head of Cuddesdon College. In the end, it is a
question of mission about the face that we present to the world. There is nothing
clever or counter-cultural about resisting the love of God in the myriad ways in which
it is found.
Turning to the motion, I know that there are people in this room for whom civil
partnerships are an anathema. There are others whose lives have been transformed by
the ceremony and who are deeply regretful that the Church does not yet offer a way to
celebrate that before God. This motion is not about approval or disapproval of civil
partnerships. It is not about the theological equivalence of civil partnerships and
marriage. It is about justice, generosity and care. If we pass it, we will not be giving
approval to those relationships but we will be celebrating and reflecting the Anglican
way for the sake of mission.
On so many other issues – the remarriage of divorced people, for example, or the
admission of children to Communion, or the use of the Apocrypha – over and over
again, we have learnt to live alongside each other, as I hope we will over women
bishops. One of my delights is speaking to some – distressingly few, but some –
evangelical and conservative brothers and sisters and acknowledging the depth of our
mutual attachment within the same Church.
I will therefore vote for the motion. First, because it is right. There is no justification
for our treating the permanent, stable and faithful relationships of clergy any
differently from how we treat marriages. Secondly, because this gives us the
311
opportunity to be generous and to send a message to those whom we serve. As I say,
we are undermining our mission at the moment. We need to demonstrate that we do
want to live and work alongside one another for the reign of God, and therefore I urge
Synod to support the motion.
Mr Simon Baynes (St Albans): I am the new boy on the Pensions Board. I was elected
at the tail end of last year and look forward to my first meeting later this month. After
this week’s debates, I can see that I will be very busy. I am deeply grateful to those
who voted for me and humbled by the size of the vote which came my way. What I
say in this speech is a personal view but I shall be taking it to the Board when we
meet. It is a personal view of someone who works as an independent pensions trustee.
We all know that there are two issues that are certain to fill the press gallery here at
Church House. One is the issue of women bishops and the other is anything to do with
gay clergy. I am sorry to disappoint the ladies and gentlemen up there: there is no
debate on women bishops in this group of sessions and there is no debate on gay
clergy either. This is not a debate about gay clergy. It is a debate about pensions and
the unfairness that we have allowed to be built into our system.
I have been struck by the case of Jeffrey John, who is dean of the cathedral where I
regularly worship. On realizing how he and his partner are treated under the present
rules compared to married clergy, my wife and I were simply appalled. If Jeffrey died,
then his partner of over 30 years would receive £3,370 per annum; but, instead of
being in partnership for 30 years, had Jeffrey been married for just a few days before
he died, his widow would have received £7,550 per annum. That is more than double.
I commend Mark Bratton for his motion. If ever there was a case for treating one
group of clergy unfairly compared to another, this is it.
Let us cast our minds forward 38 years. This debate would not be necessary, because
43 years would have passed from the Civil Partnership Act becoming law. The
discrimination that clergy in civil partnerships face today would have gone away
simply because the clock has ticked forward. We have already accepted the principle
of equality. It exists today, except, we are saying, it cannot fully exist for 38 years.
Put it another way. How would we feel if slavery had been abolished but existing
slaves had to carry on being slaves for another 38 years? The analogy is exact and,
remember, some Christians were against the abolition of slavery when that happened.
To continue as we are is tantamount to saying, ‘The Church of England will pay as
little as it can get away with, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong’. Employers
who pay as little as they can get away with are, in my experience, some of the nastiest
employers around and the Church should not be amongst them.
We are not talking about much money, in the greater scheme of things. This is not a
debate about whether we can afford it; this is a debate about fairness and whether we
wish to be in pursuit of justice. To vote this motion down would, at best, make the
Church look very mean and, at worst, a laughing stock. We really must avoid this.
When I raised this issue with the policy director at the National Association of
Pension Funds, he wrote to me to say, ‘We are in favour of common sense’. I hope
that Synod will vote to show that we are all in favour of common sense. I support the
motion in its unamended form.
312
Mr Robin Lunn (Worcester): I speak with some sadness against this motion and in
favour of Bishop Packer and the DRACSC report, purely on the grounds of pension
legislation alone. I am fully in support of civil partnerships.
Having worked within the pensions industry for nearly 20 years, I fully understand
that this is not the most exciting topic but is sometimes the most complex. However,
we all realize that this is one of the most vital areas we have to tackle, as shown by the
debates on Tuesday. We also realize that aspects of pensions have a nasty habit of
costing more than at first seems likely, and that is one of the concerns with this
motion.
We heard on Tuesday the changes that are having to be made to the clergy scheme,
due to the financial threats we face. However, the scheme as it stands remains noncontributory and I do not remember anyone in that debate, whatever their views,
suggesting regular member contributions. As a result, it cannot be argued that people
make contributions on a misplaced premise.
In Britain, the vast majority of our financial planning and general legislation is not
retrospective, nor should it be. The steps taken by DRACSC are not the bare
minimum, grudgingly entered into, but in line with most other schemes and what they
have done. It also needs to be said that the trustees of the scheme, when they go to the
Pensions Regulator to discuss the funding levels, are likely to be asked why they are
further increasing the burden when there is no requirement to do so.
May I make clear that if the pension fund had, as many did in the golden days of the
late-1990s, a surplus or was even only narrowly in deficit, I would support the motion
wholeheartedly; yet that is not the position now. There is an irony that one of the
benefits of a money purchase scheme is that each member can decide themselves
what benefits they take, whether they have a spouse or a civil partner or are in neither
relationship, making the point that the argument is more complex than ‘final salary,
good; money purchase, bad’, which these debates can generate into.
Paragraph 21 of the DRACSC paper sets out the availability of discretionary grants,
which by their very discretion are not taxed. Again, the provision of this safety net
along with the statutory changes partly tackle the points raised. In many ways it is a
shame that this was not debated along with the other pension matters on Tuesday. I
would urge that, if the end results of all our pension deliberations leave scope to look
at Mark Bratton’s suggestion again, we do so.
One of the amendments mentioned later appears to confuse crystallized benefits,
which are benefits taken when somebody retires, and non-crystallized benefits, if you
pass away before you retire, and of course they are not the same thing. I ask Synod to
look at the 15th notice paper before making a decision.
We cannot as a Synod make up pensions legislation on the hoof. What would we
think if a conference of independent financial advisers or the Institute of Actuaries
debated change to our weekday lectionary? I think that we would be rather puzzled.
As we stand, though, I urge Synod to vote against, but that any vote is based on
pension grounds and only on pension grounds, not on other considerations which may
lurk in the background.
313
The Bishop of Lincoln (Rt Revd John Saxbee): If there is one person in this Synod I
would always hesitate to be standing up to oppose it is the Bishop of Ripon and
Leeds, with whom I hold an enormous amount in common. I think that today is one of
the rare occasions when we may be on different sides of the question.
I want to thank Mark Bratton for bringing this motion to us. I do not think that we are
making policy on the hoof. I thought we did decide the other day – was it only
yesterday? – that it would be rather good to ask bankers, financial advisers and all
sorts of other people what they would like to hear when they came to church for the
occasional services, and the lectionary that might be made available to them – but
there we are.
I would like to pick up a couple of points from Mark Bratton’s introductory remarks.
He referred to the fact of principle. We have already conceded the principle, if
‘concession’ is the right word on this, because we are already committed to making
these payments, but from a certain date. What is before us, therefore, is whether we
are generous enough to go back further beyond that and beyond what is absolutely
required of us.
The question has been raised about expectations. I do not believe in a God who
simply fulfils our expectations. I believe in a God who gives more than we desire or
deserve, or indeed are entitled to expect. As a Christian body, we can witness to that
God this afternoon if we are minded to do so. I hear what Robin Lunn has said about
the Pensions Regulator asking the question, ‘Why are you doing this now, because
you have all sorts of problems in other areas?’ and I just say to the Pensions
Regulator, ‘Because, perhaps unlike many of the other groups you deal with, we
operate on a basis of Christian principles, which may mean we sometimes do things a
little generously, even, dare I say, foolishly for Christ, but nonetheless in a way that
recognizes justice when we see it’.
On the question of precedent, it is a very poor principle to punish people who we
believe at this moment to be legitimate candidates for a benefit because we believe
that there may be other people further down the road who would want to make a
similar claim. If they have a justifiable claim now, we should honour that and deal
with any future issues as they arise.
Prudence? Prudence is not another word for parsimony. Prudence is a way in which
we manage our resources in the most appropriate and opportunistic way. In this case, I
believe that it is not a question of whether we can afford to do this; it is really about
whether we can afford not to. I think that Giles Goddard is right: the reputational
damage that this can add to already-existing damage done to us in mission terms is
such that we really do have to take a decision today that may be a bit counter-cultural,
a bit counter-intuitive but, for all of that, may be right.
Do not let us faff around with handouts, for goodness’ sake, as per the Bishop of
Ripon and Leeds’ amendment and what Robin Lunn has supported. Do not patronize
people in that way. If it is right for people to receive a just payment, then that
payment should be made; it should not have to be applied for.
314
Whilst I have never fully subscribed to the view that the Church of England does what
is right only when it can no longer afford to do what is wrong, I did not realize until
this afternoon that we have reached the point where we cannot even afford to do what
is right. For once in our life as a Synod, could we not find it within ourselves to err on
the side of generosity? Who knows? We may find that it is quite habit-forming. It
could even become infectious, so that, as a result of our generosity, our light may so
shine before others that they see our good works and glorify our Father who is in
heaven. To quote from Portia in The Merchant of Venice, whom I resemble in no
other way – (Laughter) – ‘How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a
good deed in a naughty world’. This, I believe, would be a good deed in a naughty
world and I hope that the Synod will support it wholeheartedly.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): I beg to move as an
amendment:
‘Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“recognize that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil
partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of
that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil
partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if
they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses”.
I too, like the Bishop of Lincoln, am very grateful to Mark Bratton for bringing this
motion and also, in particular, to Stephen Coles for working with DRACSC on what
is, as Mark said, a complex and difficult issue.
The sorts of pressure which Mark has described are very hard to bear and create very
difficult situations for those involved. I also want to affirm clergy entering into civil
partnerships and the pensions for service after 2005 which are now being accrued.
Nevertheless, I do hope that we shall not carry this motion as it stands, for the three
reasons to which Mr Bratton referred but which I regard as being more persuasive
than he does.
First, there can have been no expectation prior to 2005 that pensions for surviving
civil partners would be paid, because civil partnerships did not exist. When those
pension benefits were accrued before 2005, they did not include a pension for a
surviving partner. That is why there is only the limited backdating of this benefit. I do
not believe that the provision of pension accrued from the time that civil partnership
came into existence is to be regarded as unjust.
Second, there is the question of who should receive survivor pensions, demonstrated
by Philip Giddings’s proposed amendment, which would extend those pensions far
beyond civil partnerships. There are indeed others who give up time, energy and
opportunity to care for clergy both in post and after retirement. However, I do not
believe that we can put ourselves in the position as employers of providing pensions
for them when they too become survivors. All the arguments which the Bishop of
Lincoln brought a few moments ago do seem to me to apply just as much to those
others who support and encourage clergy as they do to civil partners.
315
Third, there is the question of cost and we cannot simply ignore that. The financial
statement suggests a possible cost of some £58,000 on average for each survivor
pension. It simply does not seem right for us to be creating additional pressure on a
fund which is in substantial deficit when, earlier this week, we approved significant
reductions in pension benefits for all of its members. If we were to go down the line
of Philip’s amendment, then the costs would be far greater still.
It is always very hard to speak or to vote against generosity, but I remind Synod of a
phrase that I used earlier this week: that we must have a stable balance between what
our hearts lead us to promise and what our heads tell us that we can afford.
I want to draw Synod’s attention to paragraph 21 of GS 1770B, which affirms the
discretionary grants for those in hardship. I do not believe that it is fair to describe
those as handouts, which are somehow to be regarded as less appropriate than the
other provision which is made by the Pensions Board for all of those who are retired
or who are the surviving spouses or civil partners of those who are retired. The
provision of help and encouragement for those in hardship is a Christian obligation
and this particular provision from the Pensions Board’s funds applies whether it is for
a widow, a widower, or a surviving civil partner. I hope that those grants will be
widely known and will be widely applied for. I therefore invite Synod to support my
amendment.
Revd Mark Bratton: I thank the bishop for what he has said. I will not try to journey
further down the sequence of claim and rejoinder, which I am sure we might both
enjoy. I will resist this amendment because what the bishop is proposing would
fundamentally alter the character of the motion that I am proposing.
The amendment helpfully confirms that there will eventually be equivalence between
widows, widowers and civil partners for pension purposes, but it simply declares that
the Pensions Board would be prepared to consider applications for hardship grants
from surviving civil partners such as the individual who was the subject of my hard
case.
There is the world of difference, however, between having a pension entitlement and
the entailing financial security and a discretionary grant from a limited pot of money,
which is subject to other competing demands. For these reasons, I would urge Synod
to resist this amendment.
Revd Eva McIntyre (Worcester): The general public expects us, the Church, to be
better than the rest of society, to have higher standards, to lead by example and to
have a greater sense of justice and integrity.
Over the last few days there has been much mention of being a mission-shaped
Church. Fundamental to being such a Church is getting our own house in order and
endeavouring to live up to some of those expectations, however uncomfortable,
placed upon us by society.
I echo the Archbishop of York in the debate about the BNP at my first Synod. Please
give the Archbishops and the Pensions Board a chance to look at this. This motion is
not, as has been said, about whether we think that civil partnerships are right or
wrong; it is about doing the very best we can to put into practice Jesus’ teaching on
316
justice and compassion. It is about demonstrating that difficulty of generosity of God,
as we experience it ourselves and witness it in the created world around us.
When confronted by the request from the Syrophoenician woman, Jesus did not say,
‘Go away. All the crumbs under the table are ours and we may need them’, and when
he was faced with the option of setting a precedent he did not tell the man to bring his
withered arm back at a more appropriate time. The gospel most definitely does not
call us to cautiousness and fear but to boldness and risk taking. The question before us
this afternoon is do we have the courage of that calling or do we say, ‘Yes, Lord, we
have seen and considered the lilies of the field and how lovely they are. However, we
feel much more comfortable with our belt and braces’.
Perhaps, like me, members of Synod know a friend, a colleague, a relative, who is
directly affected by this issue. If not, I am sure that members are capable of thinking
of someone they love and imagining how they would feel if they were directly
affected by it.
Last night I found myself engaging in a conversation about this debate with my atheist
friend Suzanne, via the medium of text. After an extremely long text from me,
explaining and outlining this motion, I finished with, ‘So we could be leaders on the
issue’. She replied, ‘Isn’t that where you should be? Of course, your pension fund
already in trouble; so you asking people to vote to cut own share, so others get fair
share?’. ‘Not asking for cuts, just small extra cost to fund’, I replied. ‘Our fund
screwed but not as bad as press suggests.’ She replied, ‘So, chance for Church to take
good lead then’. While she is too polite to say it to me, I am pretty certain that my
friend Suzanne thinks the Church is a disgrace on issues of justice and integrity.
Today I pray that we will prove her wrong. I urge Synod to vote against the
amendment and for Mark Bratton’s motion as it stands.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): It is part of the mantra of this Synod to declare interest.
I declare that I am speaking here entirely in a personal capacity, and I have three
points to make in support of amending Mr Bratton’s motion – if we get to mine, after
voting on the amendment of the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.
First, and in support of Mr Bratton – and I agreed with a great deal of what he said –
the money issue. Yes, now is not the ideal time to add further claims upon our hardpressed pensions fund; but now is the time for this Synod to plant an important stake
in the ground for future development of these schemes when financial circumstances
permit, and to do so by ensuring that the people concerned receive these benefits as of
right – Mark was correct about this – not just as a hardship handout. We might not
call it that but that is what it is.
Now is the time for the General Synod to make a policy input for the future, rather
than being in the position in which we usually are of simply being asked to respond to
a package from the Pensions Board or even the Archbishops’ Council. I therefore
think that the money issue is not relevant to this particular debate, and will address
that later – like the legislation point.
Second, this is about justice. Mark was correct about that. The title of his motion
begins very interestingly with the word ‘parity’, and that is what my amendment is
317
about. There is a very strong argument in justice for extending pension benefits to
anyone who has lived in the deceased clergyperson’s household and been dependent
on the deceased’s income for many years. It is unjust to limit those benefits, it seems
to me, only to spouses. For most of the cases, in so far as I took them all in as referred
to in Mark’s speech, you could substitute others for civil partners, who have
maintained the house of a single clergyperson in order to facilitate their ministry, and
we should honour that. In other words, the justice claim extends not only to civil
partners but also to an unmarried sister who has acted as a housekeeper, an aunt, a
nephew, or similar relative, whose contribution effectively releases the clergyperson
into a more effective ministry. That is what my amendment seeks to do, when
financial circumstances permit and if the Synod decides to go to my amendment.
In addition to justice there is an important point about consistency. When the Civil
Partnership Bill was going through Parliament, Her Majesty’s Government insisted
that civil partnerships were neither marriage nor equal to marriage. The Church of
England’s position, up till now, has been the same: that civil partnerships are not
marriage nor on a par with marriage – see the House of Bishops’ pastoral guidance.
We have the opportunity now, in our own internal legislation when it comes, to
demonstrate that fact by basing our pensions provision not on a marital or sexual
relationship but on the significance of the contribution made to the deceased
clergyman’s household. That is wholly within the civil law; it is consistent with the
Church of England’s position on civil partnerships; and it is consistent with Scripture.
Therefore, when we get the opportunity and when funds permit, we should do it.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): I am still the deputy vice-chairman of the Pensions
Board and I am definitively talking in a personal capacity at this moment.
This is not, as Simon has already said, about sex. This is about money. This is about
financial support. When I started my insurance career 38 years ago – not that we are
having a ‘top trumps’, you understand! – one of the very first things that I did was
funding quotations for pensions. This is a funding issue that we need to tease out.
There has been a lot of talk about this being an additional cost. It may be an additional
cost for the instance when it occurs, but that needs to be actuarially modified by the
percentage of cases where it occurs. Let us not be despondent about the £54,000 or
whatever the figures are, depending on whether or not it is Mark’s original motion or
Philip’s amended motion. I believe that the funding issue needs to be teased out.
When we started 38 years ago, it was always on the basis that we expected 90 per cent
of people to be married at the time of retirement, or whatever it is.
I do not know whether the Pensions Board actuary has provided us with any figures to
say whether or not their assumptions as to the number of married clergy that there are
has been met over the years. As Simon has already said, if somebody wishes to enter
into a marriage two days before they die, they will get a full pension for their spouse.
I believe that will have been funded. In fact, the actuaries will tell me that has been
funded. However, by going into a civil partnership two days before they die,
apparently it is not. I think that there is a false argument there somewhere.
This is not about who supported the deceased during their life; it is about who was
dependent upon the deceased. What we are talking about here is providing continuing
318
support for the person who was in a partnership with the deceased, whether that was
heterosexual or homosexual. Let us be absolutely clear. This is about dependence; this
is about providing financial support as a justice issue.
I am concerned that Bishop Packer’s amendment is a moderate, low-cost sop to get us
to vote for it and that, potentially, Philip Giddings’s amendment is an apparently highcost amendment to try to get us to vote against the whole thing. I therefore urge
Synod to vote against both amendments when they come forward and to vote for the
original motion.
The amendment was put and lost, 110 voting in favour, 154 against, with 15 recorded
abstentions.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘Leave out “Civil Partnership Act 2004” and insert “law”;
Leave out “partners of deceased clergy” and insert “partner or the qualifying
relative of a deceased member of the scheme who has no surviving spouse”;
and leave out “surviving spouses” and insert “a surviving spouse, a qualifying
relative being any one sibling, parent, aunt, uncle or first cousin who has lived
as a member of the deceased’s household for at least five years and who has
been declared to the Pensions Board by the deceased to be his qualifying
relative for the purposes of the scheme”.’
I want to underline one simple point: that being a key member of the household in this
context does create financial dependency. There is a choice here about how far we are
going to extend the claims of justice and parity, and that is an issue on which the
Synod has to decide.
Revd Stephen Coles (London): I declare an interest! I am delighted that Dr Giddings
is ready to accept surviving civil partners as beneficiaries but, by extending, he is in
danger of both confusing the issue and making it financially impossible.
First of all, the relationships that he suggests are not the same as civil partnerships,
particularly because civil partnerships are a covenant of lifelong commitment
recognized in law, and therefore much easier to define than the ones he suggests. It
was a distinction that Parliament itself considered but it did not include these other
relationships when it passed the legislation.
As we have heard, the pension scheme is under pressure. In fact, Mr Bratton’s
proposal is very modest. It is time-limited. Once those people who have been
ordained since December 2005 are the only people around, it will not even be
319
necessary. We are also talking about very few people. It is hard to compute but there
is no need for scaremongering, and I think that the first of the financial statements is
unnecessarily alarmist.
Dr Giddings’s amendment expands this so radically that it becomes impractical, if one
looks at the second financial statement. It would be good if we could have the
conversation about extending justice in this way and maybe we will find the time to
do so but, if we are as generous as Dr Giddings suggests, we lose the fact that we are
dealing with a situation that exists now; we are dealing with a current situation.
We are talking about fairness. Trustees of a pension fund are required to act in the
best interests of all beneficiaries and the scheme needs to be amended to enable this.
Where is the equity in a relationship between a clergyperson with someone of the
same sex of perhaps 35 years’ duration, legally recognized for over four years at the
moment, who may retire after 40 years of service but whose surviving partner’s
entitlement when that clergyperson dies, if he predeceases the partner, will be
relatively small – under half, according to what someone said earlier; where is the
equity between that and a relationship entered into later in life, perhaps after
retirement, between a clergyperson and someone of the opposite sex who is able to
benefit from their full service? May it not be that the current, unamended scheme is a
licence for gold-diggers and gigolos? (Laughter)
Other institutions’ pension schemes have seen the point. The public ones were under a
greater obligation to do so. The National Health Service – see the paper; the Civil
Service, which interestingly, in an associated scheme, includes clergy and laypeople
employed by the Church, in this building and in diocesan offices, are already given
parity. I do not believe that the Government would have done this if it had been
financially problematic, however equitable it was.
Parliament did not require private schemes to go beyond the basic provision but it did
not prevent them from doing so. My correspondence with the Department for Work
and Pensions has made it clear that the spirit of the legislation was to bring the
relationships into line, if and when possible. IBM and British Telecom have already
done so and so have other businesses.
We need not be panicked, because in fact there are not many people involved. The
initial figures of people registering their civil partnerships were higher because
already long-established relationships needed to be recognized. The numbers, if one
goes to any registry office, even in certain parts of London, are now very modest. If
we carry Mr Bratton’s motion, I do not believe that there will suddenly be a rush to
registration.
We need to recognize the contribution of the civil partnership relationship to the wellbeing of the clergyperson involved, to the Church, not least the local congregation,
and to society as a whole, in creating greater stability in our society. It does seem
harsh if, when the clergyperson dies, this relationship is not valued fairly. The
relationship is not the same as those Dr Giddings wishes to add and the financial risk
is small, except to those who stand to benefit. We want to deal with what is happening
now, when there is already hardship. Please support Mr Bratton’s motion,
unamended.
320
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Will you accept a
motion for closure after the next speaker?
The Chairman: I would like to hear Mr Scowen, followed by Mr Bratton to comment,
and then I would welcome such a motion.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): Some of my friends might be surprised to hear me say
that I am not one of those who believe that civil partnerships are inherently wrong,
because they are not inherently sexual. They are different from marriage; the
Government insists that that is so and the Church of England believes that it is so.
Marriage is a unique relationship provided for in Scripture. Civil partnership in this
country is created by a statute which gives a proper legal status to a certain sort of
relationship, but it is not marriage. However, it is a relationship that is, as Stephen
Coles says, lifelong and sanctioned by law.
As the Bishop of Lincoln told us – and I agree with him – the God whom we worship
is a God of generosity who surprises us, who amazes us with his generosity, and he is
a God of justice who is passionate for justice. If people in that sort of relationship are
clergypersons, the bishop’s pastoral guidance states that they are to give an
undertaking that it is not a sexual relationship. I therefore accept that there is a strong
argument from justice for extending to them full pension rights, not on the basis of an
equivalence with marriage but simply on the basis of the quality of the relationship.
That precise argument extends, as Dr Giddings has told us, to a number of other
relationships as well, particularly members of the same family who quite conceivably
over a similar number of years have lived as members of the same household,
providing support and encouragement for single clergypersons who as a result may
have no resources of their own, may well be dependent, and who under the current
arrangements will receive nothing when that clergyperson dies. The civil partner will
at least receive what the current law provides for them; the parent, sibling, nephew or
niece will get nothing, and they cannot be civil partners, neither can they be spouses,
because of the familial relationship. For those of us who believe in a God of
overwhelming generosity, the argument for justice in the way that we treat those
people seems to me to be even greater than the argument with respect to civil partners.
I hope that Synod will support Dr Giddings’s amendment and will vote to extend the
pension rights to civil partners, as Mr Bratton asks, but I hope that we will do it also
for those members of the same family who have lived in that committed sacrificial
relationship with a single clergyperson and who as a result are in dependence and
need. That would reflect the love and generosity of our God and it would reflect the
justice to which he calls us. I urge Synod to support Dr Giddings’s amendment.
Revd Mark Bratton (Coventry): I had a dream last night – I dream occasionally – in
which I warmly embraced Dr Giddings’s amendment and then heard the whole of
Synod endorse the amendment so that I ended up with a much more expansive motion
than the one I was proposing, and then I woke up and sighed, ‘It’s only a dream!’
I would have been delighted with an amended motion aimed at remedying injustice
which included civil partnerships. However, there is a robust principled reason why
changes to the Clergy Pensions Scheme should be restricted to civil partners. Civil
321
partnerships are distinguishable from other categories of relationship, which
Dr Giddings has enumerated in his amendment, by virtue of their binding covenant to
lifelong commitment. Unlike other forms of non-spousal relationships, civil
partnerships are easy to define, perceive and justify. Moreover they are chosen and
intimate. Civil partnerships are therefore in an entirely different category altogether,
easily defined and, as I contend, restricted to a small number of cases.
Law is the hard edge of ethics; it is not the whole of ethics but it is the hard edge, and
I believe that this afternoon we have a great opportunity to deal with that hard edge
first. I therefore urge the Synod to resist Dr Giddings’s amendment.
The Chairman: Conscious of the fact that we have a rubric facing us of 5.15 p.m., I
am going to invite a motion for closure on the main motion.
Revd Mark Bratton, in reply: My reasons for commending the motion are, first, that it
would ameliorate the straitened financial circumstances of a small number of
surviving civil partners, and I would like to reiterate the point that although it is a
speculative assumption it is also a reasonable assumption that we are dealing with a
relatively small number of surviving civil partners who will be advantaged by this
new arrangement; and in that regard we ought to pay particular attention to the
contributions from Tim Hind and Stephen Coles.
Second, it would acknowledge the substantial co

1 - The Church of England

Transcription

Similar documents

Radio Silence - WSJ

New Messenger May 2016 - Holy Trinity Anglican Church

Synod 2015 – One Lord, One Mission

November 2015 - Saint Paul Area Synod

From Rolling Stone to More Magazine, A Life in Design

August 20, 2013 Dear Full Gospel Family

September - Northeastern Iowa Synod

February 2013 Newsletter (Read-Only)

May - The Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity