It’s a long one – be warned! So make yourself a cuppa and settle down to read…
Friday Session
The session opened with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address, which can be found here:
Reflecting on the fears of the world and the fears that can be found in churches, the Archbishop concluded: God is greater than our fears, than our enemies and in our failures. God is unbreakably faithful to covenant and promise. When that is our comfort and peace, then in this world, at this time, off its hinges, we can in all our troubles, be truly the church we should be, truly God’s Church in God’s world.
After a report from the business committee explaining the whys and hows of the agenda, there was some legislative business. Due to circumstances, one of the canons (laws of the church) had been amended several times in a little over twenty years, which had turned it into legal gobbledegook. In short, we approved a change to the canon that simply made it understandable again!
Funeral Fees
After that, Rev Christopher Trundle proposed a motion, on behalf of London Diocese that:
‘That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council to lay a
draft order before the Synod to amend the Parochial Fees
and Scheduled Matters Amending Order 2019 so that a fee
payable to the parochial church council is prescribed in
respect of funeral services that take place at crematoria and
cemeteries to reflect the contribution made by parishes in
support of such services.’
Speakers affirmed the importance of the Church’s funeral ministry. One was concerned that such a motion might risk making parishes feel richer rather than actually be richer by increasing administrative burdens – with associated costs – elsewhere. However, speakers from dioceses who had implemented such a change locally assured us it wasn’t the case. There were some suggestions that if the local church was able to raise more funds through funeral ministry, they may in turn pass this on in parish share/common fund giving. The motion was passed comfortably.
A protracted sessions of questions followed.
Saturday Morning Session
Code of Conduct
Rev’d Dr Sara Batts-Neale proposed a motion on behalf of Chelmsford Diocese, that:
‘That this Synod request that the Archbishops’ Council carry
out a review to consider:
(a) the possibility of drawing up a Code of Conduct for PCC
members and lay volunteers,
(b) the issues required to put in place a disciplinary process
for their removal from the PCC in cases where this is not
followed,
(c) the resources required at national, diocesan and parish
level to bring this about.’
The point of the motion was put very well in a summary document: This motion seeks to address the imbalance of accountability in relationships where lay volunteers face no significant consequences for persistent departures from acceptable standards of behaviour. PCC members as trustees work within the parameters of charity law with key duties to perform; they are also invited into a collaborative decision making process in co-operation with the minister. Persistent low standards of behaviour may breach these duties without liability, impact on safeguarding and be detrimental to the church’s mission. PCC meetings become psychologically unsafe environments for all participants, lay and ordained. The imperative to forgiveness can sometimes normalise bad behaviour when it is seen to be consequence free. Guidance on acceptable conduct which transparently translated the fruits of the spirit into a working document would begin to provide a safety net for all involved in the service of Christ.
In short, if the workings and well-being of a PCC are hobbled by unreasonable behaviour of one or more of its members, there is currently no formal means to address this. And as Dr Batts-Neale explained in one of her speeches, while the Charity Commission does have a mechanism for removing trustees (which PCC members are), these are dependent on there being a clear code of conduct in place in that charity.
There were a number of amendments which desired either to beef up or water down this very considered motion, but all were resisted by both Dr Batts-Neale and the synod. There were a great many speeches in favour of the motion – recognising the very real damage that unclear expectations and lack of consequences can have in the workings of church communities. However, there were also fears expressed that a code of conduct could be weaponised, especially in a church currently conflicted around LLF. One lay person asked that any code of conduct mirror the clergy CDM process, where it cannot be used to sanction a clergyperson on a point of doctrine. The motion was passed in all three houses – receiving significant support in the houses of bishops and clergy, but by a slightly narrower margin in the house of laity.
Safeguarding
The next item was a debate on Safeguarding. In the past few weeks, the Church of England received two significant report: the Wilkinson Report and the Jay Report. The Wilkinson Report reviewed the Archbishop’s Council’s actions in disbanding the Independent Safeguarding Board. Wilkinson made six key recommendations around trauma-informed practice, risk assessments, the lack of independent scrutiny and recourse, the setting up of a new governance body and the mechanisms for implementing lessons learned from case reviews. In the General Synod paper provided, Archbishops Council accepts all these recommendations and lays out first steps in beginning to address them.
The Jay report was published just a few days before the Synod met, and laid out recommendations for the formation of two new independent charities, funded by the Church – one to deliver safeguarding processes in the Church of England, and one to provide scrutiny and recourse. Professor Jay recorded a presentation which was played to synod and can be watched here: https://futureofchurchsafeguarding.org.uk/
Fairly understandably, with no time to respond fully to these significant recommendations, the official response was less worked out. The suggestion was that an internal team, consulting with the wider church – practitioners, parishes, survivors – would begin work on receiving the proposals of both reports – and as the original motion put it – forming a response to, and considering any necessary implementation of, their recommendations be pursued as a matter of priority.
There were a number of robust amendments to the motion. Many speeches urged action – we had sought independent advice from Professor Jay and we should implement that advice. Responding to that advice with another internal process and more consultation seemed like “kicking the can down the road”. I shared this view and voted for the amendments which committed us to act. However, repeated speakers drew our attention to Dr Wilkinson’s advice not to rush process, reminded us that many Diocesan Safeguarding Teams had concerns about losing local knowledge and relationships and other speakers were themselves concerned about us losing our sense of responsibility as a church towards safeguarding.
Responding to the speeches, the Bishop of Stepney, lead Bishop for Safeguarding, was very grateful for many constructive comments and the sense of urgency to do safeguarding well, but simply could not recommend a wholesale adoption of such huge measures as laid out in the recommendations without further engagement.
There were motions where Synod agreed to apologise to victims/survivors of abuse in the church, and to the members of the Independent Safeguarding Board, who were hurt by the manner in which the ISB was disbanded.
Finally, there were some concerns about how the response group would be constituted and where authority would lie. However, we needed to move forward, and so the original motion was passed with the amendments around apology.
Land
The Bishop of Norwich proposed a motion calling on us as local and national church to manage the land we own well, so responding to climate change and supporting biodiversity. This was designed to sit along side current work happening within the church at all levels to try to achieve Net Zero within this decade. The motion was strengthened by the addition of a clause which called upon the Church Commissioners to report back in three years on their progress in this area on the land investments which they manage on our behalf. We heard about the excellent work of the charities Caring for God’s Acre (https://www.caringforgodsacre.org.uk/) and A Rocha (https://arocha.org/en/) – both acting on their Christian faith to care well for the Creation entrusted to us. Many speeches supported this motion, celebrated the work of British farmers and suggested other ways we could work for justice and creation care. The motion was carried.
Synod Code of Conduct
There is a code of conduct which governs the behaviour of general synod members, but for some time there have been concerns that it wasn’t adequate. When the public behaviour of synod members has caused controversy or distress, there has been no meaningful way to address this. We had attempted to discuss this in a previous sitting of the synod, but had run out of time. In returning to this issue, Paul Cartwright, the deputy chair of the Business Committee, outlined the work they had done since. They had requested feedback after the previous discussion and found that there were a range of views within synod on what was needed, but the most popular option was to produce a stronger code of conduct, but without additional legislation. Business Committee proposed to create a working group which would produce a stronger code of conduct for synod’s consideration.
The Future of Work
The Bishop of Oxford introduced a debate on the changing nature of work. He spoke of how we were made to have meaningful work – our generative potential is part of what it means to be human. However, work – largely driven by technological advances – has changed hugely in recent years, with some benefits, but many challenges. Human rights and dignity are frequent casualties. Bishop Stephen encouraged us to recall the theological place of work, and to seek purposeful, dignified work for each person. A protracted debate followed, with amendments seeking to adjust the motion so it took notice of unpaid work, voluntary work, the way the church treats its workers, the gendered aspects of a changing working environment, how work affects climate change and the Rome Call for promoting an ethical approach to AI. Most were carried, but the debate ran out of time so the overall motion did not go to the vote.
Sunday Session
Racial Justice
The Sunday afternoon session began with a debate on Racial Justice. The Bishop of Dover gave a bracing and inspiring speech, calling people to reject culture wars, be awake and recognise the racial injustice in church and society. We had a report on the work to date by the Racial Justice Commission which concludes this autumn, and the motion was about receiving that report and committing to undertake the work that was needed to progress it.
A string of speeches – almost unique in my Synod experience in that all were in favour of the motion – followed. We heard from many UKME/GMH (United Kingdom Minority Ethnicity/Global Majority Heritage) synod members speaking powerfully of their experiences in church, of being on the receiving end of harassment and discrimination, but also sharing advice and wisdom on how we could do better. Intentionality was a key theme. As an example of this, Morag Ellis, Dean of the Arches, explained how the Church of England’s legal constituency have worked to improve representation and inform their practice. (The Dean of the Arches is the Church of England’s top Judge – apart from Jesus!) The stand-out speech of the session came from Rev’d Esther Prior who spoke of her own experiences of racism in the church, of having to guide her teenage son through a racist world, and yet finishing with a heavenly vision of a multicultural church, worshipping God together – a thin place of encounter, love and godly power… Another key point made by speakers was how white clergy can go anywhere, but people often assume that black clergy have to go where there were black people! It sounds ridiculous when you put it like that, but how often is that an unspoken (or sometimes – more alarmingly – actually spoken) assumption? When the Chair suggested the debate be brought to a close, the Bishop of Leicester stood to ask that the debate not finish until every UKME/GMH member of synod who wished to speak had this opportunity. The Chair agreed and we had the privilege of hearing so much wisdom.
Bishop Rose’s speech responding to the speech was magisterial, profound, hopeful… and the motion was passed. This was positive, however my concern was that the motion lacked teeth in terms of resourcing this work. Culture change is slow work, and simply allocating budget on three yearly cycles does not give those undertaking this task the ability to plan in the mid to long term. So following Synod, I will be writing to the Racial Justice Commission suggesting that we need a minimum ten year funding package in the first instance.
Bullying by Lay Officers
The next debate was a Private Members Motion, brought by Venerable Mark Ireland from Blackburn Diocese, and was in some ways a partner motion to Saturday’s one on Code of Conduct. It asked that synod affirm that bullying is wrong and has no place in the church; and to recognise that bullying behaviour causes serious damage to clergy, lay leaders, congregations and the mission of the church. Finally, it asked for legislation which would allow perpetrators of bullying, as a last resort, to be removed as church officers for a period of time. While there are disciplinary measures to take action against clergy who err, there is no such accountability for lay officers. There were heartrending stories of the impact of bullying behaviour on clergy and congregations. There were also concerns that this legislation might be seen as punitive instead of restorative. And there were people suggesting that we use the mechanisms already in place. The point of this motion was that, even when all resources and good practice are utilised, there remain situations which cannot be resolved and continue to do harm. And the legislation would allow for appeal and restoration. The motion passed by a huge majority.
Standing Orders
I will confess that I slipped out to the coffee room during this debate on the rules which govern the way synod conducts itself. Listening in on the livestream which can be followed in various spaces in Church House, I believe there was a half hour discussion on the use of the synod voting bell…
Archbishops Commission on Families and Households
Last year, this group produced a remarkable report. A Baroness in the House of Lords called it “quietly explosive”. You can read it (or a variety of summary versions) here:
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/archbishops-commissions/families-and-households-commission
Drawing on our faith in God, our understanding of the love revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and our calling to share that love with other, the report – following extensive research – has five ambitions to support family life:
- Value families in all their diversity
- Support relationships throughout life
- Honour singleness and single person households
- Empower children and young people
- Build a kinder, fairer, more forgiving society
The report has much to say to our government, our churches and wider society – and the motion brought to Synod gave examples of how it is already having an impact. Do share the above link with your context!
The debate about the motion was slightly hijacked by an amendment which wanted to affirm the place of marriage in providing stability for the raising of children. Of course we affirm marriage! But such an amendment risks making those who parent alone, for all manner of reasons, feel second class. It is also somewhat incongruous to be affirming marriage as a benefit to children in a church which denies that opportunity to the same sex parents of some children!!! So despite being accepted by the Bishop of Durham, the amendment was lost on the floor of Synod.
Following the amendment, which for incomprehensible reasons someone wished to have a counted vote, we had used up so much time it was the end of the day, and the debate had to be adjourned.
Monday Morning
Archbishops Commission cont.
The debate continued on the main motion. Some were concerned that the debate did not say enough about evangelism. Others urged the church to take more seriously the place and needs and gifts of single people. There was a moving first speech made by a man who had parented alone after the death of his wife when his youngest child was just nine months old. And one speaker made a profound and important contribution about the place of poverty in undermining family life, and welcomed the reports prophetic and challenging clarity on this!
The motion was accepted.
Church Commissioners Response to Transatlantic Chattel Slavery
This item was a moving and powerful presentation on the work done so far by the Church Commissioners. Approximately 10% of the national church’s wealth can be linked back to chattel slavery in the 18th century. This means that despite slavery having been abolished over 200 years ago, we as a church have continued to benefit from our links to it. Conversely, descendants of enslaved people have experienced generations of disadvantage linked to the horrific exploitation of their forebears.
We heard from a panel of five people: Bishop David Walker (Deputy Chair of the Church Commissioners), Archbishop Stephen Cotterell, Bishop Rosemarie Mallett (Chair of the Oversight Group), Roy Swan (Director of Mission Investments at the Ford Foundation and member of the Oversight Group) and Jonathan Guthrie (Assistant Editor at the FT and member of the Oversight Group). With thoughtfulness, grace, expertise and humility, they described their journey towards the Church Commissioners’ decision to give £100m over nine years to fund research and development in communities affected by historic chattel slavery. It is too complex and nuanced to describe in a few paragraphs, but I was deeply impressed by this work, and if you would like to find out more you can read about it here:
There followed business which approved parochial fees for 2025/6, gave a first airing to new legislation on chancel liability (I don’t pretend to understand it, but if it affects you please get in touch and I’ll gladly hear how I might represent you as this progresses). Finally, two existing members of Archbishops Council were re-elected.
Monday Afternoon
Estates Evangelism
Five years on from a commitment made by General Synod in February 2019 to have a loving, worshipping, serving Christian community on every significant social housing estate in England, the Bishop of Blackburn introduced a debate encouraging the Church to continue this work. In an illuminating paper to accompany the debate, the four main challenges for estates/low income communities were listed:
- Social housing estates continue to be in the news and rarely has the publicity been positive. Whilst estates were built with great optimism in the post-war years and can be good places to live, residents can often be dealing with multiple problems that have been exacerbated in the post-COVID years.
- There are also areas of income deprivation, often in post-industrial and/or coastal towns, where there may be less social housing and a greater prevalence of houses of multiple occupation (HMO) and/or terraced properties owned by private landlords whose primary focus is profit rather than social cohesion.
- Many lives in these low income communities are ravaged by the contemporary ‘four horsemen of the ‘cost of living’ apocalypse’: universal credit, low-paid/insecure work, food poverty and poor quality housing.
- A little over 3,300 (1 in 4) Church of England parishes either have 500 or more social housing homes within them and/or were in the bottom 20% for income deprivation. At the 2021 census over 2/3rd of the population live in these parishes, including 2/3rds of under 19’s.
There was a lively debate where we heard stories from synod members who grew up on estates and from lay leaders and clergy who serve there. Fellow Coventry rep, Claire McArthur, gave this stunning first synod speech which captured much of the joys and challenges of this ministry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTbpaqHQl8&t=6660s (If the timestamp doesn’t work, fast forward to 1 hour 50 minutes in!!!)
Clergy Pensions
Clergy renumeration in all ways has been falling in real terms for many years, with 1 in 5 clergy turning to charitable grant funding bodies to make ends meet last year. Clergy pensions have also been falling in value, causing hardship to people who have given a lifetime to serving the Church. This private members motion, brought by Dr Ian Paul, asked for work to be done to return clergy pensions to the equivalent of pre-2012 levels. There was another animated debate. A powerful speech was given by Graham Kirk-Spriggs and can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/live/NfTbpaqHQl8?si=WKgAKrQQQy8uywAM&t=11850
Unsurprisingly, Synod voted in favour of looking at how clergy pensions might be improved!
Living in Love and Faith
In a groundhog-day-esque experience, we gathered to discuss LLF with very little new to discuss. There is something of an impasse at present, with over half of synod repeatedly voting to bring forward services of dedication and blessing for committed faithful same-sex couples and new guidance on sexual ethics to replace the outdated and outrageous Issues in Human Sexuality. However, to make changes to the authorized liturgy of the church, you need a 2/3rds majority in all three houses, and at present the prayers would not pass this barrier. Some of those opposed to the prayers are requesting “differentiation” – separate structures, bishops, churches and more – to keep their hands and consciences clean, so they are not associated with those who would bless same-sex love. Here’s a position paper which lays out their needs: https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/What-do-we-need-2024.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1aQxKvM0YOwCliAEi4gvjvd285aPTFGS7eEHcHG0YBKDXGHhcXg57vfio This degree of differentiation is deeply unpopular with synod, including some who would not use the prayers themselves. So we are stuck.
It doesn’t help that the team tasked to deliver LLF has had a torrid time recently. There has been a huge turnover of personnel. Two new lead bishops were appointed, and began their work, but after a few months one resigned. Bishop Helen-Ann explains this decision here: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/1-march/news/uk/bishop-of-newcastle-synod-delays-on-safeguarding-are-disgraceful
The wise and even-handed theological adviser to the House of Bishops, who had seen them through much of the past three year’s work, was replaced by someone who had been a vociferous campaigner against LLF, causing something of an outcry. Those who had appointed him defended their decision, but a pro-LLF adviser was hastily appointed to work alongside.
Anyway, with all this going on, it was unsurprising that the remaining lead bishop, Martyn Snow, had very little to bring back to this group of sessions. What he did bring was a re-set of tone, majoring on reconciliation, and some commitments for how we might take the work forward. We had some excellent speeches welcoming an emphasis on reconciliation – two particularly good ones were from Ven Nikki Groarke and our own Bishop Of Coventry. We had some amendments seeking to commit us to differentiation, which were defeated. The debate was adjourned overnight.
Tuesday morning
LLF Continued…
We continued to work through amendments and then Miranda Threlfall-Holmes tabled a motion to move us to next business. There was nothing to be gained by having the same arguments we have had for the past year, and synod supported this motion by about 300 votes to 60! We expect more substantial proposals to be developed before July.
Some ongoing legislative work on the Church Funds Investment Measure was undertaken and then we moved to a debate on…
The War in Ukraine
This was a moving debate to mark the second anniversary of the Russia -Ukraine war. It was one of the things Synod does best, as we heard from people with a wide range of experience: Mark Sheard, the previous chief executive of Worldvision which had worked with Ukrainian refugees, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with his years of peace-building experience, a serving Navy officer, and our episcopal representative on the Council of European Churches. We heard from a priest ministering in an Anglican chaplaincy in Helsinki, someone whose community provided over a hundred homes for Ukrainian refugees and a Russian Orthodox priest, whose congregation has Russian and Ukrainian members and which prays for those lost on both sides of the conflict. The debate combined geopolitics and individual stories. It was profound, passionate, nuanced and caring. We continue to support the people of Ukraine in their struggle for self-determination, and pray and prepare for future peace.
Tuesday Afternoon
A private members motion was the final piece of synod business. Currently, if someone who wises to be ordained is divorced and remarried with a living ex-spouse OR if they are married to someone who was divorced with a living spouse, permission had to be sought from the Archbishop before the ordination could go ahead. In the case that prompted this motion, a young clergywoman had to delay her ordination because her husband had been previously married. There was no suggestion that the ordinand had done anything wrong, and it was felt to be unfairly punitive that she be treated this way.
Synod voted by a large majority to change the law so that a diocesan bishop or acting diocesan bishop may grant a faculty to remove this barrier to ordination. There was also an amendment to the motion, asking that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York issue national guidelines to ensure a consistent approach.
And so after what felt like 132 days of business, synod drew to a close and a weary 400+ people went home…
Kate's General Synod Digest 