churchhs 18193 - The Church of England

Transcription

Page 1
11:39:27:11:08
Page 1
Page 2
Church House Publishing
Church House
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3AZ
Tel: 020 7898 1451
Fax: 020 7898 1449
ISBN 978–0-7151–1040–9
Published 2008 by Church House
Publishing
Copyright © The Archbishops’
Council 2008
All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced or
stored or transmitted by any means or
in any form, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording,
or any information storage and
retrieval system, without written
permission which should be sought
from the Copyright Administrator,
Church House Publishing,
Church House, Great Smith Street,
London SW1P 3AZ.
Email: copyright@c-of-e.org.uk
Typeset in 9 on 11pt Sabon by
RefineCatch Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk
Printed by Good News Press Ltd,
Hallsford Bridge, Ongar, Essex
11:39:27:11:08
Page 2
Page 3
Contents
11:39:27:11:08
Officers of the General Synod
vi
Officers of the Convocations
vi
Full Synod: First Day Friday 4 July 2008
1
Introductions and Welcomes
1
Address by the Rt Revd Jürgen Johannesdotter
1
Progress of Measures and Statutory Instruments
2
Report by the Business Committee
3
Anglican–Orthodox Relations: Address by Metropolitan John of Pergamon
8
The Church of the Triune God: The Cyprus Agreed Statement
of the International Commission for Anglican–Orthodox
Theological Dialogue
12
Women Bishops: Preparation for Group Work
28
Questions
30
Second Day Saturday 5 July 2008
78
Women Bishops: Report of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group
78
Presidential Address
104
Legislative Business
112
Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure
112
Draft Church of England Pensions (Amendment) Measure
131
Draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
136
Draft Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure
138
Draft Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure
140
Draft Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2008
142
Page 3
Page 4
Reader Ministry: Report from the Ministry Division of the
Archbishops’ Council
154
Third Day Sunday 6 July 2008
177
Private Member’s Motion: Church Tourism
177
198
The Payments to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2008
198
Climate Change and Human Security: Challenging an Environment of
Injustice: Report by the Mission and Public Affairs Council
204
Introduction of Chair of the Dioceses Commission
227
Appointment of Chair of the Church of England Pensions Board
228
Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council’s Audit Committee
229
Appointment of Auditors to the Archbishops’ Council
232
Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council
232
Statement on the Agenda
236
Four Funerals and a Wedding: Parochial Fees: Supplementary Report from the
Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee
238
Fourth Day Monday 7 July 2008
258
Anglican–Methodist Covenant
258
276
Parochial Fees Order 2008
276
Diocesan Synod Motion: Faith, Work and Economic Life
278
Women Bishops: Report of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group:
Report from the House of Bishops
305
Fifth Day Tuesday 8 July 2008
385
Diocesan Synod Motion: Anglican Governance
385
The Archbishops’ Council’s Draft Budget for 2009
403
11:39:27:11:08
Page 4
Page 5
11:39:27:11:08
Page 5
Votes 1 to 5
417
Apportionment
418
Annual Report of the Church Commissioners
418
Farewells
427
Index
433
Page 6
Officers of the General Synod
Presidents
The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of York
Prolocutors of the Lower Houses of the Convocations
Canterbury
York
Ven. N. Russell
Canon G. H. Webster
The House of Laity
Chair
Dr C. A. Baxter
Vice-Chair
Dr P. Giddings
Secretary General
Mr W. R. Fittall
Clerk to the Synod
Revd D. Williams
Chief Legal Adviser and Registrar
Mr S. Slack
Secretary to the House of Bishops
Mr N. J. Neil-Smith
Standing Counsel
Sir Anthony Hammond KCB QC
Secretary to the House of Clergy
Dr C. J. Podmore
Legal Adviser
Revd J. A. Egar
Secretary to the House of Laity
Mr N. P. Hills
Legal Adviser
Revd A. McGregor
Staff of the Archbishops’ Council
Director of Ministry
Ven. C. Lowson
Director of Human Resources
Mrs S. Morgan
Director of Communications
Mr P. Crumpler
Director of Financial Policy
Vacancy
Education Division
Revd J. Ainsworth
Cathedral and Church Buildings Division
Miss J. F. Gough
Mission and Public Affairs Council
Revd Dr M. Brown
Council for Christian Unity
Preb. Dr P. Avis
Hospital Chaplaincies Council
Revd E. Lewis
Officers of the Convocations
Synodical Secretary of the Convocation of Canterbury
Revd G. Dallow
Registrar
Mr S. Slack
Synodal Secretary of the Convocation of York
Ven. A. Wolstencroft
Registrar
Mr L. P. M. Lennox
11:39:27:11:08
Page 6
Page 1
Full Synod: First Day
Friday 4 July 2008
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu) took the Chair at 4.00 p.m.
The Chairman led the Synod in prayer, mentioning in particular the Bishop of Salisbury
and the Bishop of Portsmouth, and also Professor Henry Chadwick, a former member
of General Synod, who had died since the February group of sessions.
Welcome to Anglican and Ecumenical Guests
The Chairman: Synod, it is a great pleasure for me to welcome on your behalf our
ecumenical guests: Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, Mr Lars Friedner
(Secretary-General of the Church of Sweden), Bishop Jürgen Johannesdotter (Bishop of
Schaumburg-Lippe, Evangelical Church in Germany) and Mr Andrew Barr (Scottish
Episcopal Church). We welcome you most warmly. (Applause)
Introduction of New Members
The Chairman: I introduce and warmly welcome the Bishop of Sodor and Man (Rt Revd
Robert Paterson), Revd Canon Timothy Barker (Lincoln), Revd Canon Simon Bessant
(Sheffield) – the old fellow returns! – Revd Prebendary Brian Chave (Hereford), Brother
Desmond Alban SSF (Religious Communities), the Archdeacon of Halifax (Ven. Robert
Freeman), Revd Max Osborne (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich), Revd William Raines
(Manchester), Revd Lydia Wells (Sheffield). (Applause)
Address
The Chairman: It gives me great pleasure to invite Bishop Jürgen Johannesdotter to
greet us on behalf of the ecumenical guests.
The Bishop of Schaumburg-Lippe (Rt Revd Jürgen Johannesdotter, Evangelical Church
in Germany): Your Graces, members of the General Synod, on behalf of the ecumenical
guests of the General Synod, I want to greet all of you and to deliver the greetings of the
Churches from which we come.
I am a bishop of the Lutheran Church in Schaumburg-Lippe in Germany, which is a
member of the Evangelical Church in Germany. As the co-chairman of the Meissen
Commission, I am looking forward this year to the twentieth anniversary of the Meissen
Conversations and their conclusion in 1988. This year the Commission will meet again
in Meissen and we will celebrate the Eucharist in the Dom of Meissen with Bishop
Nicholas Baines as preacher. We are this year celebrating the centenary of the first
1
11:39:27:11:08
Page 1
Page 2
Friday 4 July 2008
Anglo-German ecumenical contacts, in 1908–09. The work of the Meissen Commission
has seen promising beginnings during the past five-year period but there is always
patient, on-going work and there are also some highlights in the relationship between
the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Germany; I just want to mention
two high points which touch on not only Church life but also the broader spheres of
society and culture.
The first thing that happened was the re-consecrating of the Frauenkirche in Dresden.
It was an unforgettable celebration of hope rising out of disaster and an expression of
the deep desire of the peoples of Europe for reconciliation. Close collaboration has been
established between the leaders of our two Churches – Archbishop Rowan Williams and
Archbishop Wolfgang Huber – during the Bonhoeffer commemorations in Wroclaw and
Berlin and the delegation visit to Berlin early in 2006. Fresh inspirations many of us in
Germany have won from your Mission-shaped Church, church-planting and fresh
expressions of Church in a changing context. With our different cultural and religious
backgrounds we need each other and therefore we need ecumenical contacts: how do
you deal in your society with the general secularization, how do you deal with the
passing-on of faith to the next generation, how do you deal with the inter-faith dialogue
and with the challenge of climate change and, last but not least, what culture do you
develop to deal with the challenge of deep theological questions?
Reconciliation is necessary not only in the words but also in and between our Churches,
and therefore we are here as ecumenical guests listening to what you are bringing on to
the agenda for the future of your Church, hoping for ecumenical progress and praying
that God may bless your Church and you, our beloved Anglican brothers and sisters.
(Applause)
The Chairman: I report to Synod that a number of provisions of the Dioceses, Pastoral
and Mission Measure not previously in force came into force on 31 March, 1 May and
11 June 2008 respectively; more will come into force on 1 September 2008; the
remaining provisions will come into force on a date or dates yet to be determined.
Details of the provisions in question can be found in the coming-into-force Instrument, a
copy of which has been placed on the notice-board at the information desk. The Church
of England Marriage Measure received the Royal Assent on 22 May 2008 and will come
into force on 1 October 2008.
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Colchester (Ven. Annette Cooper) took the Chair at
4.13 p.m.
The Chairman: Under SO 14(g), I intend to adjourn the sitting so that the chairman of
the Business Committee may speak to us about electronic voting. It will help us if we get
this right from the beginning.
2
11:39:27:11:08
Page 2
Page 3
Friday 4 July 2008
(The chair of the Business Committee, Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick, conducted a
demonstration of the electronic voting system.)
Report by the Business Committee (GS 1688)
The Chairman: We now resume the sitting.
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I beg to move:
‘That the Synod do take note of this report.’
We are about halfway through this quinquennium and, as always at this stage, there is
much work to get through. The extensive legislative business includes possible final
approval of two major pieces of work – the Clergy Terms of Service and the Pensions
Measures – and, as well as approval of the various fees orders, there will be an
opportunity to look again at the parochial fees report Four Funerals and a Wedding,
this time in the light of the supplementary report from the Deployment, Remuneration
and Conditions of Service Committee.
The Business Committee are pleased that the dioceses have acted on the encouragement
given to consider whether there are matters that they would wish to bring to General
Synod as Diocesan Synod Motions, and indeed the list has now grown to 15. It is
particularly pleasing that some dioceses are working together on shared concerns
and it will be interesting to see the strength of debates when two or more dioceses
co-operate in presenting an issue. It is right that Diocesan Synod Motions should
have some real priority in the ordering of Synod business, and the normal practice is
to take them in the order in which they are submitted. The first in line remains the
Southwark Diocesan Synod Motion on the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, but the
Business Committee have decided again to hold this back to await the outcome of the
debates on the Manchester report. The next two Diocesan Synod Motions, from St
Albans and from Guildford, will be taken during this group of sessions, and the
Chester motion, on the voice of the Church in public life, will be held as contingency
business.
One Private Member’s Motion will be debated – on Church tourism – and there will be
opportunity as always for members to sign any of the Private Members’ Motions tabled
downstairs in the concourse.
Question Time remains in its traditional spot this evening, but members will have noted
that the staff have enabled the papers to be ready and on their seats at the beginning of
this afternoon so that they have an opportunity to read through the Questions before
returning this evening.
There will be debates on Anglican/Orthodox and Anglican/Methodist relationships and
on the report on Reader ministry, and the Mission and Public Affairs Council brings its
3
11:39:27:11:08
Page 3
Page 4
Friday 4 July 2008
report on climate change to be debated by Synod as an issue which will provide a major
theme at the Lambeth Conference.
There is of course also the small matter of women bishops. In the forecast of future
Synod business over the past two years we have made it clear that time would be
found as soon as the bishops requested it to debate the Manchester report. In fact, the
bishops have suggested two debates: a ‘take note’ debate on the report itself and a
debate on a motion put forward by the House of Bishops. Members will have read the
accompanying paper and the presumption, indeed the hope, of the bishops that
amendments will be offered to test the mind of Synod on how they want legislation on
this issue to go forward. The Committee has given a lot of agenda time to this issue,
including not only the two debates but also an introduction tonight by the Bishop of
Manchester to lead us into group work tomorrow morning. It is hoped that all members
will attend the groups and that this will prove to be a good and gracious beginning to
our deliberations on what is necessarily a real challenge to us all. To embark on a debate
knowing that any outcome will bring hurt to some of us is a hard option, and the
Business Committee have striven, by giving plenty of time and a variety of approaches,
to allow Synod to rise to the challenge of presenting to those who follow our progress a
model of how Christians can disagree in love, respect one another’s sincerity and care
for one another, as we try to discern God’s will for our Church.
The Chairman imposed a speech limit of three minutes.
Mr Chris Pye (Liverpool): By tradition this is a free-ranging debate and in the spirit of
that I would like to refer to items mentioned in paragraphs 29, 30, 31, 40 and 53 of the
Business Committee’s report, with nuanced references to the Private Member’s Motions
and the Dioceses Commission. So I hope, Madam Chairman, that you will refrain from
donging your ding-a-ling and putting me out of order.
Here I must declare an interest. Not even with the very best of human rights and equal
opportunities lawyers could I hope to be a woman bishop, but I am a Reader looking to
develop his ministry. While I understand the desire to come to a speedy conclusion
regarding women bishops, I feel that when Synod concentrates to the point of obsession
on a particular subject it usually ends up reflecting on the issue and changing its mind at
the next group of sessions. Two bites of the cherry is sometimes advisable; take three
bites and you very often end up with the stone; four, and you endanger your teeth. If we
had split the session on women bishops between now and February we might well have
made better progress. We could have used the group time to discuss how Reader
ministries could be developed, as this concerns some ten thousand trained and
accredited Readers. Would it not be better for the mission and ministry of the Church to
use the time in this way?
Another area we could usefully debate is the number, size and structure of our dioceses.
We have a Private Member’s Motion by Gavin Oldham and we have a proactive
Dioceses Commission. Surely we should be looking at this on a cost and mission basis?
4
11:39:27:11:08
Page 4
Page 5
Friday 4 July 2008
We have just over 40 diocesan bishops in a structure that was set up about a hundred
years ago for 20,000 clergy. We now have 8,000 clergy. In my world that would be an
area ripe for culling.
Mr Paul Eddy (Winchester): The chairman of the Business Committee reminded Synod
that there would be ample opportunity for members to sign Private Members’ Motions
during the course of the group of sessions. Is the chairman aware that the paperwork
relating to my Private Member’s Motion on the uniqueness of Christ has gone missing,
according to staff? Could she therefore use her good offices to try to find it, as I am sure
she will be aware of the implications?
Mr Martin Dales (York): I want to address an item to do with future business that I
hope the Business Committee might consider. Many churches are facing sudden and
massive rises in water charges due to changes in charging arrangements by the water
companies. The pressure to pay these bills is huge and I know of some churches who are
now unable to pay their parish share. Since April, over 25,000 people have signed a
petition on this issue on the Prime Minister’s website, set up by David Boddy, a hardpressed churchwarden on Teesside, also faced with a massive new bill. Can the Business
Committee assure the Synod that they will find time during the February 2009 group of
sessions along the lines of my Private Member’s Motion which is out there for people to
sign?
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): The first speaker said that we had only 8,000 clergy. I do not
think he is quite right. My memory is that we have clergy in the teens of thousands if you
include the retired clergy, and that while we may have something like 8,000 stipendiary
licensed clergy we have a large number of licensed non-stipendiary clergy, whom we
now call associate ministers.
My main reason for rising, however, was to draw the attention of Synod to a recently
published booklet by the Ministry Division, Dignity at Work, with the sub-title Working
together to reduce the incidence of bullying and harassment. This is a very good piece of
work; it has had a long gestation, and a lot of drafting and much thought has been put
into it. I know it has gone out to dioceses but I very much hope that it will go out to all
Synod members and that we may have an opportunity of a short debate or presentation
on it at some future meeting of Synod.
Mrs Margaret Condick (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): I always look forward to the
General Synod documents coming – those fat white plasticky envelopes that drop
through our letter-boxes – and I open them with some excitement and anticipation. This
time I was looking for two in particular, apart from those on women bishops. One was
the document on church tourism, mainly because our diocese, St Edmundsbury and
Ipswich, has taken a bit of a lead on that: we have appointed a diocesan tourism officer,
we run an open churches week, we have church trails and there are lots of initiatives to
get people into churches. The other report I was looking for was the one on Reader
ministry. I had mentioned it at the deanery synod meeting and a Reader had asked me if
5
11:39:27:11:08
Page 5
Page 6
Friday 4 July 2008
she could see the report for herself, so I had said I would look out for it for her, apart
from being interested in it on my own account.
I was really disappointed when both these reports arrived because large parts of them
were virtually unreadable. In each case, boxes in the text had a background which was
either dark grey or nearly black. I have here an example of one – the church tourism one
– and the Reader ministry one has huge amounts at the front with recommendations
that are almost unreadable. You all know what I am talking about. You can just read it,
but not quickly; you cannot read it at a glance, and I suspect that a lot of people will
therefore not bother to.
I assume that the authors intended that those passages should be highlighted in colour
and that it has gone wrong at the photocopying stage. I have done a lot of photocopying
and I know that it is usually possible to produce a readable document by pressing a few
buttons. I would always try single copies until it was all right and then do all the rest. In
this case it was 500 copies at over a hundred pages each for the Reader report.
So what should have happened? Obviously, whoever did the photocopying should have
done just one before doing all the rest. Maybe whoever gave them the report should
have said, ‘Look, these boxes may be difficult. Let’s check them first before we do them
all’, or maybe their boss could have said, ‘You will make sure those boxes come out all
right, won’t you?’ It is a quality issue. It goes right through everything. It is a matter of
quality control.
I am most impressed that Church House gets all the documents to us with speed and
accuracy; it takes a lot of organizing and good teamwork. It is a pity to spoil it with a
few documents of poor quality. Thank you very much, Church House, for all your
work. I am very grateful, in spite of my whingeing.
Mrs Shirley-Ann Williams (Exeter): Those were the points I was about to make. I would
just like to add – because I do quite a bit of editing myself – that to have blocks with a
black background anyway is much more expensive, and that there are ways of putting in
blocks in such a way as to make them not only readable but exciting to look at, and one
which would cost far less. With the emphasis on how much we are spending in the
Church, I think that is something we need to look at as well.
Revd Prebendary Sam Philpott (Exeter): This is not an Exeter pincer movement!
May I first of all recognize with gratitude the fact that we are going to be dealing with
the report The Church of the Triune God? I hope that it will be a time when this Synod
really does engage with that report and, in particular, attempts to understand the
Orthodox Churches. As a parish priest, I have had the good fortune of giving hospitality
to a Greek Orthodox congregation for over 30 years – and very recently was given a
cross by the Archbishop of Thyateira in Great Britain in recognition of that – and I have
benefited enormously from the richness of their liturgy. I want to place on record here
6
11:39:27:11:08
Page 6
Page 7
Friday 4 July 2008
my gratitude for that. I really am pleased that we shall be addressing that particular
report.
I would like also to say thank you to the Chair of the Business Committee for her words
on the debate about women bishops, that she hopes we will deal with those debates in a
very gracious manner. There are some young priests in the public gallery, all ordained
since 1992, who have about 40 years of ministry ahead of them. May I express the hope
that, when we all leave this Synod at the end of these sessions, not only they and our
ecumenical guests but also we ourselves will have a great sense of having been in a
Synod that actually bears the marks of family likeness of the Lord whom we serve in our
behaviour, one towards another, and that we behave with great respect, great courtesy
and graciousness?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick, in reply: Thank you to all those who have asked
questions and made comments.
To Chris Pye, as I said in my speech we did say that we would give enough time as soon
as it was needed, whatever was needed, for the women bishops debate. I think that to
split it again so that part of it is six months away would mean that it just goes on and on;
we do need at some time actually to come to it. On the number and size of dioceses, Mr
Pye will know that the new Dioceses Commission starts its work in the autumn, and we
all await their work.
To Paul Eddy, no, of course I was not aware that his paperwork had gone missing, but
we went to see what had happened, and the good news is that it had been temporarily
removed for an extra sheet to be added for more signatures. So that is a good reason,
and it has now been returned.
Martin Dales spoke about water charges and whether there will be time in February to
debate this. The Business Committee do not decide on what debates we are going to
have: we are presented with debates which we put where we can. Martin has a Private
Member’s Motion and maybe lots of members would like to sign it and then it will come
up soon. The other thing is to talk to people who can bring debates, either in dioceses –
but that would be too late – or indeed speak to the Commissioners about it.
To Hugh Lee, speaking up again for NSMs, which is wonderful, and about the report
Dignity at Work: I am sure the Ministry Division may well be bringing that to us and it
will indeed be welcomed.
To Margaret Condick and to Shirley-Ann Williams, I am really sorry that those papers
were so difficult to read. It was of course because colour is not possible or, at least, is far
too expensive. On the Reader ministry report, there will be a new published edition; this
was just for General Synod – I know it could have been better but it was just for members
– and we will make sure that it is well improved. Maybe we need to talk to both ShirleyAnn and Margaret about how we can improve our photocopying techniques.
7
11:39:27:11:08
Page 7
Page 8
Anglican–Orthodox Relations
Friday 4 July 2008
To Sam, I am sure we all welcome the report The Church of the Triune God. I thank him
for his words about my speech. I am quite sure that we all wish to be very gracious in
whatever we decide.
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIR The Bishop of Gloucester(Rt Revd Michael Perham) took the Chair at
4.45 p.m.
The Chairman: I now invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to himself invite
Metropolitan John of Pergamon to address the Synod under SO 112.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): It gives me very great pleasure,
Mr Chairman, on your behalf and with your consent, to invite Metropolitan John to
speak to us about the background and content of the report The Church of the Triune
God, prior to our formal debate. I do not think he will need a great deal of introduction
to many members of Synod as arguably one of the most creative and profound of
Orthodox theologians of the past century or more, and it is a great privilege that we are
able to welcome him here to speak to us this afternoon. (Applause)
Metropolitan John of Pergamon: Your Graces and members of the Synod, I should like
to begin by expressing my deep appreciation of the invitation to address the General
Synod of the Church of England. It is a great honour and privilege for me and a sign of
the ecumenical spirit which prevails in our time among the Christian Churches. By
sharing as much as possible each other’s life and concerns, we grow in the communion
of the Holy Spirit and get closer to one another and to the unity to which our common
Lord has called us.
I have been asked to present to you the final report of the last phase of the theological
dialogue between the Anglican and the Orthodox Churches, as it was approved by the
Commission for the Dialogue in Cyprus in 2005 and published under the title The Church
of the Triune God in 2006. This has been the fruit of intense study and discussion for 16
years by a group of thirty theologians, including His Grace Archbishop Rowan, whose
influence and contribution is remembered with deep gratitude. This group of thirty
theologians from both sides worked in a spirit of mutual respect and co-operation to
reflect on a subject that is so crucial to the life of the Church and to the unity we seek.
The report which is before you for reception marked the end of the third phase of the
official Anglican/Orthodox international theological dialogue which began in 1973 in
Oxford, the first phase of which was concluded by the publication of the Moscow
Agreed Statement in 1976. The second phase ended in 1984 with the publication of the
Dublin Agreed Statement. Both Statements recorded a measure of agreement on a range
of specific topics while admitting a continuing divergence on others. The third phase of
8
11:39:27:11:08
Page 8
Page 9
Friday 4 July 2008
the dialogue began in 1989 with a reconstitution of its Commission. This time it was
decided that the dialogue should concentrate on the doctrine of the Church, following
the recommendation of the Lambeth Conference of 1988 which encouraged the work of
the Commission to address the question of ecclesiology, including the increasingly
significant concept of reception, the issue of ecclesial diversity, the relationship between
faith and culture et cetera. At its first meeting in New Valamo, Finland, the reconstituted
Commission worked out the plan of its work and decided on the method it would
follow.
The most significant decision that the Commission had to make in planning the work
for the future had to do with the method it would follow in dealing with the subject of
the Church. As you can see in the published report, the method we followed was to deal
with the Church not as an autonomous subject but by placing it in the context of the
Christian faith as a whole, beginning with the doctrine of God. Allow me to explain the
reasons why we did that, for I believe it is a matter of some significance from the
ecumenical point of view. The first reason why the report follows this method is that it
wants to stress that the Church should not be approached principally as a social or legal
institution but as a living body which receives its life from God himself. We cannot
decide what kind of Church we want until we have decided what kind of God we believe
in. In this case, the God we believe in and base our ecclesiology on is the triune God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If the God we believe in is the Holy Trinity, that is a
communion of persons sharing the same nature and equal in dignity and honour, as the
creed of Nicaea/Constantinople confesses, the kind of Church we want should be a
similar communion of persons fully respecting the dignity and integrity of each other.
The Church which wishes to reflect the triune God and be his image cannot be simply a
collection of individuals but a community of persons bound to each other by mutual
love and respect. Faith in the trinitarian God leads to an understanding of the Church as
a community.
The report follows this trinitarian logic through all its consequences for ecclesiology.
Questions such as authority of the Church, the ministry, synodality and the relations
between the Churches are raised and discussed on that basis. It is beyond the scope of
this presentation to give a detailed account of the answers our Commission gave to these
questions. Suffice it to say that the agreement reached by the Commission on these
matters has been remarkable. Anglicans and Orthodox seem to have the same view of
what the Church is or should be if it is placed in the light of our common faith in the
trinitarian God.
A similar approach as that to ecclesiology was applied by the Commission also with
regard to Christology and pneumatology. The agreement was again noteworthy. A
previously prevailing Christomonistic tendency in Western ecclesiology, in particular,
seems to make now more room for the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The proper
balance between the institutional and the charismatic dimensions of the Church is still
to be desired in the life of all Churches, and the report has some constructive points to
make in this respect.
9
11:39:27:11:08
Page 9
Page 10
Friday 4 July 2008
These fundamental agreements on the theological foundations of ecclesiology were
necessary for both theological and ecumenical reasons. Theologically, it was necessary
to move away from the still prevailing view that the Church is an institution governed
more or less in the same way as other secular institutions are, without theological
principles. Church law without theological rationale is a betrayal of the Church’s very
nature. Ecumenically, on the other hand, it is important to stress that managerial
ecumenism, which tends to achieve unity by rearranging the existing divisions without
looking deeply into the theological roots of these divisions, does very little to build a
firm and genuine unity, for unity without a foundation in faith cannot last.
In the work of our Commission we avoided consciously starting our work with a
discussion of the points which appear still to divide the Orthodox and the Anglicans. We
decided to look first at the theological foundations of the Church and lay the ground of
our common faith. It was only after that that we could ask ourselves the question: ‘How
can we justify our disagreements in the light of our agreement on the theological
foundations of ecclesiology?’
A careful study of the report reveals that the real differences begin to emerge when two
particular areas are brought into the discussion. The first is anthropology; the second is
culture. Both these areas are closely related to Christology. Our understanding of the
human being cannot but be affected by our faith in the incarnate Son of God, Christ. A
crucial question in this respect has to do with the relation of Christ to sexuality. How
significant is it for our understanding of the human being that Christ is a male? Does the
incarnate Christ leave out the female aspect of humanity? If not, how valid can the
distinction of the two sexes be for Christian anthropology? It is obvious that this
question leads to the problem of the ordination of women to the priesthood, on which
there still is a difference of view between Anglicans and Orthodox. The Commission
could not reach a common position on this matter. While both Anglicans and Orthodox
would insist that the female aspect of humanity is part of Christ’s human nature, the
Orthodox would attach particular significance to the fact that Christ is male and, by
conceiving priesthood as a function in persona Christi, they would hesitate to endorse
the practice of the ordination of women to the priesthood. This, however, does not close
the debate in a final way. The question whether, in acting in persona Christi, the priest
represents the historical or the eschatological Christ in whom there is neither male nor
female, according to St Paul, leaves the theological aspect of the matter still unsettled.
The report is in this respect open to further discussion, and this discussion must
certainly continue.
Even more crucial to the whole discussion of ordination and ministry is the question of
culture. The incarnation does not take place in a cultural vacuum, the report claims. The
Church consequently exists also in a cultural context and should take it into account in
its life and mission. This, however, brings up the issue of tradition and to what extent a
new cultural context can alter tradition. Is it a satisfactory justification for a change of
tradition to appeal to missionary expedience? Is it always justifiable to alter customs
that have been transmitted to the Church from ancient times? The Orthodox, as is
10
11:39:27:11:08
Page 10
Page 11
Friday 4 July 2008
known, are very sensitive to any change of tradition. They would demand a strong
theological justification for any major change such as the ordination of women.
I think that the report which is before you for your consideration reflects clearly the
difficulty of the Orthodox in receiving from the Anglican side a satisfactory theological
(not simply cultural) justification for a deviation from the centuries-long tradition
concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood; and equally the report makes
clear the difficulty of the Anglicans in seeing any serious theological reason (and not just
an appeal to tradition) for their objection to the ordination of women to the priesthood.
A great deal of reflection is still required from both sides before they can come to an
agreement on this matter. However, the significant thing that must be registered at this
moment is that the Cyprus Agreed Statement does not close the debate but actually calls
for its continuation.
I should like finally to draw attention to a section of the report that bears more directly
on ecumenism, namely that on reception. The document explores the subject in some
depth and calls us to develop our theological dialoguing in close consideration of the
other theological dialogues that take place at the same time. In dealing with ecclesiology
in such a broad theological context, our Anglican/Orthodox Commission has in fact
adopted the method followed by the Commision of the Roman Catholic/Orthodox
Dialogue. Both dialogues started from what unites the two Churches and both have
tried to root the doctrine of the Church in the Trinity and in the rest of Christian
doctrine. The Roman Catholic/Orthodox Commission has now reached the difficult
stage of discussing the thorny issue of primacy in the Church at all levels: local, regional
and universal.
The Cyprus Agreed Statement also touches on the subject of primacy, but the matter
must be developed further. The real value of this document from this point of view lies in
what it says about the role of the bishop in the Church and about synodality, for it is my
firm conviction that unless the Churches clarify these matters by giving them a deep
theological grounding they will not reach agreement among themselves or the unity they
seek, not to speak of the danger their own unity may face. The Church needs a primacy
that would be conditioned by synodality and a synodality that would be equally
conditioned by primacy. Synods are not to replace primates, and primates are not to be
a substitute for synods; both of them, synods and primates, are not standing above the
Churches but are supposed to express the sensus fidelium and to be themselves part of
the same ecclesial body. This is what results from placing the Church, its ministry, its
mission and its structure in the light of the triune God who calls us to participate in his
own life as members of Christ’s body, the Church, in the Holy Spirit.
Your Graces and members of the Synod, what I have said in this brief presentation
cannot cover the rich content of the report that lies before you for reception and
endorsement. I can only underline certain points that I thought indicated the ecumenical
significance of the document. As a theological commission, the authors of this report lay
stress on the theological foundations of the Church and are calling the Churches to
11
11:39:27:11:08
Page 11
Page 12
The Church of the Triune God
Friday 4 July 2008
introduce in all their major decisions theological criteria before any other social,
cultural or even missionary concerns. We believe that what we believe about the Church
is a result of what we believe about God. This could be the main message of the report.
The document includes an amazing amount of agreement on fundamental principles.
The points on which agreement has not been reached are not closed by the report but
are left open for further consideration in the light of what has already been agreed. This,
allow me to believe, is a positive ecumenical step. May I therefore express the hope that
this Synod will receive and endorse this document and commend it to the study of the
Churches and of the individual faithful? May the Lord support and strengthen his Grace
Archbishop Rowan in his difficult task in the Church, and all those who work with him,
and certainly bless the work of this Synod. (Applause)
The Chairman: Your Eminence, the applause is our way of showing our appreciation of
your presence here and of what you have said and the way in which you have said it, and
of your part in the report. Our thanks for all that you represent. We express our deep
gratitude to you.
The Church of the Triune God: The Cyprus
Agreed Statement of the International
Commission for Anglican–Orthodox
Theological Dialogue
Briefing paper from the Faith and Order Advisory Group (GS
1706)
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod
(a) thank the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox
Theological Dialogue for the Cyprus Agreed Statement The Church
of the Triune God and commend the Statement for study in the
Church of England, where possible with members of the Orthodox
Churches, and with other ecumenical partners;
(b) note the points raised in the commentary and assessment provided in
the briefing paper on the Agreed Statement, produced by the Faith
and Order Advisory Group; and
(c) welcome the degree of theological agreement between Anglicans and
Orthodox revealed in the Agreed Statement and encourage the
continuation of dialogue in those areas on which agreement has not
yet been achieved.’
12
11:39:27:11:08
Page 12
Page 13
Friday 4 July 2008
I must say by way of introduction that the experience over many years with this
particular ecumenical commission has been one of the most stimulating, fertile and
simply delightful of my entire experience. I find myself constantly challenged and
enriched by this. I hope that the final document will have something of the same effect as
members read and re-read it. In the few minutes available to me what I want to do is
simply to pick out a very few points from the document and the relevant passages in
them to suggest what the key issues are that we might like to reflect on in this debate.
I want to begin by noting that there is an easy possible misunderstanding of the way in
which this document sets about its business. As is said on the first page of the report, it is
not simply that we are being commended to a social analogy for the Trinity: there are
three divine Persons and lots of human persons and so God and humanity are a bit like
each other, really. The document goes a great deal deeper than that. It is much better to
say that, in the light of what is revealed about reality itself in the doctrine of the Trinity,
all talk of the Church must be consistent with that. If fundamental reality is revealed in
the doctrine of the Trinity as existing in relationship, then that dictates and shapes
everything we say about the Church and indeed about everything else.
So, for example, I.22 is crucial: ‘The Church is the body of Christ, the fullness of the
Holy Spirit, and the abode of the Holy Trinity. It is not primarily a sociological
phenomenon, but a gift of God the Holy Trinity’. The Church is as it is because of God
being as God is, in Trinity. Thus the Church is as it is, to be a manifestation of God’s life,
of life in communion. What is basic in everything is agency acting in interdependence, in
relationship, in mutuality. However, the created order is always at risk of losing that
interdependence, and human beings are very particularly at risk of forgetting their
interdependence, hence the Fall, hence sin, as essentially the assertion of self-sufficiency
against God and against others. That means of course that our salvation is the
restoration of relationship. You will see if you turn to section II, paragraph 2, that
‘These eternal relations are the cause of our salvation’. We are the way we are because
God is the way God is; and we are saved in the way we are saved because God is the way
God is. Salvation is the restoration of communion, and that happens effectively,
decisively, when the eternal life of God the Son in communion with the Father and the
Holy Spirit is, through the Spirit, translated into the human life, death and resurrection
of Jesus. Once again, the form of our salvation depends on God being the way God is.
Lest anyone should think that there is any kind of weakening or softening of an
emphasis on the centrality of the Cross here, I draw your attention particularly to II.12:
‘The Son of Man is glorified in his betrayal and death: the work of God’s Spirit is power
made perfect in weakness . . . the signs and wonders of Jesus’ Spirit-filled ministry must
be understood in the light of the paschal mystery’. The paschal perspective, the
perspective of Good Friday and Easter, is the way in which we grasp, in human terms, in
the human world, how God is the way God is in Jesus Christ.
So the Church appears as the Spirit’s creation out of that incarnate reality in which we
are liberated from our isolation. You might look at II.40 on that.
13
11:39:27:11:08
Page 13
Page 14
Friday 4 July 2008
That immediately suggests the sort of point made in, for example, III.32. It is inevitable
that diverse receptions of the gospel, diverse ways of receiving, hearing, the good news,
are implied in this pattern. Salvation is not a monolithic message delivered all in one go
to one set of homogenized people. For our restoration to communion, the diversity of
hearing and understanding is part of the reality to which we are called, and IV.14 will
tell you a little bit about the proper dimensions of a diversity brought together in
reconciliation that is not just passive co-existence.
As Metropolitan John has already outlined, that is the framework within which we are
invited to think through what we might want to say about ordained ministry in general
and the specific questions around the ordination of women, and all that overall
perspective dictates that we need to have a relational view of ordained ministry. It also
dictates caution about misleading views of primacy – caution expressed perhaps rather
too edgily at one or two points – without losing sight, as again we have been reminded,
of the importance of a proper theological understanding of primacy. You will find in
V.15 a very clear statement about how apostolic succession is the succession of apostolic
communities; and in VI.25 a reminder that we need to break through a rather sterile
stand-off between what used to be called ontological and functional views of ministry,
so that we may have a relational view.
All of this moves towards the engagement with the issue of the ordination of women as
priests. You heard Metropolitan John saying how, in our discussions, we found
repeatedly that we were being driven back, as I said to some of you last night in another
context, to ask if we were asking the right questions. Certainly the position towards
which the report was moving complicated any excessively straightforward and direct
appeals to arguments about the male historical Christ and the individual priest now,
while leaving open that very searching question, which His Eminence referred to a few
moments ago, about the sense in which the priest in the Eucharist, the bishop in the
Eucharist, represents the eschatological Christ, the Christ who is to come. To put it
rather simply, one of the areas in which we did find ourselves not stuck but aware of our
differences was precisely what the Metropolitan outlined: on one side, people saying,
‘We need a very good reason to change’ and, on the other side, people saying, ‘We need a
very good reason not to change.’ That in itself may have some cultural background to it
also.
As you heard, however, the positive outcome of these discussions was that we were able
to identify in one another a level and a style of theological conversation which enabled
these issues to be raised very honestly and raised in a context where we felt together we
were genuinely celebrating the revelation of God as Holy Trinity, as Jesus Christ by the
power of the Holy Spirit; and I very much hope that some of that celebratory note does
come through the document, and has perhaps come through a little bit in what you have
heard this afternoon.
Towards the end of the report, there is an important reminder that the issue is about
how we recognize one another as belonging within the same family of theological
14
11:39:27:11:08
Page 14
Page 15
Friday 4 July 2008
discourse and sacramental understanding and yet a reminder also that to acknowledge
adequate and important convergence in faith and even in practice is still some way off
from a point where we can simply receive one another’s ministries without question,
where we can arrive at some kind of organic unity. Nonetheless, to clear our discourse
in the first area, to identify what adequate convergence might look like and how we
are able to recognize it, that in itself is an enormous gift. We may still be a very long way
from the second aspect, the receiving of ministries – you might look at IX.29 there –
but I believe, as do all the members of the Commission, that this report lays some
very significant foundations for developing the degree of recognition expressed
around that sense of convergence, on a vision of the Church which is fundamentally
about God being the way God is, salvation being what it is because of the way God is,
and all the structures and practices of the Church likewise being what they are because
of God. Those eternal relations, if I may quote that passage again, are the cause of our
salvation.
I am very happy, Chairman, to present this report for discussion and reception.
The Bishop of Guildford (Rt Revd Christopher Hill): I would like to support this report
very strongly and warmly, and to say first, as now Chair of the Council for Christian
Unity, that I want to commit the Council, insofar as I am able to, to the study of The
Church of the Triune God and to exploring ways in which it can bear fruit in the life of
the Church of England in the fullest collaboration with Orthodox Churches in England.
The second point I want to make is strictly theological. I want to pick up something
already referred to by Metropolitan John and by the Archbishop: the importance of
beginning with our theology of God the Holy Trinity. Metropolitan John has put it that
a theology of God that begins with the Trinity – I shorten his argument a little – will end
with the Church’s community. Let me put it the other way round. A theology of God,
that is, theology proper, a theology which is monolithic will end up with a view of the
Church which is monolithic; that is the reverse side. So it really is very important from a
theological and a practical point of view.
I would also, perhaps more speculatively, say that our theology of God also affects our
understanding of community and society, so our Trinitarian theology is also practical
theology; it can even have political implications.
Finally, I want to commend and encourage local engagement with this text as both
stimulus and a catalyst for local engagement with Orthodox Churches in England in our
many dioceses. We have already had a practical example from Fr Sam Philpott of good
things that have been going on for a long time in Plymouth. Many of us live in close
conjunction with Orthodox communities and this document will be a way into not just
theological discussion but sharing each other’s prayer and life together. That is very
much at the heart of our ecumenical quest.
For those three reasons (and many others which I am not now going to mention), I
15
11:39:27:11:08
Page 15
Page 16
Friday 4 July 2008
warmly commend this document to the Synod and engagement with the Orthodox
Churches.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): I think I am speaking against this report but I am not
quite certain, and I hope to be corrected from the front at the end of this debate.
I would like to thank the two speakers for a very clear exposition of what it is about, but
I did not realize that it was based on the principles which Douglas Adams, the author of
The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy, set out so clearly in his series of novels about the
Dirk Gently Holistic Detective Agency, which was based on the doctrine of the
fundamental interconnectedness of all things: if you really understood the way that one
part of the universe worked, you would undoubtedly understand the way that other
parts worked because all things worked together. So to solve a murder in Harrogate you
need fully to understand a cat in Kettlewell and if you do so it will lead you inevitably to
the perpetrator.
What we are being told in this report is this kind of doctrine, I think. The way that the
world is determined from the way that God is, and the way that God is himself in his
Trinity decides the way that the world is, and therefore all aspects of it. Therefore the
nature of the Church is, so to speak, dictated from on high by the nature of God himself.
That is what this report is all about, from what I think I heard. If I am wrong, I do beg
you to correct me. I would like to know what becomes of the doctrine that was
expressed in Vincent Donovan’s book, for instance, Christianity Rediscovered, where he
talks about going to preach the gospel to the Masai and, about half-way through the
book, he says that the gospel is about who Jesus is and what Jesus has done for us, and
the rest is our response, and therefore it is legitimate for the Masai to respond to the
gospel in their own particular way. Obviously, salvation and faith are, so to speak, firstorder doctrines because they are conditioned by the way we respond, but the nature of
the Church is, so to speak, a second-order doctrine and, if the Masai choose to accept,
shall we say, for instance, bread and wine as the sign of Jesus’ death, that is fine but if
they choose to accept something else, says Vincent Donovan, then he feels himself
obliged to go with it.
I subscribe to the second of these views. I think the Church is a second-order matter, not
a first-order matter, for Christians, and it seems to me that it is very difficult for us to get
this idea through our heads. In fact, even Einstein said, did he not, that he refused to
believe that God plays dice with the universe. The truth of the matter, however, is that
God does play dice with the universe and the things which are created, although some of
them are dictated by their fundamental nature; there is a lot which is contingent in the
universe; but what we are being asked to say is that variations in the Church are
completely out of court because the whole thing is determined by the triune God.
I am very uneasy with this, and I would like those who have spoken in favour of it to
correct me before I vote against it. I hope I have misunderstood what it is all about, and I
beg you to correct me.
16
11:39:27:11:08
Page 16
Page 17
Friday 4 July 2008
Sister Anne Williams (Durham): Twenty-six years ago I was co-leader of a youth visit
from my diocese to Finland and Russia, and in Finland we stayed at New Valamo. I am
sorry, I am getting emotional because half of me has just gone back there. It was my first
encounter with anything other than the Church of England. I had been carried into
church as a child and had gone week by week and, in my mid-thirties, was comfortable
with where I was. When we went to New Valamo we were greeted with much love. We
asked at one stage whether we might use the little museum that they had there to say
Compline and we were told, ‘No, no you must use the church.’ So we went into the
church and the young people sat on the floor in a circle and we sang Compline. We were
told that some of the monks in that monastery had come and been with us for that, and
they had been so moved by how devout our young people were that they were very
impressed and wanted us to use the church more. When the Bishop of Guildford came –
he was not Bishop of Guildford then; he was the ecumenical adviser to the Archbishop –
at the week-end, we said we did not feel we could ask to use the church for the Mass but
perhaps we could use the museum for that; and again we were told, ‘No, you must use
the church’, and in great love they brought an altar and put it in front of the icon screen
and lent all the vestments that we needed so that we could have our service there; and
one or two of them came and sat with us.
That was amazing, because I think we made history. Don’t you, Bishop? Yes we made
history that day. It was the first time that an un-Orthodox service had been held in that
Orthodox church. We were then asked if we would attend their liturgy, which we were
pleased to do. It was in a foreign language; I do not know whether it was Finnish or Old
Slavonic, but whatever it was I did not recognize the words. I learned later that Herra
armahtaa, Herra armahtaa was ‘Lord, have mercy’, and I find myself still saying those
words in services. We then had a young man who was translating for us; he translated
the Creed and I thought, ‘Wait a minute, we say these words’. It was like a great light
coming on as I suddenly realized that my faith was not just my going to church on
Sunday morning but was bigger than that, so much bigger. It made me want to study
more and to understand more.
While I was there I learned to love icons and saw how they can help us to understand the
truths of our faith, how they can help us to have a window into heaven, how we can
look into them and bring ourselves closer to God.
I have just finished the Just 10 series up in Gateshead, with J. John speaking to us about
the Ten Commandments. We finished with putting God first, which seems the wrong
way round but actually it worked because we had done lots of other stuff over ten
weeks. I think I first learned to put God first in New Valamo monastery, when that light
came on. What I do now in my ministry is very much a result of what I learned there. I
go from parish to parish talking to people about mission, and I begin by showing them
the icon of the Holy Trinity. It is the Holy Trinity seated at the table – it is also called the
Hospitality of Abraham – and there is a space at that table which invites each and every
one of us to be there with God and to be doing his work, his mission of love to the
world.
17
11:39:27:11:08
Page 17
Page 18
Friday 4 July 2008
I can never thank God enough for my going to Finland 26 years ago and for the way the
Holy Orthodox there taught me what my faith was about and what God was about. I
just say, ‘Thank you so much’, and ask members not only to read this report but, if there
is an Orthodox church anywhere near you, go to it and experience it. You do not just
read about Orthodoxy; you must live it. Please live it and pass it on to others.
Very Revd Archimandrite Ephrem Lash (Ecumenical Representatives, Orthodox
Churches): Thank you very much for calling me, my lord Bishop. It is nice to be able to
call you ‘my lord Bishop’; you know why!
Twenty-five years ago Metropolitan John and Professor Fiddes and I were part of the
group that drew up The Forgotten Trinity, which I believe is still in print, in the days of
the British Council of Churches. We decided that the very serious first volume was really
a bit heavy going, so we did a study guide – a sort of simplified version – for use in
ordinary parishes. I really want to say two things this afternoon and the first is that I
propose that the Synod undertake to produce something that is slightly more digestible
for the punters in the pew. I think this is a magnificent document. It is full of really good
theology, and if you have Metropolitan John and Archbishop Rowan, you are going to
get good theology and it is going to be solid theology; but sometimes ordinary people
need something they can digest more easily. My view – and I think it is the view of all the
Orthodox whom I represent – is that this is an excellent report, full of good things.
My second point is this. Once I said to my brother, ‘We’ll write the book together. You
write the book and I’ll write the footnotes’ because I am a sort of footnotes man; and I
have two slight niggles. One niggle is about the cover, where we have an icon which, if
you look at it closely, proves to be not an icon of the Trinity but an icon of the Logos
accompanied by two angels. What the scene in Genesis is about is a nice point, but the
actual icon that has been chosen is not an icon representing the Trinity but an icon
representing the Logos accompanied by angels, as can be seen from the haloes round the
three figures.
My second slight niggle is the use of the word ‘triune’. When we were in the second stage
of the dialogue, we met in Odessa in about 1982–83 and one of the members then was
Archbishop Vasily Krivoshein, who was a formidable old Russian who spoke most
languages, usually two or three in the same sentence. It was after the Moscow Olympics
and we had been provided with a translation system; the seminarians were running this
and they were completely baffled because he would start in Russian, and they were
translating into English, and suddenly he would switch to French. Anyway, one day he
interrupted a debate by saying, ‘If it cannot be said in Patristic Greek it cannot be
Orthodox.’ That stopped the debate for a bit! My point is that I do not know how I
would say the word ‘triune’ in Greek. I have met it occasionally in translations of
Orthodox liturgical texts but it translates something like triadikos, which does not
mean ‘triune’. I did a little work and found the word first came into English in 1635 in a
work by Francis Quarles, a poet – you will all remember him – and this is the line from
the poem in which the word occurs: ‘The son and heir to heaven’s triune Jehove.’ Well,
18
11:39:27:11:08
Page 18
Page 19
Friday 4 July 2008
yes! The danger is this. I had a message from Mount Athos via BlackBerry from Fr John
Behr – (laughter) – on this topic, and he pointed out that there is a danger in this word of
a slightly Sabellian view of the Trinity. He makes the point in an excellent recent book, if
members have not read it, that the God whom we address in prayer is the Father of Our
Lord Jesus Christ - I believe in one God and in one Lord and in the Holy Spirit – and
there is always a danger of falling into near-Sabellianism. The Oxford English
Dictionary definition of the Trinity is the three modes of being of the Godhead as
conceived in orthodox Christian belief – that is the dogma – ‘the triune God’. So I would
have a slight hesitation. I think it is used only twice in the actual text of the report, but I
worry about ‘triune’.
Let us have a simplified version. Let us all read it and study it and come back in a few
years’ time with the answer to the last part.
The Chairman: He only likes calling me ‘my lord’ because 45 years ago he used to teach
me Latin!
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): I have to say I really was not expecting to stand up in this
debate but I just felt moved to do so, so forgive me if I have not got all my act together.
The first thing I would like to say is how good it is to open Synod with theology. I have
been on Synod now a long time – 13 years I have been coming up to York – and this is
the first time I can remember discussing theology on Friday. I think it is fantastic.
Second, I would like to disagree with my good friend John Hartley because I think I can
understand where all this is coming from. The Archbishop picked out many things from
the report which was very helpful, but the piece which means the most for me is section
I.4: ‘If God were not eternally a communion of love, the koinonia – which I understand
to be communion – of believers would not be what it is, a real participation in the divine
life.’ The key word in this sentence is ‘love’ because in the first Epistle of St John, he
actually says what I believe to be the conclusion he reached after his long life, that God is
love; he says twice in that Epistle that God is love. For me that is the simplicity of our
faith, that when it talks about the communion of love it is absolutely essential that there
is a triune God in this way, rather than a unitary God, because otherwise before
Creation how indeed could love experience love? That is what it is all about. It is so
simple.
I think it is one of the things that in Islam they cannot understand because love is not the
nature of God for them: God is merciful but God is not love as they see God. I think it is
one of the things they find most difficult. This ‘God is love’ is right at the very heart of it
for me.
It comes out in the two great commandments of course: love God with all your heart,
your soul and your strength and your neighbour as yourself. Love your enemy: I mean,
what an amazing instruction, to love our enemy! For me, I understand the Creation in
19
11:39:27:11:08
Page 19
Page 20
Friday 4 July 2008
terms of the three great tools of Creation – gravity, light and time – and each one of
them is a manifestation of love. I cannot explain why in this brief speech this afternoon,
but for me that is absolutely fundamental. This is agape. It is an unconditional love, an
outpouring love, and it is not a love that we in the Church of England are always seen
for. It is a challenge for us to show unconditional love. Christ’s gospel is all about love:
his whole ministry in the gospel is embodying love. It is not about ecclesiology, not
debates about who is the greatest or who is given certain seats; it is all about
unconditional love, almost every verse, and the challenge for us is to let that magnificent
outpouring of unconditional love pour through us and on to everyone we meet, not just
within the Church but without the Church, because there are millions and millions of
people in this country who are desperate to receive, and to be able to pass on,
unconditional love.
If that is what the punters in the pew will understand – and I believe that they will – it is
so simple. Let us take it out from this Synod and give it to them.
Revd Thomas Seville (Religious Communities): I want to echo the enthusiasm for this
report and above all that it is a weighty piece of theology. No ecumenical report I have
had the privilege of coming across has had so many good things and from such depth,
and I just hope it will not be like one of those other ecumenical reports and because of its
richness – it is like really good Christmas cake – get left at the back of the larder for too
long. The speeches made so far lead me to hope that that is not going to happen, but
perhaps a version of the cake for the five- and six-year-olds – and we are most of us, I
think, probably at that level – is really needed.
My community has had a long relationship with Orthodoxy which goes back to the
days before the Russian Revolution, when Walter Frere, later Bishop of Truro, visited
the Orthodox Church in Moscow and was welcomed very warmly. We have a very sad
report of that visit in 1916 saying how enthusiastic about the Russian Church Walter
was – its engagement with social issues, its engagement with the pressing problems of
industry and the like – and of course that was not to be.
It is easy to think of the Orthodox as primarily oriented towards liturgy. At one level, to
be oriented towards the liturgy is to be oriented towards the very heart of the mission of
God himself and that is a strength from Orthodoxy which I think we have to learn.
However, the parish which we have in our church in Mirfield, the Romanian Orthodox
parish of St Makarie, has the same issues of secularization, the same issues which press
upon Romanian children – and every liturgy in that church is a Eucharist with children
present and they do not have to change the Eucharistic prayer or anything when
children are present; the liturgy of St John Chrysostom does perfectly well, thank you
very much, and they are perfectly happy except when the Patriarch comes and then the
children cannot go out of the church during the liturgy (I think that is a Romanian
custom but it may be a general Orthodox custom) – but they have the same issues, and
the same issues of mission. They are generous; they welcome us at their liturgy; and
every now and then we can have a sort of faith tea with plenty of good Romanian food.
20
11:39:27:11:08
Page 20
Page 21
Friday 4 July 2008
Brethren from my community visit Romania and are made welcome in their
monasteries. Again, there are the same kind of issues. Where there are differences they
are often as much cultural as anything: what do you think of Roman Catholics? We tend
to be more sympathetic, and the report does rather echo some edginess towards our
ecumenical partners in Rome, but the issues are common.
It is something that we have had in our community for some years, and I do ask
members of Synod who have not had that experience – here I echo Sister Anne – to make
them welcome, because there are lots of Orthodox in this country now: Romanians,
Bulgarians, Russians.
I am sad to disagree with John Hartley – I often find myself in agreement with him – but
I do not think God ever plays dice. I really think that is quite close to heresy. God is
always faithful to himself, and being faithful to himself is always faithful to what he has
made.
Revd Canon Professor Anthony Thiselton (Southwell and Nottingham): I agree very
much with the Bishop of Guildford, Gavin Oldham and others who have stressed the
practical significance of this report, but I offer, if I may, four and a half brief reasons for
giving this report a warm welcome.
First, Christology and the Church: these are grounded in the nature of God as Trinity. In
the sense of interpretation and didactically, we may sometimes appeal to explaining the
Church as a human community and try to explain aspects of the Trinity with reference
to Christology; but in terms of view of reality, or ontology, it is immense gain to ground
Christology and the doctrine of the Church in the nature of God as the Holy Trinity. In
the case of the Church, as we have been told, we are not given some pragmatic,
sociological convenience, making it akin to a purely human supporters’ club. In the case
of Christology, some biblical scholars have isolated the Jesus of history from the
doctrine of the Trinity, but to explain the identity of Christ in terms of Trinitarian
theology is all gain.
Second, this report steers us away from thinking that the Church exists simply as a place
of worship and mutual support. Again it is not a matter of sociology or pragmatic
convenience. None of Paul’s or John’s writings encourage the notion of an isolated
individual Christian who happens to find fellowship in the Church. Their focus is
corporately on the Christian community, and the Christian enjoys his or her gifts of
grace and responsibilities of service within that community.
Third, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are more as it were what they are in view of their
relation to each other. Their very identity or even character depends on their
differentiation from one another as well as on their unity. Pannenberg well expounds
this with reference to the unique Fatherhood of God and to the Sonship of Jesus Christ,
and some patristic writers unfold the Trinitarian frame of reference in relation to such
biblical passages as 1 Corinthians 2 and 12 and John chapters 4–16. Grammatical
gender is irrelevant here, as James Barr has brilliantly shown.
21
11:39:27:11:08
Page 21
Page 22
Friday 4 July 2008
Fourth, the section on episcopal oversight reminds us, among other things, that the
Church is more than a federation of local communities.
I come to my half-point. Synod would not expect me to voice no reservation at all in my
eulogy – which is quite genuine – for this Agreed Statement. I am sorry that the emphasis
on the Holy Communion or Eucharist as participation in the self-offering of Christ,
while absolutely right, does not receive a corresponding or complementary emphasis
on the principle that the Holy Communion, like baptism, is a pledge, assurance,
promise, Word, addressed from God to humankind. It is not, I stress, that the former
is wrong – and it is one of the important characteristics, as I understand it, of the
Orthodox Church to emphasize this – but it would have been marvellous if this
complementary emphasis, which we find in Tyndale, Cranmer and Hooker, among
others, had been as prominent.
However, no Agreed Statement can please everyone in every respect. As a whole, I
warmly commend this report as one from which we have much to learn.
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham): I want to welcome this report
and say that I look forward to studying it with others as we look at ecumenical
documents in theological education nowadays, but I want to ask for two things to be
considered in a little more detail to help us and to help the Church perhaps as well. They
are both problems that I have thought about a lot over the years and I do not think I am
anywhere nearer an answer than when I started.
The first is that both in the ARCIC document and here in this document, as it talks
about priesthood, it seems to me that there is a kind of slide from the priesthood of
Christ to the priesthood of the Church to then an assumption that we can talk about the
priesthood of those who are ordained, without noticing that the New Testament does
not use that word of those who are ordained; it uses ‘presbyter’. I do not want to make
this as a nasty Protestant difficulty; I want to say I would love to understand from the
Orthodox and the Roman Catholics how it is that they come to do it. Both these
statements just make that slip. I do not mean slip as in ‘error’; I mean just movement, a
gradual, nice movement. It sounds right but I have no theological reasons for accepting
it. I want to understand why people feel they can make that move.
The second is an even more serious one and I expect people will laugh, but I feel this
most passionately. I agree with the Orthodox/Anglican Statement about the mistake of
thinking there is an indelible mark at ordination but I find it extremely difficult to think
that to be sent from being a bishop or a presbyter/priest into being the laity is a
punishment. I do not think that being lay is a punishment. Being among the people of
Christ is the most wonderfully privileged place you can be, so to welcome back into the
laity – which I also believe is the whole Church, incidentally – clergy who, for the
moment or perhaps for ever, are not to exercise their orders because they have done
things which are not appropriate for those in public office is not to be punished: it
is to be part of that great community of sinners who know themselves saved in Christ.
22
11:39:27:11:08
Page 22
Page 23
Friday 4 July 2008
I just wonder if we could have a bit more about that in that statement which says
that we punish clergy when we make them part of the laity. I do not regard it as a
punishment.
Revd Professor Paul Fiddes (Ecumenical Representatives, Baptist Union): I want to
welcome this historic Statement most warmly. During the 1990s the Baptist World
Alliance shared in a series of informal preliminary conversations about conversations
with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and I see mirrored in this
Statement many of the themes we pursued there but here brought to a polished form.
One thing was the grounding of the Church in the communion of the Holy Trinity.
Another was the missionary character of the Church which is here aptly described as
being to open up every human situation to the possibility of transfiguration. Our own
conversations brought these two themes together by seeing the mission of the Church as
part of the mission of God, the Church sharing in the sending out of the Son by the
Father.
Another theme that concerned us was the relation of the local church to the Church
universal, based again in the vision of God as communion. Here I would like to ask a
question and request more work to be done. The Statement helpfully affirms that the
catholic Church exists in each local church; though the local church cannot exist apart
from the whole, the universal Church ‘cannot logically precede the multiplicity of local
churches’ (I.24). This is obviously a significant affirmation for those with a
congregational ecclesiology, like Baptists; but the question is what is meant by the local
church. In Anglican thinking, the local church is properly not the parish church but the
diocese, since this is the ecclesial community presided over by the bishop. Orthodox
understanding is formally the same: the local church is the Eucharistic assembly whose
president is the bishop. However, the Statement observes that a difficulty arises as
dioceses get larger and a single congregation may rarely see the bishop. The bishop
ceases to be the local minister present at the Eucharist, except of course commemorated
by name. So the Statement also says that the local community finds its unity in the
presbyter ‘through whom the local community forms a eucharistic body’, so
‘catholicity,’ says the Statement, ‘is realised in a particular place as eucharistic
participation’ (VI.20).
So what is the local church? Is it the diocese or any eucharistic assembly, any single
congregation celebrating the Eucharist? Does the priority of the local church over the
universal also apply to the local eucharistic assembly whose president is a presbyter?
The Statement notes that there is more work to be done on the relation of the bishop to
the presbyter. May I suggest that this be linked with further work on the nature of the
local church, its existence under the rule of Christ and its responsibility to discern the
mind of Christ? I wish then especially to endorse the first part of the Archbishop’s
motion, that the Statement should be studied in the Church of England with other
ecumenical partners. The nature of the local church and its ministry is just one place
where wider discussion would be valuable.
23
11:39:27:11:08
Page 23
Page 24
Friday 4 July 2008
I welcome this Statement as a road-map not just for its two ecumenical partners but for
all of us.
The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe (Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell): At the age of 18 or
maybe 19, already having been selected for ordination and reading theology – I was a
young ordinand – I wrote a cheeky letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch, saying, ‘Would
you please give me a vacation job?’ He wrote back within three weeks – which must be a
record for the Orthodox! – saying how glad he was to hear from me and would I please
come and stay as his guest in his theological school in Istanbul. I doubt, if I had not had
that experience – and it can only have been the Holy Spirit prompting me to write that
letter – I would find myself as the Bishop for the Church of England in Europe, with
many, many opportunities for engagement with the Orthodox world.
It is very important that we recognize the Church as breathing, as I think Pope John Paul
II said, with two lungs, the East and the West. I can still remember meeting an Orthodox
in the Middle East who said to me – and I was astonished – ‘Well, Roman Catholics,
Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostals – all of you are Latins. You are all shaped by the Latin
mindset from the Roman Empire and the assumptions about ecclesiology which come
from that particular context’. I think there is just something in that.
This is a very welcome report. Many have said how important it is, and I want to share
that. The Church is a wonderful and a sacred mystery, and this reminds us of the root of
that mystery in the life of God as Trinity. Our life as Christians is participation in God
and, as we are told in 2 Peter, we are to become partakers of the divine nature. Our
theology is properly a mystical theology, and Nicolas Lossky, the Russian Orthodox
professor who wrote Lancelot Andrewes the Preacher: at the roots of the mystical
theology of the Church of England, recognized in the great classic seventeenth-century
teaching of Lancelot Andrewes the mystical theology of his own Church.
I would just make one more point, that the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has
noted his concern for theological grounding of a doctrine of Creation and ecology, and
members will find that referred to in some of the things that are said in this report about
the nature of the transfiguration of the whole universe. There is much to be learned in
that particular aspect of the Church’s witness to the world from what is at root in this
report.
One final point perhaps on what is said about tradition as the life of the Holy Spirit in
the Church, particularly what is said at the top of page 106: ‘Tradition is not a principle
which strives to restore the past: it is not only the memory of words, but the constant
abiding of the Spirit. It is a charismatic, not a historical, principle.’ We need to engage
with that understanding of tradition.
I commend this report.
The Chairman: I call Andrew Dow for a very strict three minutes.
24
11:39:27:11:08
Page 24
Page 25
Friday 4 July 2008
Revd Andrew Dow (Gloucester): – and I will try to be as speedy as my 125 number
suggests!
I welcome the theological start to this group of sessions as well, but I hope that the
Synod will not mind, as being the last speaker, if I try and just bring us down to earth a
little, sharing something of my own experience, having visited the Holy Land several
times, both as leader of pilgrimages and for a month’s sabbatical. It was there that I
came into contact with Orthodox worship for the first time, and I have to say I simply
loved it: the singing is absolutely heavenly, and if that is what it is like in heaven then I
will be an Orthodox there. Also, as one other speaker has mentioned, coming from an
Evangelical background I had had no experience of icons but I got to know something
about them and learned how to read them, and that was very enriching to me.
There was, however, one thing that hurt and saddened me: the hostility shown to us by
Orthodox worshippers as we tried to share in Holy Week celebrations in a certain
church. The hostility, I am afraid, amounted to physical force, actually being thrown
out of that church. I think I understand the historical reasons for that; I believe there is a
long history of mistrust between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and I think the
worshippers probably thought that we were Roman Catholics. I am sure that His
Eminence would be as sad as I was to learn of this, and I wonder if, through his
leadership, he could help his people, his flocks, his pilgrims to be perhaps more
welcoming of those of us from Western Europe so that in the land where Jesus prayed
that we would be one we would actually be one practically, on the ground, because that
is where it counts.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
‘That the question be now put.’
This motion was put and carried.
The Chairman: I ask the Archbishop to respond to the debate, and if he could do it in six
or seven minutes it would be much appreciated.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, in reply: I will do my best, Mr Chairman.
Thank you all very much indeed for a most interesting, sympathetic and, I think,
creative debate.
The point has been made about the presence of Orthodox communities locally. I just
want to reinforce what the Bishop of Guildford and others have said about this. There
are plenty of people around who are only too eager to build relationships, and I think
there is a great deal to be learned from that.
I would love to have rather more than six minutes to talk to John Hartley about the
25
11:39:27:11:08
Page 25
Page 26
Friday 4 July 2008
report! I think, with due respect, that he has misunderstood one important aspect of it. I
referred to III.32 in my original presentation, which is about diverse reception and the
inevitability of cultural diversity in forms of the Church, and I think that is there in the
report. Nor do I think that to say that reality is as it is because God is the way God is to
bring any kind of determinism into our view of reality; again, I think a reading of the
report would suggest that that is not at all the kind of implication to be drawn out. If we
were just to say that the Church is a secondary matter, I think that quite a lot of the New
Testament would go into the waste paper basket, myself. The Christ in whom all things
cohere is the Christ we worship, and if in Christ there is coherence I would expect the
particular kind of human coherence which the Church, the Body of Christ, represents,
and which is something we live in, to be not quite a secondary issue; but maybe we can
talk about that a bit more later on.
I too have celebrated the Eucharist in the monastic church at Valamo and remember it
with the same kind of intensity and gratitude as Anne, and I am happy to be reminded of
that.
Fr Ephrem mentioned the report The Forgotten Trinity and urged on us the need for a
study guide. That is an excellent idea. I have to declare an interest because another
member of that particular working party of the British Council of Churches, as it then
was, was a young theologian named Jane Williams, who has gone on to do this and that,
and of course, as Fr Ephrem rightly reminds us, congregations will be standing on their
pews denouncing hints of Sabellianism in any language we use! The word ‘triune’, I
agree, is a slippery one and it is not one I am particularly keen on myself, to be honest.
I was grateful to Gavin for what he said about love as the form of communion and this
being fundamentally about the creative ultimacy of love. It is indeed one of the things
which is between us and our Muslim friends and, in the recent Common Word
declaration which the Muslims issued, if you remember, a little while ago on love of God
and neighbour, the one thing of course which was not said and could not be said was
that God is love. In some of the best responses from Christians to that document, I think
there is a grateful recognition that there are things to be spoken about here in terms of
love of God and neighbour but there is one area where we cannot go together, precisely
because of this; and the hunger of our world for unconditional love is as it always was.
The Community of the Resurrection’s links with Russia raise memories of ferreting
around in the library at Mirfield when I was there in the 1970s and finding, of all things,
a Russian translation of Walter Frere’s book on the Russian Church. So there was
appreciation from Russia too of our involvement and friendship. Thomas drew our
attention once again to the issues we share with our neighbours, our literal Orthodox
neighbours here in this country as well as elsewhere.
Anthony Thiselton’s comments were, I felt, of enormous value in pin-pointing some of
the central themes here and, at the end, in his half-point of query, I think he did indeed
put his finger on something which is not flagged particularly strongly in the report but
26
11:39:27:11:08
Page 26
Page 27
Friday 4 July 2008
which is surely a very significant part of what we have to contribute to the discussion,
which is, I suppose, that if we acknowledge that the proclamation of the Word is a kind
of sacrament then the celebration of the Sacrament is a kind of proclamation of the
Word. That does need to be said in this context.
Again, I would love to have more time with Christina to discuss the unhappy slide from
different kinds of discourse about priesthood. I suspect it is something to do with the
fact that the ordained priest is seen, in those traditions which instinctively use that
language, as voicing the priesthood of the Church in Christ rather than actually
possessing a priesthood in any sense different from that; and there might be ways of
spelling that out a bit further which would help. I agree about the ambivalence and
worth of talking about the punishment of laicization and was very grateful for the way
that was put.
Turning to the issues which Paul touched on about the local church and the universal, I
think the definition of ‘local church’ remains one of those vastly complex areas in
ecumenical discussion at several levels which certainly needs attention. I greatly
welcome the urging to relate this particular context to discussion with other ecumenical
partners.
As you will imagine, I warmed very much to Bishop Geoffrey’s reference to the right
understanding of tradition. It is, to me as to him, I think, one of the greatest
contributions that Orthodox theology has made to the Church catholic in the twentieth
century to say that tradition is charismatic. It is the life of the Spirit in the Church, a
process of the transmission of life rather than the handing on of a packed parcel.
Andrew’s remarks about the hostility that sometimes we experience in the Holy Land do
bring us down to earth with a bump, reminding us that our histories are real; they
constrain and limit us and sometimes distort us in all sorts of ways. We all have lots of
penitence to exercise about those histories and sometimes, when we come up against
hostility and suspicion in the present day, we are reaping the rewards of long, complex
histories of which perhaps we understand very little as individuals. However, I was very
glad that at the very end of the discussion we were brought back to the Holy Land and
to the experience of discovering the living Christ in the worship of living Christian
communities in the place where Christ lived, died and was raised and of course still lives
in our brothers and sisters of the Christian communities which worship and struggle in
that land today.
Thank you once again for all the comments and observations made and for what I think
has been an enriching debate. I hope, if I may gently say so, that the precedent of having
a little bit more theology at the beginning of the group of sessions will not go unnoticed.
(Adjournment)
27
11:39:27:11:08
Page 27
Page 28
Friday 4 July 2008
THE CHAIR Mrs Margaret Swinson (Liverpool) took the Chair at 8.20 p.m.
The Chairman: We begin this evening with a short presentation from the Bishop of
Manchester to introduce the group work. You should have found on your seats a
booklet and GS Misc 899, which you will need for the group work and for the following
debates. This evening there will be a presentation. The opportunity for discussion and
questions will come through the group work itself and the debates which will follow.
The Bishop of Manchester (Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch): I am grateful to the Business
Committee for granting me the real luxury of two opportunities to address you on the
subject of the Legislative Drafting Group’s report on women bishops. My task this
evening is a relatively simple one; it is to provide a short briefing for the group work
scheduled for the beginning of tomorrow morning and then, when we come together at
11 o’clock, I will offer some more general reflections by way of introduction to the ‘take
note’ debate.
I suspect that for those who sat through all the Synod debates in 2005 and 2006, and
especially those whose memories like mine go back to the long and anguished debates
over women priests, it is just possible that there may be a certain weariness and
heaviness of heart at the prospect of hours of debate on this over the next few days, but,
as the Archbishops have reminded us in their presidential note, these debates will ‘mark
something of a watershed in that they will, for the first time, give the Synod the
opportunity to come to a view on the underlying approach that it wishes to take to the
legislation’.
In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Monday’s debate is likely to be the
moment when it will become clear whether there is any legislative approach that has the
potential to provide the basis around which a sufficient consensus can be built. We really
are engaged on serious business here. Again, as the Archbishops have reminded us,
‘diverse views are held with deep and passionate conviction and there is a general
acknowledgement of the cost involved in every option’.
It would be surprising – though, of course, we worship a God of surprises – if many
minds were changed in the next 72 hours on the underlying question of whether the
Church of England should have women bishops. It is just possible that minds will be
made up for the first time or in a new way over how this should be done, if it is to be
done. It was certainly the experience of the nine of us who worked together in the
drafting group that our understanding of the various possible approaches changed and
deepened as we worked them through and tested them with the benefit of welcome
support from the lawyers and the rest of the staff team.
Members have received a document explaining how the group work is to operate
tomorrow morning. It is long – do not be intimidated by that – because most of it is lists
28
11:39:27:11:08
Page 28
Page 29
Friday 4 July 2008
of who is in which group and those kinds of detail and where we are going to meet
immediately after breakfast: that is to avoid us having to come here in the morning
before the groups.
At the beginning of the document is a summary of the drafting group’s report and crossreferences to the key paragraphs and annexes. It is obviously impossible to do justice to
a document of over 90 pages in just a few lines, but I hope that that short guide will
prove useful as members turn back to it at various points between now and Monday.
Members also have a document from the legal adviser about codes of practice: those are
resources for the discussions and the debates.
I do want to make it clear that the outcome of the House of Bishops’ discussions in May
has not removed from the table any of the possibilities canvassed by the drafting group,
or indeed others, though I hope that there are not too many others that have escaped
without some mention in our wide-ranging analysis.
There may be those who believe that the idea of a national code of practice to which all
concerned will be required to have regard goes too far in the direction of national
prescription when what is needed are local arrangements agreed diocese by diocese.
Then there are certainly others who have already made it clear that a code of practice by
itself would not go nearly far enough for them and that stronger arrangements, or
indeed new structures, are required, so we need to come to a view on that on Monday.
Tomorrow’s group work is the opportunity to explore the various possibilities in a
setting where everyone can have a chance to speak and perhaps, even more important,
to listen.
In the discussions members may, from time to time, want to refer to paragraph 39 of our
report. That attempts to set out in reasonably simple terms what the difference is
between Measures, Regulations, Canons, Codes of Practice and Acts of Synod. Most of
us, of course, are not lawyers but then, as members of Synod, we are called to be makers
of law. Some of the most difficult judgements that we have to reach concern not simply
whether there should be special arrangements for those with theological difficulties over
women’s ordination, nor even what those arrangements should be, but rather what the
status, enforceability and reliability of those arrangements should be, so do read
paragraph 39 again before the group work tomorrow. Since it is relevant to the House of
Bishops’ motion, please also look closely at the section on codes of practice.
Just two further comments before I conclude: one practical and the other more
substantial. First and very practically, tomorrow’s group work is not designed towards
any kind of structured feedback as such, though I am optimistic enough to hope that
those who speak in the ‘take note’ debate immediately afterwards and in Monday’s
debate may just be influenced by some of the things they have heard in York, rather than
simply reading out unchanged the speeches that have already been written. It may be,
however, that there are one or two key questions for clarification that emerge and on
which Synod members would like specific answers. If they are raised tomorrow morning
29
11:39:27:11:08
Page 29
Page 30
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
I will do my best to respond to them, but if there are still important questions of fact or
law, then do hand them in to the staff at the desk downstairs and we will see between
now and Monday if we can find a way of answering them, either by way of a general
information note which would be circulated, or seeing whether the Bishop of Gloucester
can deal with them in his opening speech on Monday.
Secondly, and let us not be frightened in the groups to face the hard questions, it is very
easy to get bogged down in the detail of the various approaches and the particular legal
issues that they raise. We cannot duck those choices because, as I have said, we are a
legislative assembly, but the really important question underlying everything is simply
this: what sort of Church do we want to be? If we are going to admit women to the
episcopate we surely want to do it wholeheartedly and enthusiastically, but what
provision do we wish to make for those loyal Anglicans whose convictions will continue
to mean that they will need to receive ministry and oversight from some rather than all
of the Church of England’s priests and bishops? Are we prepared, as we were in the
early 1990s, to put in place open-ended arrangements with some basis in legislation that
recognizes that these two sets of convictions will remain authentic expressions of
Anglicanism for as far ahead as anyone can see; or, as some now argue, is the admission
of women bishops the moment when any special arrangements have explicitly to be of a
non-binding, pastoral and designedly transitional nature?
Well, those are judgements that Synod is now going to have to reach and that is why we
have some painful listening and talking to do over the coming days. I hope that
tomorrow morning’s group work can be a first, fruitful, instalment of that. To borrow
from the Psalms, in the name of the Lord, we wish you good luck.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That concludes this item and we move to
Questions.
THE CHAIR Sister Anne Williams (Durham) took the Chair at 8.30 p.m.
Questions
Questions asked in accordance with Standing Orders 105–109 were answered as
follows, those for written answer being marked with an asterisk:
Secretary General
1. Revd John Chorlton (Oxford) asked the Secretary General:
Has there been a change to the process or procedure of mailing paperwork to Synod
members that now ensures that the TV, radio, Telegraph and Church Times discuss the
agenda, opinions from pressure groups and directives from the House of Bishops long
30
11:39:27:11:08
Page 30
Page 31
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
before I receive my paperwork, thus ensuring that my opinion is influenced long before I
have a chance to read the documents and form my own?
The Secretary General (Mr William Fittall): There has been no such change. The only
innovation on this occasion was that we sent out the agenda to Synod members together
with some related papers a week earlier than usual, partly because there had already
been some unhelpful press stories. It has been the longstanding practice to give an onthe-record pre-Synod press briefing immediately following the weekend when Synod
members should have received their first batch of papers. The difficulty arises when
people who have been involved with particular pieces of work or discussions in other
bodies take it on themselves to talk to journalists about matters which are still
confidential. I am confident that those responsible do not work at Church House.
Revd John Chorlton (Oxford): Thank you very much, Secretary General. Unless, of
course, an accident occurs and a senior staff member leaves confidential papers on a
train, would the Secretary General be willing to suggest to senior staff that they talk to
God first and talk to the Church second before talking to the press?
The Secretary General: In a previous incarnation I was a member of the Joint
Intelligence Committee, and I never used to take any documents and leave them on
trains because I knew what the consequences were, so I do take security seriously. I
think the difficulty here is not with staff and with the security of documents; it is that we
have some people in the Church who do not recognize fully that the task of journalists is
to get stories and that if you talk to them, they are likely to print what you say.
2. Canon Dr David Blackmore (Chester) asked the Secretary General:
As the chair of a diocesan house of laity is elected but acts in a voluntary capacity, is
there any relevant law or guidance that clarifies his or her role in the diocesan structure?
The Secretary General: The position of chair of the house of laity of a diocesan synod
does not feature in the Church Representation Rules and there is no statutory definition
of the role. The Model Standing Orders for Diocesan Synods – which a diocese may
adopt, or not, as it sees fit – provide for the election of vice-presidents of the synod, one
by the house of clergy and one by the house of laity. A vice-president so elected becomes
the chair of the relevant house and an ex officio member of the bishop’s council and
standing committee. From attendance at the national meetings of chairs of laity, my
impression is that whether those who chair the houses of a diocesan synod are given a
wider role in the diocese, and what that role can be, varies quite a bit from place to
place.
Canon Dr David Blackmore (Chester): By how much does the membership and remit of
a bishop’s council and standing committee vary from diocese to diocese?
The Secretary General: I do not think I can give you a clear answer off the cuff. What is
undoubtedly true is that the way 43 or 44 bodies work does vary hugely between
31
11:39:27:11:08
Page 31
Page 32
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
dioceses. In terms of the roles of lay chairs and diocesesan chairs, there is great variety. I
was told only this evening by one lay chair that in that diocese there is a job description
for that role. I am not sure that is a common practice across all dioceses. The fact is there
is variety.
3. The Archdeacon of Northampton (Ven. Christine Allsopp) asked the Secretary
General:
Could the Secretary General clarify the definition of what constitutes an ‘outside group’
or outside individuals with reference to the communications policy relating to the
circulation of correspondence as it is currently implemented by the relevant secretariats
in accordance with instructions from the House of Bishops Standing Committee,
General Synod Business Committee and Archbishops’ Council?
The Secretary General: This is a difficult area and I have already given an assurance in
private correspondence that I shall be inviting the three bodies to consider what they
would like their policy to be in future, given that most communications now arrive
electronically rather than by post. The longstanding practice has been that the
secretariat circulates to members of the Synod, the Council or the House only such
material as those bodies have themselves commissioned or asked to receive.
The Archdeacon of Northampton: Can the Secretary General give a further assurance
that when he invites the House of Bishops Standing Committee to consider their
future policy, he gives its members the example which led to my question, namely of
some senior women clergy wishing to communicate with members of the House of
Bishops?
The Secretary General: I will certainly do that. The reality is that between the
publication of the Manchester Group report on 28 April and the meeting of the House,
there were a number of submissions, letters and statements from groups and from
individuals. We arranged for a copy of all of those to be displayed prominently at the
bishops’ meeting, but, in accordance with our longstanding practice, we did not
ourselves as a secretariat forward them to the House. Of course, individuals and groups
were free to send them directly to bishops if they wished. I will certainly include that in
the paper that goes to them.
4. The Archdeacon of Northampton (Ven. Christine Allsopp) asked the Secretary
General:
Could the Secretary General outline the communications policy implemented by the
relevant secretariats in support of the work of the House of Bishops, General Synod and
Archbishops’ Council in relation to their responses from members of these bodies for
groups of email addresses, held centrally by the Church of England, of individuals who
are in the public domain (for example, members of the House of Bishops) to be
forwarded to them electronically?
32
11:39:27:11:08
Page 32
Page 33
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
The Secretary General: The groups of e-mail addresses that we hold with the consent of
individual members of the various national bodies, in order to send official material to
them, contain some addresses that are not in the public domain. In accordance with
Data Protection Act principles our policy, therefore, is not to give others access to these
groups. Where addresses are already in the public domain, for example, in the Church
of England Year Book, there is of course nothing to stop anyone creating their own
e-mail group.
5. Mr Nigel Chetwood (Gloucester) asked the Secretary General:
Are there church-wide disciplinary procedures in place that should be followed when
investigating allegations against a layperson who holds a bishop’s licence, such as a
Reader?
The Secretary General: Canons E6 and 8 make express provision for the summary
revocation of readers’ and lay workers’ licences where the bishop considers that there is
‘good and reasonable cause’ for doing so. (I am looking at my bishop and hoping he is
not going to revoke my licence!) In addition there is a common law power to revoke a
licence by notice. Before the bishop may summarily revoke a licence he is required to
give a reader or lay worker ‘sufficient opportunity of showing reason to the contrary’.
There are no prescribed procedures for the prior, investigation stage of cases, but any
investigation would need to meet certain minimum standards of fairness. Summary
revocation arising from a process that was manifestly unfair could be challenged on
appeal to the Archbishop of the province. The exercise of the common law power is
potentially reviewable in the civil courts.
6. Mr John Hanks (Oxford) asked the Secretary General:
Of the candidates recommended for ordination training in 2006, how many in each of
the age groups shown in the table in Church Statistics 2005/6 were men and how many
were women?
The Secretary General: We are updating the information we have of levels of candidates
recommended for ordination training and so I am able to supply 2000 to 2007 figures,
which have been placed on the notice-board. In 2006 311 men were recommended and
283 women. Among the under 40s men outnumbered women by more than two to one
– 162 as against 77 – whereas among those aged 40 and over there were 38 per cent
more women than men – 206 as against 149.
33
11:39:27:11:08
Page 33
Page 34
Questions
Numbers of
candidates
Friday 4 July 2008
AGE
2000
2003
2004
2005
53
18
78
71
86
30–39 146 104 126
42
77 103 58
49
45
118
76 117
42
75 123
42
Male
Female
40–49 148
65 160
83
61 149 67
99
82
159
Male
Female
50–59 123
47 109
76
35 125 47
74
78
124
Male
Female
60
plus
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
20–29 106
Male
Female
Proportions AGE
2001
76 73
30
2002
84 149
39
96 155 106
53
49
67 166
92
73 173 73 174
93
100
78 174 70
96
104
50 157
74
63 161 60 144
94
101
57 132
87
40
92
13
13
20
33
14
23
46
19
27
537 297 486 237 475 237 505 264 564 285 578 295 594 311 595
240
249
238
241
279
283
283
30
28
2000
18
10
8
2001
27 12
15
2002
26
2003
54
17
2007
66 88
24
5
9
58
20
2006
69 90
17
14
54 71
19
53
2004
35
9 37
26
2005
2006
71
17
2007
Male
Female
20–29 20% 14% 15% 11% 15% 11% 15% 11% 13% 10% 15% 12% 15% 11% 15% 12%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
4%
3%
Male
Female
30–39 27% 19% 26% 16% 22% 12% 23% 15% 21% 13% 21% 15% 25% 16% 26% 18%
8%
10%
9%
8%
7%
7%
9%
8%
Male
Female
40–49 28% 12% 33% 13% 31% 14% 31% 13% 29% 13% 30% 13% 29% 13% 29% 12%
15%
20%
17%
18%
16%
17%
16%
17%
Male
Female
50–59 23%
Male
Female
60
plus
Male
Female
Total
3%
9% 22% 7% 26% 10% 25% 10% 28% 11% 28% 10% 24% 10% 22% 7%
14%
15%
16%
15%
17%
17%
15%
15%
1%
2%
4%
2%
2%
6%
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
9%
4%
6%
6%
2%
4%
6%
2%
4%
8%
3%
5%
100 55% 100 49% 100 50% 100 52% 100 51% 100 51% 100 52% 100 51%
% 45% % 51% % 50% % 48% % 49% % 49% % 48% % 49%
*7. Mr John Hanks (Oxford) asked the Secretary General:
Within each of the categories shown in the table of Ordinations 1994–2006 in Church
Statistics 2005/6, what is the breakdown by age group (as used in the table of age of
candidates recommended for training 1994–2006)?
The Secretary General replied: Detailed breakdowns for years before 2006 are not
readily available since data have been retained only at the level of detail needed for
publication in Church Statistics. From the available data it is possible to break down
the figures of the 2006 and 2007 ordinations into stipendiary, non-stipendiary and
ordained local ministry for men and women of different age groups. They are as follows:
34
11:39:27:11:08
Page 34
Page 35
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
Numbers of
Ordinands
AGE
Male
20–29
2006
NSM
OLM
Total 2006
17
0
0
8
1
0
9
5
1
0
6
30–39
78
7
6
91
65
6
0
71
17
5
1
23
26
2
0
28
40–49
42
16
5
63
36
20
7
63
48
28
5
81
44
28
1
73
18
49
9
76
10
40
12
62
31
68
14
113
20
57
14
91
60 plus
0
18
14
32
0
16
5
21
0
26
12
38
0
27
16
43
All Ages
163
92
36
291
128
82
24
234
104
128
32
264
95
118
31
244
267
220
68
555
223
200
55
478
50–59
Female
Male
Stipendiary
29
Female
Male
Total 2007
2
Female
Male
OLM
2
Female
Male
2007
NSM
25
Female
Male
Stipendiary
Female
Total
17
Notes: Ages of 3 female NSMs not known in 2006. Female stipendiary total for 2006
includes six part-time.
Proportions
AGE
Male
20–29
Female
Male
30–39
Female
Male
40–49
Female
Male
50–59
Female
Male
60 plus
Female
Male
All Ages
Female
Total
Stipendiary
2007
NSM
OLM
Total 2007 Stipendiary
2006
NSM
OLM
Total 2006
9%
1%
3%
5%
8%
0%
0%
4%
3%
0%
0%
2%
2%
1%
0%
1%
29%
3%
9%
16%
29%
3%
0%
15%
6%
2%
1%
4%
12%
1%
0%
6%
16%
7%
7%
11%
16%
10%
13%
13%
18%
13%
7%
15%
20%
14%
2%
15%
7%
22%
13%
14%
4%
20%
22%
13%
12%
31%
21%
20%
9%
29%
25%
19%
0%
8%
21%
6%
0%
8%
9%
4%
0%
12%
18%
7%
0%
14%
29%
9%
61%
42%
53%
52%
57%
41%
44%
49%
39%
58%
47%
48%
43%
59%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
56%
100%
51%
100%
Board of Education
8. Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield) asked the Chairman of the Board of Education:
What financial help can the Board of Education offer to help church schools with the
school twinning project such as the local authorities are doing for community schools in
the Government’s Community Cohesion Initiative?
35
11:39:27:11:08
Page 35
Page 36
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
The Bishop of Dover (Rt Revd Stephen Venner): The Board of Education and National
Society are fully committed to community cohesion, as are the other faith communities
and Government with whom we signed the Faith in the System document last year. The
DCSF funding for community cohesion initiatives is routed via local authorities, and is
available to all maintained schools. It is not restricted to Community Schools. Indeed,
local authorities are under a legal duty to treat all maintained schools equitably in this,
as in all matters of revenue provision. There should therefore be no requirement for the
Church of England to provide additional funds for this purpose. This is a Government
initiative and is properly funded by it.
Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield): Could this information be communicated to all diocesan
boards of education and thus to all Church schools, particularly the ‘A’ schools as soon
as possible to ensure that they get their fair share of local authority access and funding
to these schools winning projects?
The Bishop of Dover: I will ensure that it is.
9. Mr Steve Mitchell (Derby) asked the Chairman of the Board of Education:
Accepting that the Christian faith has a gospel to proclaim, in what ways will the Board
help those, both paid and unpaid, who have a Christian faith to share that faith in
schools and colleges in a sensitive and appropriate manner?
The Bishop of Dover: The Board encourages diocesan boards of education to support
all of those who work in schools, often by providing appropriate training and resources.
There are significant and growing opportunities in all schools for Christians to enable
children to encounter and understand faith and people of faith and to meet the living
God. Agreed syllabuses encourage schools to invite members of faith communities,
including Christians, to contribute from their own experience to the religious education
of pupils in a variety of ways. In Church of England schools the Christian ethos and
distinctiveness underpin all that the school does, offering a range of opportunities to
share faith with pupils, both explicitly through religious education and collective
worship, and implicitly as Christian volunteers build relationships with staff and
students alike. The welcome growth of chaplaincy provision in colleges and schools
provides opportunities for Christians to contribute to the spiritual development of
young people. Parishes too have an important part to play in giving support to
Christians working in schools, which remain, as we have said, at the heart of the
Church’s mission.
Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells): Thank you for that helpful answer, Bishop. I would
like to ask you in what specific ways the board is publicizing and making readily
available either distinctive Christian collective worship materials suitable for both
Church and community schools, such as the Open the Book Bible story presentations
that are proving so popular and educationally acceptable, and systems like that which
build good and healthy relationships between Churches and all kinds of schools?
36
11:39:27:11:08
Page 36
Page 37
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
The Bishop of Dover: The National Society itself has a web site with resources on it and
there is a wealth of material, some produced directly by diocesan boards and people
working for them, and also by others, which is readily available. I do not want to
advertise Google or Yahoo or anywhere else, but they too provide rich resources. The
National Society provides resources itself.
10. Revd Professor Richard Burridge (London University) asked the Chairman of the
Board of Education:
In the light of the decision of the Synod at the February 2005 group of sessions to seek to
ensure, where appropriate, that each higher education institution is served by at least
one whole-time Church of England chaplain, what progress is being made on this?
The Bishop of Dover: A questionnaire was sent to all diocesan bishops in 2007, asking
them to identify their higher education institutions and the name of the chaplains
serving them, indicating whether they are whole or part time. Returns have been
received from 36 dioceses and from those responses, excluding institutions with fewer
than 5000 students, the Board has identified 16 target institutions for further
conversation about whether and how chaplaincy provision might be increased. Contact
has been or is being initiated with the appropriate diocese in each case. It must be said
that these are crude figures and need further exploration in each case. We have sent the
list to Dr Burridge, and will send it to anyone who requests it.
University of Aston
Bath Spa University
City University
6880
5337
12869
De Montfort
University of East Anglia
Edge Hill University
Goldsmith’s
Huddersfield University
Leicester
Liverpool University/John
Moores
Middlesex University
University of Northampton
Nottingham Trent University
Oxford Brookes
University College, London
University of Worcester
18692
11094
8834
5875
13359
12366
16825
0.5 curate
4 hours per week
Two part-time chaplains (but Methodist
co-ordinator)
Currently vacant. 0.75%?
0.5 of a post shared with parish
Minimal
0.5
0.5 of a curate’s post
0.75% (also warden of readers 0.25%)
Vacant (soon) under review
20921
8640
22768
14448
17189
5031
Part-time occasional
0.5 with parish
0.8?
?
17.5 hours
1 day
37
11:39:27:11:08
Page 37
Page 38
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (London University): Thank you very much for that
detailed reply. I am extremely grateful for the list that you have sent me. It was
fascinating given that it contained two universities whose chaplains used to be key
members of the chaplaincy network and another college in London with which I would
suggest King’s has been long in creative dialogue. Can I ask you to talk not just to the
dioceses but to the institutions themselves, and also to Government, given all the noises
that Government has made about funding Muslim chaplains in recent years, and in
particular, of course, also to replace Hugh Shilson-Thomas at the Board of Education as
soon as possible, given Hugh’s enormous work with the Department of Education on
the importance of chaplaincy provision across the whole board and not just the
Government’s paranoia about Muslim extremism?
The Bishop of Dover: You will know that a report has recently been written about
higher education chaplaincies, particularly the multi-faith situation, in addition to work
that has been done in previous years, and we are constantly seeking to encourage central
Government to work with us. There are very warm relationships between ourselves and
the department involved. We were extraordinarily sad that we were unable to appoint a
replacement for Hugh at the first go; we are going to give it another go. If any of you feel
called or know somebody who should feel called, then remember that for many people
the answer to a vocation is when somebody else says to them, ‘they are talking about
you’.
Cathedrals and Church Buildings Division
11. Mr Martin Dales (York) asked the Chairman of the Cathedrals and Church
Buildings Division:
Given that OFWAT intends to encourage every water company to charge for surface
water drainage in the way that Northumbrian Water, Yorkshire Water, United Utilities
and Severn Trent Water do at the moment, has an assessment been made of the likely
estimated cost to churches when this is introduced nationwide and, if it has, what is it?
Mr Tim Allen: Individual churches will be charged annually for surface water drainage
on the basis of the site area of roofs, car parks and other impermeable areas draining
into the public sewers. For small churches this could be a few hundred pounds,
£1,000 or more for a medium-sized church, and £10,000 or more for some cathedrals
and greater churches. There is no charge for areas of a site draining into soakaways.
On this basis, the estimated annual cost to Church of England churches and cathedrals
for surface water drainage is likely to be around £5 million but could be very much
higher.
I should add that churches using the public sewers will also be liable in addition for
highways drainage contributions based on site area charging, but without reduction for
use of soakaways, meaning an additional estimated annual cost of around £10 million.
38
11:39:27:11:08
Page 38
Page 39
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
Mr Martin Dales (York): Since April of this year, over 25,000 people have signed the
church water bills petition on the Prime Minister’s web site. It has been recently
running at about 1,000 a day for the last few weeks; it is currently third out of 6,000
petitions on that website, reflecting serious public concern on this issue. With this
obviously being a widespread problem, which when introduced across the whole of
England is going to affect so many, what is his advice to churches when faced with
these new bills?
Mr Tim Allen: The advice is that any Church receiving an assessment should check
carefully to ensure that the overall site area and any areas covered by buildings or hard
surfaces are shown correctly. Churches should also establish which of these, if any,
drain into the public sewers. Churches should challenge inaccurate assessments as soon
as possible: this is most important. Any concerns should be raised first with the water
company concerned and if not satisfied with the response, referred to the local water
consumer council.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): Is the chairman aware that this new charge
is going to put very particular pressures on inner city parishes and that, for example, an
inner city parish like my own faces a bill of £2,500 per year in order to meet this kind of
charge?
Mr Tim Allen: Happily, I am not the chairman but, as I hope you picked up from the
reply, it is quite clear that those in authority are extremely concerned about this. I think
it is a fair point to say it is city and town churches that will face the greatest problem,
because most of us in the country are able to get rid of a lot of water through soakaways
and do not, for example, have the benefit of lavatories in churches, which incur some of
the charges. Your point is very well taken.
12. Mr Martin Dales (York) asked the Chairman of the Cathedrals and Church
Buildings Division:
What progress is there in discussions between the Churches and OFWAT regarding high
water bills?
13. Mr Michael Streeter (Chichester) asked the Chairman of the Cathedrals and Church
Buildings Division:
What advice has been sought and received from the Chairman of OFWAT regarding the
action taken by certain water companies to change the method of charging churches for
water services?
Mr Tim Allen: With permission, Madam Chairman, I will answer Mr Dales and Mr
Streeter together. Representatives (including Mr Dales) of the Churches Legislation
Advisory Service, which used to be called the Churches Main Committee of the Church
of England, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church met recently with
39
11:39:27:11:08
Page 39
Page 40
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
OFWAT officials. The meeting was helpful but there remain a number of ongoing
concerns – in particular, first, about the relative impact of the new drainage charges
on faith groups, charity and community organizations; and, second, about the
approach which is being taken by the water companies in implementing them.
However, OFWAT remains of the view that the site area charging is the most costreflective way of charging non-household customers and reflects the Government’s
guidance to them.
Mr Martin Dales (York): In my Private Member’s Motion on church water bills I draw
attention to the Secretary of State’s guidance of 2000, which says that ‘it would be
inappropriate to charge all non-household customers, including places of worship, as if
they were businesses’, guidance repeated as recently as April 2007 in the House of
Commons by the minister. Will he be seeking a meeting with Government in the near
future to review how this guidance has been interpreted by OFWAT and the water
companies?
Mr Tim Allen: I understand the sessions are continuing with OFWAT through the
Churches Legislation Advisory Service. However, there is mounting evidence of the
severe impact that these new charges will have on places of worship, charities and
community organizations and on their work and activities, which cannot have been the
intention of the Minister of State’s guidance to the regulator, which Mr Dales has
helpfully and accurately quoted in his supplementary question.
Dr Edmund Marshall (Wakefield): Is this not a case where there is a crying need for the
Churches together to make their own representations directly to political authority, to
the ministers concerned and through all elected Members of Parliament? It is a matter of
national law which needs a change.
Mr Tim Allen: I think parishes individually and the Churches collectively would we well
advised to do just that sort of lobbying.
Ministry Division
*14. Mr Nigel Chetwood (Gloucester) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
How was the money from Vote 1 distributed among colleges and courses last year, and
what were the average costs for training ordinands for each institution concerned?
The Bishop of Norwich (Rt Revd Graham James) replied:
40
11:39:27:11:08
Page 40
Page 41
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
VOTE 1 TRAINING GRANT PAYMENTS for 2007
COLLEGES
Cranmer Hall
Mirfield
Oak Hill
Queen’s College, Birmingham
Ridley Hall
Ripon College, Cuddesdon
St John’s College, Nottingham
St Stephen’s House
Trinity College, Bristol
Westcott House
Wycliffe Hall
St Michael’s College, Llandaff
University Fees
Miscellaneous
TOTAL COLLEGES
COURSES
LCTP
EAMTC
EMMTC
NEOC
NOC
NTMTC
OMC
SNWTP
STETS
SEITE
SWMTC
WMMTC
WEMTC
Miscellaneous
Pre-theological training
Course travel expenses
TOTAL COURSES
Block Tuition
Grants &
Maintenance
Grants
FTE
Ordinands
(Note 1)
£
540,159
261,614
639,857
208,029
802,815
545,506
764,701
280,011
587,300
663,341
786,902
11,592
317,880
88,937
£6,498,644
(Note 1)
Average per
FTE ordinand
52
29
57
17
71
54
74
22
56
61
72
1
£
£10,431
£9,115
£11,226
£12,002
£11,382
£10,049
£10,299
£12,709
£10,519
£10,934
£10,879
£11,592
566
£11,487
112,381
418,252
157,813
190,250
411,017
327,268
270,778
59,511
504,289
381,220
203,585
202,907
193,961
16,688
23
83
27
31
82
60
49
29
108
83
37
45
37
£4,816
£5,060
£5,845
£6,072
£5,033
£5,485
£5,564
£2,052
£4,666
£4,575
£5,453
£4,463
£5,182
6,094
12
£508
158,875
£3,614,889
707
£5,113
41
11:39:27:11:08
Page 41
Page 42
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
ORDAINED LOCAL MINISTRY SCHEMES (Note 2)
Blackburn OLM Scheme
8,301
5
Canterbury OLM Scheme
15,624
7
Coventry OLM Scheme
8,301
5
Durham OLM Scheme
—
6
Gloucester OLM Scheme
—
3
Guildford Diocesan Ministry Course
24,033
17
Hereford Local Ministry Scheme
—
1
Lichfield OLM Scheme
26,360
15
Lincoln OLM Scheme
—
0
Liverpool OLM Scheme
11,476
5
Manchester OLM Scheme
29,044
12
Newcastle OLM Scheme
11,720
3
Norwich OLM Scheme
19,040
16
Oxford OLM Scheme
20,992
18
St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Scheme
17,088
12
Salisbury OLM Scheme
19,284
16
Southwark OLM Scheme (note 3)
—
18
Wakefield Ministry Course
17,461
12
£1,660
£2,232
£1,660
£0
£0
£1,414
£0
£1,757
£0
£2,295
£2,420
£3,907
£1,190
£1,166
£1,424
£1,205
£0
£1,455
TOTAL OLM SCHEMES
£1,338
£228,724
MIXED-MODE TRAINING
171
46,400
GRAND TOTAL
£10,388,657
Notes
1. The Archbishops’ Council Financial year covers two academic years.
The costs and the numbers of ordinands reflect the proportions for the 2006/07 and
2007/08 academic years.
2. Payments to OLM schemes are made for the financial year after confirmation of the
number of ordinands.
3. A payment to this course was made in the 2008 Financial year.
15. Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield) asked the Chairman of the Ministry
Division:
In the light of investigations into the dominant personality types of Anglican clergy and
the possible implications for mission, does the Ministry Division have information on:
(a) the percentage of extroverts and introverts among candidates for
ordination who attend bishops’ selection advisory panels;
(b) the percentage of extroverts and introverts that are recommended for
ordination by bishops’ selection advisory panels;
42
11:39:27:11:08
Page 42
Page 43
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
(c) the percentage of extroverts and introverts among bishops’ advisers;
and
(d) whether there is any evidence that the prevailing personality types of
bishops’ advisers has any bearing on the balance of extroverts and
introverts recommended for ordination?
The Bishop of Norwich: Although the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is not accepted
uncritically, it can be a useful tool for personality profiling and is used by some directors
of ordinands in dioceses for the assessment of potential ordinands. Currently the
Ministry Division does not use personality-type profiling in the selection procedures or
in the training of bishops’ advisers. Consequently, the information about numbers of
introverts and extroverts among candidates for ordination or bishops’ advisers is not
available, nor indeed for bishops themselves. However, looking at the first two rows,
I sense a perfect balance between them!
Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield): Can I ask the Bishop to take the issue of a review
back to Ministry Division, not in terms of selection issues but in terms of monitoring;
otherwise the majority of personality types might simply be repeating themselves in the
next generation of clergy and we will not know it.
The Bishop of Norwich: I am quite happy to take it back to the ministry council. It is
worth pointing out, of course, that we have responsibility only for selection procedures
rather than that which happens in dioceses, and it is quite frequent that vocations
advisers are using this sort of personality profiling. That seems to me to be the right
place for it to be done, but it is also worth remembering that at the moment the
recommendation rate of bishops’ advisory panels is slightly over 82 per cent, so not
terribly many people are being cut out.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): If this is taken back to review and more information
is gathered, can I ask whether or not the other parts of the personality profile would
also be taken into account because we do not want to have too many people who are
just perceptive or judgemental, which is one of the other Myers-Briggs indicators.
Myers-Briggs by itself is unlikely to be the perfect answer. If we were to start using
personality profiles in the main, would you also be looking for access or reflectors in
terms of working out which way training should be used to reflect things properly?
The Bishop of Norwich: We will look at it again, I can promise you. One of the things
that I do recognize about Myers-Briggs and so many other personality profiling
indicators is that the good news is always balanced by the bad news in terms of the
personalities. Apart from the bishops, there is no perfectly balanced personality. One of
the things that we are concerned about in the use of personality profiling is the overdependence upon it that can result from its use within any form of selection procedure.
That is what has made us hesitant about an over-emphasis on it in bishops’ advisory
panels, but I do think it has a place in the wider process of discernment.
43
11:39:27:11:08
Page 43
Page 44
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
16. Mr Steve Mitchell (Derby) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
What action is currently being taken to ensure that the vocations of the laity to both
clerical and lay ministry are being effectively supported and encouraged?
The Bishop of Norwich: The Ministry Division views the encouragement of vocations
among the laity to ordained and lay ministry as a priority. To this end, it supports the
network of directors of ordinands and vocations advisers – there are many of them; I
think the last calculation has somewhere around 300 in the Church as a whole – who
undertake the work of encouraging vocations at diocesan level. The Ministry Division
also organizes vocational conferences and produces a range of promotional literature to
help people explore their vocation. One of the key initiatives, which is being launched
on the Saturday of this Synod, is the encouragement of young vocations. Some new
literature has been produced which is designed to appeal to young people. There is
also an exciting new website which can be found at www.callwaiting.org.uk.
17. Revd Professor Richard Burridge (LondonUniversity) asked the Chairman of the
Ministry Division:
In the absence of a formal report on the progress of the Hind implementation group,
what news is there of the implementation of the regional training partnerships, as
discussed at the July 2004 group of sessions and reports back at subsequent sessions?
The Bishop of Norwich: Since the progress report to Synod in July 2007, published as
GS Misc 863, important strides have been taken in institutional arrangements, including
the setting up of St Mellitus College to serve the region which comprises the dioceses of
London and Chelmsford, and the making of the RTP covenant in the South Central
area. In a small minority of regions relatively little progress has been made. The
Ministry Division will continue to work with the participating dioceses in order to find a
creative way forward with them. Other promising features include the development of
IME 1–7 programmes which bring together pre- and post-ordination phases of training,
and of regional co-operation in related areas bringing about new provision in training
for pioneer ministry, whether lay or ordained, done across regional areas.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (London University): Thank you for that answer.
Obviously I am delighted to hear about the setting up of St Mellitus and its service in St
Paul’s last week and of the IME 1–7 programmes, and indeed our involvement at King’s
in both of those. Given that when we overwhelmingly adopted the Hind report four
years ago at this Synod, there was great concern about planning blight and the need to
do these things speedily, I am still concerned, in your answer, about the idea of relatively
little progress in certain regions. Can I ask what steps you will take, as well as listening
to the participating dioceses and the institutions, to suggest and encourage different
ways in which they might actually bring the different colleges and courses, modes and
methods together so that we can fulfil the Hind vision, not just to save money but so that
everybody in training should benefit from the experience of the various methods of
ministry training?
44
11:39:27:11:08
Page 44
Page 45
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
The Bishop of Norwich: I think it can only be working with rather than simply listening
to: there are no powers of compulsion. There are various means of encouragement, but
it does depend upon a willingness within the regions themselves to develop regional
working. I do not think one can get away from that.
The Bishop of Durham (Rt Revd Tom Wright): When you talk about creative ways
forward, may we beg that some way be found to be a bit more flexible financially for
those nascent RTPs that are trying to balance their budgets and do not have any spare
cash in their diocesan budgets to go suddenly £50,000 or £100,000 above what they are
already spending on ministerial training and where, for instance, in the current rules of
the game, if you have up to ten students you get roughly £30,000 of pensions (these are
round numbers) and suddenly when you have eleven students, it jumps to 50 or 54 or
something like that; then when you go to 16, it suddenly jumps to 90. The differences
between those sums may be tiny in terms of the Ministry Division budget; they may be
make or break sums in terms of where a diocese, or an RTP rather, might actually be. I
speak without having conferred with my brother from Newcastle, who is with me trying
to work on this. He is, by the way, a national authority on Myers-Briggs matters – but
that is a whole other ball game! This is very serious; I bet there are other RTPs in the
same position as we are where a huge amount of person hours have been poured into
trying to make this thing work. We are determined to make it work but it has to be as
close to cost-neutral as you can get, otherwise the dioceses are just going to say ‘Sorry,
we want to do what Ministry Division is asking us to do, but we simply do not have the
cash’. A little bit of flexibility – I know Vote 1 is very difficult and all that –
The Chairman: Bishop Tom, may I ask you to ask your question?
The Bishop of Durham (Rt Revd Tom Wright): It was a Pauline question. Can you be
more flexible on the money to help us do what we are trying to do in obedience to the
dictates we have had?
The Bishop of Norwich: The intention of the block grant system is to introduce more
flexibility and more predictability in the income that is received by colleges and courses
and therefore within regions. That is the result of listening to this sort of plea for a
greater degree of flexibility. What we cannot do is pay more than in the diocese of
Birmingham or anywhere else; it is finding money that we do not have. The budget for
theological education and training is passed by this Synod as Vote 1, and that is all we
have to use.
The Chairman: I am going to use my discretion and allow a third supplementary on this
one, but do not all get carried away. I would remind you, please, to make your
supplementaries as succinct as possible.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): I have previously asked if some attention could be
given to the question of General Synod representation, and at what level, on these RTPs.
Is that question going to be addressed in the development of the RTPs?
45
11:39:27:11:08
Page 45
Page 46
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
The Bishop of Norwich: It is addressed through the institutions themselves and of
course it depends on what sort of partnership is established.
18. Revd Paul Perkin (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
What consultation took place with ordinands and theological colleges prior to the
adoption from September 2008 of a system of individual maintenance grants which
colleges then have to collect from each individual student, and what were the results
of such consultation?
The Bishop of Norwich: The new policy on student maintenance represents a return to
the previous system. It was carefully considered by the Ministry Division Finance Panel,
the Bishops’ Committee for Ministry and the Archbishops’ Council, which all had
representatives of the colleges among their membership. The change is part of the
introduction of the block grant system for college support and aims, among other
things, to clarify the various governance roles and bring greater transparency to the
funding of the institutions.
I believe that the return to the previous system restores the proper relationship between
ordinands and their college. It treats ordinands as responsible individuals and
recognizes that most ordinands have experience of looking after their own financial
affairs.
Revd John Cook (London): Is the chairman aware of the disquiet amongst ordinands
and colleges at the changes, the changed nature of the relationship between ordinands
and colleges and of the increased administrative burden imposed on the colleges by this
change?
The Bishop of Norwich: It is a return to the historic system. We actually fund
ordinands for training; we did not fund institutions themselves in relation to
maintenance.
19. Revd Paul Perkin (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
With regard to the move in September 2008 to a system of individual maintenance
grants for ordinands, did the Ministry Division assess the impact within the residential
colleges on community life and formation of ordinands and their families?
The Bishop of Norwich: It is the responsibility of each college to determine the
requirements for community life. The change is a modification in the manner of
payment and will not affect formation or community life. Unmarried ordinands are
normally expected to live in college. I am aware that there have been suggestions that
some ordinands might prefer to arrange their own accommodation and meals outside
the college, but this would not generally be possible within each college’s rules and
required standards of residency. Indeed, this change represents a return to the historic
46
11:39:27:11:08
Page 46
Page 47
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
pattern of payment of maintenance grants customary when community life in our
colleges was arguably stronger.
20. Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
Is the Ministry Division aware of reports which suggest that Wycliffe Hall has now
spent over £100,000 on legal advice in relation to allegations of unfair dismissal and
staff grievances, and will an independent inquiry into this, including interviewing all the
people involved, form part of the special Bishops’ Inspection of the governance and HR
policy and practice of Wycliffe Hall, or is it content to leave this to the Charity
Commission?
The Bishop of Norwich: The Ministry Division was not aware of such reports, though
it is now. The Bishop’s Inspection will look into all matters of the running of the
college, as with any other inspection. The inspection which is currently under way is
exceptional only in that it is a full inspection of the college which has been brought
forward by about six to twelve months. The inspection has been thoroughly prepared
for by the college and the inspectors. It is not limited simply to the time the inspectors
are in residence.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): Thank you for that answer. It has answered a number of my
questions. However, can you say why you are not telling us whether the inspection will
include interviewing all the staff concerned, including those who have left voluntarily
and involuntarily?
The Bishop of Norwich: I cannot tell you because I am not the inspector. The senior
inspector has a good deal of freedom to organize the inspection as he thinks best related
to what he finds. I would not like either to instruct him, since I do not have the powers to
do so, or to curb the freedom that he has.
21. Revd Katie Tupling (Derby) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
What steps has the Ministry Division taken to ensure the reconciliation of all those
affected by the upheavals at Wycliffe Hall in 2007, which involved many tutorial and
administrative staff writing to the Hall Council or its Chairman, some resigning or being
dismissed, and some remaining on the staff but distressed by these developments?
The Bishop of Norwich: Theological colleges are independent, self-governing
institutions. The Ministry Division has no direct responsibility in matters which are
rightly the concern of a college’s governing body. However, the Bishops’ Committee for
Ministry brought forward the inspection of the college which is already under way, as I
have said. Like all inspections, this will investigate the full range of governance and
staffing issues.
Revd Katie Tupling (Derby): Could the Bishop clarify exactly the relationship between
47
11:39:27:11:08
Page 47
Page 48
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
the Ministry Division and theological colleges? If on the one hand there is no direct
concern for such matters as relationships within colleges that are meant to model
ministry to their ordinands, but on the other hand they do actually have investigations
every five years, are the investigations purely academic and financial to make sure that
the ship is running well or are they more concerned with the crew?
The Bishop of Norwich: No, the Ministry Division does not actually run the
inspections; they are on behalf of the House of Bishops. It is not the Ministry Division
inspecting anything. What the Ministry Division attempts to do is to assist the
inspectors in terms of their criteria, which cover a whole range of issues, including
governance and staffing issues, because it is expected that in colleges and on courses the
staff will in themselves model the sort of ministry that we hope the students will
eventually exercise when ordained.
Dr Elaine Storkey (Ely): Since truth always comes before reconciliation, is the Ministry
Division at least able to assure us that there will be every attempt to get at the truth of
what actually happened at Wycliffe Hall, in the hope that exposing the truth will itself
bring healing and hope?
The Bishop of Norwich: I hope all inspections are concerned with finding the truth of
what is going on in any college or course.
22. Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
Given that the Chairman of the Ministry Division told the General Synod in February
2008 ‘A full inspection of the college to which I think you are referring is about to be
under way’, in response to a Question asking if the Ministry Division would instigate an
independent inquiry as a result of a college’s lawyer admitting to an employment
tribunal that the correct procedures were not followed, will he now tell the Synod how
this inspection differs both from ‘the process to inform itself regarding the situation’ at
the college set in place by the Bishop’s Committee for Ministry, about which the Bishop
of Derby told the General Synod in July 2007, and from the regular five-yearly
inspection of the college that is not due to start until the autumn of 2008, and will he tell
the Synod how far this special inspection has progressed and what conclusions it has
reached?
The Bishop of Norwich: The Bishops’ Committee for Ministry initially indicated that it
would instigate a limited inquiry, as set out in the question. However, on further
reflection it believed that a full inspection was more appropriate, largely for the sort of
reason that I have just been exploring in answer to other Questions. This will have the
advantage of giving the House of Bishops an in-depth view of the college (as in any
inspection) and of coming to a view on whether the college, like any other, is a fit place
for ordinands to train. Thus, this will not be a special inspection but a full, normal
inspection which has been brought forward.
48
11:39:27:11:08
Page 48
Page 49
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): In view of your answer to this Question and the previous
ones, could you clarify for us the relationship between the House of Bishops, the
Bishops’ Committee for Ministry and the inspectors? Who appoints the inspectors, who
are they accountable to, and are they working on behalf of the bishops or are they
working on behalf of somebody else?
The Bishop of Norwich: They report to the House of Bishops and bishops have an input
at various levels into the appointment of them. Things have changed recently as a result
of the implementation of the Ministry Council and the changes in relation to the
inspectorate, which is moving to an audit system. The answers to your questions are
rather fluid at the moment. I think what I would prefer to do is to write to you with a
better account than I can give here, which I am happy to make available to members of
Synod, but it would be quite a lengthy answer.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): Is the Chairman of the Ministry Division aware that a
recent distinguished visiting lecturer to Wycliffe found the college full of students
thrilled by the work they are doing and a united staff?
The Bishop of Norwich: I was not aware of it but I am now. Thank you very much.
23. Revd Katie Tupling (Derby) asked the Chairman of the Ministry Division:
What advice can the Ministry Division give to General Synod and Ministry Division
representatives who serve on theological college councils on their responsibilities
and powers, and how are they expected to relate to the wider Church when there
are serious concerns about standards in the college or the conduct of college
authorities?
The Bishop of Norwich: General Synod representatives as governors, trustees or
directors of theological colleges are required to act in the best interests of the institution
at all times. They receive guidance issued by the Ministry Division, which includes
publications on good practice in governance and educational and institutional
standards. As governors they should have regard to views expressed in the wider Church
about the institution, but they have a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of
that institution and not some other body.
Revd Katie Tupling (Derby): In the light of GAFCON and the perhaps inaccurate press
reports that two theological colleges are going to be earmarked for perhaps a third
province method of training their ordinands, what does the Ministry Division make of
that in the light of no direct concern for the workings of theological training colleges but
offering guidance to governors on those boards?
The Bishop of Norwich: I am not sure what the Ministry Division makes of it. I know
what the Chair of the Ministry Division makes of it but it is probably best that he does
not say anything about that at the present time!
49
11:39:27:11:08
Page 49
Page 50
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): Given that reconciliation is part of a priest’s
calling and that many clergy teaching in theological colleges hold a bishop’s licence, is
there any role for a diocesan bishop in a situation such as the one that has occurred at
Wycliffe?
The Bishop of Norwich: Possibly in relation to individuals, but of course some colleges
do have Visitors who also have powers, if called in, when reconciliation is needed in an
institution. Yes, is the answer, but it would have to be an answer with all sorts of
qualifications, I think, in relation to the proper independence of the institutions
themselves. We need to recognize that this Synod has vigorously defended the selfgoverning, independent nature of our colleges over generations. That is where we are. If
we wanted the Ministry Division to be in charge of our colleges, then Synod could have
voted for that on various occasions, but has declined to do so.
Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of
Service Committee
24. Revd Prebendary Stephen Lynas (Bath and Wells) asked the Chairman of the
Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee:
Given that the Sheffield formula was devised some 30 years ago, and that since that time
(a) the number of stipendiary clergy has almost halved; and
(b) there have been massive changes in population distribution,
what progress has been made in the work to replace, or find a new alternative to, the
Sheffield formula, referred to by the Chairman of DRACSC in his Synod answer to the
Archdeacon of Dorking (Q70) in February 2007?
25. Mr Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the Deployment,
Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee:
Has the Committee considered the continuing relevance of the Clergy Share formula to
the deployment of stipendiary clergy in the Church of England and whether there should
now be a review, given the significant increases of population and significant
demographic changes within the population of some metropolitan areas, especially
Greater London?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): With permission, Madam
Chairman, I will answer Prebendary Lynas and Mr Greenwood together.
Both questions refer to the Clergy Share Formula. The formula has endured because the
principles of equity and mutual support which underpin it have a powerful moral force,
and at a practical level it does its job, which includes taking into account population
50
11:39:27:11:08
Page 50
Page 51
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
changes. As well as enabling us to place over 300 deacons into curacies this year, the
formula is a key component in the calculations for allocating Commissioners’ funds. We
should not underestimate the complexity of any work to bring change in this area. That
which may benefit some dioceses could cause great difficulties to others. DRACSC and
the Ministry Division are bringing dioceses together to discuss strategic deployment
planning, and how the ministry aims of every diocese can be supported; the House of
Bishops will be taking a report on this early next year.
Revd Prebendary Stephen Lynas (Bath and Wells): Is the Bishop aware that his answer
may take him into that dangerous territory which lies between jam tomorrow and
parking in the long grass? Given that the Bishop’s answer to the Archdeacon of
Dorking, to which my question referred in February 2007, talked about proposals for
the replacement of the current system, why does he now appear to be avoiding the
language of replacement or new alternatives to Sheffield?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Primarily because we keep looking at it and cannot
think of a satisfactory alternative, but doubtless the Bishop of Willesden is about to tell
us what it would be.
The Chairman: I hope he is going to ask a question.
The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent): Would the Chair of DRACSC
accept my thanks for the movement on these issues? I very rarely give out plaudits for
MinDiv but this one happens to be true. I do want to impress upon him to take note of
the need for urgency on the matter. It seems to me that there are two or three issues
underlying this which are becoming major questions. Will the work being done address
(i) the question of deployability of ordinands who have been through training, which is
a part of this and which seems to me to be an issue; (ii) the numbers of clergy who are
hidden in the existing formula by all kinds of dioceses and by all kinds of methods
whereby you do not have real figures; and (iii) the need for precisely that justice and
equity which we all want to see in the Church, which at the moment the Sheffield
formula does not really deliver, as I mentioned in my Question to him in the last group
of sessions?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Yes, all three of those issues are taken seriously. When
we try to wrestle with this particular question I am quite sure that the diocese of London
never hides any of its clergy.
Mr Adrian Greenwood (Southwark): Thank you for your answer to both the questions.
What powers exist to ensure that dioceses stick to their share under the formula and
what sanctions are being used where dioceses exceed their share under the formula?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: No powers exist. There is a sanction for those dioceses
which are receiving money directly from the Church Commissioners as poorer dioceses
but if they are not receiving any anyway, then nothing can be done about that either.
51
11:39:27:11:08
Page 51
Page 52
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): Given the fact that your answer included the suggestion
that the Sheffield formula was designed to support equitable ministry provision across
the country, what steps are being taken in today’s world, where we have different
patterns of ministry, to ensure that a new formula could be derived which caters for
both stipendiary, non-stipendiary and Readership ministries?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I am grateful for that question, which makes the
situation even more complex. Our primary work has been with stipendiary clergy, not
least because, at least in theory, they are deployable.
26. Brigadier Ian Dobbie (Rochester) asked the Chairman of the Deployment,
How many ordinands who are graduating from our theological colleges this summer are
not yet placed in curacies, and what action is being taken in that connection, including
by the House of Bishops?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: There are currently nine ordinands graduating from
our theological colleges this summer who are not yet placed in curacies. The staff of the
Ministry Division have been monitoring the situation closely. DRACSC and the
Ministry Council have been kept informed.
27. Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield) asked the Chairman of the Deployment,
HM Government has stated that ‘A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to
spend more than 10% of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime
(usually 21 degrees for the main living area and 18 degrees for other occupied rooms)’
[http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/fuel-poverty.index.html]. Given that many stipendiary
clergy live in accommodation that is larger than they might have otherwise chosen, does
the Committee (a) know how many stipendiary clergy, who have no other income
source, are experiencing fuel poverty; and (b) have policies, directly or through the
dioceses, which will enable stipendiary clergy to cope with rising fuel costs through the
provision of new and more efficient boilers, radiator thermostats, effective double
glazing and loft insulation et cetera?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: To answer point (a), the National Church Institutions
do not have information on other sources of clergy household income (e.g. spouse’s
earnings), and do not have information on how much individual clergy spend on fuel.
However, from information taken from a sample of clergy from the Clergy Pay System,
the average percentage of stipend that clergy spend on heating and lighting is about 6.2
per cent. The extremes were 20.4 per cent and 2 per cent.
In answer to point (b), Section 2, ‘Building performance’, of the Church Commissioners’
Green Guide, issued in 1998 by the Pastoral Department, gives guidance on heating and
52
11:39:27:11:08
Page 52
Page 53
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
energy conservation. I would expect that dioceses would take into account those parts
of it that are relevant, when looking at improvements to existing houses.
Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield): Is the Bishop aware that the BBC is predicting a
40 per cent increase in energy costs this winter, that increasingly stipendiary clergy
without spouse income who cannot choose their housing are going to face fuel poverty
and that the answer is not to increase stipends but energy efficiency? Will he write to the
diocesan parsonage committees to encourage this?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I am very happy to write to diocesan parsonage
committees to encourage them in the direction in which I know that many of them are
going quite quickly and as speedily as they can.
28. Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the Deployment,
In this period of increased fuel prices what representations have been made by the
Church of England to HM Revenue and Customs to consider increasing the car mileage
rate from 40p per mile?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: The Government, sadly, has made it clear that it has no
intention of increasing the rate, both because of its environmental commitments and
because its research has shown that the overall cost of motoring has fallen. I realize that
that gives little comfort to clergy whose ministry depends on their cars and who are
struggling with the rocketing cost of petrol, but there is nothing to stop PCCs agreeing
to pay more than 40p per mile, and further information has been placed on the notice
board:
Representations made by the Church
The Churches’ Main Committee made representations to Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs in 2005 and 2006 concerning Approved Mileage Allowance Payments.
However, the Government declined to increase their rates, on the grounds that (a) there
was no evidence that total motoring costs had increased significantly, and (b) the
existing rates encouraged ‘greener’ motoring.
Following the 2007 Budget, HMRC commenced a wide-ranging review of the structure
of AMAPs, especially whether (a) differing costs could be better recognized, (b)
environmental awareness could be encouraged, and (c) tax and NIC treatment could be
aligned.
In their submission CMC stressed (a) the particular problems faced by clergy in rural
areas, and (b) the need for any new system to be simple to administer.
The Treasury has announced that AMAPs are to remain unchanged.
53
11:39:27:11:08
Page 53
Page 54
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Mileage rates greater than AMAPs
There is nothing to stop PCCs and clergy agreeing mileage rates in excess of the
approved rates if they think that this is necessary to reimburse clergy for the cost of
motoring (subject to any guidelines issued by the diocese). However, any reimbursement
over approved mileage rates set by HMRC will be taxable.
See paragraphs 33 to 36 of The Parochial Expenses of the Clergy: a guide to their
reimbursement (2006 edition). This booklet can be found at www.cofe.anglican.org/
info/clergypay.
Instructions on how clergy should inform HMRC of the excess (or shortfall) of actual
motoring expenses from AMAPs are set out in the instructions for completing box 21 of
the ‘Ministers of religion’ page of the 2007/08 tax return. These were issued with the
P60 certificates, and can be found (under ‘Tax return notes 2007/08’) at
www.cofe.anglican.org/info/clergypay.
Normally, the tax code for the subsequent year will be adjusted to collect any additional
tax due, or give a rebate.
Worked example (notional figures)
For a member of the clergy who drives 10,000 miles a year, of which 3,500 miles is on
official business. Original cost of car £7,000 second hand (two years old).
In this example £1,560 has been spent on official business.
Total cost for 10,000 miles
Fuel
Depreciation
£1,800
£1,110
Loan interest – Clergy Pay car loan
£350
Insurance
£500
Services and sundries
£550
VED
£145
Total cost of motoring
£4,455
Per mile
44p
If 44p per mile mileage rate used, the excess over 40p per mile will be taxable.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): Would the Chair of DRACSC, in writing the
letter he has just agreed to write following Simon Bessant’s question, also write about
this issue and monitor issues of clergy hardship, particularly in respect of rural parishes
54
11:39:27:11:08
Page 54
Page 55
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
where there is a large increase in costs of fuel, so that these issues can be addressed and
support can be offered when necessary?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I think it is a different letter but it does seem to me
that it is important, and I will put on to the DRACSC agenda for its September meeting
that we look at the phraseology in the parochial expenses of the clergy, which is itself
accurate, but it may well be that we may need to encourage the payment of higher
rates, even though the Government as far as tax is concerned is going to stick with the
40p rate.
The Archdeacon of Rochester (Ven. Clive Mansell): In the conversation with the
Government over this, have you been testing the Government with particular figures?
For example, what revenue might the Government lose if they change the rate to 50p per
mile, bearing in mind that this will be applied not just to clergy but to other people who
use that mileage formula?
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: The Government carried out a major examination of
the whole issue in the year 2007–08. Unfortunately from our point of view and despite
the recommendations that we made, they came to the conclusion that they were not
prepared to change the rate.
Mission and Public Affairs Council
29. Mrs Mary Nagel (Chichester) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
As the Church of England firmly believes in both the sanctity of life and the value of the
family, were there any official representations from the Church of England attempting
to influence the House of Commons’ debates about abortion or statements about the
importance of fathers in family life?
Dr Philip Giddings: Indeed there were! The Human Fertilization and Embryo Bill
included the controversial provision for lesbian couples to be offered IVF treatment
without consideration of the potential child’s need for a father. There were amendments
to the Bill dealing with abortion. MPA took a full part in consultations about the Bill
and worked closely with the Bishop of St Albans, who was a member of the Joint
Committee which scrutinised its provisions. In our submissions, and in our briefing
papers for MPs, we consistently stressed the need for fathers and, indeed, stressed the
inconsistency and muddle of the Government’s approach. Whilst we regretted the
inclusion of amendments on abortion as potential distractions from an already
complex Bill, we nonetheless stressed our desire to see evidence-based measures
designed to reduce the shocking number of abortions which take place in this country
each year.
The Bishop of Winchester (Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt): Would the chairman like to
55
11:39:27:11:08
Page 55
Page 56
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
affirm that in the passage of the HF and the Embryo Bill through the Upper House,
before it got to the Commons, a number of bishops, including both Archbishops, put in
a good deal of time and made a number of speeches making these kinds of points?
Dr Philip Giddings: Indeed he would. The Church holds a great debt to those bishops
who take that role in the Upper House.
Mr Robert Key (Salisbury): I also was a member of the joint Lords and Commons
committee that considered the pre-legislation, as a result of which substantial changes
were made and indeed the title of the Bill was altered. We were very grateful that
for the first time for some time the Mission and Public Affairs Council sent guidance
to every single Member of Parliament on the Church of England’s view on this as
far as the House of Commons was concerned. I myself spoke about the need for a
father.
The Chairman: A question, Mr Key.
Mr Robert Key (Salisbury): Please can we be quite sure that there will be an increased
effort by the Church to inform Members of Parliament of the views of the Mission and
Public Affairs Council on controversial issues of public policy?
Dr Philip Giddings: Within the limits of the resources available to us, we certainly will.
30. Mrs Linda Ali (York) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
The February 2006 group of sessions discussed British involvement in 400 years of the
African slave trade. The outcome was an apology and a statement of support for the Set
All Free Commemorations in 2007. Human trafficking, child labour, sex slavery, debt
burdens and much more continue to distress God’s world and his children. Does the
Church of England have any plans to address issues of contemporary enslavement? If so,
what commitment is there to funding for their implementation?
Dr Philip Giddings: An important feature of the 2006 debate was that Synod also voted
to affiliate to the Stop the Traffick Coalition. Similarly, during the bicentenary
commemorations the Church associated itself with Anti Slavery International’s Fight for
Freedom campaign. Human trafficking into the UK for sexual and economic
exploitation is dealt with as part of our Home Affairs work. There has been continuous
engagement over the last three years with the Government’s Action Plan on Tackling
Human Trafficking. Issues of child labour and debt which are raised as part of the
development agenda are covered by our International Affairs work. In addition,
bishops, and Members of Parliament now, are regularly briefed to contribute to debates
in the House of Lords about aspects of enslavement. These are the ways in which we are
addressing the issues within the limits of our current resources. That is the refrain.
56
11:39:27:11:08
Page 56
Page 57
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
31. Revd Canon Peter Spiers (Liverpool) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public
Affairs Council:
How does the Council plan to raise awareness among parishes, deaneries and dioceses
wishing to become ‘Fairtrade’ of the vital importance of continuing to buy from
pioneering Fairtrade organizations such as Traidcraft rather than the supermarkets?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Mission and Public Affairs Division works with the Fair Trade
Foundation in raising awareness among parishes, deaneries and dioceses wishing to
become fairly traded. This has led to a restructuring of the Fair Trade Foundation’s
website (www.fairtrade.org.uk) to include a specific section providing advice and
resources on how Church related bodies might become fairly traded – and the benefits of
so doing. The longer-term challenge, of course, is to generate levels of consumer demand
which make Fair Trade principles mainstream throughout the commercial sector,
including the supermarkets, and to monitor the actual fairness of practices which carry a
fair-trade label. Through the Ethical Investment Advisory Group, the Church of
England and MPA are in direct contact with the supermarket companies on many
aspects of their trading practices and I commend to Synod the EIAG’s report Fair Trade
Begins at Home, published last year, and the EIAG’s annual reports.
Revd Canon Peter Spiers (Liverpool): Is the Chairman aware that it is only pioneering
fair trade organizations like Tradecraft that will invest in new markets for fair trade
products and that supermarkets, which a lot of people are using to buy fair trade
products under the impression that this will be a good thing, will not in fact invest in
opening up new markets?
Dr Philip Giddings: He was not until now.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): Does the advice on fair trade include advice on fair trade gas
and electricity?
Dr Philip Giddings: I do not know but I will find out and ensure that a letter is written to
you.
32. Dr Roger Fry (Europe) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
In what ways is the Church of England supporting the mission and ministry of churches
with a majority of parishioners of other faiths?
Dr Philip Giddings: I am glad to be able to report that there has been considerable
attention paid to this important matter since the Synod’s resolution on Presence and
Engagement in July 2005. The Presence and Engagement Task Force which it initiated
has provided a summary of its work in GS Misc 897 and will provide a fuller report in
February 2009. The dioceses of Leicester and Bradford and the four dioceses in Greater
57
11:39:27:11:08
Page 57
Page 58
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
London have devoted considerable resources to setting up the St Philip’s Centre, the
Bradford Churches for Dialogue and Diversity and the Presence and Engagement
Network respectively, to serve the whole Church in relation to mission and ministry in
majority other-faith contexts. The national Church will have to consider how best to
support this in the longer term as these issues grow in significance for all parishes.
Dr Roger Fry (Europe): Thank you very much for that answer. I wonder, given the
importance of the subject, if I could ask what the Council is doing to ensure that this
subject is debated in the General Synod in the near future and if there is anything else
that anybody else can do to help?
Dr Philip Giddings: As we heard earlier today, the shaping of the agenda for General
Synod is a matter for the Business Committee. The Council will ask the Business
Committee to provide a slot in the agenda and every member of the Synod can write in
to Kay Garlick or the Clerk to the Synod this week to support that request which will be
coming.
33. Dr Roger Fry (Europe) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
Given reports in the press and elsewhere about ‘no go’ areas in England where
Christianity may not be preached, is the Council aware of any evidence that such areas
exist?
Dr Philip Giddings: I am not aware of any areas in England where Christianity, or
rather the Christian gospel, may not be preached. Effective witness to the gospel always
requires sensitivity to the particular culture and context, as Paul showed when he visited
Athens. In areas where there are social or economic tensions within the community, this
is likely to be especially challenging. This is why the Presence and Engagement
programme is of such importance in helping to overcome fear and misapprehensions
and in equipping Christians to witness to their faith with sensitivity and understanding.
Dr Roger Fry (Europe): I have noticed quite a number of reports, although I live abroad,
in the press about ‘no go’ areas and even bishops of the Church have mentioned them. I
wonder if the Council is doing anything to dispel these myths that seem to exist in the
press and in certain circles?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Mission and Public Affairs Council, like other National
Church Institutions, is frequently working to dispel myths in the press. My answer to
the original Question was carefully phrased: I am not aware of any evidence that what
are described as ‘no go’ areas exist. I am aware that the Church of England accepts its
privilege and obligation to preach the Christian gospel throughout this land.
Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark): Will the Mission and Public Affairs Council
advise Church spokesmen to exercise a sense of responsibility in their statements,
58
11:39:27:11:08
Page 58
Page 59
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
because unfounded claims may exacerbate the anti-Muslim bias in much of the
media?
Dr Philip Giddings: I am sure the Council, along with all the other National Church
Institutions, would encourage all of us who either speak on behalf of the Church of
England, or our Synod to be speaking on behalf of the Church of England, to do so
truthfully and responsibly. I am sure that almost all do.
34. Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public
Affairs Council:
What steps, if any, is the Council taking to ensure that publicly funded statistics and
surveys relating to the income, expenditure and numbers of staff and volunteers within
the third sector routinely take account of the more than 16,000 Church of England
parishes and the thousands of congregations within other Christian denominations in
England that are ‘excepted’ charities and so are not included within the Charity
Commission’s register?
Dr Philip Giddings: In all our dealings with Government Departments we continually
emphasize the scale and breadth of the Church of England’s activities, our active
presence in every community in England, and the depth of our engagement with public
life. It is, however, not in our power to ensure that publicly funded statistics reflect our
profile accurately but, as members will know, recent research commissioned by the
Bishop for Urban Life and Faith has drawn attention to some serious deficiencies in the
way in which data on religion in Britain are collected and used. We shall use the valuable
opportunity that research gives us to press our case even more firmly, including with the
Charity Commission, with whom we are already in discussion.
35. Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
Is any dialogue taking place with the main Opposition parties about the role of
conscience within the law?
Dr Philip Giddings: I take it that this Question concerns the extent to which Christian
individuals and groups retain the right to manifest their religion or belief in ‘worship,
teaching, practice and observance’ (as provided by Article 9.1 of the European
Convention on Human Rights) under laws which seek to promote equality or to outlaw
discrimination against particular groups. On what basis is that? Bishops in the House of
Lords have contributed to a number of debates in which this issue has featured. MPA
also ensures that MPs and Peers of all parties and none are aware of the Church of
England’s views on this important question through regular briefings, but no formal
dialogue has taken place with the main Opposition parties. Members of the Council and
the Division frequently meet members of those parties, both informally and on the basis
of the Chatham House Rules, and this matter is amongst those which figure in such
conversations.
59
11:39:27:11:08
Page 59
Page 60
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Mr John Ward (London): Have all members of the Council read the speech given
yesterday by Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, to the East
London Muslim Centre? Will they inquire of the Archbishop of Canterbury and prepare
a report on how it feels to be vindicated by the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the ways
in which freedom of conscience is already provided for within the law of England and
Wales?
Dr Philip Giddings: To take the first part of the question first, No, because I have
not read the speech, though I did hear a clip from it. I will read it and I would
encourage other members of the Council to do so. I am sure we all heard the rest of
your question.
36. Mr Thomas Benyon (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public
Affairs Council:
What research has the Council conducted to establish the extent of the damage suffered
by the young resulting from pernicious and violent material supplied by the
entertainment industry in the form of ‘games’, particularly from the point of view of
desensitization to violence?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Council has not conducted any research on this topic.
According to the official review Children and the New Technology, undertaken for the
Department for Children, Schools and Families by Dr Tanya Byron and published in
March, research on the impact of violent computer games on young people seems to
show a short-term effect of promoting aggression but the long-term effects are not so
clear. At present computer games are age rated under two separate systems: PEGI, which
is a European voluntary labelling scheme, and the British Board of Film Classification,
which employs the familiar categorization shared with films and DVDs and conducts
statutory classification of games involving gross violence, criminal or sexual activity.
Our review did not find that the industry promoted inappropriate material to young
people but recommended that all classification in the 12+ range should be undertaken
by the British Board of Film Classification.
The Bishop of Leicester (Rt Revd Timothy Stevens): Is the Chair of the Mission and
Public Affairs Council aware that the Children Society’s Good Childhood Inquiry
is looking into these questions and will be publishing its findings in February of next
year, in particular focusing on the effects of information technology, advertising and
other things on children and young people’s emotional and personal development?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Chairman is finding Synod once again a very educational
experience.
37. Mr Roy Thompson (York) asked the Chairman of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council:
60
11:39:27:11:08
Page 60
Page 61
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
Has the Archbishops’ Council responded to the problem of increasing rural poverty,
especially the costs of fuel and transport, at a time when there is a widening gap between
the funding for urban health provision and that for rural?
Dr Philip Giddings: The Rural Strategy Group of General Synod is acutely aware of the
problems facing those 928,000 rural households whose income is below the official
poverty threshold [£16,500 per annum]. The recent rises in fuel costs, which you have
already heard about, have had a disproportionate impact on rural residents who are
already in poverty. Problems of isolation in some areas are exacerbated by the difficulty
in accessing services such as healthcare, transport and post offices. The Arthur Rank
Centre, the Churches’ rural resources centre, where our National Rural Officer is based,
is a member of the newly formed Rural Social Justice Coalition which is a group of
national organizations working together to try to improve the lives of the most
disadvantaged people in rural areas. Through the Arthur Rank Centre’s membership of
that Coalition, the Church will contribute to work in 2008, addressing issues of poverty
for children and older people in the countryside.
Business Committee
38. The Bishop of Blackburn (Rt Revd Nicholas Reade) asked the Chairman of the
Business Committee:
While rejoicing that we have three representatives of the Deaf Church Conference
attending the groups of sessions of this Synod, could the Business Committee please
explain how they justify the denial of full voting rights to those three representatives?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: The Business Committee is mindful of the distinctiveness
of the position of those in the deaf community, but full voting rights could be given only
to the three representatives of the Deaf Church Conference (now known as Deaf
Anglicans Together) by creating a new special constituency. There are constitutional
questions in relation to Deaf Anglicans Together which would need to be resolved
before this could be possible, and the Committee is uncertain that the number of special
voting constituencies of the General Synod should be increased when the Synod has
recently been substantially reduced in size.
The Committee considers that dioceses should be encouraged to explore ways of
assisting deaf clergy and laity to engage in the normal diocesan electoral process, and it
believes that this is the best way of ensuring that people who are profoundly deaf may
become an integral part of the Church community.
The Bishop of Blackburn: How does the Chair of the Business Committee envisage that
the deaf community would be adequately represented on Synod with full voting rights
given the considerable difficulties facing deaf members standing for election through the
usual procedures as a result of their use of British Sign Language?
61
11:39:27:11:08
Page 61
Page 62
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: We are in communication with Deaf Anglicans Together
about that very subject to see whether there are ways in which dioceses could help that
to be possible.
39. Revd Canon Alan Hargrave (Ely) asked the Chairman of the Business Committee:
At the last group of sessions at which the issue of Women Bishops was discussed, a
number of people were called to speak in both debates, whilst others stood to speak in
vain. What steps are being taken in order to ensure that, over the series of debates which
will be held on this vital issue, the voices of all those who wish to speak will be heard?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: Most recently, in July 2006, the Synod considered the
theological principle of women bishops and proposals from the House of Bishops in two
separate debates. There were 46 requests to speak and 19 members spoke in the first
debate; in the second debate there were 57 requests to speak and 40 members spoke.
Only two members spoke in both debates, one of whom had put down amendments in
both debates.
The Business Committee has allocated substantial blocks of time for the two debates at
this group of sessions, which should allow for a good number of members to speak.
Even so, it is quite likely that the number of people wishing to speak will exceed the time
available. Chairs will be mindful, as always, of the need to consider a balance of
perspectives and viewpoints in the debate, and to call as many speakers as practicable
within the time available.
Revd Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool): Is the Chair of the Business Committee not aware
that if lower speech limits were imposed sooner rather than later then more people could
be called in the debate?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: Yes. This is, of course, a matter for the Chairs and their
discretion. If all the speeches are very short, then people will complain they have not had
the time to make the points they want to make. I am quite sure that Chairs will be very
aware, once they know how many people are requesting to speak and the time available,
and will try very hard to make sure as many people and as good a balance as possible
will speak in those two debates.
40. Mr Roy Thompson (York) asked the Chairman of the Business Committee:
Has the Business Committee considered the difficulties for fringe meeting organisers
caused by shorter lead times for submission of names and more onerous security
arrangements?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: Lead times need to accommodate the deadlines set by the
Church House Conference Centre and the York Conference Centre for hiring staff,
ordering provisions and, in the case of residential meetings at York, to transfer meals
62
11:39:27:11:08
Page 62
Page 63
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
from college restaurants to venues where fringe meetings are taking place. However,
I will ask the Business Committee to consider this question. I am unaware of any recent
changes in the security arrangements affecting fringe meetings.
Mr Roy Thompson (York): Is the Business Committee aware that when Sue Booys and
I had a weekend away – sadly in different locations – we missed the boat? One weekend
away and we missed the boat.
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I was not aware of that. I am very sorry that you missed
it. I can say that we can only go with the deadlines that are given to us really.
41. Mr Allan Jones (Liverpool) asked the Chairman of the Business Committee:
Given that electronic voting will incur a cost of £13,000 per annum for two Synods (one
London, one York), what consideration has been given to abandoning the process and
giving the said money to some more worthy cause such as helping to feed the starving
people in Africa?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: Electronic voting has significantly expedited the Synod’s
business and has saved a considerable amount of time (and therefore money) by Synod
members not having to go through the doors for divisions. The new system was
smoothly introduced in February and it has been well received by Synod members.
There are no plans to reconsider its introduction.
Mr Allan Jones (Liverpool): When will the Synod authorities stop throwing money
away on projects that are not necessary and start using that money to help people in
real need?
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I think it is Mr Jones’s thought that it is not necessary
but actually Synod members, and I think the Business Committee, feel that to expedite
our business, to do it as efficiently as we can, is part of our responsibility.
Clergy Discipline Commission
42. Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) asked the Chairman of the Clergy
Discipline Commission:
What plans does the Clergy Discipline Commission have to address the concerns being
raised in dioceses over the practical operation of the Clergy Discipline Measure?
His Honour Judge John Bullimore: The Commission recognizes that a number of
concerns are being expressed in relation to the practical operation of the Clergy
Discipline Measure. Now that the Measure has been in force for two years and a
number of cases are reaching the tribunal stage, enough experience has been gained to
make a review worthwhile. The Commission is therefore in the process of collating
63
11:39:27:11:08
Page 63
Page 64
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
feedback received from dioceses on the operation of the Measure, with the aim of
issuing a paper addressing the areas of concern, and explaining what improvements
could be made within the framework of the existing system, and what could not. The
intention is that this paper will be issued in October, and further feedback will be invited
at that stage.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): May I say that I very much welcome that
response and the fact that a review is taking place. How is feedback being invited,
through what channels is it coming and do you plan to invite it to come in the future?
His Honour Judge John Bullimore: We have never been of the view that we need to do
much to invite complaints. They seem to come in quite regularly. We believe that when it
is known that we are intending to conduct such a review people will be more inclined to
bring to our attention those things which are concerning them.
Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield): Will the Clergy Discipline Commission be
meeting with the House of Bishops to consider the effect the Measure is having upon
episcopal ministry and its relationship with the clergy?
His Honour Judge John Bullimore: There has already been contact to my knowledge
between the Chairman, Lord Justice Mummery, and the House of Bishops, which I
understand was of assistance in helping to clear up certain misunderstandings. The area
to which the question refers I am sure will again be looked at in the review that I have
mentioned.
43. Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) asked the Chairman of the Clergy Discipline
Commission:
What were the full costs of each tribunal completed in 2008 to date under the Clergy
Discipline Measure?
His Honour Judge John Bullimore: To date, two tribunal hearings under the CDM have
been completed in 2008. The full costs for each of those have not yet been determined.
This is because there are a number of different elements to the costs of any tribunal
hearing and, before they are paid, they are scrutinized by the appropriate bodies
(including, in the case of legal aid costs, by the Legal Aid Commission) to ensure that
they are reasonable. That process has not yet been finally concluded for either of the
cases concerned.
The Synod withheld consent to an extension of the sitting.
Crown Nominations Commission
44. Mrs Ruth Whitworth (Ripon and Leeds) asked the Chairman of the Crown
Nominations Commission:
64
11:39:27:11:08
Page 64
Page 65
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
Can the Chairman of the Commission advise Synod members how soon we may expect
to see the Commission responding to the aim, endorsed in the Pilling report, of fostering
diversity in the bench of bishops by the nomination of, for instance, one or more
conservative Evangelicals as diocesan bishops?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The Chairmen of the Crown Nominations Commission
(that is the Archbishop of York and myself) have learned to be very cautious about
predicting the outcome of CNC deliberations! It is part of our responsibility as Chairs,
with the Appointments Secretary, to try and make sure that the CNC has the broadest
possible pool of candidates to consider. However, the match of any particular individual
to any particular diocese draws in a great many factors: each individual will be
considered strictly against the specification that is agreed by the CNC in consultation at
its first meeting. I am afraid it is impossible to provide any timeline by way of an answer,
but that is what we do.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): What steps will be taken to monitor
progress of the implementation of the Pilling report?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I may need notice of that Question and send a written
reply. I will confer with the Appointments Secretary about that and that can be made
known.
Legal Advisory Commission
45. Mr Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the Legal Advisory
Commission:
Has the Commission considered the issue of the liability of an incumbent and his or her
PCC in relation to Health and Safety and similar legislation as to whether this is:
(a) personal to the incumbent;
(b) confined solely to the incumbent by virtue of their office;
(c) a matter jointly for the PCC and the incumbent; or
(d) a matter for the PCC, of which the incumbent is ex officio the Chair?
And, if so, what view does the Commission take?
The Bishop of Guildford (Rt Revd Christopher Hill): The Commission has not
undertaken a comprehensive analysis of health and safety law as it affects the Church of
England because that would involve considering each of the numerous sets of
regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to determine whether
and under what circumstances they place obligations on particular office holders or
65
11:39:27:11:08
Page 65
Page 66
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
bodies within the Church of England. The Commission has, however, published
opinions on the position under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998
and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 and most recently an opinion in
relation to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005; all these have been
circulated to dioceses. Mr Greenwood may therefore wish to refer to those opinions
(copies of which have been placed, I understand, on the notice board) for an analysis of
the position in relation to gas, asbestos and fire safety respectively.
Mr Adrian Greenwood (Southwark): I understand that a comprehensive analysis of all
the regulations is too large a task for the Commission’s limited resources but could I ask
that the Commission consider issuing some general legal principles and guidelines so
that incumbents and PCCs can have reasonable assurance about their respective legal
responsibilities in the field of health and safety legislation?
The Bishop of Guildford (Rt Revd Christopher Hill): Mr Greenwood, you are right
certainly in saying that there are just over 150 sets of regulations and it would be
impossible, I am afraid, with the resources of the LAC to do all this, but the LAC will
look at any requests about specific aspects of health and safety that are addressed to it.
In the meantime, where should parishes look for advice? The EIG has issued general
advice; your church architects, the diocesan surveyor, and diocesan registrar might also
be able to help. I repeat: if there are specific areas the Commission will look at specific
regulations and consider offering advice which would then be circulated to dioceses.
Liturgical Commission
46. Mr Timothy Cox (Blackburn) asked the Chairman of the Liturgical Commission:
Following my successful Bibles in churches motion at the last group of sessions of the
Synod, are any of the versions of the Bible referred to in the note by the House of
Bishops on Versions of Scripture dated 9 October 2002 ones that cannot legally be used
with all of the forms of service authorized for use in the Church of England and, if so,
which versions, which forms of service, and what is being done to correct that situation?
The Bishop of Wakefield (Rt Revd Steven Platten): Only versions of Scripture
authorized by resolution of this Synod may be used with Prayer Book services. (The
PCC’s agreement is also needed.) By contrast, any version not prohibited by lawful
authority may be used with Common Worship services (including Holy Communion
Order Two and Series One Marriage and Burial). Of the versions identified in the House
of Bishops note (GS Misc 698), the following have not been authorized for Prayer Book
Services:
•
•
•
•
•
New International Version
New Jerusalem Bible
New Revised Standard Version
Revised English Bible
English Standard Version.
66
11:39:27:11:08
Page 66
Page 67
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
If the Commission receives evidence of a widespread desire to use these versions at
Prayer Book services, we will consider inviting the Business Committee to allow time on
the Synod’s agenda for a motion to authorize them.
Mr Timothy Cox (Blackburn): Could the Chair of the Liturgical Commission confirm
whether, in the light of the overwhelming support for the motion at the last Synod and
the source of the list of versions, this could not be achieved by an additional entry in the
next Miscellaneous Provisions Measure?
The Bishop of Wakefield (Rt Revd Steven Platten): I think I have set out fairly clearly
what the legal position is. If people wish for there to be other versions of the Bible to be
used for Prayer Book services, then it would have to be put to the Commission; that
would then have to go to the Business Committee to see whether we could find space on
the agenda for a debate on that particular issue.
The Chairman: I am now advised that we have run out of time.
Observers
The Chairman: May I say thank you to the youth observers who have sat throughout
this evening. It is good to have you here. I hope you have learnt something. (Applause)
The remaining Questions were answered in writing.
47. Dr Edmund Marshall (Wakefield) asked the Chairman of the Liturgical
Commission:
Will the Commission seek to reopen discussions with a view to implementing the Easter
Act 1928?
The Bishop of Wakefield (Rt Revd Stephen Platten) replied: The Easter Act provides for
Easter to be the day after the second Saturday of April each year, if Parliament approves
a draft Order in Council to that effect. Before making one, ‘regard shall be had to any
opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body’. This has been
taken to suggest that in practice there must be a consensus in favour among the UK’s
main Churches. There has never been such a consensus and there is no reason to believe
that discussions would result in one.
Internationally, the World Council of Churches has been working towards a common
(though not fixed) date. The 1998 Lambeth Conference and our own Archbishop’s
Council and House of Bishops have responded positively. I could not support a proposal
that this country and its Churches should go their own way and have a British Easter
different from everyone else’s throughout the world.
67
11:39:27:11:08
Page 67
Page 68
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Church Commissioners
48. Mrs Shirley-Ann Williams (Exeter) asked the Church Commissioners:
Is there any truth in the rumour that the Church Commissioners are to cease providing
car loans to clergy and if so how do they propose to alleviate the hardship to clergy in
rural areas, particularly those in multi-parish situations with substantial mileages
between communities and places of worship?
The Chairman of the Church Commissioners’ Assets Committee replied:
The Commissioners have been consulting on the Assets Committee’s in-principle
decision to close this scheme to new business.
The Committee agrees that cars are essential ministry tools for all clergy (not just those
in rural areas) but this scheme has never been part of the clergy ‘package’ and is not
targeted on need. Legally, these loans are made under the Commissioners’ investment
powers and must earn a reasonable return. Otherwise the Commissioners’ capacity to
provide targeted support for their statutory beneficiaries is reduced.
The Committee also noted that demand for car loans had diminished given the
cheap deals then widely available from banks or dealerships. However, the credit
crunch seems to be making such deals scarcer and so the Committee revisited the
matter yesterday.
I will be grateful to Mrs Williams if, by way of a supplementary, she gives me the
opportunity to report on the outcome of this meeting.
Pensions Board
49. Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) asked the Chairman of the Pensions Board:
What was the total cost of purchasing CHARM scheme housing for those resigning
from whole-time stipendiary ecclesiastical service in the Church of England under the
terms of the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993, and what is
the current value of this portfolio of housing?
The Chairman of the Church of England Pensions Board replied: Between 1994 and
2003, 110 properties were purchased by the Pensions Board to rent to clergy who
resigned under the Ordination of Women Measure at a total cost of £8.1m. Of those
properties 59 have since been sold for £5.4m. The remaining 51 properties were recently
valued at £14.5m.
A further 33 properties were purchased by clergy with equity sharing mortgage
assistance from the Pensions Board totalling £1.6m. Of these properties 18 have since
68
11:39:27:11:08
Page 68
Page 69
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
been sold and £1.3m of equity repaid. The Pension Board’s equity share in the
remaining 15 properties was recently valued at £2.1m.
50. Dr Graham Campbell (Chester) asked the Chairman of the Pensions Board:
Since the rules of the Clergy Pension Scheme provide that, if an application for ill-health
retirement is received by the Board before or within three months of the retirement and
is approved by the Board, the pension will be enhanced, but that if the application is
received by the Board after that period the pension will be based on service to the date of
retirement only, will the Board consider reminding all clergy who leave a stipendiary
office before their 65th birthday of the financial consequences of failing to apply for an
ill-health pension, if applicable, within the stipulated three-month period?
The Chairman of the Church of England Pensions Board replied: The requirement that
an application for an ill-health pension based on full prospective service must be made
within three months of leaving service is clearly set out in the scheme booklet Your
Pension Questions Answered, which is sent to all members each year. It is the Board’s
current practice to include a further copy of that booklet with the letter sent to members
who are leaving service, setting out details of their deferred benefits. Should a member
be leaving service in circumstances where their medical condition may indicate that illhealth retirement should be considered, we expect the diocese concerned to exercise its
pastoral oversight and encourage the member to investigate that possibility. The staff of
the Board are always happy to explain to members or dioceses the circumstances under
which ill-health retirement might be approved, and to provide guidance as to the
procedures to be followed.
51. Revd Mark Bratton (Coventry) asked the Chairman of the Pensions Board:
On what basis will the Pensions Board use its discretionary powers to fund pension
benefits to the civil partner of a retired priest in view of the recommendation of the
Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee (DRACSC) to the
Archbishops’ Council not to extend the clergy pension scheme to apply all spouse
benefits to civil partners?
The Chairman of the Church of England Pensions Board replied: The Rules of the
pension scheme have been amended to comply with the requirements of the Civil
Partnership Act 2005. Pensions policy is the responsibility of the Archbishops’ Council,
and its Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee (DRACSC)
has carefully considered the implications of the Act on benefits for civil partners and has
concluded that no further changes, other than those required by legislation, should be
made. Any benefits paid over and above what is required in the Rules would represent
an additional cost to the scheme, which would have to be borne by all those bodies
paying contributions. The Board does not feel it should to go beyond DRACSC’s
established policy.
69
11:39:27:11:08
Page 69
Page 70
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
52. Canon Alan Cooper (Manchester) asked the Chairman of the Pensions Board:
In the light of your forthcoming departure, has the Board sought to identify the main
challenges it will face over the next ten years and, if it has, does it believe that they will
differ much from those of the last ten years?
The Chairman of the Church of England Pensions Board replied: The Pensions Board
is four years into its current five-year business plan and will be developing plans looking
at the challenges which lie ahead.
We envisage that they will embrace many of the issues we have addressed in recent years
but set in the context of even more challenging financial markets, increasing costs of
operating pension schemes based on final salary, the impact of increasing life
expectancy, and the effect of increased Government regulation.
The Board will continue to work with others in developing support for clergy housing
needs post-retirement, and how future funding for those schemes is to be obtained.
In addition to maintaining our supported housing schemes and nursing home a clearer
picture of future needs and expectations in this area will be developed.
All these and other activities will be conducted by the Board in as caring a manner as
possible with the ongoing support of Synod.
Church Urban Fund
53. Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford) asked the Chairman of the Church Urban Fund:
On Church Urban Fund Sunday (1 June 2008) the epistle reading included St Paul’s
phrase ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel’ (Romans 1.16), which follows his declaration
that the gospel is about God’s Son (verses 3–4). How did it come about that there was
no reference to Jesus in any of the following material, available for download from
http://www.cuf.org.uk/sunday:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the CUF prayer
the ‘Change the World’ poem
the Leader’s sheet for worship
the handout for congregations
the full text of the suggested sermon
the Activity sheet, and
the Big Brunch booklet
except for the single phrase ‘in Christ’s precious name’ at the end of the CUF prayer, and
is there any significance in the omission of Jesus from all these items?
70
11:39:27:11:08
Page 70
Page 71
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
The Bishop of Willesden replied: There is no significance in the number of references to
Jesus in the resources for Church Urban Fund Sunday.
The materials offered were all advisory. Readings were not based on the lectionary but
from other sources. The suggested prayers invoke Jesus and there are references to Jesus
in the recommended hymns. Since the sermon is based on the story of Noah it is hardly
surprising that it does not refer explicitly to Jesus. Other materials offer practical advice
or information about poverty or fundraising; the poem is a piece of creative writing and
not of theological reflection.
CUF’s policies are driven by a theological understanding that God is passionate about
people’s well-being and that he has identified fully with us through the incarnation and
death of Jesus. To be an outworking of Jesus’ commandment to care for the poorest in
our society is in Church Urban Fund’s bloodstream.
Ethical Investment Advisory Group
54. Mr Joseph Brookfield (Blackburn) asked the Chairman of the Ethical Investment
Advisory Group:
Following its response to Question 25 in November 2007, what further progress has
been made by the EIAG in engaging with PetroChina and Sinopec, companies in which
the Church has investment interests, about concerns that revenues generated by them
are helping to fund the Janjaweed militia in Darfur?
Revd Jeremy Crocker replied: The EIAG received a detailed response to its enquiries
from PetroChina in April, and continues in dialogue with the company. Engagement
with both companies is also being pursued through the UNPRI (United Nations
Principles of Responsible Investment) Secretariat in conjunction with other concerned
investors and this continues. The EIAG has not received any response from Sinopec to
date. The EIAG also warmly supports the Church Investors Group position statement
on Sudan, published in April.
Archbishops’ Council
55. Dr Peter Harland (Ely) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
In the light of concerns about the rising levels of bureaucracy both nationally and in the
Church, what is the total number of staff employed by the central bodies of the Church
of England (including Church House, the Church Commissioners and Lambeth Palace)
in 2008 and how does this compare with 1998 and 1988? What are the comparable
figures for staff in diocesan offices?
Mr Andrew Britton replied: The total budgeted number of staff employed within the
London-based central bodies of the Church of England (including the Archbishops’
71
11:39:27:11:08
Page 71
Page 72
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
Council, the Church Commissioners, the Church of England Pensions Board, and the
office of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace) in 2008, is 430 full-time
equivalents.
The comparable figures are 556.5 in 1998 and 614 in 1988.
This highlights that over the 20-year period to 2008, staff numbers have fallen by 30 per
cent, which includes the impact of outsourcing or stopping areas of work as well as
working more efficiently.
We do not hold similar figures for dioceses.
56. Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Given that the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure and its associated
regulations will, if enacted, make it possible for clergy holding office on common tenure
to bring to employment tribunals complaints of unfair dismissal against diocesan
boards of finance, what advice has been given to dioceses with regard to setting aside
contingency funds to provide for the costs of defending such claims and for paying any
compensation which may be awarded as a result of them?
Mr Andrew Britton replied: Diocesan boards of finance, of course, already face these
issues for those of their staff (both lay and ordained) who are on contracts of
employment. No specific advice has been issued yet on this point in connection with
parochial clergy on common tenure. This is a point that will be considered as part of the
ongoing work in progress to support the implementation of the Terms of Service
legislation. The legal costs and average compensation for a case that went to an
employment tribunal are estimated in the eighth notice paper (the financial
memorandum) at around £28,000.
57. Revd Canon Peter Spiers (Liverpool) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
What steps have been taken by the Council to develop relationships between the
dioceses since the publication of Accountability and Transparency within the Church of
England in 2005?
Mr Andrew Britton replied: The recommendations of the Accountability and
Transparency report placed the emphasis on developing relationships between dioceses
and on dioceses and bishops. We are aware that some dioceses have established regular
meetings of senior clergy and lay staff with their counterparts in other dioceses to
discuss matters of mutual interest. Several dioceses have completed key indicator
reports, some of which have been shared via the diocesan secretaries’ network and, in
one case, with the House of Bishops Standing Committee.
72
11:39:27:11:08
Page 72
Page 73
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
58. Dr Brian Walker (Winchester) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Bearing in mind that, following a recent investigation into allegations of denigration
of other religions during Continuing Ministerial Education arranged by a diocese, the
relevant diocesan bishop has confirmed the intention ‘to formulate guidelines of
conduct for those leading courses . . . with appropriate reference to the highest
standards of Christian behaviour, to the responsibility of Christians to engage frankly
and charitably in the expression of their own faith and in the study and critique of the
faith of others, to appropriate advice et cetera published from time to time by the
Church of England, and of course the law’ what proposals are there for ‘appropriate
advice etc.’ to be given to clergy and lay leaders throughout the Church of England to
help ensure that there is no future denigration of Islam, Judaism or any different
religion?
Dr Philip Giddings replied: It is certainly important to provide soundly based practical
guidance in this currently sensitive area. The Presence and Engagement Task Group is
undertaking a revision of existing guidance in a range of interfaith-related matters and
will be considering whether more is needed in the area referred to. Members of Synod
will already be aware of the recent publication of Generous Love – an Anglican
theology of interfaith relations which provides a theological perspective on why and
how Christians should relate to people of other faiths. In 2003 the Church of England
collaborated in the publication of Guidelines for Inter Faith Encounter in the Churches
of the Porvoo Communion and these are consistent with the longstanding guidance
from the Inter Faith Network for the UK.
59. Mr John Ashwin (Chichester) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Now that Church House Publishing has announced in its latest news ‘Common
Worship: now complete!’ what plans are in hand for cheaper, paperback volumes of the
Common Worship series to be produced that will be within the budgets of assistant
clergy and lay people?
Mr Philip Fletcher replied: Church House Publishing has now published the full range of
Common Worship books as envisaged at the project’s inception. Apart from the latest
volume – Festivals – the material is available free from the Common Worship web site.
When Mr Ashwin raised this matter at Synod in February last year, I indicated that
Church House Publishing would – on the basis of likely demand and commercial
viability – explore paperback versions and additional formats of Common Worship
material. A paperback version of Ordination Services appeared last June, and New
Patterns for Worship will also be available in paperback from September of this year.
CHP is finalizing a commercially based scheme that would provide a discount to
ordinands and the newly ordained to enable them to equip themselves with the full
Common Worship range at a substantial reduction. CHP hopes the scheme will be
launched for the start of the new academic year.
73
11:39:27:11:08
Page 73
Page 74
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
60. Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
What steps can the Communications Department take to respond to any adverse
comments made about some of our towns in the media (especially the ‘broadsheets’)
which are unfair?
Mrs Anne Sloman replied: The Church of England is a Christian presence in every
community and it is often the local church to which a community looks to speak on
their behalf in moments of great sadness, trauma or fear. Clergy and bishops across the
country have given great service to their communities in this way over recent years, as
well as in responding to unfair criticism of their community. The best defender of a
community is always the community itself.
Communications officers in dioceses and the Communications Office in Church House,
London, are always ready to help with guidance and support.
61. Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark) asked the Presidents of the Archbishops’
Council:
Whose responsibility has it been to ensure the implementation of recommendations 6
and 7 in chapter 10 of Talent and Calling (GS 1650), and what progress has been made?
What is the total number of clergy currently on the Preferment List and how many of
these are from a minority ethnic background?
The Archbishop of York replied: The House of Bishops will be considering the
implementation arrangements for the recommendations of Talent and Calling at their
meeting in the autumn. The arrangements for recording those clergy with a minority
ethnic background will be considered as part of this so it is not, at this stage, possible to
advise of the numbers from a minority ethnic background who are on the list. The total
number on the list is 538.
House of Bishops
62. Mr Joseph Brookfield (Blackburn) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Given the Synod’s overwhelming opposition to any extension to the current period
allowed for the detention of suspects without charge, will the House of Bishops seek to
encourage a significant number of its eligible members to be present in the House of
Lords when the Government’s 42 days detention proposals are debated?
The Bishop of Southwark replied: The Mission and Public Affairs Division, along
with Lambeth Palace, will seek to encourage as many bishops as possible to be
present in order to ensure that the Church makes its views known and its presence felt
on this subject. As always, the major practical difficulty is that the exact timing of
debates and divisions in Committee in the House of Lords is not easy to predict, and
74
11:39:27:11:08
Page 74
Page 75
Friday 4 July 2008
Questions
attendance at short notice is often difficult to reconcile with prior episcopal
engagements.
63. Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Has the House of Bishops considered its understanding of the ways in which the Great
Commission (Matthew chapter 28) can be most usefully put into effect in Britain’s
multi-faith society, and what examples they might commend of good practice in the
sharing of the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and
none? If so, what conclusions did they reach?
The Bishop of Bristol replied: There have been a number of opportunities for the House
to consider these matters in recent years, including the 1996 Doctrine Commission
report The Mystery of Salvation. In addition, the General Synod initiated the Presence
and Engagement programme in July 2005. This has encouraged the setting up of
Christian resourcing centres in Bradford, Leicester and London. It has also supported
the writing of Generous Love – an Anglican theology of interfaith relations and is
developing Bible study resources for use in multi-religious contexts. GS Misc 897
provides a summary of its work, and notes that a report will be presented to General
Synod in February 2009. This will also consider what the Church of England believes
about the unique significance of Jesus Christ. It will consider the biblical witness and
how this is reflected in the creeds, the Anglican formularies and more recent Anglican
writings.
64. Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the House of
Bishops:
At a recent meeting of the House of Bishops, the House received a Ministry Division
report entitled Quality and Quantity Issues in Ministry. In the light of that report, could
the House clarify what are the specific issues that give it cause for concern in relation to
the quality of the Church’s ordained ministers?
The Chairman of the Ministry Division replied: The paper referred to was a confidential
document for the House of Bishops. It represents part of the ongoing work of the
Ministry Division in supporting and developing clergy at all stages of their ministry.
This exercise considered what skills and abilities clergy will need fully to meet the
challenges facing the Church. One insight not reported was that more than eight in ten
bishops expressed confidence that our newly ordained clergy have the gifts and abilities
to meet such challenges and opportunities.
The reporting of this leaked document made it sound more controversial than it was.
It would be regrettable if a paper for the House had to avoid any critical comments
even when it is a minority view. The House would scarcely be exercising its
responsibilities if it failed to keep matters related to the quality and quantity of the
clergy under review.
75
11:39:27:11:08
Page 75
Page 76
Questions
Friday 4 July 2008
65. Mrs Ruth Whitworth (Ripon and Leeds) asked the Chairman of the House of
Bishops:
Has the House considered how it can help to contribute to the underlying aim of one of
the Pilling report recommendations by encouraging its members to nominate suffragan
bishops who are conservative Evangelicals and who may, in due course, be nominated
for diocesan posts?
The Bishop of Leicester replied: There was a strong theme of developing talent in the
Pilling report and with regard to conservative Evangelicals it recommended that bishops
work with individual clergy to ensure that they acquire the experience needed to equip
them for episcopal ministry. It also challenged those involved in appointments to
appreciate the value of ministry obtained in large churches.
My colleagues and I are certainly working to support a number of individual clergy who
might be so classified. Other elements identified in the report such as clarity around the
role specifications for suffragan bishops, briefings for interview panels and developing a
talent pipeline will be important ingredients with regard to the latter challenge.
66. Mr Nigel Greenwood (Ripon and Leeds) asked the Chairman of the House of
Bishops:
What steps are being taken to promote The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality:
the official study guide to enable listening and dialogue by Philip Groves, as a resource
to support the listening process under Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 within the
Church of England?
The Archbishop of York replied: This Study Guide is being made available to all bishops
attending the Lambeth Conference, where it will be a resource for the planned indaba
group discussions on this topic. I shall ensure that the Standing Committee considers
thereafter how it could help the continuing listening process within the Church of
England.
67. Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Would the House consider sponsoring a Synod debate on the origin of evil, and on the
associated doctrine of continuous creation?
The Archbishop of Canterbury replied: Both the question of the origin of evil and the
question of the relation of the existence of evil to God’s creative activity certainly
warrant serious discussion. The issue, however, is whether a Synod debate on issues of
this kind is a good idea. I frankly doubt whether it is, and would encourage instead a
discussion of these topics in smaller, more informal gatherings based on the witness of
Scripture, but also drawing on the Christian tradition and insights from contemporary
theology.
76
11:39:27:11:08
Page 76
Page 77
68. Ms Susan Cooper (London) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Has the House received a report of how many Church of England bishops have accepted
the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend the Lambeth Conference?
The Archbishop of Canterbury replied: I reported to the House of Bishops in May the
latest position in relation to preparations for the Lambeth Conference in May. As of 1
July 105 Church of England bishops and 77 spouses had accepted my invitation to
attend the Lambeth Conference.
After the closing act of worship, the Session was adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
11:39:27:11:08
Page 77
Page 78
Second Day
Saturday 5 July 2008
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Colchester (Ven. Annette Cooper) took the Chair
at 11 a.m.
Women Bishops: Report of the Women
Bishops Legislative Drafting Group (GS 1685)
The Bishop of Manchester (Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch): I beg to move:
‘That the Synod do take note of this Report.’
It was in the nineteenth century that the historian and Christian sceptic J. A. Froude
famously wrote, ‘Bishops have produced more mischief in the world than any class of
officials that has ever been invented.’ It is a good job, therefore, that the report before us
today was produced by a group consisting of four members of the House of Laity, three
members of the House of Clergy and just two bishops, but Monday’s motion does of
course bear an unambiguously episcopal imprint and, from what I hear, it seems likely
that some members may wish to return to Froude’s words then.
Today’s debate provides the opportunity for some clearing of the air and preparing of
the ground, before we get to those hard choices on Monday. I therefore hope that Synod
members will not hold back from saying what they really do think today, just because
this is a ‘take note’ debate.
The report before us is a document that has been unanimously agreed by the nine
members of the group. As Chair, I want to pay warm tribute to the contribution made by
every member, as well as the staff who supported us in our labours, in particular
Jonathan Neil-Smith, Stephen Slack and, very much, William Fittall.
Since the report was published at the end of April, we have all been greatly appreciative
of the way that people have welcomed what has been described as, and what we hoped
it would be, an even-handed, clear and comprehensive report. If I have detected any
disappointment, it has perhaps been that the combined resources of the group did not
manage to find the famous ‘stone that turneth all to gold’. Yes, we have produced an
agreed analysis but, no, we have not, whether unanimously or by a majority, offered a
view on which option should be pursued.
78
11:39:27:11:08
Page 78
Page 79
Women Bishops
Of course, we could have tried to offer a recommendation. Had we done so, I have no
doubt that we would have had to have majority and minority reports, and it did not
seem to us that that would be particularly helpful. We concluded that the particular
balance of views among the nine of us was far less significant than whether we could
offer the whole Synod an agreed assessment of the arguments, which ultimately have
to be weighed and voted on by all 468 members of this Synod.
Our report tries to avoid bland generalities. Instead, in the six chapters and nine
annexes, we have teased out the arguments; we have produced illustrative versions of
three possible draft Measures; and we have described in some detail both what might go
into a statutory code of practice with a statutory basis and what issues would have to be
resolved if Synod decides to create new dioceses. We have also offered some key
judgements, and they deserve highlighting since they reflect a common view within the
group, even though we obviously had our own theological and ecclesiological
differences.
First, we offer a clear warning about the dangers of further delay. We were aware of
those who argue that now is not the right time; that there are too many other difficult
issues around; that the balance of arithmetic within the Church may be different in a few
years’ time. However, the fact is that any legislative process will take several years to
complete, even if we were to take the first steps now. Our key conclusion at paragraph
47 was that, ‘. . . significant delay could further upset such equilibrium as has been
achieved since 1994. We believe therefore that, despite the difficulties in the way of
reaching a decision, the moment for making choices has come’. The Synod votes of 2005
and 2006 have already created uncertainty. Further uncertainty now would, in our view,
be distracting and unhelpful.
Secondly, we were all agreed that the case for the simplest statutory approach, with no
binding national arrangement beyond perhaps a non-statutory code of practice agreed
by the House of Bishops, deserved to be taken seriously. It would have logic, clarity and
be consistent with what some other Anglican Churches and ecumenical partners have
already done. Nevertheless, we urged Synod to be clear about the consequences of such
an approach, which would represent a very significant changed direction and the
withdrawal of assurances that were offered 15 years ago.
Thirdly, we advised that if Synod concluded that a structural solution was necessary –
and the ‘if’ is of course more important than at least one national newspaper seemed to
recognize – then that should best be achieved by creating special dioceses, rather than a
province or a society or peculiars, or some of the other possibilities that had been floated.
Again, we did not offer a view on whether structures should be created, though we did
observe at paragraph 103 that, ‘Creating new structures would be a big step and is,
therefore, one which should probably only be taken if the Synod, having decided that it
wishes there to be arrangements of some kind, concludes that what could be achieved
within existing structures would fall short of the mark’.
79
11:39:27:11:08
Page 79
Page 80
Women Bishops
Fourthly, we concluded that if, as previous motions had suggested might be the case,
Synod was interested in exploring some middle ground, there were four possible
variations on that theme, as summarized in paragraph 115. These cover quite a range
of possibilities, two of which – one and four – are worked up in illustrative form in
Annexes D and E. The question about all four, of course, is whether one or other of
them could be acceptable as some kind of bearable anomaly or whether, as someone
else has rather less kindly put it, they would all constitute some kind of ‘muddle in the
middle’.
It was none other than the Bishop of Norwich who, in a speech in the House of Lords on
19 June in a debate on Britishness, observed that one of our national characteristics was
to be in favour of ‘muddling through’. He went on to say, ‘Embracing difference within
a single accommodating story is more important than cut-and-dried definitions that
include some and exclude others’.
I suspect that that is where many people in this Synod start from on the subject of
women bishops, and yet we remain perplexed over how to distinguish between good
muddle and bad muddle. When do principled pragmatism and a generosity of spirit
topple over into theological incoherence and the loss of any clear guiding principles?
It was to try to answer that question that we produced what is probably the most radical
and unexpected section in our report, paragraphs 128 to 144. In those three-and-a-half
pages we deconstruct what are some widespread misunderstandings about the present
Canon A 4. We suggest in paragraph 138 three new boundary posts which might just
possibly enable some creativity in the middle ground without the loss of our
ecclesiological bearings.
The three key ingredients of any solution would be, first, a clear statement that, in
admitting women to the episcopate, the Church of England was now fully committed to
opening all orders of ministry to men and women. The second would need to be an
acceptance on the part of those with theological reservations about women’s ordination
that the Church of England had nevertheless decided to admit men and women equally
to Holy Orders, and that those whom the Church had duly ordained and appointed to
office were lawful officeholders and deserving of due respect and lawful obedience.
The third ingredient would need to be an acknowledgement by those in favour of
women’s ordination that the theological convictions of those unable to receive this
development were nevertheless within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition,
and that therefore those who held them should be able to continue to receive pastoral
and sacramental care in a way consistent with those convictions.
In paragraph 141 we have set out what a new Canon A 4 along these lines might look
like. The view of the group is that such a new canon could be an important part of any
legislative package, whether it simply provides for new arrangements or goes further
and creates new structures.
80
11:39:27:11:08
Page 80
Page 81
Women Bishops
In conclusion, I should like to remind Synod of some words from a much earlier report
on episcopal ministry, produced by a group chaired by someone whom we were
delighted to have on our drafting group, Sheila Cameron. Paragraph 643 of that earlier,
magisterial work perhaps helps to explain why what we are debating over these few
days is both difficult and important: ‘. . . order in the Church is not mere organization; it
is certainly not simply a matter of government. It is a way of being in which the
relationships of the persons united in Christ, and of the local Churches to which they
belong, are enabled to reflect, even though in a limited, creaturely way, the relationship
of the Persons of the Trinity.’
While, therefore, we struggle, as we must, with difficult judgements about structures
and arrangements, codes, canons and legislation, let us in these debates keep in mind,
both in what we say and how we say it, that what we are talking about is the sort of
Church we want to be and how best, in our necessarily imperfect relationships, we
reflect something of the relationship within the Godhead whom we worship and serve.
Revd Angus MacLeay (Rochester): One of the questions outlined in the report is the
fundamental question of what sort of Church we want. Do we want to continue to
accommodate a breadth of theological views?
I have great concerns about the single-clause proposals, in that they would lead to a
repeal of the 1992 and 1993 provisions, substituting them with a code of practice. I feel
that, in conscience, a code of practice will be inadequate. The current, existing
legislation was designed to prevent discrimination between what was often called ‘the
two integrities’. It was said that there would be no discrimination ‘. . . against candidates
. . . for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their
view or position about the ordination of women to the priesthood’. Yet, last year in the
Synod, when we were discussing the Pilling report, it was highlighted for us that there
has been such discrimination over the years.
If that has happened with legislation seeking to protect, I think that many of us have
great concerns about how a code of practice will be operated. There is a genuine concern
when we are being told that we need to operate on a basis of trust when, over the last 15
years, that trust has not been substantiated. Trust is a two-way street and we certainly
need to move to a situation where there is much greater trust, but we need to understand
the current context, which I believe makes a code of practice unworkable in practice. I
think that there are also ethical concerns about this, because promises have been made
to Synod all those years ago and I believe that reneging on those promises by repealing
them is a serious breach of trust.
I also have some theological concerns. I recognize that the consecration of women to the
episcopate is going to happen. However, I want to highlight that it is fair to allow those
who conscientiously object to stay in, rather than in any way to be sidelined or forced to
leave, because we base our views on accepted theological and biblical views that have
been held down the centuries.
81
11:39:27:11:08
Page 81
Page 82
Women Bishops
Yesterday, in our discussions on the report The Church of the Triune God, we especially
affirmed the point that ecclesiology flows from theology, our view of the Trinity, and the
eternal relations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All along, conservative evangelicals
have argued this point, especially in relation to 1 Corinthians 11. There is order within
the Persons of the Trinity. There is equality, yet there is difference in identity and roles.
That is surely to be reflected, as 1 Corinthians 11 hints, in the ordering of the ministry
within the Church. This was something that was highlighted in the Rochester report.
Incidentally, I wonder whether this Synod will ever seriously engage with and chew over
that particular report.
I am also concerned about what was mentioned by the bishop regarding the suggested
changes within Canon A 4. It is a very right and proper instinct of the Manchester group
to seek to solve this particular dilemma and I warm very much to some of the ways in
which they have responded to it. However, what they have omitted from their new
version of Canon A 4 are the words ‘not repugnant to the Word of God’. That has been
one of the hallmarks of Anglican polity as against the Reformed tradition. Whereas in
the Reformed tradition everything has to be shown to be directly from the Word of God,
we have been able to pursue things with greater liberty by saying that, as long as it is not
repugnant to the Word of God, we can follow it. I am concerned about the change of
ethos within Anglicanism that removing these words would suggest. Some of us, basing
ourselves on 1 Timothy 2 – which is grounded not just in the Fall but in the created order
– have concerns that the theological position being put forward for women in the
episcopate is actually repugnant to the Word of God, and that is why we will struggle
with it.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): This motion is all about the consecration of bishops.
Although it focuses narrowly on the changes needed to enable women to be consecrated,
it is most important that we end up with processes that enable bishops to be
consecrated.
I want to lighten the mood just a touch, but it has a serious point. There was a zoo where
there was a keeper of the monkey enclosure and he arranged for a ladder to be placed in
the middle of the cage. Every time a monkey started to climb the ladder, it would be
doused with water and would retreat. After a time, they stopped trying to climb the
ladder and the dousing was discontinued. A new monkey was introduced and started to
climb the ladder. The others screamed at him to stop. More new ones were introduced
and some of the original ones were removed. At the end of the process, there were none
of the original monkeys in the enclosure. The group was now so conditioned that none
of them attempted to ascend, and yet none of the current population really understood
why the tradition had built up. Consecrating only men is what we have done in the
Church for centuries. We have doused anyone who dared to suggest otherwise: the
ladder has been out of bounds for women.
In what was purported to be a helpful contribution to the debate, a bit of propaganda
from Reform hit my doorstep the other day. In it, it refutes the inference that Galatians
82
11:39:27:11:08
Page 82
Page 83
Women Bishops
3.28, which talks about there being ‘neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor
female’, enables us to contemplate women bishops. However, the pamphlet failed
totally to make reference to Galatians 3.23, which describes how ‘before faith came, we
were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed’. For the last
15 years we have guarded people under legislation and it is now time to take the
shackles off – ‘imprisoned’ – and to allow women access to the ladder. Furthermore, it
must be the same ladder. In a truly free Church we can have only one set of orders.
I ask those who oppose the idea of women in the episcopate a number of questions.
Do they see God’s hand in what they do, and are they frightened that the Spirit roams
free? If you do not want to get hung up over Paul’s letter to the Galatians, look to
James 2.1, when he says that you must never treat people in different ways, according
to their outward appearance. However, Paul is a great inspiration.
Both sides of this argument will call endlessly on different or even the same parts of
Scripture to try to prove their points. Most interesting to me is the passage in Acts 22,
where Paul defends himself. In this passage, it reiterates his over-zealous application
of the law and his subsequent Damascus revelation. He mentions the fact that he was a
student of one of my heroes. I think that there are only two heroes in the New
Testament: Jesus is one of them, Gamaliel the other: what a man of insight he was. In
Acts 5 we learned how prophetic he was. ‘If this is of man it will fail, but if it is from
God you cannot possibly defeat it.’
We need tradition. We need to reflect on the fact that tradition shifts. Let us therefore
take that leap of faith. Let us move closer to a non-discriminatory process for
consecrating bishops. Let us do it not because we want to embrace some modernism or
spirit of the age – when I was looking round the chamber earlier I thought that perhaps
those people taking notes were filling in Sudoku puzzles, but I was not quite sure! – and
not because we want to overturn tradition for the sake of it. Let us do it because it is the
right thing to do and because faith has come.
The Archdeacon of Berkshire (Ven. Norman Russell): I am very glad that we are having
an opportunity today to debate the wider issues with respect to the ordination of women
as bishops and indeed, alongside those, the provisions for those unable to accept the
jurisdiction on theological grounds. It is important that we do that before we get bogged
down in the detail of amendments.
I speak as one who does not personally have problems with the ordination of women to
the episcopate, but I find myself also being unable to say to those whose only sin – if it is
a sin, and I do not think it is – is that they believe what the Church has always believed
for the past 2,000 years, ‘We have no need of you.’ I am not an Anglo-Catholic, but I
cannot say ‘We have no need of you’ to Sam Philpott, who has given his life to ministry
in inner-city Plymouth. I cannot say that to Fr Baker, one of my colleagues from Oxford.
I cannot say that to Canon Killwick or to Prebendary Houlding or to other friends,
without whom this Synod and the Church of England would be immeasurably poorer.
83
11:39:27:11:08
Page 83
Page 84
Women Bishops
For me, in all of this, as well as there being a matter of justice for women there is also a
matter of justice for clergy of traditional views, and indeed also laity of traditional
views.
What do we do? It seems to me that there is no point at all in putting time and money
into the development of legislation that has no hope at all of gaining a two-thirds
majority in each House of Synod. In the circumstances, if I may say so – and I hope that
the Bishop of Manchester can help us with this, though he may need to consult with
others – I think that the Synod has a proper interest in knowing whether there is
anything like a two-thirds majority in the House of Bishops for the national code of
practice solution in part (c) of the motion, which ‘a member of the House’ will be
bringing to the Synod on Monday.
Personally – and others may judge differently – I think that it is highly unlikely that a
code of practice solution will get a two-thirds majority for the necessary legislation
when the time comes, even if it gets a majority today. For not only does it fail to keep
faith with the promises made at the time when the Synod agreed the ordination of
women as priests, but it also fails to give the necessary assurance to those of traditional
views.
My hope is that, by the end of Monday, we will either – and this would not be my
preferred solution – send the whole thing back to the House of Bishops, until such time
as they are able to offer a way forward that commands a two-thirds support in the
House or, rather better, as I really do think that we need to get on with this, this
Synod needs to eliminate codes of practice completely and then ask the Manchester
group to do further work on provision by Measure for complementary jurisdiction of
one kind or another. If we do that, though it will not give everyone what they want, it
will give us a basis for going forward in an honourable way. That would be with a view
to bringing more carefully worked out proposals before the Synod in February of next
year.
Miss Rachel Beck (Lincoln): I welcome the report and the clear way in which it is set
out, and I thank the group for it. I am wholeheartedly in favour of women being
consecrated as bishops. I am also committed to making the pastoral arrangements
needed so that those who in all conscience cannot accept the ministry of a woman feel
able to stay in the Anglican Church. I am very concerned, though, about approach three
and variation four of approach two, suggested in the report.
The setting up of new diocesan structures and the continuation of no-go zones for
women would completely undermine the catholicity of the Church and lead to schism,
not unity. We would have one part of the Church that did not recognize the orders and
the sacraments of another. In effect, we would have two Churches, not one: for example,
ordinations and confirmations performed by women bishops would not be recognized.
This was spelt out in a speech in a response to the Guildford report: ‘If a man, ordained
by a female bishop, subsequently seeks to minister within a parish that has opted for
84
11:39:27:11:08
Page 84
Page 85
Women Bishops
transferred episcopal arrangements, this would require ordination from a bishop
acceptable to the parish.’
I would urge Synod to take note of the report but to keep in mind the very real potential
for schism in some of the approaches.
Prebendary Diana Taylor (Bath and Wells): On Christmas Eve in 1994 I served the
chalice as usual in our tiny, packed village church; but, standing next to me this time,
was Maureen, not Graham. As we approached Our Lord Jesus’ birthday at midnight,
there was such a happy atmosphere in this very traditional rural church. As a member of
Synod, I was moved by a great sense of history as two women stood at the altar, and an
awesome sense of humility and duty.
The best thing of all that night, however, was that no one else remarked upon the
uniqueness of the occasion. The gender of the priest was irrelevant in the shared joy of
our Christmas Eucharist. Yet, just a few years earlier in that same church, questions
were asked if it was OK for our new Reader, a woman, to read the Gospel. Epistle, yes,
but the Gospel . . .?
Through the years of change, our benefice has grown closer and we value highly our two
women and one male priest. The sanctity of the Eucharist, their preaching and teaching,
the pastoral care given to all villagers – these are the attributes of a good priest and they
are not limited or designated by gender. The love of Jesus shines through them all and
binds the whole community. If these women have felt a calling from God too, which has
been tested and discerned through selection and training, who has the right then to
question that this calling is from him?
Years later, I was a member of the CAC to choose a new bishop for Bath and Wells. To
be honest, I remember very little of the undoubted qualities of the men from whom we
had to make a choice; but I do remember the very prayerful atmosphere in the convent
where we stayed for 24 hours. Led by Archbishops George and David, we invoked the
Holy Spirit to help us as we talked and voted. As we four diocesan representatives drove
home to Somerset together, we all, with our different churchmanships, felt that the Holy
Spirit had truly been with us.
Had one of the candidates been a woman, I am convinced that we would still have
been so guided through prayer and would have chosen the right person, male or
female. I have no doubt that, had she been chosen, she should be our bishop in every
way in that difficult and privileged calling, and that she would deserve allegiance from
all who purport to serve Our Lord under episcopal leadership. Anything else would
diminish the standing of each and every bishop. If the Holy Spirit had guided the
choice, then the least we can do is to trust him or her to exercise his or her calling in a
godly manner.
85
11:39:27:11:08
Page 85
Page 86
Women Bishops
Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford): I have to begin by telling the Synod that I would not
leave the Church of England if every single bishop were a woman, so nothing that I am
about to say is special pleading for me. However, I fully understand the position of those
who cannot accept the validity of women as bishops, because, as the Prolocutor has
said, they continue to believe only what the Church has always believed.
I find myself in a real position of cognitive dissonance over this. My heart tells me that
we should find some way of accommodating both sides of the argument, but my head
tells me that I do not think that any form of accommodation will solve their problem. As
Rachel Beck has already suggested, we have a problem with, for example, a man who
was ordained by a man who was ordained by a woman. There is also the question of
who confirmed. I become increasingly convinced that what we have here is a circle that
simply cannot be squared.
Members of Synod have spoken passionately, many of them wanting to go ahead with
women bishops but also, at the same time, wanting to try to find a way of keeping
everybody in. I think that we shall come to a point, sooner or later, when every one of us
will have to decide which we want more. If it is a choice between keeping people in the
Church and going ahead with women bishops, which is actually more important to us?
We have been told that the Synod has voted for going ahead with women bishops. We
have not actually voted for that. We may decide that there are other considerations that
cause us to hold back at this time: this is not the only issue dividing this Church at this
moment. It feels as though a brick is about to be dropped on to a plate-glass window. We
are not talking about a clean schism; we are talking about a potential shattering of the
Church right now. I would simply urge Synod to hold back from pursuing this at this
time, because I think that it will inevitably be far more divisive than we could possibly
contemplate.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): We have heard from the Manchester report and
from the Prolocutor about the promises and assurances that have been made. I want to
take us beyond the promises of recent decades to the eschatological promises of God to
his creation, which must contextualize and qualify any human promise that is made.
In the new creation – and, thanks to the Bishop of Durham, we now all know that we
must no longer say ‘heaven’! – we are offered a vision of a gathering of ‘. . . saints from
every tribe and language and people and nation’. God has made them ‘a kingdom of
priests serving him’. In the reign of Christ, men and women will have unity and equality
in the love of God.
In order that God’s people today may begin to conform themselves to this vision of
God’s ultimate rule, the Church is asked to order herself not only as an historical
community but as an eschatological one. As a Church, we have often forgotten our
future. We need to order our present as though we were headed there. Church order
must be future-directed as well as historical.
86
11:39:27:11:08
Page 86
Page 87
Women Bishops
In the light of this vision of ultimate unity and the love of God, I have to ask myself
whether the Church should ever, even in the face of painful division, willingly structure
her life and her orders in a way that denies that future of eschatological unity. Forever
promises, everlasting assurances, should never be offered. Archbishop Carey and
Professor McClean were making promises that could never bind the future Church,
because they were based only on safeguarding the present, not anticipating God’s
future.
While that future emerges, between the now and the not yet, what can be offered to
those unable to accept women bishops is only what the Christian community can ever
offer: our welcome, our love, and an invitation to trust. Trust that, with God’s strength,
all can belong and thrive. Trust that, with God’s help, bishops will seek the flourishing
of ministry of all who are ordained ministers and faithful disciples; and trust that, with
God’s love, all will one day be united in that love. To institutionalize lack of trust is to
betray something fundamental about what it means to be Church. It is to sacrifice our
koinonia for getting through the present difficulty.
Mr Kenneth Hill (Chester): In his foreword to Generous Love, Archbishop Rowan
writes, ‘It is offered in the hope that it will stimulate further theological thinking among
Anglicans who share that double conviction that we must regard dialogue as an
imperative from Our Lord, yet must witness constantly to the unique gift we have in
Christ.’
In his opening remarks on Friday, Archbishop John introduced and welcomed some of
our ecumenical guests and friends. It has been heartening, as a fairly new member of
General Synod, to be involved in discussions such as the Anglican–Methodist Covenant,
GS 1691, to be debated on Monday; the Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue, GS Misc
885; the presentation by Metropolitan John yesterday on Anglican–Orthodox relations.
Would it not be a disgrace if in the same Synod we welcomed our ecumenical guests and
friends and discussions, and yet left some of our own brothers and sisters in the Church
of England feeling bitter and isolated?
In my own humble way I have been proud to stand in my parish church in rural Cheshire
and state, ‘I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, linking us not only
with the worldwide Church but also with Christians down the centuries. It is my fervent
prayer that I will be able to do so for many years to come.
It would be comparatively simple in the debate on women bishops for us to agree a
course that would leave some of us feeling isolated and neglected. The challenge for us
is, together, in our own dialogue and personal witness, to forge a Church of England
where all, irrespective of our individual beliefs and persuasions, belong in Christian
love, in Christian respect and in Christian understanding. It was Our Lord himself who
gave us the commandment, ‘Love as I have loved you.’
The Bishop of Burnley (Rt Revd John Goddard): I speak out of a conviction of being a
87
11:39:27:11:08
Page 87
Page 88
Women Bishops
member of the Church of England. I am not packing my bags. I seek to serve Christ in
his Church, and I believe that to be within the Catholic Church of our country.
I rejoice in the work that has been done in the Manchester report and its careful
weighing and measured way of looking at the needs that face the Church in its ordering
of bishops, which of course then flows into the priests and deacons. I also want to thank
the Business Committee for the careful way in which we have had the groups this
morning, where I think we were surprised at the graciousness of dialogue. May that be
done again in other ways: it is a great help to us all.
In our debate I want to draw an example from the work I do in community cohesion and
among those of other faiths. An aspect that we have to consider in such work is when is
the time to push the boundaries, when is the time to take a leap together into new areas,
and when is the time to know that the dialogue has not yet run its course? If you move
from dialogue too quickly, without clarity on the part of all involved, you move
backwards and not forwards.
I therefore commend to this Synod that as we note this report, and following the
Prolocutor’s comments, now is the time to ask the Manchester group to do further work
on various aspects, as there is confusion in this Synod concerning them.
There are two areas in particular. The first is the issue of three dioceses. What would
they look like? I feel that part of the matter has come to this Synod without its trousers
on. We need more information in order to come to that decision.
The second is how would the Church of England remain in unity, celebrating its
diversity built upon its comprehensiveness, if the college of bishops is permanently
divided? At the moment, there is not one bishop from whom I would not be glad to
receive Communion. Post the consecration of women that would not be the case. How
can we look at that? We have not examined it enough. The college of bishops forms the
unity of our two provinces as the dioceses come together. Fracture that and we certainly
fracture our Church. I would therefore ask the Manchester group to be given such
opportunity, not for delay but for productivity.
The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent): The difficult part about this debate
relates to process, which we find difficult and the press find difficult too: they are not
sure what to report. I am glad that we are into process, however, because I want to say to
those who are talking about more delay and more discussion that the way you get your
trousers on is by doing the legislation; it is not by going back and asking for more
elucidation. The elucidation comes only as we refine what is already here. That is why
the Manchester report is so helpful to us.
I speak as someone who is passionately committed to women bishops. I want them
yesterday, if possible! However, I find within myself this huge dilemma, which many of
us are expressing this morning. I am committed because I believe that it is not repugnant
88
11:39:27:11:08
Page 88
Page 89
Women Bishops
at all to the Word of God. I believe that it is there in Scripture and I can argue for it, but I
recognize that Mr MacLeay and I disagree. I therefore have this difficulty about what
the heck we do about the discussion we are having.
On the one hand, I see women whose episcope is already evident to me in the Church
and who ought to be bishops. I want that to happen and I want them to be able to do
that in a Church that is free of discrimination. On the other hand, I am completely
convinced that the promises we made back in 1992 and 1993 are promises that were
honourable and genuine, and that those who are opposed have that continuing place in
our Church, which we cannot renege on. I have heard a lot of rewriting of history going
on, where folk have tried to say, ‘Oh, we didn’t really say that. It wasn’t really true.’ We
did say that. We said it in Synod; we said it in the House of Bishops; we said it to the
Ecclesiastical Committee; and we cannot go back on that.
An eschatological dissonance appeared when Canon Butler was trying to persuade us
that you look to the future and ignore what you did before. The only honest way we
could deal with this, if we really wanted to, would be to say to those who are opposed,
‘You’ve got ten years. Then we’re going to ordain women as bishops and there will be
absolutely no discrimination against them at all. You’ve got ten years to sort yourselves
out – to go Uniate; to go Protestant, or whatever’. I do not want that. I want those folk
who are opposed to remain in our Church, and I want guarantees for them that will help
them.
I do not like saying it, because I hear what that does for the women whom I support.
However, I believe that the options before us need to be along the lines of a proper
provision for them, and a code of practice is a very fragile and unhelpful way to do that.
You can only deliver that if you have transferred arrangements like option four, which
gives you the guarantees that you cannot mess around with the legislation. Codes of
practice are fragile, unequal and uneven in their operation: they will not serve what we
promised. Either say to people, ‘You’ve got ten years to go’ – and I do not want that – or
give them the statutory provision that they require from our promises all those years ago.
Mr Ian O’Hara (Coventry): I begin by welcoming this report and by thanking the
members of the group for its fairness and thoroughness.
I believe that I am fortunate in coming from a diocese where, as a layman who cannot in
conscience receive the ministry of women priests, I am generally treated generously and
charitably by those who take a different view. Only on Thursday of this week I was
privileged to take part in the presentation of our new diocesan bishop at his
consecration. I shared that role with a woman priest who is, and I hope will continue to
be, a good friend – an example of living together in diversity.
I speak today, though, as someone who has been brought up and nurtured within the
Church of England. I remain, in the words of the resolution from the 1998 Lambeth
Conference, ‘a loyal Anglican’ and I want to continue to do so.
89
11:39:27:11:08
Page 89
Page 90
Women Bishops
In some ways, I am disappointed that the report revisits the option of a single clause,
which Synod has rejected through a variety of amendments in the last three years. This
minimalist option, with or without a code of practice, is unacceptable. It is a betrayal of
the promises made post-1992. It provides no sacramental assurance. The consequences
of a code of practice, as paragraph 73 of the report makes clear, would be to diminish
the comprehensiveness of the Church of England and ‘trigger a period of . . .
turbulence.’ However, many of the other variations are equally unsatisfactory,
demeaning to women bishops, overly complicated, and theologically incoherent.
While therefore generally welcoming the tone and content of much of the report, I am
disappointed that there was no time to produce an illustrative draft Measure for the new
dioceses option.
Being Anglican is not just about sharing the same views but about learning to live
together in diversity as brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not believe that this can be
achieved by the simply statutory solution. I urge Synod overwhelmingly to support the
report before it today, but then to show an equally overwhelming generosity of heart on
Monday by providing proper provision for those of us who cannot in conscience receive
the ministry of women.
Mr Tim Allen (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): Until recently I took the view that special
guaranteeing arrangements should continue to be enshrined in law by Measure and
should continue to include the right to pass Resolutions A and B. Recently, however, as
a member of the pastoral committee in my diocese, I have been involved in events within
a particular multi-parish team benefice. These events made clear to me how perniciously
Resolution B can affect such multi-parish team benefices, which these days are
widespread in rural dioceses like my own.
Under the 1993 Measure, one parish alone in a team benefice – which might include as
many as, say, 20 parishes in all – has the absolute right, by passing Resolution B, to
prevent all the other parishes from enjoying the ministry of a woman priest. In my view,
this is intolerable.
The difference in effect of Resolution B between the urban or suburban and the rural
context is as follows. In the single-parish benefice, which is characteristic of the cities
and the suburbs, a PCC passing Resolution B affects only its own parish by fencing itself
off against women. Surrounding parishes which accept the ministry of women can be
led and served by women priests and can welcome into their churches any refugees from
the neighbouring Resolution B parish who do not share that PCC’s view. On the other
hand, in a rural diocese large areas and many churches within multi-parish team
ministries can be made no-go areas for women priests and for those who seek their
ministry merely by dint of one single parish passing Resolution B. In effect, the dog in
the manger rules. Because the 1993 Resolution B provisions to protect those Anglicans
who cannot tolerate female headship are enshrined in law, they are totally rigid and
inflexible. The one parish passing Resolution B has the absolute right to fence off against
90
11:39:27:11:08
Page 90
Page 91
Women Bishops
women priests all the parishes in the team benefice. There is no scope for negotiation or
compromise so long as the Resolution B parish sticks to its rights.
Being recently exposed to this unhappy state of affairs has convinced me that a code of
practice, which could be applied more flexibly than the present rigid Measure, is the
better way forward. With a code of practice there would be scope for tolerance, trust,
goodwill and compromise, which have no place under a rigid Measure with the force of
law.
Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (London): I want to thank the Manchester group for the
work that they have done: I do not envy the work that went into this report. However, I
want to ask Synod this question: how can I and the work that I do be repugnant to the
God who has called me to a life of discipleship and service? I struggle with that. Can this
be the same God whom I serve?
There are those who ask that we continue to go back to the drawing board. We have had
Rochester; we have had Guildford; now we have Manchester. Why do we not go
through until we have reports from each of the 44 bishops? ‘More time’, we say.
In 1994, when I was ordained to the priesthood, I remember the sense of excitement, but
I also remember the sense of overwhelming sadness etched on the faces of the women in
their seventies, who have served the Church for all their lives and who were never
allowed to exercise that ministry. A great loss to the Church, I believe. We continue to
say, ‘Let’s go back to the drawing board. Let’s talk more. Let’s work on the theology.’
Let us be honest with each other. We are never ever going to agree on this. Those of
you who are steeped in Church history will know that the Church has always had
points of disagreement: some big, some little. We are never ever going to agree. What
I believe we are saying, if we are honest, is ‘Not in my lifetime.’ If that is the case, then let
us say it.
Perhaps we need to be honest and allow each other the permission to be adults and
grown-up and, if this is no longer the Church that we want it to be, to be honest and say,
‘I cannot be in this Church’ – and it is OK. We cannot force people to be a part of the
Church. This is God’s Church, after all.
Professor Helen Leathard (Blackburn): I stand to support the motion that this Synod
should take note of the report and to commend the working group on the clarity of the
report. What I want to contribute to the debate is an insight that came to me while I was
reflecting prayerfully on the draft legislation a couple of weeks ago, which is that we
actually have a model and guidance in our New Testament Scriptures.
I think we all accept that Jesus’ ministry was the fulfilment of the law at the time. The
Gospel accounts of the activities of the living Word of God might therefore reasonably
inform what we should incorporate in our laws. In addition, we have in the Acts of the
Apostles and in the epistles an account of what might reasonably be called the
91
11:39:27:11:08
Page 91
Page 92
Women Bishops
development of a Christian code of practice: something that evolved in the light of
experience and in response to differing pastoral and cultural situations.
How does this insight inform what we should be enshrining in our law at the present
time to do with women bishops? Going back to the Gospels, we have several accounts of
Jesus acknowledging, initiating, or removing obstacles to women’s leadership roles. I
will not go through them all in three minutes but I want to point in particular to Jesus’
encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well. He met her there; he taught her;
he sent her back to the city, and she gathered a large crowd. Then he spent two days
teaching her. That must have been the formation of a new Christian community and I
cannot believe that it was not Jesus’ intention that that woman should have a very
significant leadership role in that community.
If we want to talk about removing obstacles we can think of the Mary and Martha
situation, where Jesus removed obstacles to Mary joining the disciples and thereby
becoming a potential leader in the new Church.
We have just heard about the problems with our present legislation in multi-parish
benefices, and I will not repeat that. What we do know is that, since the women priests
legislation and the Act of Synod, many devout Christians have come to see things
differently. We have become aware of the difficulties of appointing the priest to the
multi-parish benefices, and so on.
I think that the only way forward is to have the single-clause Measure, but we need a
code of practice that is regarded as theologically valid, authoritative, trustworthy and
pastorally responsive.
Mr John Ward (London): Legislation versus a code of practice. Suddenly, I think I have
lots of friends. Metaphorically, everyone wants to sit next to me. Why? Because I am a
lawyer. I am told, ‘Don’t let’s seek to engage in dialogue; don’t let’s seek to maintain that
Anglican conversation; don’t let’s listen to the Holy Spirit, that it may lead us into truth
(John 14). Instead, ask a lawyer about legislation.’
There are two kinds of lawyers, as we all know. There are those who know the law and
there are those who know the judge. (Laughter) Let us not give the way we are a
Church, the way we are together, over to the lawyers.
What is the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A bad lawyer can let a
case drag out for several years. A good lawyer can let it drag out for very much longer!
(Laughter) That is it. ‘Kerrching!’ as far as I am concerned as a lawyer. Let us not spend
money on mission and evangelizing – and I bet there are one or two who are quite
surprised that I use those words – let us spend it on the lawyers. By the way, what is
wrong with lawyer jokes? Lawyers do not think that they are funny and everyone else
does not think that they are jokes! (Laughter)
92
11:39:27:11:08
Page 92
Page 93
Women Bishops
Now let us be serious. Let us be serious about our core business: Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. Let us have something that everyone can understand and that encourages us to
talk. Let us focus on appropriate behaviour, not legislation. Let us use a code of practice
to keep the Anglican conversation going.
No one is saying that there should not be arrangements. No one is saying, ‘Let’s empty
some churches.’ A code of practice could be vague or precise. It could require mediation.
Gosh, it could require us to talk! Then – it is part of the law of the land – the mediated
solution could be enforced as between the parties. Let us not forget that the Act of
Synod is a non-binding, non-statutory code of practice.
The devil here is very much in the detail of the code of practice. Let us not forget that
important theological point, alongside the others that have been made by previous
speakers. I will be voting for a code of practice and I will be looking to see the code come
forward in detail. I hope that Synod will do the same.
Revd Dr Jane Craske (Ecumenical Representatives, Methodist Church): I want to affirm
the extent to which this Synod, over the time that it has been debating this subject, has
listened to its ecumenical partners. The latest way of doing that is in the varied responses
to Cardinal Kasper’s address, which you have also seen as members of Synod. You will
know what the Methodist Church would say to you at this point, and I will not repeat
that now.
I want to bring into the context of this debate some words from the Joint
Implementation Commission report, which you will look at on Monday morning. The
words are these: ‘We recognize the need for each other to make decisions within our
own life and structure. That has required each of us to give the other space, in the
confidence that they have heard our concerns and are taking them into account in
reaching their own decision.’
I want to offer you the encouragement to make the decision that is right for the
Christian unity that you are trying to be before God at this time. I trust that is what the
whole Methodist Church would want to say to you. The decision you have to make
about a particular trajectory now is the one that is right for this time, in this cultural
context. The attention to the context you are in includes giving proper consideration to
the tradition in which you stand, to the decisions you made in 1992 and 1993 and the
way you have lived with them since.
I would perhaps note in regard to a phrase like ‘cultural context’ that cultural context is
where some people have wanted to put considerations about discrimination, justice, or
words like that; others would say that they are at the very heart of the gospel – but that
is the point: gospel and culture are not entirely separate packages.
Similarly, having regard to the cultural context is not something completely different
from having regard to the tradition. You talked yesterday about the living tradition of
93
11:39:27:11:08
Page 93
Page 94
Women Bishops
walking in the Spirit. The gospel can be discovered even in the midst of new contexts,
even emerging from the messy realities of new contexts, as well as witnessing from
beyond their limitations.
This week, I was privileged to share in celebration with my cousin as she was ordained
priest in the Church of England. In one sense, it was the ending of a journey and, in
another, it was a good beginning.
Mrs Joanna Monckton (Lichfield): I should first like to thank the group for all the hard
work that has gone into producing this excellent and clear report. However, I
understand that they had a deadline to meet and so really had not gone into the final
option, which was the separate diocese. I hope that they will have time to go further into
that.
I have been dreading this debate for some years. I joined Synod in 1990, in the run-up to
the ordination of women in 1992 – a vote that was won by less than two votes in the
House of Laity. We were then told that if we could not accept this vote we should leave
the Church. This statement by the then Archbishop left me feeling unchurched. I was
devastated. I had not realized until then how much the Church meant to me, and then I
realized that my life had been built on my faith, like a rock on which to build a house. I
did not receive Communion until Christmas, seven weeks later, and then in a fragile
state. We were later told by the then Archbishop – I think it was Archbishop Habgood –
that we must remain as loyal Anglicans, bound together like two strands of rope, each of
us as equally valued members. We were then given promises of permanent security with
the Act of Synod.
Are these promises now to be broken? What an act of betrayal by Synod and the bishops
if all that is on offer is a code of practice. What we need is the legal security of an
alternative structural provision by Measure, which gives us peace of mind for all those
people we represent in the parishes that their children will not have to go through this
unchristian turmoil ever again.
A legal structural provision, not a code of practice – even a statutory code of practice,
which can easily be broken, ignored or amended – would do so much to restore trust in
the bishops. Parishioners fear that the bishops will break the promises of the recent past.
It is only 15 years ago. Those opposed, like me, have stayed within the Church on these
past promises made by the bishops. We have not left because we want desperately to
stay Anglicans.
Mr Keith Malcouronne (Guildford): Like many earlier speakers, I thank the Manchester
group for their report, in particular for the excellent clarity in terms of the different
options they have laid out and the significance of the choice that we have in front of us.
I would like to touch on the proposed revised Canon A 4 and the significance of it. The
proposed text has been set out on page 28 of the report and, in doing that, they are
94
11:39:27:11:08
Page 94
Page 95
Women Bishops
seeking not only to tidy up some historical anomalies – and avoid the necessity, I
understand, for some possible re-ordinations – but also clearly stating the mutual
recognition as we go forward with women in the episcopate. That goes both ways. It is a
recognition from what would be the majority, in terms of the ministry of those who are
not able to accept women as bishops, as well as the other way round. That is with a
view, I believe, to mutual flourishing; that there needs to be opportunity for growth
and for appointment of those who are traditional and those who are progressive alike.
The phrase in the charge to the Manchester group was ‘both loyal Anglicans’.
Another matter I wanted to touch on in the motion that set off the Manchester report
was the charge that Synod made to maintain the highest possible degree of communion
with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops. Like Tim
Hind, I have been looking to the Scriptures for some guidance, where one can read both
for and against in terms of this development.
I thought that the principles in Romans 14 about the stronger and the weaker brother
were particularly appropriate to our circumstances. ‘Accept him whose faith is weak,
without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat
everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who
eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not
eat everything must not condemn the man who does . . . Therefore let us stop passing
judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling-block
or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced
that no food is unclean . . . But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is
unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting
in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died . . . Let us
therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not
destroy the work of God for the sake of food.’
As we progress the debate on Monday, let us work together, do everything possible to
build up, to edify, to unite and to have genuine mutual recognition and genuine mutual
flourishing.
Dr Roger Fry (Europe): I read this report with considerable interest and wish to
congratulate the members of the group that produced it for their work. It is both
thorough and imaginative and puts before Synod an ingenious range of options that,
in theory, could lead to the consecration of women as bishops – an outcome that I
would welcome.
I do find two serious omissions that concern me, however. The first is the total absence
of any attempt to quantify the cost to the Church of England of the possible options
described. Do we have any idea of the cost of creating a new province or, if we go for the
option of new dioceses, do we know what extra sums of money would be involved?
My impression is that our Church and particularly some dioceses already in existence
95
11:39:27:11:08
Page 95
Page 96
Women Bishops
are on the verge of financial crisis now. This being the case, what effect would new
dioceses or a new province have on the economic viability of our Church? We are
expected to be faithful stewards of the resources of the Church. If we were to consider
options for new structures as a result of this report without knowing the financial
implications, would this not be totally irresponsible?
The second omission concerns the lack of assurances that, if women were to be admitted
to the episcopate, under a number of options in this report the unity of the Church of
England could be destroyed. The report envisages a scenario where there would be two
distinct groups of bishops. One group would be all male and its members would ordain
and consecrate only men. The other group would be made up of both men and women
who would all take part in ordaining men and women to the priesthood and in
consecrating men and women as bishops. The problem I see is that the first group would
not take part in eucharistic worship which involved members of the second group.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the first group is not in communion with the
second group. We would therefore have a House of Bishops in the Church of England in
which some bishops were not in communion with other bishops. As I have always
understood that the bishops were a guarantee of unity in the Church, this scenario seems
to me to be unacceptable.
I hope that in his reply the Chairman will be able to overcome these objections that I
raise to the report, so that I will be able to vote for the Synod to take note.
Revd Thomas Seville (Religious Communities): I want to record my appreciation for the
work that the Manchester group has done. The language of ‘dragging feet’ has been
used, as if we are going very slowly on this. I am not sure that it must feel like that to the
Manchester group, who have had to work to a very tight timetable and I think have not
been able to complete things as far as they would have liked. We do need to record our
warm appreciation for what they have done.
It has already been noted that one of the things not included was further work on the
new diocese aspect. Another aspect that is not considered, and I appreciate why, is the
possibility that conditions at the moment are not such that one can proceed. The view is
taken that it would make for greater disruption than the equilibrium which we have
found since 1994.
It occurs to me that at the end of our debate on Monday the conclusion may be that we
are not in a position to proceed yet; that it would not be acceptable to proceed to have
women bishops whose ministry is severely qualified. I do not think that the idea of, ‘Get
a woman bishop under any circumstances – that’s OK.’ finds a great deal of support. On
the other hand, if one goes along with that, the conditions will be created where a
significant minority in the Church of England are unable to exist as Christians engaged
in mission, knowing the assurance of God’s love in this particular part of the Lord’s
vineyard.
96
11:39:27:11:08
Page 96
Page 97
Women Bishops
The Manchester report quite regularly uses the language, or presupposes the language,
of ‘squared circles’. As members know, one cannot square a circle. It is my conviction
that that may be where we are on Monday evening. That is a warning, but I cannot see
any other way out of our present difficulties than actually recognizing that.
Revd Canon Anne Stevens (Southwark): Like many other speakers, I would express my
gratitude to the Bishop of Manchester and to the drafting group for such a thorough and
interesting report. I feel particularly grateful for the work that the group has done on
Canon A 4, which has been very reassuring to us about the validity of women’s orders.
What I would ask for today is that similar theological and legal work be done on the
notion of sacramental assurance. There is a point in paragraph 138 where the report
suggests that ‘. . . the theological convictions of those unable to receive the ordained
ministry of women are within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition’. That is
one of the things about which we all need to be reassured.
Certainly these people are Anglicans – good, sincere, loyal Anglicans. We have debated
and agreed all of this. Is that question mark over sacramental assurance really as
Anglican as we are beginning to assume it is, though? I look in the canons and I cannot
find it. I look in the Articles and I cannot find it. In particular, I find Article 26 saying in
effect that the effectiveness of the sacrament is not hindered by the unworthiness of a
minister. One then thinks, ‘Is that like Canon A 4? Does it not apply any more?’ Then
one finds another Article that says, ‘Actually, only baptism and the Eucharist are
sacraments anyway.’
This is a very confusing issue and we need some guidance on it. What I would like is to
find a doctrine that is both Reformed and Catholic, and an appropriately Anglican
understanding of sacramental assurance that will enable us all to remain in the same
Church.
Mr Gerry O’Brien (Rochester): I think that there is a majority in this Synod who come
to this debate with a mind to welcome the idea of making women priests eligible to be
considered for appointment to episcopal posts. We have to take a view on how this
might best be achieved, but we might do well to consider what may be the unintended
consequences of such a course of action. I think that this is the stuff of which nightmares
are easily made.
Fifteen years ago we voted in favour of women priests and we made provision for those
who were unable to accept this innovation. We had Resolutions A, B and C; we had
provincial episcopal visitors; but, looking back to 1992, I think that we expected that
the dissentients would soon retire or die and that, within 10 or 15 years, we would have
a Church of England that uniformly accepted women’s priestly ministry. Reception
would have taken place. Little did we imagine that the level of dissent would grow
rather than shrink and that, 15 years later, we would find that near enough 1,000
parishes had passed Resolution B, which says that they would not find a woman priest
97
11:39:27:11:08
Page 97
Page 98
Women Bishops
acceptable as their incumbent. This is a degree of disunity unparalleled in the Church of
England.
How do we proceed from here, therefore? We could proceed to women bishops and
make no provision at all for those who disagree. However, it may be useful to take as a
case study what has been going on across the Atlantic in North America. This suggests
that, if we provide options none of which is acceptable to parishes, there is every
possibility that some well-meaning primate from elsewhere in the Anglican Communion
in all probability may make the provision that we decline to make, and the diocesan
map of England could well end up looking like Emmenthal cheese.
We could have a code of practice. It would seem good to us, but not to those for whom it
is designed. We could get the same result. We could have separate dioceses and still finish
up with Emmenthal cheese, but at least we in the General Synod would have had a hand
in defining the shape of it.
I fear that on Monday we will not be looking for the best option; we will merely be
looking for the least worst option. I therefore beg members of Synod, let us look before
we leap. Let us not inflict needless damage on the precarious unity of our precious
Church of England.
Canon Ann Turner (Europe): I too would like to thank the Manchester working party
for the way in which they addressed the brief given to them by Synod. In my daily life,
apart from Church business, I am a communications trainer and I must say that I found
this one of the clearest reports on a very difficult topic that I have received during my
time on Synod.
I also welcome the opportunity we were given this morning to listen to each other’s
starting points in this debate. However, as page 12 of the report reminds us, ‘the central
question that now needs to be faced is whether the Church of England still wishes to
make special provisions for those who, on grounds of theological conviction, have
difficulties with the ordination of women’.
We can then find possible arrangements set out clearly for us. I deliberately omit the
word ‘special’ as to me they are not special but the norm, and have been for the last 15
years. As we were promised in 1993, General Synod had signalled its resolve with
respect to protection for incumbents and that, in particular parishes, they should remain
in perpetuity for as long as anybody wanted it.
I was baptized and confirmed into the Church of England. I still worship in the Church
of England in Europe. I hold it dear to me and am prepared to work tirelessly for it, at
local, diocesan and national level, and I still need this provision. If we go back on those
commitments made by Synod to our own faithful members, what message does that give
to our Roman Catholic partners in ARCIC? I fear that their mistrust will be
strengthened.
98
11:39:27:11:08
Page 98
Page 99
Women Bishops
We cannot afford further divisions in the Church, neither do we want to stretch the
fragility of Anglicanism in Europe, where it is very much a minority stretched already to
breaking point. We need here a bishop acceptable to all.
I would therefore urge Synod, when taking note of this report, not to be swayed by the
simplest option. In my mind, this will mean the end of traditional Anglican
comprehensiveness, of which we have been trustees since Elizabethan times. An option
which has the potential to endure and to provide for us all, and for generations to come,
is what we are looking for.
His Honour Tom Coningsby (Vicar General of York, Ex officio): My position is, I think,
similar to that of many others now in the Synod, and that is that I want to work towards
having women bishops and as soon as reasonably possible; but I also want to keep
within the Church of England all those who have belonged to it in the past.
In response to Gerry O’Brien, I would make the point that in 1992, when we made
special provisions for our Catholic brethren, we did not do so reluctantly or because we
had to; we did it because we wanted to, because we believed it and we wanted the
Catholic element to remain in the Church of England. We did it on a long-term basis.
Anybody who had been in the Synod for any length of time in 1992 knew the
importance of the Catholic position in the Church of England. We had seen it so often in
many of our debates and we had learnt to welcome it. We therefore made those
provisions in 1992, not in the expectation that they would go away but in the
knowledge about the strength of the Catholic position and that those provisions would
continue.
I want a strong provision for the protection of those who cannot accept women bishops;
I want it to be enforceable, and I want to do it with a glad heart. Can this be done by a
code of practice? I think we should, if possible, respect the guidance being given to us by
the House of Bishops. After all, they are the ones primarily who will have to implement
whatever is produced. However, I also believe that a code of practice can work perfectly
well. I think that it should be a statutory code of practice, and I am slightly concerned
that that does not appear in the Monday Measure. I think that the intention is that it
should be statutory and there should be a provision in the Measure that enables it to say
that it has to be complied with. Anything less than that, frankly, will not get the
necessary two-thirds majority eventually.
There are two great advantages in having a code of practice as against a complete system
of legislation. One is that we can alter the code of practice in the House of Bishops and
General Synod without having to go back to Parliament. The other is that it keeps the
priorities right, because the provision would say that the Church of England welcomes
women bishops but we make honourable arrangements for those who cannot accept the
general provision. We want to deal with the matter in that way, which puts the emphasis
in the right place.
99
11:39:27:11:08
Page 99
Page 100
Women Bishops
Mrs Lorna Ashworth (Chichester): I enjoy a robust debate and I am not afraid of
debating this issue. I like people to say what they really think, because there is nothing
more irritating than talking in circles, as if we are going for a lovely walk through a
meadow. Let us just be honest about what is being said here. I will come to that in a
minute!
I used to think that I was in the minority, being a woman who is still clinging on and just
under 40, who stands in a position where I do not support the ordination of women to
the priesthood or to the episcopate. However, I am learning rapidly that I am not in the
minority and, as Gerry O’Brien pointed out, the numbers are increasing since Synod had
the discussion 15 years ago.
My point is this. We need to be honest about the consequences of what is on the table,
and it is coming back to the concept of a code of practice. Like Tim Hind, I also received
things falling through my door. He had papers from Reform; so did I. I also had a paper
published by WATCH, written by Canon Peggy Jackson, called Women Bishops and
about the protection and integrity of them. She says that, in order for women to trust the
Church, it would follow ‘. . . that it would no longer be appropriate to select, train and
bring into ordained ministry those who from the outset will have a conscientious
objection to a central part of those policies, i.e. to the full and equal status of women
and men together in Holy Orders’. I profoundly disagree with that.
Like all of you, I am a loyal Anglican and, like comments that have been made, I also see
myself as a disciple of Jesus Christ. I do not want this issue to be debated from the point
of gender discrimination: that puts me in a really funny situation. What do I do about
that? I am a woman. Am I discriminating against myself? No. This is something that I
have taken a lot of time over, to pray and to think through. This is a biblical conviction
for me. This is not an issue of gender discrimination.
If we are to discuss this properly, it cannot be from that basis. I know we are saying that
we keep going back to this. OK, let us not go back; let us move forward. Let us be frank
about our discussion, though: it has to be biblical. I, like you, am a loyal Anglican. We
may disagree. Please, I ask respectfully that Synod carefully think through what is on
offer and how we can make provision for the likes of me and for the likes of those who
disagree.
Revd Andrew Watson (London): Like the Bishop of Manchester himself, I have been
privileged over the past few days to witness the ordination of my wife as a deacon, in my
case in the splendour of St Paul’s Cathedral, where Bev, petite at the best of times, was
distinctly dwarfed by a large number of tall young curates from HTB! I am duly
adapting to my new role as a clergy spouse and have survived my baptism of fire: the
organization of a post-ordination party for 20 friends and family while my wife was on
retreat, followed by an appearance as Bev’s trophy husband at a welcome party held in
her honour at her new parish, St Mary’s, Osterley.
100
11:39:27:11:08
Page 100
Page 101
Women Bishops
I am speaking from the position of an evangelical who is in favour of the ordination of
women to the diaconate, the presbyterate, and indeed the episcopate. Almost everything
within me wants to get on with it and to do so clearly, decisively and joyfully. Following
the Bishop of Willesden’s speech, though, I would just like to flesh out this question of
promises, which I think we have begun to look at but perhaps need to deepen a bit
further.
This is particularly with reference to a rather obscure incident in the life of King David,
at a time when there had been a famine in the land for three successive years and David,
in his desperation, had fallen on his knees and asked what on earth was going on. The
answer he received was a surprising one: that the famine was God’s judgement on Israel
because Saul, David’s predecessor, had failed to keep a promise dating back to the time
of Joshua. It was a promise that a small group of people, the Gibeonites, would be able
to live alongside the Israelites in the Promised Land. Instead, Saul, we are told, in his
zeal for Israel and Judah, had tried to get rid of them – 2 Samuel 21.2. What is
instructive about this particular story is that the Lord expected Saul and David to keep
their promise to the Gibeonites, even though it was inconvenient, even though it was
messy, and even though the circumstances in which the promise was first given were
pretty murky, to say the least. Could the Israelites and the Gibeonites coexist in the
Promised Land? They had to, because a promise had been made. If the life of the Church
is to reflect the life of our triune God, so it needs to express this central aspect of God’s
character: that our God is a God who keeps his promises.
As the Bishop of Willesden has reminded us, promises were made when women were
ordained to the priesthood. We do not need to rehearse those again. While I am
personally saddened that there will be some people in this chamber and in our Church as
a whole who will never recognize my wife’s orders, or at least will cease to do so when
she is ordained to the priesthood next year, I still believe that some provision – legal
provision, I guess, though a soft touch is possible – needs to be made on their behalf if
the Church, like its Lord, is to keep its promises.
Revd Alastair Cutting (Chichester): Haere Mai, Haere Mai, Haere Mai! Greetings in
Maori: ‘Welcome, thrice welcome’. I ought to offer spellings for those who are having to
type, and how you sign that I really do not know. I will refrain from doing a haka into
the bargain, though!
I was privileged to be on an exchange in a parish in Auckland diocese a few years ago.
My bishop was John Paterson, who was also Chair of the Anglican Consultative
Council. It is the Church that has the first woman elected as diocesan bishop in Dunedin
and now also has another one elected to Christchurch. It is also the Church that has
something else that it might be able to teach us, not from the perspective of women
bishops but in the way that the order of the Church operates.
The first settlers in Aotearoa/New Zealand were the Maori. The second wave, 500 to
700 years later, were the European whites, known in New Zealand as the Pakeha. The
101
11:39:27:11:08
Page 101
Page 102
Women Bishops
third main group was those from the Pacific islands: the Fijians, the Tongans, the
Samoans. The Church now reflects that. They have the Church in three Tikangas: the
Tikanga Maori, the Tikanga Pakeha and the Tikanga Pasefika. Each Tikanga has its
own character and clergy, bishops and dioceses – a bit like three sheets of acetate over
the map of Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Potentially, this may help us to understand a bit more about the pattern for three extra
dioceses in our Church. The Prayer Book in the Anglican Church there has Maori and
English side by side; it has within it Tongan, Fijian and Samoan – a veritable ‘speaking in
tongues’ for those worshipping God, Sunday by Sunday. Even in the English
congregations there are Maori parts of a service. In Auckland Cathedral, the Lord’s
Prayer is said in Maori. Brilliant! Three Tikangas working together.
Their synod meets only biennially, once every two years. Can you imagine that? Not
only do they vote in three Houses – of bishops, clergy and laity – they also vote in the
three Tikangas and, just occasionally, have to vote in three Tikangas and houses. That is
nine lots of voting going on in nine houses at the same time!
I wanted to visit a local Maori congregation. The clergy chapter that I was a part of at
the time was the Pakeha chapter and when I asked, ‘Where is the nearest Maori church?’
they said, ‘We don’t actually know’. They train together. The three Tikangas have
colleges together under the one, overall theological college in Auckland. They started off
together but, as time went on, they drew apart. Although their orders and their practices
are those that are acknowledged one to another, it seemed to me that there are a few
difficulties about that.
It seems to be a brilliant model, but it is hard work. It may be a way forward for them in
ministry and in mission, where all orders are recognized in all parts; but it is not a
panacea.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I beg to move:
The Bishop of Manchester, in reply: May I first of all say thank you for the
characteristically courteous nature of this debate this morning, to the 27 different
contributors, and also for the warm wishes and appreciation that have been conveyed to
the Manchester group? We are very grateful for that. Inevitably, I am not going to be
able to take up points that have been made by each person. I am just going to grab one
or two headline points and clarify or respond.
First of all on the Rochester report, that was debated in a ‘take note’ debate in this
Synod in February 2005. It was referenced in subsequent debates, not least in July 2005,
102
11:39:27:11:08
Page 102
Page 103
Women Bishops
and I think it is fair to say that it has been seminal to our continuing thinking,
debates and discussions within the Church of England as we have progressed on the
whole issue.
Then there was a question about what is the view of the House of Bishops. You tell me!
Monday will obviously give us a better idea. I think it is important that we have not had
a great phalanx of bishops speaking because, like all of us, they are listening and
learning – as we always do. The options will clearly be developed, and maybe amended,
in conversation over this weekend. I think it really is important that we absorb the
differing views as we have listened to them.
The specific point was asked about a two-thirds majority in the House of Bishops. Of
course, the two-thirds issue does not come in any of the Houses until the very end of the
process. The process could go in all kinds of directions and it could be stopped at any
stage. It would have been quite a risky better who would have taken out a bet on what
happened in 1992 – so we just do not know.
Then we were asked about further work for the Manchester group to do. As I said
yesterday, we are very ready to serve the Synod in doing that. It will of course depend on
what judgement Synod comes to on Monday; but, on the particular matter about the
three dioceses and more details about what they might look like, first of all do remember
that Annex C of the report goes into some detail about that. It was not that we ran out
of time over the three dioceses; it is because it is very complicated and we do need to
have the steer from Synod that you would like us to do more work on that as a very
serious option, if on Monday that is your view.
A number of speakers spoke sensitively about the dangers of relying too much on the
law, and of course that must be right. Equally, in a fallen world, I do not think that we
can escape from living within a society or a Church where some rights, duties and
processes are given legal force. Justice and the protection of those without power mean
that sometimes it really is not quite enough to say that we simply have to trust each
other. It is rather compelling, far more compelling indeed, always to be able to say ‘I
trust you’ than to say ‘Please trust me.’ I think that, over these days, we have to build up
that kind of trust where people can say to the other side, as it were, ‘I am beginning to
trust you.’
The question with which we will have to grapple on Monday, therefore, is a balance
that has to be struck. Too much law, too little law, can both have their difficulties – until,
that is, the eschalogical day is finally realized. I began to pick up in the debate quite a
few people feeling, ‘Yes, of course, we have to be legal but, if we are going to be legal,
let’s do it with a sensitive and maybe a soft touch’.
On the issue of the code of practice, I think I simply need to remind you of page 52 of the
report and also the note which was handed out last night from our Legal Adviser,
pointing to the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, considering the legal effect of a
103
11:39:27:11:08
Page 103
Page 104
statutory code of practice. I do not need to read that: it is there, you have it on your
paper.
Resolution B was raised. Let me refer you to page 23, variation two being referred to in
our report. The issue of sacramental assurance was raised. That is mapped out in
Appendix 2 of the Guildford Report; so, again, let me refer you back to that. In a way,
as I said over the Rochester Report, there is all the work we have done in the
background. I sometimes think that in the Church of England we always think that we
start from scratch. There is a great deal of work on most subjects that has been done
beforehand, and we need to keep that in our active memory.
‘The highest possible degree of communion’ has been referred to. That has been very
important to us in our group, because we were mindful of the precise wording of the
resolution that formed the legislative group. This is what we were specifically asked to
do: to prepare ‘a draft of possible additional legal provision consistent with Canon A 4
to establish arrangements that would seek to maintain the highest possible degree of
communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women
bishops’. That we were asked to do seriously, and that is why we have treated it very
seriously.
As to the delay issue – I think that I made it clear last night and we have made it clear in
the report – it was our unanimous view that this matter ought not to be put off any
further. Anyway, as some speakers have said, if you do put it off now, how long do you
put if off for? Are the issues going to be that much different when the day comes that it
will have to be returned to? Certainly the group continues to be willing to try to find a
way through which is of service to Synod. The one thing we would all be very sad about
would be if this Synod on Monday simply kicked the whole thing into touch.
I am reminded of the words of that great American, Oliver Wendell Holmes. ‘I find the
great thing in this world is not so much where we are but in what direction we are
moving. To reach the port of heaven we must sail sometimes with the wind and
sometimes against it, but we must sail and not drift, nor lie at anchor.’ Members of
Synod, may God bless us as we seek under him to sail forward.
(Adjournment)
THE CHAIR Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (London) took the Chair at 2.30 p.m.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): Almighty God, who commanded light to
shine out of darkness, shine in our hearts and let us know your glory, which we have
seen in the face of Jesus Christ, Our Lord. Amen.
104
11:39:27:11:08
Page 104
Page 105
When I introduced the Archbishops’ Council Report Into the New Quinquennium
(GS 1670) on 8 February 2006 my strapline was ‘We can’t go on as we are.’
The first implication of that report was that we needed to recover our corporate
belonging and identity, that is, getting away from an ‘all or nothing’ attitude. This
means building trustful relationships with one another and building a healthy Church of
England.
The second implication had to do with the tone of our conversations and the need to
develop a culture of appreciative conversation, which depends largely on attentive
listening. We must do this because the whole story of God’s relationship with human
beings – with his creation – is always one of appreciative conversation, from the time
when he walked in the garden and talked to the man and woman in the cool of the
evening, telling them of both the blessings and fruits of creation and of the boundaries of
their ability.
After that first unilateral declaration of independence from God, when love turned in on
itself and away from God, God continued his appreciative conversation and invitation:
his covenant with Abraham; his accompanying of all his people throughout the
generations of their journeying; his conversations with them, either directly or through
his prophets; the constant renewing of his covenant, and his promises; and then the
coming of the Word, made flesh – God walking, talking and showing the human race
‘everything and all that can be known about God’. Throughout these conversations God
is encouraging his people to change, to renew their thoughts, to turn again to him and
away from their own ways. His conversations are about encouraging understanding,
love for himself and for one another.
The third implication of the report Into the New Quinquennium was that the Church
must always be Christ-like, open to all sorts and conditions of men and women, but
sadly too many Christians want a me-shaped Church instead of a Christ-shaped
Church. We must not forget that the Elizabethan Settlement meant that the Church of
England was comprehensive because it was both Catholic and Reformed and was by
law Established for all dwellers in England.
The fourth implication was one of clarity, courage and humanity. A tenth-century
Chinese scholar said, ‘There are three essentials to leadership: humanity, clarity and
courage. Humanity without clarity is like having a field but not ploughing it. Clarity
without courage is like having a vegetable garden without weeding it. Courage without
humanity is like knowing how to harvest but not how to sow.’ We need to help one
another, in the Body of Christ, in ploughing, sowing, weeding, reaping, worshipping
and witnessing. Therefore, the question that I pose to all of us this afternoon is: since
February 2006 how have we got on? Are we still going on as we were? Thank God there
have been some changes, but I believe there is still much more that we can do to be
shaped in Christ-likeness.
105
11:39:27:11:08
Page 105
Page 106
Since my ordination to the diaconate in 1979, I have regularly reflected on the building
blocks of the mission and ministry of Jesus, told to us in chapters 4 to 6 of St Matthew’s
Gospel. What were those building blocks?
The first building block for mission and ministry for Jesus was, ‘The kingdom of God
comes first.’ The most important thing for Jesus of Nazareth was to let people know
about the coming rule of God and to involve them in it. His constant exhortation was,
‘Turn back to God. The kingdom of Heaven will soon be here.’ Another was, ‘Seek first
the kingdom of God and his righteousness. More than anything else put God’s work
first and do what he demands, then the other things will be yours as well.’ The key
question for us is: does God’s kingdom come first in all the things we say and do as
individuals, as a Synod, as the Church of England and as members of the Anglican
Communion?
The second building block for Jesus’s mission and ministry was one of change. The key
verses are ‘Turn back to God, the kingdom will soon be here’ and ‘Jesus went all over
Galilee preaching the good news about God’s kingdom.’ The old phrase ‘God’s
kingdom’ is probably best translated today as ‘God’s movement of change’. Jesus
proclaims God’s movement of change as a movement of repentance and forgiveness for
each human heart. He also proclaims this as a movement of freedom and liberation for
each human community. His followers are to let themselves be seen as a community of
forgiven sinners and a community of expectation. Christianity in the eyes of Jesus is a
forgiveness movement and a freedom movement, and the greatest miracle in us is God’s
constant forgiveness. That is what keeps me going in my ministry. We see Jesus calling a
small group of people to help in God’s movement of change – a divine society of those
who are called to be saints.
In St Paul’s letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians
all members of the Body of Christ are described as ‘saints’, including those whose way of
life was dishonouring to the Lord. For they were all brought by faith and baptism into
the family of Christ, and received the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of saintliness, to be used or
quenched by their subsequent response to God’s invitation.
These Christians belonged to a divine society as well as to countries, to civilizations and
to the world’s organizations – hence backslidings, compromises and an immense variety
among the Church’s members. It includes those who try hard, with patience and
humility which shines through their weaknesses. It also includes those who have ceased
to try and whose membership is merely formal.
In a chapter on The Church: its scandal and glory, Archbishop Michael Ramsey wrote:
‘Often in history the idea has arisen of purging the Church by drastic action, turning out
of the Church those who do not conform to a certain standard and so getting “a real
Church of the Godly”.’ But, he asks, what standards? What measurements shall be
used? It is all too possible, as Puritan and exclusivist movements have proved, to turn
106
11:39:27:11:08
Page 106
Page 107
out fornicators and persons otherwise visibly scandalous and yet to keep in the
respectable, the proud and the smug.
‘No! The Church is not the society of those labelled “virtuous”. It is the mixed
community of sinners called to be saints. So when we say in the Creed that “We believe
in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” we are saying that we believe that there
is a divine society, that the risen Christ is the glory in the midst of it and that the Holy
Spirit is at work within it. The humility wherewith you put yourselves alongside your
fellow members in the Church, especially alongside those whom you are inclined to
think poorly of, is part of the humility whereby you may become yourself less a part of
the Church’s scandal and more a part of the Church’s glory.’
All those called to be saints are the body parts of Christ and can never sever themselves
from the Body either by their pursuit of pure doctrine or by living lives that are still in
need of the gracious redemption of Christ, of which I, Sentamu, am the most unworthy
servant of the most worthy Lord; and I hope that none of you try to turn me out! We are
all members of the body parts of Christ, to borrow Professor Anthony Thiselton’s
phrase.
I recently heard a story from a Kenyan following its election crisis. The Revd Rhoda
Dzombo wrote: ‘I visited a village where people were waiting for seeds to replant crops.
The whole marketplace area had been burnt. A man whose shop had been burnt took
me round and showed me the rubble and cried as he told of the pain that this had
brought him. There was nothing I could do directly for him but listen and share the
pain. Then I was asked to speak. I said, “Why are you fighting each other? Kenya is like
a body. If the body bites its own finger it cannot function normally. That is why I have
come up here from the coast to suffer with you. You are part of me”.’
Over 100 members of this Synod gave £5,000 to the Kenya Appeal last February, and a
further £10,000 was given following the appeal in the papers. Thanks to all who gave
generously. Many provided much help to the body parts of the Body of Christ in Kenya;
for we are all One in Christ.
That is why it is not possible for me to ignore some of the reports and comments around
the GAFCON meeting in Jerusalem and Jordan, also at All Souls, Langham Place. There
is much for me in the Final Statement to which I say a loud Amen – especially the tenets
of orthodoxy. However, it has grieved me deeply to hear reports of the ungracious
personalization of the issues through the criticism and scapegoating of Rowan Williams,
the Archbishop of Canterbury. (Applause) The accusations and implications of what
has been said by some are not only ungenerous and unwarranted but describe a person
whom I do not recognize as Rowan Williams, because for me he demonstrates in his
dealings with others the gift of gracious magnanimity. In the current contested debate
on sexuality the Archbishop of Canterbury is a model of attentive listening and
interpretative charity and, occupying the seat of St Augustine of Canterbury, exemplifies
a Christian who is deeply committed to Scripture, tradition, reason, Christian-lived
107
11:39:27:11:08
Page 107
Page 108
experience and indeed the Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral. Working closely with him, I
have experienced the echoes of that wonderful hymn of Ephrem of Syria:
Truth and love are wings that cannot be separated,
For truth without love is unable to fly,
So too love without truth is unable to soar up;
Their yoke is one of harmony.
Your fountain, Lord, is hidden
From the person who does not thirst for you;
Your treasury seems empty
To the person who rejects you.
Love is the treasure of your heavenly store.
Rowan Williams exemplifies that quest of holding together holiness, truth, love and
unity. His many writings, from Arius to The Wound of Knowledge, actually tell us that
story. For example, in The Wound of Knowledge, in the chapter entitled ‘The Passion of
my God’, he writes: ‘It is the intractable strangeness of the ground of belief that must
constantly be allowed to challenge the fixed assumptions of religiosity; it is a given,
whose question to each succeeding age is fundamentally one and the same. And the
greatness of the great Christian saints lies in their readiness to be questioned, judged,
stripped naked and left speechless by that which lies at the centre of their faith.’ That
does not sound like a man whom others have described. His desire and delight in the life
of the blessed and glorious Trinity is self-authenticating, forever going into God before
he goes into the world – clearly evident if you go on a mission with Rowan Williams and
pray with him, as I have on a number of occasions.
As members of the Anglican Communion, may God help us to rediscover and live the
reality of the Body of Christ; for the bonds of peace are not a straitjacket but an
encouragement to loyalty and love in Christ. As St Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12.13,
‘Entry into the communal reality of being in Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit
is what makes Christians Christian, and all stand on the same footing as members
incorporated in Christ’ – aptly rendered by Professor Anthony Thiselton in his
commentary on 1 Corinthians.
We are part of the Body of Christ. We exist to worship God. We preach the gospel to the
world and bring people into fellowship with God. We infect the world with
righteousness; we speak of divine principles on which the life of humanity is ordered.
Archbishop Rowan Williams does this admirably. Members of Synod, behold a seeker
after truth! (Applause)
In the Epistle to Diognetus, written in about AD 124, we read a description of
‘Christians Passing Through the World’ as follows: ‘Christians are indistinguishable
from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate
cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life.
108
11:39:27:11:08
Page 108
Page 109
Their teaching is not based upon dreams inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some
other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and
manner of life in general they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be
living in, whether it be Greek, foreign (York or whatever – hence the dress!) and yet
there is something extraordinary about their lives. Any country can be their homeland
but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. They live in the
flesh but are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth but
they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, yet they live on a level that transcends
the law. They suffer dishonour; they are defamed and a blessing is their answer to abuse,
deference their response to insult.
‘We may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is
present in every part of the body while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are
found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world.’ So God
needs to come first.
Secondly, we are called to change. As Cardinal John Henry Newman said, ‘To live is to
change and to be perfect is to have changed often.’
The third building block of Jesus’s mission and ministry was outreach. We find the
qualities that he looked for in his agents of outreach in the Beatitudes: expectation;
commitment; compassion; unassuming ways of working. It is also interesting to note
that the second half of each of the Beatitudes carries the promise of change. We are
commissioned to go out and reach out to our neighbours with God’s message of love in
Christ. We are called to reach out to people who are desperately searching for identity,
meaning and belonging.
When crime involving the use of knives by young people is on the increase, we can stem
the tide by our outreach to young people. At the recent ‘Bringing Hope’ event that I
attended in Birmingham a young person said to me, ‘Knives in themselves should not be
the primary target. As a Scout I used to carry a knife, but I have never had the intention
of using it to injure anyone. The primary target should be the intention of those who
carry them and use them to injure others. Attempting to change the behaviour of young
people by tough talk will not solve it.’ Putting his hand on my shoulder, he said ‘Archie,
what you must do is get us young people to feel better about ourselves. Help us to
achieve confidence in ourselves without needing the dangerous prop of a knife. Help us
not to judge ourselves in the eyes of others. Stop viewing us through the eyes of failure.
Help us to overcome self-loathing. Your job is to stop the merry-go-round of our culture
of immediacy by providing us with hope and long-term solutions to our longing for
belonging. To us, the brave talk and action of adults towards young people are similar to
the gang culture. We are not all bad.’ I hope that people will hear that young man’s
voice.
Given such a challenge, how should we reach out to young people who are intent on
109
11:39:27:11:08
Page 109
Page 110
using knives to kill others? The voice of that young person calls us to become what I
have called the eighteenth camel. ‘The eighteenth what?’ you may ask.
Many members will know the story of a Bedouin father who had three sons and 17
camels. In his will he left half of his 17 camels to his elder son, one-third to his second
son and one-ninth to his youngest son. The father died. The children attempted to divide
the camels according to their father’s will and had great difficulty dividing 17 camels
into one-half, one-third and one-ninth. Of course, the Bishop of Dudley would have no
such trouble! They therefore went to consult a very wise old man, who said ‘Very
simple: I will lend you my camel. It will be the eighteenth and you can get what your
father wanted you to have’ – Eureka! Half of 18 is nine, a third of 18 is six and a ninth of
18 is two, making a total of 17. The wise old man then took away his camel. I want
members of Synod to be that eighteenth camel, that is, as part of the answer of being a
member of the Body of Christ, not its problem or thorn in the flesh. I want you now to
say to the people on your left and right, ‘Be that eighteenth camel.’ Please get on with it!
The remarkable thing about that eighteenth camel is that it was volunteered and
responded willingly. To be servants in the Church of God, you too were volunteered.
The call is addressed to people who are not expecting to be invited, not to those who
have become their own good cause. The Church of Jesus Christ is a community where
earning your place is not on offer; buying your way in is not an option. We are called to
reach out. So, like good midwives, let us help to bring to birth hope, love, self-respect
and care in the lives of our young people.
The fourth building block for the mission and ministry of Jesus was love. The meaning
of Christian love – agape – is the power to love those whom we do not like and who may
not like us. However, we can have agape, Christian love, only when Jesus Christ enables
us to conquer our natural tendency to anger and bitterness and to achieve God’s
invisible goodwill to everyone. Jesus Christ forbids hate altogether and will not allow it
a rightful place in our hearts. As Yoda said to Luke Sykwalker in Star Wars, ‘Fear leads
to anger, anger to hate and hate to the dark side.’
There are two verses of Scripture that begin, ‘No one has ever seen God.’ The first is
John 1.18: ‘No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father’s
heart, who has made him known.’ The second verse is 1 John 4.12: ‘No one has ever
seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.’
Two thousand years ago people saw God revealed in Jesus. Today people ought to see
God revealed in the life of his Body the Church. Together we ought to make visible the
life of God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. The quality of our relationships and our
worship and life in the Spirit is key. People read our lives daily. Do they see Christ, who
has made God known? We are bidden to love because Christian love makes a person act
as God would, in a way that is fantastic. Jesus says, ‘You must always act like your
Father in heaven. Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.’ We are creaturelymade, designed and wired to act like God; that is our DNA.
110
11:39:27:11:08
Page 110
Page 111
As members know, the Greek word for perfect simply means the end or purpose of an
aim or a goal. A thing is perfect if it achieves the purpose for which it was planned.
Human beings are perfect if they achieve the purpose for which they were created and
sent into the world, with the characteristic of God, which is universal benevolence,
unconquerable goodwill, constantly seeking the highest good for everyone, loving saint
and sinner alike. No matter what people do to God, he seeks nothing but their highest
good.
Friends, love is due to all, good and evil, just and unjust. Therefore our duty does not
depend on theirs, neither is our spirit to be regulated by theirs. We are, in word and
action, to act like our Father in heaven – for ‘God makes his sun to rise on the good
and the evil; he sends his rain on the just and the unjust.’ Tell me, have you ever
noticed that the sun shines on Nelson Mandela, who is loving and forgiving, and also
on Robert Mugabe, who is unjust? That is our God, and that is what the Church
should be like. That is why I love Edward Denny’s hymn, the words of which can be
found on the back of the Report on Kenya, and I now invite the Synod to sing that
hymn. (Synod stood to sing the hymn ‘What grace, O Lord, and beauty shone around
Thy steps below!’)
Jesus’ final building block for mission and ministry was one of prayer. Prayer and the
commitment and trust that go with it are vital factors without which the mission and
ministry building blocks of change, outreach and love can always go wrong. We are told
that one of the greatest Christian prophets of change and social action in the world who
ever lived, Archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil, used to spend between two and four
hours every morning in prayer. No Christian is greater than his or her prayer life. We are
called to let God’s kingdom come first; we are called to change; we are called to
outreach; we are called to love; and we are called to pray. May God give us grace to
respond wholeheartedly to that call.
I end with a prayer of Eric Milner-White:
Blessed Lord
suffer me never to think that I have knowledge enough to need no teaching,
wisdom enough to need no correction,
talents enough to need no grace,
goodness enough to need no progress,
humility enough to need no repentance,
devotion enough to need no quickening,
strength sufficient without Your spirit;
lest, standing still, I fall back for evermore.
Thank you for listening, and let’s go for it. (Applause)
THE CHAIR Judge John Bullimore (Wakefield) took the Chair at 3.00 p.m.
111
11:39:27:11:08
Page 111
Page 112
Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure (GS
1637B)
Draft Measure for Final Drafting and Final Approval (Revised at
the February 2008 group of sessions)
Report by the Steering Committee (GS 1637Z)
The Bishop of Dover (Rt Revd Stephen Venner): I beg to move:
It has taken us six years to reach this point at which we are in a position to invite the
Synod to give final approval to this Measure. As members know, it is the first of the
building blocks – I am sorry, Archbishop, I wrote this speech before you referred to the
building blocks – which together make up the new terms of service legislation. I shall
have more to say about this when we reach the debate on final approval, but first we
have some business to do.
Synod will remember from our debate last February that we are bringing only the
Measure for final approval at this stage. Why? Because we need to have section 2 of the
Measure in force before we can make the Regulations. The Synod will have an
opportunity to debate, and even amend, the Regulations when they are formally
introduced, which we hope will be in the course of next year. The draft Amending
Canon will also be brought back at that stage so that we can be sure that it properly
reflects the final form of the Regulations.
Today we are concentrating simply on the Measure, which contains the framework of
the legislation. Much of the work of the Steering Committee has been concerned with
the necessary drafting amendments following the decisions made by Synod in February.
The most significant of those was, of course, the decision not to transfer the ownership
of parsonages and team vicars’ houses to a Parsonages Board; and you will be relieved to
know that I do not intend to open that discussion today.
We have also identified a few provisions in the Measure which, for various reasons,
we believe are not yet quite right. We are therefore bringing forward some special
amendments, all of which are on your order papers, to which we shall come shortly.
There are two further matters before I end this part. Members will see from our
report that we considered whether we should seek to do something about the
incumbent’s veto in respect of dealings with the parsonage house. In February a
number of speakers invited us to do so and the Committee had considerable sympathy
with the concerns of those speakers, but we eventually decided that it would simply not
be appropriate to introduce such a significant matter at this stage: that is a debate for
another day.
112
11:39:27:11:08
Page 112
Page 113
We also took account of concerns raised with us about certain cases of pastoral
breakdown. We believe that the introduction of common tenure, with its requirements
for written particulars of office, regular ministerial development review and the
capability procedure, will help to prevent many such cases. However there will be other
situations of pastoral breakdown, which are perhaps caused principally by the conduct
of parishioners. We do not consider that keeping the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices)
Measure 1977 in force is a satisfactory long-term solution. Instead we are encouraging
the Archbishops’ Council to commission some further work on pastoral breakdown
within a wider context, and I am assured that this request is being treated
sympathetically.
I ask the Synod to take note of this report so that we may then deal with the special
amendments and move on to final approval.
The Bishop of Guildford (Rt Revd Christopher Hill): I would just like to express the
briefest of thanks to the Steering Committee and to the Bishop of Dover for what he has
said about the further thoughts on pastoral breakdown. I concur wholly with the
direction that they have taken.
Revd Canon Jane Fraser (Worcester): I would like to draw to the attention of Synod and
to members of the Steering Committee concerns that have been raised in some dioceses
where members of the clergy have been found guilty of a sex offence leading to their
names being placed on the Sex Offenders Register.
If placed on the Sex Offenders Register, a person who holds office under the common
tenure would no longer be in a position to minister in the Church, and it is clear that the
bishop must therefore terminate his term of office. However, unless it is made clear that
a bishop may terminate his term of office without leave to appeal to a tribunal, we
would have a situation in which a perpetrator in denial of the seriousness of his offence
exercises his right to appeal. The consequences of this are that for a considerable length
of time, which could be a year or more, the clergy house would remain occupied, the
diocese would be liable to continue to pay his stipend, the parish could not begin the
process of seeking to appoint another member of the clergy, and the victim or survivor
would have the continuing presence of his or her abuser within the community. The
result, it seems to all within and without the Church, is that we favour the perpetrator
over the victim.
I speak as one who has been given the task of offering pastoral support to such victims
or survivors of sexual abuse or exploitation and have therefore seen at first hand the
problems arising from inordinate and unnecessary delay in enabling the victim, the
parish and the diocese to move to a resolution of the problem. I therefore urge the
Committee to consider that particular issue.
The Archdeacon of Berkshire (Ven. Norman Russell): I stand today to encourage
members of Synod to support this Measure through its final stage in Synod. Some
113
11:39:27:11:08
Page 113
Page 114
members will be aware that over many years I have been unhappy about the property
issues, and I am grateful that all of those have been resolved; I am very pleased about
that.
However, although I will most certainly vote to send this Measure on its way to
Parliament, I would like to take this opportunity of putting on record two concerns. The
first relates to paragraph 8 on page 4 of the report of the Steering Committee, which was
mentioned by the Bishop of Dover – the use of the term ‘incumbent’s veto’. The bishop
said that we might return to that another day. I am very grateful for what the Steering
Committee has done since we last met, but I express some concern about the term
‘incumbent’s veto.’ Some time ago a senior chancellor told me that he thought those
words were inappropriate, the point being that the ownership of the parsonage house,
while restricted, is real, in which case that phrase, though understandable, is not entirely
appropriate. Associated with that I have noticed that in recent years diocese after
diocese, including Oxford where I work, has included parsonage houses in the
corporate property on the balance sheets of the DBF, and I think that is something that
needs to be looked at again.
My other concern relates to section 2 of the Measure. Members of Synod may remember
that we had some very long debates on the last occasion that we met and that many
amendments were tabled. A very interesting amendment was tabled in relation to
section 2 of the Measure, which I thought was actually an important amendment, but
unfortunately it was withdrawn before we reached the debate and we were not able to
debate it. I ask members to turn to clause 2(3) of the Measure, which reads, ‘Regulations
may apply, amend or adapt any enactment or instrument.’ That is very widely drawn
indeed. Sub-clause (7) states, ‘Where the Business Committee of the General Synod
determines that draft Regulations do not need to be debated by the General Synod . . .’
and so on. It gives a lot of power to the Business Committee as to what may happen with
regard to quite important legislation.
I do not intend to oppose this Measure; I shall vote for it. However, I think that these
provisions did not receive the attention that they would have received had that
amendment not been withdrawn, and I draw attention to them now in the hope that
they will receive the attention of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. That said, I
believe that the Measure will open the way for a much better deal for unbenificed clergy
and a much better structure of ministerial support for all the clergy of the Church of
England than we have had in the past.
Although I have expressed those two concerns, I hope that members of Synod will join
with me at this point in giving support to the Measure.
The Bishop of Dover, in reply: I am grateful to the Bishop of Guildford for his thanks. I
think we could keep this going for quite a long time!
In answer to Jane Fraser, I have an enormous amount of support and sympathy for the
114
11:39:27:11:08
Page 114
Page 115
very important point that she raises. However, it is not a matter for this legislation but
rather for the way in which the Clergy Discipline Measure is used. I can assure her that
the Clergy Discipline Commission is already aware of the difficult issue that she raises
and is giving active thought to it, and I hope she will be consoled by that reassurance.
I am grateful to the Prolocutor for his support. To respond quickly to the three other
issues that he raised, first of all he mentioned the use of the term ‘incumbent’s veto’ and
perhaps it is a little infelicitous. We will make sure that if and when it comes back to the
floor of Synod it is described differently, which may help people to forget that they had
thought about it in the first place, but I take the point.
I am sure that his remark about the use of parsonages on diocesan accounts has been
heard, but it is an issue for people elsewhere.
With regard to the greater concern that he raised about section 2, on the one hand it was
put in there in order that we can respond quickly to, for example, changes in
employment law. Many changes are happening all the time, in fact Governments one
after another seem to rejoice in changing things on almost a daily basis, and it is very
important that we as a Church have some quick and flexible ways of responding when
necessary.
The Prolocutor raised the possibility of this all being done without synodical approval. I
can assure him that in the revision committee I argued very strongly – and it was
accepted, as members will see if they look at the legislation – that if only one member of
Synod asks for that matter to be debated, it will be debated by the Synod. It is as low a
hurdle as we could put in place without requiring every single change to come to Synod,
even though it is perfectly logical, obvious and non-contentious; we thought that it was
a way of travelling a little light. I hope that that sets the Prolocutor’s mind at rest.
I am grateful to all those who have taken part and listened, and I ask the Synod to take
note of the report.
The Chairman: We now turn to the final drafting stage of the draft Measure.
Clause 3
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall (Manchester): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In clause 3(3)(d), for the words “following a finding of misconduct
under” substitute “under any provision of”.’
The Steering Committee brings forward this amendment because the wording of clause
3(3)(d) of the Measure as currently drafted does not tie in fully with the provisions of
the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003. As drafted, this sub-clause permits the term of
115
11:39:27:11:08
Page 115
Page 116
office of a cleric under common tenure to be terminated where the office-holder is
removed from office following a finding of misconduct, which means a finding of
misconduct by a disciplinary tribunal. However under the Clergy Discipline Measure
there are circumstances in which an office-holder may be removed from office where
there has been no such finding by a tribunal. For example, resignation from office
may be agreed as a penalty by consent under section 16 of the Measure, or a bishop
may impose the penalty of removal from office under section 30 of the Measure
where a sentence of imprisonment has been passed on the office-holder in the criminal
courts or where one of certain kinds of matrimonial order has been made against him
or her.
If carried, this amendment will cover all those situations and ensure consistency between
the provisions of the draft Measure and the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.
The amendment was put and carried.
‘At the end of clause 3(4) add “or, in the case of a priest-in-charge
appointed to a benefice during a vacancy, when the vacancy comes to an
end”.’
This special amendment is intended to remedy an oversight in the drafting of clause 3 of
the draft Measure, namely that currently there is no provision in the draft Measure for
the termination of the office of priest-in-charge where the vacancy in a benefice comes to
an end in circumstances other than the abolition of the benefice under pastoral
reorganization.
From the start of the McClean review process we have emphasized that this legislation
would not affect the rights of patrons and parish representatives in the appointment
process under the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986, nor would it abolish the
bishop’s power to suspend presentation under section 67 of the Pastoral Measure 1983.
In the draft regulations we have offered an alternative whereby through the usual
appointment processes an appointment can be made as incumbent on a time-limited
basis where pastoral reorganization is expected within a five-year period: we hope that
this will reduce the occasions on which a bishop needs to exercise the power to suspend.
However in this draft Measure we still need to provide a means whereby the office of
priest-in-charge can be brought to an end in circumstances where suspension is in force
but is subsequently lifted, so that a new appointment to the benefice can be made.
Without such a provision it would be impossible for an incumbent to be appointed
through the statutory appointment processes, and that was never the intention of the
draft legislation. This amendment therefore gives the bishop the power to revoke the
licence of a priest-in-charge when and only when the vacancy comes to an end on a new
incumbent taking office.
116
11:39:27:11:08
Page 116
Page 117
Of course, in many cases a priest-in-charge is appointed as the new incumbent, but
where that does not happen and a suitable alternative post has not been found for the
priest-in-charge when the office comes to an end, we believe that it is fair and
appropriate that the priest should be entitled to compensation on the same basis as
though he or she had been displaced under pastoral reorganization, that is
compensation calculated under Schedule 4 of the Pastoral Measure but limited to one
year’s loss of office. That will require an amendment to the regulations and we
undertake to bring forward such an amendment when the draft regulations are
reintroduced to Synod.
Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn): It seems to me that this amendment drives a coach and
horses through the rationale underlying the whole Measure, which as I understood it
was to improve the position of priests-in-charge. I understood the idea to be that a
priest-in-charge should have security unless he was removed following some due process
or knew at the outset that his appointment was for a fixed term or might be determined
due to pastoral reorganization. This amendment would give the bishop the power to
revoke the licence, get rid of the priest-in-charge and allow someone else to be appointed
in his or her place as incumbent without going through any disciplinary or capability
proceedings.
Imagine this situation: a priest is appointed as priest-in-charge of a benefice that is
suspended; the right to present is suspended not because of any planned pastoral
reorganization but simply because the parsonage is a large and unsuitable Victorian
house and it is hoped to build a new house in the garden. It is intended that once the new
house has been built the priest-in-charge will move into it and be instituted and inducted
as incumbent; everyone – bishop, archdeacon, priest, patron and parish – understands
this and accepts it. Unfortunately, because the parsonage is in a conservation area the
discussions with the planners about the design of the new house take many months and
in the end planning permission is refused, so after 18 months it is decided that the
present parsonage will remain the parsonage after all.
If all goes well, the suspension will be lifted and the priest-in-charge will be instituted
and inducted as incumbent, but what if all does not go well? What if during those 18
months the bishop has received letters of complaint about the style of worship of the
new priest-in-charge? What if there seems to be some sort of pastoral difficulty, possibly
caused by the priest, possibly by the parishioners, or both? Put bluntly, the parish does
not want him or her to be its incumbent. The easiest thing for the bishop to do is to
revoke the priest’s licence and move him on. He will then be entitled to compensation
limited to just one year’s loss of office. He was appointed priest-in-charge not on a fixed
term, so according to the principles of common tenure he should be secure until
retirement unless removed for disciplinary or capability reasons or because of
redundancy, but none of those applies here. No disciplinary proceedings have been held;
no capability proceedings have been followed; there is no redundancy, because the
bishop wishes to appoint a new incumbent. It is just that he does not want that priest as
117
11:39:27:11:08
Page 117
Page 118
the incumbent. The bishop can quite lawfully remove that priest from the office of
priest-in-charge without going through any form of process.
If this amendment is carried, the bishop may simply revoke the licence on giving
reasonable notice, and there is no appeal from his decision. That is too great a power to
give to the bishop. We may hope that the bishop may not act in the way that I have
outlined, but a power given is a power that can be used, and a power that can be used is
a power that can be abused. This amendment should not be passed.
Mr Geoffrey Tattersall: I am very grateful to Fr Benfield. Sometimes it is easy to see a
Trojan horse when there is no true Trojan horse. At present a bishop can revoke a
licence summarily without compensation; that will come to an end. Synod will note the
very limited circumstances in which a temporary appointment will be made and the
unusual circumstances in which an appointment will come to an end. We have indicated
that in the circumstances that Fr Benfield foresees there will be compensation, whereas
previously there has been none at all, and insofar as Fr Benfield is worried that this will
be a Trojan horse for somebody to be dismissed on the grounds of misconduct, that of
course cannot happen; any allegations of misconduct must be dealt with under the
Clergy Discipline Measure. There is no Trojan horse as Fr Benfield imagines is the case,
and I ask Synod to approve this special amendment.
‘In clause 3(10) omit the words “a full-time stipendiary” and substitute
“an”.’
This amendment is intended to ensure parity between office-holders under common
tenure in relation to retirement. As presently drafted, clause 3(10) of the draft Measure
extends compulsory retirement from office at 70 to full-time stipendiary office-holders
under common tenure, not to other office-holders. The Steering Committee accepts that
this could result in an unfair difference of treatment in that those holding a nonstipendiary house for duty or part-time stipendiary office could remain in that office
indefinitely after the age of 70, whereas those in a full-time stipendiary office would be
obliged to retire. We therefore propose this amendment, which applies the statutory
retirement age to all office-holders under common tenure but also leaves such officeholders eligible under Regulation 29 to appointment on a limited term basis after the
age of 70 if they wish.
We are aware that the whole area of compulsory retirement ages is currently being
reviewed by the European Court, but we understand that a ruling which will clarify the
position as it applies in UK law is not expected for a considerable time. We must work
with the law as it now stands and we believe that this amendment represents a fair
balance between allowing clergy to continue to work for as long as they are able and
118
11:39:27:11:08
Page 118
Page 119
wish to and building in the flexibility to keep under review the duties and responsibilities
of those over 70 so as to ensure that they are not over-burdened.
Clause 7
‘In clause 7(6)(a)(iii), after the word “parent”, insert “grandchild”.’
We are in an unusual situation here because this special amendment and the one that
follows, Item 513, were not initiated by the Steering Committee but arise from
proposals made at the revision stage of the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure, which
we have not yet debated. Synod will remember that clause 7(5) of the draft Measure
applies to the disposal, purchase or exchange of a house of residence to or from a
connected person or a trustee for or nominee of a connected person, and accordingly
clause 7(6)(a) defines the meaning of a ‘connected person’. We are seeking to ensure
that the definition of ‘connected person’ in this draft Measure is consistent with the
definitions of the same expression in other Church legislation.
Synod will see from paragraph 33 of GS 1683Y, the revision committee report for the
Miscellaneous Provisions Measure, that the Church Commissioners have proposed that
the definition of ‘connected person’ in the Parsonages Measure 1938 and the New
Parishes Measure 1943 be amended to include a grandchild of the principal connected
persons in order to correct what was simply a drafting error. This occurred because
when the definition of ‘connected person’ was first introduced in relation to transactions
under the Parsonages Measure 1938 the intention was that it should reflect the
equivalent provision in the Charities Act 1993 (now the Charities Act 2006). That
definition in fact includes a grandchild, but for some reason it was not transposed into
the Parsonages Measure 1938.
We therefore invite the Synod to pass this amendment to ensure consistency of meaning
for the same expression in different Measures.
‘In clause 7(6)(b), for the words “for a benefice” substitute “by the
Board”, and for the words from “qualified as” to “Schedule 1 below”
substitute “who is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors”.’
Again I need to refer Synod to the report of the revision committee on the Miscellaneous
Provisions Measure, this time to paragraphs 35–37, from which members will see that
119
11:39:27:11:08
Page 119
Page 120
Canon Peter Smith proposed an amendment to the New Parishes Measure 1943
concerning the qualifications of the surveyor who advises whether the terms on which a
property transaction is made are the best that can be reasonably obtained. Canon Smith
argued that such a person should be a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors and the revision committee agreed that it was appropriate because it reflected
the policy of the Charity Commission with regard to transactions relating to charity
land generally. We therefore seek to introduce the same wording in this draft Measure.
The Chairman: That concludes the final drafting stage and we now move to the final
approval stage.
The Bishop of Dover (Rt Revd Stephen Venner): I beg to move:
‘That the Measure entitled “Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service)
Measure” be finally approved.’
I have been reflecting on this work on Clergy Terms of Service, which began in 2002. It
has been tough and detailed work, particularly in the latter stages. So members will have
to understand why I have perhaps self-indulgently allowed myself to see it all as
something of a synodical pilgrim’s progress. We have made good strides and have come
far. The Celestial City has continued to be our destination throughout, but there have
been occasional and significant distractions and detours. Now it feels good to be where
we are, because I feel confident that we have passed Bunyan’s Doubting Castle and
begun to enter his stately Palace Beautiful. Here on the way to the Celestial City we will
find charity, discretion, prudence and piety; but enough of that!
Each one of us here today cares deeply about the future of the Church. We honour and
thank God for those called to ordained ministry. We hold in that care the hopes and
concerns of our parishes and dioceses, and I am grateful to members of the Synod for
their long and careful attention to this important project.
Now as we come to final approval we should remind ourselves that this legislation is not
about building a Church to suit us today but about building a Church that is fit for
purpose in God’s future. We have an opportunity to make a new covenant between
people and priests – a covenant that is fit for the twenty-first century, a covenant of care
that enshrines gospel principles of fairness, of supporting those called to ordained
ministry and of working together.
Let us begin with fairness. It is vital because we must address the insecurity of those
without the freehold. Almost half of our parish priests are in this position. Technically
their licences may be revoked at any time, putting them out of work and out of home,
and members of Synod have told us quite simply that they regard such inequality as
unfair and inappropriate for a Christian community. At the same time clergy with the
120
11:39:27:11:08
Page 120
Page 121
freehold are given such a level of security that it is impossible to help someone to move
on even when parishioners and bishops recognize that staying is manifestly harming the
priest and the parish; and that is not fair either.
Common tenure will bring fairness to the way in which our clergy are engaged in their
ministry. From the start it gives everyone the right to a clear statement of what they can
expect and what may be expected of them. If planned pastoral reorganization means
that an office is time limited, whether or not presentation is suspended, there is an
obligation to try to find the office-holder an alternative post and, if that is not possible,
to pay reasonable compensation to support the person as he or she moves on. Nobody’s
licence can be revoked summarily. In those very occasional cases in which careful
support cannot restore capability, someone may be removed from office. If absolutely
necessary, the fairness of this can be tested by a completely independent tribunal.
Second, it is important that we face the future as we travel on that pilgrim’s progress and
that in doing so we support those called to ordained ministry – our bishops, our priests
and our deacons – those called by God to a particular form of service in his Church.
Much is expected of them. Their work is often demanding, difficult and sacrificial. They
need to be able to preach, teach and minister in ways that reflect a changing context.
Those who have been privileged to take part in ordination services over the past days
will have heard all those spelt out in a way that certainly brings a lump to my spiritual
throat.
Of course, there is the promise of our faithful God that he will supply all our needs, but
however good and holy we may be, stress and burnout can creep up on us, and they are
almost always rooted in unrealistic expectations, lack of support and not knowing
whether we are doing a good job. Common tenure brings appropriate support – a
regular service and tuning with early warning systems to identify approaching hazards,
working out how to deal with them. It requires bishops to make sure that office-holders
review their ministry regularly and engage in learning and development to keep them
equipped for their work as it changes. Incidentally, it also ensures that the bishops do
the same.
Third, we all know that working together is vital. It has always been important, but
even more so today with the wonderful growth in numbers of self-supporting ministers
and the willingness of laypeople to exercise their discipleship both within and outside
the Church. The Church, which rejoices in its calling to be the Body of Christ, can
never be a collection simply of gifted individuals setting out eagerly on the road to
frustration.
Common tenure makes working together both a virtue and a necessity. Regular review
will provide some helpful tools to help us to be clear about roles and responsibilities
with reference to both the wider mission of the Church and specific local circumstances.
Laity, clergy and bishops will together articulate what are the reasonable expectations
of a particular post, discern even more closely who is being called to a particular office
121
11:39:27:11:08
Page 121
Page 122
and ensure that the minister can flourish in an environment of collaboration and mutual
support.
I understand that some are fearful that all this will bring with it an increased burden of
compliance – being told what to do all the time and being hemmed in by regulations and
guidance. Common tenure, and the guidance that will accompany it, provides a common
framework of support, and it has enough space for flexibility so that clergy can express
their ministries in ways that are right for them and for their contexts. Within the context
of their dioceses bishops too can express their ministry as God has called them to do.
The starting point for this piece of legislation was a requirement from central
Government, but things have moved on a long way since then. We have come to
understand that we are doing this because it is right and Christian; yet let us be real too.
Without this legislation we may find ourselves having to build a defensive bureaucracy
as people turn to the courts for clarity. Rules are means, not ends; an expression of
divine grace on behalf of the weak and vulnerable used confidently and consistently will
help, not hinder, our mission. As Robin Greenwood put it simply, ‘Neglect of good
management is a failure to love people enough.’
I know that there are also concerns about the Christian legitimacy of judging whether
someone is meeting the post’s demands, but clergy deserve respect for their skills and
gifts. Doctors and teachers have discovered that by moving into a more open
relationship with colleagues and patients or students they gain far greater confidence
and respect than that which they had previously. Surely those serving our souls deserve
the same respect as those who serve our bodies and minds?
Six years ago the Terms of Service group were sent through Bunyan’s wicket-gate. There
were things that they had no mandate to change, such as the rights of patronage and
rights of suspension; there were things that Synod told us last February it was not ready
to change, such as the ecclesiastical freehold and – this was written before the
Prolocutor’s speech – the property veto. We acknowledge that. However, in those past
six years much ground has been covered and our progress has gathered momentum.
Dioceses are already involved in offering more effective review and development; people
are already working together to articulate roles and expectations. There is much
optimism and much hope for the future.
I have an image for you: a bishop has some important news for people in his diocese; he
asks one of his clergy to take it to them; he sends him or her on the road in a nineteenthcentury coach and four. They make an elegant sight – a nostalgic symbol of times past,
but on the motorway they are in great danger and causing danger to others. They are
regarded as eccentric, out of touch, irrelevant, a little mad, and by the time they arrive
(if they do) they are completely exhausted and the message is hopelessly out of date.
Twenty-first century clergy need a twenty-first-century map, or sat nav, and a twentyfirst-century form of transport. This legislation on terms of service helps to provide that.
122
11:39:27:11:08
Page 122
Page 123
In future clergy on their pilgrim’s progress of ministry will have the confidence that
comes of knowing where they stand, of understanding what is expected of them and
what they can expect of us, and of being supported by a Church that is committed to
them and to their development. This cannot be achieved with goodwill alone; we need
this legislation to bring it about. I ask members to give it their support for the sake of
their clergy and for the sake of God’s Church.
The Chairman imposed a speech limit of five minutes.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): I thank the Bishop of Dover for his masterly summary of
what common tenure is all about. The six years that we have been working through this
have been very worthwhile to reach this point. I am particularly thankful that in all we
are doing we are talking about all clergy, not about only stipendiary clergy. This is a
watershed change in our attitude, because the new legislation will not in any way
discriminate between those who are paid and those who are not paid, between those
who are incumbents and those who are not incumbents, except where it obviously needs
to. That seems to me to be a great step forward, as well as all the things about job
descriptions or whatever the new terminology is; that just as non-stipendiary clergy
have always had working agreements which define the expectations on them, now all
clergy will have working agreements that will define the expectations on both sides.
Mr Adrian Greenwood (Southwark): I want to say a profound thank you to all those
who have taken responsibility for this six-year marathon. It is an extremely important
piece of legislation and I shall vote wholeheartedly and propose three cheers for it. It is a
great day to be here to see this legislation go through.
Like the previous speaker, I think that we need to be aware of the big picture and of the
title ‘Common Tenure’. The aim is to have all our clergy, stipendiary and nonstipendiary, freehold and licensed, operating on the same basis, and that is a very
positive thing. It can perhaps be seen as some people losing their rights, but I think that
we need to see it as a very positive and fair piece of legislation, as the Bishop of Dover
pointed out. I therefore hope that when we come to vote we will do so in a way that
gives wholehearted endorsement to the underlying principles as well as to the detail.
Moving forward, my hope – and this was the subject of a question that I asked a couple
of years ago more in hope than anything else – is that the bishops will enthusiastically
endorse the concept of common tenure and will collectively go for it on day one of its
introduction. That would be a great message to the rest of the clergy that this is there for
everyone’s benefit, and it would be good to hear where the Bishop of Dover stands, but
he is the only one who will have an opportunity to reply, so that may be unfair on him.
I cannot fail to comment on the remark about the ownership of parsonages. The reason
the proposal was made to shift the ownership of parsonages was precisely that they
appear on the balance sheet of diocesan boards of finance. After the debate in February I
asked our diocesan secretary in Southwark what the position was and he said, ‘For years
123
11:39:27:11:08
Page 123
Page 124
and years we have been advised by our auditors that the value of the properties is
included in the balance sheet because that is what auditing standards require, and the
proceeds of sale do not go to the incumbent but to the diocese’, so it is rather strange to
hear that we may need to change that. However, that, as they say, is for another day and
it will be an interesting topic when we come to review it.
I am very excited that we have reached this stage and I hope that the Synod will
enthusiastically endorse the introduction of common tenure.
Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): To endorse what the previous speaker
said, I believe that today is an historic occasion for the Synod in the vote that we are
about to take. The whole process did indeed begin six years ago, and I remember my
opening gambit at our very first meeting with Professor McClean when I said very
firmly, ‘I am in favour of the freehold full stop’; so we have come a long way and have
made great progress. So much work has been done, so much careful listening to all the
cares and concerns.
What was in fact happening? I think that an element of fear has been involved in
relation to what was being removed, in the way that the freehold will gradually be
phased out and the introduction of common tenure. When not very long ago I
addressed a meeting of clergy who were not entirely confident in the position that I
held, I was asked what I was going to do when I received the letter from my diocesan
bishop – ‘I bet you don’t give up your freehold’ – and I replied without hesitation that
I would indeed be moving to common tenure and that I hoped I would get the letter
in the post by return. I would echo that here in front of everyone in General Synod
today.
From the outset we have emphasized in all the reports that we have presented to the
Synod both the being and the doing, both the nature and the function of being ordained;
it is what we are as well as what we do. When I was ordained I did not believe that I
was merely starting a new job, although I had a job to go to, rather that I was entering
on a way of life for life. Common tenure indeed gives us all the security that we may
need, but it also requires us to be faithful in the ministry that we exercise. So I want to
suggest that what we now have before us for final approval is in fact freehold but by
another name.
What is the purpose of all this? Nothing less surely than for the more effective
performance of ministry and the outworking of mission; this is about mission. Ministry
and mission go together, and our task is to find appropriate ways for ministry to be
exercised in our Church today for the sake of its mission. All clergy from archbishop to
parish priest should serve under a common set of terms and conditions of service. It is a
relationship of partnership, shared responsibility between diocese and parish, between
priest and people, between church and community. As in the past, so it may continue. I
fervently expect that common tenure will become one of the hidden treasures of the
Church of England.
124
11:39:27:11:08
Page 124
Page 125
The clergy remain office-holders, not employees; they continue to enjoy security in
their work and their homes, which we believe will reflect appropriately their vocation.
A more responsive ministry can only lead to enhanced mission and effective
evangelization. We can move forward together implementing common tenure, no
longer having a double tier of first and second-class ministry, as we have remarked on in
the past. We can have equal recognition and a valued place for everyone in our Church
to enable us all to embrace more fully those who may have opportunities for mission
and care for all God’s people in the Church of the twenty-first century.
I ask the Synod to vote with enthusiasm for this new common tenure because it is the
way of the future, and I feel very honoured and proud to have served on the McClean
Commission from its very beginning.
Mr Jim Cheeseman (Rochester): It is a good job that I come from the Church of St John
the Baptist, because I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness – and the storms above
too. I came firmly convinced that I would vote against this Measure at final approval
stage, but the Bishop of Dover’s eloquence quite charmed me. However, he scored a
great own goal when he talked about a carriage going along the motorway. I thought
to myself, ‘When I go to my place in Scotland I set off in the middle of the night so
that I can get round the M25 before there is too much traffic on it.’ Otherwise, were I
to set out in the middle of the morning, it would be better to go on a stagecoach
through the country roads and the back streets of London and I should get there a
lot quicker. If members sit on the M25 when the traffic is totally jammed because
of an accident, they will see what I mean; what seems to be the quickest is not always
the best.
I was also charmed by the pilgrim’s progress. From where I stand, doing a lot of
patronage work in the Church, one of the problems that I see is that the people with the
freehold at present tend to think that they have already reached a celestial city. They will
not come down and join the rest of us in the Slough of Despond. I detect that at present
there are far more applicants for a post that has a freehold than for one that has a priestin-charge. I fear that people who have the freehold now will hang on for a very long
time. I am not going to look at the gallery, but this morning there was present someone
whom I appointed to a parish when he was about 30, only a year or two ago, and he
may not come down from his celestial park for the next 30 or 40 years. Are we in danger
of creating a two-tier Church in which some people will stay for ever, beyond their good
and the good of everyone else?
I think that we have gone too far too fast. To start with, we should have dealt only with
the problem of the unbeneficed clergy, which justice demands we should, and then
established whether what we had done had worked and commended itself to the rest, in
which case we would perhaps not be in the situation in which I fear we shall be. As the
father of a priest, I can say that I have heard from him that he fears the Church is turning
what he thought was a vocation into a profession. He does not work what he regards as
sacrificially for any terms of reference from God.
125
11:39:27:11:08
Page 125
Page 126
I worked as a headmaster for 29 years without any job description. I knew that I had to
run the school, and when the cooks did not turn up and the office did not provide any I
cooked the jolly dinners. No one got food poisoning, but once the office found out, did I
get cooks?
I still have grave doubts. I shall listen to the rest of the debate and vote according to my
conscience, but thank you for such a wonderful speech, Bishop of Dover.
Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough): It has actually been a longer process than the
bishop has outlined. This legislation began with the lobbying of the Department of
Trade and Industry in 1997 when Alan Johnson was the Under Secretary of State for
Competitiveness. We asked whether some form of protection could be found for those
who are not incumbents in the Church of England – actually the majority of the clergy;
and that is truer now than it was even then. The result was section 23 of the
Employment Relations Act, which gave the Secretary of State the power to make orders
bringing the clergy within the ambit of the Employment Acts. It was in response to that
that this process took place.
At that time the suggestion was met with a great deal of suspicion by some of the Church
authorities. This is a great novelty, the idea of employment protection for those serving
as clergy, but at that time the MSF Union was promoting the concept of dignity at work
– a concept which I am pleased to see is now the title of a new pamphlet published by the
Church of England emphasizing the need for dignity at work. I believe that what we
have achieved in the course of the past six, sometimes tortuous, years is a Measure that
will provide dignity at work for a very large number of people, because part of dignity at
work means being able to rely on the fact that you have a future in it once you have
committed yourselves to it, not to be at someone’s whim or pleasure.
I do not think that we have quite come to the end of the process with the passing of this
Measure, because we have yet to see the Regulations, and it is upon the Regulations that
so much will hang. If we can agree Regulations that preserve dignity at work, I shall be
very satisfied indeed that we have together reached this outcome and that the Church of
England collectively has taken ownership of the concept of dignity at work and the need
for a common ground for all clergy similar to that of incumbents at present.
I welcome what we have achieved so far, with that note of caution that we need to look
very carefully at the Regulations when they are presented to us, to make sure that we
really do achieve what we think we are voting for today.
Revd Robert Cotton (Guildford): Who on earth wants to vote for the terms of service
legislation? Who, apart from those who can remember that it was not long ago – only
the day before yesterday – that a bishop could say to a parish, ‘I have just the chap for
you. My father knew his father and he is a good, slow left-arm bowler, just what the
diocese needs’, or indeed that a parish can struggle with writing terms of needs and
traditions and find themselves putting down on paper that they want a woman about
126
11:39:27:11:08
Page 126
Page 127
30 years of age with, say, 25 years’ parish experience? It happens, and some voices are
saying, ‘That is OK, everything is fine.’
I believe that to attract men and women for today’s and tomorrow’s Church we need a
new arrangement, one that is engaging, one in which people can express not only their
commitment to the Church but in which the Church can express its commitment in
reverse. We need a tradition of training, not just giving people a job, and this new
legislation will attract more resources for training for ministry. We do not need spiritual
direction but vocational direction, and that is what MDR and appraisal will offer. We
need a tradition of clear expectations so that we can all say that we long for the coming
kingdom, but it cannot be in our job descriptions that it comes by next Tuesday. We
need a tradition of high standards, which is coded language for tough love, coded
language for both MDR and capability procedures, which after all are only expressive of
how much our vocation is worth. If I am unable or incapable of doing the work to which
I am called, I need people to tell me. Of course, we need pledges for good practical
provision for housing, pay and holidays.
Making all this explicit is a little bit of a culture change, but I am particularly pleased
that the implementation group is working on that culture change, being not about just
dropping regulations on bishops or archdeacons but about offering training to groups,
bishops and archdeacons, archdeacons and parishes and parishes and PCCs working
together. We are a legislative body. This may feel professional rather than vocational,
but it is what we need for our ministry today and tomorrow.
Mrs Anne Sloman (Archbishops’ Council, Ex officio): Not long after I joined the
Archbishops’ Council I received a phone call from William Fittall. I remember that at
the time I was walking down the street and I could not quite hear everything that he
said, but he did say, ‘I have just got a small job for you. I would like you to be one of the
group that looks at clergy terms of service. It will just involve the odd meeting, nothing
to worry about.’ Six years later, hundreds of meetings, thousands of pages of documents
to read, we are nearly there; and I have to say that as someone who has worked in
broadcast journalism all her life six years seems an awfully long time and it does not
actually feel as though we were really travelling too fast.
I think that it was worth it. Sometimes it was very tough, sometimes we struggled and
disagreed, and there was a huge amount of detail to be considered, but never at any time
was there for any of us any motive other than that of creating conditions for the clergy
that would help them in their formation, in their ministry, for the twenty-first century,
and I hope that we have achieved that. As one young woman priest said to me, ‘I see it as
a scaffolding erected to support us in building our ministry.’
Passing this Measure is just the beginning, not the end. As Robert said, we have a culture
change that we now have to embrace creatively, and even in the middle of a
127
11:39:27:11:08
Page 127
Page 128
thunderstorm I think that today is the day to lift up our eyes to the hills. We have to step
back from the detail, vital though that has been, and I am not dismissing the fact that we
will have to consider the regulations in detail, but we now have the foundations for a
new deal for the clergy. I very much pray that those who will now be implementing this
Measure will be able to use it as creatively as those who worked on it intended. As
members take it out to the dioceses and parishes, we say God speed.
Revd Peter Ackroyd (St Albans): I serve a parish just outside Bedford that has the
dubious distinction of having a lock-up that used to stand outside the churchyard gates
in which John Bunyan was incarcerated – probably not the most glorious incident in the
freehold tenure of one of my predecessors.
When I became a member of the Synod two years ago I had great reservations about this
proposal, but I have been persuaded by it. I am glad that we are moving to this Measure,
not only for those who did not have security but also because it puts us all on the same
basis, which is wholly welcome and long overdue, and I shall certainly be transferring
when the moment comes.
I want to enter a plea to those who will be responsible for its implementation, namely
that when this Measure and its regulations come into effect we enter a period of
transition in which the import and significance of this is made absolutely clear to
hundreds and thousands of clergy up and down the country. We in the Synod have
become very familiar with this business over the past six years, but, apart from a few
headlines, many clergy will not be so familiar with it and will probably be rather fearful
of it. We are now entering a period when communication, reassurance and clear
explanations will be at a premium if this transition is to be managed as smoothly as we
all hope it can be.
The Archdeacon of Leicester (Ven. Richard Atkinson): I too welcome this Measure and
the culture change on which we shall be working together. It is always good to hear Fr
David Houlding, but I think I heard him say that some see this as freehold by another
name. I really hope that it is not seen in that way, not in terms of the security that clergy
should enjoy but in terms of attitude and approach to the future as we move forward as
a missionary Church that needs to be light and flexible; and freehold has not always
expressed or championed that.
In a Church in which bishops’ mission orders present potential and opportunity, where
Fresh Expressions are burgeoning and where, as many of us are aware, recent
projections on stipendiary numbers mean yet another range of challenges to adapt and
refocus for the future, we need to keep alight within common tenure that sense of
mission focus. Freehold by another name depresses me, and I hope that is not where we
are going.
The Bishop of Dover, in reply: I am extraordinarily grateful to the weather. I remember
being told that at one of the Lambeth Conferences – I think it was 1998 – it poured with
128
11:39:27:11:08
Page 128
Page 129
rain all the time and afterwards all the English bishops apologized like mad to their
visitors from round the world, who informed them that raining for three weeks was the
greatest blessing God could give them.
I am very grateful to all who have taken part and in their different ways made creative
and positive points about this legislation. I am particularly grateful to Hugh Lee and
Robert Cotton for their words of general support, pointing to the fact that this is to be
common tenure for all clergy.
Adrian asked a particular question about bishops. I have, of course, no mandate to
speak for anyone apart from three. Their Graces have no choice in the legislation; I do
not know whether or not the Bishop of Dover has a freehold to give up. That is a matter
of some confusion, but he is willing to put on record that if he has, he will, and if he has
not, he virtually will.
I was grateful to Jim Cheeseman for some of the delightful images that he gave and the
stories that he told; one could enjoy oneself with those for a long time. What I would
seriously like to do is link what he said at the end about vocation, which has to do with
our being, and professionalism, which is about our doing and the way we are, with what
Robert Cotton said about precisely the same matters and what the legislation hopes to
bring with it. I thought that those two hung together very clearly indeed. We rejoice that
God continues to call men and women to the ordained ministry of the Church. We
rejoice that there are men and women who respond to that call. That gives us an
obligation as Christians, as members of the Church, to do all that we can to support
them in that enterprise and in their work.
I am delighted to acknowledge that Fr Trott was actually the inaugurator of this process
in the corridors of power. He is, of course, exactly right that, although I did not spell out
the words ‘section 23’, that is where the process began, but we have moved on a long
way from that, as he recognized. He and members of Synod know that we have already
seen draft Regulations, but he is quite right that when they come back to Synod,
hopefully next year, we will need to look at them very carefully to make sure that we
have got them right. They can be revised if in the light of experience they need some
tweaking, but I am confident that the work of the implementation group is well
advanced and that the work is being done very professionally.
Peter Ackroyd is absolutely right that there is a major communications task ahead of us
as we seek to make the real meaning and opportunities of this legislation clear to not
only the clergy but also to parishioners, because it puts quite a significant new obligation
on some of them who thought that the only thing about a parish was that the clergy
were there to support them and perhaps for whom the news that they are there to
support their clergy might come as something of a shock. We hope that that
communications task will be undertaken effectively.
Richard Atkinson is quite right that we are talking about attitude rather than freehold
by another name.
129
11:39:27:11:08
Page 129
Page 130
Mr Chairman, as a professional you know just how much work goes into getting any
Measure on to a statute book. We as a Church pride ourselves in not rushing in order to
ensure that our legislation is as near watertight as we can make it. I cannot believe it – I
am sure that Synod cannot either – but there are some people who may even think that
from time to time we go a little over the top in the not-running stakes. However there
are always others who think that we are going too fast, so we have probably got it about
right.
I hope that members of Synod will forgive me if I finally ask them to express their
gratitude to those whose hard and detailed work has enabled us to reach this point. I feel
that there are some whom we need to name: first, Professor David McClean personally,
who took on this piece of work, led its committees, this Synod and the Church of
England generally with that consummate professionalism, devastating logic and
undeniable Christian charity that has become his hallmark; second, those who have
worked with him through those six years, particularly David Houlding, whose speech
told Synod something of the personal cost to him, not merely in time but in the journey
that he has made and the battles that he has fought on our behalf, and I pay tribute to
him; third, Anne Sloman, who took on this ‘light’ task – she was naïve in those days but
has now learnt to be wiser in what she accepts! To them we owe a huge debt of
gratitude, and to Judith Egar, Stephen Slack, Su Morgan and Patrick Shorrock, who
serviced the committees throughout those six years, and to Sarah Smith, who
unfortunately cannot be with us today, and others who have been of particular support
in more recent times. A particular thank you goes to Sir Anthony Hammond, whose
drafting and redrafting skills are legendary. We are much in all their debt and I hope that
Synod will show that now. (Applause)
There is still much work to be done, but none of it can be done without this piece of
legislation in place. I am confident that our work is God’s work as we seek to be the
Church that he wants us to be and as we move forward together in mission and
ministry.
The Chairman: I am informed that Professor McClean may well have been with us
today but he is attending a meeting of the Commonwealth law ministers in Edinburgh to
whom he is an adviser, which is why he is not here.
The motion was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(d)(iv), ordered a division by
Houses, with the following result:
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Ayes
20
109
110
The motion was therefore carried.
130
11:39:27:11:08
Page 130
Noes
0
5
13
Abstentions
0
4
2
Page 131
The Chairman: The Measure automatically stands committed to the Legislative
Committee.
(GS 1682A)
Draft Measure for Revision and Final Approval
(First Consideration February 2008) Revision Stage
The Chairman: As reported in the first notice paper, no proposals for amendment were
received and there were no other matters for the revision committee to report. There
was accordingly no revision committee report, which means that we can move
immediately to the revision stage.
Members will see that the motions by the Steering Committee are set out on the order
paper. No notice of amendments having been given and no member having indicated a
desire to speak against any of the clauses in the draft Measure and, given my permission
under SO 55 (c) for them to be moved en bloc, I therefore call on the Archdeacon of
Tonbridge, the Chair of the Steering Committee, to move this item.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): on a point of order, Madam Chairman. Are we quorate
in the House of Bishops?
The Chairman: We will have a count of the Synod. We are not quorate. The Chairman
rang the bell.
The Chairman: We are now quorate in the Synod.
Clauses 1 and 2
The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell): I beg to move:
‘That clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Measure.’
Madam Chair, for the benefit of those who have just come into the chamber, perhaps I
could remind you that this piece of legislation is about trying to extend for a further
period until 2018 the powers which the Church Commissioners already have to draw
upon capital for their pension responsibilities for payments.
At its February group of sessions this year Synod gave first consideration to the draft
Church of England Pensions (Amendment) Measure and swiftly committed it to its
revision stage.
131
11:39:27:11:08
Page 131
Page 132
As the first notice paper has already informed members, and as the Chair has reminded
Synod this afternoon, no proposals for amendment were received. There were no other
matters therefore for the revision committee to consider and therefore no report has
come before Synod. There is no need for a ‘take note’ debate on a revision committee
report. We come now to agree the individual clauses of the Measure.
Happily, this Measure is one of the shortest pieces of legislation which this Synod will be
dealing with: it contains only two clauses. I therefore hope that it will not detain Synod
long.
Long Title
‘That the Long Title stand part of the Measure.’
The Chairman: That completes the revision stage of the draft Measure. Accordingly, we
come now to the final approval stage for this draft Measure. The Steering Committee
has given notice in the fourth notice paper that it considers the final drafting stage to be
unnecessary. I therefore call on the Archdeacon of Tonbridge to move the next item.
Final Approval
‘That the Measure entitled “Church of England Pensions
(Amendment) Measure” be finally approved.’
I am grateful to Synod for swiftly dealing with that piece of the legislative process. I
think, as we move now towards final approval, I ought to re-visit briefly the main
reasons why this short and straightforward Measure is nonetheless immensely
important.
This piece of legislation gives the Church Commissioners the power to spend their
capital in meeting their pension liabilities. In the 1990s it became clear that their asset
base could not have sustained their expenditure commitments. A new funded pension
scheme was created to meet pensions earned on service after 1 January 1998 and the
Commissioners were given permission to spend their capital on the pre-1997 or
pre-1998 pension liabilities.
As the Commissioners’ capital diminishes over the period during which they carry their
pension liability (about the next 50 years or so) at the same time the other pot, the
funded scheme, will be built up. So why was the power to spend capital so important?
132
11:39:27:11:08
Page 132
Page 133
Crucially, it meant that the Commissioners did not have to cut their other, nonpensions, expenditure categories and, most importantly of all, it meant that they did not
need to chase income by adopting investment policies which would produce inferior
returns and reduce the amount of ministry support they could make available.
This Measure does not represent a particular policy; it merely brings flexibility. That is
to say, the Measure does not force the Commissioners to spend their capital. Indeed, the
better their investment return, the smaller the proportion of their capital they will use up
in this way. In harder times, they may use a larger proportion. This legislation enables
them to take a smoothed-out, long-term view according to actuarial advice and to invest
in real assets for superior overall long-term return.
As I said in February, the Commissioners will pay their pensions bill, come what
may. The power to spend capital simply gives them the capacity to maximize their
important support to parishes, bishops and cathedrals in addition to their pension
responsibilities.
Synod and Parliament have noted these points and approved this power twice before.
The Measure before Synod today, which has been supported by the Archbishops’
Council, the Pensions Board and by Synod back in February, seeks to extend the
Commissioners’ power to spend capital for a further seven years upon its present expiry
at the end of 2011.
I urge Synod to support the motion standing in my name.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): This is really just a question. Section 2(4) ‘This Measure
shall come into force on the day on which it is passed’: surely it comes into force on the
day it receives the Royal Assent? We will be passing it today. It cannot come into force
today.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I am in favour of this Measure but I think we need to note
some things about it to recognize the rather serious position which we are in. It is not
good to spend capital and spending capital will inhibit what we can use our investment
returns for in the future work of the Church. We may be driven to the situation, as we
have been in the past, to spend that capital. There is a danger with something like this
that the absence of debate diminishes the seriousness of what we are involved in doing.
We have been very fortunate in recent years, with the good management of the Church
Commissioners, that we have not had to do more of this, but we cannot be unaware
that the present state of the world economy, and the British economy in particular,
means it is likely that we are moving into very difficult times, for all that the Church
Commissioners have a very good defensive spread of their investments.
We should be grateful, but we should also be warned. I think most important of all is
that when we first did this we stressed how exceptional this was. It was intended to be a
one-off for a very limited period. We have extended that period once and we are now
133
11:39:27:11:08
Page 133
Page 134
saying to ourselves and to Parliament that we intend to do it again. I think we must be
very clear that there can be almost no possibility that we will do it after this.
We are in a very serious moment and it is right, I think, to give the Church
Commissioners this power now. We must hope and pray that they do not have to use it,
but let us not understate the continuing seriousness of the position in which we rely in
our Church so much on the munificence of those who previously made investments, a
return from which we now use for our ministry in this land. I support the motion.
Mr Philip Lovegrove (St Albans): I hope the Synod will not take any notice of Cassandra
Giddings, because it is entirely wrong from start to finish! The facts of the matter are
perfectly clear. At the time when the Titanic was about to sink, I was a Church
Commissioner and invited to join the Assets Committee, but of course without a vote. It
was the usual Church of England compromise; I am glad Gavin Oldham now has a vote,
well done! The fact of the matter is that just utilizing the income almost brought us to
our knees. Times have changed since then. The income return on stocks and shares and
properties has gone down but the capital appreciation has gone up.
The really good thing about the Commissioners’ success recently is that the capital cover
for pensions for which they are liable has reduced over the last years from about 55 per
cent of capital down to about 38 per cent. Ladies and gentlemen of the clergy have the
best deal because of that success. The success allows, in modern investment terms, the
use for total return; i.e. simply you add the income and the capital appreciation together.
Of course, it is difficult to persuade ancient people like me to get shot of the capital. I am
chair of a Christian charity with donors, and it is difficult for people who have only ever
donated the income from the capital to move to appreciating total return and
occasionally getting rid of the capital to keep consistent money available for the
charities that they support, or even the Church of England.
I really do feel times have changed; the Commissioners have done well. We do not need
to worry; anyway, in 2018 you and I will be in another place of capital gain, Mr
Giddings, so we will be all right! Let us not take notice of that. I am sure Gavin Oldham
is about to agree with me, which will be the first time we have ever agreed on anything,
so go to it. Let Synod pass it: it is a no brainer!
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): I declare my interest as a Church Commissioner.
Philip has just said much more eloquently than I ever could the main points here. Of
course, total return is actually made up of two elements: one is capital gain and the other
income. If you cut out the ability to use the capital gain which you have got out of the
total return, you are forced into the income route, which pushes you into assets that are
not appropriate for a fund like that of the Church Commissioners. It can be quite
dangerous, because it also pushes one into some assets which may carry a higher degree
of counterparty risk; that is not capital gain risk but counterparty risk. At times like this
when we all know credit is a big issue with the banks, I can tell you the Church
134
11:39:27:11:08
Page 134
Page 135
Commissioners are watching their counterparty risk extremely closely in the banks with
which we deposit money, and we will not deposit the money for a higher rate of return if
it means taking risk on the capital amount because of that counterparty risk. That is just
another reason why it is so important to be able to look at the total return and not just
the income.
I do not think this is exceptional any more; I think it will be a standing feature going
forward. Personally, I think it is very good that it is there and thank you, Philip, for
supporting it.
Mr Andrew Britton (Archbishops’ Council): I thought it might be helpful if I spoke
briefly in response to Philip Giddings. We have heard the Church Commissioners’ view
on this, and I share it entirely. The point that now needs to register is that to spend
capital is not the same as to run capital down. What we are seeing is substantial
appreciation in the value of the assets the Church Commissioners hold. So when they
are spending capital, all that means is that their expenditure in one year may exceed the
income that they are receiving on their assets. That does not mean their capital is
reduced because the value of the capital in the meantime has very likely gone up, and
that has been the experience for some years. I think that this is not in the nature of an
emergency measure; it is sound housekeeping. I beg to support the motion.
The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) in reply: Thank you to the various
members of Synod who contributed to the debate. I think it is quite right that it should
not go through just on the nod. It is an important matter with which we are dealing.
Thank you to Barry Barnes for the inquiry about the passage of the Bill. Learned counsel
behind tells me it is when the Royal Assent goes through that the Act is passed and
moves into action. His predecessor in post did the same thing and so we are all better
advised now.
Thank you to Philip Giddings for referring to the fact that spending money is a serious
issue. Drawing from this great privilege of a legacy from the past, we have to steward it
for the ministry of the Church over the years to come and it is an important matter. I
hope that the questions raised by those who joined in this short debate have been
answered: Philip Giddings, Philip Lovegrove, Gavin Oldham and Paul Britton.
What we are trying to do by this power is to give the best possible scenario within which
the Commissioners can make the most of their total investments for the benefit of the
Church, including the pension responsibilities but also those mission and ministry
responsibilities which they support in parishes through bishops, cathedrals, etc.
Philip Lovegrove said that something like 55 per cent of the assets the Commissioners
needed originally to fulfil their pension liabilities had gone down to 38 per cent. I have
better news than that: it is round about the 50 per cent, you are quite right, but it is now
down to 28.7 per cent of the Commissioners’ assets that are reckoned to be required to
135
11:39:27:11:08
Page 135
Page 136
fulfil their pension liabilities. That is partly because of good investment performance
that has enabled that capital, as it were, to grow, despite drawing upon capital for the
needs that I have outlined already.
I do want to commend this short Measure to Synod. I hope that Synod will
wholeheartedly vote for it and that when we come to take a vote others may join us from
the chamber below. It is important to show Parliament that Synod is wholeheartedly
behind this. I want you to see it as being a wise Measure to try to help us fulfil our
commitments to ministry and mission in this nation, drawing upon some of the
resources from the past, from the creative, good, professional work of the present and
helping our ministry and mission now in the present, but also helping to go forward into
the future with those who will carry on from us in times to come.
The motion was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(d)(iii), ordered a division by
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Ayes
22
79
97
Noes
0
0
1
Abstentions
0
0
1
The motion was therefore carried.
(GS 1683A)
Draft Measure for Revision (Deemed First Consideration
February 2008)
Report by the Revision Committee (GS 1683Y)
The Chairman: Before I call on the Chair of the committee to move this, could I draw
your attention to the financial comment, which is an item at paragraphs 16 and 17 of
the eighth notice paper.
Mr James Humphery (Salisbury): I beg to move:
The Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure comes round at
approximately four-yearly intervals, which is also roughly the intervals I allow between
reordering of my garage. I say ‘my garage’; I think that is somewhat of a misnomer
because for about the last eight years it has really been the increasingly global centre of
two of my sons’ kite boarding and mountain biking enterprises. It is a coincidence, I
think a happy coincidence in view of the fact that I am standing here now, that tidy-up
time came last weekend. As I was pottering around in the garage, I found some tyres and
some old wheels which had clearly become unserviceable through long use; I found
136
11:39:27:11:08
Page 136
Page 137
some suspension forks which had been lovingly disassembled by eldest son, cleaned,
burnished, lightly oiled and were just waiting the delivery of some new washers before
being reassembled and pressed back into service. Then in that box I keep in a corner
where I store all those small bits and pieces, nuts and bolts and other useful things that
you acquire over 20 years and they are bound to come in handy one day, I found,
lovingly wrapped in tissue paper, three shiny new brake discs awaiting the call to arrest
the forces of gravity.
Madam Chairman, the point of my parable of the untidy garage is that, as with my
garage, so it is with the Draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
2008. We have jettisoned some material as no longer required on our journey; we have
refurbished some provisions; and we have approved some shiny new material. It is all set
out in GS 1683Y and I am therefore pleased to move, on behalf of the Revision
Committee, that Synod do take note of this report.
Clauses 1–13
The Chairman imposed a speech limit of ten minutes.
The Archdeacon of Hertford (Ven. Trevor Jones): At this stage in the process, I have
nothing further to add. I beg to move:
‘That clauses 1–13 stand part of the Measure.’
Schedules 1 and 2
The Archdeacon of Hertford (Ven. Trevor Jones): I beg to move:
‘That Schedules 1 and 2 stand part of the Measure.’
Long Title
The Archdeacon of Hertford (Ven. Trevor Jones): I beg to move:
‘That the Long Title stand part of the Measure.’
The Chairman: The draft Measure is now committed to the Steering Committee in
respect of its final drafting.
137
11:39:27:11:08
Page 137
Page 138
Draft Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure Saturday 5 July 2008
Draft Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical
Offices Measure (GS 1692 and 1692X)
Draft Measure for First Consideration
(Queen’s consent to be signified)
The Chairman: Before we can have the debate, we need a statement from the
Archbishop of York signifying the Queen’s assent.
The Archbishop of York: Madam Chair, I have it on command from Her Majesty The
Queen: Acquaint the Synod that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of
the Draft Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure, has
consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the draft Measure, at the
disposal of the Synod for the purposes of the draft Measure.
The Archdeacon of Westmorland and Furness (Ven. George Howe): I beg to move:
‘That the Measure entitled “Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and
Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure” be considered for revision
in committee.’
In February the Synod debated a report on Crown Appointments from the Archbishops.
Building on the Pilling report, whose recommendations the Synod endorsed last July,
the Archbishops’ report proposed changes in response to the Government’s Green
Paper, The Governance of Britain.
The Synod approved the recommendations. Most of them can be put into effect through
changes in practice and procedure. It was, however, explained that a small number of
the recommendations would require legislation to give effect to them. The result is two
modest, narrowly focused and rather technical Measures. The first is the Draft
Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure.
One of the recommendations approved in February related to the procedure for
nominating suffragans contained in the Suffragan Bishops Act 1534. I am sure members
of Synod will all be very familiar with that but, if you happen not to be, I do recommend
it; it makes fascinating reading in the Tudor English of its day. That venerable enactment
for the first time made statutory provision for the appointment of suffragan bishops, an
office which has proved to be of considerable benefit to the Church since the use of the
Act was revived by Gladstone in 1870. The 1534 Act requires the names of two
candidates to be presented to the Crown, leaving the choice between the two to the
Sovereign. The practice is somewhat different. For over 100 years there has been a
convention that the Prime Minister invariably advises The Queen to appoint the first of
the two names that are submitted.
138
11:39:27:11:08
Page 138
Page 139
Saturday 5 July 2008 Draft Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure
In February the Synod approved a recommendation calling for legislation that would
replace the requirement for two names in the Suffragan Bishops Act with a requirement
for just one. It is not every day that the Synod votes to amend legislation enacted in the
reign of Henry VIII. Whilst he might not have approved of what is now proposed, it is
comforting to know that Her Majesty has given her consent to this debate this
afternoon.
Part of the background to the recommendation was the indication that the Government
gave last year that it wished the Church to submit only one name for appointments to
archbishoprics and other diocesan sees. It would be curious if, following that change, it
continued to be necessary to submit two names for suffragan vacancies.
The change agreed in February commended itself not simply because the present
requirement has become something of an historical curiosity, or even just an anomaly.
The recommendation for removing the requirement for two names was made against
the background of the more developed and transparent procedures for selecting
suffragans that have resulted from the Pilling report. The new selection process involves
interviews, feedback and a greater degree of openness that will make it increasingly
artificial, if not inappropriate, to have to forward two names to the Prime Minister
simply in order to comply with historical statutory requirements.
What is proposed now, as clause 1 of the draft Measure, will bring the law more closely
into line with the reality of where the choice is exercised. It will also ensure that the law
regarding the appointment of suffragans is not out of line with the new arrangement for
the nomination of diocesan bishops.
Further recommendations, originally made in the Pilling report, and approved by the
Synod again in February, related to the legal position under which the Crown, in certain
circumstances, exercises patronage which is not normally in its gift. Clauses 2 and 3 give
effect to those recommendations.
The general effect of clause 2 is that when there is a vacancy in see, patronage belonging
to the vacant see will be exercised within the diocese rather than by the Crown. This is to
be achieved by statutory delegation of the exercise of relevant patronage from the
Crown to a bishop – in most cases a suffragan or assistant bishop in the diocese
concerned.
This is where it gets really exciting. Clause 3 deals with the unusual position where the
Crown has the right to present to vacant offices not normally in its gift because the
previous holder of an office, or the holder of an office to whom relevant patronage
belongs, has been appointed a diocesan bishop. Clause 3 of the Measure abolishes the
Crown’s right to exercise patronage in these somewhat unusual circumstances. I draw
your attention to (b) on the back page of the memorandum, which I cannot resist
quoting: ‘For example, if the Vicar of X – who is the patron of benefice Y – is appointed
to diocesan see Z, then the Sovereign has the right to present to benefice Y should it be
139
11:39:27:11:08
Page 139
Page 140
vacant during the vacancy in benefice X occasioned by the Vicar of X becoming the
Bishop of Z.’
I was never very good at algebra, but there we are!
The subject matter is somewhat dry and technical. Nevertheless, the draft Measure
clearly achieves the ends sought by the Synod in approving the recommendations last
February. The intention is a sensible simplification of procedures, without, hopefully,
sacrificing too much colour and excitement in our lives. I have no hesitation therefore in
commending it to the Synod.
The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe (Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell): I hope this is not a point
of detail. I just wonder whether, because it is headed about vacancies in certain
suffragan sees, because the Suffragan Bishop in Europe is governed in appointment by
the Diocese in Europe Measure, that should be noted under Clause 4. I am also curious
to know, in what is said in relation to cession, supposing my suffragan bishop were to be
appointed as a diocesan in England, whether Her Majesty would, for that time being,
overrule what is said in the Measure.
I would also imagine that the orotund language of the Royal mandate would have to be
altered as a consequence when this goes through; no longer ‘certain learned discrete and
spiritual persons’ but it would be singular.
The Archdeacon of Westmorland and Furness in reply: I am reliably informed that this
will not apply to the Diocese in Europe. Having attended a consecration myself the
other day at Southwark Cathedral, I too spotted the point that the bishop has made
about the Royal mandate and I am assured, yes, that will have to be duly amended.
(GS 1693 and 1693X)
Draft Measure for First Consideration
(Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent to be signified)
The Chairman: I call the Archbishop of York to signify not only the Queen’s but also the
Prince of Wales’s consent.
The Archbishop of York: I have it on command from Her Majesty the Queen and His
Royal Highness the Prince of Wales: Acquaint this Synod that they, having been
informed of the purport of the Draft Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure,
have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the draft Measure,
at the disposal of the Synod for the purposes of the draft Measure.
140
11:39:27:11:08
Page 140
Page 141
The Archdeacon of Westmorland and Furness (Ven. George Howe): I beg to move:
‘That the Measure entitled “Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives)
Measure” be considered for revision in committee.’
I fear that even the briefest inspection will show that this Measure is no less dry and
technical than the last one. However, it is a little bit shorter and I hope I will not take
much time in commending it to the Synod.
Members will be aware, I am sure, that in most cases the PCC of a vacant benefice has
the right to appoint lay representatives and that their approval is required before a
patron can offer to present a priest to that living. The lay representatives therefore
effectively have a veto over the proposed appointment of an incumbent. That right of
veto does not currently apply to benefices to which appointments are made by the
Crown on the advice of Downing Street or by either of the Royal duchies.
There are a substantial number of Crown benefices; they make up about 8 per cent of all
parochial appointments. There are then the benefices that are in the gift of the Duchies
of Lancaster and Cornwall. The advowsons that give rise to the rights to present to these
livings form part of the corporate property of the two duchies. Since legislation dealing
with patronage was first enacted in the nineteenth century, duchy benefices have been
treated on the same basis as the other Crown benefices.
The policy background to this short Measure is again the Government’s Green Paper
and the Archbishops’ recommendations as to changes that should be made in response
to it. Given the Prime Minister’s wish that the holder of his office should no longer make
the final choice, it made sense that the exercise of parochial patronage by the Crown and
the two duchies should become more closely aligned to the exercise of patronage in the
gift of other institutional and private patrons, giving representatives of the laity the right
to approve or not the choice made by the patron. Thus, the removal of the final decision
from ministers is achieved without abandoning the principle of a mixed economy where
patronage is exercised by a variety of people and bodies.
The proposal that the normal rights of veto enjoyed by parish representatives should be
extended to Crown livings was included in the consultation document issued in October,
and was widely welcomed. It was one of twelve recommendations put to the Synod in the
report from the Archbishops in February and overwhelmingly endorsed by it.
This draft Measure makes the necessary amendments to the Patronage (Benefices)
Measure to allow PCCs of all livings in the gift of the Crown or of the two duchies to
appoint lay representatives who will have a power of veto. I ask the Synod to support it.
Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn): I want to support this Measure but I do so subject to
two qualifications which I mention now. First, I take it to be the intention that the
parish representatives of a Crown benefice should be in the same position as parish
representatives of any other benefice where there is another patron, where of course the
141
11:39:27:11:08
Page 141
Page 142
right of veto exists only for a period of nine months, when the right of patronage will
lapse to the Archbishop, and then they only have to be consulted. It is obviously a
slightly technical point that needs to be looked at by the revision committee, but it
seems that as drafted it might be that the parish representatives of a Crown benefice
would have a perpetual veto. I could not support that, if that was the intention of the
Measure.
Secondly, is it the intention that the Measure should also apply to benefices in the
patronage of the Lord Chancellor? I think as drafted it probably does, and I can see no
good reason why it should not, but perhaps that could be made clear. Again, in the
revision committee that is something that needs to be looked at.
The Archdeacon of Westmorland and Furness in reply: With the help of my friends, I am
reliably informed that in the case of Crown livings the nine months rule does not apply;
there is no lapse in that case. The Lord Chancellor’s livings are treated in exactly the
same way as Crown livings. I hope that answers Father Benfield’s points.
Draft Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation
2008 (GS 1694 and GS 1694X)
Draft Instrument for approval
The Chairman: These two items are set out on the notice paper. The Archbishop of
Canterbury will move item 519 first. This will provide an opportunity to make general
comments about the draft regulation or to raise specific points which do not relate to the
amendment in the name of Professor Harrison. We will then move on and consider the
amendment at item 520 when we have completed 519. Members who wish to comment
on the amendment should not do so under item 519 but should reserve their comments
for the debate on item 520.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): I beg to move:
‘That the Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2008 be
considered.’
This Measure before you is simply to invite a discussion of an issue which has arisen in
the Crown Nominations Commission and on which Synod’s guidance is accordingly
sought. The amendments to the regulations that are before you are essentially of three
kinds.
Most simply, there is some historic tidying up, as you see under item 3, as explained in
1694X, ‘the representative archdeacon appointed as a member of Convocation’ et
cetera; that provision is now redundant and our proposal is to remove that.
142
11:39:27:11:08
Page 142
Page 143
There is then a simple procedural issue about the election of members of the Crown
Nominations Commission at a full meeting of the diocesan vacancy in see committee, so
that, for example, it cannot be done by postal vote or anything.
Thirdly, there is the slightly more substantive issue 4(b), which has to do with the
composition of the clerical part of the diocesan representative group in the Crown
Nominations Commission.
As you will see in the explanatory note, this was an issue which arose as a result of
discussions within the Crown Nominations Commission among the central members,
that is the permanent members of the CNC. It is representative of a concern that a
diocese may, in various ways, somewhat limit the scope of discussion of the Crown
Nominations Commission by electing a clerical slate, as you might say, composed solely
of the existing senior staff of the diocese.
We have had discussions about the representation in elective or nominating procedures
of those most directly under the authority of the person to be elected or nominated, the
question of the role of cathedral chapters in the nomination of deans and so forth.
Essentially the central members of the CNC were asking whether there were similar
issues involved around this particular question about senior staff representation on the
CNC. Accordingly, they are proposing that the clerical membership of a diocesan group
in the CNC should be so structured as to guarantee that it was not wholly senior staff,
that a parish priest (to use the shorthand here) should be guaranteed a place in that
group. That is quite simply the issue; that is the proposal.
I invite the Synod to decide to discuss it at this juncture.
Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn): I am happy to support the intention behind this
regulation but I am not sure that it achieves what it sets out to do, particularly in regard
to paragraph 4, talking about at least one member being an incumbent, priest-in-charge
or team vicar. A member of the senior staff can occupy one of those positions – an
archdeacon, indeed even the dean of a parish church cathedral or some other officer. As
drafted, I am not happy with it but it may be that a later amendment makes me more
content.
The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe (Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell): The appointment of a
diocesan Bishop in Europe is governed by the Diocese in Europe Measure, but we
do have a vacancy in see committee. Therefore I think that one needs to consider
how this might apply, because we have no benefices or team vicars. You may want to
have an equivalent because there is a special nominations commission, which works in
the same way except the recommendation goes to a triumvirate of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Bishop of London and a bishop of the Anglican Communion. Although
we have that special regulation about where it goes, and of course it is not a Crown
appointment, the vacancy in see committee might well be affected and might have
something to say.
143
11:39:27:11:08
Page 143
Page 144
Canon Elizabeth Paver (Sheffield): I wholeheartedly welcome this attempt to
restructure, to a certain degree, the diocesan representation on the Crown Nominations
Commission.
Eleven years ago I was a diocesan member of a CNC when our last Bishop of Sheffield
was selected. Then the regulations gave only four places for the diocesan members and
the vacancy in see committee elected a suffragan bishop, two archdeacons and me.
Then I had the privilege of working on the Perry commission, which in their report
Working with the Spirit opened up the whole CNC process considerably. Originally,
I was not even supposed to tell my husband where I was disappearing to for a couple
of days.
Recently, I have been involved as a diocesan member on the CNC to select a new bishop
for Sheffield diocese. Now dates and places are known and the meetings and venues are
not secret, but not all is cured. Now we have six places from the diocese and this time
the vacancy in see committee elected a suffragan, a dean, an archdeacon, an adviser for
giving and a Church Army captain – all male and three of the senior staff – and me.
Where were the parochial clergy? Where was their voice, male or female?
This reform is overdue. It is said that we have to do it in this way. Vacancy in see
committees should, I think, be able to do this for themselves, but if they are not going to
then we have to consider it. I believe that all members who put themselves forward to
work on vacancy in see committees should make every effort to be available for the
whole of the process and be prepared to be elected to the Crown Nominations
Commission for their diocese.
The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent): I think Father Benfield has it right
about the business of someone who is also a priest-in-charge. I have been on CAC, as it
was in those days, twice from the diocese and I have a nasty feeling I was an archdeacon
at one stage, who was also a priest-in-charge of a parish which was in trouble, and so I
would have been qualified and you would not have been able to keep me off under this
particular bit of drafting. The other time I was probably a polytechnic chaplain. It does
seem to me that there is some slight discrimination here, that there are licensed clergy in
dioceses who might be able to speak quite articulately on behalf of the clergy but may
not be in parochial charge. That again seems to me to indicate that they ought to take
this away and have another look at the wording, please.
Mr David Jones (Salisbury): I was on the vacancy in see committee twelve years ago
when we were appointing the Bishop of Coventry. I am afraid at that time we had only
three members on the Crown Appointments Commission and they were the dreaded
senior staff slate. There was a great deal of concern in the diocese about this, that there
were no laity and no parish priest, so I welcome this amendment. Nevertheless, despite
all this, you appointed a very good man as our bishop. I suppose it is the greatest treason
to do the right thing for the wrong reason.
144
11:39:27:11:08
Page 144
Page 145
Revd Canon Professor Anthony Thiselton (Southwell and Nottingham): Madam
Chairman, I am sorry I have not understood why we cannot speak both to the
amendment and the motion. I would favour the amendment by Professor Harrison, but
I do want to make some general points also.
The Chairman: You can make general points; just do not make your amendment points
at the moment.
Revd Canon Professor Anthony Thiselton (Southwell and Nottingham): I see. I think
they do merge into one because I agree very much with Pete Broadbent about the
wording. My purpose in standing is to point out that I have been on the Crown
Nominations Commission for more than two full terms and it really has been disastrous
when there have been enough archdeacons or deans or suffragans on the committee
really to press the idea that either they want a boss who will give them an easy ride or
that they want everything to remain the same. Something must be done to stop it being
wrecked in that way. Whether it is the amendment of Professor Harrison or the present
proposal to which the Archbishop has spoken, I strongly commend it to Synod.
The Bishop of Lincoln (Rt Revd John Saxbee): I wonder whether we are getting a little
bit muddled about the exact motivation behind this. If we are clear what the motivation
is, then we would be clearer about the process that we need to implement to achieve it. If
the motivation is to ensure that at least one place is not occupied by a member of the
senior staff, then Pete Broadbent’s point is well made: we need to include all those who
are not members of the senior staff as being eligible to fulfil that post. It is not a real
reason to limit it to the parochial clergy. As the Bishop of Willesden has said, there are
many other clergy officiating in dioceses who could fulfil that role. If, on the other hand,
the motive is to ensure that the parochial clergy, as Mrs Paver has indicated, are
represented and that their presence does not go by default, then you need a very
different kind of wording, perhaps the kind of wording we have but the presented
reason is not met by the proposed solution. If you want to stay with the proposed
solution, which is that it must be a parish priest, then I think you make the argument for
parochial representation on its own merits rather than hiding behind a perceived desire
to minimize the number of people who are on the senior staff.
Dr David Tweedie (Coventry): The Coventry experience continues to be good! I have
been a member of a vacancy in see committee. When we received the papers I noticed a
small piece of wording which was quite interesting. It said ‘at least three of whom’ –
talking about the Crown Nominations Commission – ‘must be lay’. It did not say ‘at
least three must be clergy’. We in fact nominated for our CNC the suffragan bishop, a
parish priest and four laity, which I think is probably a good way of doing it. There are
ways you can do it at present: I think it should be formalized. There were some
disappointed members of bishop’s staff who were not appointed. I think that it can be
done if the will is there.
The Archbishop of Canterbury in reply: Some very helpful points have been made. I
145
11:39:27:11:08
Page 145
Page 146
shall not attempt to respond to all of them. Two points might be made. One is about the
motivation. I think it is perfectly true that this is not a completely perfect match between
perceived problem and possible solution. We will have a chance to talk about that when
the amendment is before us.
I think that the Bishop of Willesden’s point is well taken about non-licensed or nonparochial clergy. I think also that it is important to remember that responsibility must,
to a large extent, rest with the vacancy in see committee to exercise their discernment on
this. We cannot over-prescribe on this but we can attempt simply to avoid obvious
imbalances and to make it as easy as possible for a vacancy in see committee to produce
a slightly more varied representation at the CNC.
The point about Europe – I may say the standard point about Europe – made quite
rightly by the Bishop in Europe about there being no incumbencies there would certainly
affect the most effective wording that we can devise for this. Any regulation that is
made here will, of course, need to apply with modifications in Europe. The point is well
taken.
I am very happy that this be put to Synod.
Professor Glynn Harrison (Bristol): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph 4(b) leave out all the words from “; and at least one” to the
end and insert “; and not more than one of the members elected shall be a
member of the bishop’s senior staff which, for the purposes of this subparagraph, shall comprise the suffragan and assistant bishops, the
archdeacons, and the dean of the cathedral, of the diocese”.’
The regulations and code of practice that currently govern the work of vacancy in see
committees emphasize a key principle – representativeness – that as far as possible the
committee should reflect the broad spread of the diocese: geography, gender and of
course the stipulation that three should be lay. My amendment simply seeks to ensure
that that principle of representativeness is carried through from the vacancy in see
committee into the election of the final six members who go to the CNC.
Of course, we need to avoid micro-management, and of course we need to avoid being
unduly negative. I think, for reasons that we have already seen, that there is a problem
that needs to be addressed. Let me show you what I mean. Setting aside Sodor and Man
for reasons of local circumstances, out of the last five diocesan appointments, two have
involved CNCs where all three clergy members were members of the outgoing bishop’s
senior staff as defined in this amendment. It is possible too, bear in mind, that lay
members may be closely identified with diocesan administration, such as being diocesan
directors.
146
11:39:27:11:08
Page 146
Page 147
Whilst clearly these staff bring enormous experience into the process in terms of balance
and representation, their presence in such large numbers cannot be right. There are
other factors: those involved in secular selection processes are used to the principle that
generally staff do not appoint their immediate superiors. For that reason, Synod has
already agreed that in the arrangements put in place for the appointment of deans, as
the Archbishop has mentioned, we have determined that members of the chapter will
not normally be involved in the appointment of their dean, and that is right for all
kinds of obvious reasons. Then, of course, the problem of the presence of so many
people so closely identified with the status quo runs the risk of compromising the
opportunity for a new start, a fresh approach, dare I say nettles to be grasped. I am
not saying for one moment that this has happened but it could happen and we need to
be aware of the risk.
So there is an issue here that needs a remedy. I thank the Archbishops’ Council for the
proposal to include at least one incumbent, but we have begun to look at some of the
problems. There are problems of definition of an incumbent that do not provide a
solution for the policy context problem that I have just highlighted. There is a risk
that the proposal unwittingly sends the message that having nominated one incumbent,
the remaining places are now open to be occupied by more senior members of the
team.
The only satisfactory solution, I suggest, is to have a clear limit on the number of senior
staff, as suggested in my amendment. I hope this amendment will not be perceived as
unduly negative: it need not be. If passed, bishops’ staff will continue to play an integral
role in the process of consultation. By virtue of their ex officio membership of the
vacancy in see committee, they will continue to bring the weight of their experience and
wisdom into the process of discernment, and of course they will also participate in the
development of the diocesan statement of needs. Notwithstanding our concerns that it is
not normal to appoint one’s immediate superior, this amendment still makes provision
for one of their number to go forward into the final diocesan six, but the other five
diocesan members will have been called upon by this Synod from a variety of other
backgrounds across the diocese to shoulder the responsibility of discerning the future
leadership for their people from a variety of backgrounds. The election of those five is a
wide-open process then for the diocese involved. The intended outcome therefore of this
amendment is not only to reflect good practice, in my view, but I believe it to be wholly
positive and supportive of local dioceses.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: Again, I shall be very brief. I regard this as essentially a
friendly amendment, which has the capacity to clear up some of the ambiguities that
early discussion has already identified in the proposal originally put to you. I am very
happy for it to be discussed.
The Bishop of Hereford (Rt Revd Anthony Priddis): I understand that the amendment
before us is offered in a positive way. Professor Harrison was saying that he does not
want it to be micro-management, but it smacks of that to me.
147
11:39:27:11:08
Page 147
Page 148
The more I listen to this debate, the more I am left feeling: let us just trust the dioceses
and leave it to them. We do have the vacancy in see committees; they are elected; there is
representation from all the people from within the dioceses on those bodies, and they
are there because the dioceses trust them. I do not think it is the place of us as General
Synod to be over-controlling, to be more centralized and to dictate to the dioceses who
they should put on and what representatives would best suit their needs. They know
that, not us. Let us trust them for it and let us not micro-manage and not be as specific
as this.
Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): I am very sympathetic to the spirit of
this amendment but in fact I want to resist it. If we go back to the Perry group
implementation, of which I was a part, in those days there were four members
recommended for the CNC, and certainly it was envisaged that there would be a
balance between clerical and lay. At the same time, we did recommend to Synod that
we should not be too prescriptive with only four and that the decision how that balance
was to be made up was to be left with the dioceses. Then by amendment, of course, it
was altered on the floor of Synod, and there are now six representatives from the
dioceses.
Again, I would want to resist the amendment for the sake of being too prescriptive. In a
large diocese like London, we do indeed have a big senior staff with five suffragan
bishops, a dean and six archdeacons. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that they
should all have a part to play on any CNC that might be elected. I think there is a danger
with this amendment of being too prescriptive. If the purpose of that amendment then to
have six members of the CNC from the diocese was in order to give the diocese more say
in the choice of their diocesan bishop, then indeed the diocese should have a say in who
they choose to elect to represent them.
Revd Sue Booys (Oxford): I was one of the diocesan representatives when the Bishop of
Oxford was chosen recently. In that case senior staff, who comprised three suffragans,
three archdeacons, a dean and a sub-dean, exercised the self-denying ordinance and we
had one archdeacon amongst our representatives. Of the three lay people, one was the
chair of the house of laity; and of the two remaining clergy, one was the chair of the
house of clergy. That, despite our being a group so disparate that it was frequently
commented on, was a very happy situation.
It seems, having listened to some other experiences earlier in the debate, that some
dioceses do not have senior clergy who are so good at exercising self-denying
ordinances. My experience was that that was indeed a good thing. Perhaps if they
cannot, we should support this amendment.
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham): I am a member of the
Archbishops’ Council, so I supported the original motion as a good way of trying to
help us through some obvious difficulties, which the Crown Nominations Commission
is experiencing. Indeed, I think it was my motion that suggested that we should have at
148
11:39:27:11:08
Page 148
Page 149
least three lay people as a way of guiding the vacancy in see committee in their choice. I
think that has been a success.
It seems to me that we need to remember that not all the people on the vacancy in see
committee are there by election to represent the diocese; some of them are there because
of their office, and so the Bishop of Hereford has not quite got it right. If we think that
we need to be looking towards the future and the possibility of thinking things through
in different ways, then perhaps we ought to go with the more radical proposal, which is
what I have stood to support and what Professor Harrison is laying before us. In the
end, it is less prescriptive in the sense that it says ‘only one senior staff at most’ – you do
not have to have one – and after that it is up to you; if you want to appoint two
polytechnic chaplains or you want to appoint somebody who is a non-stipendiary
minister or somebody who is not in parochial ministry, that is fine, but at least it helps
the diocese when it is having the election for vacancy in see to think about the categories
and to consider what kind of people will best represent the diocese.
I hope that Synod will be radical again as it was when it decided to allow that three of
the members should be lay, and that it will say senior staff are very significant when it
comes to writing the description of the current situation in the diocese but that they are
perhaps not the best placed people to do the choosing of who the next bishop should be.
I urge you to support Professor Harrison’s amendment.
Mr Anthony Archer (St Albans): I want to support Professor Harrison’s amendment,
which I remind Synod the Archbishop has described as a friendly amendment, so I hope
we are pushing at an open door. I am a recent central member of the CNC; I was elected
at a casual vacancy in 2005 and worked on four vacancies in 2006 and 2007, including
some of the ones that in his statistics Professor Harrison mentioned.
It is a fact that the dynamic of the composition of the diocesan six, as it now is and has
been for a couple of years, is changed depending on the composition and particularly the
number of senior staff members on it. Let us be clear; the entire commission which
works as one body and has to do that needs to hear from usually a senior staff member
from the diocese. Their contribution is particularly valuable in cases where there is a
preponderance of senior staff members among the three members of the clergy.
Professor Thiselton has made the point about in the secular sense electing one’s own
boss. I do not think we can accept the Bishop of Hereford’s point that you can trust the
vacancy in see committee to operate properly. As it happens, what we have just done in
St Albans where there is a vacancy is to elect six members whose composition is exactly
the same as Coventry’s. We have elected one archdeacon, one parish priest and four
members of the laity. How good a job we have done, I do not know. We only managed
one woman but we did manage the chair of the house of laity.
I think it is important that there is a proper balance among the diocesan six. I want
strongly to commend Synod to support Professor Harrison’s amendment. It removes
149
11:39:27:11:08
Page 149
Page 150
all the problems in the draft regulation as we have it, which were earmarked at Item
519.
The Bishop of Willesden (Rt Revd Pete Broadbent): I want to voice caution to Synod. I
chaired the committee that came up with the 1993 regulation. One of the discussions we
had at that stage was about the balance of power between the central members, who are
obviously very well versed in what goes on, and those who are elected from the vacancy
in see committee. Members with long memories will recall that in those days there was
a much more difficult relationship. The central members were described variously as
being poisonous and other things in those days. There was a very difficult problem
which Gareth Bennett wrote about at great length in his Crockford preface. Happily, we
have moved on from there and there is a better partnership, from what I hear, between
CNC central members and those who come from the dioceses. Nevertheless, that has
existed in the past. We had a long discussion – I refer to the regulation in 1993 – about
how we ensured that the voice of the dioceses could be properly heard. There is an issue
about balance of power that needs to be addressed.
I think the proposals we have had to get more lay representation, genuine parochial
clergy representation, are absolutely right and those now make for a better balanced
slate, though we had a Colin Buchanan moment which needs to say to you that if you
use STV you should not have a problem unless you are a craven diocese and you all vote
for the senior staff, because STV actually determines that you can have the spread that
you want. End of Colin Buchanan moment! There is an objectivity about STV that
ought to bring us to a properly balanced slate and it is your own daft fault if you elect all
senior staff in the first place.
However, this amendment goes too far. The reason it goes too far is because you
may well have, as Fr Houlding says, a diocese with a large representation of geography
and of diversity; it also tends to lump the senor staff together as though they are one.
One could envisage a situation where, for instance, you have one of the members of
the senior staff who is the kind of policyholder of what has been going on, the visionary
for the diocese, and then you have the dean who comes in as the joker who asks
all the hard questions. There are many senior staff and deans who work precisely like
that. If you pass this amendment you will stop that kind of representation being
allowed.
I think Synod ought to think very seriously about this. We do not want to cram the
things with loads of bishops and archdeacons appointing their boss and the successor to
their present boss, but abusus non tollit usum. It is in the hands of the vacancy in see
committee to elect who they want and you should not prevent the possibility of a diverse
senior staff having perhaps two members there who will speak very differently about the
diocese. Please do not vote for the amendment out of this kind of knee-jerk reaction.
Think very carefully about what you are doing. I would say do not vote for it but allow
vacancy in see committees to be better instructed about how they get a balanced slate
through using STV.
150
11:39:27:11:08
Page 150
Page 151
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order. I beg to move:
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I beg to move:
‘That the Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2008
be approved.’
The Chairman: Is there any debate on this item as amended?
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): Madam Chairman, earlier in the debate on the
Clergy Terms of Service Measure the question about the regulations coming back to this
Synod or not was raised. I think what we have just seen is a good example of the fact
that it would be useful to consider these kinds of regulation on more than one occasion.
The reason is that although I am very happy with the way the debate on that amendment
has just gone, it could easily have gone other ways. The truth is that there were truths in
both of those points of view. Had there been the equivalent of a revision committee or
something, some people could have sat down and thrashed out in detail something that
we would have been a bit happier to live with. As the regulations have come before us
only on this one occasion, we have to make a snap decision, even though we have had
these things before us only for a fortnight. There are people like myself who have never
sat on CNCs and who come to this debate and wonder how we are supposed to balance
these things, and then the vote is on us. We would have liked the opportunity to go
back and think about it and then write in to a committee and have it discussed in a more
long-term way. Now we have made the decision, we have to live with it. I am pleased we
have made the right decision, in my opinion but, if we had made the wrong decision, we
would have had to live with it because we do not have an opportunity to reconsider it.
I would like to re-emphasize the point that is made. If we do a lot of Church government
by regulation like this, we are shooting ourselves in the foot about the possibility of
having a re-think and doing things slightly more rationally.
Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough): I was the one who originally proposed the
extension from four to six members from the diocese in the hope that it would ensure a
broader representation of the diocese as a whole at the Crown Nominations
Commission. I am very pleased with the way things have gone in the course of the
debate this afternoon. I would like to ask for some attention to be given at a future
Synod to the composition of the vacancy in see committee itself, which is heavily stacked
151
11:39:27:11:08
Page 151
Page 152
still with ex officio members and in practice very few of those who represent the parishes
and deaneries of the diocese. We have an example from Fr Houlding that the diocese of
London has twelve senior staff sitting on the vacancy in see committee. There may be
good reason for that but it is not democratic and it does not represent those of us who
work in the parishes and in the pews. I would like to ask for consideration to be given to
that issue at a future date in a future Synod.
The Archbishop of Canterbury in reply: Two points which I think are perfectly well
worth considering have been made. Like Dr Hartley, I am rather conscious that there
might have been other ways of phrasing this and that a little more time might have
improved it. Nonetheless, this is what is before us and I think it is a defensible
position to have arrived at. The question of the composition of a vacancy in see
committee is not something we can discuss now; it might well be something to
which we could return.
The point I would wish to underline at this stage is simply this. The workings of the
Crown Nominations Commission are part of a quite extended process in which a large
number of people through the vacancy in see committee have a part. I would hope that
the again valid and significant points raised by the Bishop of Willesden play into a
consideration of what the rest of the process entails, rather than making CNC
representation, so to speak, carry the whole of that. Even with the CNC, there is, of
course, the opportunity for reflection between meetings. There is also what has been
said about the role of senior staff in composing the account of diocesan needs, which is
indeed, strategically speaking, crucial to the whole process. Nonetheless, the case has
been made, I think, and well made by Professor Harrison for avoiding some of those
imbalances and, frankly, in contemporary terms, bad practice which an unrestricted
presence of senior staff would entail. It is with that in mind that I would formally move
this and hope that Synod is minded to accept it.
The motion as amended was put and carried.
The Chairman: The regulation as amended is accordingly approved. I shall vacate the
Chair for the Archbishop of York.
THE CHAIR The Archbishop of York took the Chair at 6.10 p.m.
The Chairman: We now come to Item 507, the proclamation of the Vacancy in See
Committee Regulations 1993 as amended as an Act of Synod. I accordingly move, with
the concurrence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Business Committee:
‘That the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation 1993, as amended by
the Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2003 and the
Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2008, and as to be
amended by the Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation
152
11:39:27:11:08
Page 152
Page 153
2007 upon the coming into force of that Regulation, be solemnly
affirmed and proclaimed an Act of Synod.’
The Chairman: The motion having been carried, I shall now ratify and confirm it for the
Province of York and shall invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to do the same for the
Province of Canterbury.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York signed the Act of Synod.
The Chairman: I now call upon the Registrar to read this to the Synod in the customary
form of proclamation.
The Registrar read the proclamation as follows:
Whereas the archbishops, bishops, clergy and laity of the General Synod of the Church
of England assembled at their Synod in York did, on the fifth day of July in the year of
Our Lord two thousand and eight, solemnly affirm and proclaim as an Act of Synod the
VACANCY IN SEE COMMITTEES REGULATION 1993 as amended by the Vacancy
in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2003 and the Vacancy in See Committees
(Amendment) Regulation 2008 in the form it will take when further amended by the
Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2007, now therefore we,
ROWAN DOUGLAS, by Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury, and JOHN
TUCKER MUGABI SENTAMU, by Divine Providence Archbishop of York, do hereby
RATIFY AND CONFIRM the said Act of Synod in Our respective Provinces and do
hereby PROCLAIM to each and every of Our dioceses the VACANCY IN SEE
COMMITTEES REGULATION 1993 as so amended in the form it will take when
further amended by the Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2007 as
an Act of Synod and do instruct the Clerk to the General Synod to transmit a copy of the
said Act of Synod to the secretary of each diocesan synod requiring that it be formally
proclaimed in the diocesan synod at the next session.
DATED this fifth day of July in the year of Our Lord two thousand and eight.
The Chairman: The Act of Synod will now be transmitted to diocesan synods.
153
11:39:27:11:08
Page 153
Page 154
Reader Ministry
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) took the Chair at
8.30 p.m.
Reader Ministry: Report from the Ministry
Division of the Archbishops’ Council
(GS 1689)
The Chairman: Good evening, members of Synod. I hope that you had a good dinner.
I call on the Bishop of Carlisle to open the debate.
The Bishop of Carlisle (Rt Revd Graham Dow): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod welcome the report on Reader Ministry and call upon
the dioceses, deaneries and parishes of the Church of England, along
with the House of Bishops:
(a) to encourage the study of the report, and in particular by clergy and
Readers; and
(b) to consider how its recommendations and action points may be
pursued nationally and in each diocesan and local situation.’
Before I begin may I say that because of the printing problem for the parts with shaded
background, there is on every other seat a copy of the target diagram from page 48 so
that members can see what it is meant to look like, and copies of pages 4–9 without the
shading. If members care to download the report from the Church of England website,
those copies will be fine.
The Synod motion approved in February 2006 requested the Archbishops’ Council ‘to
consider how this nationally accredited office should be developed, and Readers more
fully and effectively deployed, in the light of the welcome recent introduction of a great
variety of patterns of voluntary local ministry, both lay and ordained.’
It appeared to many that there was an issue of low morale among many Readers in the
country. Readers, it seems, had fallen into a kind of no man’s land between on the one
hand a much larger number of voluntary ordained ministers and on the other hand a
rapidly growing number of unlicensed lay ministers, generated by a variety of diocesan
lay training schemes. Add to this the growth in services of the Eucharist and the decline
of non-eucharistic services, at which Readers can officiate, and it is understandable that
Reader morale was affected.
The response of the working party to this situation was not to recommend extensive
transfer of Readers to ordained ministry, either as deacon or priest, although the
154
11:39:27:11:08
Page 154
Page 155
Reader Ministry
report encourages regular assessment of a Reader’s vocation. We know that many
Readers greatly value their lay status, but more particularly we did not believe that
at this time the Church would be best served by having almost all its public ministry
led by clergy; far better to have a clear sign of partnership between clergy and
laity. Readers, we thought, are an important model of both lay participation in the
life of the Church and a stimulus to others to interpret life theologically. On the other
hand, the working party also did not believe that the way forward lay in trying to
restrict the new ministries blossoming among laypeople. We believe that the way
forward is significantly to enhance Reader ministry, and that is what this report
seeks to do.
One of its most significant recommendations is that Readers are supported in the
dioceses in the same way as all licensed clergy are supported, so the report calls for
Readers to have clear working agreements, regular ministerial review, support for
continuing ministerial education (CME), pastoral care, regular attention to their
ongoing personal development and vocation, and that they receive the regular letters
that bishops send to their licensed clergy.
We encountered a desire among some that there should be more consistency nationally
across the whole of the lay ministry spectrum. The view of the working party was that
rather than try to bring any organized national shape to the unlicensed diocesan lay
ministries, which was not our brief anyway, we should recommend that we put clear
water between ministers who hold the bishop’s licence, be they clergy or lay, and those
who do not.
Readers are much the largest group of licensed lay ministers, over 8,000 of them being
licensed, but they are not the only ones. There are a good number of Church Army
officers who hold the bishop’s licence. The Church Army has its own structures for
accreditation and support and we are not suggesting any change to them. In addition,
however, under Canon E 7 some bishops have issued people with licences as lay
workers, usually as youth workers or pastoral workers, and the Canon requires that
they shall have had proper training. This report recommends that there should also be
discussion and consultation, for example, with national and diocesan boards of
education, towards a national framework of accreditation for all such lay workers if,
and only if, they are to hold the bishop’s licence. There is no suggestion here that all
pastoral or youth workers should be licensed; that is not our intention at all. As we see
it, many such workers would continue to be appointed by the parishes, maybe trained
under diocesan programmes authorized by the bishop if he wished to do so. It is simply
that we believe it would bring clarity if all licensed lay workers were to be nationally
accredited, and therefore transferable, and taken as seriously in their dioceses as
licensed clergy.
We think that these ministries would be held together if there were an overall title –
Licensed Lay Ministry – and at least three dioceses have already changed the title Reader
to Licensed Lay Ministry or something similar. We thought that the moves in that
155
11:39:27:11:08
Page 155
Page 156
Reader Ministry
direction were likely to increase, and we have encountered quite a widespread desire for
a change of name, though not in every diocese. So in the interests of consistency we
recommend that Licensed Lay Minister (Reader) be the title on the licence. Dioceses
would be quite free to go on using the title Reader, similarly with youth workers or
pastoral workers, even if the licence said ‘Licensed Lay Minister.’
In short, the recommendation is that we deal with the no man’s land by placing Readers
firmly alongside licensed clergy and ensuring that all licensed lay ministers have full
support, both national and diocesan, in the same way as clergy have.
A second way of enhancing Reader ministry is to open up far more possibilities on the
boundaries of the Church. When Reader ministry was reintroduced in the nineteenth
century it was so that the Church could meet needs on the boundary of the existing
congregations, as the report clearly shows. The working party thinks that this vision of
Reader ministry is ground that needs to be regained and emphasized. We recommend
that dioceses encourage Readers to see their training for preaching and teaching as
equipping them to engage in ministry on the boundaries of the Church. The report
contains a section on Fresh Expressions (page 55) along with one on chaplaincy.
Readers are doing chaplaincy work in major stores, shopping malls, hospitals, prisons,
the fire service, care homes, schools, with cadet forces, in airports and with the deaf
community. This is incarnational ministry; as the public representative of the Church of
Jesus Christ it goes to where people are, to be people of God’s love and good news.
When I was the vicar of Holy Trinity Coventry I had on the staff a retired married
couple, both of whom were Readers, who did a wonderful job in the Owen Owen store
opposite the church, and all kinds of pastoral opportunity came their way. Their story is
on page 13, if members can read it! If clergy or bishops push doors for chaplaincy, they
are very likely to open. The opportunities are immense and we need Readers to enable
us to take them.
A third way of enhancing Reader ministry is to make far greater use of Readers both in
the local church and wider into the deanery. In Readers we have a huge trained resource
in the Church, which at times is underused. This is followed through in chapter 4, but
first a word about the whole structure of the report.
Chapter 1 deals with the results of the questionnaires; it shows us how Reader ministry
is viewed by both the Readers themselves and by the dioceses. Chapter 2 outlines points
from the New Testament and from the history of Readers (or lectors) important for
seeing the possibilities for Reader ministry today. Chapter 3 is about the nature of
Reader ministry today. Chapter 4 points the way to the future and contains the
recommendations and action points that are the thrust of the report. Chapter 5
summarizes those recommendations and action points according to whom they are
addressed.
Chapter 4 begins with the target diagram. The centre circle affirms as the core ministry
of Readers that for which they are trained at present, namely preaching and teaching the
156
11:39:27:11:08
Page 156
Page 157
Reader Ministry
Word, interpreting the Word in daily life and leading public worship. We have placed
emphasis in the report on the opportunities that Readers have to be thoughtful Christian
witnesses in daily life, and in particular in the field of daily work; many of the vignettes
in the report make these connections. We hope to see Reader ministry expanded in the
regular worship of the Church, particularly in preaching about daily life and work as
laypeople encounter it, thereby equipping them for their mission in the world.
The middle band or circle of the diagram denotes ministries that can flow from the core
ministry according to the gifting of the particular Reader. The report places a strong
emphasis on discovering the gifts for ministry that a particular Reader has. It
recommends that opportunities be given in the parishes, encouraged by the dioceses, for
these gifts to emerge and be discerned before Readers are selected for training. The
report recommends that Readers with pastoral gifts and the appropriate training be
given scope in bereavement and funeral ministry and pastoral responsibility in the
churches in which they mainly serve.
The middle circle also shows how the core ministry can flow into opportunities such as
enabling learning, for example, in midweek courses or home meetings, and into the
fields of evangelism and prophetic challenge. We believe that such gifts, as well as the
core ministries of preaching and teaching the Word, should be made available more
widely than the parish in which the Reader usually ministers. For that reason we
recommend that Readers are usually licensed to the deanery, though with a designated
incumbent specified for accountability and support. Among the action points we would
like to see deaneries, along with other churches in the area, auditing the ministerial gifts
available across the deanery.
The outer circle takes us to more specialist ministry suited to Readers with particular
gifts and vision. The report encourages the possibility of a Reader being given effective
care of a congregation. In rural areas we have priests trying to be pastors to many
congregations, which is simply not possible. The outer circle also includes youth and
children’s work for which some Readers have gifts and passion, and possibilities for
chaplaincy and pioneer ministry about which I have already spoken.
The target diagram is at the heart of the report. It emphasizes what can flow from the
core ministries for which Readers are trained – I did not spot that the amber light had
come on.
Mr Nigel Holmes (Carlisle): When I moved my Private Member’s Motion two and a half
years ago it was with the intention of looking at volunteer ministry, lay and ordained, in
the round. The motion was narrowed by an amendment the virtue of which was that the
report became simpler, concentrating on Reader ministry alone and so more speedily
produced. I hope therefore that we will not be criticized, as the report on the diaconate
was, for our purview being too narrow.
157
11:39:27:11:08
Page 157
Page 158
Reader Ministry
I feel that in GS 1689 we have a strong, encouraging and generally helpful report that
will give the 10,000 Readers an honoured and respected place in mission and ministry
at a time when we most certainly need a Church of all the talents. As a member of the
Reader review group, I was keen first that the report should not be seen simply as
presenting Reader ministry in the best possible light, but that it should openly
acknowledge the many difficulties and frustrations that have resulted from the
changed patterns of worship and fresh forms of voluntary vocation. I had the task of
reading all the 1,060 returned questionnaires, and members will note from Annex 3
on page 107 that from their individual experiences those Readers spoke openly and
honestly of the kinds of raw emotion that I think rarely enter synodical documents.
Secondly, I think that the Church needs to see ministry as more dynamic rather than
static; movement within ministry should be regarded as normal rather than the
exception. It is not long since the choice was simply between Reader ministry or male
ordained stipendiary ministry. Now there is a panoply of possibilities. Active
encouragement needs to be given to ensure that gifts and talents are used to best
effect in the Lord’s work, and the retraining required should not prove to be too
daunting and certainly should not involve duplication. One sometimes suspects that
there is pressure from the theological training industry to keep numbers as high as
possible.
One key worrying finding was that between one-quarter and one-third of Readers said
that they were under-used and others said, ‘I could do more.’ We cannot afford that
waste of willing and able people. However what was so encouraging at a time when we
see too much evidence of factionalism in the Church was that party churchmanship
allegiance is hardly evident among Readers and that virtually all – 96 per cent – would
be willing to be deployed from their home parishes to areas of greater need. We
therefore recommend, as Graham said, licensing to the deanery rather than to a single
benefice.
We found a huge amount of variation from one diocese to another in the way that the
rules are applied, which is far from helpful in the national Church’s nationally
accredited lay ministry. Not only were the official diocesan perceptions of Reader
ministry markedly at odds with the views of the Readers themselves, but they could
hardly have been more inconsistent one diocese with another. In one, Communion by
extension is fairly generally permitted, but not at festivals as they are seen to be too
important; in another, the only time that Communion by extension is allowed is at
festivals. That is perhaps the extreme case, but the contrast in ministry a few miles apart
across diocesan boundaries can be most marked. This is strange even to the initiated,
and incomprehensible to the average person in the pew.
Where I live, I could be a locally accredited lay minister but not an ordained local
minister; I could lead a service of Communion by extension but not be appointed an
honorary lay canon. Were I to live twelve miles to the east, the position would be
precisely reversed. Neither that nor the fact that it can all change with the appointment
158
11:39:27:11:08
Page 158
Page 159
Reader Ministry
of a new bishop can be right for the national Church. My plea first to this Synod and
then to the bishops is to ensure that the recommendations that Bishop Graham Dow
mentioned in his introduction to the debate are implemented across the country
throughout all the dioceses.
Let us in this debate affirm Readers, value them and use them to the full subsequently. In
these tough days for the Christian faith, when sadly to the public at large we appear to
be so often divided against ourselves, we can afford to do no less.
Revd Canon Cathy Rowling (York): I rejoice that the Church has invested time and
energy in considering the future of Reader ministry, but by nature I am an enthusiast, so
it grieves me somewhat that I stand here to make a maiden speech that is not
enthusiastic about the report that has been produced.
In its consideration of lay ministry in the wider sense, the report perhaps attempts to
widen the brief yet at the same time narrow it, because it stops short of anything that is
radical or risky in favour of what to me reads like a somewhat nostalgic and
retrospective view. Why do I say that? I think that it comes too close to drawing rings
round what a Reader is and maybe round the Church too. It wants to set everything in
neat, tidy parameters rather than setting free. It may be that one of the things from
which Readers need to be set free, though I know that many in the Church will embrace
it wholeheartedly, is too tight an interpretation of the House of Bishops’ statement some
years ago that Reader ministry is a teaching and preaching ministry in a pastoral
context. This may have been a precise definition at the time, but in trying to clarify
matters in the short term it has perhaps had the opposite effect in the long term. Have
we fossilized Reader ministry at a particular point in its history, and could it be that the
report before us does nothing to dispel that view?
As Director of Reader Studies in this diocese of York, having been involved in training
Readers in one way or another for over 20 years and having served as a moderator, I
contend that Readers are those in their own generation who are sufficiently
theologically educated to undertake the tasks that the Church requires to be undertaken
in this and subsequent generations. Those tasks will change. Perhaps today this may
include for some a Fresh Expressions focus, and indeed the report refers to this, but it
remains so very ‘safe’. Although it advocates Reader ministry for ‘redeveloping’ itself, to
take a word from the report, to me it remains very churchy in its tone and seems to seek
the comparative safety that lies at the centre of the Church rather than equipping
Readers to be set free with confidence. Readers can read Scripture, can read the Church,
can read the world and so on. This can be precarious. Let us build up women and men
who are confident in what they believe, articulate in their presentation of it and can
preach Christ in and out of the pulpit.
I would like to make a few specific points to finish. It is good that the report states that
we must not dumb down training. Before coming here, I spent much of yesterday at the
Wilson Carlile College of Evangelism, the Church Army’s training college, hearing
159
11:39:27:11:08
Page 159
Page 160
Reader Ministry
about its new apprenticeship style of training for evangelists. Maybe we could learn
something from that in the Reader world.
I think that longer titles simply add layers of confusion. If preaching is broader than
giving sermons, we could perhaps do worse – I am not wedded to this but I fly the idea –
than share with our URC brothers and sisters the term ‘lay preacher’, which, although
we would be using the term a little differently, seems to encapsulate the role in its widest
sense, or perhaps just ‘lay minister’. Who out there cares whether people are licensed?
Who wants to knock on somebody’s door before taking a funeral and have to explain all
that to them?
I commend the work that has gone into this report, but I am a little dismayed at the
finished product. The report says that another is to follow. Let us hope that it can build
on this beginning and take more account of the need to present the gospel in an
imaginative, relevant, contemporary and contextualized way that is not tied to a
bookish, churchy and somewhat retrospective culture.
Mr Michael Streeter (Chichester): I speak as a Reader of 13 years’ experience. During
that time I have worked alongside an itinerant evangelist and as part of the diocesan
mission and renewal team developing and helping to implement a diocesan vision of
growth. I have also been a deanery lay chair.
The question that we have to ask today is whether this report effectively answers, or
perhaps more appropriately communicates, the resolution that we passed two years
ago. I have sounded out some of the Readers in my own diocese and the comments that I
have received include, ‘A rather turgid damp squib’ and, ‘The bulk of the report appears
to highlight the variety of approaches among dioceses with toothless recommendations
about best practice.’ I sometimes think that that is a rather unfair criticism, because
everything that we want from the report is there, as the Bishop of Carlisle said in his
address, but I do not think we are communicating it effectively and giving a vision to
Readers to think sometimes outside their own box about what their ministry is.
The report identifies areas in which Readers are used effectively – leading worship,
preaching and teaching – and what particularly emerges from the report is how valuable
Readers are in rural ministry. That indicates that we perhaps want some flexibility in the
way in which Readers are used. A few weeks ago I did a tour of the churches in the
Romney Marshes and saw there the value of Communion by extension, where the
churches would not have been able to celebrate Communion without Reader
involvement, but in other areas that would not be appropriate; and I think the same
probably applies to Readers being given permission to baptize. We therefore very much
need the flexibility of local circumstances.
We also need to realize that how Readers are used depends very much on the incumbent.
I do not think that the report really touches on the problems of collaborative ministry,
which we clearly need to tackle if local Reader ministry is to be effective. One of the
160
11:39:27:11:08
Page 160
Page 161
Reader Ministry
problems that we have in our church is that on Sundays we have too many people
listening to the Word but who are not doers of the Word. With their unique spiritual
gifts, abilities, personalities, experience and passion, Readers can actually lift the
congregation to be doers of the Word in their own workplaces and among their friends
and neighbours; so Readers need to think outside of the box. The diagram that has been
circulated today clarifies it, but if we want to communicate it to the Readers in our
dioceses, the report needs to draw it out.
The report recognizes the improvement in Reader training since 1995, but we have a
number of Readers who were licensed before that time. The other week I discussed this
with our own support group and they all admitted that if they went for selection today
they would probably not be chosen or would not meet the training criteria. We may be
looking at Readers in the current climate of what they are but not in the climate of what
they thought they were when they were trained, so we need to recognize those different
gifts to make sure that we are using them effectively.
Will licensing Readers to a deanery solve our problem? I am worried about this, because
I think that if an incumbent is not using a Reader there will be a tendency for him to just
dump it on the deanery and for that Reader to become someone who is not used
effectively. A few years ago there was an illustration from the Leicester diocese where a
Reader was seconded to another parish but retained his licence in that sending parish,
and I would encourage the House of Bishops to look at that.
A licence until the age of 75? I am not sure that that is sensible. I think that the age of 70,
which I shall be in four years’ time, would provide an opportunity for a review of what
that Reader’s ministry should be, using his gifts.
I like the idea of being a licensed lay minister. I am not sure about the brackets behind
it because, as the chart indicates, Readers can be evangelists and pastoral workers, and
I am not sure about narrowing the definitions.
I would like to encourage dioceses to consider the report. I am reminded that a French
director once said to me – I see the red light, so I will finish. [Members: Oh!]
The Chairman: I am sure members can treat him to a drink in the bar later and hear the
rest of the story.
Ms Sallie Bassham (Bradford): – and to declare an interest, I am a Reader. After every
group of Synod sessions I am encouraged and enthused and I leave York or London with
a variety of good intentions, with a list of tasks that I intend to do or perhaps encourage
others to do, and very soon the less important but more urgent matters of daily life
overcome me and my good intentions; perhaps I am not the only one. So I propose my
amendment to encourage action on good intentions.
161
11:39:27:11:08
Page 161
Page 162
Reader Ministry
This report contains 30 recommendations. Because there are so many, there is a risk that
as we read them we notice only the things that we already do or think we do. I want to
encourage us all to look also at the things that we do not do or could do better. Could we
develop our CMR? How long is it since it was changed and developed? Could we look
at the review scheme for Readers? Do dioceses have a review scheme for Readers? Are
there additional opportunities in Fresh Expressions or in chaplaincy? I am not as
interested in the structural issues as in the opportunities for ministry and the ways of
enabling ministry, so if my amendment is passed I hope that we will not receive a long
list of points about licensing, nomenclature and structure.
I do not want to talk about specific issues because, as Nigel said, dioceses vary so much,
but before the debate began I was eavesdropping on the people sitting behind me, so I
will refer to one in particular. I wonder whether Readers take funerals and offer pastoral
care to the bereaved. I guess that a number of bishops and a number of dioceses would
say, ‘Oh yes, of course’, but which funerals? Do the Readers take only those at the
crematorium where the only attendees are the undertaker and a couple of nursing home
staff, and do the incumbents always get the big funerals that take place in the parish
church, maybe of someone whom the Reader has known for much longer and has
visited far more frequently? If bishops, diocesan training officers or wardens of Readers
feel that there is no scope for improvement within their own dioceses, perhaps they
could circulate a questionnaire and ask their Readers about their perception, again
echoing what Nigel said, that diocesan views may sometimes be at odds with those of
the Readers.
We now have dissemination of information about initial Reader training and hence the
sharing of good practice. I ask that we do this now for CME and for ministry. I was
advised to word my amendment so that it proposed that the report back should be to the
Ministry Council of the Archbishops’ Council, but I hope that the information that is
collected will be made known much more widely. My amendment is modest but I hope
that it will enable appropriate developments in Reader ministry, will encourage Readers
and will set them free, as Cathy Rowling said, to benefit the churches and communities
that we desire to serve.
Revd Canon Andrew Nunn (Southwark): I do not want to take up a huge amount of
Synod’s time, but the truth is that I was a little disappointed when I first read the motion
before us because it seemed to lack any kind of warmth or passion; so, being a warm and
passionate person, I thought that I should try to inject a little gratitude and celebration
into what is being put before Synod this evening.
The report begins in this way by celebrating, as it says, the huge contribution that
Readers make to the life and ministry of the Church of England, but I think that needs to
be made explicit in whatever motion we finally pass today. For the past eight years I
have been a warden of Readers in the diocese of Southwark. We have 280 active
Readers, licensed and PTO, working with clergy most often happily, though not always,
in parishes in our inner cities, in the suburbs and in the rural parts of south London and
162
11:39:27:11:08
Page 162
Page 163
Reader Ministry
Surrey that we cover. Those Readers make a vital contribution to the ministry of our
Church, and if they were not doing what they are doing we would be much the poorer
for it.
Our registrar has totted up the figures for the annual return to Church House, so I have
available some of the most recent figures for what our Readers are getting up to. In 2007
they led 3,820 services and preached 2,315 sermons, and a further 276 services and
113 sermons in churches in which they usually do not minister. Almost all of them have
contact with a local elderly persons’ home; one third of them take the Sacrament to the
housebound; they officiated at 244 funerals – whether in crematoria or parish churches I
know not – and a large number already lead house groups and are involved in pastoral
visiting. That is a huge amount of voluntary, committed and generous ministry.
Appreciating and celebrating just what we have in the Readers of the Church of England
is an important part of the process in which this reports hopes to encourage us to
engage. I do not want to give the impression that everything in the garden is rosy. Like
clergy, Readers are a mixed bunch: some can preach, and frankly some should not; some
are great colleagues and some find it hard to relate to themselves let alone to anyone else.
Although inevitably I have had to deal with some of the more negative experiences of
Reader ministry, the vast majority of Readers for whom I exercise care are wonderful
exemplars of lay Christian ministry; and, whatever else we say this evening, I simply
want us to celebrate that fact.
There is much that we need to look at. We need to look at selection. Our experience in
Southwark, where we have done a good deal of work on this, is that one gets out of the
end of a process only what one puts in at the beginning. We need to look at training, its
quality and accessibility, especially as we move down the route of accreditation. We
need a pattern of ministerial review that will help Readers to reflect on their ministry
just as clergy have the opportunity to reflect on theirs. We need transparent and effective
ways of dealing with things when they go wrong. We need to understand what this
particular lay ministry is today in the twenty-first century, how we can deploy that
ministry effectively and not allow Readers to stagnate in parishes where they are underused or simply ignored. We will have the energy for that only if we are prepared to put
passion into it, to celebrate Reader ministry as it is and then to go forward into the
future. That is the reason for my amendment.
The Bishop of Oxford (Rt Revd John Pritchard): I am very pleased to support both
amendments. I am also grateful for the report, which is generous, comprehensive and
encouraging. Thank you for all the work that has gone into it. I speak on behalf of 250
Readers (LLMs as we called them for some time) in the diocese of Oxford, and I hugely
appreciate what they do.
The point that I want to emphasize relates to the intermediate ring of the diagram, the
particular gift of enabling learning, which I think is really important and I give it three
163
11:39:27:11:08
Page 163
Page 164
Reader Ministry
ticks, but it appears in only one paragraph and is a recommendation only for CME
rather than for initial training. That area of enabling learning seems to me crucial,
because we put high theological investment into LLM Reader training for three years, so
it is a big investment; and that is not just so that they can become better listeners or more
adept at opening the youth club door but to be a real, theological resource for parishes
and deaneries.
It is said that the average British Christian is as well equipped to meet an aggressive
atheist as a boy with a peashooter is to meet a tank. Compared with previous ages, our
knowledge of the Christian faith is actually pretty thin in the Church and I think that
our understanding and practice of the faith is also thin; it is more instinctive than
informed. So what we have there is an opportunity for Readers, well trained as they are
and with their feet well and truly in the secular world, to offer a real gift to the Church in
three areas.
The first is the area of apologetics. We live in an increasingly hostile culture and many
people are now much happier to say that they are atheists, so there is a real need for
good apologetics. Second, in the area of daily discipleship it is really important that we
help people in the following of Christ in the 167 hours of the week when they are not in
church. What is it like to be a Christian at 9 o’clock on a Monday morning? How does
discipleship work out then? The third is how to pray in the thick of life. There is a real
thirst for making prayer real. I therefore hope that dioceses and RTPs, and whoever else
is involved in training, will put real energy into helping LLMs to be the trainers or
teachers or learning enablers, or whatever we call them – those who help to equip the
saints to witness to Christ, to know him in the thick of life.
Revd Canon Susan Penfold (Wakefield): Like most speakers, I think that this is a great
report. At present I work as a DDO, but I have a great passion for encouraging a variety
of ministries in the Church, both lay and ordained, and I have worked previously in
Reader training. I love both the idea of development of the variety of ministries and of
helping individual lay ministers to develop their ministries, and I love the idea that we
will resource this with thorough training.
My disappointment about this report is that it says almost nothing on the subject of
discernment and selection, and I would like to suggest that a robust discernment process
is absolutely essential to underpin the flourishing of this variety of lay ministry. We need
a robust discernment process if we are to have the right people to minister in the Church
and if their ministry is to prove fruitful. We need a robust discernment process if we are
to enhance the reputation of the office and to have it taken more seriously – one of the
things that this report aims to do. The vast majority of Readers are shining examples of
this ministry, but sadly one wonders whether one or two of them should have been
recommended. This week a very experienced Reader who had previously been the
secretary of a Readers board said to me, ‘Sadly, there are one or two Readers for whom
under-use might be too much.’ We need to stop that, for the sake of the Church and for
the sake of the individuals concerned.
164
11:39:27:11:08
Page 164
Page 165
Reader Ministry
A robust discernment process is a blessing to the individuals who go through it, even
though I have been sitting here looking at somebody whom I saw going through it
shaking like a leaf some years ago. It is a reassurance to those who go into training,
because when people step out in faith for God he has this awkward habit of continually
challenging them to do things that they think they cannot do; knowing that others have
taken that seriously can help. It can be a blessing to those who are not recommended,
because robust discernment means saying ‘no’ – and as a DDO I know about that from
bitter experience at times. My mantra for that situation is Jesus’ words, ‘You will know
the truth and the truth will set you free.’ When people can escape from their false
pictures of themselves to see the person whom they have made with the gifts that God
has given them, they can minister elsewhere and they and their ministry can flourish.
Mr Robin Stevens (Chelmsford): I speak, as the report’s recommendation wishes me to
be called, as a Licensed Lay Minister (Reader), and I do not think that that will improve
my ministry.
I have some difficulty with this report because I do not think that it addresses one of the
issues that the working party was set to consider by the Synod. In fact I feel quite angry
about it, but I have been advised by the legal people that I should not use the language
that I was thinking of using, so I am moderating myself.
Two and a half years ago when Nigel Holmes moved his Private Member’s Motion we
agreed that the under-use of Readers needed to be addressed and his motion was
amended to make sure that Readers were deployed more fully and effectively. Only this
week I spoke to a lady who had been a Reader but on a change of incumbent the new
incumbent did not want to use her; she feels hurt and abused, not under-used.
When I attend Readers’ meetings I hear a litany of complaints about the relationships
between Readers and clergy leading to underuse, and I do not think that this report has
addressed that major issue. Just changing the name of Readers does not help. Producing
recommendations that state what we are already doing does not help either, or is the
Chelmsford diocese streets ahead of everybody else?
The report says that Readers must work collaboratively, but the problem does not stop
there. Where is the section on clergy and how they should work collaboratively and can
be helped? Where is the section on Reader development beyond CME and the onus on
them to read, think and mature? Only then will both sides be able to work together and
Reader under-use be a thing of the past.
The motion encourages study of the report, but surely we do not want 120 pages to be
copied around the dioceses. The report states that a larger version will be published in
the autumn; please, no! If we must go ahead with it all, can someone produce a fourpage report that can trigger the right kind of debate in the dioceses?
Mr John Ashwin (Chichester): I feel very sorry to have to speak against the motion,
because I am fond of Bishop Graham and do not like to appear to oppose him, but it is
165
11:39:27:11:08
Page 165
Page 166
Reader Ministry
not personal. The problem is not so much the motion but the report itself, which is so
disappointing. It is dull, it is diffuse and it lacks focus, so I do not think that it will have
much effect. It is dull because it could have contained more examples of bad and good
practice in Catholic and evangelical parishes and chaplaincy – four or five stories, not
little vignettes – which would have established more clearly what Reader ministry is like
in good and bad areas, and then some teasing out of what could be done, followed by a
few sharply focused recommendations and affirmations. If Synod were asked, ‘What
does this report say?’ I do not think members could give a succinct answer. So, to reverse
the tag, I am afraid that it is a good example of parvo in multum! What a contrast with
that really lively and important report The Mission and Ministry of the Whole Church,
which had a short section on Reader ministry and which I think says far more than this
long report. I feel that we must do better; this is not good enough. I am afraid therefore
that I shall have to vote against the motion.
Revd Colin Randall (Carlisle): I want to speak to a very narrow issue but one that I
think is important, that is in support of recommendation 27 on page 94, which reads:
‘We recommend that the House of Bishops decides whether it wishes to clarify further
those circumstances under which it might be appropriate for a bishop to permit a
Reader, or other Licensed Lay Minister, to baptize.’ I believe that this is a vitally
important issue whose time is long overdue.
I would like to speak a little from my own experience and then draw together some of
the pieces that are scattered throughout the report. I have served most of my ministry in
rural, multi-parish benefices. That, of course, means that to run all those churches I need
a good team, and Readers are a vital part of that team. Like many others, I have found
that many Readers can be very gifted at taking family services, as is mentioned in
paragraph 4.2.8 of the report.
Like a considerable number of parishes, we do baptisms as part of our family services.
The age profile and style of those services make them the most appropriate for the
majority of baptism parties, but under the current regulations if I am not available to
take such a service and it is being taken by a Reader, we are supposed to import one of
the retired clergy from outside the benefice to do the baptism. I am very grateful for the
ministry of retired clergy – without them the Church of England would collapse,
especially in country areas – but when welcoming new families to church it would make
so much more pastoral and mission-minded sense if the Reader who is a member of that
local ministry team did the baptism if no local priest was available. I believe that what
the report says about funeral ministry in paragraph 4.3.5 is equally valid for baptism
ministry.
At present in the Church of England we already recognize the validity of baptism by a
range of non-priested people. Paragraph 4.15.2 says that a deacon or deaconess may do
it; paragraph 4.15.1 says that a local preacher can do it; the Common Worship service
of baptism says that in an emergency any layperson can do it; paragraph 1.4.6 of the
report says that 70 per cent of Readers think that this should be changed; the Central
166
11:39:27:11:08
Page 166
Page 167
Reader Ministry
Readers’ Board first asked for this change 46 years ago, as referenced in paragraph
2.8.8; and 18 years ago the then chairman of the Central Readers’ Council said that this
should happen soon. Let us not wait another few years. I urge the House of Bishops to
say that we can have some change on this.
The Archdeacon of Newark (Ven. Nigel Peyton): I welcome this report and the ministry
of Readers, but I want to mention two topics that have not yet been debated on which I
think the report might have been a little more adventurous. The first is the issue of the
voluntary principle and the possibility that some Readers might receive payment either
through stipend or fees for funerals. We are told that a policy paper is awaited, and the
bright ones among members will know that this connects with the debate to be had
tomorrow on parochial fees. We are told that a significant number of Readers in the
survey showed interest in the matter of fees and stipends, so I had hoped that this report
might have said a little more on that topic.
Second, Reader formation and training is mentioned in Annex 4. I appreciate that
formation and training needs to be collaborative, enabling, ecumenical and reflective,
but I think that there is a serious missing emphasis on all Readers having a core
understanding of the character and order of the Church of England, which is even more
important now that so many of our ministry candidates for all sorts of ministry are not
coming from cradle Anglican backgrounds. I would have preferred to see a stronger
recommendation here.
As an archdeacon, many of the problems and serious disputes in which I become
involved in parishes and local churches are about not only personality clashes or an
unwillingness to collaborate but often about ignorance or indeed an unwillingness to
understand the different dimensions of authority that exist within the varieties of
Church of England ministry in which Readers are located. That applies not only to
individual Readers but also to some clergy and some sponsoring churches. It often seems
to me that a nationally accredited, episcopally licensed, public, representative ministry
of Reader deserves a rather better what I would call ecclesial self-awareness. Indeed it
seems to me that the report illustrates some of the very confusions that arise. They are
sorts of border dispute, are they not, that exist about Readers and baptism, Readers and
Communion by extension and the relationship of Readers to other lay and clerical
ministries?
I welcome the recommendation that Readers might be better licensed to deaneries
because I think that wider deployment comes with wider perspectives, and I certainly
applaud the recommendation that we should look for younger and newer Readers.
Mr Mark Russell (Archbishops’ Council, Ex officio): I begin by saying that I am a
massive believer in authorized lay ministry. I was admitted as a Methodist local
preacher at the age of 21 in Ireland and the Bishop of St Albans authorized my
admission as a Reader in his diocese when I was 28. Canon McDonough was a member
of the panel that selected me. Three per cent of Readers are under 40, so when I was
admitted at 28 I was doing quite well.
167
11:39:27:11:08
Page 167
Page 168
Reader Ministry
I know why I shall vote in favour of this motion. I wanted a report that would affirm,
encourage and bless Readers and their ministry, but I am anxious about this report. I am
anxious for many reasons, and I am going to tell the truth for no other reason than that,
as my mother told me, it is the easiest thing to remember!
I am anxious because Annex 6 outlines the membership of the working group – a very
talented bunch of people for whom I have immense respect, but every one of them is
either a Reader, a warden of Readers or involved in the Central Readers’ Council,
except for two members of the staff of Church House. Surely that report could have
been better by having a broader base of people involved in lay ministry? What about
the thousands of youth workers, children’s workers and Church Army evangelists
round the country who also could have contributed their views? It strikes me that the
elephant on the table is the term ‘Reader’ itself. It is the wrong word; it does not say
what Readers do. I am not saying that they cannot read; perhaps they can’t! It
obviously was once a good idea, but sadly it is a relic of bygone days, where the name
itself appears to be a stumbling block to the future. Trust me, as Chief Executive of the
Church Army I do understand something about the name being a stumbling block in
some people’s minds.
Surely the challenge is not just to say that there is a problem with the name but to come
up with something a little better. I am not altogether convinced that ‘Licensed Lay
Minister (Reader)’ really is a step forward. (Applause) Hang on, I have only three
minutes! Recommendation 19 is that all lay ministers licensed by a bishop be known as
licensed lay ministers, and then they would be bracketed by whatever they happen to be,
which means that all my colleagues in the Church Army would instantly be labelled
‘Licensed Lay Minister (Evangelist).’ It might have been nice if somebody had asked us
first.
Finally, I am unhappy with the description in paragraph 1.5 of the introduction that,
‘. . . it is the view of the working group that Reader Ministry needs to be firmly
promoted as the cordon bleu among lay ministries.’ I discovered today that cordon bleu
means two slices of Wiener Schnitzel with cheese and ham in the middle, but apparently
it means the best, in which case maybe I could argue that Church Army evangelists are
the caviar and smoked salmon. Seriously, what do I tell the evangelists whom I
commission on Wednesday – that somehow or other they are not quite as good as
Readers? I think that the term is unhelpful and should be dropped. Yes, let the Church of
England value and affirm our Readers, but let us not do so at the expense of every other
form of lay ministry. As the great philosopher Blackadder said to Baldrick, ‘The
oppressed always kick downwards’, and this report feels a little bit like that.
Revd Canon Andrew Nunn (Southwark): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘After “Reader Ministry and” insert “, celebrating the ministry of
Readers”.’
168
11:39:27:11:08
Page 168
Page 169
Reader Ministry
The Bishop of Carlisle: I am very happy with this amendment and I am very grateful to
Andrew for making it explicit.
Mrs Sallie Bassham (Bradford): I beg to move as an amendment:
Insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (b):
“(c)in the case of dioceses, to report back to the Ministry Council of the
Archbishops’ Council by July 2010 on initiatives they have taken to
implement one or more of the recommendations.”.
The Bishop of Carlisle: I think that the amendment is quite a good idea and not over
demanding. There is plenty of time for it before July 2010. It is a good principle for us to
have a response to points that we have put out for consideration and get some feedback
on them. I am happy with the amendment.
Mr Peter LeRoy (Bath and Wells): Although he seemed to do little useful reading, a
Reader he certainly was but not one whom one might celebrate. Every word of this
licensed Reader’s dry, dreary, dour and rather downbeat sermons was read in a
somewhat depressing monotone, but that was 40 years ago. When he was down to
preach, for some curious reason absenteeism in the congregation rose dramatically, not
only on Low Sunday, when this dismal Desmond was always on duty and the vicar had
made his escape.
Could that still happen now, I ask? Hopefully it will be less likely if the aspirations in
paragraph 4.14 (page 79) about ongoing review are implemented nationally – ‘Regular,
reflective and robust review is essential for any professional minister’ – yet the figures on
page 98 tell us that currently barely half our Readers benefit from regular review of their
ministry. Given the high calling of Readers to be ministers of the Word and to relate the
message to everyday life and work, nothing less than the best will do. Therefore the way
in which we support and encourage our Readers is crucial, and I speak from the vantage
point of being a reviewer of Readers.
May I pass on a few things that have emerged? First, the training has largely been met
with approval, at least in our neck of the woods. One caveat has been the surprising lack
of training in all-age worship and preaching; another has been the surprising limited
attention to biblical exegesis, exposition and real-life application; another has been a
lack of attention to Fresh Expressions.
Second, when it comes to collaborative partnership and how well Readers are
integrated, the picture, as we have heard, is varied. The less happy instances of where
169
11:39:27:11:08
Page 169
Page 170
Reader Ministry
Readers are not regularly included are team planning and meetings, inadequate
communication, and the soloist approach prevails. Of course, ministerial fulfilment is
usually greater where there are clear, written, mutual agreements, as this report
recommends.
I conclude with a couple of caveats. First, as with clergy development review, the process
can become too cosy and much less valuable if it lacks carefully considered input from
those on the receiving end of a Reader’s ministry. Second, although Reader review
remains voluntary, too many of those who would most benefit from encouragement,
support and further training will continue to miss out.
One consequence is that too many dismal Desmonds and Desdemonas will remain in
our pulpits with bored, undernourished and poorly taught people in the pews; whereas a
few more regularly reviewed engaging Eileens, illuminating Ians, clear Claires and
edifying Edwards exercising an effective Reader ministry will surely help to grow and
strengthen the Body of Christ, but please forgive petrified Peter for reading his speech!
Canon Philip McDonough (St Albans): I welcome this report and its well researched,
structured and sensible conclusions and practical recommendations. However I have
reservations and concerns and, if honest, some doubts too.
The report clearly sets out what Readers are, what they can do canonically and the
facilities available to them in their training and so on. It does not state who Readers are
and where they come from, either socially or geographically. The word ‘profile’ is used
only once, whereas words such as ‘gifts’ and ‘talents’ are used more often. This worries
me because it indicates to me that the Church clearly knows and can define what
Readers can do but has little or no idea of what they are capable of doing, and more
importantly who they really are in terms of personality, ability, proficiency and
expertise. It therefore seems to me that there is little or no chance that the Church will
ever be able to use and deploy 10,000 Readers in a meaningful and spiritually fulfilling
way.
The overall picture painted of Readers in this report is of them in a cassock and surplice
ministry exercised in and around Church life on Sundays, with brief forays into the local
community through chaplaincy in local nursing homes, schools and hospitals, whereas
the great majority of Readers exercise and practise almost all their ministry between
Monday and Saturday well outside the Church in places where they live and work, and
in many instances a number of miles away and probably in another diocese altogether.
In short, Reader ministry is by and large exercised in the open community and in the
marketplace, largely unsupervised, meeting people where they are from Monday to
Friday, not where they would like them to be – in church on Sundays. For many Readers
theirs is a touch and go ministry.
Having read this report more than once and studied it in depth, I am saddened because it
appears to regard Readers as churchy people by canon law, Church practice and
170
11:39:27:11:08
Page 170
Page 171
Reader Ministry
customs and procedures. In what I have read nothing is reported about what Readers do
at work, how they earn their wages and salaries or the contact that they have with those
who are unchurched and outside Christian circles. Readers by nature are not churchy
people. If they were, they would be seeking ordination.
Notwithstanding what I have said, I welcome the report. I have aspirations that
diocesan bishops or their delegates be required to keep a profile of licensed Readers
containing details of places of employment and vocational and academic qualifications.
There is also a visible and genuine national Church – I have just noticed the red
light.
The Bishop in Europe (Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell): I am grateful for many of the good
points made in the report. I want to say first of all that we in the diocese in Europe have
a very good experience generally of Readers and a particular experience in relation to
some new congregations. In October I shall be ordaining a Reader in charge of a
congregation in Coutances, and I went to Crete to commission a Reader who has very
appropriately bought a threshing floor and built a church, and the new congregation is
gathered round him.
Wearing another hat as chair of the Churches’ Funerals Group, I want to underline
what is said about Readers and funeral ministry. The funeral ministry of the Church is
extremely important, and with hard-pressed clergy it is important that Readers, among
others, should be properly trained for that ministry.
My main point however focuses on what is said in paragraph 4.16 – ‘Should Readers
become deacons?’ Professor Sven-Erik Brodd of the University of Uppsala said to me,
‘The Church of England believes in a threefold ministry – bishops, priests and readers’,
but that is not the threefold ministry that we have inherited. If we believe in the threefold
ministry as a gift of God to his Church, whatever we may say about Readers, we really
must do something about the distinctive diaconate. The deacon focuses on not only the
call to service but also on mission, proclaiming the gospel and intercession, and I think
that many of the points made about Readers in this report properly belong to deacons. It
is said that the Reader ‘is not an “ecclesial sign” in the way that ordained ministry is.’
We also have a commitment in the Ecumenical Agreement that we signed and in the
Porvoo Agreement to examine the diaconal role.
A certain amount of important work was done in the Anglo-Nordic Diaconal Research
Project for which I was a theological adviser. Distinctive deacons find themselves
marginalized, ignored and treated as mere probationers; there are no deacons in this
Synod, and if this is part of a threefold ministry, there should be. That touches on what
was said about baptism. The primitive understanding was that, assisted by a deacon, the
bishop baptized, or that, assisted by a deacon, the presbyter baptized. Only
exceptionally and in emergencies has the tradition been that laypeople may baptize, and
if we were clearer about a distinctive diaconate, I think we would then answer some of
those questions.
171
11:39:27:11:08
Page 171
Page 172
Reader Ministry
Revd Canon Martin Webster (Chelmsford): It is interesting that on a day when we have
begun a discussion about the shape of the Church, particularly as it is shaped by
episcopal ministry – a great discussion for this session and perhaps our generation –
tonight we are also trying to debate and affirm lay ministry.
I shall vote for the motion as amended, but I would endorse the passion that others have
felt to endorse Reader ministry and the disappointment that to a degree this report does
not do justice to it.
I make three brief points. First, I want to endorse the appeal for national standards
around lay Reader ministry. In our diocese we have for part of the time begun to train
Readers alongside those who are being ordained, both before and after ordination and
licensing. Our hope is that collaboration truly begins there, and we want to encourage
that. If that is good practice, why are we not using good practice from across the
continent? Therefore I endorse what was said by both the Bishop of Carlisle and the last
speaker.
Second, I want to make a short point about deployability. I and those with whom I work
in my team ministry have four Readers who are truly excellent and are doing much, if
not all, that is envisaged by this report, but we notice that some of them have been there
for quite some time. Clergy come and go, and when a funeral comes into the parish
office our way of deciding who should do it is to ask, ‘Does anybody know or have a
contact with this person?’ More often than not it is the Reader who says, ‘Oh yes, I went
to school with . . .’ or ‘I used to work with . . .’ or ‘I came across . . .’. They have lived in
the area, they are very earthed and they get to know people, and I hope we will pull out
that characteristic.
I endorse what was said about baptism and Communion by extension, which I think is a
very worthy place to go. Our Readers are at least as effective evangelists as the clergy.
Finally, I finish with something that one of my Readers told me: that when Readers are
asked, ‘What is a Reader?’ their answer is, ‘The bad news is that I can’t marry you, but
the good news is that I can either teach you the Christian faith or bury you. Which do
you want?’
Mr Philip Fletcher (Archbishops’ Council, Ex officio): – and speaking as a Reader of
now nearly 30 years in the Brixton area of London and on my fourth incumbent during
that time. I shall support the amended motion but with some reservations about this
report. One thing that I particularly welcome about it, bearing on the point made by the
Bishop in Europe, is that this is an affirmation of lay ministry, and for those of us
Readers who feel called to be laypeople and to exercise our ministry in that way I
welcome that clarity that we are not proposing to move on to use the title ‘deacon’.
Having said that, I think that the report starts with a false analysis. It refers to ‘the
current crisis in Reader ministry.’ The word ‘crisis’ I think is to be used sparingly, and if
172
11:39:27:11:08
Page 172
Page 173
Reader Ministry
I were trying to rank the issues facing the Church of England at the moment – the point
will speak for itself – I do not believe that Reader ministry would come right at the top.
What I want to celebrate is the underlying emphasis in the report, which does not come
out very clearly in any of the recommendations, though it has in some of the speeches,
on teamwork between the Reader, other lay ministers – and I do not think Readers
should feel at all threatened by the proliferation of lay ministries – and above all the
incumbent of the parish in which they serve, or whoever is in charge, usually an
ordained person in the ministry in which he finds himself, including, for example,
chaplaincy ministries.
I believe and suggest that if we pass this motion we should look particularly to the
dioceses to focus in this area. How are they going to ensure that incumbents and others
in charge and the Readers and other ministers who are part of the team that the
incumbent leads will be all the more effective, whether that Reader, that team, is
working so to speak in the tent or on the edge?
The Bishop of Carlisle, in reply: We have had plenty of humour and plenty of stick.
There has been a lot of diversity of opinion and speakers have raised a whole variety of
points. Some want a much shorter, punchy, focused report, but others would say that
the point they wanted to be included is not.
We have heard many helpful comments and I would have loved to have this debate and
go away to adjust the report in great detail. Clearly it has not gone far enough for some
people and there is disappointment about that. We have tried to look forward and
present a real enhancement of Reader ministry, but we also felt that we had to support
many existing Readers and encourage their ministry, which I think probably tempered
some of the radicalism. I warmed hugely, for example, to the vision presented by Cathy
Rowling and I am sorry that it has not come out fully enough. We have had much more
positive feedback from the annual general meeting of the Central Readers’ Council. At
that meeting the Readers and wardens seemed more positive about it.
I sometimes wondered whether I was reading the same report as some of the speakers.
For example, reference is made to collaborative ministry in paragraphs 3.7 and 4.12 and
Annex 4, yet it was spoken about as though it was not there at all; teamwork is also
there in paragraph 4.12.4. I wonder whether one of the problems is that because the
report is quite big people have actually not seen everything that is in it. That would not
have been helped by a shorter report, but then we would have left out the matters that
some members wanted said.
173
11:39:27:11:08
Page 173
Page 174
Reader Ministry
I also thought that we had to find a balance between Church-based ministry and
ministry out in the community. Some people feel that it should be much more about
being out in the community, but part of the low morale was in fact about Readers
feeling that their Church-based ministry had been lost, and I do not think it would quite
have worked just to say, ‘You should all be out in the community’, although I actually
think that is a very good thing. So I am sorry if it is too churchy.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments that have been made, but it is a start.
Reader ministry is not often discussed at the Synod and perhaps in some ways part of
the value of this debate has been to bring many points out into the open, so that the way
we want to go in due course is made much clearer by the kind of opinion presented here.
I have found it stimulating, but in some ways it makes me want to go back to the report
and again work with the team.
Nigel stressed that different practices apply across the dioceses. We are very aware of
that, but I do not think it would work to require all dioceses to come into line. We have
recommended consistent practice in relation to funerals.
The point about deanery licensing is that it was intended to give a signal about a wider
use of Readers.
Andrew Nunn said that there was not enough in the report about discernment and
selection; that may have come from someone else as well. We have emphasized the gifts
point. One of the reasons that gifts need to be tested before selection for training is to
prevent us getting into a situation in which we have to speak negatively about people’s
ministries because they are not working out.
Thank you, John Pritchard, for your kind remarks. Yes, the whole thing about enabling
learning would benefit from more emphasis, and I think it is a fair comment that we
could put more emphasis on that. I could not agree more about the question of
apologetics. I believe that apologetics is needed more than ever in the Church at the
moment, and we desperately need teaching, enabling learning and indeed preaching,
which really emphasizes the point that we have to argue with atheists because people are
meeting them all the time.
It was Sue Penfold who also spoke about a robust discernment process, and that is
referred to in sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the report.
Maybe there is more there than members think in some of these cases, but part of
the problem may be that it is a large report and therefore some of the points have
been lost.
In relation to the Church Army, Mark, there was no intention of implying any change
to the Church Army patterns, so I am sorry that it was read as though it was to be
‘Licensed Lay Minister (Reader), (Church Army)’ or whatever. There was no intention
174
11:39:27:11:08
Page 174
Page 175
Reader Ministry
to make that kind of change. The reason for the title ‘Licensed Lay Minister’, which has
drawbacks to it, is that it is already being used in two dioceses and in another diocese in
a very similar kind of way, so we were building on what was already there. I had some
discussion about this with the Bishops of Salisbury, Oxford and Bristol before we went
down that road.
I am sorry about the ‘cordon bleu’ comment; it was careless. It was not intended to
imply any slight at all to the Church Army. It was put in because someone had used it to
try to enhance Reader ministry. I hope that it will not be taken too seriously.
There is a section on the distinctive diaconate. My personal view is that a distinctive
diaconate will not work until it is radically different from our existing ordained
priesthood or presbyterate. Provided that it looks much the same, people will not really
be able to embrace it; it needs a distinctive feel to it. In section 4.16 we are building on
Collins’s work that ministry, or diakonia, in the New Testament is about a mission task.
It seems to me that there is a very big potential in deacons who have a very specific
mission or task, and I personally feel that we should go down that road.
That is probably all I want to say at this stage, except that if we get to the glossy version
– and I realize that there were quite a number of shouts to the contrary – the intention is
that a version of this, basically the report with some extra items, be given or made
available to all Readers. Certainly I would want to encourage dioceses to give it to all
Readers, and indeed maybe to the clergy as well, and then the work on collaborative
ministry and all the other things that are there can be done.
An original draft of the motion distinguished more between the action points and the
recommendations, urging that the recommendations be implemented with urgency, but
because we might have stumbled over several of the recommendations it seemed better
to call for both the recommendations and the action points to be considered. The
Central Readers’ Council will be pretty happy if the recommendations are considered
seriously in every diocese, hopefully with a good deal of subsequent implementation. I
am sorry if it has not gone far enough but I hope that at least it will get the whole
discussion going more and more in the dioceses and parishes.
I invite Synod to support the motion as amended.
Mr Robert Stevens (Chelmsford): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Under Standing
Orders would you accept a vote by Houses because of the importance of this matter to
God’s mission through the Church?
The Chairman: I will take advice. I am advised that if 25 members stand to request a
vote by Houses, that may be done. There are more than 25 members standing.
The motion was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(d)(iv), ordered a division by
175
11:39:27:11:08
Page 175
Page 176
Reader Ministry
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Ayes
17
72
102
Noes
2
27
23
Abstentions
6
16
12
The motion was therefore carried in the following amended form:
‘That this Synod welcome the report on Reader Ministry and, celebrating
the ministry of Readers, call upon the dioceses, deaneries and parishes of
the Church of England, along with the House of Bishops:
(a) to encourage the study of the report, and in particular by clergy and
Readers;
(b) to consider how its recommendations and action points may be
pursued nationally and in each diocesan and local situation; and
(c) in the case of dioceses, to report back to the Ministry Council of the
Archbishops’ Council by July 2010 on initiatives they have taken to
implement one or more of the recommendations.’
The Chairman: I thank all members for their participation in the debate and those who
had prepared speeches but were not called.
176
11:39:27:11:08
Page 176
Page 177
Sunday 6 July 2008
Third Day
Sunday 6 July 2008
The Chairman: The Chairman of the Business Committee would like to make an
announcement.
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: This is not an announcement. I will be asking Synod if
we can make a change to the order of business tomorrow. It will not surprise you that
we have had a lot of amendments for the debate on women bishops. Because there are so
many amendments, and people have until 4 o’clock to put in amendments so we have no
idea how many more there may be, it looks very much as though we may need a bit
more time. We should think very carefully about how we make more time because this is
a very particular and important debate and we want to get it right. We are going to be
thinking about it when we are sure how many amendments there are, how they can be
grouped and so on. I will return to Synod at 8.30, with the permission of the Chair then,
to ask Synod to help us by agreeing to a change in the order of business tomorrow. I
wanted to warn you about that to make sure that you do come and hear what we are
going to do tomorrow so that it is not a surprise tomorrow to anybody.
The Chairman: Before we go to the first item of business, may I welcome some visitors in
the gallery: Crispin Truman and Colin Shearer of the Churches Conservation Trust;
Malcolm Grundy of the Churches Regional Commission; practitioners of several
regional church tourism initiatives; Janet Gough, the head of the Cathedral and Church
Buildings Division; Diana Evans of English Heritage; and Jill Hopkinson, the national
rural officer. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy this debate. (Applause)
Private Member’s Motion
Church Tourism (GS Misc 887A and B)
The Chairman: We turn now to the item on Church tourism. We have an exceedingly
large number of requests to speak on this item. I think it is going to be a stimulating and
popular debate, but we also have four amendments which you will see on your notice
paper. I will put a short speech limit on from the outset after the introduction. I would
ask you, please, to be as economical as you can with your speeches so that we can get in
as many as possible.
Mr Roy Thompson (York): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod:
177
11:39:27:11:08
Page 177
Page 178
Sunday 6 July 2008
(a) support the aims and objectives of the Churches Tourism
Association’s “Sacred Britain” strategy;
(b) call on the Archbishops’ Council to encourage each diocese to form a
Churches Tourism Group or, at least, to identify a Diocesan Tourism
Officer;
(c) propose that such groups and officers be encouraged to:
(i) develop ecumenical church tourism networks through Churches
Regional Commissions, where they exist, or similar regional
bodies, to enable and facilitate strategic partnerships within
Government Regions;
(ii) work with Cathedrals and the Greater Churches in their area to
establish strong, sustainable, cultural and educational links to
strengthen the part played by churches in the wider cultural life
of the nation; and
(iii) establish and maintain regional and sub-regional contacts and
dialogue with English Heritage, Churches Tourism Association,
Historic Churches Preservation Trust, Churches Conservation
Trust and other heritage and funding bodies; and
(d) ask the Archbishops’ Council to report back on progress before the
end of this Synod (July 2010).’
Madam Chairman, it has been a long journey to get here, at least for me. Church
tourism is a mission opportunity – an opportunity to connect with tourists and pilgrims,
educational groups, visitors to our sacred spaces for cultural events or browsers for
family history, an opportunity to introduce even more of our community to the richness
of their heritage, but to deliver it through a higher quality, better trained visitor
welcome.
Church tourism is within a £85 billion tourism industry, the fifth largest at 7 per cent of
GDP, and looking for a 4 per cent increase year on year to £100 billion, so even a small
percentage increase would make a big difference, especially to hard-pressed rural
economies.
However, the Church’s engagement in tourism is to more than just casual visitors; it is
through educational visits, the arts and social outreach. So church tourism, the opening
up of our buildings, is attractive to Government departments and agencies that want to
see all public buildings open, accessible and widely used.
Since you elected me to CCC and now to the Church Buildings Council, I have seen just
what an amazing canon of work is going on to conserve, repair and enhance both
buildings and their heritage contents throughout the country. These treasures are being
178
11:39:27:11:08
Page 178
Page 179
Sunday 6 July 2008
slowly revealed. Not for nothing is the work at York Minster on the east window and
on the proposed west front piazza to be branded ‘York Minster Revealed’: ‘Treasures
Revealed’ is our Yorkshire CRC brand.
There are already some other stunning examples such as Ripon Cathedral revealing
1,350 years of history through a new lighting scheme, and Daresbury church, where
they plan to interpret the Lewis Carroll story. These are just some of the examples
picked up by the media, who seem to have become aware of the work we do in
architecture, craftsmanship and the arts, in addition to the social work carried out
within our buildings. The social benefit aspect is a timely subject, given the Stephen
Lowe report Moral But No Compass, which highlights the social work carried out
by the Church of England through people in our congregations gathered within our
buildings.
Sacred Britain, a national campaign backed by the Churches Tourism Association, of
which we are corporate members, and the Churches Conservation Trust, seeks to
connect those who are looking for an enhanced experience of visiting a church with
those who delight in welcoming people of all kinds to the building they care for. This is a
process which is encouraged by Government agencies, English Heritage and HLF, who
are very keen to promote access and better training.
This motion seeks to draw attention to the Sacred Britain campaign and looks to
identify a group or an individual in every diocese who would be able to co-ordinate all
the opportunities that are available to us, singly or ecumenically, and to connect with
the Church Buildings Division officers, who are in touch with national organizations for
funding or other essential resources; this information is available through the
Churchcare web site. The Methodist Church is going through a similar process this
week at their conference in Scarborough, if a little more thoughtfully and more inwardlooking than we are, looking first at their heritage.
Without diocesan co-ordinators, we are missing out on grant aid for local projects
which can fund training, church trail leaflets, events, signing and other media which
would put income into the local economy. We have a duty to reveal our treasures which
belong to God and ourselves in partnership as custodians. We owe it to this and coming
generations, especially through young people and the disadvantaged, to welcome them
all and inspire them. When Acomb primary school in York come out to visit my church,
many of the children had never been in a church before. We can do so much more in
education visits, and the Churches Conservation Trust has much to teach us, especially
in this subject area.
However, only 50 per cent of dioceses have someone named as a tourism officer. I know
from correspondence that some dioceses have people identified as, say, rural or social
responsibility officers, with tourism included in their terms of office, who say they are
not quite sure what that means. They are not confident enough to initiate projects or
know how to connect with the opportunities out there. ASPIRE will resource them.
179
11:39:27:11:08
Page 179
Page 180
Sunday 6 July 2008
Clearly they would need to be enthusiasts: I am not asking for 43 new posts, only
43 contact points to work at that middle level between the parish or local level
and the national opportunities to work with national funders, regional commissions,
tourism associations and heritage conservation groups. Membership of the Churches
Tourism Association would be recommended as Sacred Britain and ASPIRE gather
pace.
I hope members have looked at the marketplace this week, really looked at the
examples: Beverley, Ripon, Suffolk, South Yorkshire, Hereford and York. These are
good examples of local practice, bringing their buildings to the notice of the visitor and
improving the experience, both for the visitor and the welcomer.
There are new opportunities all the time: Margaret Hodge, the Government tourism
spokesperson, this week is putting £45 million into regeneration of traditional seaside
resorts. Already Scarborough this week has contacted me because they want to set up a
new tourism initiative and has asked the Church to become involved. The number of
Britons taking an overnight holiday has now grown to 87 million overnight stays and is
accelerating. This is a key market for church tourism.
In the last week I have been contacted by four local authority tourist boards, all wanting
to work with churches on new tourism initiatives. Do I turn to my diocese or my
Churches Regional Commission to provide the help? I am not sure. We do not have a
tourism officer, so I do the work through CRC, largely on a voluntary basis.
The ASPIRE project, promoted by the Churches Tourism Association, will provide pilot
projects which develop toolkits written for rural or urban situations, Church-led or
ecumenical Church and secular partnerships. They will then be available to any local
church group that wants to start up a local tourism project, without the need to start
from scratch. I know from some of you that you are already looking at starting such
new developments.
It will be clear from the examples in my background paper that funding bodies like HLF
can work with smaller local groups, Church-based or partnerships that can demonstrate
a quick start to deliver access for local people and a feel good benefit for those involved
in providing the service. By demonstrating our capability to open up churches for
tourists, children and social groups, we have a stronger hand when others are dealing
out help for repairs, so we need to identify at least one person in every diocese with
responsibility to act or react.
I believe we can do a great deal more and be helped by Government agencies if we
strengthen our policy in this area. If we have a clear strategy to church tourism, with all
dioceses represented within the Churches Tourism Association, we can approach the
appropriate agencies at national, regional and local level with more confidence. If this
policy demonstrates to Government the benefits of increasing the funding for repairs, so
much the better, and I look forward to hearing members’ local experiences.
180
11:39:27:11:08
Page 180
Page 181
Sunday 6 July 2008
When the Knights Templars came through York, they were so inspired by St Mary’s
Abbey that they delayed their lunch. The beef gravy dripped on to the bread and ey oop,
sithee, in a single day they invented church tourism and Yorkshire pudding!
I commend this motion to Synod.
The Chairman imposed a speech limit of four minutes.
The Bishop of London (Rt Revd Richard Chartres): I am Chairman of the Church
Buildings Division and as Chairman I am very glad to support Roy Thompson’s motion.
I hope that its implications will be pondered in all the dioceses of our Church and I
salute personally Roy’s indefatigable efforts in this field and would that all the Lord’s
people had his energy and breadth of vision.
In relation to holy places, T. S. Eliot saw tourists as more of a threat than an
opportunity. He celebrates the holy places where ‘the sanctity shall not depart . . .
Though armies trample over it, though sightseers come with guide-books looking over
it’. It is possible to sympathize with that sentiment, but tourists can become pilgrims and
it is our duty to assist in this transformation, but we have a very long way to go.
Speaking in Parliament in a general debate on tourism, I pointed to the obvious fact that
churches and cathedrals were near the top of the list of what visitors to this country
were hoping to see. I was astounded afterwards that people who had spent their careers
in tourism said that this aspect had never occurred to them! More recently, in discussion
with ministers in an attempt to gain access to some of the budgets at national and
regional level which relate to regeneration – and many of our churches are at the centre
of those efforts – I was told that most of these presupposed a connection with the local
economy and how could that make them relevant to churches? Gracefully, I hope, but
with spirit, I observed that the Italian Government would have no difficulty whatsoever
in seeing the economic arguments for ensuring that the churches and cathedrals of Italy
were worth a visit, since in both our countries tourism is a huge employer and makes a
very large contribution to improving the balance of payments.
Currently, three departments in Government are cooperating with the Church Buildings
Division in trying to find a way forward to meet the shortfall on the maintenance of our
buildings and opening them up for wider community use, whilst preserving their sacred
character. I should like to acknowledge publicly the tireless efforts of Anne Sloman of
the Archbishops’ Council in pursuing these discussions with ministers and civil servants,
but the argument for supporting this motion enthusiastically is not, of course,
principally economic.
We live in a time when a very great deal is known about now, but there is an enormous
ignorance of how we came to be here. In consequence, the stories which define our
moral compass, including the Christian story of this nation, have been obscured and we
are adrift on a heaving sea of appetites and desires.
181
11:39:27:11:08
Page 181
Page 182
Sunday 6 July 2008
Visits to a church building, if we prepare for them properly, can be one of the ways to
remedy this dangerous educational deficit, and an increasing number of churches are
taking their responsibilities as centres of mission and education in their own right more
seriously. This, I submit, is a very good moment to be debating this subject and I hope
the Synod will give an unambiguous welcome to this motion.
Revd Douglas Galbraith (Ecumenical Representative, Church of Scotland): I am very
glad to have this opportunity, Madam Chair, to express the appreciation of your
ecumenical partners for this important initiative, which is both example and
encouragement. I would like particularly to applaud the recognition expressed in the
papers that this is not to be seen as something peripheral but part of the very mission of
the Church in its offer of new life to the world.
North of the border, the Presbyterian parts of the Church have long seen buildings as
live only as people meet in them, otherwise kept firmly closed. It has been heartening
over the last decade to hear the sound of unlocking all round the land, as by now 1,200
congregations have joined in what is called Scotland’s Churches Scheme. As your own
scheme acknowledges, it is one thing to open but quite another to connect. It was this
that led the Church of Scotland General Assembly in May, when it approved a scheme
to make available grants of up to £500 to congregations or ecumenical partnerships, to
prepare material to engage and invite potential visitors to their buildings. Each group
has a page or a link on a central web site. Area guides to Sacred Scotland are being
prepared, and these will include synagogues and mosques.
Part of this information, of course, must include historical and cultural information that
is stored in the building, enshrining social patterns like the named farm pews where
masters and farm servants sat together; or the Church in genteel Victorian Glasgow
where you entered your own rented pew direct from an outer corridor without the need
to meet any of the other worshippers at all; or the way that buildings expressed the
relationship between the Church and the civic order, as in the lofts for the crafts in the
councils; or indeed as illustrating the commitment for skill and the faith of craft worker
or designer. Not just all that; it is important, too, somehow to try that other dimension
of how people have, for example, gone out from these places to overseas locations
perhaps, stimulated by the whole reach of the gospel; or how often they have engaged in
charitable works made uncomfortable by the word of God; or people who have stood
up for truth and justice in their society in direct echo of the hymns they sing from week
to week.
The importance of this last dimension, what the Church is about, is underlined by the
information, certainly that we have received from Visit Scotland and other secular
tourist agencies that a significant proportion of visitors to churches do indeed admit a
spiritual motive or interest in their visit.
The beauty of this is the space that it allows to visitors and pilgrims where they are not
182
11:39:27:11:08
Page 182
Page 183
Sunday 6 July 2008
being forced in the first instance to participate in the life of the existing tenants, as it
were, whatever may happen later. In reaching out, Henry Nouwen has that lovely
passage about hospitality as making space for strangers in which they can maintain their
own integrity while not leaving the space vacant where a genuine dialogue becomes
possible.
I will just end with that wonderful picture from William Golding’s The Spire which
recalls the scene where he is up on the walls of the tower and looking out from the
unfinished tower to the surrounding countryside and seeing how the whole community
is shrugging itself, as he puts it, into shape.
I very much hope that this scheme will contribute to that and hope, too, that the Church
will be well supportive of it.
Mrs Mary Judkins (Wakefield): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘After “That this Synod” insert “, remembering that churches are first
and foremost places of prayer and faith”.’
I welcome the motion as a starting point but I am putting the amendment for three
reasons: first, the focus of church buildings or any faith buildings has not been spelt out;
secondly, the Sacred Britain strategy document has little to say about the sacred and
how many visitors/tourists experience this – faith, not just tourism; and, thirdly,
educational school visits are mentioned but, as an RE specialist, I feel let down by the
lack of RE visits mentioned.
The Archbishop of York emphasized prayer yesterday as one of the five building blocks.
One church in the Northern Province, obviously, has on its menu in its refectory,
‘This Church has been a centre for prayer and pilgrimage, and still is today. Do
find somewhere in this Church to pray’ – tourists and pilgrims, as the Bishop of
London has said. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said, ‘Where is Jesus?’ Is that not
the first and foremost role of our churches, not as museums or as part of the National
Trust?
You have the Sacred Britain strategy on your seats. I wonder if you have looked to see
how many times the word ‘sacred’ is in it, and not just in the title, or the word ‘faith’?
I wonder how many of you went to the Sacred exhibition in London at the British
Library. What does that word ‘sacred’ mean to our visitors?
This leads me to the third point, RE. Imagine you are outside a place of worship for the
first time. I wonder what you are thinking. I wonder what you will see. I wonder what
you are frightened of. Are you going just for history, just for art, just for architecture, or
are you going for a sense of the spiritual?
183
11:39:27:11:08
Page 183
Page 184
Sunday 6 July 2008
My role as Education Officer for Interfaith Kirklees (schools) involves RE visits, not
just to churches but to other faith places of worship too: the Sikh gurdwara, the Hindu
mandir, the mosques, the Buddhist community. What we try to do with the children and
the students is to move them from where they are to where they are not, from the special
to the sacred, from sacred to holy. When a Muslim child talks about the cross on the
altar as ‘the Jesus trophy’ or the words above the cross, we do not need to know Latin,
Hebrew and Greek because one child says it means ‘I love you’. They have got the
message of what it is it to go to a church, one of these sacred places. So, yes, treasures
revealed, but what is our greatest treasure?
My amendment is very brief; it keeps prayer and faith, the heart of the gospel, at the
front of the motion.
Mr Roy Thompson (York): To Mary it is a given: the assumption is that if you are
visiting a church, especially with young people, they are not visiting the village hall, they
are not visiting the shopping centre; they are visiting a church. Those who come to my
church often say they are gobsmacked. They are visiting a church: they know what it is
about; they are prepared for it. It is a church. I will not resist this amendment.
Revd Canon Dr Alan Hargrave (Ely): I would like to speak in support of this
amendment and also in support of the motion. I am very privileged to work at Ely
Cathedral, recently named in the new Dorling Kindersley guide as one of the top 20
‘must see’ buildings in the UK. We are trying not to feel smug: it is difficult! We have
about 200,000 visitors a year but most of them do not come to worship. Most are
tourists of the Philip Larkin kind whom he describes in his poem Church Going, which
begins, ‘Once I am sure there is nothing going on, I step inside’; but once they are inside,
as Roy has just said, they are often gobsmacked, awestruck, and have what you might
call a spiritual experience.
T. S. Eliot, who is making a big impact this afternoon, says in the Four Quartets
something that applies certainly to me and perhaps to most of us: ‘We had the
experience but missed the meaning.’ I think that happens to lots of people in our
churches. My job is to help people find a meaning so that whatever their reason for
coming, they leave as pilgrims. Sadly, that is not always the case. I was looking on a
cathedral web site recently and it had a wonderful description of the altar and reredos
but said absolutely nothing about what the altar was for or how it might relate to me.
We have been working in Ely with what we call the Triangle of Engagement, trying to
bring together three things: the building and its history, which people have come to see,
and the issues that people come in with in their lives – they have just had a baby, they are
worried about an illness, they have a difficult relationship, they have a son in
Afghanistan – and to bring those two things together with the gospel message. For
example, the Lady Chapel in Ely Cathedral is the place where you see most clearly the
184
11:39:27:11:08
Page 184
Page 185
Sunday 6 July 2008
damage done at the dissolution of the monasteries. Statues are gone, paint is stripped
off and stained glass broken, headless figures broken on the walls. It is a place of
brokenness and that relates to Christ’s broken body and also to the brokenness in
people’s lives. So we offer an invitation to people to light a candle for those they know
who are broken. In all sorts of ways we are trying to make those connections.
Like Roy Thompson, I am keen to increase tourism. It certainly helps keep the roof on,
but, more than anything else, I want tourists to leave the Cathedral, as they regularly do,
often to their great surprise, as pilgrims who have encountered Christ among us, having
taken an important new step in their spiritual journey, a journey that we in Ely will
never hear the end of.
Mr Tim Allen (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): Madam Chairman, I support both the
amendment and the motion because tourism is important for Suffolk and because the
extraordinary number and quality of the parish churches in Suffolk are a key attraction
for tourists coming to Suffolk. I am glad that Roy Thompson has just cited St
Edmundsbury and Ipswich as an exemplary diocese in terms of church tourism.
In general, my diocese is thinly staffed compared with others, because we lack historic
endowments and because parish share comes in so sluggishly that we have to rely on
selling rectories to balance the books. In the church tourism field a first-class officer
was appointed at an early stage. Thanks to Revd Margaret Blackall, who is here today,
St Edmundsbury and Ipswich is already doing many of the things urged on us all by
Roy’s valuable motion, and indeed by the amendment.
I would like to highlight one particular point from the account that Roy gives of
Margaret’s work for church tourism in Suffolk. The background paper says that in
Suffolk there are now 200 churches open throughout the week on a regular basis. That,
Madam Chairman, is about 40 per cent of the total, with more open at times and by
borrowing the key. Would that it were more than 40 per cent, but I suspect that
compared to the country as a whole, 40 per cent is a high figure.
The Chairman: May I remind you that you are meant to be speaking to the amendment
and not to the motion in general?
Mr Tim Allen (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): Indeed I am, Madam Chairman. I am
seeking to make the point that at the very first stage before interpretation and
spirituality can come in, the Church door must be open.
Far too many churches are kept locked, shutting out not only tourists but also those
who want to come to pray, to meditate and to be quiet. Locked churches deny the
ministry of welcome and are lost opportunities for mission. Surely parishes should
follow the advice of the insurance companies; that is, to put away safely portable
valuables and to open their churches? Then, having opened the church door as the
essential first step, the next step is to follow the advice given by Jenny Bate – to interpret
185
11:39:27:11:08
Page 185
Page 186
Sunday 6 July 2008
these buildings as spiritual spaces in which God can speak to those of us who are
searching. Interpretation of the building, she said, as Christian space is vital. It is by this
interpretation as Christian space that some of the church tourists whom we welcome
with open doors will be transformed into pilgrims and then into worshippers. That is,
I suppose, the fundamental reason for promoting church tourism in the ways that both
Roy’s motion and the amendment urge on us.
The Chairman: I would, please, ask you to speak to the amendment. That was
not strictly speaking to the amendment, Mr Allen. I will be cutting people off in
future.
Mrs Anne Sloman (Archbishops’ Council, Ex officio): One of the things, as the Bishop
of London has already said, that he and I have encountered in our endless meetings in
Government departments on church buildings is an appalling amount of religious
illiteracy. It is very well set out in Moral, But No Compass and we found it particularly
among officials, people who live within the M25. Interestingly, ministers know more
about what is going on out there because they go back to their constituencies.
I want to support Mary’s amendment because I think church tourism can be a real
weapon to help us counteract religious illiteracy. Lots of people have mentioned it
already. There is no point in having a piece of literature about your Norman font if
you do not say what a font is used for and what the significance of baptism is in our
faith. I think that is one thing that is very important.
A lot of tourism is in small churches. People go from one to the other, often on bikes and
so on. I am not really an expert on the great cathedrals and the great big tourist
attractions but I am amazed how many people come to our church and sign the book. As
Norfolk churches go, it is not that special. It is Grade I listed, but we have a lot of those;
it is medieval, and we have a lot of those too. When tourists come into the church, and
ours is always open, they do not give any money, incidentally. We opened the box the
other day – it had not been opened for a year – and it had £1.17 in coppers in it! What
we can do is show people who visit a church, which will be empty when they visit it
because we cannot man it in a tiny village, that this is a living building. You can do this
in a very simple way which I recommend and it hardly costs anything at all: go to WH
Smith and buy a photograph album; keep it on the table and fill it with pictures of all the
events that go on in the church – Mothering Sunday, Harvest Festival, Remembrance
Sunday, the fete (and point out how much you need to raise money through the fete) and
show pictures of people. The image again that was highlighted in Moral, But No
Compass is that the Church is just for old ladies. I have nothing against old ladies: I am
one myself. I do think our churches are much more vibrant and much more open than
the popular impression given in the press and much of the media. A photograph album
is a very simple thing and people always write about it; they always mention it in the
visitors’ book. I recommend that to you: it works.
Mr John Freeman (Chester) I beg to move:
186
11:39:27:11:08
Page 186
Page 187
Sunday 6 July 2008
Revd Dr Dagmar Winter (Newcastle): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (c)(i), leave out “through Churches Regional
Commissions, where they exist, or similar regional bodies,” and insert
“, ideally through existing ecumenical bodies,”.’
I warmly welcome Roy’s motion and my amendment is a friendly amendment, taking
account of the differences from region to region, allowing for locally appropriate
flexibility.
The motion as it stands appears to demand going through the Churches Regional
Commission, if it exists. This may or may not be the obvious route to take, depending
on how regional ecumenical bodies are configured in each region. I am trying to say:
ecumenical – naturally; regional – of course; and let us leave it to the local dioceses and
regions to work with the appropriate networks in their area as they find them.
Mr Roy Thompson: When this motion was cobbled together two and a half years ago,
we wanted at that time to include some non-churchy secular language which would be
understood, particularly coming from the background report, but I think we perceive
that CRCs are a recognized route we would want to go, where they are available. In a
sense, I would like to keep Churches Regional Commissions in, and without delaying
you too much, ‘or other ecumenical bodies’. I would like to have Churches Regional
Commissions named as a specific group of people. I will leave this to the Chair to see
how she cares to handle it.
Mr David Hawkins (Worcester): First, Madam Chairman, I would like to record my
immediate admiration for my friend Roy and for his tenacity in bringing this Private
Member’s Motion to Synod. It has taken him two years. At the meeting of the House
of Laity there was quite a lot of concern about how long it took for Private Members’
Motions to come forward. I am trying to précis down to three minutes what I had
prepared to speak for five minutes.
The Chairman: I hope you are speaking to the amendment.
Mr David Hawkins (Worcester): I am indeed. I would certainly support Dagmar’s
amendment for a wider reason. I want to bring in the concept of the ownership of our
churches. So far the debate has very much been about what we are going to do for ‘our’
churches, with very little reference to ‘them’. I come from a part-Quaker background
where the sense of ownership has to be questioned throughout one’s life. I worry
187
11:39:27:11:08
Page 187
Page 188
Sunday 6 July 2008
because I see very little reference to how the locals in a community have much say about
their buildings. We admire the religious revival that took place in the nineteenth century
but we have to recognize that in our great grandparents’ generation we did alienate a lot
of people from the Church. We lost so many things. We lost our church music, dare I
say: the Oxbridge man came in with the organ and we lost our village band. We lost so
much and we have lost so much of our history that sometimes it is almost as if we do not
want too many to be involved in our churches.
I just make a plea to the members of Synod that at all times we must consult the other
bodies in the locality. We cannot say ‘our’ churches. That must be wrong. The churches
are theirs. They are memorials to those people who built them and we must learn what
inspired them to do this for this nation, but they are not ours. I beg, Chairman, if that is
all I can leave with you that you consider that.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (University of London): Madam Chairman, on a
point of order: under Standing Order 23(a), in the light of Roy’s suggestion, can I ask
you to split amendment 53 between ‘leave out’ and ‘insert’? We would like to keep
‘Churches Regional Commissions’ and if you were to split the amendment, we could
vote down the bit about leaving it out but still vote for inserting ecumenical bodies. I
think it would be really helpful to have the ecumenical bodies, without losing the bit of
the motion he wishes to do.
The Chairman: I am advised that we need to address the amendment as on the order
paper.
The amendment was put and lost.
Mr Philip French (Rochester): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (c)(ii) leave out “the Greater”.’
Madam Chairman, my amendment does no violence to Mr Roy Thompson’s motion,
which I support. The effect is to refer in paragraph (c) simply to Cathedrals and
Churches rather than to the Greater Churches. Why is that? The answer is: because
there is no satisfactory definition of the Greater Churches. Roy has explained to you
that it is meant to be read as a ‘brand name’, a reference to the Greater Churches Group.
That organization is not mentioned in the papers before us, nor does it seem to have a
web site. With no web site in this age, the concept of a brand is unsustainable!
Fortunately, Wikipedia has something to say about it. The Greater Churches Trust is a
self-help association of around 20 large churches, including notable medieval
foundations such as Hexham Abbey and more recent buildings such as St Mary
Redcliffe, Bristol.
Can we really limit the scope of this motion to cathedrals and a score of self-selecting
churches? More importantly, there are many smaller churches which are, or could
188
11:39:27:11:08
Page 188
Page 189
Sunday 6 July 2008
become, targets for church tourism, for want of a better phrase. Such churches may have
even fewer resources than the Greater Churches and might have more to gain from
diocesan assistance and the involvement of English Heritage and other agencies.
Let us take an example. Consider All Saints Tudeley, near Tonbridge in the diocese of
Rochester. This small rural church, only 30 miles from London, would be
unremarkable, save for the very great blessing of a complete set of modern stained-glass
windows by Marc Chagall. These are not just beautiful works; they are intensely
spiritual ones. Serving the church as a place of worship for the local community with its
tourist interest, and for that matter a thriving chamber music festival, is a real challenge,
but it is a tremendous opportunity for mission, not least amongst those who come
seeking peace and quiet and are surprised by the Lord. It is also an inter-faith meeting
point for the Jewish admirers of Marc Chagall’s work.
Vitally, it is our experience that casual tourists return as spiritual pilgrims. The prayer
labyrinth in our churchyard is well used. Many churches of various sizes and types have
much to gain here. I ask Synod please to support the amendment standing in my name.
Mr Roy Thompson (York): I would wish to resist this amendment. The Greater
Churches Group is a brand that is clearly understood. In paragraph (c)(i) Churches are
included; under (ii) the Cathedrals and Greater Churches Group, recognized by the
Pilgrims’ Association, is quite a clear brand. We have to approach those quite
differently. You can ride on your bike up to the small rural church; to get into the
cathedral, you have to crawl in on your knees. I would resist the amendment.
Revd Canon David Bailey (York): I am the Vicar of Beverley Minster, a member of the
Greater Churches Group, which, as we have been told, is an association of about 20
parishes across the country that have buildings of exceptional size and architectural
interest, and all the distinctive ministry that flows from that. That usually includes the
ministry to significant numbers of tourists, as well as a civic role and a secondary role in
a diocese perhaps after the Cathedral. We have a web site on the way, I believe, but we
are in the Church of England Year Book, which is perhaps even more important!
At Beverley we have around 70,000 visitors a year. Other member churches, for
example, Bath Abbey, have very many more, far more than many cathedrals. Beverley
Minister is featured on the display in the exhibition centre. You can see some of the
other ways in which we try to make the most of the wonderful mission opportunities
there, connecting with the local community and the wider region, especially with young
people through schools events and our regular youth café. There is a distinct category of
churches here with a brand name and a cathedral-like ministry, but not usually with
special resources with which to undertake it. We have parish church resources to run
what are virtually cathedrals.
The Greater Churches Group is not a closed group. We welcome applications from any
parish which meets the criteria. We do realize that the title ‘Greater Churches’ might
189
11:39:27:11:08
Page 189
Page 190
Sunday 6 July 2008
sound discordant, and there was discussion at our last conference about whether we
could change that. It is a matter of coming up with a better name. The name is less
important than the distinctive role that we have.
I would be disappointed if the title ‘Greater Churches’ is removed from this motion, as
Mr Thompson has said, because I believe we do merit special consideration. I certainly
accept that church tourism is important to every parish in the land and that different
kinds of churches should be encouraged and supported in this respect, but I believe the
motion implies that anyway and that ‘Greater Churches’ should stay in there alongside
‘Cathedrals’.
I was waiting to listen for the arguments the proposer of the amendment gave to decide
whether I would support his amendment, but I am actually going to vote against it now
because I think you are a bit rude about us, really. Come to Beverley Minster on your
way home – it is only three-quarters of an hour away – and you will get a very warm
welcome, and you will encounter the gospel.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): I also want to resist this amendment because I think
what we have in front of us is very subtle and has not been mentioned by our previous
speaker.
The Cathedrals and the Greater Churches set themselves apart, particularly from the
parochial system in many cases, in my view. My wife took a group of schoolchildren to a
Cathedral near me. She found that the attitude of the people taking them round was not
conducive to allowing those children to have a great educational learning experience. I
believe it has improved in the last couple of years, so it is perhaps not a current situation,
but it was the situation a few years ago.
What I think is important about this is that it binds those special churches with that
distinctive ministry into the life of the community as a whole, because the children will
get their major educational experience in their own parishes when they go back into
their own parishes. They can visit the cathedral, get something educational out of it, but
then take it back into their parishes. We should keep the word ‘Greater’ in there because
it binds the Cathedrals and the Greater Churches into the life of the local parishes,
which is where the mission really is.
Revd Canon Tony Walker (Southwell and Nottingham): I want to support Philip
French’s amendment to omit the word “Greater”. The cathedrals and so-called Greater
Churches, generally speaking, are well enough known and well enough visible. It is the
smaller, less visible churches, particularly in rural areas, that are most under threat and
most in need of finding new ways to reinvent themselves.
Many members of Synod may have heard of time travelling at Southwell Minister, a
pioneering educational activity introduced and developed by Nick Harding, a member
of this Synod, thirteen years ago, which has succeeded in establishing a strong,
190
11:39:27:11:08
Page 190
Page 191
Sunday 6 July 2008
sustainable educational link with children. For three weeks in the year over 500 children
spend a day exploring the cathedral, taking part in hands-on activities, learning about
the Christian faith: that is around 8,000 children a year. It is a great achievement and
one that is capable of being replicated in many other churches. Each year in the market
town of Retford we do a similar version over three days. It means that all the children in
year 3 in our town every year spend a day exploring an ancient parish church, not just as
tourists, not just as pilgrims, but also as worshippers. This year, to celebrate the 750th
anniversary of the church, we are going to do a version on a Saturday for adults, which
will be advertised in the press and through the tourist information centre. It helps that
one of our Readers works in and runs the tourist information centre. That was not
mentioned in the debate last night.
At this time of declining clergy numbers and dwindling congregations, it is the rural
churches that are most under threat. If, on your way back from Synod, as well as visiting
Beverley Minster, you detour from the A1 going south for just five miles, I could take
you to a group of six parishes with a total electoral roll of 52 and an average Sunday
attendance of 33 in six parish churches. They have been in vacancy for nearly two years;
they do not have much hope of getting a new priest. It is difficult to get people to be
enthusiastic about their potential. The view of most people is simply to close them.
Last week on Friday, as we were travelling here, two of those tiny medieval Grade I
churches combined with the Methodist chapel to put on a day of time travelling for all
the children from their village school. Those people, few though they be, are not just
rural stick-in-the-muds; they are desperate not just to protect their own styles of
worship but to see their church buildings developed and used for all kinds of tourist,
cultural and educational purposes. They need the support of diocesan tourist officers
and groups. I hope this amendment and the motion as a whole will give a nudge to
dioceses to do that for the small churches as well as for large.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): I beg to move
The amendment was put and carried, 150 for, 98 against, with 9 recorded abstentions.
Mr Jacob Vince (Chichester): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘After paragraph (c)(iii) insert as a new paragraph:
“(iv) seek to encourage the mission opportunities arising from church
tourism to be taken in imaginative ways, and promote good practice in
communicating the Christian faith appropriately to visitors to our
church buildings; and”.’
191
11:39:27:11:08
Page 191
Page 192
Sunday 6 July 2008
I consider this initiative, as set out in the motion as amended, should be looked at
positively in so far as it goes. It is a good opportunity to break down the barriers
between and with those outside the Church. It provides outsiders with the Christian
heritage of our country as evidenced by the many church buildings and cathedrals.
We should be making our church buildings welcoming. I also see this as a real
opportunity to share the gospel using the visual aid of the church building as a
backdrop.
I understand that the report itself is somewhat cautious. Clearly it wishes to meet the
requirements of Heritage Lottery funding. The report also displays the hallmarks of
marketing process application, which again is as it should be. However, the closest the
report gets to sharing the gospel is the strapline ‘authentic, welcoming rewarding’ and
‘experience-oriented approach’, which might be seen as code for communicating an
underlying message in the actual report itself that we are looking to approve, and I am in
favour of that.
Buildings are important. Jesus referred to the temple, even after redeveloped by King
Herod, as his Father’s house. The early disciples met in the temple court teaching the
gospel. However, Jesus’ ultimate message was of himself as the living temple and his
Church comprising his followers as built of living stones. In this increasingly visual
age, the church buildings should be respected and architecture admired, but here is an
opportunity with visitors crossing the threshold that should be utilized in pointing to
the living Church and the Head of that living Church, Jesus. People are interested in
heritage and we should make sure they get the very best research, welcome and
information in line with the focus of their visit, but also add that little extra for them to
go home with.
I was encouraged by the paper produced by the Cathedral and Church Buildings
Division explaining what I consider should be the guiding principle in the project: to
enable church buildings to release their potential for mission and worship and to reach
out to the community. This focus should not be lost.
The aim of my amendment therefore is to add to the very good work produced and the
extra dimension, that of sharing our linked faith.
Mr Roy Thompson (York): Thank you for that, Jacob. The language was written
particularly for secular bodies to get them on board. It is interesting that this week in
talking to one of them we had not only to explain what a suffragan was but how to spell
it and to try to describe exactly what they did. In two minutes, that was extremely
difficult.
What I would suggest is that we support this particular amendment. It takes nothing
away; it adds to it. I would welcome it.
192
11:39:27:11:08
Page 192
Page 193
Sunday 6 July 2008
Revd Dr Dagmar Winter (Newcastle): I welcome Roy’s motion in this amended version
as well: it addresses such an obvious aspect of our mission. We began our Synod with
ecclesiology underpinned by theology, the Church mirroring our God. When we come
to our church buildings, the same must apply. They speak of God and when they are
hospitable, when they are welcoming, they speak of a hospitable and welcoming God.
They do that through the people who make it so and who have grasped something of
that nature of God.
The exciting opportunity that lies before us is twofold: yes, welcoming visitors, but also
involving the whole local community in joining in that act of welcome. I want to speak
to you about the Hidden Britain centres. The material is lying out in the exhibition
centre. The Hidden Britain centres are projects of the Arthur Rank Centre, the Church’s
rural resources unit at Stoneleigh Park in Warwickshire. Hidden Britain centres are part
of the Churches Tourism Association. It is a rural regeneration programme which aims
to enable those places that are less well known to manage and encourage tourism for the
benefit of the whole local community. In most of the 43 Hidden Britain centres that are
now in existence the local church is one of the leading organizations. Hidden Britain
aims to engender local pride and it offers visitors a quality experience of a whole
community and its way of life. Hidden Britain encourages people to stay longer in a
place rather than stopping to visit the church only and then driving off elsewhere. It
supports the local economy by drawing in and linking together local places of interest,
including the church, local pubs and restaurants, farm shops, places to stay, et cetera. By
working together in partnership, local businesses and attractions and churches have
developed the ability to attract more visitors.
As outlined in the supporting papers, Greater Churches and Cathedrals – yes, I will stick
with the Greater Churches – can signpost their smaller and often rural counterparts.
Partnership working applies within the Church as well as outside it. I would encourage
any local or regional ecumenical group to engage with national projects such as the
Hidden Britain centre, which can add value to what churches are already doing and
facilitate greater links with their communities. I wholeheartedly join in the Arthur Rank
Centre support for the Sacred Britain strategy and its emphasis on the involvement of
the whole community in developing churches for visitors. After all, this is another
opportunity, yes, to share the gospel with visitors, but also to live it with the local
community.
The Dean of Durham (Very Revd Michael Sadgrove): I would like to tell you a story.
I declare an interest as a cathedral dean, chairman of a DAC and inveterate church
crawler. The story is this. My wife and I recently went to visit a favourite church of ours,
193
11:39:27:11:08
Page 193
Page 194
Sunday 6 July 2008
a Grade I listed building, at least three stars in the Simon Jenkins England’s Thousand
Best Churches. It was a Saturday morning; the doors were locked but there were cars
parked outside and lights on inside and we thought: church cleaning, flower arranging,
surely there must be a way in. We found our way in through the priest’s door and crept
rather surreptitiously and a trifle guiltily down the south aisle only to hear a stentorian
voice call out from the back ‘I told you to lock that door when we came in this morning,
and now look what we have got: tourists!’
I have to say, Madam Chairman, that in my experience of church visiting considerably
less than 40 per cent of the churches I have tried to get into have been open in the last
decade or so. We really must challenge, as other speakers have said, the perception that
the default state of our parish churches is that they are locked, barred and bolted for the
greater part of the week. I do not need to tell you that this is not simply about access to
art and heritage; it is about spiritual value, community, prayer and evangelism. It is
about the welcome that God himself extends to the whole of his creation.
As DAC chairman, I have tried to encourage archdeacons from time to time to inquire
in their visitation articles what the PCC’s policy is as to when the church is open during
the week and how that policy is communicated to the public. I am well aware, as DAC
chair, of the risks attached to open churches, though I think nowadays the greatest
risks are actually attached to the roofs and not to the interiors of churches. If the
PCC’s answer is ‘Our church is open once a week on a Saturday morning while we are
cleaning and preparing for Sunday’ fine; let us state that as an invitation to the public. If
the answer is ‘We have no policy’ or ‘our church is not open’, then I believe we need to
know.
I urge us to embrace the aims of Sacred Britain by moving our churches back into the
centre of this country’s tourism policy. By supporting the motion before us, we will help
to unlock the doors of our churches and give back their heritage to the people it belongs
to; who knows what pastoral, spiritual and evangelistic possibilities could flow from the
simple turn of a key?
Revd Canon Martin Warner (London): For the past five years I have been looking after
the tourism aspects of work at St Paul’s Cathedral. Just to pick up on the important
point that was made by Dagmar Winter in terms of our ecumenical relationships, we did
recently have a visit of schoolchildren accompanied by a Roman Catholic sister to St
Paul’s. The Roman Catholic sister was asked by one of the children, ‘Is this a Roman
Catholic church?’ and she was overheard to say, ‘Yes, but it is being looked after by
other people at the moment’. I felt very flattered by that but we do also have other
instances of mistaken identity. We recently had somebody who came into the cathedral
and said to one of the stewards, ‘Isn’t this the British Museum?’, having seen large
columns and a flight of steps. The steward said very politely, ‘No, sir, this is St Paul’s
Cathedral’. The persistent inquirer said, ‘Are you sure?’ We are very sure that we are not
the British Museum because they receive a £5 million grant from the Government and
we do not.
194
11:39:27:11:08
Page 194
Page 195
Sunday 6 July 2008
I want to begin by saying that that commits us to the tourist industry – not a church
tourism industry as such but the tourist industry that is part of the economy of this land
and has already been described as the fifth biggest industry in Britain today. I think there
are huge benefits for us. We are committed to funding 85 per cent of our income from
tourism. It commits us to being part of that industry and I think it brings huge benefits
actually for our mission.
I am a member and on the board of directors of the Association of Leading Visitor
Attractions. That trade association pulls together all the visitor attractions that receive
over one million visitors. We range from the Blackpool Pleasure Beach at one end to the
British Library at the other. Much of the information that we receive from them is about
mission; it is about the things, for example, that people are looking for when they come
on holiday; things like escape from the always on-line demands of everyday life,
authenticity, made to feel special, easily accessible information, engagement with an
experience. That is what ordinary people are looking for. It is what our churches and
cathedrals supremely provide them with. This tourism trade of which we are a part gives
us a huge voice in the nation that is recognized by the wider industry. I therefore am
delighted to welcome this motion and am glad that we have supported it so
enthusiastically.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): I speak as a member of the Historic Churches Preservation
Trust. I remind you all, just in case your diocese has not got one, that on the second
Saturday in September you can all ride bikes, drive, anything else; half the money you
collect your PCC keeps and the rest goes to help other churches. We dish out £140,000 a
year, not just to Anglican churches but to Roman Catholic churches, Methodist
churches, Quaker churches and others right across the piece because that is what we are
told to do, and we get on with it.
Every single child at the pre-schools, LEA schools, in the village passes through the
church to learn what exactly it is there for. We are working with a local authority on
tourism across the whole of the diocese. Now then, what can members of Synod do? If
you are into internet trading, 10 per cent of marketing that all these outlets use they are
prepared to donate to helping to keep the churches. Members can either get hold of me
on the internet when you get home or you can give my friend Graham Clarke an internet
call. It does not cost you a bean. That is something that members can all do. I
wholeheartedly ask Synod to support Roy’s motion.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): Madam Chairman, I beg to move:
Mr Roy Thompson (York) in reply: I have not had as much fun on a Sunday afternoon
for years. I was told that this group of sessions was going to be bloody, and certainly this
afternoon it has not been. Thank you all for your contributions to this debate.
195
11:39:27:11:08
Page 195
Page 196
Sunday 6 July 2008
To the Bishop of London, yes, we do have a long way to go. Heritage interpretation is
absolutely vital and it is written into what we have said as far as the structure is
concerned. To Douglas Galbraith, good news from Scotland. I might move there, not
only for the church tourism but also for free health care for older people. Incidentally, of
course, Scotland was a party to Sacred Britain and a lot of our language has been picked
up and used there.
To Mary Judkins, we have discussed the question of secular language. Alan Hargrave,
thank you for sorting out this sort of experience. We have a long way to go and we can
all do a great deal more.
I said that we use Yorkshire language, ey oop, sithee; it is not only our own Archbishop
who uses it regularly but of course it is Anglo-Saxon, so it would be understood in
Norfolk and Suffolk, would it not?
To Tim Allen, again citing the work of Margaret Blackall, this is wonderful work and I
understand that Visit Ipswich is a separate organization or a partnership and it is
currently chaired by a Church person.
To Dagmar, thank you for the rural dimension and Hidden Britain. In rural economies
the work of church tourism is absolutely vital. In some cases, and let us use Lastingham
as an example with 20,000 visitors a year, a relatively small amount of money goes into
the church but for everyone who visits, an average of £20 goes into the local economy.
That is spent on food, hotels, travel and so on.
To the Dean of Durham, Michael, the Open Churches Trust helped over the last few
years to get churches open and during a period of three years under the CRC work that I
am involved in we opened 281 churches in rural north Yorkshire in a three-year period.
This is exactly why we want this on the agenda. This is exactly the kind of experience
that we can roll out to you.
Martin, yes, St Paul’s Cathedral is a honey pot but it is interesting, is it not, that a great
deal of money has gone into St Martin-in-the-Fields with a £46 million project but that
project, is not only for the homeless but also for tourists. If you ever get a chance to go
and have a look at what they have done, you will see that the choir pews which can be
moved around easily on lifts were made in rural north Yorkshire and it is a great credit
that they chose wisely. Finally, John Freeman: get on your bike and we will all join you.
I thank Synod. I would like to recognize the support that I have been given in this
motion, not only from yourselves eventually in signing up, and thank you for your
graciousness, Paul Eddy, but also to people here who have supported me and to
Malcolm Grundy up at the top. In particular, I would like to cite Andrew Duff from the
Churches Tourism Association, who put a lot of this structure together, to Becky Payne
and to Stephen from the Buildings Division. Thank you for all your help.
196
11:39:27:11:08
Page 196
Page 197
Sunday 6 July 2008
The motion was put and carried in the following amended form:
‘That this Synod, remembering that churches are first and foremost
places of prayer and faith:
(a) support the aims and objectives of the Churches Tourism
Association’s “Sacred Britain” strategy;
(b) call on the Archbishops’ Council to encourage each diocese to form a
Churches Tourism Group or, at least, to identify a Diocesan Tourism
Officer;
(c) propose that such Groups and officers be encouraged to:
(i) develop ecumenical church tourism networks through Churches
Regional Commissions, where they exist, or similar regional
bodies, to enable and facilitate strategic partnerships within
Government Regions;
(ii) work with cathedrals and churches in their area to establish
strong, sustainable, cultural and educational links to strengthen
the part played by churches in the wider cultural life of the
nation;
(iii) establish and maintain regional and sub-regional contacts and
dialogue with English Heritage, Churches Tourism Association,
Historic Churches Preservation Trust, Churches Conservation
Trust and other heritage and funding bodies; and
(iv) seek to encourage the mission opportunities arising from church
tourism to be taken in imaginative ways, and promote good
practice in communicating the Christian faith appropriately to
visitors to our church buildings;
(d) ask the Archbishops’ Council to report back on progress before the
end of this Synod (July 2010).’
The Chairman: Thank you for a wonderful but whirlwind debate. My apologies to
those we were not able to find time to call.
THE CHAIR HH Judge John Bullimore (Wakefield) took the Chair at 3.45 p.m.
197
11:39:27:11:08
Page 197
Page 198
Sunday 6 July 2008
(GS 1695, GS 1695X)
Order made under section 53 of the Pastoral Measure 1983
The Bishop of London (Rt Revd Richard Chartres) to move:
‘That “The Payments to the Churches Conversation Trust Order 2008”
be approved.’
When we debated the current funding order in 2005, the Bishop of Norwich remarked
that he was increasingly able to see churches vested in the Conservation Trust as ‘allies
in mission and ministry, instead of being icons of Christian failure’. Experience of the
imaginative way in which the Trust has been discharging its responsibilities over the past
three years has certainly strengthened this view.
Speaking as acting chairman of the Church Commissioners and also chairman of the
Church Buildings Division, I have had an opportunity to study the work of the Trust in
detail and I would like to pay tribute to Crispin Truman, its Chief Executive, and to
successive chairs, Frank Field and now Lloyd Grossman, for the energy and the
entrepreneurial gumption they have shown.
The Churches Conservation Trust has in its keeping 341 churches closed for regular
public worship. They are churches of high heritage significance for which no
appropriate alternative use had been found when they were vested in the Trust, although
there are question marks over whether some of those vested in the far past would have
been dealt with in that way today. Certainly, without the Trust the Church would have
been entirely liable for the upkeep of these buildings.
The churches remain consecrated and available for occasional worship; last year over
700 services were held, part of a rising trend which reflects strengthening relations with
local parishes and incumbents. Recently the Trust organized a day conference for
incumbents whose parishes include a Trust church. The purpose was to develop ways in
which the nationwide expertise of the Trust could assist parish communities make the
best use of the kind of opportunities which featured in our previous debate on Sacred
Britain.
The Trust also offers the opportunity to return churches to full parish use if changing
demography and development warrant such a reversal. There is an example in
Liverpool in Toxteth where the diocese is planning to re-occupy a large city centre
church which was closed and vested in the Trust in the 1970s. Other possibilities of
restoration to parish use are being explored.
198
11:39:27:11:08
Page 198
Page 199
Sunday 6 July 2008
Over 1.5 million visitors came to Trust churches last year, including nearly 300
educational groups. It is a level of interest which has resulted from the success of the
Trust’s work in interpreting the buildings in their care to provide a better understanding
of the Christian message and the Christian history of our nation. Please visit the Trust’s
web site and view the interactive educational pages or download the audio guides to
particular churches. Also, in partnership with English Heritage the Trust has produced a
highly regarded educational resource pack for schools, Exploring Churches. All this
work is a pioneering contribution to the task which faces us all, and which has been
affirmed by so many speakers in our previous debate, to present our churches better so
that they serve our mission agenda.
A particularly encouraging example of what can be done is to be seen in the Trust’s
South Yorkshire project centred on five churches in the Yorkshire coalfield. Until
recently they were largely unused and unvisited, but two years ago the CCT raised
£50,000 from three grant-making trusts to finance a two-year project to stimulate local
interest and encourage events to bring the buildings back to life. A half-time worker
opened the buildings up. Visitor numbers quadrupled in the first year; volunteers were
recruited, because they do not just come out of thin air, you have to have some
infrastructure to stimulate them, and local schools were involved in visits and
exhibitions.
All this has been achieved despite the fact that core funding of the Trust has been flat
since 2001, although, as you have seen from our papers, a small increase has been
announced recently at the conclusion of the spending round. New work which has been
done has required vigorous fund-raising. Synod is not being asked to support a grant to
a complacent or supine organization.
The Funding Order and the accompanying paper GS 1695X set out the financial
arrangements. The Church contributes 30 per cent to the Trust’s core costs – not its
total operations – and the State puts in 70 per cent. The funding required from the
Church Commissioners under this formula over the next three years will be not more
than £4.16 million, depending on the level of State support. That is about £1.4 million
a year or about £4,000 each year on each of the Trust’s churches. Crucially, this
gives us, the Church, and not the State the right to decide which churches should be
vested in the Trust. The current budget will allow for three or four new vestings each
year.
The Church’s share is met from two sources. First, there is the one-third of the sale
proceeds of closed church buildings which comes to the Commissioners. The other twothirds, of course, stays in the dioceses. The second source is the Church Commissioners’
General Fund.
Recent sale proceeds have been buoyant and in the current funding period about £2.5
million of the Church’s share has come from sales and this source. The balance has come
from the General Fund. Property values are, of course, bound to be affected in the
199
11:39:27:11:08
Page 199
Page 200
Sunday 6 July 2008
current economic turbulence and we should not assume that so large a proportion will
be met from sales in the next triennium.
I believe, in conclusion, that the Churches Conservation Trust is a valuable partner at a
local and national level. The Church-State 30–70 funding formula for the core costs is
part of a very complex set of arrangements which operate in this aspect of our life
together as a Church.
I have often said that we are in financial terms the most disestablished Church in Europe
and there is an asymmetrical relationship between ourselves and public authority in
respect of our custodianship of such a significant community asset as the cathedrals and
churches of our land. There is much to be done on this front and we should not relax our
efforts, but the CCT is a good example of a working partnership and I hope very much
that the Synod will support the proposals contained in GS 1695.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): I would like to highlight the importance of the substance of
the amendment we passed in the last motion put forward by Mr Vince with regard to
churches that are vested in the CCT. It seems to me a matter of enormous importance
that such churches are not presented as museums to the past but are still able to speak of
a living faith. It is just as important that churches vested in the CCT should be
interpreted, that the language which now for many people is a foreign language, the
language which the church buildings speak, should be interpreted, and if it cannot be
done by people, then by literature and by appropriate written material. Visitors and
tourists really do not know whether a church that they are visiting is one with a regular
worshiping congregation or is a CCT church. All they know is that it is a church.
I visited Amsterdam two years ago for the first time. It was a very sad experience. It was
a beautiful day and a beautiful city but all the historic churches were closed. They are
not used for public worship. Yes, they are museums or concert halls but the witness to
the living faith has gone. It is no surprise to me that as a result the city is full of sex
shops, prostitutes and other things. When the light goes out darkness becomes rampant.
I believe, even though our CCT churches do not have regular worshipping
congregations, they can be used to present the light of Christ to all who come, both in
terms of explaining the building and the faith to which it points, but also to those who
come on holiday who may be a little more open to spiritual things than they would
otherwise be, perhaps wanting to find out what Christianity is really all about. Even if
you cannot have people there to explain and put them in contact, it is important at least
to have literature which tells them how they can find out, where there is a local course
running that they can join.
I was in a church near where I work a couple of months ago, praying at lunchtime, and
suddenly my prayers were interrupted by a young Turkish man who had walked into
this church and who said, ‘Can you tell me how I can find out about the Christian faith?’
I confess I was somewhat taken aback. Fortunately, there was a Christian bookshop two
200
11:39:27:11:08
Page 200
Page 201
Sunday 6 July 2008
doors away, so I took him along there and bought him a Turkish Bible. They run an
Explore Christianity course upstairs. Had he come at any other time to that church, and
that was not a CCT church but just an open church, he would have had nothing, no one
and no literature, to tell him how he could find out about the Christian faith. It is so
important. People are coming into our churches seeking Christ and we must do all we
can in CCT and other churches to help them find him.
Revd Canon Chris Lilley (Lincoln): I am enormously grateful to the Churches
Conservation Trust. In my present parish I have one of their churches, effectively one of
eight that I am responsible for, but I do not have to pay the bill on this one. In my last
group of parishes there were two and the CCT were always most helpful and obliging
and generous.
I think there is big ‘but’ and it was a point when we last debated this three years ago.
There is a big question in my mind as to whether this is the right use of Church
Commissioners’ funds for mission. I am not saying there is no mission at all in this, and I
am very happy to support the church tourism motion, but I do feel, rather supporting
what Clive Scowen was saying, that we do not yet take all the opportunities that we
could to promote the mission of the living Church. We are in this somewhat topsy-turvy
situation where £4,000 is available to keep churches closed. If we had £4,000 to help
every open church remain open, what a lot we could do with that!
Although I was almost persuaded by the Bishop of London not to vote against this,
I am, in the end, still going to vote against this motion this time because I do not
believe that this is the best use we could make of the £1.4 million a year that is currently
being spent by the Church Commissioners on this. I think we could do better with that
money.
Canon Alan Cooper (Manchester): I will support this motion wholeheartedly. We often
talk about the living Church and the Church presumably that is dead. I do not accept
those terms. I talk of the Church with life in it. Paradoxically, the churches in the Trust
have life in them, Christian life in them. Sermons in stone, sacred places, call it what you
like, they are there.
The Commissioners are a generous body. (I speak as the chairman of the board of
finance in Manchester.) Without the money the Commissioners pass over to us and to
other dioceses we would have a tremendously difficult job in maintaining our ministry.
Praise be to the wisdom of the Commissioners, but there is more than one way of
presenting ministry and the churches in this case do. I have quoted often two churches:
one is at Warburton, just on the border with the Chester diocese, 1,000 years old, still
maintaining services now and again, a key ready to go in. To go in there – and I have
taken in friends and strangers from other countries – is to go into the presence of the
living God where there is life in that church. So to the second one, St Mary’s in
Shrewsbury, down the main road, one of the great wonders of that county. On Show
weekend my wife and I go and always we call in at the church and look at the book of
201
11:39:27:11:08
Page 201
Page 202
Sunday 6 July 2008
who goes in – from Japan, America, even from Eccles in Lancashire. You feel these
strangers have been welcomed and have seen the beauty.
I think we should give thanks to the Commissioners for having the courage to spread
their money throughout the country for the good of the life of the Church. I would hope
that Synod will vote overwhelmingly to support this motion. If the Commissioners did
not put their money in, would the Government put their money somewhere else to help
the Church? Partnership is essential and we have it here. I beg members to support this
motion.
The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell): Yes, I want to add my support to
this motion and also to urge the support of Synod. I have been on what was called,
until a few weeks ago, the Redundant Churches Committee for about eleven years
and was therefore involved in the process which leads some churches to go into the
care of the CCT. It also involves a visit once a year to a number of churches, which
include CCT churches, as part of a tour within the work of that committee. I have seen
something of the work that has been done there by the Churches Conservation Trust,
and I was very impressed with a number of those churches: they very much do keep the
place open.
I understand where the earlier speaker was coming from when he asked if the
Commissioners’ money should go in this direction to keep the churches closed, and
obviously he wants to see more money going to those congregations who have living
churches and want to keep those churches open. I accept that but there is for some
churches no alternative but to close them for regular public worship at a certain moment
in history. Some of those are quite difficult to deal with. If you have been around your
diocese you may have come across one or two of those problematic situations. The CCT
helps to contribute to some of those churches to which we want to give the best possible
future, which is keeping them not closed so much as actually up and open in the best
way for others to enjoy and from which to learn.
I think I am right, and Crispin Truman through the Bishop may be able to confirm, that
the CCT has more properties in its overall estate than the National Trust. It is a very
significant player in that sense, without the publicity the National Trust gets. Within
that great estate of churches it is keeping open for us and many others across the nation,
both now and into the future, the opportunity to discover the Christian faith as
expressed in the past and as still being expressed and will go on being expressed into the
future. This partnership, which Alan Cooper talked about, I think is a good deal for the
Church. If the Commissioners are not going to underwrite that 30 per cent payment,
somebody else has to do it; the Commissioners are presently the underwriters of that. I
think that gives some security to Government, too, on their side of the partnership. We
would do well to support this particular partnership and indeed to encourage the CCT
and the work which they do alongside parishes and dioceses and indeed the
Commissioners, too. I very much commend this motion to Synod.
202
11:39:27:11:08
Page 202
Page 203
Sunday 6 July 2008
Revd Susan Booys (Oxford): A very quick point about mission; many of these fine
buildings are places of mission in terms of the contact which the Emmaus way of
working thinks about, and a closed door in one of these churches is actually a real bar to
mission in the sense of people who wish to go across the threshold being able to take
that step. I particularly want to support this in those terms.
The Bishop of Liverpool (Rt Revd James Jones): I would like to add my voice to support
the grant to the Trust. The Bishop of London has already mentioned the work in which
the Trust has been involved in supporting the church of St James’s Toxteth which we are
about to take back and turn into a living church.
The point I want to make is that regeneration is a very fluid landscape: there are times
when areas fall into very severe deprivation and local communities are simply not able
to sustain their church buildings. Without the Churches Conservation Trust, St James’s
Toxteth would have fallen into disrepair and ruin. Within the 20 years of that
deprivation, the Trust has maintained this church so that now, with the regeneration of
the docks and this part of Liverpool, the church is there to be renewed and to be
returned into a living church.
Many people do not know this but John Newton, who was the author of that wonderful
hymn Amazing Grace, in between being the commander of a slave ship and then
becoming a priest in the Church of England, although he was turned down for
ordination by the Archbishop of York, became Surveyor of the Tides of Liverpool.
This is an historical detail that we have become aware of in Liverpool during the
celebrations of the Bicentennial of the Abolition of the Slave Trade. St James’s Toxteth
is the church where the slaves were baptized. It is immensely important to the history
of Liverpool and its importance is being renewed and appreciated. Without the work of
the Churches Conservation Trust, we would not be able now to be turning it back into
a living church. I want to pay tribute to the expertise of the officers of the Trust who
worked very closely with our diocesan officials to make this happen. I do urge Synod to
support this grant.
The Bishop of London in reply: I thank those who have taken part in this debate.
Clive Scowen, of course, hits the nail on the head. The use of these buildings to tell
the story and communicate the Christian message is vital, and indeed every CCT
church has the kind of literature he is calling for. There is, for instance, a handout
called Where prayer has been valid, a quite specifically Christian attempt to interpret
these buildings.
I can very well understand Chris Lilley’s hesitations here but the problem is that if no
mechanism nationally existed to support such churches and a mechanism which draws
in this 70 per cent contribution from Government, then the burden of such churches,
because of the legislative structure which is imposed upon the Church of England,
would almost certainly fall on dioceses. That is the real alternative to voting for this
particular grant.
203
11:39:27:11:08
Page 203
Page 204
Climate Change and Human Security
Sunday 6 July 2008
Alan Cooper and Clive Mansell have underlined the vital point of the partnership with
Government, the trust that is built up, which we hope will translate into other
initiatives. Alan Cooper’s words about the Church Commissioners and their generosity,
of course, being he is the acting chairman, were music to my ears: generous but not
profligate, Alan! We are exceedingly cautious guardians of the historic asset base of the
Church of England.
Then ‘closed churches’ is almost a mistaken description, as Susan Booys points out,
because so many of these churches are unable to have their doors opened regularly.
The Bishop of Liverpool, lastly, talks from deep personal experience of the very fluid
regeneration landscape. The Churches Conservation Trust is playing its part, not only in
Liverpool but in other places, and is able, as the shape of population and development
changes, to return churches to more active worshipping use.
With great gratitude to those who contributed to this debate, I would beg the Synod to
approve this order.
Climate Change and Human Security:
Challenging an Environment of Injustice:
a Report by the Mission and Public Affairs
Council (GS 1705)
At the outset of this debate I would like to welcome to Synod this afternoon Canon Dr
Gary Wilton, the Church of England’s representative to the EU, who is taking forward
this programme of work. He is on the platform behind.
The Bishop of London (Rt Revd Richard Chartres): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod, recognizing that climate change poses both an
environmental and a human security challenge:
(a) endorse the recommendations as set out in Climate Change and
Human Security: Challenging an Environment of Injustice;
(b) call on the Archbishops’ Council and all diocesan synods to consider
this report and its conclusions with a view to developing an
integrated and holistic response to climate change; and
204
11:39:27:11:08
Page 204
Page 205
Sunday 6 July 2008
(c) ask the Mission and Public Affairs Council to report back to this
Synod by July 2010 on progress made towards developing such a
response.’
The challenges that we all face as the twenty-first century unfolds are so complex and
interconnected that there must be a temptation just to hope that they will go away and
that our present lifestyle will be largely undisturbed – at least for our time. The scale of
the problems and the energy needed to confront them, it seems to me, has hardly begun
to sink in. We are all tempted to acts of denial. Al Gore said recently ‘Denial is not just a
river in Egypt’.
The biggest challenges – climate change, the flaws and forces of globalization, the
scrabble for resources, the conjunction of weapons of mass destruction and the lethal
ambitions of people with an apocalyptic view on life – all need global as well as national
and regional solutions. It is easy to be immobilized but, as GS 1705 makes clear, there
are things we can do.
We certainly need a coherent communications strategy to bring before the Church the
decisions that this Synod has already made about cutting our carbon emissions and the
various initiatives which have been taken. We, of course, do have a responsibility to put
our own house in order as an institution with school halls and churches that produce as
much CO2 as the largest supermarket chain.
We need to identify our allies very clearly and the report points to the potential of a close
working partnership with Tearfund. With the Bishop of Liverpool, who has played
such a very significant role in this whole area, particularly in his work with American
Evangelical leaders, I helped to launch Tearfund’s excellent Carbon Fast project at the
beginning of Lent this year. I was very impressed by their zeal and the efficiency of their
operation. Then we all have a part to play in enlarging the room for manoeuvre so that
politicians with some awareness of the challenge we face can operate without facing
electoral suicide. The Church helped to create a positive climate for debt reduction in
the Jubilee 2000 campaign and again has made a decisive contribution to the Make
Poverty History Campaign.
This report before you has been prepared for the Mission and Public Affairs Division of
the Archbishops’ Council. It is largely the work of Charles Reed, to whom we all owe a
very great debt of gratitude for this and other initiatives. I am not a member of the
Mission and Public Affairs Division and so, in a sense, I stand before you as what the
Americans term a ‘non-remunerated endorser’. I am, however, chairman of the Shrink
the Footprint campaign of the Bishops’ Panel on the Environment.
We all know without benefit of special revelation that if everyone in the world lived as
we do currently, then we should need three planets’ worth of resources to make it
possible. As it is, we have only one planet – already under strain and we are living on the
capital which we should be passing intact to our children.
205
11:39:27:11:08
Page 205
Page 206
Sunday 6 July 2008
Sometimes in the past religions, science, politics and economics have declared a truce on
the basis of mutual irrelevance, but it seems to me that now is the time for a realignment,
a new holism. It is this holistic spirit which informs the report.
Churches and other religious bodies have perhaps not been quick off the mark in this
area, partly because many people fear that a concern for the natural environment could
be a distraction from the needs of the world’s poor and the need for development.
As GS 1705 points out, Stern and countless other reports establish the connection
between the need to tackle climate change and the threat to the well-being of poor
communities worldwide. The reality of our interconnected world is that we are all afloat
in a great ark and the first-class accommodation will not long remain immune from the
effects of leaks in steerage.
There is a particularly good section on the impact of climate change and on our ability
to deliver the UN Millennium Development Goals addressed to the eradication of global
poverty and disease. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said that in some respects
we risk going backwards. There is a summit in New York on 25 September, which
Gordon Brown will be attending. One of our first tests is whether, in the midst of our
own economic woes, we shall be able to help people focus on this event with the kind of
passion which will strengthen the hands of the politicians involved. It is very much an
ecumenical matter and with the Cardinal we are proposing an ecumenical observance,
a period of study, prayer and fasting to lead up to the summit on 25 September and we
are possibly going to use the title ‘Think Fast’.
We are participants in a web of life; we are responsible as stewards ‘to till and keep the
earth’, to develop and husband its resources for all the people of the world and also
other life forms. Instead of the self-serving way of being, which has scarred the earth and
polluted the waters, we need a greater awareness and a genuine enlightenment that
happiness does not come from accumulating more and more but following the way of
Jesus Christ and sharing ‘enough’ with our neighbour.
These are ancient spiritual themes, a glimpse of the deep reality of our world, which is
being revealed afresh by the challenge which we face together. The key is a recovery of
balance in our way of living and way of being in the world.
Part of the answer, of course, is to reinvigorate ancient spiritual practices. Do not let us
wallow in guilt, malign or apocalyptic visions or be measured for any hairshirts but
recognize that life can be more joyful if feasting and fasting are kept in balance. If it is
all carnival with no ensuing Lent, then the result is just a hangover. Let us recover the
idea of Sabbaths in the week, in the year, a time of lying fallow and attending to our
relationships. We are not going to be successful in persuading anyone else unless we
have taken heed to ourselves.
For the Churches and Christian organizations there is also the opportunity for our
206
11:39:27:11:08
Page 206
Page 207
Sunday 6 July 2008
networks and our institutions. As acting chairman of the Board of the Church
Commissioners, I can assure you that your investment arm is focusing a substantial part
of its strategy on vehicles which serve today’s general theme.
We intend to have a campaign which GS 1705 presages. It is a report which certainly
does not condescend to its readers; it assumes that most members of Synod know
what COP-13 stands for. I must confess that I did not until I put it into my search
engine. What does COP stand for? It is frequently used. It is in fact, of course, as
you probably do know and I did not, an annual event, a conference of the parties,
hence COP, to the UNFCCC, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Apparently the successor agreement to the Kyoto Accord which expires in 2012 is
being debated.
There will be a particularly significant COP in Copenhagen at the end of next year,
2009, and for the very first time world religious bodies, including ourselves, will have a
place, not on the margins among the fringe events but as part of the official programme.
The idea is that the various religions should present their own plans for responding to
the global challenge of climate change. I hope that I shall be able to present our plan
next July for the Synod’s approval.
It is vital that we seek to communicate not only with fellow Christians ecumenically but
also with members of other religions and the many secular groups involved in this
enterprise. The idea of investigating an affiliation to Stop Climate Chaos, one of the
recommendations of the report, makes obvious sense and builds on our participation in
the ecumenical endeavour Operation Noah in one of the demonstrations a couple of
years ago.
To conclude, therefore: with many other bishops, especially Liverpool and Chester, I
have been participating in the debates on the Climate Change and Energy Bills in
Parliament. One of the most fascinating things is that the science, which everyone agrees
should decisively inform our approach to this challenge, is constantly changing but the
moral imperative to embrace a low carbon world as a relevant expression of neighbour
love does not change.
I commend this report to Synod and invite members to support this motion on the
agenda as a small response to the Micah Challenge. What does the Lord require but to
do justly; to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God?
Prebendary Diana Taylor (Bath and Wells): Growing up in Lincolnshire in the 60s, I
was taught to live for today and farm for tomorrow. I admit to quite a lot of living and I
am still farming. Farmers were respected in those days and we felt that producing food
was a God-given task, but then came the so-called mountains and lakes related to the
Common Market policies and increasingly we were criticized for what we were doing
with the land in our stewardship.
207
11:39:27:11:08
Page 207
Page 208
Sunday 6 July 2008
Mistakes were undoubtedly made in the post-war rush to give every citizen an
abundance of cheap food at last, but we followed the policies and subsidies from those
supposedly more knowledgeable than ourselves. Quotas, set-aside and all manner of
restrictions were brought in until finally the EU payment regime from January 2005 was
almost totally decoupled from production of food, with farmers being rewarded for
looking after the environment, and quite rightly so much of this was good and made us
stop and think about the soil, trees, water, the birds and the bees. There has long been a
deep unease amongst those who could think further than the survival of their own farm
business – and that has been hard enough for the last ten years – and a deep unease
about food security, which we have often talked about in the rural affairs group. Yet,
time after time reports, conferences and governments have talked about the use of the
countryside without ever mentioning food production.
In the mid-90s, Elliot Morley MP spoke here at a rural fringe and was very dismissive of
me when I asked about food production. Yes, I know how difficult it is to get a guaranteed
good crop of anything: wheat, grass, tomatoes. Even with all that UK farmers have at
their disposal, believe it or not, we do still have crop failures, even if not flooded like so
many acres were at this time last year. Farming sometimes feels like a battle against the
weather but actually good farming everywhere means working with nature.
However, climate change is bringing something much more frightening to us all and in
our case as dairy farmers in the south-west this year, we have been dominated by
Bluetongue disease, previously not known here.
Money needs to be put into agricultural research and education again. There are in fact
very few pure agricultural students these days. We need advice on seeds – and, yes, GM
crops are back on the agenda – rotations, preservation of water and energy,
remembering that farming is a long-term business. Tomorrow at the rural fringe Tom
Heap is talking about the controversial biofuels, but do not take it for granted that we
can produce again all the food needed. Production costs have soared in the last eight
months; fertilizer at £110 per tonne last year is now £340 and rising; cattle cake at £120
is now £220 and rising. With these costs and falling cow numbers, we have seen milk
production fall to some of the lowest levels in at least 30 years. The number of dairy
farmers has fallen by 46 per cent since June 1997.
Rising food prices will, of course, be good for us farmers and long overdue in some
cases, but it gives us no pleasure to predict some possible appalling consequences of high
food prices for the human race. We now face a desperate struggle for sufficiency in food
and water and no one in this House needs to be told the consequences of hunger and
famine.
If we in temperate Europe are to increase production, then we need the right balance of
cereals, vegetables and meat and there needs to be a political understanding of growing
food and the will to distribute it fairly. The excellent report Sharing God’s Planet of
2005 talked of God’s covenant with creation. God has given us this land to produce
208
11:39:27:11:08
Page 208
Page 209
Sunday 6 July 2008
sufficient for all – human and beast. The good thing is that humans seem always to be
most resourceful when that need is most pressing. We must pray that this is really true
this time.
Mr Dan Leathers (Church of England Youth Council Representatives): As this is my
maiden speech I will keep it nice and brief. The environment and climate change is a
topic on which we at the Youth Council have had many discussions over the past few
years. To our education, we have been taught continually about the greenhouse effect,
the ozone layer and many other hot-spot buzzwords under the title ‘climate change’. It is
great to see that this report is about human security, which can be easily missed and yet
is a direct result of our ever-changing environment. Climate change is a growing concern
for all of us of every race and age: we all need to be aware of and act on the problem
where we can.
We have all seen the effects of climate change and we are seeing them closer to home. I
am from the brewery town of Burton-on-Trent, where the flood lands are flooding more
and more every year. At the Church of England Youth Council’s meeting last April we
discussed ways in which we as individuals can help to decrease our carbon footprint,
from obvious suggestions such as recycling, walking or cycling short distances and
switching off lights to slightly less obvious and possibly less appealing suggestions such
as collecting rainwater in our gardens, sharing bathwater and eating broccoli stalks.
One of the ways in which dioceses can help is by discussing and putting together policies
on how churches and their dioceses should be helping to keep down their carbon
footprints. In the diocese of Derby the diocesan synod encourages churches to appoint
green apostles, who help their churches to keep green. It has been a great success in my
home church and in many others.
One of the Youth Council’s convictions is to show young Christians our role as stewards
of God’s earth and to give them opportunities to help them discuss and facilitate ways in
which they can make a difference, about which we and many young people are
passionate. As a Church we need to set the example for others to follow. We therefore
ask the Synod to support this motion.
Mr John Scrivener (Chester): I warmed very much to what the Bishop of London said
about simplifying our lives. It put me in mind of a famous and powerful little book
written by John V. Taylor about 40-odd years ago, Enough is Enough. I also warmed to
the bishop saying that the science is moving on this subject, but it seems to me that the
report itself does not dwell on either of those points but indeed rather insists that the
science is settled. It states, for example, ‘Climate scepticism is increasingly a fringe
activity.’ In the debates to which the Bishop of London referred, my own bishop, the
Bishop of Chester, dabbled in this fringe activity; he said that the scientific questions on
climate change were open.
When we refer in our Church reports to the science I think we need to be cautious not to
overstate the case or to state it in a potentially misleading way. For example, the report
209
11:39:27:11:08
Page 209
Page 210
Sunday 6 July 2008
states, ‘even if there are immediate and far reaching reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, scientists predict that global temperatures will continue to rise before falling
in around 2050’. From that one would think that global temperatures were currently
rising, but I understand that the scientists say they are not, that they have not been rising
this century, and that this year is expected to be cooler than last year. There does not
seem to be a consensus on why that is so. As to when they will start to rise again, which
the scientists believe they will, different dates are forecast – maybe next year, maybe in
2015, maybe in 2020 – but there are areas of uncertainty here.
Another aspect of the report that I thought a little incautious is its introduction of
discussion of extreme weather events such as hurricane Katrina in the context of global
warming as though the two were connected. Again the scientists are actually more
cautious about this than that would suggest. In the recent booklet Making Sense of the
Weather and Climate produced by a very distinguished group of British meteorologists
it is rather firmly stated, ‘At the present time we cannot attribute individual extreme
weather events to climate change.’ That is just a note of caution about the science.
Suppose there is a consensus on the science. What do we do then? It seems to me that the
thrust of this report is clearly stated: that the main aim of the climate security debate,
which this report supports, is ‘to galvanise greater urgency in mitigating the drivers of
climate change and, to a lesser extent, to increase action to adapt to climate change’.
It happened that when I received these papers I was reading a book by Nigel Lawson
entitled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. I do not know whether
any members have read it; it is an interesting, well-referenced little book, but of course
controversial. His thesis is in a sense the inverse of that. He maintains that the most
valuable use of resources now is not in attempting to mitigate climate change – in other
words by putting our main effort into reducing emissions, which in any case he thinks is
politically impossible and gives convincing reasons for so thinking – but that it would be
much more valuable to developing and undeveloped countries if we were to put our
principal effort into adaptation, with money and expertise helping countries to guard
against, for example, rises in ocean levels. I am therefore concerned that we are going
lock, stock and barrel for one particular approach, the Stern report approach, and that
there is by no means agreement that Stern’s roadmap is the right one: Lord Lawson goes
so far as to call the Stern report ‘lamentable’.
I have a particular difficulty with recommendation 3. I know that an amendment has
been tabled on that, which I shall support because I think that if we were to join up to
this campaign we would be committing the Church to a very specific set of objectives
and would possibly end up not only with egg on our faces if they were proved to be
wrong, but also because in a sense we are not, like others, just a lobby group. It will be
easy to be misunderstood here, but to me there is something rather incongruous about
the Church of England appearing as a sponsor alongside the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds – a very respectable organization, I know, but surely a rather
different kind of body from ours.
210
11:39:27:11:08
Page 210
Page 211
Sunday 6 July 2008
I therefore have difficulty in supporting this motion, though I shall find it easier if the
amendment tabled by Mr Holmes is passed.
Canon Dr Terry Slater (Birmingham): I want to speak very briefly about a hole in the
middle of this report. I speak as an academic geographer, but my specialisms are urban
and historical, not environmental and climatological, so I cannot bring any expertise to
the latter. However, I work with perhaps the second largest group of climatologists in
the country and they have been part of the climate change debate for a decade or more.
What is clear is that the expertise of the scientific community is great. We know that the
vast majority of climate scientists agree that the climate is changing and we are fairly
sure why, and we know that human agency is a major cause and that that human agency
is concentrated in the developed world. However, there are huge gaps in our academic
knowledge, leaving governments, and I suggest the Church, relatively powerless to
effect change precisely because thus far the debate has been dominated by climate
change scientists working at the global level. With the exception of the controversial
Stern report, which of course also works at that global level, missing are studies by
social scientists, human geographers, environmentalists, economists, political scientists,
and perhaps even theologians, on the human consequences of climate change; and we
are not very sure what will happen to human society as a result of whatever changes
exist. That is why there is a hole in the middle of this report – a huge gap between on the
one hand what individuals or Church communities can do at the micro-scale, which is
quite a lot, and on the other hand the global, political, security development themes of
the first two-thirds of the report.
What are desperately needed are more middle-agency research studies on the scale of big
cities, regions and particularly nation states. It would be hugely useful if the Church
were to encourage the funders of research to resource more human social science studies
of the possible consequences of climate change scenarios at this middle-agency level and
therefore enable the Mission and Public Affairs Council as well as first-world
governments to fill the hole in their action plans. Effective, large-scale action plans are
usually secured at precisely this middle-agency level of regions or nation states, not at
the global level of COP, where the lowest common denominator tends to rule, nor at the
level of individuals and local communities that are very rarely able to reach critical mass
to effect change. Without urgent research of this kind, regions, governments and the
Church are left working in a knowledge vacuum, which I suggest is no basis for progress
in coping with the consequences of climate change.
Mr Nigel Holmes (Carlisle): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘At the end of paragraph (a) insert “with the exception of
recommendation 3 on page 23 of GS 1705”.’
Successive governments have been complacent in their lack of planning to ensure energy
security for Britain. Eight billion watts of coal and seven billion watts of nuclear
211
11:39:27:11:08
Page 211
Page 212
Sunday 6 July 2008
generating capacity will come offline in the next decade, so Britain will face a serious
energy gap by 2016, and that is a crucial issue; the National Grid could indeed collapse.
As the Conservative energy spokesman Alan Duncan said in a Commons debate on this
subject last Monday, it is the issue on which our economic survival depends.
In Britain we generate 18 per cent of our electricity from nuclear. In France it is 80 per
cent, and the European Union average of 35 per cent is twice the British figure.
European and nuclear power saves over 1,000 million tons of carbon emission every
year. What puzzles and saddens me and others in Cumbria about GS 1705 is that it
ignores entirely this vital industry that is civil nuclear power. Why? The report’s sub-title
is, ‘A Challenging Environment of Injustice’, yet in this particular respect the report
itself is unjust and unbalanced.
Recommendation 3 on page 23 suggests aligning the Church with the campaign group
that uses the apparently innocuous name ‘Stop Climate Chaos.’ Fair enough, members
may think, but this body is anything but fair and impartial when it comes to nuclear
power. As its web site states, it is funded predominantly by Greenpeace and Friends of
the Earth, both organizations implacably opposed to civil nuclear power, to which their
web sites prominently testify. Those organizations carry a good deal of lobbying muscle
behind an overtly political agenda. Do we want them to be able to claim the backing of
the Church?
I ask Synod to think most carefully before allowing the Church of England to be lured
into joining what looks like a laudable project, which was launched three years ago with
a seemingly friendly façade. Look behind the façade and what do you find? Stop Climate
Chaos’s web site states that it was launched with the key objective of campaigning
against Government policy on climate change, so Synod must recognize that it would be
putting the Established Church on a collision course with the nuclear power industry,
which is now integral to stated Government policy to reduce carbon emissions.
John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, said
in the Commons debate last Monday, ‘Nuclear power is proven and reliable as a way of
generating low carbon electricity. Many countries around the world are actively
pursuing the nuclear option wisely and sensibly in my view.’ He continued, ‘My
personal sense is that our ambition should be significantly higher for the good and
sensible reason that such power is low carbon and reliable and the technology is proven
and safe.’ In that same debate the Minister of State for Energy, Malcolm Wicks,
reminded Members that in January the Government took a decision in favour of new
nuclear power stations. He said, ‘On a cautious estimate, the first new nuclear power
station should be up and producing clean and green energy by 2020 – some optimists
say 2017–2018.’
I submit that this is too big an issue and the Church too significant an organization to
play the gesture politics of the pressure groups and ignore the facts and realities of our
energy security. Surely we can see where the truth about nuclear power lies? In my view,
212
11:39:27:11:08
Page 212
Page 213
Sunday 6 July 2008
coming from a diocese that has faith in nuclear power as a result of having lived with it
for more than half a century now, it would be extremely irresponsible and damaging to
the credibility of the Church to ally itself with the admittedly attractive sounding Stop
Climate Chaos. Sadly, it is simply a front for those implacable opponents of a wise,
necessary and balanced low carbon energy strategy. I urge members to stop Church
chaos by supporting my amendment.
The Bishop of London: The Church is affiliated with a large number of bodies. We have
received some valuable briefing assistance from organizations such as Friends of the
Earth and I do not think that we ought to demonize them either in an unbalanced way.
I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said, and I certainly would not have
supported this if it were really a resolution put before the Synod simply to affiliate this
body. Recommendation 3 actually says that the Archbishops’ Council should explore
the feasibility of becoming a member, and I think that it would be a pity if Synod
resolved to judge this case without actually investigating it. So, although I share much of
the scepticism that has been expressed, I hope that the Synod will give the Archbishops’
Council an opportunity to look carefully at this particular relationship.
Mr Frank Knaggs (Newcastle): I refer members to paragraph 71 of the report. Nigel
Holmes’s amendment touches on the Bishop of London’s challenge in the 2006 debate
on the environment. Members will recall that he said, ‘Do not vote for this motion
unless you are prepared to do something about it.’ When I read this report I was
underwhelmed by the recommendation that we join forces with such organizations as
set out in paragraph 71, as just mentioned by the bishop.
There is an irony in this. The very organizations cited have themselves contributed to
the problem of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Millions of tons of carbon have
been dumped in the atmosphere from coal-fired power stations. Members travelling
south from this Synod on Tuesday may, of course, see Beverley, but there are also three
further power stations at Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge. Their combined output
is 8GW, which is 10 per cent of the installed capacity for the UK as a whole. It is also
equivalent to the 7,000 windmills that will be scattered over our landscape in the
coming years, which the Government is prepared to authorize both offshore and on
the land.
The three power stations that I have mentioned are coal-fired and emit millions of tons
of carbon annually. Those ageing stations have been kept running because no noncarbon-polluting nuclear stations have been built as a result of the negative campaigns
run by these lobbyists. Their campaigns have actually increased pollution through
dumped carbon; that is a nice one! This Johnny-come-lately Government has at last seen
the light and has supported the building of new nuclear stations. As Nigel Holmes
pointed out, no brainier decision was presented to Parliament than that nuclear power
was the only option that could produce reliable, clean and now very cheap electricity.
213
11:39:27:11:08
Page 213
Page 214
Sunday 6 July 2008
I agree with the reference in the report to the social disruption that will occur when the
lights go out – members may recall the distribution of my little black book three years
ago – and the ensuing mayhem in the streets, a.k.a. hurricane Katrina when it hit New
Orleans. If Nigel’s amendment fails, many of us will vote against the motion. This is
serious business today and we must do something about it.
The Chairman: Mr Knaggs, I understand that that is likely to have been your final
speech to the Synod and I think that it would be appropriate for us to offer our thanks to
you for all your contributions to the Synod over the time of your membership.
(Applause)
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): – and speaking as chairman of the Mission and Public
Affairs Council and strongly endorsing the tribute that we have just paid to Frank
Knaggs.
As the Bishop of London has pointed out, the recommendation is very carefully
expressed with the word ‘explored’ precisely because Frank was a member of the
Mission and Public Affairs Council and has rightly put strongly the kind of case that has
been put this afternoon about the importance of the nuclear dimension to this debate.
However we cannot ignore the other side of the nuclear debate about the implications of
nuclear energy, i.e. nuclear waste and its impact. That is why, on the basis of a debate
such as this, we cannot make a decision straightaway either to ignore nuclear or to
remain in the position of passivity in which we say, ‘We could do this or we could do
that’ and end up doing nothing.
The recommendation is quite clear that we explore aligning ourselves with these bodies
because the objective is to get action at exactly the right levels – nation, state and
European levels – necessary to achieve the policy changes that will improve the position
in relation to the climate, as an earlier speaker pointed out. I hope therefore that Synod
will look carefully at the actual words of the recommendation and the motion and vote
on that basis, which would not be a vote for aligning ourselves with a demonizing of
nuclear power, neither for aligning ourselves with seeing nuclear power as the solution,
though it might be part of the solution.
The Archbishops’ Council, no doubt with the advice of the Mission and Public Affairs
Council, needs to look at whether aligning ourselves with Stop Climate Chaos would be
an appropriate move to make, and I hope that Synod will give us the encouragement to
do that.
Dr Elaine Storkey (Ely): I want to oppose Nigel Holmes’s suggestion that Stop Climate
Chaos is a front for those who are implacably against nuclear power and the suggestion
that this is somehow a political manoeuvring that they are trying to con us into joining.
In fact Stop Climate Chaos is a co-operation of many different NGOs all of whom come
214
11:39:27:11:08
Page 214
Page 215
Sunday 6 July 2008
from very different stables and backgrounds, passionately concerned about the future of
the planet.
I was at the very first Stop Climate Chaos inauguration in Central Hall, Westminster,
where I was one of three keynote speakers; I said that I was prepared to speak if I could
speak as a Christian. I spoke, unfolding the whole concept of a world conceived in love
by a God of love who made people of love to steward and care for the world and to
care for their neighbours and love them as themselves, and opening up the way in which
destruction evolves when we fail to live out our mandate as Christians and people
made in the image of God and the image of love. No one threw eggs or tomatoes at me
or said, ‘What are you doing, stuffing religion down our throats?’ They were incredibly
receptive, open and warm. Therefore I think it is very important for us as a Church to
ally ourselves with people who are passionate about the concerns for God’s world as we
ourselves should be passionately concerned.
I want to raise several key points as to why I think this is the case. First of all it is
important to share with others who do not share our world-view and to offer them a
little admiration rather than passing judgement on them, and to congratulate them on
the work that they are doing. I am fed up with the Church going out and judging all the
people who are doing incredible things in our country and working their socks off for no
pay and no reward, when all we can do is stick our noses up and say, ‘We are not going
with them; they are contaminant.’
Our Christian theology gives us even more ground and reason to work with such people
and in fact with those who do not share our theology, because our theology of love, of
stewardship, of God, of neighbourly love and of justice drives us into these areas and we
take our theology with us; we do not leave it at the door. We actually bathe other people
in our vision of God and in our vision of justice that we can share. The missiological
opportunities of being involved with good people – people of goodwill as St Luke’s
Gospel tells us when Jesus sent out his disciples to be with people of goodwill – are there
all the time.
Of course, there is a risk. The biggest risk is that our own practices and our own
institutions are opened up to scrutiny by our partners, by those with whom we are
involved when we work together, and we can no longer be the hypocrites, we can no
longer close our own doors and not look at our own lack of sustainability, apathy,
indifference and self-interest. That is the biggest risk that we take, and surely it is worth
taking just so that we can work together with others for the good of the planet that God
has made and put us in, to care for and steward and return to him in good order.
Revd Jonathan Clark (London): I would like to speak against Nigel Holmes’s
amendment despite being a left-wing, right-on inner Londoner who actually supports
him in terms of his concern about nuclear power.
Having had a quick look at the Stop Climate Chaos web site and its statement of
principles, despite what may be the position of some of the organizations that support it,
215
11:39:27:11:08
Page 215
Page 216
Sunday 6 July 2008
as far as I can see the organization itself is quite clear in making no commitment
whatever to particular mechanisms by which the principles that it enunciates should be
brought to bear. There is nothing on its web site or in its statement of intent to indicate
to me that it is actually against nuclear power as one of the possible ways of fulfilling the
aims that it sets out. I suggest that it is such a sufficiently broad-based coalition that that
anxiety at least should not prevent us joining with it.
The Chairman: I invite Canon Simon Butler to speak to both his amendments but to
move only Item 57. He has five minutes.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (b) leave out “consider” and insert “act on”.’
I am here not as a matter of environmental policy but as the agent of my diocesan social
responsibility officer. The intention of my first amendment is very simply to inject a little
more urgency into our work. If we endorse the recommendations referred to in
paragraph (a) of the motion, I hope that Synod will want those to whom it speaks to act
on them; we need to remember that the urgency requires us to move from talking to
action; let our yes be yes.
My second amendment comes from personal engagement. As an ordinary person I
recycle, I put out my boxes on a Tuesday night, but I have to be nagged, reminded and
encouraged to do so; I sometimes remember not to make unnecessary journeys by car to
the supermarket, but I am still lazy and still do it on occasions; and I must confess that I
am hopeless about doing anything in relation to my record on flying. It seems to me that
both the Government and the Church are in a similar situation. Just as I need to be
encouraged, reminded and nagged, so do the Government and the Church. In an
economic downturn there is a danger that climate change may slip down the agenda.
There is a danger that words and promises from both political parties competing for
votes will be watered down when other realities press on, and this remains an aside or a
peripheral issue for many in the Churches and faith communities.
My second amendment therefore proposes the drawing together of a group of able and
qualified people based on the moral and spiritual authority that our archbishops
possess, to be as it were the leaven in the lump and the fly in the ointment in respect of
our national and Church responses on policy change; and I guess that my model is
216
11:39:27:11:08
Page 216
Page 217
Sunday 6 July 2008
Moral, But No Compass, a way in which the Church can use its authority to speak out
to the nation in a way that achieves a good response.
Why the archbishops and not the Archbishops’ Council? Because I think that our
archbishops are recognized nationally whereas the Archbishops’ Council has an
institutional focus, and we have two admired and respected spiritual leaders; sometimes
I think that our spiritual leaders are more admired and respected in the other faith
communities than in parts of our own, and that is to our shame. If I may be permitted an
aside, recently the Archbishop of Canterbury was described as a ‘relic’ and it occurred to
me that the Catholics here would know a relic as something that is holy, precious and a
means of grace!
A partnership with other faiths is something that we could clearly manage in this case.
We want a Christian response but also a faith-based response. My model here – and I
speak very much as an evangelical – is not some woolly inter-faith thing but something
like Jim Wallace’s call to renewal in the United States, where people have been drawn
together across faith traditions to work on issues of poverty that transcend the
confessional or inter-religious aspects of our lives. So I want to see something that is
based on partnership and uses the archbishops’ nationally recognized authority. There
is, of course, a cost involved, but I remind Synod of the words of Our Lord: ‘For where
your treasure is, there will your heart be also’; this is about priorities.
Finally I want to say that we need to act. The report highlights the effect of climate
change on the vulnerable. We need no more talk shops; let us have a group that can help
us as a nation and act as a wake-up call when required. There is an urgent need for
leadership; let it be our Church in partnership with others of goodwill and faith that
gives it today.
The Bishop of London: I share Canon Butler’s passion and I would not resist this
amendment.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. As the Bishop of
London thinks the amendment is wonderful, I beg to move:
The Bishop of London: I am not infallible!
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘Insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (b):
217
11:39:27:11:08
Page 217
Page 218
Sunday 6 July 2008
“(c) request the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to call together
urgently a task force of representatives from the Churches and faith
communities to investigate, stimulate and challenge the responses of
Government, Churches and faith communities on climate change;
and”.’
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I do not know
whether Standing Orders would permit of it at this stage, but I should be very grateful if
both the mover and the bishop would consider including the word ‘business’ in the list
at the end of the amendment so that it would read, ‘business, the Churches and faith
communities . . .’
The Chairman: I will take advice. That would require my consent and I do not wish to
give that consent on this occasion. We can understand that it is to be a far-reaching
amendment, and tinkering from the floor is not going to happen today.
The Bishop of London: Actually Mr Oldham has a very important point. Of course,
the Archbishop of Canterbury is already personally and directly involved in a
coalition that involves a great many of the businesses and retail organizations in the
country.
Although I share Canon Butler’s aspiration and expression of loyalty, I have more
difficulty with this particular amendment because it proposes the setting up of another
body to think about what we ought to do. It is obvious – and Elaine Storkey made this
point – that there are already a vast number of bodies in this field seeking to do
something about this particular challenge. Of course, there is a need to enlist the moral
authority of the archbishops, and they have indeed put themselves at the head of quite a
number of gatherings and organizations and are playing their part fully.
Now is the time for mergers and acquisitions in this field. What we really need is
coherence, co-ordination, and that is why the report’s recommendation is for a much
more effective communications strategy so that we really can pull all those energies. It is
for that reason therefore, and no wish to play down the importance of the challenge or
to understate the passion with which we ought to approach this subject, that I ask the
Synod to resist this attempt to create yet another body.
Dr Brian Walker (Winchester): I welcome the motion and particularly the amendment
at Item 58 on climate change and human security, and I thank the Bishop of London for
bringing to the Synod this most crucial challenge to us and to the world. The challenge
to our environment is a threat to our security and the shared security of all humanity –
(The Chairman rang the bell.)
The Chairman: Please ensure that you speak only to the amendment.
218
11:39:27:11:08
Page 218
Page 219
Sunday 6 July 2008
Dr Brian Walker: I will. How do we respond to this huge burden, this apparently
waterless pit? The Archbishop of Canterbury helped us this morning, calling on us to
look outside for Jesus Christ Our Lord, and yesterday the Archbishop of York gave us
our own example when he spoke of the £5,000 that we donated in February, which
turned into £15,000 and is now providing reconciliation and peace building in Kenya.
Wow – so much for so little!
We are told that the threat of climate change will hit first south Asia and sub-Saharan
Africa before turning on Europe and the rest of the world. We need to respond with
advocacy not only to our Government, the European Commission and international
organizations but also to every individual human being on this planet. How do we do
that? We do it by working together on shared human security with Christians
everywhere and with faith communities of all the great religions. Together the world’s
great religions include over five billion people. Together we can raise the loudest voice to
the silent, suffering majority. Religion for Peace, working for shared human security,
has made a small start, facilitating co-operation between over 30 faith-based
organizations such as Christian Aid, Hindu Aid and Islamic Relief. It is only a start, but
I urge members of Synod to think what all our religions and religious communities could
do if we were to follow this amendment and work together.
Once at about midday I was walking along Lumley beach just outside Freetown in subSaharan Sierra Leone; under a scorching sun even the mad dogs lay in the shade of the
palm trees. A lone Englishman, I came across young Samuel Kamara tossing dying
starfish back into the sea, a few thousand caught in the fishermen’s trawl nets and left to
fry. ‘Samuel’, I said, ‘you will not make much difference here.’ He stooped again to plop
another back into the water and turned to me saying, ‘Well, it made a difference to that
one.’ I ask members to think what billions of people of all faiths working together could
do and therefore to support this amendment.
Revd Paul Collier (Southwark): I urge Synod to support this amendment for two
reasons. First, it seems to me that faith groups can make a very important, distinctive
contribution to this debate and to the action that is needed. Second, that contribution is
spoken into the situation so much more powerfully when we speak together as faith
groups. I know from my experience working as a chaplain in Goldsmiths College as part
of the university that the things we do as a chaplaincy are received so much more
warmly and that we are listened to so much more carefully when we do things together.
In relation to events that are visibly seen as multi-faith events supported by the range of
faith communities, the secular aspect of the college will take powerful notice of us when
we act together.
I also think that there is a huge degree of urgency about the current situation, part of
which is that we have not yet even begun to understand the size of the problem that faces
us, which in turn means that we have not begun to understand the level of response that
is needed. Our world will have to change quite dramatically; the way in which we live
together and our economies will have to change quite dramatically. We can no longer
219
11:39:27:11:08
Page 219
Page 220
Sunday 6 July 2008
continue to rely completely on a model of economic success that is based on everincreasing consumption.
We know already that the effects on our world of climate change and the energy crisis
potentially will have quite violent consequences for the way in which we live together
in the world. We have already had food riots in our world, and in the past week or so
we have seen evidence that the reason for food shortages is the amount of land given
over to biofuels. So many of what we think will be easy solutions to our crises turn out
to be difficult solutions. A few months ago I read that Sweden had adopted in quite a
big way ground-source heating as a very useful way of reducing carbon footprints but
has used it so much that the ground’s temperature is reducing and it is therefore less
effective. So there are huge consequences of climate change, there are no easy
solutions, we shall need drastically to reduce our consumption of energy and all
materials in our world. That will require us to make huge lifestyle changes, and the
faith groups are well placed to prepare the world for those lifestyle changes. Let us
have that distinctive voice powerfully spoken. I urge members to support this
amendment.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Would you be
minded to entertain a motion for closure after the Bishop of Carlisle has spoken?
The Chairman: I am conscious that those who have already spoken have been in favour
of the amendment. Although I had breakfast with him this morning, I do not have the
kind of mind-reading level to know whether the Bishop of Carlisle will speak in favour
or against the amendment. If he is in favour, I would be interested to know whether
anyone would like to speak against it, but I shall make that decision when we have
heard from the Bishop of Carlisle.
The Bishop of Carlisle (Rt Revd Graham Dow): In the diocese of Carlisle we are
producing a very far-reaching and strong policy for the environment, led by Sir Martin
Holdgate, a former scientific adviser to the Government, which will affect our parishes,
and I have been struck by the enormous support for that policy that seems to have
developed through the Synod. One point that it makes is that there is a lack of a strong,
prophetic voice in the Church about these issues in the nation. It implores leaders, which
will inevitably mean me among others, to use the Synod, and indeed the House of Lords
where we have heard about bishops doing a lot, to heighten the prophetic call from the
Church on these issues. That leads me to want at least the spirit of this amendment to be
supported.
I would be interested to know whether the Archbishops of Canterbury and York
themselves would value this; we have not heard from them. If they do not and the
amendment is lost, I hope very much that we shall address the whole question of how to
heighten our prophetic role in the nation in respect of calling for climate change, which I
think has a lot of support among us all. I shall vote for the amendment, but I hope that
we will follow the spirit of it even if it is lost.
220
11:39:27:11:08
Page 220
Page 221
Sunday 6 July 2008
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): – still wearing my Mission and Public Affairs Council
hat.
I hope that all members of Synod have read the report carefully. Members will see from
the report that our archbishops have not been silent on this subject nationally or
internationally. There is plenty of evidence that they are already giving the lead that has
been called for.
This report asks the Archbishops’ Council and the whole Church to engage in further
work to enable us to do what is called for. No one doubts that it is important to engage
with ecumenical, inter-faith and all other sorts of partner in this important work. What
we do not want to do is delay the matter by having to set up a task force calling all those
together, setting up another group to do what is already being done. Let us trust the
mechanisms that we already have in place and the strong leadership that Archbishop
Rowan in particular has given to achieve what we want, and let us not be distracted
from that task by having to set up another piece of work. In particular the Mission and
Public Affairs Council will ensure that there will be an engagement with inter-faith,
ecumenical and other partners in order to achieve the raising of the profile of the issue at
national and international level. We do not need an amendment to this motion and we
certainly do not need a task force to achieve that.
Revd Richard Moy (Lichfield): I wonder whether Synod might be helped to learn of
some of the things that I have just researched briefly on the internet and to discover that
the Bishop of London is right when he says that processes are already in place to enable
us to do what the sentiment behind this amendment seeks. For example, within Stop
Climate Chaos, organizations such as Tearfund, Christian Aid, CAFOD and Islamic
Relief among others have already signed up to the campaign, so there is already a strong
inter-faith and cross-Christian party dimension to it.
Another constituent element of that campaign is a group known as Operation Noah,
which has among its endorsers the Bishop of Liverpool, the Bishop of London, the
Archbishop of Cardiff, Most Revd Peter Smith, and the Moderator of the General
Assembly of the United Reformed Church, Revd John Marsh, as well as many others. It
seems that Operation Noah – others may be able to contribute more in terms of what it
does – is already doing across the Christian denominations exactly what this
amendment proposes.
Rather than passing this amendment, I suggest that it may be preferable to allow our
archbishops, the Archbishops’ Council and the Mission and Public Affairs Council
together with the inter-faith organizations publicly to support this motion. It seems to
me that if we were to set up another group to consider matters that are already in place
we would waste a lot of time and resources by duplication, and we do not have many of
resources to hand out here, there and everywhere. We all agree with the sentiment
behind the amendment, but it seems to me unnecessary to do it in the way that has been
suggested.
221
11:39:27:11:08
Page 221
Page 222
Sunday 6 July 2008
The Bishop of Dudley (Rt Revd David Walker): Following the Archbishop of York’s
kind remarks yesterday about my mathematical abilities I said to myself, ‘If I am called
in this group of sessions I shall try at least to show that mathematicians have a life,
contrary to popular rumour’.
Indeed I have not only a life but a family, and I would like to introduce members of
Synod to them. My daughter is deeply committed to the work against climate change.
She is a member of Greenpeace and in the past 12 months has been involved actively in a
number of campaigns seeking to encourage supermarkets to move towards low energy
light bulbs, persuading Unilever – she had a group of friends, some of them dressed as
orang-utans – to use only sustainable palm oil in future. At a recent event she was
interviewed on TV dressed as the black fairy of death – not a biblical concept I am afraid
– and most recently she was part of the large word ‘No’ in the Heathrow runway 3
campaign; she is on TV more than I am! Her actions speak louder than words.
Then there is my wife. For many years she and I have been vegetarians as part of our
trying to live gently upon this earth. For the past three years Sue has been a vegan; not
only is she healthy but actually healthier than she was previously. It can be demanding
when we go out for a meal, but we have become aware of how much of our carbon
footprint is due to livestock, especially livestock for meat products; again actions speak
louder than words.
Both of those women in my life have taken major action, one at a personal level, the
other fighting for major societal change. Nothing less than that sort of radical action
will do. I am still a sinner seeking his way towards repentance one step at a time, but I
have started limiting the speed of my car to 55 miles per hour, I now have petrol
consumption of 70 miles per gallon rather than 50, and I arrive much calmer at
whichever church or vicarage I am attending.
Last, I want to support this motion for the sake of our brothers and sisters across the
Anglican Communion. We are twinned with the diocese of Peru, most of whose
members live in a desert. Climate change will affect them far sooner and far worse than
it will affect those of us here. They cannot simply mitigate or adapt; they need us to do
that to a very significant extent. Please be persuaded for their sake and for the sake of my
daughter’s generation who will be alive when most of us here have gone to a better place
– hopefully not a hotter one! – and if that does not persuade Synod, I hope I can I bribe
members by inviting them to come, not all at once, to sample my wife’s wonderful vegan
cooking.
222
11:39:27:11:08
Page 222
Page 223
Sunday 6 July 2008
Dr Jackie Butcher (Sheffield): What is the biggest threat facing the Anglican
Communion – sexuality or the ordination and consecration of women? If only we
were in such a luxurious position for either of those to be a possibility; we are not that
special. The biggest challenge facing the Anglican Communion is the same as the
biggest challenge facing the rest of the world, namely climate change. When the
Province of Melanesia is a distant memory beneath the Pacific, when the Church in
Aotearoa/New Zealand has lost its Pacific island strand, when Bangladesh has sunk
beneath the waves and Ely is again an island, will we just climb up to the highest tier
or to the balcony in London and continue to discuss who should and should not be a
bishop?
I am a diocesan world development adviser and I am passionate about poverty
reduction. Four years ago I remember sitting in a small group discussing world trade
rules, listening to people from Kenya telling me that climate change is a western bee in
our bonnet and that Africans want trade rules to be changed much more urgently. How
much has changed in four years? It has become blindingly obvious that cancelling debt,
reforming world trade rules and buying fair trade will not achieve long-term poverty
reduction unless we tackle climate change. I am a scientist, not a climate scientist but I
know how to analyse scientific data. I have looked at the evidence and I believe that the
link is proven beyond all reasonable doubt – and that is as much as a scientist will ever
say. In science one does not prove things; they can be disproved but only proved with a
certain degree of confidence.
It is good to read in the report of the contributions that the Archbishop of Canterbury
and the Mission and Public Affairs Council are making at Government level, but I am
still concerned that many of our churches are not fulfilling their role of modelling in a
way that can influence others. In small groups that I have attended recently there seems
to be a widespread consensus that the home lifestyles of Christians would look no
different from those of non-Christians in terms of their impact on CO2.
I believe that churches should be expected to take part in shrinking the footprint, and if
they do not respond their dioceses should chase them up and give them a helping hand
to get them under way. Our churches do not have a choice about having a child
protection policy or about complying with health and safety legislation, nor do I think
they should have a choice about taking part in a CO2 reduction campaign. How about a
code of practice, statutory or non-statutory – you choose – that gets churches to engage
urgently with such a campaign in a way that gives them no choice? Surely this is an
integral part of our Christian faith and a gospel imperative.
Mrs Rosalind O’Dowd (London): I am a remunerated endorser for Tearfund, which is
very keen on climate change. I started work there in mid-January in the marketing and
fund-raising department. It took me a while to work out exactly what it was all about. I
read their publications and looked at their excellent web site, which provides lots of
information, and I commend it to members of Synod.
223
11:39:27:11:08
Page 223
Page 224
Sunday 6 July 2008
I have discovered over the past six months that climate change is not a merely
environmental issue, not a fringe issue, not just for scientists and people who worry
about geography and things that I do not care about so much at the moment. It is
about the world’s poor; it is actually a social justice issue. I have discovered that the
world’s poor are being affected by climate change today. I did not know that previously
but that is something that I have learnt; members of Synod probably knew it already. So
this is a really important issue because as Christians we really care about the world’s
poor.
Recently I went with some other people from Tearfund to Burkina Faso to see what is
happening there. Pastor Philippe said to us, ‘However hard I work, sometimes we just
cannot do it on our own’, so we are sponsoring a partner there to help them out with
new agricultural techniques and so forth. Members can also read about that on the
web site.
I want to find out what Synod’s thoughts are on recommendation 4. No one has yet
mentioned it, which is a little disappointing. It is about a partnership between the
MPAC and Tearfund, in which I am directly involved, so if members want to talk to me
about it later I would urge them to feel free to do so. We are proposing to set up a fund
just for the Church of England whereby money can be put into a pot which will then be
spent on Anglican climate adaptation projects overseas, thus contributing to the world’s
poor through the Anglican Communion. On both sides we feel that it would represent
concrete and tangible help that we as a Church could offer to the world’s poor and to
mitigate climate change. If members would like to let me know what they think about
recommendation 4, I should be pleased to hear from them later about how they would
like us to drive that forward.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I am prepared to
commit hara-kiri and invite a motion for closure after the next speaker.
The Chairman: I would like to hear Dr Thomas-Betts after the next speaker.
Revd Moira Astin (Oxford): I am glad that Synod has passed the amendment to insert
the words ‘act on’ into this motion. I say that because climate change is not in the future;
it is now. Members of my congregation who are now living in this country came from
Bangladesh and they have concerns for their families in Bangladesh because they are
being affected by climate change now. I agree with the scientists who say that one
particular extreme weather event is not necessarily linked to climate change, but they
also say that the significant increase in extreme weather events is a clear sign that climate
change is happening now.
We have also heard a comment on temperature levels. I would be very interested to see
the reference to that, as I understand that the International Panel on Climate Change
does not endorse it. In addition some work has been done recently on previous so-called
dips in the relentless increase in the global average temperature, which has concluded
224
11:39:27:11:08
Page 224
Page 225
Sunday 6 July 2008
that a particular dip in the post-war period was actually due to the experimental method
of testing the temperature of the sea level rather than having anything do with the facts.
There was a significant change in the way that it was tested, and when that is taken out
even that dip disappears, so I would really like to see that evidence because –
[Interruption] I beg your pardon?
A member: The BBC web site.
Revd Moira Astin: The BBC web site; thank you. I think I prefer what was said by the
International Panel on Climate Change, being comprised of world-renowned scientists
on this subject. Climate change is happening now and we need to act now, so what do
we need to do? Yes we need to act at all levels, but specifically in this motion there is a
suggestion that all diocesan synods need to do something. We have here members of all
diocesan synods and particular key members of those diocesan synods in the form of our
bishops. I suggest that if they do not already have an environmental officer in their
dioceses they should appoint one. I also suggest that they include in their vision for their
dioceses the Mark of Mission about caring for the environment. It is all very well to
include all the others, but if any one was missed out people would say, ‘Gosh, that is
missing.’ How come we can have presented to us visions that do not include care for the
environment at a time when it is so clear that climate change poses a major threat to our
security as well as to God’s earth?
Dr Anna Thomas-Betts (Oxford): First I would like to thank the MPAC and especially
Charles Reed for this excellent, focused, succinct and authoritative report, as we have
come to expect from him.
Of course, this is the third debate that we have had in recent years on the environment
and climate change, but it is the first that links climate change strongly with justice and
therefore human security – and for that thank you. It is also an important recognition of
the Government’s key role in managing climate change.
There is so much to say about each section of this report, but I will confine myself to two
separate aspects of it. The first concerns paragraph 27, which I will allow members to
study for themselves, and then I want to talk about mass migration as a consequence
of global changes – and there is sociology for you! I have probably seen more illegal
immigrants than anyone else here, usually at the end of their time in this country. Behind
each is a human tragedy of some kind. The effects of climate change will increase mass
migration and many people will head for Europe as the nearest haven – an ironic word
considering the dangerously overcrowded boats in which people travel, wherein they
are picked up and sent back or often drown. Even now it is a human tragedy, but it will
become many times worse. On the other hand, in many places the welfare system is now
stretched to its limit for large numbers of migrants requiring access to education and
healthcare, leading to unrest; with unplanned mass migration the cost to Europe is very
high.
225
11:39:27:11:08
Page 225
Page 226
Sunday 6 July 2008
My second theme concerns the reduction of carbon dioxide; see paragraphs 33 and 41
of the report. I want to emphasize that the new-look carbon economy must empower
the development of many of the poorest countries. There is nothing on nuclear power
here, but neither is there anything on solar power or wind power or anything else. In my
view there is a beautiful logic and symmetry in being able to use wind and solar energy,
because the sun shines equally on the north and the south, but solar panels are now very
expensive, though research shows that much cheaper alternatives are available at lower
efficiencies. We need governments to throw money at such projects so that developed
and undeveloped countries can move to low carbon sources of power.
The Bishop of London, in reply: I thank all members of Synod who have participated in
this debate and combined passion with a great deal of expertise. I would like to mention
in particular Dan Leathers. It was his maiden speech and we hope very much to hear
more from him.
There have been arguments about the solidity of the science, and of course it is true
that this century we have witnessed a reduction of probably half a degree in average
temperatures; that cannot be denied. We must beware of getting into a situation in
which we as a Church are policy-light and market-driven. That way lies discredit and
disillusion down the track, so we must combine our passion with some considerable
caution and precision in how we speak, and I am grateful for the voices that have been
raised pointing in that direction during the debate.
From Mr Collier in particular we have had an appeal that we work not only
ecumenically but also with other faiths. This perhaps illustrates one of the problems that
we face. At the moment the Archbishop of Canterbury is involved with an inter-faith
endeavour that will have its culmination in Sweden in the autumn. There is a major
inter-faith effort to stimulate just the sort of coalition that Canon Butler’s amendment
calls for. So much is going on, so many initiatives are being distributed throughout the
various dioceses of our Church, and a huge amount of international work is being done.
For example, in common with other faith bodies throughout the world, we hope to be
able to present at the great Copenhagen meeting at the end of 2009 a very clear
statement on where our Church stands, on what we are prepared to do and on how we
are acting, which will be absolutely crucial for charting a new framework agreement for
the world.
What we lack is not a large number of involved organizations – thanks to Rosalind
O’Dowd for reminding us of the important Tearfund initiative – nor a lack of effort and
energy on the part of the archbishops or others, but the co-ordination, the means, to
226
11:39:27:11:08
Page 226
Page 227
Sunday 6 July 2008
support the Church and the archbishops and everyone else in their campaign; and that is
what the Mission and Public Affairs Council has drawn our attention to. This report is a
contribution, a neglected side of the story, as we have been reminded, because it focuses
on justice and international development, and it stands alongside the other pieces of
work that the Synod has done over the past few years.
I am particularly grateful for the passion of this afternoon’s debate and the call that each
one of us as members of Synod really must now act as ambassadors in our local
churches where there is still a very great deal of denial that this is a first order issue. We
have a role to play ourselves in ensuring that some of the initiatives, programmes and
statements that exist in abundance are brought to people’s attention. If they are not, the
outlook will be grave for us as a faith community and for the world of which we are a
part, and I dread to think what our children will say to us if we fail to rise to this
challenge now.
The Bishop of Burnley (Rt Revd John Goddard): On a point of order, Madam
Chairman. As we have been called on to make both a personal and corporate response
to this motion, will the voting be by electronic means by which we have to make a
personal commitment as well as a commitment as a corporate body?
The Chairman: I am advised that there may be an electronic vote if 25 members stand to
support it. There are 25 members standing.
The motion was put and carried in the following amended form, 280 voting in favour
and 5 against, with 6 recorded abstentions:
‘That this Synod, recognizing that climate change poses both an
environmental and human security challenge:
(a) endorse the recommendations as set out in Climate Change and
Human Security: Challenging an Environment of Injustice;
(b) call on the Archbishops’ Council and all diocesan synods to act on
this report and its conclusions with a view to developing an
integrated and holistic response to climate change; and
(c) ask the Mission and Public Affairs Council to report back to this
Synod by July 2010 on progress made towards developing such a
response.’
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham): On a point of order,
Madam Chairman. I wonder if the Synod might welcome a new member of the House
227
11:39:27:11:08
Page 227
Page 228
Sunday 6 July 2008
of Laity, Dr Priscilla Chadwick, the new chair of the Dioceses Commission, who has
joined us this afternoon. (Applause)
(GS 1686)
The Chairman: I call on the Archbishop of York. He has up to 10 minutes but I am sure
he will not need it.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): You will be so lucky, Madam Chairman!
I beg to move:
‘That this Synod approve the appointment of Dr Jonathan Spencer as
Chair of the Church of England Pensions Board from 1 January 2009 to
31 December 2013.’
Last week I addressed the national conference of diocesan secretaries. During Question
time Mr Shaun Farrell, secretary of the Pensions Board, asked me what I was thinking
just before I jumped out of the aeroplane at 13,000 feet for my parachute jump. I said
that I had just started reciting the 23rd psalm and then I was out. He responded, ‘I
thought that your thoughts should have been on lessening the pensions burden!’
However I move this motion because I am going to be around for a very long time,
unless of course Christ returns before my intended time, and do so on my own behalf
and on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury as it falls to us to make the appointment
to fill the vacancy that will arise on Allan Bridgewater’s retirement at the end of
December this year.
Allan has been with the board since 1997. Synod will remember that he came to us with
many years of experience as the about-to-retire group chief executive of Norwich Union
and subsequently as the chair of Swiss Re GB, an appointment that he held alongside his
work for the national Church. It is with great sadness that we say farewell to him at this
his last Synod, but with huge appreciation for all that he has done in steering the board
through a period of considerable change for the Church at the national level. Allan, we
love you and we are going to miss you. (Applause) Of course, many of us, clergy and
employees alike, have felt that in this sea of choppy financial waters, not least
surrounding pensions, ours have been safer for his expert guidance and for what we
think of him, and for that we thank him and wish him good fortune in his retirement.
Members will have seen from the background paper for this item that this appointment
requires synodical approval and will have seen the process used to identify the person
whom we put before Synod. It was a transparent and open appointment procedure and I
am very glad to report that our national advert attracted a very high calibre of
candidate.
228
11:39:27:11:08
Page 228
Page 229
Sunday 6 July 2008
The name put forward is that of Dr Jonathan Spencer. The paper gives details of
Jonathan’s distinguished career and his current responsibilities. In his own words, ‘The
board’s primary role has to be to ensure that the pension promises made to current,
deferred and future scheme members are honoured now and into the long term, and
that the safety net arrangements on housing and care homes for retired clergy continue
to be available for those who need them while demonstrating to the Church at large
and pair-sharing parishes in particular that the discharge of responsibilities is done
efficiently and in ways that do not overburden their ability to pay. Delivery of these
goals is itself a major demonstration of Christian care and compassion. Three other
aspects need to be overlaid. First, the board has always to be able to translate the
complexities of actuary science and financial prudence into the benefits not just in
monetary terms that individual people actually receive and the actual payments the
board demands from parishes and others. Second, in setting the rules and in exercising
discretion about the award of pensions and housing benefits, the individuals affected
must be treated as real individuals, as God’s children and not just another statistic.
Third, the staff who deliver the service, particularly those with financial responsibilities,
must also be treated as individuals in the sight of God of whom much is expected but
whose own life stories and needs must also be indeed heard and heeded. This type of
approach I have sought to adopt over the years in other fields and I would seek to apply
if appointed to the board.’
Members of Synod, it is those sentiments together with Jonathan’s understanding of
financial and strategic acumen that led the interviewing panel to recommend his name to
the Archbishop of Canterbury and me. On meeting him we found nothing to disagree
with this recommendation, and I am very happy that he has found fit to put himself
forward for this appointment. I can assure Synod that His Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury and I put him through his paces to find out what kind of man he was, and I
am very glad that in his own statement God is not left out. I hope that he will have the
Synod’s support and members will hold him in their prayers as he undertakes this work.
The Archbishop of York: Dr Spencer, for the benefit of members of Synod, where are
you standing? (Applause)
Mr Allan Bridgewater (Ex officio): On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Is it in order
for the outgoing chairman of the pensions board to thank every member of the Synod
for their great support, which is very much appreciated?
The Chairman: Consider it done. Thank you, Mr Bridgewater.
(GS 1690)
Mr Keith Malcouronne (Guildford): I beg to move:
229
11:39:27:11:08
Page 229
Page 230
Sunday 6 July 2008
I have the pleasure to present the report of the Archbishops’ Council Audit Committee
for the year to 31 May 2008, to which the Synod elected me in 2005 and subsequently to
serve as its vice-chair.
The committee reports in writing to Synod every year, but a debate on the work of the
Audit Committee is usually scheduled only every third year. I would welcome any
comments that members may have on this report, on the work of the committee or on
the wider governance and accountability of the Archbishops’ Council that we serve.
I also know that numerous members of Synod serve on different committees and
councils that report to the Synod through the Archbishops’ Council and it may be that
matters arising from those need to be drawn to the attention of the Audit Committee
from time to time outside of the management reporting structures that would usually
apply in the first instance, and I suggest outside the public space of a debate such as this.
I should like to point out that the Audit Committee carries out its role principally on
behalf of the Archbishops’ Council as trustees of the Church at national level but also on
behalf of the Synod, with limited resources, in acknowledgement of the pressures on the
central budget. Within those constraints we seek to maximize the value that we can add
in terms of, first, the greater time that we can devote to aspects of good governance,
thereby carrying some of the burden for a very busy Archbishops’ Council, and second,
the professional expertise that several members can bring to the areas of risk
management, financial control, internal audit and external reporting.
From the brief report that members have in front of them I would like to highlight three
significant steps that have been taken in the past year. First, members will see from
section 4 that we have conducted a rigorous selection and appointment process for the
open tendering of external audit services, and the recommendation of a change arising
from this will be the next item of business on this afternoon’s agenda.
Second, in section 7, members of the Audit Committee and officers of the three main
National Church Institutions (the Archbishops’ Council, the Church Commissioners
and the Pensions Board) had met as a joint risk management working party and work
continued last year in focusing management attention on the highest priority risks
facing the national Church. This has been helped by the appointment of a risk manager
as part of the common services provided to all three NCIs.
Third, members will also see from section 9 that we continued the practice, started since
I joined the Audit Committee, of combining meetings once a year of the three NCI audit
committees to focus on areas of common concern. This is beneficial for three main
reasons as follows: we have a shared interest in common services, which cover
accounting, legal work, human resources et cetera, provided by the Archbishops’
Council for all three NCIs; by meeting together when we can we save some of the
230
11:39:27:11:08
Page 230
Page 231
Sunday 6 July 2008
valuable time of senior staff attending and serving those audit committees; and together
we can contribute to the process of integrating the work of the NCIs more closely to
enhance efficiency, cost effectiveness, joined-up policy-making and co-ordinated action
and delivery.
As explained in section 10 of our report, the Audit Committee oversees the provision
of some internal audit services to some southern dioceses, but the committee believes
that all dioceses would benefit from improvements to governance, accountability and
effectiveness that having a diocesan audit committee could bring, and more intentional
internal audit processes as well, so we would encourage each diocese that does not
already have a diocesan audit committee to consider the benefits of that. We propose
to share expertise and encouragement towards this aim through the inter-diocesan
finance forum.
In conclusion I should like to pay tribute to the professional team in the small internal
audit department based in Church House, led by Kim Parry, and to the wider finance
and other common services team supporting the work of all three NCIs.
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): – also a mathematician. With regard to the second
paragraph of section 4 on page 2 of the report, can you explain why the audit fee
overran by 20 per cent; whether ‘extra days’ should have a single or plural possessive
apostrophe, because we do not know whether it is meant to be one day or many days;
and whether it is expected that there will be similar overruns in the future?
Mr Keith Malcouronne: The factual answer to your question about the apostrophe is
that it is several days, and there were particular reasons in relation to the change of
accounting systems from Navision to SAP, which complicated the audit process.
This is not the first year in which there has been an overrun on the budgeted or projected
audit fee, and in fact it has been more severe in earlier years; there was better
preparation this year. The committee considered the reasons presented by the auditors
for the increases in their work and had a degree of vigorous debate with them before
agreeing to some additional fee.
To answer your question about the future, although audit fee was not the primary
reason for the change of auditors, the consistent overruns in previous years were
certainly factors that weighed in our recommendation for a change of auditors in the
future.
Revd Dr John Hartley: Thank you for that clarification.
231
11:39:27:11:08
Page 231
Page 232
Sunday 6 July 2008
Appointment of Archbishops’ Council’s Auditors (GS 1704)
Mr Keith Malcouronne (Guildford): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod approve the appointment of the auditors to the
Archbishops’ Council.’
The formation and delivery of common services run by the Archbishops’ Council
has involved the upgrading of accounting, management and reporting systems and
involves the integration of the three NCIs into one refurbished building. These
changes over the past few years have all contributed to the increased complexity and
degree of expertise required for the external audit of the Council. There have also
been increased requirements from the revision of the Charities’ Statement of
Recommended Practice – any members who are accountants will know that the
shorthand is SORP – which has also added to the technical and specialist requirements
of charity auditors.
Following completion of the main aspects of those changes, bringing together the
common services and bringing the NCIs into one building, the Audit Committee
recommended to the Archbishops’ Council that it put its audit out to tender, and the
process is described in some detail that members have in front of them, GS 1704. Our
incumbent auditors, Deloitte and Touche, were invited to re-tender along with another
Big Four firm, KPMG, and then two top-20 firms with significant charity expertise –
BDO Stoy Hayward and Buzzacott. The selection panel on which I served, and then the
Audit Committee, unanimously recommended to the Archbishops’ Council that BDO
Stoy Hayward be appointed for 2008. The Council endorsed that recommendation and
now invites Synod to approve its appointment of BDO Stoy Hayward.
The Chairman: We are due to complete this block of business by 6.15 and clearly we are
pushing at time. I would therefore like to propose an extension of the session by a
further five minutes. Does that have Synod’s consent? (Agreed)
Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council (GS 1701)
Mr Andrew Britton (Archbishops’ Council, Ex officio): I beg to move:
I draw Synod’s attention to not only GS 1701 but also to GS Misc 894 and GS Misc 896,
which will bring members up to date with the business of the Council.
I was chosen at somewhat short notice to move this motion and to present the report
to Synod, which was a slight surprise as I am one of the most junior members of the
232
11:39:27:11:08
Page 232
Page 233
Sunday 6 July 2008
Archbishops’ Council and have been in post only since last October. However it gives
me an opportunity to say to the Synod what a great year 2007 was; and in saying that I
am not in any sense singing my own praises.
I am sure members will know that the Archbishops’ Council has an essential role to play
in support of the mission of the Church of England. Indeed it has many different
essential roles and I am in the process of learning what they are. Synod will know from
the debates that we have in this session the very wide range of issues with which we are
concerned, and in introducing this report I will not attempt to cover any of them. I know
that one member of the Synod, Gavin Oldham, has asked that there be a debate on this
report and that he wishes to raise certain matters. Subject to the limit of time that has
just been set, it is of course open to any other members of Synod to raise virtually
anything within the business of the Church of England, because the Archbishops’
Council will no doubt have something to do with it. Having said that, I hope that the
points made are of a kind to which it is possible for one new member to respond
adequately.
Mr Gavin Oldham (Oxford): Three minutes is rather challenging. I have asked that the
report be debated for three reasons: first, because I think that as the Archbishops’
Council is the major co-ordinating body for the Church of England, the membership of
which comprises clergy, laity and bishops, as a matter of principle we ought to debate
this report; and second, I would have some specific questions, and I will quickly run
through them.
The first is: how will the Council seek to graft Fresh Expressions and pioneer ministry
into the normal workings of the Church during phase 2 of Fresh Expressions?
Secondly, I would very much like to hear a little about the progress on the introduction
of academies throughout the dioceses. In Oxford we have a great plan to bring an
academy into Blackbird Leys and I would very much like to hear what more is
happening elsewhere. I would like to know how we can put more productivity into
ministerial training post-Hind in view of the scale of Vote 1 increases. I am also
concerned about some of the lobbying that is going on over Gift Aid. I understand that
there is some suggestion of trying to press for a composite rate, and I have a problem
with that because I believe that it will deter many higher-rate donors to the Church, so I
would like to open that subject.
Thirdly, I would like to ask for a broadening of the objectives of the Archbishops’
Council. The only one that really touches on issues of national concern is that relating to
engaging with issues of social justice and environmental stewardship. Particularly as the
Council consists of bishops, clergy and laity, I believe that they ought to be taking
forward initiatives for the benefit of the Church or the country and speaking on issues of
moral and prophetic leadership and guidance for the whole Church.
233
11:39:27:11:08
Page 233
Page 234
Sunday 6 July 2008
As an illustration of that I would like to refer to the remarks made by Chief Constable
Barbara Wilding, reported in The Times last Wednesday, on the breakdown of the
environment of young people and the formation of gangs and tribal loyalties in
substitution for families. I find it very difficult to sing the hymn ‘Jesus Christ is raging,
raging in the streets Where injustice spirals and real hope retreats’, after which we went
on to say, ‘I am angry too, in the kingdom’s causes Let me rage with you.’ I have to say
that I find it somewhat hollow, bearing in mind how much in this group of sessions our
gender focus has been on internal matters concerned with the Church’s arrangements
rather than on addressing those points on which the chief constable has challenged us,
because as a Church that needs to lead on these – (The Chairman rang the bell.)
Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): I would like to ask a very simple question: is the
Archbishops’ Council working? I am a new boy on Synod. I know that I have stood here
on many previous occasions and that members will know who I am and may therefore
think that I go back quite some time, but in fact the Archbishops’ Council came into
being a long time before I joined the Synod, and it rather puzzles me. We have delegated
many of the functions of this body to the Archbishops’ Council, particularly the making
of regulations that we as a Synod have lost the power to amend, even though we can
accept or reject them. In general terms I think that the creation of a standing committee
that takes executive decisions is a bad thing; it certainly has been a bad thing in dioceses
in which I have served because it has tended to turn the Synod into merely a talking shop.
The mover of this motion is a junior member of the Archbishops’ Council, so perhaps he
can take off his official hat and, without defending himself from the platform as people
are wont to do, tell us whether or not he thinks that the Archbishops’ Council has been a
really good invention.
In particular I notice that Robert Cotton is due to move a motion on Anglican
governance which seems to suggest that the creation of the Archbishops’ Council was
simply another device whereby we cannot put our finger on which bit of the jellyfish is
actually working. Canon Cotton’s motion seeks a report from the House of Bishops on
how all the bodies named in it relate together. Have we really set up a quango? I do not
know the answer to this question and I would like an honest answer. I also regret that
this debate is now being squeezed to the point at which it will now be closed. I would far
rather it were adjourned so that the Synod could be told whether the Archbishops’
Council is a good thing or not.
Mr Andrew Britton, in reply: I shall respond very briefly to keep within what are now
fewer than the five minutes of the extended time.
234
11:39:27:11:08
Page 234
Page 235
Sunday 6 July 2008
I have no quarrel with the matter of principle that our report should be debated. The
Business Committee made its decision in view simply of the pressing business and in
particular the amount of legislative business that it was necessary for the Synod to
consider on this occasion. I am therefore quite happy for that to be reviewed, which is
essentially a question for the Business Committee.
Gavin Oldham raised four specific questions and he gave me advance notice of them, so
this is a little like an extension of Question Time, but it will have to be very brief. So far
as Fresh Expressions and pioneer ministry is concerned, we are entering the second and
final phase of the Fresh Expressions initiative in one sense, but in another sense my
understanding is that Fresh Expressions will always be needed in one form or another
and that the initiative will become part of the continuing life of the Church of England.
On the question of academies, the Church of England was challenged to create 100
further secondary schools of which 46 have already opened, 26 have dates for opening
and another 82 are under discussion. Not all are actually nominated as academies but
they are Church or joint foundations, and this has been a remarkable achievement over
the past few years. I have served as a trustee of Bacon’s College in south London, which
is becoming an academy.
On the question of the productivity of ministerial training – Gavin Oldham now raises
an issue with which the Finance Committee is also quite concerned – we have seen the
recent introduction of block grants, which are a step in the right direction. For example,
it is made clear that the Church will not be financing empty places in theological
colleges, but the money will go to the institutions that attract the students. There are
also examples of saving through regional cooperation.
On Gift Aid, this is a matter for discussion in the Stewardship Committee. We are very
much aware of the importance of attracting high-income donors, and the question arises
whether we should encourage them to give by continuing with the very favourable terms
on which they can reclaim tax, but unfortunately about half of the money that might be
reclaimed is not reclaimed, so there is an issue to be considered in relation to how
efficient is this method of attracting Government money.
I see that my time has run out, so I cannot deal with the question of what the
Archbishops’ Council is for. All I can say as a new member is that it is a great privilege to
be a member of this distinguished body.
(Adjournment)
235
11:39:27:11:08
Page 235
Page 236
Sunday 6 July 2008
THE CHAIR The Bishop of Dover (Rt Revd Stephen Venner) took the Chair at
8.30 p.m.
Variation in the Order of Business
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick): I have to report to the Synod that there are now 14
amendments for the debate on women bishops. Of course, it may be that not all 14 will
have to be debated, because it will depend on the decisions we take as we go through.
The Business Committee has had a long talk about it and we are very clear that we must
give adequate time to do this thing properly, because it is so important.
We discussed various options. We wondered about bringing it on early – in the morning
tomorrow – but we felt that it was quite important to start at the time we said we were
going to start. That is for lots of reasons. It is so that people who are coming from away
or even who are part of all of this will know that we are starting at the right time. There
is a possibility of going on into the evening session or of having a gap and going on the
next day. We felt that it was unfair to Synod to suggest that we all go to bed and pretend
that we can sleep, when actually we are in the middle of a rather important debate. We
have therefore opted to go on into the evening session.
In order to do that, we will have to move the St Albans Diocesan Synod Motion. We
want to move it into the morning. That will mean that we will have to remove the
Standing Orders debate from the morning. We will also see if we can squeeze the
Parochial Fees Order in tonight, after this debate. If we cannot, we cannot, and we will
do it tomorrow morning. If we can, we will see if we can get that done, to give plenty of
time for the Diocesan Synod Motion tomorrow morning.
I therefore propose the following variation in our business. After we have considered the
Anglican–Methodist Covenant and possibly the Parochial Fees Order, unless we have
taken it tonight, we will take the St Albans Diocesan Synod Motion. In the afternoon,
we go on to the debate on women bishops at 2.30 p.m. as scheduled.
There will be a marshalled amendment list. People have been working incredibly hard to
try to put all the amendments into sensible groups, so that we are all clear where we are.
The resulting list will be on your seats at 9.30 tomorrow morning, so that you will able
to look at that and get your mind round it. We will then use as much of the rest of the
day as we need to, in order to have that debate in the right way. If we do not need all of
the time, and it is quite possible that we will not need all of the time, because some of the
earlier votes in the debate may mean that it finishes earlier than we thought, I will come
back and tell you what we are going to do – when I have worked it out!
If we do go on into the evening, however, and if we use any amount of the evening, it is
unlikely that I would suggest that we do anything afterwards. I think that we will all be
completely exhausted by then and we will need to go to bed – or something else!
I will ask in a moment if you agree with all of that, but I also want to give notice that, if
it proves necessary to go on into the evening, the chair of the debate needs to have some
236
11:39:27:11:08
Page 236
Page 237
Sunday 6 July 2008
sort of flexibility about when he stops it. He needs to stop at a sensible time, not just
when it says that it is a quarter past six. The Presidents have given their agreement to
giving a bit of flexibility about when we finish; so we could finish anything up to half an
hour earlier, if it were the right time to finish. If we did, we would ask you to come back
that bit earlier. We have sorted out the food. That will be fine: you will get dinner, but
you may need to come back a bit earlier afterwards.
I need to ask if Synod is happy with this change.
The Chairman: You need first to ask me if I am happy.
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: I do apologize. May I ask the Chairman if he is
happy?
The Chairman: I am delighted. (Laughter) Seriously, that has my permission and also
grateful thanks to the Business Committee for doing some very awkward discussions
and reaching conclusions. However, it needs the agreement of Synod.
Mr Robin Stevens (Chelmsford): Am I allowed to speak on this?
The Chairman: No, you are not, I understand, unless it is a point of clarification. You
are not allowed to argue a case.
Mr Robin Stevens (Chelmsford): I have a point of clarification. Would the Business
Committee be minded to allow us a tea break tomorrow afternoon, so that we can all
enjoy the whole debate without having to go out during the afternoon?
The Chairman: I think that is for the chair of the debate to decide. I can tell you that
that sort of thinking has taken place but it does all depend on how the debate goes.
Perhaps, if I may say so, you could leave it in the hands of the chair. He is well aware
of that need.
Mr Allan Jones (Liverpool): On a point of clarification, what happens to the debate on
Standing Orders? We have not been told.
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick: We will put in the matter of Standing Orders when we
can, if we can; but I have told the people involved that it may be that we shall have to
wait until February. It is not time-sensitive, so it will be all right.
The Chairman: Can I try again and ask if Synod is in favour of the variation in the order
of business? (Agreed)
237
11:39:27:11:08
Page 237
Page 238
Four Funerals and a Wedding: Parochial Fees
Sunday 6 July 2008
(GS Misc 877)
Supplementary report from the Deployment,
Remuneration and Conditions of Service
Committee (GS 1703)
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): I beg to move:
We return to the issues of Parochial Fees, to Four Funerals and a Wedding and to the
supplementary report, GS 1703, of which I ask you to take note. If you want one page to
look at, it is page 6 of GS 1703, which actually has the recommendations on it and, if the
words ‘In respect of legislation’ at the bottom of page 5 were put at the top of page 6,
that would make it even clearer.
The Church of England has the unique privilege and duty to provide pastoral services on
request to any parishioner in the land, giving us a gateway into the lives of millions and
opportunities for mission.
When parish populations were small and stable, the incumbent would officiate at all the
pastoral services in the parish and keep the fee as part of the living, and our existing
legislation reflects that historical position. However, for the way in which we live now,
the law serves us badly. As these two reports reveal, there is doubt over ownership of
fees, over assignment and over waiver. It is hard to say what fees include, and people
have very different views on that, and it is not clear what services they can actually be
charged for. In that confusion, a variety of practices has grown up that can endanger our
reputation, endanger the income that helps to train and pay priests and, most
importantly, endanger the effectiveness of our ministry and of God’s mission.
What can we do about it? First and foremost, I believe that we must have a new
Measure. Then, in the context of a new Measure, we can review our Fees Orders and
also consider where local practice can be improved. Recommendations (a) to (f) at the
top of page 6 propose a new Measure, therefore.
Part of the reason we need new legislation is because so much has changed. Incumbents
are now supported by stipends, not out of the income of their benefice. This means that
they no longer personally benefit from fees: over 90 per cent of incumbents have legally
assigned all their fees to their diocesan boards of finance. The existing legal framework
simply does not reflect the reality of that situation. The complicated ownership trail that
we currently have results in some cases in money being passed hand to hand in
envelopes, and an unhelpful perception persists among the public that the fees go to the
vicar and enhance his stipend.
238
11:39:27:11:08
Page 238
Page 239
Sunday 6 July 2008
As populations have grown and benefices joined together, many parish priests are
supported by retired clergy and non-stipendiary ministers to cover pastoral services, and
they give them the ministry fee in return. However, because in most cases the fees are not
at the disposal of the incumbent, this practice is legally uncertain. It is highly
unsatisfactory that people are put in a position where fair payment for their work makes
them vulnerable to legal challenge.
The particular difficulty of tracking down exactly who is due the fees for Church of
England funerals at crematoria has led to a continuing uncertainty that hampers God’s
mission. Parish returns tell us that our ministers conduct about half of the funerals in
England each year, but funeral directors say that three-quarters of their customers
request Church of England funerals. This represents lost opportunities to offer bereaved
families continued loving support through their local church, as well as the loss of
income that is badly needed for training and stipends.
I believe that we can improve this position by making it clear in a new Measure that the
fees for ministry belong to the Church, in the person of the DBF. If we do that, we should
be able to achieve, first, local arrangements that mean that those deputizing for parish
priests can be properly remunerated, safe from legal challenge. Second, a clear
understanding that ministry fees are not a ‘cash bonus’ for individual clergy but go
towards training, stipends and pensions. Third, that the obscurities which could be
taken advantage of are removed.
The proposed new Measure in items (a) to (f) on page 6 will not diminish the role of
incumbents. Pastoral services will always be integral to the cure of souls. It is in
recognition of this that we propose that the new Measure gives parish priests a clear
legal discretion to waive fees where it is right to do so. I believe that making it quite clear
that ministry fees help to pay stipends and training costs for all will only enhance the
standing of incumbents and priests-in-charge among their parishioners.
As well as difficulties over ownership of fees, the existing law is not clear about the types
of service for which fees can be charged or about what exactly the fee covers.
Consequently, parishes make varying charges, particularly for weddings and marriage
blessings. This gives rise to distress and misunderstanding for parishioners and leaves
individual incumbents and PCCs vulnerable to legal challenge – another highly
unsatisfactory state of affairs.
By making clear in the new Measure the range of services for which fees may be set and
that Fees Orders may specify exactly what the fee does cover, we will have the
opportunity to regularize that position. In that, I particularly welcome the proposal at
(e) to abolish fees for the funerals of children.
I am persuaded that the present situation is untenable and dangerous, and that we must
have a new Measure to regularize the current unsatisfactory legal basis for parochial
fees. What a new Measure will not do, however, is bring into effect the policy changes
239
11:39:27:11:08
Page 239
Page 240
Sunday 6 July 2008
that are recommended in the two reports. Therefore, at (g) to (j) on page 6 we are asking
for a fair wind for more exploration, both in respect of the Fees Orders and in respect of
matters of collection and disbursement of fees.
So far as national policy is concerned, we would like to begin work to agree what the fee
should cover. Then we can use the power that will be granted in the Measure to set out
in the orders what the parochial fee covers and make it clear what it does not cover. Our
recommendation is that the fee includes what is essential for the service to take place so
that, wherever you live, it is possible to have a service in your parish church for the cost
of the parochial fee alone. There can be further discussion and listening on that.
Once we agree what is included, the level of fees can then be related to the actual costs of
those things: something for which we have been asked on a number of occasions when
we have been discussing Fees Orders. For example, the keeping up of buildings, local
pastoral care, training, stipends and pensions. That way, people can see exactly how the
parochial fee contributes to ministry in their parish and to the whole of the witness of
the Church. Any order setting the level and content of fees must be approved by Synod
before being made, just as it is now.
Four Funerals and a Wedding offered suggestions for local practice, some of which have
caused considerable debate. These are re-suggestions: things that have been tried and
found to work in some dioceses. Since the debate in February, people have given us
details of other arrangements that work for them. DRACSC can collect and share
various examples of good practice. Under the new Measure, arrangements for the
collection and disbursement of fees would continue to be made locally.
Before I finish, I want to make one last point and it is on recommendation (j). This is one
place where I think it is legitimate for national policy to intrude into local territory,
namely the remuneration of retired and non-stipendiary ministers. Their ministry
enables us to meet our duty to provide pastoral services to all on request. They deserve
to be offered consistent and fair payment for this work, and national policy would help
to make this happen. At present, dioceses make a variety of arrangements, some of
which are not followed in all of their parishes. Those retired clergy who live on the
boundaries of the dioceses of York and Ripon and Leeds, for example, have different
arrangements depending from which diocese a funeral comes. That is confusing and it
cannot be right.
Parochial fees matter, Mr Chairman, because they are an everyday symbol of an
enduring mutual commitment between people and Church. Our legal right to them has
grown out of ancient custom. They mean much more than pounds and pence: they bring
a duty to deal with people fairly and lovingly. These two reports set out the compelling
need for a new Measure, then suggest that we take a fresh look at policy for Fees Orders,
and then share ideas for local practice. I invite Synod to take note of GS 1703.
The Archdeacon of Newark (Ven. Nigel Peyton): I welcome both of these reports. A
240
11:39:27:11:08
Page 240
Page 241
Sunday 6 July 2008
review of the arrangements for parochial fees is much needed, despite the best efforts of
most clergy and parishes. As we have heard, the uncertainties and defects of the present,
inconsistent set of arrangements are well rehearsed in both reports.
I believe that the recommendations for legislation and further consultation with relevant
stakeholders mark an important evolution towards greater professionalism, freeing up
the clergy and ministers to concentrate on the pastoral, evangelistic and community
opportunities afforded by the occasional offices.
This development will bring three things: clarity, transparency and efficiency. Clarity
about the level of service provision; transparency about how we charge people for
the ministry we provide; and efficiency in administering the system of payment and
records. In an age of internet banking, cash and cheques in brown envelopes are not
really ideal.
Doing nothing is not an option. Within a growing culture of public audit and of
standards in public life, it seems to me that the Church should seek to be exemplary; not
least because if, as a national Church, we want to offer a critique of Government
policies and the service provision by others, we have to ensure that our own house is in
order.
We also have competitors. Just before I left for Synod, to join the traffic jam on the A1, I
was looking at our local newspaper, the Newark Advertiser. In it was a feature about a
woman who is described as a ‘civil ceremonies officiant’. She calls her business
Beginnings and Endings. You can have her services for £175 an hour, plus VAT. She is
quoted as saying, ‘I even spend an hour with families, helping them decide and plan
what they want’. I am sure she does a good job, but I happen to believe that the treasures
we have in the Church of England ministry remain attractive to the public, if we have
sufficient care and energy, imagination and transparency.
I hope that Synod will warmly welcome these two reports, request the legislation
required, and encourage the Archbishops’ Council and those of us on DRACSC to
develop fresh policies, good practice and guidelines as soon as practicable.
I would certainly like to echo Bishop John’s urgency about the issue of developing a
policy for the remuneration of retired clergy and other ministers not in receipt of a
stipend who conduct pastoral services. I do not believe that the amendments will be
particularly helpful and I hope that Synod will want to support this, unamended.
Mrs Alison Wynne (Blackburn): I wanted to speak in this debate because our diocesan
synod debated this report a couple of weeks ago. When I first read the report I was
shocked to find that the current legislation had so many holes in it and I was relieved
that something was going to be done. When it came to reading the details and the
suggestions, however, I found myself in agreement with most members of our diocesan
synod.
241
11:39:27:11:08
Page 241
Page 242
Sunday 6 July 2008
The fees for every parish in the Church of England are to be set centrally. They will, of
course, take into account the actual costs incurred by the parish; but which parish? A
parish with a large, expensive-to-run building and grounds that are expensive to
maintain or a parish with modern, economical property that is cheap to maintain?
Assuming an average is taken, some of our parishes will find themselves out of pocket
with every wedding and funeral; others will be able to make a tidy profit.
As we have heard from the last speaker, there are many other agencies for funerals and
weddings besides the good old C of E. In some of our parishes, these agencies are
drawing many weddings and funerals away from the Church. To win these back,
parishes have to be able to compete. They need the freedom to make their fees more
attractive if they so choose. Setting a fee centrally ties the hands of parishes and does not
allow them to compete in this way. People will realize that if different churches have the
same fee it is not simply covering costs, as the costs for each will not be the same. Yes,
the current legislation needs sorting out, but let us not restrict our parishes by forcing a
fee on them set by a central, controlling body.
Also, in bending over backwards to accommodate funeral directors, the report suggests
a diocesan clearing-house system for authorized Church of England ministers: more
work and expense for the diocese. Particularly worrying, however, is the expectation
that the diocese will provide a minister whenever one is requested. Are our ministers
now to be at the beck and call of funeral directors?
These are not just my views but the views of many members of Blackburn diocesan
synod, who then went on to vote overwhelmingly not to welcome this report.
Mr Jim Cheeseman (Rochester): A plague of our lives these days are reports, seeming
very excellent in themselves but composed by people who seem to live in ivory towers,
far removed from reality. I suffer frequently from such things, which come from the
ivory towers of the England and Wales Cricket Board at Lord’s; although, if you have
seen their building at Lords, you will realize that it is very, very far from an ivory tower
and quite the most disgraceful building there is in that complex! Now I have got myself
into trouble, haven’t I? The report comes down and you find that, excellent though it
seems on paper, when you try to put it into practice it is totally impossible; because the
large club that they see taking over an area is about 35 miles from all the small village
clubs that surround it.
I have listened carefully to this speech and it seems to me that we have an entirely
different approach. Unless I have totally misunderstood the bishop, what we are doing is
setting broad outlines and getting legislation; then we are going to look at what people
do and what works – and perhaps what does not work – then make ground rules for its
implementation.
This is an excellent model; it ought to work, and may I commend the report? That is not
exactly what I thought I was going to say but, having heard the bishop, I think that we
242
11:39:27:11:08
Page 242
Page 243
Sunday 6 July 2008
have got it the right way round. Instead of coming down from on high, he is going to
listen to the grassroots. I hope that I have got it right!
Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough): I would like to outline some fairly grave
reservations about some of the principles that have been laid out in the report. First of
all, I think that we should consider the Fees Order and we should ask ourselves if the
figures that are charged for the services that are provided are defensible. I think that is
the first question people ask when they want to question fees: ‘What are we actually
paying for?’ It is impossible for me as an incumbent to say why it is £49 for a funeral in
church and £90 at the crematorium. I do not know why. I should have thought that the
service I provide is the same in either. I have no way of explaining this.
It seems to me also that the authors of the report, despite their best efforts, remain
fixated on the concept of parochial fees and the right of an incumbent to request fees.
What we should be doing is looking at this on a commercial basis. If we provide a
service for somebody, it is perfectly acceptable in the commercial world to ask for
payment for a service. It seems to me that if we attach the right to receive the fees to the
person taking the service – on the scriptural principle that the labourer is worthy of his
hire – the question as to where the money goes is then easily solved.
Those who are stipendiary clergy and those whose licence requires them to remit fees to
the diocesan board of finance will receive the fees, in the same way that my dentist takes
money from me for doing a filling, and remit it to the diocesan board of finance in the
same way that the dentist remits the fees to the dental board. I do not think that there is
anything particularly dirty about receiving money and passing it on. It is actually the
most efficient way of doing it without creating a whole new paperchase. I have enough
paperwork to deal with already and I would be very reluctant to have any more.
This principle of officiant-based rather than parish-based fees would solve the problem
of what to do with retired clergy. The principle ought to be simple: the person who takes
the service collects the fee. If they want to give it to the parish or the diocese, preferably
with a Gift Aid envelope attached, that is fine. If they do not want to receive a fee, that is
fine. If as a self-employed person they do wish to receive the fee and to keep it, that also
ought to be fine.
It seems to me that we depend very heavily indeed on retired clergy and, over the years,
their services have largely been taken for granted in some places. A pension is not a
stipend. They are not stipendiary clergy; they are not obliged to take any services at all.
Many of them, for the sake of the gospel, do so. Where appropriate, where somebody
who does a job and is paid for doing a job receives payment for doing the job, it is
natural both to those who are paying for the service and to those conducting the service
to make a charge and to receive a charge for doing so.
To try to retain the concept of parochial fees and the right of an incumbent to receive
fees for a funeral taken by some unknown minister at the crematorium, because the
243
11:39:27:11:08
Page 243
Page 244
Sunday 6 July 2008
person happens to be in his parish, just does not work. That sort of mindset, that sort of
world, is long gone – if ever it existed. I propose that we move to an officiant-based
system rather than a parochial-based system and that we deal, after that, with what
happens to the fees. Dare I say, Chairman, we could introduce a code of practice to
enable us to do so.
Finally, I do not think that there is any possibility whatsoever of restraining the so-called
‘crematorium cowboys’. Those who abuse the system in this way are usually well
beyond the reach of canon law and I think that it is a will-o’-the-wisp if we think that we
can stop it happening. What we can do, however, is to encourage the clergy to take
seriously their responsibility to take funerals; so that we do not have clergy saying, ‘If
they’re not in my congregation, I won’t do the service’. We have to be ready and
available to take the service, to provide the care, and to take the opportunities for
evangelism that these provide. That too is something that can be addressed through the
new legislation, which we were talking about very recently.
I hope that in these ways we can simplify the procedure, make it comprehensible to
everybody, and those who are paying for something know what they are paying for and
why it is being charged.
The Archdeacon of Berkshire (Ven. Norman Russell): I am absolutely persuaded, as I
think almost any archdeacon would be, that there is a need to bring rather more rigour
and some reform into the fees sphere. As the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds said, because of
the present state of the law there is scope for legal action against clergy and possibly
others who, on the Church’s behalf, take funerals – and there is no question but that
some very doubtful practices do go on in the parishes.
I want to speak rather more narrowly, however, because when we last considered the
previous report there was a great deal of concern about some of the illustrative material
at the back of that report; in particular, a diocesan funerals co-ordinator. Certainly in a
diocese like Oxford, with over 800 churches covering three counties, someone sitting in
Diocesan Church House dishing out the funerals is not a very attractive option for the
clergy.
This second report has heard that and moved on from it. Looking at GS 1703, very
carefully written into it – I know about this because, with Sarah Smith, I had a hand in it
and it was very important that the local was stressed – on page 4, at the bottom of
paragraph 18, are these words: ‘It would be sensible and logical if the legislative
framework reflected this position by providing that what are currently labelled
“incumbent’s fees” become fees payable to the DBF, even though it may make sense for
them to be collected locally.’ In other words, if we go down the route which is permitted
here, it does allow this to happen locally, rather as is done in best practice today.
Turning to page 5, paragraph 26 and the first bullet point: ‘Suggestions for good
practice tended to fall into the following categories: local arrangements by which
244
11:39:27:11:08
Page 244
Page 245
Sunday 6 July 2008
incumbents can ensure the availability of an authorized minister’. Again, at paragraph
27: ‘DRACSC is keen that within a clear legal framework, the principle of local decision
making be maintained. Local solutions are often the most responsive and efficient.’
I draw that to Synod’s attention, in particular for the attention of the clergy who are
members of Synod, because I think that, with these changes, this new report makes a
serious attempt to address some of the issues that were of most concern to the clergy last
time round.
Revd Canon Carl Turner (Exeter): When I was a curate 23 years ago I can remember
going to my first deanery chapter meeting, where they were talking about funerals. The
older clergy were more interested in initiating me into what to do with what they tended
to call the ‘spare ash cash’ that might come my way in the years that I was a curate.
When I was in the East End of London I had to give my fees to the diocese. Mention has
already been made about the handing on of cash in brown envelopes. My funeral
director, 12 or 15 years ago, was paying directly through BACS into our parish account.
Why that cannot happen with diocesan accounts, I cannot understand. It is about time
that clergy did not have to deal with the treasury.
When I was in the East End of London I met some very strange people, including some
very strange funeral directors who will live long in my mind. I remember some of the
wonderful people I met and the privilege of going into the home of a lady who took me
to see her husband, an asphalter who had fallen off a roof, and she said, ‘Father, we’ve
left the tar in his fingernails so that God will recognize him when he comes’! I once went
into a home and they said, ‘Father, come and see Mum’. They then brought out an
enormous pair of dressmaking scissors and said, ‘We want you to cut ’er ’air for us’!
That was a time when I was glad that I had the curate with me! (Laughter) I learned
more from the funeral directors than I did from some of the older clergy, it has to be
said. Some of you will know of Stan Cribb, who brought the horses back to East
London. He expected us to have polished shoes; expected us to do more than one visit;
expected us to do it properly.
We have talked about principles and someone mentioned doing things in an exemplary
way. What the report says to me is that, just as fees do not belong to the minister, funeral
liturgy and pastoral care belong to the whole Church. It is a privilege for those of us who
are priests and Readers to stand at the graveside, between life and death, and to be
invited into these people’s homes.
One thing that really warmed my heart when I read the report the first time was the way
in which the recommendation was made that there should be an element of fee paid for
training, not initial training. I thought that I knew how to do funerals, but I learned how
to be a good priest at a funeral – I am still learning how to be a good priest at a funeral –
because of being there with real people and working with other professionals, like
funeral directors. I think that we need to take this on board.
245
11:39:27:11:08
Page 245
Page 246
Sunday 6 July 2008
Where will this training happen? Bishop Packer mentioned the word ‘training’ five times
in his opening speech. Indeed, it is mentioned a number of times in GS Misc 877.
However, in the supplementary report it is not made explicit. How will this ongoing
training be administered?
In my diocese we have a zero budgeting policy, which means that my colleague the
director of ministry has to make ends meet. He would have loved to have some of that
‘spare ash cash’ to do some training with the ministers he works with. I think that we
need to make much more explicit that training, ongoing training, for clergy and Readers
will be an expectation, because of the way we need to take seriously the beautiful
ministry that we have with the bereaved.
The Chairman: Before I call the next speaker, perhaps, as part of their synodical
training, there is somebody who would like to try their hand at a motion for closure. I
am sure that, if you would not, some of our regular people will leap in, but somebody
may like to try it for the first time – after we have heard the next speaker.
The Archdeacon of Lancaster (Ven. Peter Ballard): Much of what I would have said has
already been said and I have no intention of repeating it, but I do need to clarify
something.
The Blackburn diocesan synod did indeed vote against Four Funerals and a Wedding, as
Alison Wynne has said. The laity voted against, 39 votes to four; the clergy voted 36 to
two; however, of the bishops, one voted in favour, one voted against and one abstained.
The House of Bishops in the Diocese of Blackburn reflects the House of Bishops
nationally. (Several members: Oh!)
The Chairman: Do you want your five minutes or not? (Laughter)
The Archdeacon of Lancaster: I am happy to be shut up whenever you want, Chairman!
My concerns, though, have not changed since February. One of my problems with this
report is that it could tie our hands. It is counter-cultural; it is not where the world is. If
you want to hire a building, there is a price for it. If you want this hall, there is a price for
it. If you want a meeting room in this university, there is a different price for it. The idea
that the cost of taking a service in one church or another can be the same across the
country is sheer nonsense. The public will not even understand that, because it is not the
world they live in.
We are living in a world in which the Church is having to pay more and more costs. We
heard in Question Time about the matter of water, the soakaways and the drains. Let us
free ourselves. If we do a good job, if we do what the public want us to do, if we offer a
high-quality service, they will happily pay for it. Of course, we need to make sure that
we are clear: the hidden fees and all of that have to go. We have to have a list that is
absolutely clear. If you tie people’s hands, however, it will do the Church no favours and
it will simply take us backwards.
246
11:39:27:11:08
Page 246
Page 247
Sunday 6 July 2008
If we accept this report, I would ask that in the consideration that follows we look at
how best to market the Church in the world in which we live. I agree that the Parochial
Fees Order needs to be changed, but do not tie the hands of the clergy so that all they can
do is the same, be they in Penzance or Lancaster.
When the Blackburn diocesan synod voted against, it was made very clear that when we
adopted Turnbull the great word was ‘subsidiarity’. The decisions should be taken at the
point where they are most needed. There is nothing closer to Church life than the
relationship between priest and people when it comes to funerals and weddings. To try
and dictate from Archbishops’ Council what should happen in the parishes of England
seems to me, at one level, to be a nonsense.
I would urge that we accept this report, but that we look at how we can best use the
wonderful services we have, the wonderful clergy and the wonderful buildings, for the
best use of the gospel but also accepting that, in the world in which we live, people
expect to pay for something that is good. As I said in February, if you doubled or trebled
the fee, you would get far more people.
You will never ever stop the crematorium hacks. We have heard from the Archdeacon of
Newark that people are advertising their services. That is what we probably have to do:
be upfront and advertise them and say, ‘Yes, we can do a good job.’ Rather than sitting
around waiting, hoping that people will come to us, let us go out there and be proactive.
Let us go out on the streets and market the wonderful services that we have, and it will
be a far better Church that we have afterwards. One thing is for certain: life is a sexually
transmitted terminal disease and everybody will die one day!
Revd William Raines (Manchester): On a point of order, Chairman. I beg to move:
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, in reply: Thank you to all those who have taken part in
that lively and informative debate, as we try to move to just where we do want to go in
terms of the fee legislation.
Thanks to Nigel Peyton for his emphasis on efficiency and transparency. Thanks to the
diocese of Blackburn for its consideration of Four Funerals and a Wedding. I would
argue that we are moving in the direction in which they would like us to go. It seems to
me from what the archdeacon has said that we do still need to have fees and that we do
need to know what they cover, and it seems to me that that is the direction in which we
are trying to go.
I was grateful to Alison Wynne for her points about things like a clearing-house, which
would be required, necessary or important only if the local arrangements were not
247
11:39:27:11:08
Page 247
Page 248
Sunday 6 July 2008
working. I would want to stress with the Prolocutor that we have listened hard and tried
to make it clear that the illustrative material in Four Funerals and a Wedding is exactly
that: it is illustrative; it has worked in some places. I think that some of it does represent
good practice. However, there is no desire to impose good practice across the country,
except in so far as it seems to me that (a) to (f) in GS 1703 do represent good practice
and need to be there in terms of the legislation, on which we then build and build
variously in different places.
Thanks to Jim Cheeseman, who I hope was making the same sorts of point as I have
just been making; and to Fr Carl Turner for the emphasis again on training. I am sorry to
use the word ‘again’! It seems to me that that is one of the difficulties with Fr Trott’s
suggestion. One of the things that we have consistently said is that we need greater
quality in terms of training, in terms of the service we provide, and that the money
which comes in from fees goes to the whole life of the Church and is there not simply as
payment to an individual for what has been delivered.
I will be interested in further discussion about an officiant-based system. I think that we
are presently a long way away from that. I hope that we will not start going down that
line at the moment, but get straight the arrangements that we do have but which need a
good deal more clarity than exists now.
I hope that Synod will take note of this report and thereby enable us to move forward to
the specific motions, where we can get on with some of the things for which they have
just been asking.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod:
(a) request the Archbishops’ Council to introduce legislation to give
effect to the recommendations (a)–(f) in GS 1703; and
(b) request the Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service
Committee to consult with relevant stakeholders on
recommendations (g)–(j) in GS 1703 and to report back to this
Synod.’
The Chairman: I would like to take the amendments now and to have a discussion about
each of them. We will then know what we are talking about in the final part of the
debate.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): I beg to move as an amendment:
248
11:40:27:11:08
Page 248
Page 249
Sunday 6 July 2008
‘In paragraph (a), after “(a)–(f) in GS 1703” insert “as if
recommendation (b) read as follows:
(b) that all fees be payable to parochial church councils and that
parochial church councils have a legal obligation to pay the portion
of those fees that are currently legally payable to incumbents to the
diocesan board of finance which currently has the benefit of those
fees (subject to transitional arrangements;”.’
Like many others, I welcome the report. I am happy with the idea of tidying up all the
legal shambles: three cheers for that! I have no problem with what the fees do or do not
cover, but I do have a little bit of a problem with recommendation (b), paragraph 30 on
page 6 of GS 1703.
My reading of recommendation (b) is that it is calling for incumbents’ fees for weddings,
funerals, burials, searches, etc. to be paid directly to diocesan boards of finance, rather
than the current practice of paying them to PCCs and/or incumbents along with the
PCC’s statutory fee.
This proposal was overwhelmingly given a poor reception at last February’s group of
sessions. To introduce it in a diocese like Chester – average size and, given a fair wind,
allowing ten minutes per parish per month – would take 47 hours each month: more
than the work of one new employee and, over 43 dioceses, another 15 admin personnel.
At present, calling for all fees via PCCs and incumbents is free, especially when the
treasurers who carry it out do it for free.
This takes no account of any problems. We have 20 or so churches in the diocese
dedicated to St Mary. Despite my best efforts to the contrary, I still get many cheques
made out to ‘St Mary’s Church’. Just think of the time that a diocesan officer would
take, sorting out about 50 cheques a month to be allocated to the correct St Mary’s
Church, not to mention all the St John’s, of which we have a good share. In addition to
the 50 staff, it would require an awful lot more.
Paying the income to the PCC keeps a local link between those providing the service
who have the cure for souls. Paying direct to the DBF is yet another cry of, ‘Oh! We are
paying them in Chester.’ I would therefore ask you to support my amendment, along
with the code of practice suggested by my friend Fr Trott.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, John. I am glad that Our Lady has so many
donations!
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: It seems to me that we need to be clear about the
difference between to whom the fee is legally payable, which comes into the legislation
bit at (b) in the paper, and how the collection happens, which would come later on,
under good practice.
249
11:40:27:11:08
Page 249
Page 250
Sunday 6 July 2008
The proposal in our (b) is that the clergy fee should be legally payable to the diocesan
board of finance. Ninety per cent of them are already assigned to the diocesan board of
finance. This need not make any difference in the method of collection, and I believe that
is exactly the sort of thing for which Blackburn and others were calling in respect of
variety, for making it clear locally and doing what is best locally, and which would come
into best practice.
I hope that we will not create a situation here in which PCCs become the legal owners of
the fees, but then with a duty to send them on; rather, that this should be a part of the
best practice under (i) in the paper. I therefore hope that we shall resist Mr Freeman’s
amendment to recommendation (b).
The Archdeacon of Bournemouth (Ven. Adrian Harbidge): In my last ‘ivory tower’ we
tended to do about 170 funerals a year, 70 weddings and about 150 baptisms. If I had
taken all the fees in myself, I might have had more than my stipend; but, anyway, we did
not.
I love Mr Freeman: He reminds me a bit of St Paul. In February he said that he had
dragooned all his deanery treasurers. At the end of 2 Corinthians 13, St Paul says, ‘I am
coming. This will be my third time’, and you can hear all the Corinthians saying, ‘Oh,
goody!’ If I were his rural dean or archdeacon, I would love to have John Freeman as
deanery chair of finance. Imagine what it is like for the PCC treasurers when they know
he is on the warpath!
In my experience, over a period of nine years we have had one set of annual accounts
challenged at the annual parochial church meeting. This year, we have had five
challenged. It has not been because the treasurers have been dipping their hands in the
till or anything like that; it is because they are not trained properly and they are not that
willing to spend a lot of time on it. Everyone is very busy. If we go with John Freeman’s
amendment and force every single PCC to handle money in this way, then I am afraid
that we will get an awful lot of treasurers giving up and saying, ‘That’s the straw that
breaks the camel’s back’. Please, may I ask Synod to vote against this amendment?
Revd Prebendary Colin Randall (Bath and Wells): I too am opposed to this amendment.
I think that Mr Freeman misunderstands the way in which the fees are already collected.
Carrying this amendment would result in the taking of more time, rather than it simply
being paid to the DBF.
The method of collection is what matters. With our team and the various monies that
come in it already takes me and my secretary quite a long time to sort it out because, in
the end, I still have to make the list of which funerals have come in, and so on. That still
has to be done by someone who is either doing them or responsible for getting someone
else to do them. To say that they must be payable locally is a nonsense. It is not the way
it works. I would resist this amendment because I think that the other way will simplify
rather than – is it ‘complexify’? – make it more complex.
250
11:40:27:11:08
Page 250
Page 251
Sunday 6 July 2008
Revd Prebendary Kay Garlick (Hereford): I was not going to say anything, but I am
speaking for ordinary parish priests. I have seven parishes and seven treasurers, who are
all wonderful but precious to me. If I give them more to do, they will go and I will not
find any more. I do not have a secretary who can help me to do all of these things; and
that is what most parish priests are up against. Please, please, let us not give ourselves
more work to do.
Dr Graham Campbell (Chester): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘After paragraph (a) insert as a new paragraph:
“(b) request that the Archbishops’ Council consider whether that
legislation should contain provision making it possible, in the case
of a marriage solemnized in a church with which a party has a
‘qualifying connection’ under the Church of England Marriage
Measure 2008, for a modest additional fee to be payable to the
diocesan board of finance which it could be encouraged to use to
provide resources for locally-delivered marriage preparation courses,
including for the training of those who provide them; and”.’
We seem to have concentrated so far on funerals. I want to mention the One Wedding –
the quarter bit. Members of Synod will recall that a couple of years ago we wrestled
with the concept of extending marriage by banns to couples where neither bride nor
groom live in the parish or is on the electoral roll, but one or other can establish a
connection – originally called a ‘demonstrable connection’ and now a ‘qualifying
connection’.
During those debates many members of this Synod spoke enthusiastically about the
preparation for marriage courses run by the Church, pointing out that these courses are
what distinguishes a church wedding from one held in a secular location, such as an
hotel. Many who spoke requested the Steering Committee to look into charging
additional fees for a marriage being solemnized under the qualifying connection
legislation, with such extra funds going to finance the expansion of the marriage
preparation courses. On each occasion the then Dean of Wakefield pointed out that his
committee was responsible only for the legislation to introduce the qualifying
connection provisions and that parochial fees were the responsibility of DRACSC, who
at that time were about to start looking at the fees.
This particular ball having been tossed into DRACSC’s court seems to have escaped
their notice. I have looked through GS Misc 877 and GS 1703 and nowhere do I find any
mention of marriage preparation courses. The reports mention the funding of CME,
suggesting that funeral fees be used to fund CME courses for those who officiate at
funerals: no mention whatsoever of an additional marriage fee being used to fund
251
11:40:27:11:08
Page 251
Page 252
Sunday 6 July 2008
marriage preparation courses or to offer training to those who will deliver such
courses.
This amendment is just a gentle reminder of what was requested in previous debates. It
asks only that the Archbishops’ Council and DRACSC look at this proposal to levy an
additional modest fee – and, bearing in mind that weddings are supposed to cost about
£18,000 these days, ‘modest’ can be anything you like – for weddings taking place under
the qualifying connection provision. When they look at it they may decide to increase
fees slightly for everybody but, either way, I hope that they come up with some way of
raising extra money to fund the marriage preparation courses.
Similarly, it asks only that dioceses are encouraged to use the extra money in this way. I
do not want to legislate for a restricted fund, but I would ask that the dioceses use the
money in a constructive manner, by training people to deliver such courses: not only
clergy but Readers, members of the Mothers’ Union, FLAME, or just a Christian couple
in the parish who have the gifts. Hopefully, the diocese could source and prepare
appropriate materials; advise the people delivering the courses as to what is available;
and provide such things as books, DVDs and other resources for the bridal couple,
which could then be ‘provided free of charge at the point of delivery’ – as they say in the
Health Service.
I ask Synod to show its support for the unique service provided by the Church in
preparing couples for marriage and for Christian marriages solemnized in church.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: I am very sympathetic to Graham Campbell’s basic
theme that there should be marriage preparation, and indeed paragraph 20 of GS 1703
has yet more about training, involving all fees and therefore both funerals and
weddings.
My worry about this particular amendment is that it seems to create two sorts of
wedding. I think that the Church of England Marriage Measure 2008 wanted to put
marriages involving someone with a qualifying connection on the same basis as those
with other rights to be married in the parish church.
I am resisting this amendment at this point. It could come back to a revision committee
later on, but I hope that we will not put it into our basic recommendations today and
seek to restrain the work of the committee by doing that.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): As Synod may recall, I was very exercised about the
provision of marriage preparation to people who were to be married on the basis of a
qualifying connection, in view of their likely lack of regular presence in the parish where
they are to be married. It seemed to me that that was very important if we were to
maximize the mission opportunity. I am particularly pleased that this matter is now
receiving attention as part of the marriage project that is being serviced by Paul Bayes of
the Mission and Public Affairs Division.
252
11:40:27:11:08
Page 252
Page 253
Sunday 6 July 2008
Although marriage preparation will present particular challenges where marriage is by
virtue of a qualifying connection under the 2008 Measure, marriage preparation is
important before every wedding. If it is to be done well, as it should be, it will be costly
in terms of both financial and human resources. It seems to me that, in the context of the
overall cost of weddings, a modest additional fee to contribute to the financial cost of
the provision of marriage preparation is appropriate, and should help to improve the
quality of marriage preparation provided.
Since marriage preparation should be offered before every wedding, however, I can see
no logic in charging it only in respect of weddings solemnized under the 2008 Measure.
It seems to me that such discriminatory fees are unlikely to be acceptable, for the reason
indicated by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. It would also be extraordinarily difficult to
explain to punters – couples, I should say!
If I may, Mr Chairman – and I know that others have not been very successful with this
ploy earlier today – I would ask if you would give your consent under SO 22(a) to divide
the amendment, so that the words ‘solemnized in a church with which a party has a
“qualifying connection”’ are voted on separately. That would enable Synod, if it were so
minded, to vote that it would like the Archbishops’ Council to consider the possibility of
such a modest fee in respect of every wedding.
The Chairman: I am not prepared to accept that, partly because it is an amendment to
an amendment but mostly because I think the bishop has told us that, if this does not go
through, there are other ways in which those same issues can be raised. I will therefore
leave the amendment as it is.
The Archdeacon of Malmesbury (Ven. Alan Hawker): I am wholeheartedly in favour of
marriage preparation. I would love to see it become much more widespread. However,
we are dealing here with rights.
First of all, from 1 October, the qualifying connection will have the same status as
residence or being on the electoral roll. They are rights and they are not a second-rate
sort of right. Secondly, because they are a right, however good your marriage
preparation and whatever effort you put into it, the couple can say to you, ‘Stuff it! We
don’t want it’, because that is not a right; that is a right with a condition attached to it.
Thirdly, I would want Synod to vote against this amendment because we will get into a
bizarre situation, in parallel with the one my wife has when she chairs the bench in the
magistrates’ court. Whenever she applies a fine she now has to add to it, by Government
edict, £15 for victim support – normally for people who have created no victims at all,
because it is a speeding fine or something like that. People she puts on probation or
sends to prison because they have damaged someone else do not have to pay a victim
charge of £15. We therefore get that bizarre sort of situation beginning to arise here if
some people had to pay extra, whether or not they accepted the marriage preparation
that went with it. It becomes too complicated.
253
11:40:27:11:08
Page 253
Page 254
Sunday 6 July 2008
I think that we do have to look at marriage preparation – its quality, its cost, and how it
should be funded – but this is not the way to do it.
Revd Gill Henwood (York): I have a few examples of those coming to us this year for
whom qualifying connections would have been appropriate, to show that they are not
people who are just trying to take advantage of pretty churches.
One is the case of a couple who, during the period of preparation, have moved house
into the neighbouring street, which is outside the parish boundary. It means that they
now have to go for a common licence. Another is the case of a couple who had booked
their wedding in 2010; who have now moved out of the bride’s parents’ home, which
was in the parish, to a house they could afford in a neighbouring parish; but who have,
as the bride is now expecting their second child, brought the wedding forward to August
and have to go for a common licence. Pastoral reasons for moving the wedding,
therefore, and they would have come to us easily under qualifying connections.
Other people who come have been to university, met and got engaged. They have settled
somewhere else but they want to come back home to their parents to marry. They still
have connections with the parish; they are not choosing it as a pretty church. Indeed,
there are those who are overseas who have come back for the same reason.
We are finding that the qualifying connection is working, or will be working, extremely
well. As the previous speaker has said, it is a right. It is a privilege for us to be able to
offer marriage preparation and, by engaging with the relationship with the couples who
come, we hope very much that they will want to come for that preparation and build on
the relationship we have. It should not be about charging them for it in this way. I hope
that Synod will vote against the amendment.
Revd Canon Suzanne Sheriff (York): I did not plan to speak; I have not prepared to
speak; I am a bit scared to speak, because I am not sure if I have misunderstood. The
thing that scares me about this amendment is where do the poorest people fit into this?
Not everybody can afford this. There has been talk of an £18,000 average. They must be
using Wayne and Coleen as the top end! In the parish I left a year ago we had all sorts of
ways of doing weddings on the cheap: lending bridal outfits and putting on receptions
for people. Our marriage preparation was great, but it did not actually cost a lot of
money.
It is what makes me uncomfortable about this amendment but also makes me
uncomfortable about the setting of fees. How are we to make sure in some parishes that
people can afford to marry in our church? I would hate, in trying to find this way of
being fair, to make it too expensive for some people to marry in our churches.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
254
11:40:27:11:08
Page 254
Page 255
Sunday 6 July 2008
The Chairman imposed a speech limit of two minutes.
Revd James Houghton (Chichester): We have been talking about collecting fees. I just
want clarification about waiving fees. In recommendation (e) we have ‘that fees for the
funerals of children under 16 be abolished’.
I am sure that all of us here who have been involved in the funerals of children recognize
this important ministry, and how important it is that we should abolish these fees. I
therefore welcome that recommendation, but why 16 and not ‘under 18’? Most of our
children are at school or at college until the age of 18. I find the situation of burying
children of 17 a very difficult one. I would therefore ask the committee to address that
age limit and to reconsider it. Also, at the other end, I assume that ‘children’ would
include stillbirth.
Mr Timothy Cox (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Would you be
minded to accept a motion for closure after the next speaker?
The Chairman: I think that we might squeeze one more in, but thank you for the offer
and hold it there.
The Archdeacon of Salop (Ven. John Hall): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. May I
make a comment? I think that the many people who have asked to speak in this debate
are concerned that this item has now been cut very short.
The Chairman: I have been told that I can put it to Synod to extend the sitting in order to
allow a few more speeches. I think that I know what Synod’s answer might be, but it is
not for me to presume. May I therefore put it to Synod that we extend the session for no
more than ten minutes?
The procedural motion was put and lost.
Revd Canon Chris Lilley (Lincoln): I am grateful to DRACSC for the supplementary
report GS 1703, which certainly deals with a number of concerns I had with the original
report.
With the Blackburn diocese, I want to speak about the level of fixing fees for elements of
services that are unfixable because they are so infinitely varied: heating, organists,
vergers. I do not think that we can solve this problem by having a single, national, fixed
fee. Please do not go in that direction.
My second point is to do with the clergy waiver. I am not persuaded that that is
necessary. We have managed so far without having to seek approval on this. Clergy have
255
11:40:27:11:08
Page 255
Page 256
Sunday 6 July 2008
enormous responsibilities and we are allowed to do all sorts of things without being
micro-managed. I do not believe that we should be in a position where we have to refer
to some third party before making this decision: I think that we are quite capable of it. If
we need advice, we can already go to an archdeacon or a bishop for it. I would therefore
resist that particular point.
Finally, could the final report say something about the tax position? I feel that we are
very vulnerable – either the clergy themselves or the PCCs – with people who may or
may not be self-employed but who in the eyes of the Inland Revenue probably are not,
and therefore we may be responsible. I do not think that we are dealing with this as we
should.
The Archdeacon of Salop (Ven. John Hall): Many times when I am with church officers I
am encouraged not to sign blank cheques. I think that we are being encouraged to do
that here.
Let me tell you a story about the clergyman who wanted to teach some children about
the difference between good and bad. He took four jars: one with cigarette smoke in it;
one with whisky in it; one with chocolate in it; and one with good earth in it. He put
four very wiggly worms in each of them. A short time later he opened the jar with the
smoke in and pulled out the wiggly worm, and the wiggly worm did not wriggle because
it was dead. Likewise the chocolate: no wiggle – dead. Likewise the alcohol . . . (Several
members: Dead!) When he opened the one with the good earth in, the worm was very,
very wiggly, because it was very much . . . (Several members: Alive!) One little girl put
her hand up and said, ‘I know the reason for that. If you eat lots of chocolate, drink lots
of whisky and smoke lots of cigarettes, you’ll never get worms.’ (Laughter)
It is about good and bad, and I think that a lot of this is about good and bad. Looking at
page 6 of GS 1703, I want to vote for (a) to (e). They are all very good things to vote for.
However, I think that (f) is bad. It is the blank cheque. I think that (g) is bad, and (h) is a
bad deal because, again, it is a blank cheque; and I would like to vote for (i) and (j),
which are good. I hope that I can be confident in voting to support most of this but, at
the same time, in not signing a blank cheque.
Mr Timothy Cox (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
The Chairman: I ask the Bishop to respond to the debate, and he has less than five
minutes.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: And you are not telling me how much less, are you,
Chairman?
256
11:40:27:11:08
Page 256
Page 257
Sunday 6 July 2008
The Chairman: I do not write blank cheques! (Several members: Oh!)
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, in reply: Thank you very much to all those who have
taken part and also those who spoke on Dr Campbell’s amendment.
To Clive Scowen, yes, marriage preparation is important. The cost of ministry, as we
look at it, will include that, as in paragraph 20 of GS 1703. We shall have the chance to
come back to that in Synod. To Sue Sheriff, yes, the question of the poorest people and
the openness of our churches for their weddings is one of those key points with which
we have wrestled over the years, and we must not lose sight of it. We must make sure, it
seems to me, that there is not too great an increase in fees as a result of what we are
doing. To Gill Henwood, thank you for stressing that the relationships matter when
talking about the qualifying connections.
To James Houghton, the age of 16 could be altered in the revision committee. The
reason for going for 16 as a starter is because that is the age at which people can start
work, can get married and at which they are regarded as adult; however, it could be
changed. Also, to make it absolutely clear, ‘children’ in that recommendation does
include stillbirths, and there would certainly be no fee for those.
Thank you to Chris Lilley who said, ‘Don’t fix the unfixable’. We will need to look at
that. We can do it when we come to Fees Orders. That will be the point at which we can
discuss what is and what is not fixable.
I make the same point to John Hall. Recommendation (f) is not a blank cheque because,
when we come to Fees Orders, Synod will make the decisions on what they contain and
on the amount of fee that we charge.
Thank you for that debate. May I express my gratitude to James Langstaff and to the
review group, who worked very hard at Four Funerals and a Wedding, for the way in
which they have encouraged us to go on wrestling with the issues that they raised. Also,
although I realize that it is by no means the end of their work, to Sarah Smith, Jim Smith
– who is no relation – and to Alex McGregor for the work that they have already put in.
They are going to have to do a lot more from now on!
The Chairman: Before I put the motion to the vote and by way of explanation for the
Synod’s sake, I am sorry that there were a number of people who had been waiting for
that general section to make speeches and who were not given the opportunity. It is an
example of how, unless the Chairman totally determines the way a debate is going to go
and leaves the Synod no flexibility, we are in your hands. There were sufficient speeches
on the amendments to allow those to have some run, and there are natural consequences
to that. I apologize to those who were not called and thank those who were.
257
11:40:27:11:08
Page 257
Page 258
Fourth Day
Monday 7 July 2008
THE CHAIR Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (London) took the Chair at 9.30 a.m.
Revd Dr Jane Craske (Ecumenical Representatives, Methodist Church) led the Synod
in prayer.
Anglican–Methodist Covenant (GS 1691)
The Chairman: Before I call the mover of the motion, I would like to welcome Professor
Peter Howdle, Co-Chair of the JIC, and Mrs Susan Howdle and also Revd Christine
Elliott, Group Senior Staff, from the Methodist Church. Welcome. (Applause)
The Bishop of Peterborough (Rt Revd Ian Cundy): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod:
(a) thank the members of the Joint Implementation Commission for
their report Embracing the Covenant and for their work during the
past five years;
(b) commend the report, with its recommendations, for study, action
and response in the Church of England, and for discussion with
members of the Methodist Church;
(c) endorse the Commission’s recommendations regarding the shape of
its work in the next phase; and
(d) request that Bishop’s Councils consider the report and refer it for
study by other appropriate bodies in the dioceses and that responses
be sent to the Council for Christian Unity by 31 December 2009.’
I am grateful to the Bishop of Guildford for reminding an ecumenical gathering last
night of the delight taken by Professor Henry Chadwick, whose memory we treasure,
that in the record of the sessions of the Council of Nicaea the only occasion on which all
the bishops were present, and were recorded as being present, was the imperial banquet!
I am pleased to see that a number of you are here to taste the hors d’oeuvre before this
afternoon’s banquet.
258
11:40:27:11:08
Page 258
Page 259
Monday 7 July 2008
Five years ago the Joint Implementation Commission was formed by both our Churches
‘to carry forward the implementation of the . . . Commitments’ made in the Anglican–
Methodist Covenant. The report before Synod is the third one we have produced in the
five years of our existence. It is, I believe, full of stimulating ideas and challenging
recommendations, which need to receive serious consideration in both our Churches.
The Commission cannot by itself implement the commitments of the Covenant. We can
only suggest ways in which our Churches can do so and encourage each other to take up
the challenge.
This quinquennial report builds on the two interim reports In the Spirit of the Covenant
and Living God’s Covenant. Like those reports, it explores more deeply what being in
covenant with another Church means, both theologically and in practice; it gives
concrete examples of good initiatives – especially local ones – for the implementation of
the Covenant; and it tackles several important questions in the area of faith and order
that were not fully resolved – and did not need to be at that stage – in the formal
conversations that led to the Covenant. Its guiding thread is unity in mission.
The report will be debated by the Methodist Conference tomorrow. Dr Paul Avis and
I will be present on that occasion and the motions before Synod and Conference are
almost identical.
In commending the report to the Synod, I cannot cover all its work or
recommendations, but I would like to highlight five aspects. In the chapter ‘Taking
Stock and Looking Ahead’, we recall that the Methodist Movement began within the
Church of England as part of the evangelical revival of the eighteenth century, and
evolved into a separate Church more by accident than by design. We place the Covenant
in the context of the ecumenical movement that has led to deeper mutual understanding,
reconciliation and extensive collaboration between Churches, and to many new
patterns of unity and communion. We describe the wider context of Anglican–
Methodist relations in North America and internationally, and we note the wish of the
Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church to be represented on the JIC in its
next phase. We summarize, in a convenient form we hope, the main recommendations
that the JIC has already made to our Churches and we set out a programme and
structure for the next phase of the Commission’s work, which has the support of the
Council for Christian Unity.
In ‘The Unity We Have and the Unity We Seek’, we assess our existing degree of unity
and try to identify the goal that lies ahead. We clarify the intriguing expressions ‘full
visible unity’ and ‘organic unity’, and we recommend that we use the language of ‘full
visible communion’ between our Churches. While we acknowledge that the institutional
or structural implications of the Covenant have not yet become clear, we believe that, as
Churches, we should act as one in every possible way, carrying out more areas of our life
and mission together, until we face full visible communion.
In the chapter ‘How Can Decision-Making be Shared’ we begin to translate our
259
11:40:27:11:08
Page 259
Page 260
Monday 7 July 2008
reflection on unity in mission into practical terms, addressing one of the specific
commitments of the Covenant. Although there is considerable convergence in
fundamental ecclesiology, the actual polity and structure of our Churches is rather
different. In a grid, which I am extremely grateful to the printers for struggling with and
presenting in as clear a form as possible, we show how authority is distributed and
where policy is implemented in our Churches. We hope that understanding where
decisions are made will enable the process of joint decision-making to which we are
committed. Although we are set up in different ways, there is a great deal that we can do
to enhance our partnership in mission and so make a united witness to the world.
In the chapter on episkope and episcopacy, we look at personal oversight in our two
Churches and offer some creative proposals for further convergence. We challenge both
Churches to express more fully what we affirm in the area of personal episkope. The
Synod will be aware that bishops can be a rather sensitive issue for the Methodist
Church. After a recent rather unsatisfactory consultation process on episcopacy, the
Conference nevertheless urged us to continue our thinking in this area. We recognize,
however, that it may not be appropriate for the Conference to launch into an immediate
debate on our proposals. I ask the Synod to bear these sensitivities in mind in
commenting on this chapter.
It may come as a surprise to find a chapter on Calvinism and Arminianism in our report.
This, as many of you are aware, was discussed by the formal conversations and some
members of the Synod asked for further work to be done. I gave an undertaking to the
Synod that the JIC would respond. These are not purely historical concerns: they matter
to a goodly number of people in both our Churches and are very much alive in the
Christian Unions and the Community Churches. I believe that the JIC has been able to
handle the issues sympathetically, constructively and above all in the framework of
mission.
A lot of words have been written and spoken, over the past five years and more, on the
subject of the Covenant. I leave you with the question: what difference has it made? I
can say in all honesty, ‘Not nearly enough’. The Covenant stands out as a major
initiative of reconciliation and unity in the history of the Churches in this country. It is
now attracting the interest of our sister Anglican Churches in Wales and Scotland, but it
takes time and it takes commitment to heal a rift that goes back 250 years. There is
much further work to be done in embracing the Covenant. I ask the Synod this morning
to support the motion as a further and important contribution to that process.
The Bishop of Guildford (Rt Revd Christopher Hill): I want to touch on the real
problem that many people in both the Methodist Church in this country and in the
Church of England are perhaps a little lukewarm about the Covenant. There is not a
huge amount of great enthusiasm here and it is perhaps as well to be honest about that
and to recognize it. Against that, I want to pick up something of what the Bishop of
260
11:40:27:11:08
Page 260
Page 261
Monday 7 July 2008
Peterborough has spoken of the origins of Methodism and our ‘unhappy divisions’, to
use a Prayer Book phrase about Christian disunity.
It seems to me that Anglicans in this country have two ecumenical imperatives
historically given to us: one is the very obvious one of the fracture between Rome and
Canterbury, and the other great fracture in our history is, of course, our relationship
with the people called Methodists, within the Church of England and then sadly
separated, mostly because of our fault.
I think history does put a burden of imperative upon us to go with commitment, even if
there is not wild enthusiasm all the time. There is an ecumenical virtue in slogging on, in
being patient, in knowing that this is an imperative, whatever other issues may distract
and be placed in front of either of our Churches. That is what I want to say about that,
and briefly, Madam Chair, a couple of other things.
I want to reinforce what the bishop has said about not pressing the question of
episcopacy on our Methodist sisters and brothers just at the moment, but I do think
what is in the report is fascinating and very important on that. We need to have the right
time to take that forward and think about it.
To pick up on whatever happens to personal episcopacy in the Methodist Church in this
country, I want to say something about the importance of the relationship between
bishops and Methodist Chairs. I have had some really wonderful working relationships
with four Methodist Chairs, two when I was Bishop of Stafford. Those of you in
London and the south-east know that Methodism has gone into two bananas around
London: that is their word, I am not being rude. Both in the Midlands and in the central
south-east, there have been very ticklish and difficult local problems involving Anglicans
and Methodists. I have to say that the support that I received as bishop from district
superintendents and the relevant Chairs has been huge and I hope I have tried to
reciprocate that. As well as local, there are supra-local good relations, and that is
important when the going is tough, when there is a real problem. That seems to me to be
hugely important and encouraging.
Mrs Lucy Docherty (Portsmouth): Yesterday evening I had the immense privilege of
attending the ordination of a close friend of mine. The service was held in a Methodist
church not far from here. There were ten people admitted to the presbyterate, eight
women and two men. It was an intensely moving, joyful occasion, as was the ordination
I attended in my own cathedral at Petertide for another ten presbyters, this time seven
men and three women. In fact, although there were obviously a few differences, the
most remarkable thing to me, not an expert, was how similar they were, and the
communion that followed was almost identical, apart of course from the issue of the
grape juice, and I am not going there on that one.
Two points about the report and our response: first, please can we have some sense of a
timeframe that may encourage us all to take this work forward at a pace that will ensure
261
11:40:27:11:08
Page 261
Page 262
Monday 7 July 2008
that some of us are actually able to enjoy the fruits of our labours, and I do not mind
admitting to being over 50; and, secondly, as someone who has worked in the
ecumenical movement for over 25 years with the Association of Interchurch Families, I
want to celebrate and affirm this support. I want to ask today if our formal response
could do this, too. Can we please manage to sound a little more enthusiastic in our
response and more committed to the principles embraced in this report and summarized
so well on page 35 ‘so that our churches learn to work together and to think and decide
together in every conceivable way . . . particularly in mission, until they act as one’.
Revd Dr Jane Craske (Ecumenical Representatives, Methodist Church): Madam
Chairman, I would like to welcome the work that has been done on this report and the
way it is presented and sums up five years of very hard work on the part of the Joint
Implementation Commission.
As last year, the debate in General Synod on this report comes before the debate in
Conference, and I would not be able to second-guess Conference too much, just as you
will not want to second-guess General Synod this afternoon.
One of the key insights about last year’s report Living God’s Covenant was the
difference between our Churches in lay ministries. It seems to me that one of the key
insights of this report, one of the key points of continued learning about each other, is in
chapter 4 on decision-making. The table for that does make some differences very plain.
Perhaps it is sharpest on issues around ordination and deployment. That insight to some
extent underlines the argument of chapter 5.
I hope that chapter 4, that set of tables, will help in understanding why we cannot
always deal with decisions in the same place or to the same timescale, frustrating as it
often is. If I were to guess points that might be made within Methodist Conference,
partly because I have already heard some of them being made, it would be something
like this. Chapters 4 and 5 do, I think, tend to downplay the role of the circuit in
Methodist ecclesiology. Chapter 5 on episcopacy, perhaps some Methodist voices
would feel, does not give sufficient weight to the significance of the presidency with its
lay elements – normally lay, occasionally diaconal – but I do not think that is one of our
most consistent points, although there is some justification for it.
In chapter 5 on episkope and episcopacy it is stated clearly there that any decision that
might be made by the British Methodist Church will have to be made in its own way and
in its own time and, I would add, in its own cultural and social context and its own
historical narrative in part. I hope that that will come through, that that time can be
taken, and that it will not be overborne by some other aspects of the chapter.
The Methodist Conference’s decision last year was clear. The Methodist Church is not
ready to take a decision either way at the moment. That means that some progress that
might have been made is not yet possible.
262
11:40:27:11:08
Page 262
Page 263
Monday 7 July 2008
The key point that I want to make is that much is already possible in the relationship
between our Churches. The Anglican–Methodist Covenant has already been used to
push some of the boundaries of what we thought was possible, including on the
affirmation of ministries. It has been used already to create new opportunities.
Embracing the Covenant acknowledges some disappointments and voices blaming each
other for not taking the Covenant seriously enough, although always, of course, that is
an accusation made about others; it is not often enough a question we ask of ourselves.
If we work well with what is possible, if we live with this Covenant more seriously and
more deeply as time goes by, then the advantages of a relationship are seen and perhaps
then new ways to imagine and enact the relationship more fully will open up.
There is a recommendation that the second phase of the Joint Implementation
Commission should include monitoring the progress of the reception of these ideas.
These ideas are from all three reports. In the area I have been living in for nine or ten
months, we recently had a local joint circuit/deanery meeting. That meeting showed me
again how much very basic talking and sharing together is still necessary. The kind of
questions Methodists and Anglicans were asking of one another were still very basic.
Time, communication, learning together are key now, even more than substantial
reports in the early phase of the next phase of the Joint Implementation Commission, I
would suggest, if of course Synod support that part of the recommendation, which I
hope you will do.
Revd Canon Chris Lilley (Lincoln): I too am very grateful to the members of the Joint
Implementation Commission, who have done a huge amount of work over these past
five years. I warmly support the motion that is before us today. Members of Synod will
know that it is hard work; it does take time and patience but the goal of unity is worth it:
it is something that is very precious. I believe we have made great strides over these five
years. As time and distance will help us reflect on that, we have made progress.
I want to mention two particular things. First, in Lincoln diocese and the Lincoln–
Grimsby district, we now have a joint foundation course. It was started by the Anglican
diocese but then very largely re-written so as to make it a genuine shared resource. It
would have been better if we had started together, but so often we find with these things
that one denomination or the other has had the idea, moved ahead with it and then we
find we need to stop and re-think. It would be better at all levels – national, district,
diocese, deanery, circuit – if we can do our initial thinking together; it will help combat
some of these structural differences.
Our foundation course of 18 sessions then leads on to further training for those who are
felt suitable and are recognized as being called as pastoral visitors or worship leaders or
mission enablers, and we are doing it together. One of my parishes is an LEP in
formation and we have two dozen people from that parish currently working through
this course, which includes sessions learning about what it is to be Anglican and what it
is to be Methodist. It is difficult to say who benefited most from the sessions. I suspect
that the Anglicans learnt more about being Anglican than they had ever thought
263
11:40:27:11:08
Page 263
Page 264
Monday 7 July 2008
possible, and maybe the Methodists, too, but to learn about each other they had
vigorous and thoroughly enjoyable debates about these things.
We jointly recognize these ministries within our deanery and circuit. We authorize
people together and have a shared responsibility, whether we are ordained or my
colleagues in superintendent ministry, for those who are ministering as worship leaders
or pastoral visitors.
My second point is about many of the ideas of good practice, or suggestions of good
practice, that we have had in the reports. Some of them are good ideas that have worked
and continue to work, but it would be helpful if we could do some more work, more
analysis, on why they have worked, why they have perhaps worked in a particular
context but not in other situations. We can often learn more from why things have not
worked than from why they have.
We could also take good ideas that have not worked and why it is that if we hold a joint
diocesan synod and district synod we sometimes struggle, why it is that we have failed as
well as why we have succeeded. I think this piece of work would stand us in good stead
and it may possibly be something that the new JIC could commission: good ideas that
work and good ideas that have not worked and why.
Mrs Margaret Swinson (Liverpool): Madam Chair, I would like strongly to support the
motion and particularly to affirm and rejoice in the involvement of Anglicans from
Scotland and Wales in the ongoing process, and indeed to approve generally the makeup of the proposed next phase group.
The Council for Christian Unity has discussed the report in depth; it has spent time
considering how things should be taken forward and what should be taken forward. It
was strongly in support of what is proposed and the agenda set out in the report.
In addition to doing those things, I would like to pick up on the Bishop of Guildford’s
comments on lukewarmness. I think there is lukewarmness around but much of that
stems from two particular causes which have become apparent to me over time. The first
is that in my experience a number of churches, including my own, have very close
working relationships with their Methodist colleagues already, working relationships in
mission. To a certain degree the initial covenant process did not take them any further
than their daily and weekly experience of working with Methodists was already
displaying, so for them progress feels very slow. A number of the issues which they
would like to see addressed are issues which it is going to take some time for the
Churches, as it were institutionally, to catch up with. They are already pushing at the
boundaries at a local level and so to some degree they might not feel totally lukewarm
about this report because it is not going to affect what they do next week. That is not to
say that they do not support the whole object and aim behind the report; they do very
strongly.
264
11:40:27:11:08
Page 264
Page 265
Monday 7 July 2008
I hope that if we vote enthusiastically today we can start to tackle some of the issues that
are set out in the first part of the report and open up to those people areas which they do
not even know about yet in mission, things that they will be able to do and which will
show to the people who are already enthusiastic that there is yet more that they can do.
Certainly, from the point of view of the team which I worship in, that would be very
welcome, because we already have a very good relationship and do a lot of work,
particularly in the area of mission, with our Methodist church.
Others will be lukewarm because, frankly, they are lukewarm about anything that
involves anybody but themselves. We are not going to solve that with this and if we
think we are, we are deluded. We have to accept at the moment that there are people
who struggle to relate well to their Anglican colleagues, let alone colleagues from other
denominations. That is not an issue of any kind of churchmanship; it is an issue because
some churches are just like that and they are made up of people, and people are all
different.
I hope Synod will not allow their lack of enthusiasm to dampen our enthusiasm for
the way forward. I think we can be enthusiastic about this report. It sets out very
clearly the issues that still need to be addressed. I think it gives us a good platform for
going forward. I hope members will therefore be very enthusiastic today in their support
of it.
Revd Professor Paul Fiddes (Ecumenical Representatives, Baptist Union): In welcoming
this report, I would like to begin with a theological comment. A covenant is a special
relationship but it will, of course, open up the partners to relationships with others
rather than close them in upon themselves. The chapter of this report called ‘The unity
we have and the unity we seek’ makes this clear when it suggests that deeper
convergence in theology and practice leaves the door open for other Churches to
participate. It is as if fuller visible unity creates a kind of open space in which others can
live and work. So it is a gift to the whole Church and not just to the covenanters. This is
because human covenant making takes place within the eternal covenant between the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in God’s own life.
I would like to suggest that the gift is given the other way as well. Covenant, the report
observes, is not completed all at once. It is not a legal contract; it is a relationship that
unfolds gradually. Its whole meaning cannot be grasped at the beginning. Surely the
sharing of others in the relationship helps that learning experience by the partners?
Perhaps that is why on page 8 the report says that ‘One of the tests of all the work being
done . . . by the JIC . . . is this: how far and in what ways does the work we are doing
sustain and strengthen our other ecumenical relationships?’ That is a splendid question
to ask and in that spirit I want to turn for a moment to the chapter called ‘How can
decision-making be shared’, chapter 4. It is good and right that special attention be
given to join decision-making between the covenant partners, but this need not leave
other partners out.
265
11:40:27:11:08
Page 265
Page 266
Monday 7 July 2008
I would like to focus quickly on two areas mentioned in the chapter. One is the regional
training partnerships. I am happy to take the word of the report that there needs to be
closer co-operation between the Ministry Division and the Connexional Ministerial
Committee, but I hope that occasion will be taken to draw other partners into these
discussions before decisions are made about sharing resources. I am thinking especially
of the United Reformed Church and the Baptist Union, both of whom are formal
partners in theological education. In training for lay ministries there seems to be a whole
profusion of courses at the moment, with Churches being offered a colourful
kaleidoscope of opportunities. There needs to be more joined-up thinking in case the
spectrum becomes a blur.
A second area is the Christian voice in public affairs, 6.5. The report urges more cooperation between the Mission and Pubic Affairs Division in Church House and the
Methodist team; actually the Methodist team is an ecumenical one – the joint public
issues team in which the Methodist Church works closely with the Baptist Union and
the United Reformed Church. I know that all three members have found this
partnership invaluable in sharing expertise, preventing duplication of effort, speaking
with one voice in the public arena.
Recent issues have dealt with human embryology, climate change, ethical investment
and asylum seekers. It would be splendid if a renewed attention to the Covenant led to a
stronger common voice of the Church of England and the three Churches together in
our nation, and so certainly embracing the Covenant but also the Covenant’s embracing
of others.
The Bishop of Basingstoke (Rt Revd Trevor Willmott): As a teenager, and I am glad to
say I can still remember that part of my life, my newly given faith was both enthused and
challenged by the work of Michael Ramsey of blessed memory, and in particular that
encouragement he gave to our Churches to heal the Church Catholic. There was a
healing not just for the sake of the Church but in his judgement more importantly for
the sake of the world and because that healing lies at the heart of God himself.
I was struck therefore between our debate which began our Synod when we looked
again at the nature of the Holy Trinity and the debate we are now having this morning.
Why is it that in one I felt my heart strangely lifted by that whole sense of a relationship
with God in which we are invited to join for the sake of his world, and a slight sense of
sadness as I look at this report? It might be that it is just because this is a further stage in
a process and that such a stage is never as exciting as the first. I think the reality is
because we have lost sight of the purpose.
I want to give just one very brief picture of where my sadness lies. In my own area for the
past six years I have been part of a continual struggle to create a new constitution for an
ecumenical parish and congregation. It has been a struggle fraught with difficulty every
single moment, not for the people of God, for those who worship in that community are
actually clinging hold to faith literally by their fingernails in one of our most difficult
266
11:40:27:11:08
Page 266
Page 267
Monday 7 July 2008
areas of Basingstoke. It is not because of them; it is because of how they see the
Churches which they represent. Each time they have tried to get towards an
understanding, so they have seen what some have described as Anglican imperialism
rising yet again. It cannot be done because we do not recognize each other yet. The
community of Hatch Warren says to me this morning, and I have to say it to Synod,
‘When is “not yet” going to be “possibly”?’ If that is not the case, then I think the
vocation that Michael Ramsey sowed in my heart for the healing of the Church Catholic
remains something yet to be realized.
I welcome the report but I do hope that in what lies before us a coming back to the heart
of God to his healing for his world and for himself might drive us with a new energy for
the future.
The Archdeacon of Westmoreland and Furness (Ven. George Howe): I would like, if I
may, to take up some of the issues raised in chapters 3 and 4 of the report in regard to
local implementation of the Covenant. Although it is admitted that progress has been
slow in places, there has been some significant progress in others and it is vital that
momentum is not lost. We are on a continuing journey together. This report is about
reaching a milestone rather than our destination.
Let me take you briefly, if I may, to the village of Storth in that part of Cumbria close to
Morecambe Bay that is still loyal to the Red Rose of Lancashire. Two years ago I was
part of a procession from the small Anglican daughter church, the key of which had just
been turned in the lock of the door for the last time, up the main street to the larger and
better equipped Methodist church for the inauguration of what was to become known
simply as Storth Village church – one church united in mission and service to the whole
community.
We could travel on to Ambleside where the Methodist congregation took the brave step
of selling their building and putting the proceeds towards a £1 million project to build a
superb parish centre adjoining St Mary’s church, with whom they are now partners in a
shared building agreement. Both these mission-focused developments might have
happened without the national Covenant but the Covenant undoubtedly provided
impetus, encouragement and permission through its declarations and commitments to
take brave steps forward.
No doubt these stories could be replicated throughout the land, but I want to return
very briefly now to the matter raised in 6.1 of chapter 4 of the report on page 74. We
continue to use our different boundaries frankly as an excuse for lethargy in moving
forward together in mission. Despite the complexities, where there is a will, there is a
way. As the report goes on to remind us: both our denominations have recently renewed
efforts to put mission in the driving seat when it comes to issues of what we as Anglicans
call pastoral reorganization. In Cumbria I now sit on the Methodist district policy
committee. A reciprocal invitation has been extended to the Methodist Church to have a
seat at the table on our new mission and pastoral committees.
267
11:40:27:11:08
Page 267
Page 268
Monday 7 July 2008
If we are to be faithful to Our Lord, we can move forward in mission together only
in partnership with our fellow Christians. As the report makes clear, ecumenical
consultation and joint decision-making in this area must become the norm rather than
the exception that I fear it still is in many places at the moment. I do urge Synod to
support this motion.
Revd Andrew Watson (London): Peter and Kate had been going out for many years;
they knew almost everything about each other, every little foible and eccentricity.
They had met each other’s families and were generally accepted as an item. Some
years before they had very nearly got married but something had held them back;
they did not quite know what. The relationship had continued and most people
assumed it was just a blip, that it was only a matter of time before the wedding bells
would ring. Yes, there were still a few things to work through, but nothing of any
great significance. The only problem was a lack of will, a lack of enthusiasm and, yes,
a lack of passion.
I must admit that when I read this quinquennial report of the JIC, just as when Peter and
Kate, who were real people who came to see me and asked my advice, the bells I heard in
my head were not so much wedding bells as the distant sound of alarm bells. It is not
that there are insuperable obstacles between the Methodist Church and the Church of
England. It is not that the deanery of which I am area dean would fight tooth and nail to
avoid being identified with a circuit or that I for one would move over to Rome if the
non-alcoholic wine and carved-up bread of the Methodists were to be fully accepted as
normative.
My question is rather on the other side, the enthusiasm side, the passion side, especially
when it comes to the issue of a greater institutional unity. There are two references to
passion in the document. The first is in the title Embracing the Covenant. Now, that is a
passionate word. The second is in a remark at the bottom of page 85 that both our
Churches ‘long for’ a common ministry. Elsewhere, though, the language is all of
challenge, disappointment, struggle, tension and frustration.
The one thing that seems to keep the process going is the old ecumenical interpretation
of Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17.21 that we might be one so that the world may
believe, a prayer which is clearly true of our relationships as Christians generally, which
we desperately need to hear, but which seems to me to have very little relevance to some
moves to bring two institutions ever closer together. The recent story of the URC, sadly,
is not a story of the Bible breaking out.
Yes, of course, on the ground all kinds of exciting joint ventures can and should take
place involving Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, the
URC, the works. Yes, on the ground mutual respect and recognition and co-operation
are absolutely essential, but a growing institutional unity seems to many of us an old
ecumenical dream, a twentieth-century ambition, rather than one which stirs the hearts
of those who will make the twenty-first century their own.
268
11:40:27:11:08
Page 268
Page 269
Monday 7 July 2008
Peter and Kate were greatly relieved to be released from false expectations which were
not going anywhere much and to remain good friends. My gut feeling is that others
might be relieved too, maybe even members of the JIC itself, were we to give them
permission, yes, to carry on encouraging local initiatives, but to leave the institutional
questions behind.
On page 35 of the report we read that the JIC wonders ‘whether the churches have either
the energy or the will to adapt institutionally to each other in any significant way’. Let us
concur with that judgement this morning so that their energies and our energies can be
released in directions which are genuinely fruitful and life-giving.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I wish to speak to clause (c) of the motion and to the part
of the report which deals with the future shape of the Joint Implementation Commission
and the work that it is going to do. If it is going to grapple with questions of governance,
of the shape of the ministry, of the allocation of the resources, then the membership of
the Joint Implementation Commission and the other parts of the dynamic which will
achieve that need to reflect the whole Church. It is quite instructive to look at page 3 and
the current membership of the Joint Implementation Commission. It was my impression
that in the governance of the two Churches, in the ministry of the two Churches, in the
allocation of resources in the two Churches, the lay people played rather a significant
part. They do not seem to be significantly present in the membership of the Joint
Implementation Commission.
One of the reasons why there might be a gap between this work and the passion to
which the previous speaker referred may be that so much of this work, for reasons I
understand because of its technicality, is confined to those who are professionally
engaged.
I hope that, as this work goes forward and the meaning of clause (c) of our motion is
worked out, serious consideration will be given to involving lay people from both
Churches, lay people involved in the governance of ministering the allocation of
resources, so that we can get a real grip on our future life together for the whole of the
Church.
The Bishop of Blackburn (Rt Revd Nicholas Reade): Madam Chair, this is indeed, as
other speakers have said, a highly usable report, which deserves good study material to
promote as wide an engagement as possible, both among and between our two
Churches.
The report sets a real agenda for many levels of our Church’s life and certainly for those
of us in our part of the north-west, the Blackburn and North Lancashire district. The
work that our joint local implementation group has done gives us the opportunity to
follow through where we have been able to take the Covenant, I am pleased to say, a
small stage further on.
269
11:40:27:11:08
Page 269
Page 270
Monday 7 July 2008
While the report thankfully has not fallen into the familiar trap of contradicting a report
or agreement we have already made with other Churches, I do just wonder if we have
not neglected to refer to some of those agreements. For example, I am surprised that the
Anglican–Moravian Fetter Lane Common Statement is not mentioned in this document.
This was our first bilateral agreement with a Church in this country. The Moravian
Church has a special relationship in the history of both of our Churches and a distinctive
style of episcopal ministry.
I seem to recall that there is no mention of Anglican–Methodist dialogues in other parts
of the world. There is a world level and context in which this bilateral relationship is
developing, as indeed a previous Lambeth Conference has encouraged, so the call to do
some joined-up thinking is surely timely.
I would commend the section on the bilateral dialogues with the Roman Catholic
Church. The fruits of these two bilateral dialogues need to be held together and it is
good to see the references to the grace given you in Christ.
In the suggestion for continuing joint work on the diaconate, I wonder whether it would
be feasible or appropriate to include a representative number of Anglican deacons in the
March 2009 consultation.
I am very pleased that the importance of joint meetings of bishops’ staff and district
leadership teams is mentioned and the difference that that is making since the
implementation of the Covenant. We have found this valuable and we anticipate
developing the work further with our boards and advisory groups and corresponding
Methodist groups.
In the chapter on episkope and episcopacy, I think it was the Bishop of Guildford who
rightly said that we should not be pushing too hard on this. Nevertheless, there is quite a
substantial section of the report devoted to this. We cannot duck the fact that there is
certainly some need for greater clarity about what part, if any, it is anticipated that we
would play in a first ordination and consecration of a Methodist bishop. We surely
rejoice, do we not, that it is proposed that for Methodism it would be not only an
apostolic episcopate but a pioneer episcopate exploring fresh forms of episcopacy.
So a very warm welcome to Embracing the Covenant, which has picked up issues which
were not able to be developed much further during the drawing up of the Covenant, but
the first five years have rightly and necessarily, I believe, given those issues some
breathing space for development and opportunity to move on.
Dr Paula Gooder (Birmingham): I, like many people, want to commend this report and
to vote very strongly in favour of the motion.
This year I have learnt an important if slightly elementary lesson in gardening. We
became rather enthusiastic in our house and decided that the time had come to build a
270
11:40:27:11:08
Page 270
Page 271
Monday 7 July 2008
vegetable patch, and so out we went; we cleared the patch, all four of us together in
the garden, pulling out the weeds, making a beautiful vegetable patch and it looks, or
at least it did, beautiful. It was great. We sowed the seeds and sat back with huge
enthusiasm and waited. The problem, of course, is that sitting back and waiting is not
what is needed when you are gardening, as I am discovering to my cost. What needs
to happen is every night a little spot of weeding, a little spot of watering, plucking out
the slugs and throwing them in the next door neighbour’s garden, that kind of thing. It
is the general maintenance that actually gives you the ultimate fruit at the end of the
project. Sowing the seeds is not what is going to achieve the fruit at the end of the
summer.
I think my emotion when I was reading Embracing the Covenant is in a sense a little bit
like my emotion about the watering and the slug-removal and the weeding, which is that
it is necessary but not wildly exciting. Nevertheless, if we do not do it, we then will not
produce the fruits at the end of our season. It therefore feels very important both to
embrace the Covenant as this report notes but also to remember that the Joint
Implementation Commission are not the only people in charge of maintaining the
Covenant. We are all together charged with the maintenance.
Of course, the Joint Implementation Commission have to do the institutional and
structural reflections but all together we can work to try to maintain our garden sown
with seeds so that ultimately we might have the fruit at the end of our season for which
many of us yearn.
I would like to end with a very brief reflection on the chapter on episkope and
episcopacy. I heard very clearly and appropriately that now is not the time to press the
Methodists to think about personal episkope. Of course, there are two sides to the
episkope as referred to in the episkope chapter. There is personal episkope and
corporate episkope, which is the model taken by the Methodists. It may not be time for
us to press them to think about it but it might be time for them to press us to think a little
more about what we believe by corporate episkope. Personal episkope is essential to
Anglicanism, but I believe there are some lessons to be learnt about corporate episkope
from Methodism. It may be that in our conversation on learning together it is that kind
of maintenance that will produce fruit 30, 60 or 100 fold at the end of the season.
The Archdeacon of Chester (Ven. Donald Allister): I am enthusiastic about this
document and not least about the chapter ‘Calvinism and Arminianism’, which no one
since Bishop Ian has mentioned. I am thrilled that the two Churches and those working
together for them want to tackle a theological issue which has divided us and that they
are tackling it in an irenic spirit.
Two years ago, in 2006, I was invited to join two very different bodies: the Council for
Christian Unity and the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group. They have a
number of features in common. First, in both I have found new friendships and rejoiced
in that. Second, in both I have found a greater appreciation of other people and of their
271
11:40:27:11:08
Page 271
Page 272
Monday 7 July 2008
views. Third, in both I have found a growing description of myself as a loyal Anglican.
Fourth, in both I have seen how splits in Churches can occur and can be avoided.
In the chapter on Calvinism and Arminianism we find the Thirty-nine Articles, and
particularly Article XVII on predestination, presented as they should be understood, as
irenic theology not disputative, argumentative theology. Article XVII is presented as
encouraging us to glorify God, falling before him in wonder at his grace for sinners. It is
not presented as encouraging us to fall out with others on this or any other doctrine. We
are called to be one, to love one another.
This chapter on Calvinism and Arminianism encourages me to love theology and to
treasure unity. On those grounds I am very enthusiastic. This particular chapter is a
model of theological and historical analysis; it is full of ecumenical realism; and it has
the irenic and hopeful spirit which should characterize all our dealings with each other,
as well as with fellow Christians. Warmly and enthusiastically I commend it.
Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): I speak, Bishop of Guildford,
enthusiastically, as members of Synod have heard me say before, to embrace what I have
described as the completion of unfinished business. I think I am also the only surviving
member of General Synod to have served the full term on the JIC. It is work that I have
particularly enjoyed doing. Yet, this report is called the quinquennial report; it is not the
final report because this work has reached a milestone and, as I hope is obvious to
everybody, we have further to go. It is asking your support for the further work that
needs to be done that we bring this report to Synod today. I hope that Synod will receive
the report enthusiastically so that the work might continue.
I represented the JIC on two particular occasions in the last year to celebrate the
tercentenary of the death of Charles Wesley. We met in Westminster Abbey and we
heard Archbishop Rowan give us the most wonderful exposition of his sacramental
theology as we have it in the hymns. Methodists themselves say that if you want to
know what we believe, then look at the hymns: ‘we sing our faith’. There could be no
finer understanding of sacramental theology than we have in those great eucharistic
hymns which we as Anglicans also love to sing. We also went to the parish church of St
Marylebone on the Euston Road, where there is the grave, and Archbishop Rowan
celebrated a Eucharist for the two Churches.
I often think of John and Charles as a bit like Peter and Paul. There is plenty of evidence
to suggest that they did not always get on quite so well as tradition might suggest.
Indeed, we know that one brother was not that keen on the other’s choice of wife, for
example. Nonetheless, together surely we would say now that they formed a Fresh
Expression of Church then. We could not imagine such a separation taking place in the
Church of our own day.
So it is always the goal of ecumenical dialogue that there should be full visible
communion. It is that which we are working towards. You may remember the follow-on
272
11:40:27:11:08
Page 272
Page 273
Monday 7 July 2008
motion that we heard in the last Synod to tackle the issue of interchangeability of orders.
There is still further to go but in the chapter on episcopacy we have laid the groundwork
for that to take place. Of course, it involves the reception of episcopacy in the Methodist
Church. As we have also heard, it will take time and patience on both sides for that
process to take place, but the way of doing it has been worked out. It is a very exciting
development of episcopacy into this century.
As far as the diaconal order is concerned, I think there is a great deal that we could learn
from the Methodist understanding. The diaconate there is almost like a religious order
in its own right. We so often see the diaconate simply as an apprenticeship to the
presbyterate. We need, too, to develop a diaconal order that will remind the whole
Church of its call to service.
The work of interchangeability goes on and that is something, I think, that we can also
embrace enthusiastically. I very much hope that today we will receive this report and
encourage the work. It is a covenant. The JIC is simply there to do the spadework for the
Churches themselves to receive, which is what I hope we will do today.
Revd Canon Tony Walker (Southwell and Nottingham): I welcome this report not just
for what it contains but also for what it enables. Alongside the theology to which other
speakers have referred are some very practical suggestions for how Anglicans and
Methodists can actually work together to do mission and ministry more effectively. I
will come back to that in a moment.
I still remember vividly a desperately tedious meeting held in our local Methodist church
in late 2003 or early 2004. We had a speaker from somewhere; I cannot remember
whether he was Anglican or Methodist, but he had come to address a joint gathering of
Anglicans and Methodists about the newly published Covenant. We soon became
bogged down on issues about Calvinism and Arminianism that most of us were not at
all aware of before we went to that meeting. My heart sank. At this rate, I thought, the
Anglican–Methodist Covenant will be dead in the water. However, as a direct result of
the publication of the Anglican–Methodist Covenant, the deanery standing committee
and circuit leadership team made a covenant together and a commitment that we would
not just meet together regularly but also plan together regularly. We have held a joint
deanery/circuit mission led by our bishop and supported by the Methodist chairman.
Each year we hold a deanery and circuit service on a Sunday morning when we close all
the churches and chapels for one morning to give visible expression to our unity.
Perhaps most significant of all, we involve one another in all our appointments. The
Methodist superintendent is consulted about all the appointments that we make in the
deanery and I as area dean am involved in all their appointments. The jewel in our
Methodist–Anglican working together has been the appointment of a clergyman who is
both an Anglican team vicar and a Methodist circuit minister. He is paid for half-andhalf – half by the diocese and half by the circuit. He has been in post for 15 months now
and in his very person he is a visible sign of unity. It is not always easy. We Anglicans
273
11:40:27:11:08
Page 273
Page 274
Monday 7 July 2008
tend to complain that he spends more time being a Methodist and vice versa but, even
after 15 months, no one now would want to go back to the two Churches being entirely
separate. Even now we have sensed that the benefits outweigh the grumbles. This would
not have happened without the Covenant being there as the framework to enable us to
move forward and push the boundaries forward.
I mention the practical resources in Embracing the Covenant. As a regular subscriber to
Parish and People, I was very pleased to receive last year a copy of John Cole’s booklet
Deaneries and Circuits – Partners in Mission, which features as Appendix II in
Embracing the Covenant. I was delighted to discover that most of the things suggested
in that booklet we were doing already but there were still things that we could learn
from it in order to make our joint mission and ministry more effective; in particular, we
are moving towards the possibility outlined in Appendix II where the deanery and
circuit form a covenant partnership, a local ecumenical partnership to which all the
Churches in both deanery and circuit are committed. I would encourage parishes,
deanery standing committees and individuals to look closely at Appendix II and
Appendix III, the very practical bits of this report.
To my mind moving forward depends on two things in particular: developing
relationships between people and the permissory and encouraging framework provided
by the national Church. We do need to make sure that lay people are more fully involved
in the process. One of the strengths of this process has been the series of interim reports
produced by the JIC over the last few years. I hope the JIC will continue to produce
interim reports which will both keep the issues in front of us and provide practical and
creative examples to inspire us further.
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order. I beg to move:
The Bishop of Peterborough (Rt Revd Ian Cundy) in reply: Before I respond to the
debate, I would like to pay tribute to Peter Howdle and the other members of the JIC. It
has been a delight to work with them and we have genuinely become friends and, more
importantly, fellow disciples of Our Lord and have learnt a great deal from each other,
and it is lovely that Peter and others are here this morning.
As last year, I am very grateful to those who have reminded us of the joint work which
the Covenant has generated: the Bishop of Guildford, Chris Lilley, Jane Craske, George
Howe, the Bishop of Blackburn, Tony Walker and others.
It is very encouraging to us to hear that and to be aware that work is already going on as
a result of the work that we have done. One or two, however, have expressed a certain
sense of lukewarmness, and I am grateful to Margaret Swinson for her comments on
274
11:40:27:11:08
Page 274
Page 275
Monday 7 July 2008
that issue. I hope there is not a lack of passion in the JIC, but although Mrs Docherty
asks for a specific timeframe, we have become aware that we need to give each other
space so that we can genuinely move forward together and not allow some to rush
ahead, leaving others behind, to the detriment of the whole Church. Our emphasis
therefore has specifically not been on institutional ways of moving forward but on
working together, growing together those who have made a covenant to do so.
Dr Paul Fiddes very helpfully reminded us not just of theology but of the wider
ecumenical context and the importance of other ecumenical relationships. I would
entirely endorse that and would say that the work we did on joint decision-making does
not intend to leave others out but to ensure that we at least fulfil the commitment we
have made, as indeed we made it in things like the Fetter Lane Agreement that the
Bishop of Blackburn referred to, to work together towards more joint decision-making,
but we do so as a basis for a wider collaboration. I hope that the work we can do
together in that direction will have repercussions for others.
The Bishop of Basingstoke asked whether we had lost sight of our purpose; when is ‘not
yet’ going to be ‘possible’? Like him, I agree entirely that we need to take our energy
from the heart of God and Dr Fiddes’s comments about the Anglican/Orthodox report
are also relevant here.
I hope by working steadily towards our goal we can indeed, as I have already said, take
everyone with us and that the time when ‘not yet’ will be replaced by ‘yes, we can’ in
other areas than those to which we can already give that answer will not be far ahead.
George Howe raised the perennial issue of boundaries, and I would commend the
diocese of Carlisle for the work they have done in working together on that issue. It is a
structural issue and I have already said that we have not gone down the institutional
road, but it is a serious one. I see the chair of the new Dioceses Commission sitting not
far from you and I wish her well in her work and hope she might take notice of the issue.
Philip Giddings and others picked up section (c) of the motion and looked forward to
the next phase. I am grateful to them for doing so and also to Philip for reminding us of
the importance of the laity. I think he recognizes why we chose the team we did at this
stage, but I am sure the Appointments Committee and others will have heard what he
said.
The Bishop of Blackburn, as I have already indicated, referred to other agreements. I
would refer him to pages 11 and 12 of the report where we do actually make reference
to the work of international commissions and other commissions and welcome it and
appreciate the contribution it has made to our debate.
You ask whether we could include Anglican deacons in the future consultations about
the diaconate. Yes, of course we can and, like David Houlding, I think there is much to
learn from that conversation with each other, as I am sure there is in our conversations
275
11:40:27:11:08
Page 275
Page 276
Monday 7 July 2008
about personal episcopacy which Paula Gooder reminded us about. That chapter is
deliberately addressed to both Churches, not in one direction. I think we have much to
learn from the connexional structure of Methodism and the importance they give to
that.
Paul Allister referred to Calvinism and Methodism but uniquely, I think, he mentioned
our work on that. I am grateful to him for doing so and for reminding us of the irenic
theology of Anglicanism. I hope the ripples of that comment might go out to the next
conference that I am about to attend with a number of my colleagues in the front of the
hall.
In conclusion, let me say that this is a wide-ranging report but it is one that requires
action rather than an accumulation of dust. Ever since my childhood, when I sang in the
choir of the local Anglican church at which my father played the organ and then sat at
his feet as he led worship in the local Methodist chapels in north Dorset as a local
preacher accepted by the Methodists, even though he remained a firm Anglican, as he
reminded them so was their founder, I have longed to see this rift healed. I hope that in
my lifetime that will be possible. That may not now be realistic, for reasons you know
well. I want to say to you that our progress towards that goal depends on you as much
as on the JIC. Go back to your dioceses and I hope you will make real progress and
enthusiastic progress towards that goal.
We have asked Bishop’s Councils to monitor that progress and report back to CCU. I
hope they will take that seriously and really ensure that the Covenant makes a difference
in our local church lives in a whole variety of ways, in addition to the difference it has
already made. As Paula Gooder said, do not just sit back and wait but go and nurture
the plant, weed the garden and ensure that this plant really grows and makes a real
difference to all our lives.
THE CHAIR the Archdeacon of Colchester (Ven. Annette Cooper) took the Chair at
11.02 a.m.
The Chairman: Mr Jonathan Redden has asked for this item to be debated.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer) I beg to move:
‘That the Parochial Fees Order 2008 be approved.’
276
11:40:27:11:08
Page 276
Page 277
Monday 7 July 2008
It is my duty as Chair of the Archbishops’ Council’s Deployment Remuneration and
Conditions of Service Committee to introduce the debate on parochial fees. I understand
that Jonathan Redden has requested a debate because he feels that the Fees Order
should be debated each year, and I am grateful to him for his concern about something
which will affect many people in 2009.
Marriage and funeral services are a vital part of our mission and ministry. They are one
of the main channels for our pastoral care to reach those who may not otherwise have
much contact with the Church. They are also an important source of income and in
2005 they contributed over £16 million towards the cost of paying stipends.
I believe that the Church should feel confident in the value of the services it has to
offer and should not be embarrassed about requiring a contribution towards the
provision of ministry in the form of a legally payable fee. The recommended general
increase in fees of 3 per cent is in line with the recommended increase in stipends for
2009 and was acceptable to the majority of the interested parties that we consulted
about the increase.
DRACSC felt that, because this year there is a wider-ranging debate on issues relating
to fees, an inflation-only general increase was appropriate this year so as not to appear
to pre-judge in any way the ongoing development of that debate.
I therefore ask the Synod to consider the draft Order providing for these increases of
3 per cent in parochial fees.
The Chairman: This item is now open for debate. I see no one standing and therefore
I put to Synod this item.
THE CHAIR The Bishop of Dover (Rt Revd Stephen Venner) took the Chair at
11.05 a.m.
Mrs Vivienne Goddard (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Are we at all
quorate?
The Chairman: What an interesting question! I was asking that myself. We will discover
whether we are. You will require your electronic gizmos.
The Bishop of Winchester (Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt): On a point of order, Mr
Chairman. Is it not possible to count? Thirteen bishops are either here or they are not
here.
The Chairman: It is not just the House of Bishops. I have just been having a
conversation as to whether I exist or not, and I am told that I do!
277
11:40:27:11:08
Page 277
Page 278
Monday 7 July 2008
Having counted, it appears that we are quorate in each House, but thank you for
asking.
Diocesan Synod Motion
Faith, Work and Economic Life (GS Misc 890A and B)
Mr Simon Baynes (St Albans): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod:
(a) affirm daily work as essentially a spiritual activity;
(b) recognize the importance of Christian values within economic life;
and
(c) request the Mission and Public Affairs Council to examine the
engagement of the Church of England with the economic sector in
this country and to present its findings to Synod.’
This morning, St Albans brings before Synod a motion that began its journey a long time
ago. It is my privilege on behalf of the diocese to present this motion and I ask for
Synod’s wholehearted support.
I should first like to pay tribute to the large number of people who have worked to reach
the point where we are today. In particular, to Revd Randell Moll, who retired at
Christmas after many years in workplace ministry. He worked in Hull, Liverpool and
the Black Country before coming to St Albans. It is largely through his inspiration that
we are holding this debate. He was the lead author of GS Misc 890A, which sets out so
well what this whole debate is about; also to Dr Philip Giddings and the Mission and
Public Affairs Council for their response in background paper GS Misc 890B, and to
Bishop Christopher for his wisdom and counsel. Bishop Christopher has given us much
encouragement as we have steered this motion through diocesan synod to this debate.
The motion this morning has evolved somewhat from a motion about workplace
ministry. Workplace ministry and industrial missions are important, whether they are
clergy-led or lay, Anglican or ecumenical. Today, however, we are talking about much
more than these. We are talking about much more than the work of industrial chaplains
or retail chaplains in our shopping centres.
For all of us, the well-being of the economy reflects directly on our own well-being and
on our security. In the current economic climate this is clearer than ever. For everyone,
the well-being of the economic sector has an impact; an economic impact, yes, but also a
spiritual impact. Our well-being, our spiritual well-being for us as a society, should be
for us, as Christians, of the greatest importance.
278
11:40:27:11:08
Page 278
Page 279
Monday 7 July 2008
The first clause of the motion is quite bold and deliberately so. We are affirming that
daily work is essentially a spiritual activity. As we say in GS Misc 890A, the great issues
of our time are overshadowed by global economics and we, as a Church, must engage.
Whatever our walk of life, when we set off to work we are setting off to do God’s work.
Our work is for God.
Many members of Synod will from time to time have pondered on all those who appear
to be Christians only on Sundays or at our major festivals. Indeed, we are right to
ponder, because what we see is at odds with the 42 million, or 72 per cent, of the British
population who declared on their last census form that they were Christian. How can
they, or we, be Christians only at major festivals? How can they, or we, be Christians
only on Sundays? How can anyone switch off a genuine faith as they enter the office,
factory or shop? No. We are Christians 24/7 and the Spirit is with us throughout our
daily work. It follows that work is a spiritual activity and that Christian values should
be central to our work. If we believe that Christ is everywhere and in our midst, then
surely he is in the workplace? He is at the heart of the workplace. Christ is at the hub of
our economy.
The second clause of the motion has as its focus the importance of Christian values
within economic life. Many organizations have lists of values. Some list them, frame
them and hang them round their premises. When companies and financial institutions
list the values and mission statements that they espouse, there can be none more
important than Christian values and ethics.
Many of the values that are listed are good; indeed, they are often very good. Some can
be close to Christian values. All too often, however, they are not Christian values: they
are too often secular, politically correct values, which have been carefully crafted to
meet the requirements of the ‘corporate branding police’. While political correctness has
its place, we are seeing political correctness to the point where we have done away with
Christianity in the workplace. Sometimes it is blatant and sometimes it is more subtle,
such as the ‘staff party’ replacing the ‘Christmas party’. While we are on the subject of
Christmas, being PC means that we are sent corporate Christmas cards with every
possible seasonal greeting except a Christmas greeting. This highlights why we need the
economic sector to re-engage, not to disengage.
True Christian values are important because it is through these values that Christ will be
found at the heart of the workplace. I say ‘true’ because there are false values out there.
Look no further than the BNP’s recent election broadcast. Among their six foundation
stones, one of them claims to stand for a ‘traditional Christian identity’. Theirs is an
identity which is neither Christian nor traditional.
Christ’s teaching was deeply involved with the economic sector. In so many of his
parables he mentioned work, workers or money. He did this so that we would relate to
the story. Christ was, after all, brought up in an industrial environment. OK, a cottage
industry where Dad was a carpenter, but you get the drift. He did not want us to turn
279
11:40:27:11:08
Page 279
Page 280
Monday 7 July 2008
off our faith as we boarded the bus to work. He did not want us to turn off our faith at
the factory gate. He did not want us to turn off our faith at the office entrance, on the
farm, or in the call centre. These economic parables tell us something about the
importance of the economy to him.
Robert Atwell, who was consecrated as the Bishop of Stockport just 13 days ago, said
when Downing Street announced his appointment that he wanted the Church to be ‘at
the heart of the community, not at the periphery’. Perhaps I may extend what he said.
The Church must be at the heart of all our communities, including our work and the
economy. In our work, the Church must be at the heart of what goes on, not at the
periphery.
In bringing this motion to Synod, our motivation is not and has never been to bash
business. Our motivation is not about megaphone evangelism in the works canteen. It is
about harnessing the power of Christ, who is already in the workplace. It is about
changing hearts and minds and recognizing the right values for the economy: values that
have no time for bullying; values that allow for compassion amongst commercialism;
and many more values. I hope that we shall hear more on these as the debate progresses.
The second clause of the motion talks of Christian values within economic life. Having
originally trained as a software engineer, let me tell you about one particular aspect of
our industry and how it has changed. In the 1960s and 1970s it was commonplace for
engineering firms to have a quality department that was completely separated from
design and production. The team responsible for quality met once a week in a faraway
conference room; that is how we handled quality. Now, quality issues are regarded as
too important to be treated like this. Now, quality assurance and quality control run
through everything we do like ‘Brighton’ runs through a stick of rock. In the same way,
we do not want God as an add-on, restricted to a closed lunchtime meeting of the
Christian Union in a faraway conference room. We must strive for Christian values to
run through economic life, like that piece of Brighton rock.
To recap, if we approve this motion this morning, we shall be affirming that daily work
is essentially a spiritual activity and we shall be recognizing the importance of Christian
values within economic life. However, that is not enough. We need to go further, which
is why Synod is also being asked to support the third clause.
We are asking that the Mission and Public Affairs Council examine the engagement of
the Church of England with the economic sector in this country and to present its
findings to Synod. I have no doubt that their report will raise national awareness and
will be awaited with great interest. I look forward to that and to the rest of this
morning’s debate.
Revd Canon Jane Fraser (Worcester): I am a minister in secular employment, working as
a trainer and consultant in the field of sexuality and relationships. I also develop and
market sex education resources. Not surprisingly, my role has on occasion been
280
11:40:27:11:08
Page 280
Page 281
Monday 7 July 2008
misheard as ‘minister in sex employment’. I beg to reassure you that I am not a
prostitute!
Needless to say, I welcome this motion as a timely reminder that, in an increasingly
secular world, we must lay greater emphasis on a Christian presence in and affirmation
of the world of work. This, after all, is where the majority of people, whether
churchgoers or not, spend most of their time and encounter issues of justice, economic
and moral values and conflict – to name just a few topics about which we, as Christians,
are called to speak out in the name of the gospel.
It saddens me that I do not know of another priest with a similar ministry to mine.
Surely, in a society such as ours, which appears so obsessed with sex, the Church has a
need to engage in the field of sex education? My very presence as a priest working
alongside other sex educators sends a message that we believe our sexuality is God-given
and good; to be valued, nurtured, guided, and protected from trivialization,
exploitation or abuse.
I do not need to preach this at work. It is axiomatic in what I do and how I do it. It sends
out a profound message to those I train and work alongside that you do not have to
leave God behind when you go to work. It enables people to relate their faith to their
work and how they do it.
There are so many ethical or faith issues related to this field of work: under-age sex;
abortion; teenage pregnancy; gender; sexual orientation; sex workers; sex abuse – to
name just a few. I constantly encounter people who feel alienated from the Church
because of how they perceive the Church might judge their relationships; so I find myself
in the role of reconciling people to the Church and the Church to people’s lived lives.
I urge the Mission and Public Affairs Council to consider ways in which each diocese
might be encouraged actively to foster vocations in work-based ministry such as mine.
Mr Chris Pye (Liverpool): For me, the relationship between my God, my faith and my
work has always been a relatively simple one. It suits me; I am a simple person. The
relationship with the Church, however, has at times been complex and strained.
My calling has been to be a Christian, working in a secular society; to have that most
basic and essential ministry of a Christian: to be a witness and to be there for Christ and
for other people. Not to be a Bible-basher or a moral judge, but to be there to listen to
and to bear witness to the gospel, and not just in what I did or did not do, say or read.
Bible-bashing was not my style; but it was simple things, like the card that I would send
to colleagues at Christmas was different because it had a truly Christian Christmas
message.
What I did at work was not merely for the company that I worked for, but an important
part of my service to God; to do things to his honour and glory to the best of my ability.
281
11:40:27:11:08
Page 281
Page 282
Monday 7 July 2008
It was an important part of being a Reader. When he was at Liverpool, Bishop John
Packer signed my licence and gave it to me for a certain part of St Helens. I interpreted
that licence somewhat laterally and used it in other parts of the country, wherever my
company had an employee.
I worked in the glass industry, which is 24/7, 365 days a year. I worked first in various
parts of R&D and finally as a specialist in the health, safety and environment area.
Weekends, bank holidays, Sundays – the lot. Long, unsocial hours were par for the
course. Sermons and articles about your Christian duty to be in Church every Sunday
morning did not help. My first duty is to my calling from God. Time does not allow me
to explain but, very often, it is safer for more people if you do the high-risk activities on
a Sunday or a bank holiday when there are fewer people around. We need to take our
day off, our day of rest, our time for recreation and worship, but it need not necessarily
be on a Sunday.
We are having a downturn in the economy and that means job losses. There is only one
word that describes a redundancy situation and that is ‘evil’. People’s characters change;
friends become bitter and antagonistic to each other; people age overnight. There are
tensions of unimaginable kinds in relationships, and that includes marriage and family
relationships.
I urge members of Synod that when in that situation, not to let people hear platitudes
about ‘God will provide’. Just be there, support them, pray for them – but be with them.
You may find that they are not at Church that often for a little while, but be ready for
when they have overcome and adjusted their faith and their lives to that evil that has
entered it, and have grown and matured. Working as a witness, as a Christian, is
essential: it is not second-best, because it is God’s calling – and God’s calling is God’s
calling.
Finally, some members of Synod may be looking forward to what our Free Church
friends say is being ‘called home’. You may look longingly at some of the descriptions of
heaven given in the book of Revelation. Having spent many an hour next to a sea of
glass, I can assure you that we all serve a God who has a sense of humour!
The Chairman: We call people making maiden speeches, members of Synod, and I am
not quite sure what the word is for a final speech in Synod, but we are about to be
treated to one from the Bishop of St Albans.
The Bishop of St Albans (Rt Revd Christopher Herbert): It may be a final speech,
Chairman, but I may be tempted to get up a second time a bit later on, on another
occasion!
Members of Synod will not be entirely surprised to find that I entirely and completely
support the motion proposed by Simon Baynes, coming here in the name of St Albans
diocese and with its blessing. However, I support it for two further reasons.
282
11:40:27:11:08
Page 282
Page 283
Monday 7 July 2008
First, if members look carefully at the agenda for this group of sessions of General
Synod and do a few mathematical calculations, as I have, they will see that we have
spent, and shall spend, approximately 90 per cent of our time in this chamber looking at
and debating internal ecclesiastical issues. We have spent, and shall spend,
approximately 10 per cent of our time considering those moral and social issues that
challenge the nation. Let me repeat that: 90 per cent of our time on internal Church
matters; 10 per cent on the outward-facing. Was it any wonder that we had to try to
discern whether or not we were quorate? We should be ashamed.
I recognize, of course, that those internal matters and legislative business are important.
Any organization that fails to honour its back office functions and any organization
that fails to ensure that those functions are efficient will soon come a cropper; and of
course I recognize the major theological issues with which we grapple. Nevertheless,
please remember the figures: 90 per cent inward-facing; 10 per cent outward-facing. I
believe that is a balance which is profoundly out of kilter and one that I hope and pray
the Archbishops’ Council and the Business Committee will want to address in the
future.
When we were commanded by Our Lord to go out into the world, I am not convinced
that he had synodical structures and synodical business uppermost in his mind when he
said it. I therefore support this proposal because it is outward-facing and, as Simon
Baynes has rightly said, because it is timely.
I support it secondly because it has very significant ethical implications. If I could gaze
into the future, now that I am coming to the end of my time in Synod, and say what I
think the major ethical challenges facing our country might be over the next decade,
they would include euthanasia. It will be back and, if you want to make some money, go
to Ladbroke’s and put a tenner at 100:1 to say that it will be back in the autumn. The
second ethical issue is stem cell research and human fertilization. The third ethical issue,
which thanks to the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Liverpool, Charles Reed and
others, we are now beginning to deal with, is climate change. Fourth, the inevitable
rationing of health care via the NHS at a time when our population is ageing rapidly.
Next, as Anna Thomas-Betts has rightly reminded us, ethical issues surrounding human
migration and dislocation, and patterns of family breakdown. To that list, as Gavin
Oldham very courteously reminded us a couple of days ago, I also would want to add
moral and ethical issues within the structures and operations of the national, European
and global economy.
This motion calls us not only to acknowledge the remarkable work carried out by
chaplains in workplace ministry but also asks us as a Church to reflect upon and engage
with the economic life of our country. There is a deficit in medical ethical thinking in our
country. In the same way there is a deficit in economic ethical thinking: plenty of voices
that talk ceaselessly about determinism but few voices that ask what the virtues are of
economic activity; plenty of voices offering sophistry about hedge funds and sovereign
wealth funds but few voices asking ethical questions about what happens to winners
283
11:40:27:11:08
Page 283
Page 284
Monday 7 July 2008
and losers; plenty of voices berating the regulators and the banking sector but few
voices talking about the underlying virtues of honesty, trust, fairness, modesty and
contract, without which any bank and any economy is bound sooner or later to
collapse.
I believe that we have a great opportunity in our Synod and in our Church to provide a
platform in which ethical issues in economics can be engaged with by many people in
work and in the banking and finance sector, who are already grappling with them but
looking for allies to help shape a language and a framework which could have a
liberating effect on ourselves and on our Church.
Christ nourishes us with word, with sacrament, with fellowship and prayer in our
Church, and he is also out in the marketplace. He is calling us, I believe, to join us there
and let his voice of reconciliation and truth and love and goodness be heard.
Mr David Hawkins (Worcester): I want to talk about stress, because sometimes I think
that the Church can so easily generalize about the workplace. I sit on PCCs, deanery
synods and diocesan synods, where the great majority of laypeople are long since
retired. My involvement with industrial mission as a bishop’s appointee is very
important for me to keep in touch with the world of industry that I spent my working
life involved with, running three factories – in the Black Country, Gloucester and
Worcester.
I want to tell you a story. When I was on my deanery synod in Pershore, I had a phone
call at six o’clock one evening from a dear friend of mine who happened to be the
managing director in the Midlands of GKN. He rang me and was quietly sobbing. He
said, ‘If I am late for the synod’ – by the way, he was chairman of the synod – ‘would
you mind taking over?’ I said, ‘No. When will you come?’ and he said, ‘I will try to get
there as soon as I can’. He was a very dapper man, very authoritative but quiet, and a
very profound Christian. I asked, ‘What is the matter?’; ‘I had to sack 11,000 people this
morning’.
The three of us had set up a debate with the chief co-ordinating steward at Longbridge.
He arrived on time and I took the chair. He was an avuncular man, a Methodist – you
know, the dirty tweed jacket with the leather patches – and everybody immediately fell
for his charm and his grace. I explained the situation that we were in. Roy did turn up at
half-time, looking an absolutely broken man. The two men just embraced one another.
This was 25 years ago, when the newspapers took delight in seeing differences between
management and the workers – a term that we do not use nowadays, do we?
I quote that example, which haunts me almost every day when I see the glib discussions
that take place in Church circles when we talk about ethics. I would like to say that a lot
of us in the Midlands never earned any more money in management than our senior
employee. That is very much a Quaker ethos that goes back to the Cadburys, the Frys
and the Rowntrees in this city.
284
11:40:27:11:08
Page 284
Page 285
Monday 7 July 2008
It is not about money, therefore; it is about doing what God is asking us to do – or,
rather, forcing us to do. This implies a certain amount of arrogance, but there is
something more important. It is the next stage down: it is the paucity of middle
management in Britain. It has got a lot better in recent years, but it is relatively poor
compared with our American and continental cousins. We have learnt a lot from our
Japanese cousins, whose factories are successful.
What is it in the English that cannot cope with the working man? We have to ask
ourselves as churchpeople whether this has anything to do with our not relating to
people who are – and I will use the words – working-class. I know that we are all
working-class, but somehow some of us get our hands dirtier than others. You know
what I mean.
Stress in the workplace is not just in the metal-bashing companies that I was involved
with and in the joinery business: it is in the City of London. I have another story. A
friend of mine – I am his godfather – lost his job. He had returned from South Africa, got
an extremely good job in the City and was told one day that he was not wanted: so much
for employment law. His wife was then living back in Lincolnshire with her mother. His
grandmother died and left him quite a lot of money, but he had lived for two years in the
boiler room of an office block just off Throgmorton Street. He lived a lie. My godson is a
broken man. His marriage is ended. He was in a workplace where there was plain
brutality – and I have seen that so much recently in the City of London. Do not be
envious of that place.
Finally, this comes down to education. Is it not terrible how most of us here are so
ambitious for our children that we never consider if they are going to be happy in their
places of work? This is something that we, as Christians, need to look at. All men and
women should be treated equally, wherever they are. However, I do beg Synod to be
careful of that stress.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): I am very grateful to the Bishop of St Albans for pointing out
what I regard as an institutional bias in our Church: an institutional bias against
encouraging and enabling us all to live out our faith in our daily work. It is part of the
evil we live in that, somehow, we get so involved in our ‘churchy’ activities – whether it
is here at Synod or in our parish churches – that we are disempowered and disabled
from encouraging those who have daily work to live out their faith there.
Let me illustrate this with a simple example, which I have mentioned twice before in
Synod. Ordinations are an iconic moment in our life. They are a time when we affirm,
reveal and express what our ministry is all about, and where there is not only a lot of us
there but also an awful lot of people who do not normally go to church.
At the last two ordinations I have been to, among the people being ordained were those
who have been continuing in their secular career, and yet no mention has been made of it
in the service. In the last ordination I was at, there were wonderful, five-line profiles of
285
11:40:27:11:08
Page 285
Page 286
Monday 7 July 2008
each of the candidates for ordination. In two of those, the candidates described how
their ordination would enhance their ministry in their daily work, yet it was still not
mentioned. When I was talking to an ordinary parishioner afterwards, saying how
wonderful and spirit-filled the ordination was, which we both agreed, I mentioned this
point. She said that she had not even noticed in those profiles that they were continuing
their ministry in their secular work. That shows the bias and the problem that we have.
Not only have I worked for the last 40 years in the coal industry, the last 25 as an
ordained minister in secular employment, but also for the last six years I have been the
priest-in-charge of a parish; so I know the tensions that there are there. It is extremely
difficult, with all the other things that parish priests are expected to do, to remember
that daily work is what most of us are all about. We need to work very hard, therefore,
to redress that bias.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the vision statement of CHRISM. It is something that
we could perhaps put up in our vestries or offices to encourage us to think more clearly.
It is this: ‘To help ourselves and others to celebrate the presence of God and the holiness
of life in our work, and to see and tell the Christian story there.’ Ministers in secular
employment, workplace chaplains, and lots of lay Christians of all sorts, do their utmost
to do that.
For us, therefore, it is our duty and in fact our joy to encourage them and to help them.
We do that by getting it on to the agenda of house groups or establishing a special house
group; by having working people’s breakfasts; by having, as we do in our church, a
working people’s lunch every week in the middle of the working day, when people can
come and discuss some aspect of faith and work or faith and economic life. It is
amazing. I thought that we would run out of topics fairly quickly but, every time we
come and talk, we generate three more topics. The issues that face us never end.
I urge Synod not only to support this motion but also to support the amendment at Item
65, which is much more focused than the original clause (c) of the motion about what
the Mission and Public Affairs Council can do about it, and therefore what we can all do
about it. I would urge Synod to vote against Item 62, where the proposer of that
amendment wants us to talk about ‘our attitude to much daily work’. All daily work is
essentially spiritual. Some of it is very negative, but it is spiritually wrong not spiritually
right; and it is not our attitude: it is a reality.
Mrs Christina Rees (St Albans): I strongly support the motion that has come from our
diocese. I speak in this debate as a trustee of the Christian Association of Business
Executives (CABE), one of the many overtly Christian-spirit-at-work organizations that
there are in existence. I certainly commend looking at the other organizations that exist:
there is so much going on in this area. By the way, CABE celebrates its 70th year this
year. It has gone through many transformations and it is trying to broaden out its base,
to reach different types of people, and works most specifically on Christian values in the
workplace.
286
11:40:27:11:08
Page 286
Page 287
Monday 7 July 2008
I want to bring Synod two examples of people who are working, one of them in the
extreme culture of overwork. David talked earlier about stress and I would like to refer
to the Docklands chaplaincy. Revd Dr Fiona Stewart-Darling is chaplain to Canary
Wharf, among the 100,000 people there and, as well as the CEOs of the banks and so
on, the 1,000 construction workers, 450 security staff and 250 retail outlets. She is
chaplain for everyone and her days are extremely varied. She could be in the boardroom
of one of the top international banks or investment companies, and then sitting in a
Portakabin, wearing a hard hat, with someone whose life has fallen apart. Her work
there is absolutely vital. It is one of the initiatives in the diocese of London. It has been
going for four years and, in less than a year, that post will have to be self-supporting. I
would like to think that we could encourage the continuing support of that chaplaincy
in that extraordinary place: a place of extreme overwork, affluence and opportunity.
I would like now to go to our own diocese of St Albans, to Watford and to the Revd Pam
Wise, who ministers in an area that is characterized almost exclusively by
‘worklessness’. To hear Pam Wise talk about the people in her parish and what not
having work does to their lives is incredibly sobering and upsetting. People who would
like to work but who, because of disability, chronic ill-health, mental problems or
learning disabilities, are not given jobs; and those who do have jobs barely make the
minimum wage; it is tantamount to slave labour.
She told me a story of a young man who was illiterate but got a job in a charity,
delivering parcels. People were told that he could just about read print but he could not
read joined-up writing. She found him in tears because label after label kept on being
addressed in joined-up writing, and he could not deliver the parcels. Something so
simple and yet this young man could hardly cope.
There are the effects of worklessness on mental health, as I have said, but also the idea
that our work actually contributes and shapes our identity; it determines where we live,
how we live, what clothes we wear, our health, our well-being. To take that away is to
deprive someone of something very basic, as well as any sense of honour or pride in their
own lives.
What I would want to say is, yes, let us go with this and all that Simon Baynes has said,
and all the other speakers who have contributed, but let us not over-spiritualize our
insistence that work is a spiritual activity, because that can send us in only one direction.
Be aware that some people are left with nothing and are bereft without work, while
others are being broken by overwork. What can we do as a Church to help somehow in
this world of extremes? Where is the Good News in that? What can we say to all those
people?
Revd Canon Professor Anthony Thiselton (Southwell and Nottingham): I beg to move
as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (a) after “affirm” insert “our attitude to much”.’
287
11:40:27:11:08
Page 287
Page 288
Monday 7 July 2008
One or two speakers may not believe this, but I am wholly in sympathy with the motion.
I agree with everything that the Bishop of St Albans has said, everything that Christina
has said, and all but one sentence of what Mr Baynes has said.
I have been ordained 48 years but most of my ministry, more than 95 per cent of it, has
been in the university and, with the Bishop of Rochester, I have served on the Human
Fertilization and Embryology Authority. I therefore agree that these issues are terribly
important, but so is what has been said about stress, middle management and
redundancy.
The point is not that it is work itself that is spiritual rather than our attitude to it, and it
is much work rather than all work that is spiritual. Let me suggest an analogy. In our
recent Doctrine Commission report we spent a long time talking about money and we
came out with the conclusion that money is not the problem, it is value-neutral; we are
the problem. It is not money that defines us theologically; it is our attitude and desires
towards money. It is a simple generality to blame work itself. It depends on what kind of
work, whether we regard it as a vocation, and what it does for us.
Second, not all work is spiritual. Some we have heard about: middle management and
what people do on boards of companies. Much work is done out of sheer greed or to
exploit others or to promote dishonesty.
The motion is good but it is too sweeping and too exaggerated. I was amazed to hear all
the advice that has been given about it. It is theologically simplistic: it is right but it is
simplistic. The background paper could have drawn on a rich variety of books and
experiences of theology and work: Alan Richardson’s The Biblical Doctrine of Work,
and many others that I have not time to mention. However, the first article by Professor
Bertram that I read begins, ‘Labour as a curse; labour as sin and vanity’, because it does
not always give what it promises. Work as illusory achievement, in Hellenistic Judaism;
Paul’s contrast as between faith as a gift and work as a reward; divinely appointed tasks,
and so on.
Of course, there are also positive views of work. We are made in the image of God and
reflect God’s work of creation and being creative – and it is honourable. Indeed,
Professor Richardson says that in his book. Although I admire Professor Richardson
enormously as a Nottingham professor, he does say ‘Work – see laity’ in his Dictionary
of Christian Theology. I do not know what that says about clergy!
The Bible speaks with many different voices about work, and the Reformers stressed
again and again that it is an everyday vocation, both for ordained and lay. We must
avoid thinking of all work as something which is automatically good. It can be for selfaggrandizement, and it depends on what it is that God is calling us to do.
I therefore stand by my amendment. I agree with all but one of the speakers that this is
such an important subject, and we are greatly indebted to the Bishop of St Albans and
288
11:40:27:11:08
Page 288
Page 289
Monday 7 July 2008
others. However, let us not just commend all work, whether it gives stress, whether it is
greedy, whether it is for desire; let us commend the work that ordained and lay do and
the vocational attitude towards work. We can achieve all that the motion intends, but
with a little more theological accuracy.
Mr Simon Baynes: The professor is a theologian of such experience. I knew that he had a
very long track record but I did not know when he began his ministry; I have now
discovered that it was when I was only two!
He made some excellent points and I am glad that he thinks this is such an important
subject. We are happy to accept his amendment.
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu): I too want to support this amendment and
I am glad that the mover of the motion has accepted it.
My mother had a wonderful motto outside our kitchen. It said, ‘Divine service offered
here three times a day’. It had to be, because she was married to a man; she had 13
children and a large extended family – so it could only be divine service. I grew up as a
child seeing that, whenever my mother was cooking any meal, prayer preceded her
cooking. That is the kind of tradition I was raised in.
Divine work can be quite wonderful. I think that we now have a dangerous paradigm
that has separated the sacred from the secular, when, from the Christian tradition, all
life is religious; all life has a God reference to it. Therefore, to talk about work and
separating it from ‘it must be spiritual’ seems to suggest going down a very dangerous
road.
Adam was told to care for the earth, standing in for God. All of us are people who are
standing in for God. Paul clearly says, ‘Whatever you do, do it to the glory of God’. I do
not believe that all work leads to the glory of God. Prostitutes are called ‘working
women’. I do not think that gives glory to God. Some of them are in great difficulty and
the Church should try to help some of those who are in that kind of work.
I do not think that forced labour is to the glory of God. Again, it has lost its sense of
freedom and creativity. Also, if work is not just, I do not believe that it leads to the glory
of God. For me, everything needs to be equitable; it needs to be up-building; it needs to
be increasing the work of their imagination and of their creativity, and knowing that
they are standing in for God.
I am very grateful that the professor has moved this amendment, in order to correct a
suggestion that all things are wonderful. Things that demean people, whatever the
workplace is, cannot always be to the glory of God. In the end, whoever is doing the
work must be worthy of their wages. If they are being paid peanuts, I do not think that is
fair. For me, this balance of bringing back both God and people who are working as
289
11:40:27:11:08
Page 289
Page 290
Monday 7 July 2008
standing in for him – and that, whatever they are doing, they are doing it to the glory of
God – in the end, enhances people.
As to the word ‘spiritual’, people may think that, for example, when I eat a sausage I am
having a spiritual experience. I am not so sure where that is going. I am grateful to the
professor, but he could probably have been stronger and taken out the word ‘spiritual’
because I believe that all work that is fair, just, equitable, and done in the name of God,
builds up the person and builds up the community. I therefore support the amendment.
Mrs Alison Wynne (Blackburn): I would like to speak against this amendment. I could
point out that ‘our attitude’ is not actually an activity, but that would be a little bit
pedantic and so I will not say that.
Professor Thiselton mentioned some professions involving greed. In my book, greed is
still a spiritual activity. It may be the wrong kind of spirituality. There are all sorts of
spiritualities, good and bad. Some of the areas of work that we have heard mentioned –
prostitution, forced labour, et cetera – are not to God’s glory, but they are still spiritual
activities. I believe it is important that we recognize there is a spiritual activity in every
single thing that we do, be that good or bad.
Revd John Hartley (Bradford): Alison has said most of what I was going to say, but
there is just one more thing. This motion completely loses its cutting edge if we do not
say that it applies to what people do. The problem with a word like ‘much’ is how much.
How are we supposed to say to somebody that their work is important in God’s sight if
they then say, ‘How do I know whether the General Synod meant that, in view of the
fact that it is only “much work” and not the work that I do?’
In order to make this motion have teeth, we need to say that God is interested in all areas
of human life, including all the work we do.
Mrs Vivienne Goddard (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
The amendment was put and lost, 117 voting for and 120 against, with 9 recorded
abstentions.
The Chairman: Synod, there has been some movement on my right because there have
entered the chamber a group of bishops from Melanesia with members of their family
and entourage, who have come at a most exciting time, which they will recall from their
own synodical government.
290
11:40:27:11:08
Page 290
Page 291
Monday 7 July 2008
Brothers and sisters in Christ, you are most welcome. It is really good to have you here.
(Applause)
Mr Allan Jones (Liverpool): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (a) after “work” insert “be it paid or unpaid”.’
I wish to support the main thrust of this motion. However, in my amendment I am
looking to clarify the term ‘work’ in (a). While ‘work’ and ‘economic life’ are shown
together in this motion, the general perception is that the term ‘work’ refers to paid
work; whereas many people, such as retired people, spouses, registered carers, etc., are
working for no pay. This work is no less a spiritual activity than paid work.
I accept that this motion does not say that it is, but it is the perception that is important,
and I feel that my amendment tidies it up a bit. I have spoken to both the mover of the
main motion and the Bishop of St Albans and they seem happy with what I am saying.
I therefore move the amendment standing in my name.
Mr Simon Baynes: We see this as a very helpful amendment. Of course, there are people
who work in the economic sector who receive no pay, and some would regard them as
more special than all the other special people. We are therefore happy to accept this
amendment.
Dr Anna Thomas-Betts (Oxford): When I first saw this motion, the thing that struck me
most was the fact that it is concentrating on economic life. I know that if you are a
housewife you are still contributing to economic life, but that is not the message that
comes through.
I am thankful to Allan Jones for bringing this amendment because it also gives me an
opportunity to talk about the voluntary sector, public appointees, and so on, where you
very often find that there are large numbers of Christians working. In the Independent
Monitoring Board that I chair, of the eight people five are committed Christians. One
went on to be ordained in the Leicester diocese as of June this year. The local Mencap is
peopled by large numbers of Christians, and they all see their work as spiritual activity
and serving Our Lord. I think that needs to be mentioned.
Mrs Sue Slater (Lincoln): I also want to support this amendment and to add to what the
last speaker has said about the importance of the voluntary sector. In my lifetime I have
had choices where I have been able to choose not to be in paid work. I know that my
children’s generation has far fewer of those choices. They very often need not one but
two sources of income to enable their life to be sustained.
For the first third of my life I was in education or education-related activity; uneconomic
activity perhaps. For about another third of my life I was in paid work: for a spell as a
young adult in the Civil Service and, later on, for a spell as a paid employee of a charity.
291
11:40:27:11:08
Page 291
Page 292
Monday 7 July 2008
For the last third of my life so far, however, I have been in unpaid, voluntary activity,
and I have seen that to be my calling. I have been called to work within my Church,
within my community, in support of the schools with which I have been associated, both
as a parent, as a volunteer and as a governor.
Since my retirement from paid work, my principal voluntary activity has been as a
volunteer adviser with the Citizens Advice Bureau. In our district the majority of those
working for the Citizens Advice Bureau, paid and unpaid, are Christians. In the past
year, our work as advisers in South Holland has brought us into contact with 42
different nationalities – people who come to us for advice. They are very often the
people who are the poorest of the poor in our community, be they in receipt of benefits
or of the minimum wage, be they workers or migrant workers.
I urge Synod to think about this: in your community, if you removed all the Christians
from the voluntary sector, would there be any volunteers left? I wish to support this
amendment.
Mrs Janet Atkinson (Durham): Like Sue, I have also been in and out of paid work.
However, one of the most important chunks of work I have done in my adult life was to
serve as a magistrate in a busy, urban, crime-ridden area.
Some years ago, a chap I knew slightly was murdered. He was a hospital consultant
and it was a very strange case. We learnt later that the person who had done it was
trying to prove that he was smarter than the police. He had set it up in a very crafty
way. He had mocked up a delivery note and said that an urgent parcel was to be
delivered to the house at a certain time, and my friend was killed in his own kitchen,
bludgeoned to death. The police took a long time to find him but they were very
determined.
One morning I was chairing a court. Those who also chair courts will know that you
have a list of cases coming before you. On this occasion there was a great flurry of
papers and an extra case was put on and it was the man accused of having murdered my
friend and colleague. I said to the legal people, ‘I don’t think I ought to hear this case
because I knew the deceased’, and the clerk said, ‘It’s all right, ma’am; it’s only remand
in custody’. I therefore had to turn to this person, who was sitting quite close to me, look
him in the eye – as we are encouraged to do – and say, ‘Reginald Wilson, I remand you in
custody for a further eight days’. He looked me back in the eye with a sort of sneer and I
had this awful picture and thought, ‘Is that the way he looked at my friend before he got
his weapon out of the carrier bag and killed him?’
I felt very shaken and had to cling on to the bench very hard to stop my voice from
shaking. I went out and ate my sandwiches on a quiet bench in the middle of
Middlesbrough, thinking about the question of evil. The whole event really shook me. I
was talking to a friend afterwards who said, ‘How much support do you get from your
Church in this work that you do?’ and I said, ‘None at all, but maybe it’s my own fault
292
11:40:27:11:08
Page 292
Page 293
Monday 7 July 2008
because, if I had gone to one of the clergy beforehand, I would have had good spiritual
advice and perhaps I should have talked this sort of thing over sooner.’
However, the other side of this horrid story is that our justices’ clerk, who ran the busy
court and trained the new magistrates, was an overt practising Christian – and I feel that
there was a Christian atmosphere in that workplace, despite the awful, evil things that
were heard in those premises. I totally support Allan Jones’s amendment, therefore.
Mrs Vivienne Goddard (Blackburn): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
Mr Clive Scowen (London): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘After paragraph (b) insert as a new paragraph:
“(c)encourage bishops and clergy to give greater priority to equipping
and resourcing church members through teaching, prayer,
affirmation and celebration, to fulfil their vocations, ministries and
mission in their places of work;”.’
We believe in a God who calls. Every Christian has a vocation. For most, however, for at
least part of our lives, that vocation will be to serve Christ in a secular workplace.
St Paul writes, ‘Thanks be to God, who through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of
the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are
being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the
other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task?’
The call to be the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ was one to which St Paul did not
feel equal. How much less most of us? Yet that is what God has called most of us to be,
every day, in our place of work. Not just those professions we have traditionally
thought of as vocations, like teaching, nursing or medicine, but actuaries and
accountants, dustmen and shop workers, cleaners and politicians – even lawyers. Every
one of his people is called to be Jesus in the place where he calls us to be and to spread
his transforming, life-giving aroma abroad.
Yet in most of our parishes little attention is given to preparing, equipping and
resourcing Christians to do this in our place of work – and I was grateful for what Janet
said just now. We train people for lay ministries in church; we offer to pray for them
publicly; but how often do we celebrate and pray for the people in their workplace?
How many of us have courses in our parishes to train people for workplace ministries?
293
11:40:27:11:08
Page 293
Page 294
Monday 7 July 2008
How many of us give the impression that church-based ministries are the only ones that
really matter, and look askance at those who do little in Church life because they know
their primary place of ministry is their workplace?
It is time to take seriously the task of equipping and resourcing the biggest mission force
we have: the hundreds and thousands of lay Christians whom God has called to witness
to him by word, deed and lifestyle, in the office, factory, shop, classroom or surgery.
Such training should enable people to grow in confidence as agents of the kingdom of
God in the workplace; how to think Christianly about the issues they face there; how
they can stand for truth and against injustice; how they can speak effectively of Christ to
those they engage with. It can be delivered through regular Sunday preaching or special
courses or, as in my parish, through a workforce cluster, where those whose primary
ministry is at work can support, encourage, train and pray for one another and study the
Scriptures together – although, regrettably, some find that they are too busy at work to
attend regularly.
This amendment is addressed to bishops and clergy, but it is not saying that they have to
do all the equipping and resourcing. Often skilled laypeople – especially, I would
suggest, Readers – will be the best people to deliver training of that sort; but our
ordained leaders, at both diocesan and parish level, must give a lead in raising the profile
and priority that is given to workplace ministry and mission, for which God has called
most Church members in most places.
The Bishop of Carlisle, who has written a Grove booklet on the theology of work, gave
us a good model for this when he was Bishop of Willesden. For a whole year, the
Willesden area focused on the theme of work and equipping laypeople for ministry
there. That may be a model that other bishops could think about adopting.
We need to change the culture; but if we do, and send out into the workplaces of this
country hundreds and thousands of women and men who are confident in their calling,
spiritually equipped and practically trained to release the aroma of Christ to their
colleagues, customers and clients, what an extraordinary explosion of effective mission
there would be. How many people would come to faith in Christ? How many
workplaces and communities would be transformed with the values of the kingdom of
God? He is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, if we all set our
people free to fulfil their workplace vocations.
Mr Simon Baynes: Mr Chairman, I said during my opening speech that this debate is
about harnessing the power of Christ, who is already in the workplace. Mr Scowen’s
amendment captures the imagination of this and goes further, to equip the Church
members who are in the workplace to do just that. We are therefore happy to accept this
amendment.
The Bishop of Carlisle (Rt Revd Graham Dow): My interest in encouraging the
understanding of the theology of work goes back for some time, to when I was on the
294
11:40:27:11:08
Page 294
Page 295
Monday 7 July 2008
staff of St John’s, Nottingham. I asked those who came as ordinands to write on the
theology of their former job. The first year, I had essays on getting to work on time and
not pinching the office stationery. I realized that people had no idea how rolling steel,
hairdressing or brewing could possibly have anything to do with the purpose of God,
which meant that they had never had any teaching along those lines in their parishes.
As a vicar in Coventry, we spent three months on ‘My work as God’s work’. I divided
the congregation into groups: industry, education, law, social work, voluntary work,
unemployed. Each group planned a Sunday morning Eucharist. They had to have an
exhibition of their work. The first week was industry and, somehow, a very shy man
there had got a Morris Metro into the back of the church! They had to exhibit their
work in their offertory procession, also deal with the prayers and sometimes the
preaching. There was a carnival atmosphere through that series, celebrating work.
As you have heard, when I was Bishop of Willesden we had a year on the subject. One of
the things I tried to emphasize was when we offered a Eucharist that was about faith in
work, which involved an interview with one member of the congregation. People sat
there thinking, ‘I never knew what he did’, because there had never been any attention
to what people did in their daily work, to celebrate that, and to understand its place in
the purpose of God.
During that year I did a good deal of visiting to factories like McVitie’s, Kodak, Nestlé;
also the Jubilee Line and I did a bit of bus-conducting for a morning. It was great fun.
During that year we had breakfasts, to which a number of men and women came. It was
very interesting. It involved people who worked in missiles, for example – which raises
really important questions.
I just wanted to share that there are all kinds of possibilities, but I found it to be hugely
appreciated when one carries out teaching about the understanding of one’s daily work
in the purposes of God. It has changed some people’s lives.
Mrs Jenny Dunlop (Chester): I speak to you as a layperson engaged in paid employment.
I support the motion and this amendment and I want to urge the Church to do whatever
is necessary to convince Christians not to draw a line between Church activities and
their daily work activities, paid or not. I find that this is a new idea to my friends in the
Church, and we have to keep plugging it.
Work can be a vocation. However many hours a week I spend doing it, it is my ministry
as a Christian. I believe that it is my vocation. I am a solicitor and I do family work; that
means I deal with people suffering problems from family breakdown. If they are married
I do the divorce, and I always have a mind to discuss with them if there is a chance for
reconciliation, or if the time is not right and they need to wait. There are money issues;
finding a way forward to make the income for one home support two homes in the
future, and the angst and worry caused by this. Then there are the children: who they
should live with; whether father can demand contact just as and when he wants; and his
295
11:40:27:11:08
Page 295
Page 296
Monday 7 July 2008
feeling of being totally out of control. He will say, ‘I don’t know why she’s doing this’,
and my response can be, sometimes to his great surprise, ‘She doesn’t like you any
more’. Contact disputes in particular can be about both parents learning the rules of
what is and what is not acceptable. I also represent parents of children in care
proceedings about to be adopted, and I have sat with a father writing goodbye letters to
his children.
In dealing with my clients I hope that I can be prayerful and show the face of Jesus to
them. I cannot generally discuss my Christian faith with them but I can pray about my
work, my workplace, the clients, the other party – we do not say ‘the other side’ in
family law – and the children.
The report talks about how people can be equipped for discipleship at work. I think that
it is absolutely crucial for the Church. I like paragraph 3.2, ‘The ends to which work is
directed are therefore a reflection of the many ways, seen and unseen, in which the
Spirit’s life finds expression in people’s relationships with one another’.
This is what we do, and we need the support of our churches where we worship week by
week to carry this out and to take this expression of the gospel forward in the world.
Mr John Freeman (Chester): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg to move:
Revd Ruth Yeoman (Bradford): On a point of clarification, Mr Chairman. I would just
check that this is inserting an additional paragraph, so that the paragraphs will be
re-numbered, and not a replacement of one paragraph (c) for another.
The Chairman: Yes.
The Chairman: I am told that Item 65 needs a slight re-write, which is that ‘Leave out
paragraph (c)’ needs to read ‘Leave out paragraph (d)’, because we have now inserted a
paragraph (c), which brings that further down.
The Archdeacon of Birmingham (Ven. Hayward Osborne): I beg to move as an
amendment:
‘Leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
“(d) request the Mission and Public Affairs Council to:
296
11:40:27:11:08
Page 296
Page 297
Monday 7 July 2008
(i) compile a concise, factual overview of the current and readily
identifiable engagement of the Church of England with the
economic sector, inviting the agencies listed in the fourth
paragraph on page 3 of GS Misc 890A to share in this task;
(ii) convene a symposium on a theological understanding of work
for today as outlined in sections 5.3–5.4 of GS Misc 890B;
(iii) compile a collection of supportive resource materials for Church
members as outlined in section 5.5 of GS Misc 890B; and
(iv) present a report to Synod by July 2010.”.’
The importance of this dimension of life has been very well expressed so far. I support
the motion from St Albans but, in proposing this amendment, I hope that we can
crystallize it a little further and also help the Mission and Public Affairs Council to make
their task achievable.
I speak as the Chairman of the Churches Industrial Group, Birmingham, an ecumenical
body that provides chaplains, lay and ordained, in a range of workplaces:
manufacturing, leisure, retail, public service. We contribute to public discussion on
economic life and issues such as migrant labour, ethics in business. We are also working
to increase the visibility of Christians at work and to affirm the ministry of presence and
witness by so many churchpeople in employment. I was very glad, therefore, to see this
motion on the agenda and say amen to parts (a), (b) and what we now know as part (c).
The last part as it stands, however – what is now part (d) – is so all-embracing that it
flags up a colossal task. With the best will in the world, even the Mission and Public
Affairs Council might well wilt at the thought. My purpose is therefore to make it a little
more manageable. Having a report that will give a concise, factual overview will
undoubtedly strengthen the voice and underline the commitment of congregations and
Christian individuals who play their part seriously in this area of life.
The MPA Council in its background paper GS Misc 890B rightly observes that the
economic context is constantly changing and that economics affect the Church at almost
every point. I think that the Council therefore fights a little shy of producing a
comprehensive survey. I do not think that we are asking for an exhaustive compendium
or encyclopaedic forecast. We are asking this kind of thing: what is the impact of the
Church locally and institutionally on economics, business and commerce? How and
where do we make our contribution, exert influence and bring benefit? What kind of
stories can we tell which illustrate this? We have heard a few this morning. What is the
scale of our engagement, and is it recognized by the world at large?
The recent report Moral, But No Compass has been a valuable affirmation of the
Church’s role in welfare provision and community engagement. When it comes to
engagement with the economic sector, therefore, we also need just this kind of hard
evidence to strengthen our conversations with public and commercial bodies.
297
11:40:27:11:08
Page 297
Page 298
Monday 7 July 2008
St Albans meanwhile, in their background paper GS 890A, list a number of
organizations that also have wisdom and experience in this whole area. My amendment
asks the Mission and Public Affairs Council to draw on those bodies which St Albans
name, because they have knowledge and reflection to share and – who knows? – maybe
even some financial resources too. There will also be valuable input from others,
including our ecumenical partners.
The MPA Council in its own background paper proposes two specific pieces of work,
which it suggests are achievable within its existing budget: a symposium, leading to a
collection of writings to help the Church in its thinking about economic life; and a fresh
look at resources available to local congregations and individuals. These suggestions are
very valuable and they are very timely. Parts (ii) and (iii) of my amendment therefore
say, ‘Yes, please. Do this work’.
Why by July 2010? If we commission this work today, I think that we would like to
receive the results in the life of this Synod. We may get only an interim report if there is
clearly a lot more work to be done, but let us hear back. However, I would hope that by
limiting the task in the way described it could be completed in time. A report such as
that will be of practical value to thousands of people up and down the country living out
their Christian discipleship.
Thank you, St Albans, for the original motion; thank you, MPA Council, for your
response; and, Synod, please support the amendment, which says ‘Go ahead in the way
described’.
Mr Simon Baynes: When the St Albans diocesan synod first promoted this motion over a
year ago, we did not have the benefit of GS Misc 809B, which is a very useful document.
Bearing that in mind and taking into account what the archdeacon has said – he uses
three words in (i), ‘concise’, ‘factual’ and ‘overview’ – this tells me that the exercise he is
proposing is a straightforward one, and I would hope that the Mission and Public
Affairs Council would recognize that and not find too much of a problem with it.
Moving on to (iv), it is most helpful to have a time for the presentation of a report. July
2010 is when this Synod would be dissolved and I think that it would be very useful to
have a report by then, albeit maybe an interim report. We are happy with this
amendment, therefore.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I am the Chairman of MPA, but also a middle manager at
a university. One of my tasks there is to square the circle between the wonderful
aspirations of my colleagues to do exciting and innovative research projects and the
amount of resource that we have available. Squaring circles is not easy, and that is
where we are with this.
In moving his amendment, the archdeacon set out the ground that he wanted to cover.
That is huge. You do not shorten the amount of work by describing the outcome as
298
11:40:27:11:08
Page 298
Page 299
Monday 7 July 2008
‘concise’ and ‘factual’: it is actually more difficult. The agencies referred to in his
amendment and in the other report are a mixture of bodies covering a wide range of
ground, some of them very definitely advocacy bodies. Getting all that together and
sorting the material will not be easy.
The MPA, at the request of this Synod and the House of Bishops, is already committed
to producing the following reports by July 2010: the Human Genome and Patent Law
reports; Mission-shaped Church and the next stage of Fresh Expressions; the outcome
of the Good Childhood Inquiry; climate change and security; and Moral, But No
Compass. In addition to that, we have to do all the normal work the division does,
particularly in the area of public affairs in briefing bishops. We have a limited staff, who
in my judgement are already very fully stretched. We have already had a reference to
stress, and I could show you lots of stress – not only in my division of Church House. We
do not have the human resources, the human capacities, to do this well in the time
available.
I am very happy to go with (ii) and (iii) but we cannot, in my judgement, responsibly
accept the commission that is in the rest of this amendment. I therefore urge Synod to
resist it.
Revd Canon Kathryn Fitzsimons (Ripon and Leeds): For the benefit of the Bishop in
Europe, I am a distinctive deacon on the Synod!
I would like to thank both Simon and the archdeacon for the motion and the
amendment. As part of my role as urban officer in Leeds, I find myself in some very
interesting places. One of them is the Leeds initiative. I am a faith representative on this
partnership body of statutory, public organizations, businesses and voluntary
community and faith organizations. We have a very wide agenda to implement and to
monitor. We have two executive committees: Going up a League, which involves
developing Leeds’s business and economic connections both nationally and
internationally; and Narrowing the Gap, which tries to introduce the strategies that
counteract the widening of the gap between the poor and the poorest of our city. Both
commendable aims; both valuable pieces of work.
Interestingly, faith representation is welcomed in the Narrowing the Gap executive, in
recognition of Christian and other faith input into working with those in deepest need,
but we are not welcomed at Going up a League. Apparently, in the eyes of the City of
Leeds, faith has little to say in that debate and in the action on economic aspiration.
Faith communities are not yet taken seriously in that arena. We are expected to care
about the poor but not to engage with the rich, and yet the two are intimately
connected. As we have heard, the Church in all its shapes is part of the economy; indeed,
it is often an economic driver.
Recently in Leeds we have launched the Oastler Centre, a centre for faith, work and
economic life, which endeavours, with very limited resources, to engage at various
299
11:40:27:11:08
Page 299
Page 300
Monday 7 July 2008
levels. I believe that the most important of these is to resource Christians and Churches
in their engagement with the economic life of the city. There are many members of
congregations who are businessmen and women, members of chambers of commerce.
How do we resource them to witness to their Christian values in their daily work? This
resourcing should enable them to make connections between the values of their faith,
which both inspires and commands our daily life and work.
Revd Sister Rosemary CHN (Religious Communities): On a point of order, Mr
Chairman. In view of the comments by Dr Giddings, would you accept a division of this
amendment?
The Chairman: Yes, I would. We are running a bit short of time and I would like to hear
a few more speeches. It is therefore easier just to say yes, and I will deal with the lawyers
afterwards! I hope that is all right.
Section (i) of the amendment was put and lost.
Sections (ii) and (iii) of the amendment were put and carried.
Section (iv) of the amendment was put and lost.
The amendment was therefore carried in the following form:
‘Leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
“(d) request the Mission and Public Affairs Council to:
(i) convene a symposium on a theological understanding of work
for today as outlined in sections 5.3–5.4 of GS Misc 890B; and
(ii) compile a collection of supportive resource materials for church
members as outlined in section 5.5 of GS Misc 890B.”.’
Sister Anne Williams (Durham): When I came on to Synod 18 years ago – it is more than
a life sentence, please note – one of the people in the congregation said to me, ‘Oh, you
will be able to answer this question now’, the implication being that, now that I was
here, I knew everything! The question was why did we ring bells. I happened to have an
answer as to why bells were rung during the service but I said, ‘You really ought to have
asked Father about that’. She said, ‘I couldn’t do that. He’s bound to have preached
about it and I wouldn’t have been listening’!
300
11:40:27:11:08
Page 300
Page 301
Monday 7 July 2008
I should have learnt from that because, now that I have gone out into my new Church
Army ministry as a half-time mission enabler across the diocese, I have been doing work
with congregations. In the early days of Church Army, Wilson Carlile said, ‘I have the
hardest job of my life: to open the mouths of the people in the pew’. I did not realize how
hard the job he had was but, as I have now taken it up, I realize what he meant. When I
started working in these parishes I was absolutely amazed at – it is not quite ‘self-esteem’
– but how little people thought of their ability to talk about their faith.
I believe that it was St Francis who said, ‘Preach the gospel, and use words if you must’.
They do not see that living out their faith in their daily lives in their workplaces can
speak as loudly as saying, ‘I’m a Christian. Let me tell you about Jesus’, because they
often see that as people being put off; that they do not want to hear that. They also do
not think that they have enough knowledge, and they do not have enough confidence to
do it.
In some of the work that I have been doing in the parishes it has amazed me how a light
has almost come on. I go on about ‘lights coming on’, but it has happened so often in my
life. Talking to them about the gifts – (At the changing of the speech limit light from
green to amber) – bless you! I will remember that one! (Laughter) Talking to them about
the gifts God has given them and how he asks us to go out and use them, they say, ‘You
mean God wants me to do something?’ Working with their clergy, and their enabling
them to do it and to get the training they need, has transformed some parishes.
I am so pleased that we have made the amendments that we have. I would say to Synod,
make sure that the laity are enabled to talk about their faith, given the courage to do it,
and then to go out and do it.
The Bishop of Hulme (Rt Revd Stephen Lowe): The language is changing. Eleven years
or so ago, unemployment and the future of work was debated in this Synod and proved
to be very much a seminal work. We do not talk ‘unemployment’ any more; we talk
‘worklessness’ – or at least both Government and Opposition talk that language.
Worklessness, you see, is different; because there was a degree of sympathy for those
people who were unemployed but now it is not quite like that. The task of the
Government is to get the workless back to work, because there is a view that they are
largely made up of the feckless, people who are skivers, people who are on disability
benefit and who do not really deserve it.
I am anxious that, in its work, the Mission and Public Affairs Council looks at the
change that is taking place around this language, because I fear that Government and
Opposition may begin to use destitution as a means for driving people into work who
may not be properly qualified or able to undertake work. There is still a lack of serious
work going on regarding the problems of illiteracy, which we heard about in South
Oxhey from Christina Rees. Major problems exist on our council estates regarding
illiteracy and innumeracy and, despite the Government’s best efforts, it is not really
being managed properly.
301
11:40:27:11:08
Page 301
Page 302
Monday 7 July 2008
The problem of mental illness on many of these estates is serious. On a day when I was
involved in ‘How to make Wigan work’, about worklessness, we found that the element
of mental illness in the poorer communities was very high and a cause of serious
disability.
We cannot afford to allow the notion of worklessness to become a means of beating
people and making them feel even less valued by our society. Self-esteem is a
fundamental issue for the Christian who values every human being as worthwhile in the
eyes of God. We need to make sure that we do not make worklessness a new agenda for
beating people.
Revd Sister Rosemary CHN (Religious Communities): On a point of clarification, Mr
Chairman. When we were voting on the subsections of the amendment at Item 65, you
were going to come back, having consulted the lawyers, Mr Chairman. When did we
decide to leave out paragraph (c) that has become (d)?
The Chairman: Thank you for the point of clarification. I will answer that later. If you
will excuse me, we will get on with the speeches, but I will give you an answer to that.
Revd Dr Dagmar Winter (Newcastle): I originally welcomed the motion warmly, since I
thought that it was about honouring human work without having to put a Christian
gloss on it by calling it ministry or a form of ministry. Following the presentation of the
motion, this debate and the acceptance of Clive Scowen’s amendment, I have to confess
that I am a little confused about the breadth of the motion: it seems to lurch from one
side to the other. The main purpose of my speaking now is to make it clear in our minds
and maybe also to receive some clarification on the different strands, so that we do not
lose any of them.
Is work a Christian activity? I do not think that it helps to call it that, and I am not sure
what it means. I think that work is a human activity. I do not think that it is helpful to
equate vocation to specific jobs, as the new part (d) may suggest, rather than a vocation
to love and service, et cetera. I see confusion between the issues of the value of God’s
kingdom, which at its best are nurtured and strengthened by the Church, and nurturing
and strengthening those in the workplace – these are all values that transcend the
Church – and the witness to the Christian faith in a distinct sense.
Are we talking about a political engagement of the Church with the framework of work
in our society? With the ethos and legalities that govern it, working towards ways of
working which are life-giving for our whole society? Are we talking about pastoral and
other support for workers, managers, home workers and those in voluntary jobs, et
cetera, who suffer the brutalities and stresses that life, work and economic life impose?
Are we, in this debate and with this motion, interested in and do we want to speak up
for the well-being of all – outward-looking? Or are we inward-looking again, intent on
the well-being of the Christian faith in the horrid world out there?
302
11:40:27:11:08
Page 302
Page 303
Monday 7 July 2008
In accepting this motion, which I am sure this Synod will, I hope that there will be clarity
on those different strands of the motion, so that we do not lose the outward-looking
perspective, which is not the Church or the Christian faith being self-interested.
The Chairman: That has my consent but, before I put it to Synod, I need to give an
answer to the point of clarification. My wonderful colleagues on either side, having a
procedurally improper Chairman, have advised me that the leaving out of paragraph (c)
was, by implication, in there with the votes that you took and so we do not need to have
another vote. I will now put the motion for closure.
Mr Simon Baynes, in reply: When this debate was originally scheduled to follow the
debate on women becoming bishops, I thought that we had drawn the shortest of short
straws, but then St Albans is a truly blessed diocese and everything changed! I had
hoped for a lively debate but did wonder if anyone would turn up at all. We have not
been disappointed and I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the
debate.
The issue of vocation has arisen in a number of speeches, and I will come to some of
them. Jane Fraser from Worcester spoke of encouraging dioceses regarding workplace
ministry. Yes, of course we encourage that, but in opening we also said that workplace
ministry is but one small part of this whole issue.
Chris Pye told us about sending Christmas cards with a simple Christmas message. That
certainly lit up something for me. In recent years a number of people have seen one of
these corporate Christmas cards and, with a swish of the pen, have crossed out ‘Season’s
greetings’ and have written ‘Happy Christmas’ on it before sending it off. Perhaps other
members of Synod would also like to follow that example in future years.
David Hawkins highlighted stress in the workplace. Yes, I think that we all see that but
quite often do not see just how much there is – often because, when people are stressed,
they suddenly disappear from the workplace. Work is not just about money; it is about
what God is asking us to do.
We heard about CHRISM from Hugh Lee and their mission statement. I am sure that we
all support that. Also, CABE, the Christian Association of Business Executives, of which
Christina Rees is a trustee – 70 years of excellent work, and we hear that they are
broadening their presence. There were also some of the moving stories about which
Christina told us. What can the Church say on these issues?
303
11:40:27:11:08
Page 303
Page 304
Monday 7 July 2008
Sue Slater, like many others, sees unpaid work in the voluntary sector as their calling.
This is so true. Jenny Dunlop said ‘Work is my vocation as a solicitor.’ There are people
in many professions – professions which often may not be referred to as vocations – who
feel that they do have a true vocation.
I could go on and mention everybody in this debate. I do not think that that would
be particularly useful, but there are two other points I would like to raise. On the
amendment at Item 65, I am disappointed that we will not have a report by July 2010
but I am quite sure that it is within the capabilities of Synod for someone or some
people, at regular intervals, to include in Question Time a request for a progress report
from the Mission and Public Affairs Council.
Last but not least, we shall all miss Bishop Christopher, his marvellous contribution, and
the matter that he highlighted: that 90 per cent of our business in this Synod has been on
internal issues. Perhaps I could leave Synod with his point, that we have been spending
only 10 per cent of our time on moral and social issues. There are very significant ethical
implications to this. Mr Chairman, I commend this motion to the Synod.
The motion was put and carried in the following amended form:
‘That this Synod:
(a) affirm daily work, be it paid or unpaid, as essentially a spiritual
activity;
(b) recognize the importance of Christian values within economic life;
(c) encourage bishops and clergy to give greater priority to equipping
and resourcing Church members through teaching, prayer,
affirmation and celebration, to fulfil their vocations, ministries and
mission in their places of work; and
(d) request the Mission and Public Affairs Council to:
(i) convene a symposium on a theological understanding of work
for today as outlined in sections 5.3–5.4 of GS Misc 890B; and
(ii) compile a collection of supportive resource materials for church
members as outlined in section 5.5 of GS Misc 890B.’
(Adjournment)
304
11:40:27:11:08
Page 304
Page 305
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
THE CHAIR The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell) took the Chair at
2.30 p.m.
Women Bishops: Report of the Women
Bishops Legislative Drafting Group (GS 1685)
Report from the House of Bishops (GS 1685A)
The Chairman: This is a debate of widespread interest and we welcome visitors in
the gallery and members of the media; we hope that they will enjoy listening to the
debate. I urge those in the visitors’ gallery not to applaud or indeed to respond
otherwise in response to speeches that they enjoy or votes of which they approve or
disapprove, but to remain silent in terms of their responses during the course of the
debate.
Members of Synod will know that a lengthy period of time has been set aside for this
debate and I realize that there are limitations on the human frame. It has been suggested
that we organize a break during the course of the afternoon, but I think probably that is
not a good idea; it would be too difficult to sustain the momentum on the debate.
However what I would suggest is that members may like to take advantage of any
opportunities that arise while a vote is being counted to stand up, turn round and
refresh their positions as it were. If members need to slip out for any other reason, I
would urge them to do so quietly and return to their seats promptly.
I am not quite sure how things will work out at the moment but I think at present
my feeling is that when we come to the debate at its conclusion before the vote on the
final motion as amended or unamended, I will invite you to pause for a brief period of
prayer at that point, because I know that this is a very important decision that we are
taking together today, but I think I am not going to have pauses for prayer during the
course of the rest of the debate. Having said that, I am very conscious that many people
have been praying very much for this occasion and I hope that we will go on praying
silently during the course of the debate and pray for one another as we take part in this
debate.
On Synod’s behalf I would like to thank all the members of staff who have worked
tremendously hard behind the scenes. (Applause) Thank you, Members of Synod, for
that expression of support for them.
We have received a request that the motion and the amendments be projected on to the
screen above as happened during the debate on Friday, but I am afraid it has not been
possible to do that, for which I apologize. When we come to the more substantial
amendments I will try to take a pause before hearing any speech on them so that
members can give some thought to how they impact on the main motion, and I hope
that that will help us to deal with matters.
305
11:40:27:11:08
Page 305
Page 306
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
After the Bishop of Gloucester has moved the motion I intend to impose a five-minute
speech limit initially and then move to consider the first of the amendments. For most of
the afternoon there will be a three-minute speech limit in force, so I give notice of that
now, although people who are speaking to an amendment will have five minutes to
move their amendments at the appropriate time.
Perhaps I can also say at this stage that I have considered the list of those who spoke in
the ‘take note’ debate on Saturday, for the entirety of which I was present, of whom one
or two have also put forward their names to speak today. I do not preclude myself from
calling them to speak today, but generally I would like us to try to help each other to find
our way through this rather complicated debate and I very much hope that when
members come to speak to the amendments they will do their best to confine their
speeches to the amendments themselves. I realize that members may want to raise other
general points but I would urge them to focus on the amendments so that we can make
the best use of the time that is available to us.
We have quite a challenging afternoon and possibly evening ahead of us. Depending on
how some of the voting goes, we may have to work through as many as 13 amendments,
and members have had since 9.30 this morning to study what is a complex order paper. I
will try to signpost clearly where we are as we work our way through the debate. With
the helpful assistance of the staff I have found it useful to categorize the 13 amendments
into three groups: first, six from the Bishops of Winchester, Exeter, Ripon and Leeds,
Stephen Trott, Simon Killwick and Miranda Threlfall-Holmes which at least at this
stage would pose a significantly different approach from the main motion; second, four
others from Christina Baxter, Jacqueline Humphreys, Robert Cotton and Tom
Coningsby, which seek to modify aspects of a national code of practice; third, three
others from David Houlding, Emma Forward and Gillian Henwood, which outline
various other issues.
In planning the shape of the debate I have to try to strike a balance between allowing
sufficient time for several of the early amendments, which raise some of the broadest
issues, and ensuring that we have time to finish the debate by bedtime. It may be helpful
to say now that I intend if possible to reach Item 72, the amendment in the name of the
Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, before we break for dinner; if we find ourselves having to
consider all the amendments, we shall need to complete that particular amendment by
that stage. There is then a high probability that I shall need to ask members to return this
evening at 8 o’clock rather than 8.30, and that will be the case even if we continue until
6.15 and worship follows from that.
We have received well over 100 requests to speak and members will realize that it will
not be possible to fit in that number even in the extended time available to us, so I say
thank you to those who have prepared speeches and to those who may not be called; I
hope that they will participate by listening to the other contributions to the debate. If
any members feel that someone else has already made a point that they wanted to make,
306
11:40:27:11:08
Page 306
Page 307
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
it may be useful if they were to step back and allow others who may not otherwise have
been called an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Finally, I would like to say a big thank you for the very many kindnesses that I have
received personally for undertaking the role of chairman of this afternoon’s debate; the
prayers were many and I think as the reserve chair the Bishop of Dover probably prayed
the hardest!
I very much hope that we can all work together throughout the debate to the point at
which under God we come to our conclusion.
The Bishop of Gloucester (Rt Revd Michael Perham): I beg to move:
‘That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the
existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a
matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the
ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to
which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House
of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the
first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can
include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for
the February 2009 group of sessions.’
The motion standing in my name represents what a substantial majority of the House of
Bishops believes is the right starting point for our debate this afternoon; it was agreed
after long and difficult discussion in the House. What was not agreed then was whose
task it would be to propose the motion. As members can see, the lot has fallen to me. I
do it with some trepidation, conscious that it is difficult and that a word out of place
could change unhelpfully the tone of the debate; but I also do it with real conviction
because I believe that we must move forward with the ordination of women to the
episcopate without unnecessary delay and that this complex debate ought to allow us to
do so.
First I need to say something about my own personal position in relation to the matter
before us. I believe passionately that we ought now to make it possible for women to be
bishops in the Church of England. I respect and hold in deep affection those who hold a
different view, either about the principle or the timing, but because I believe that to delay
307
11:40:27:11:08
Page 307
Page 308
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
undermines our mission and our credibility in the nation and that the priestly ministry
of women has brought huge blessing to the Church, and for other reasons, I stand where
I do.
That said, my understanding of my role today, having once proposed this motion with
conviction, is to stand back from personal opinion as far as I am able in order to help the
Synod to find its way through the complexities of the debate. My task is to help the
process of exploring the amendments and I shall try to do that with all the objectivity
that I can muster. I apologize in advance for those moments when people on one side or
another in this debate believe that I am failing to fulfil this.
Members of Synod are rightly looking to the House of Bishops for leadership. It would
be wonderful if the House were able to advocate a unanimous path forward, but the
reality is, of course, that the House comprises people with widely differing views. We
cannot pretend that there is a consensus, but when the House met last month a large
majority was in favour of introducing the motion before Synod this afternoon.
As the Archbishops’ note makes clear, the House had to decide where this debate should
start. I suspect that even among the bishops who support this motion there is a spectrum
of views. Some are fairly confident that here is where the answer lies; others may be less
sure but still believe it to be the best starting point.
The key point is that the House, like the rest of the Synod, is still feeling its way towards
a possible solution. That is why the host of amendments, though members may sigh at
the very thought of them, is important in the search for that solution. The lead that the
House has given for this debate, both on process and to some extent on substance, does
not mean that all the bishops have yet come to a settled view. So members of the House
of Bishops as well as members of the other two Houses will be in listening mode today.
The drafting group has offered us a range of possible ways forward, some of them
involving considerable further work. Our task is to express a preference – perhaps a
couple of preferences – among the choices and to direct the drafting group to work up
further this preference or these preferences; that is the next stage. Beyond that lie further
stages that will provide ample opportunity for further variations, and indeed for
proposals that do not carry the day in this debate to come back before we reach the final
hurdle when two-thirds majorities will be needed in each House and consent is sought
from Parliament.
Let me say something about the four parts of the House of Bishops’ motion. Paragraph
(a) invites the Synod to reaffirm its wish that there be women bishops in the Church of
England. That, of course, is not a wish shared by everyone in the House or in the Synod,
but it remains the clear majority view in the House that women ought to be eligible to be
bishops for the well-being of the Church and for the sake of our mission to the nation.
Most of us also accept the arguments of the Manchester group that a decision to delay
the process would create a difficult and anxious period of uncertainty – more hurt all
round.
308
11:40:27:11:08
Page 308
Page 309
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
In paragraph (b) the key words are ‘arrangements . . . within the existing structures of
the Church of England’. Here we come to one of the key issues for this debate, namely
whether a solution that involves ‘arrangements’, but not fresh ‘structures’, has any
realistic chance of enabling us to admit women to the episcopate while holding within
our ranks as many as possible of those with conscientious difficulties over the ordination
of women.
Some of those people will seek to argue that unless they are given new structures,
probably in the form of special dioceses, they simply cannot remain in the Church of
England. The judgement that we have to reach together, however, is what arrangements
it would be right to put in place that are consistent with Anglican ecclesiology and that
do not create, in effect, two ecclesial bodies out of communion with one another under
the umbrella of one Church.
The majority of the House was not persuaded that new dioceses would be a justified or
acceptable development. They understood the argument from some that nothing will
suffice short of an ecclesial community where there is full communion within a college
of male bishops and male presbyters. However they also felt that a House of Bishops in
which every member was not in full communion with his or her brother and sister
bishops would undermine fundamentally the unity of the Church. The prevailing view
in the House was that we should seek to find arrangements that stopped short of
creating fresh structures.
Equally sensitively, paragraph (c) proposes that the arrangements should be contained
‘in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard’.
Having explained why the majority in the House of Bishops was not attracted by new
structures, let me try to explain why we were also wary of the possible variations
identified by the Manchester group at what we might call the heavier end of option 2.
Mandatory delegation, as paragraph 126 of the report notes, would be a very unusual
concept, and most of us were not persuaded that it offered anything that could not be
better achieved through the other options. Mandatory transfer appealed to some as
delivering much, if not all, that new dioceses would give to those seeking that kind of
way forward, but most were worried that it would mean for the first time producing
legislation that directly and significantly changed the nature of episcopal ministry and
authority by transferring specified functions to a second bishop. In other words, a
bishop who had to transfer some of his or her functions would not be a bishop in the
sense that this Church has understood episcopal ministry. For the majority of the House
mandatory transfer and mandatory delegation introduced a novel and unsatisfactory
understanding of what a bishop is and does.
It seemed to the majority in the House that if special arrangements were to work they
would inevitably require a degree of trust on all sides. Too much legislation would
undermine trust, so would too little. Certainly, legislation of itself cannot create trust,
but we must build on the trust that we have and pledge ourselves to create it afresh
309
11:40:27:11:08
Page 309
Page 310
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
where it does not exist. Trust is key, whatever route we follow; trust, we believed, would
enable a code of practice route to work.
Our conclusion therefore was that the code of practice route was the best way forward.
The proposal before the Synod in paragraph (c) is not the Manchester group’s option 1,
the simplest possible statutory approach with no binding national arrangements, for
what we have proposed is a national code of practice. It is very close to Manchester’s 2.1
except that at present it does not include the word ‘statutory’ – a statutory national code
of practice. A number of bishops, including me, welcomed the amendment to insert that
word, and if and when we reach it I will encourage the Synod to pass it.
There are some who in my view are too dismissive of the national code of practice route,
fearing that it cannot deliver what they need. I hope that they will give it a chance so that
the drafting group is enabled to work it up into a full proposal. It seems to me that we
are much helped by the legal adviser’s paper GS Misc 899, circulated on Friday, which
demonstrates that the weight of obligation that a statutory code of practice would place
on the bishop depends on exactly what is put into the code. We should not pre-judge the
work that will be done if this motion is passed unamended. To quote the House of
Lords, it could be ‘much more than mere advice which an addressee is free to follow or
not as he chooses’.
Since 1993 we have had some provisions in Part II of the 1993 Measure and some in
the non-legislative form of an Act of Synod. If a statutory national code of practice
were in place, both would disappear, leaving future arrangements in relation to both
bishops and priests covered by the code, and of course a statutory code would be more
legally binding than an Act of Synod. How prescriptive to be in the legislation about
the code, taking account of the assurances given in 1993, is a very important matter
and one that we should need to work on much more carefully during the legislative
process itself.
There has been much talk in recent days about honouring promises. My understanding
is that the promise made 15 years ago was not a promise to keep particular
arrangements in place indefinitely but to go on giving an honoured and welcome place
in the life of the Church to those unable to accept the ministry of women clergy; nothing
that is being proposed today goes back on that intention.
Finally, paragraph (d) invites the Manchester group to complete its work so that the
formal process of legislative scrutiny can begin in the Synod in February. There is
already a lot material about a code of practice in Annex D of the drafting group’s report,
though there is much more work to be done on it. I am assured that this motion
unamended would not present the group with an impossible timetable.
The archbishops have reminded us all that whatever decisions we reach today will
involve different sorts of cost to our sense of continuity, our mission to the nation and
patterns of life in our Church. All of us in the House were very conscious of those costs,
310
11:40:27:11:08
Page 310
Page 311
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
but that awareness needs to be set alongside the strong conviction of the substantial
majority – in the House and I think in the Synod – that this is also a moment of
opportunity. We believe it right that the Church of England should now open all orders
of its ministry to women. That will happen only if those of us who share that conviction
can find a way of proceeding that will command sufficient consensus and allow as many
of us as possible to move forward together.
The Chairman: Members of Synod, I should have announced that the 12th notice paper
contains some financial information relating to this matter, and members may also find
it helpful to have available to them the inside pages of the study guide that we had at the
weekend, which summarizes some of the options under the Manchester report.
Mrs Vivienne Goddard (Blackburn): – though I think I am a bit frightened by Elaine
Storkey and the Archbishop of Canterbury!
Last Friday I presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s representative a petition from
8,941 laywomen from the Church of England. That petition was organized only
through churches. As far I am aware it consisted of weekly, if not daily, communicant
Anglicans almost entirely from the Catholic wing of the Church of England. It was not a
petition that threatened a walking out or leaving of the Church of England but a petition
begging the Synod to allow us to stay.
There has been much talk, more in the press than in the Synod, about discrimination. I
would like to ask the Synod, ‘Who are they discriminating against?’ If the motion is
passed unamended, I believe that we shall be discriminating against many of the women
who signed this petition. We do not wish to leave the Church of England; we do not
wish to become Roman Catholics. Had we wanted to, we would have done it in 1992,
1993 or 1994, but we have taken your promises to mean what we thought they meant,
we have stayed and worked within the Church, and we want to continue to do that, and
quite simply a code of practice will not allow us to do it. If Synod takes seriously the
Bishop of Winchester’s report, we believe that there may be enough in it after some more
work to enable us to stay.
I would like to comment on the very moving speech by Rose Hudson-Wilkin in the
previous debate when she spoke of her vocation, but I would like to say to her and to
those who applauded her so warmly that she is not the only one who has a call from
God, neither are those women who are able to accept ordination. There are many others
of us who feel that our ministry has been a call from God but that because of our
different interpretation of Scripture and Tradition it has been exercised within the lay
movement of this Church, and we want to be able to continue that at the same time as
perhaps allowing those who wish to be ordained to continue.
I feel that the three-dioceses option would be the best option, but I think that people are
frightened by the word ‘diocese’. It could in fact be a real fresh expression of diocese.
311
11:40:27:11:08
Page 311
Page 312
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
We do not need new structures; we do not need new anything really. We already have
bishops in a peculiar position within our Church in the current system, so we would not
even need three new bishops. We could use imagination and where we can continue to
work together, but we could stay because we could have bishops to whom we could
relate on those occasions where it is essential for us to stay.
I beg members not to accept the motion as it now stands but to take very seriously
Item 66.
Dr Elaine Storkey (Ely): I was not rising to speak in this debate, so is a great joy to be
called, but it means that I have to have something to say. What I really want to say is
that we are called to do something completely unique, something very wonderful, I
think something exciting, and something that will actually speak volumes to the world
in which we live and to our culture as a whole.
These things that we are called to do are really quite incompatible at their very heart,
and that is the struggle that we are facing today. On the one hand we are called to
welcome, to celebrate, to honour, to rejoice and to actually convey our enormous thanks
for the women who through this period of ordination have laboured in our Church,
have been role models to all of us, have been powerful priests and deacons in their
ministry among us, have led people to Christ, have worked in parishes and have in every
way modelled something very fine about the service of Our Lord.
We are called to be excited that it is an opportunity to acknowledge that in another way
– to nudge forward into a new direction so that these women and many in the future can
also become bishops in our Church, can actually be in charge of and lead forward
dioceses in a profound way. We must not lose the excitement of that possibility, the
excitement of recognizing the gifts that have been given, the way that the Holy Spirit
leads, and the sheer emancipation, the release that our Church can experience through
taking this new step forward.
We are also to honour and celebrate the difference and diversity within our Church; we
are to lament with those for whom this is a troublesome thing, those who are going to
feel extremely sorrowful and sad at this new period going forward. Some of them will
feel betrayed that this is not the Church that they joined, not the congregation that they
wish to go forward with, not where they feel God is leading the Church, and that sense
of lament as well as the sense of excitement and the sense of anticipation and honour has
also to be shared among all of us.
In an incredible way we have to hold these together in what we do today, and I think this
is the most difficult task for us. The fact that we can do it and do it in the name of Our
Lord, who God himself was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, is surely one of
the biggest messages that we can give to our culture today; that actually when two
parties are warring, when people do not see eye to eye, when there is brokenness, when
there is a sense of betrayal even, when people do not understand each other, when they
312
11:40:27:11:08
Page 312
Page 313
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
cannot move forward together sharing the same vision, the same enthusiasm and the
same excitement, divorce is not inevitable, and in order to say to our culture, ‘divorce is
not inevitable’ we do not need to split into two factions, we do not need to be daggers
drawn, but we can put our hands in each other’s and walk forward in faith believing
that God will lead us into a new future together where we can show love and
reconciliation and something of the very fatherhood of God in the way that we conduct
this debate.
I shall be praying all the way through the debate and I hope that when we come to the
end of it we shall be rejoicing that we will have women bishops but will also be staying
together in the Church.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): Let me begin by saying, as the
mover of the motion did, that I approach this from the position of someone who is
committed to the ordination of women to the episcopate. I believe it to be consonant
with the Bible and Tradition, and I am very unhappy about the irregular, to say the least,
situation that we are now in where we have a category of priests not permitted to be
nominated as bishops. I think that that is an unhappy, illogical and untheological
position. Like others, I long to see the gifts that we have seen in women priests released
into a fuller episcopal ministry, and I cannot see very much of a case for delay.
That said, let me explain some of my difficulties with the motion as it stands before us. It
seems to me that the major division among us is really over whether we have the liberty
to take this decision. Catholics and evangelicals will state that and articulate it in slightly
different ways, but that seems to be the core of the difficulty, and it is not new. It is
actually part of our Anglican heritage to embody those sorts of disagreement –
disagreements over the limits of local autonomy for this Church in this place,
disagreements about the amount of liberty that we have in reading and interpreting
Scripture.
What I want to underline however is that embodying that disagreement over the
centuries, holding that tension, has in all kinds of ways been very good for us. It has
been one of the things that has stopped us drifting into being a kind of complacent folk
church, into just being a form of culture Protestantism in which the agenda is set in
untheological ways. I know that when I am challenged by robust arguments from a
conservative Catholic or evangelical position I have to work harder at my own theology,
and that is good for me; whether or not members think it is a good thing that the
archbishop is made to work harder at his theology I am not so sure, but I am glad of it
anyway!
That means that part of that Anglican legacy is an awareness that there are wider and
more complex issues about our theology and our polity than can be resolved rapidly
without reference to issues of wider obedience – I suppose that is the word – a word that
I have used previously in this Synod. What is the nature of our answerability to the
wider Church? What is the nature of our answerability to Scripture? It is important to
313
11:40:27:11:08
Page 313
Page 314
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
keep those issues on the table for ourselves, and if the effect of certain kinds of
legislation would be to end the presence of those unsettling, concentrating questions,
I do not think that that makes for our health as a Church; we shall have changed
profoundly, and I think that is something a little deeper and broader than just the
question of honouring our promises, though that to me is a very weighty matter indeed.
If we want to talk about the building of trust, it is not ideal to go about it in a climate in
which people are saying that there will be good reasons for over-riding what people
have taken in good faith as clear promises.
That means that I have to recognize a difference between tolerating an uncomfortable
and unrepresentative minority in the Church and recognizing that certain minorities in
the Church are part of the defining agenda of the national Church – the difference
between saying, ‘I suppose I can live with people who hold those sorts of view’ and
saying, ‘People with those sorts of view are actually a rather important element in how I
am an Anglican and how we are Anglicans’; and that goes beyond purely pragmatic
considerations or even emotional considerations. By emotional considerations I mean, ‘I
would be really sad if Fr So-and-so had to leave the Church of England.’ I think that it is
much more a question of the kind of Church we want to be and how we want to be
doing our theology. Of course, the way that we answer that has implications for our
ecumenical discussions as well as for our internal life.
So we are left with very difficult choices, because I want to say very strongly that I am
deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this that ends up as it were
structurally humiliating women who may be nominated to the episcopate, which puts
them in a position of as it were haggling about the limits of their jurisdiction and
authority, which leaves them struggling in ways in which no other bishop has to. At the
same time I am as unhappy about solutions that systematically marginalize, if not finally
exclude, those about whom I have spoken so far, those whose presence is part of the
necessary abrasion that we need to keep our theology vigorous and independent and not
simply at the mercy of whatever fashions or currents in society to which we are
vulnerable.
Just after I spoke in an earlier Synod debate about obedience I received a letter from a
woman cleric who quite rightly said, ‘It is not just a matter of obedience for conservative
Catholics and evangelicals; it is a matter of obedience for me too that I pursue this sense
of vocation, that I pursue the changing of the Church’s mind in this direction’, and I
think that is absolutely right. I would say that for me the recognition of the possibility of
ordaining women to the episcopate is a matter of my own sense of obedience to what
Scripture and Tradition require, but I suspect that my awareness of that obedience
would have been much weaker had I not been pressed on that kind of matter by those
for whom it is a slightly more straightforward issue.
So I come not very comfortably to the conclusion that originally I had not thought I
would reach, namely that if we want to preserve that kind of Anglican identity which
embodies those sorts of conversation, those sorts of accountability, I would want to see
314
11:40:27:11:08
Page 314
Page 315
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
a more rather than a less robust form of structural provision and accommodation for
those who are unhappy with the direction of the legislation. That is why I shall listen
with great interest to how the amendments are debated this afternoon, because I feel
that I still have much learning to do on that.
In conclusion, let me pick up on one point that has been around quite a lot in the debate
– the question of change. Whatever happens this afternoon and subsequently, we are
going to find ourselves in a deeply changed Church of England. My question is: what
sort of change will it be – the change of the fundamental complexion of the sort of
Anglicanism that we have inherited with all its almost unbearable tensions, or the kind
of change that Newman and others talk about, the change that organisms have to
undergo in order to stay the same? That is the kind of discernment on which I think the
amendments will focus our minds this afternoon. Although recognizing that there is no
way of avoiding change, and indeed cost as we said in our covering note, I think that we
should ask for clarity in discerning the sort of change that will preserve that crucial and
valuable legacy that exists in our historic tensions and the sort of change that actually
makes us a different kind of Church.
Mr Robert Key (Salisbury): I support the main motion, for the time being! The editor
of my local newspaper asked me what I was going to get up to in York. She told me
that she does not go to church much but that it has always mattered to her, but that the
Church of England turns her right off because of its attitude to women. It would not
matter so much if we were not the Church by law Established, but we are. Queen
Elizabeth I did not want a window into men’s souls but she did want an English Church
that was in step with our nation and in sympathy with our times. Every coin in our
pockets proclaims that another woman, Queen Elizabeth II, is, thanks be to God,
Defender of that Faith. The Bishop of Manchester told us that today we have a choice –
to anchor, to drift or to move forward. Today we will determine how the world out there
perceives us in here.
Why am I so sure that women bishops will work? Because in the place where I have
worshipped for most of my life the lay and ordained ministry of women has added a
whole new dimension to our Catholic Christianity as we celebrate our cathedral’s 750th
birthday. We have tapped into the reservoir of half of God’s human race that has for far
too long been excluded from leading us. Under the exciting leadership of our dean in
Salisbury, our mother church has become a shining beacon, a powerhouse of faith,
worship and ministry, winning hearts, minds and souls in our diocese, in our nation and
across the world. It is time we stopped making judgements about each other and
realized that the people of England whom we serve are making a judgement about us.
I will not persuade members to go for it if they are theologically opposed to change, but I
appeal to those who want to do the right thing but are nobly held back by conscience
and charity, those who do not wish to come with us, to summon up humanity, clarity
315
11:40:27:11:08
Page 315
Page 316
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
and courage and make the great leap of faith. We should look out through the windows;
we might see Jesus passing by.
The Chairman: Before the Bishop of Winchester moves and speaks to his amendment, I
suggest that members pause for a moment, look at the amendment, look at the main text
of the motion and see where the amendment will hit that main text, because it does so in
a number of places.
The Bishop of Winchester (Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt): I beg to move as an
amendment:
‘After “That this Synod” leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate in the
Church of England, and noting the Manchester group’s assertion in
paragraph 22 of GS 1685 that ‘far and away the most important
question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent
to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of
theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses’,
(i) affirm the assurances included in paragraphs 67–69 of GS
1685;
(ii) reaffirm (GS 1685 paragraph 74) Resolution III.2 of the 1998
Lambeth Conference ‘that those who dissent from, as well as
those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood
and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans’ ”;
In paragraph (b) leave out “within the existing structures of the Church
of England”; and in paragraph (c) after “in” insert “legislation and in”.’
I judge that the Manchester group is accurate in the statement that appears on the order
paper, and I bring this amendment because I believe that it is of fundamental importance
and essential for the well-being and reputation of this Church that today, and
throughout the process that begins a fresh stage today, the Synod says and keeps saying
a clear Yes to the Manchester group’s question, and that even if it should decide not to
take today’s opportunity of saying so it will do so in the future.
I believe that the clearest way of saying that Yes is to affirm the commitments made
before the Ecclesiastical Committee by Professor McClean, by Bishop Michael Adie,
who had introduced the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure of the Synod for final
approval, and by the then Archbishop of Canterbury; and I much appreciate the
Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments made just now on this point. I also believe that
Yes is most naturally said by reaffirming this Synod’s affirmation made two years ago of
the Lambeth Conference resolution, the heart of which is also on the order paper – a
316
11:40:27:11:08
Page 316
Page 317
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
resolution that arose out of conversations in the course of the Lambeth Conference
convened by Bishops Victoria Matthews and Geoffrey Rowell and proposed to the
plenary that passed it by Bishops Penny Jamieson and Edwin Barnes.
I bring this amendment as a bishop who gladly ordains women as priests. I believe that
there should be, I want there to be, women diocesan and suffragan bishops in the
Church of England, and I do not believe that we should delay that process. In the light of
what I have said already however I believe that we can and should do that only if it is in
the context of a clear and persistent Yes to the Manchester group’s question, a clear and
persistent Yes expressed by the presence in legislation of strong safeguards that will
enable all those addressed in the Lambeth Conference motion to continue to participate
in the mission and ministry and life of our Church. That is why in this amendment I have
also asked the Synod to insert into the motion the word ‘legislation’ – I do not think that
the job can be done without it – and why I have proposed the deletion of the reference to
structures, because I do not think this is the moment to foreclose other approaches than
those which maintain every part of our structures if we are to say Yes to the Manchester
group’s question.
Last, I bring the amendment in this form because I believe that only by going out on to a
limb further than many want to go – many sorts of limb are possible, some in the
Manchester group, some in amendments on this order paper – to hold within us (and
‘within us’ is also a movable feast in this matter) those who do not wish to do this will
female diocesan bishops be free in future to exercise an episcopal ministry fully
equivalent to that of their male colleagues.
The Bishop of Gloucester: The effect of the Bishop of Winchester’s amendment is to
reassert some principles, to reaffirm some assurances, but in practical terms to take us
almost back to the drawing board rather than to opt for one or more of the proposals
now before us. As he said, it excludes a code of practice standing on its own as a way
forward. Those who believe that a code of practice is the way forward will therefore
need to reject this amendment. Those who would like the Manchester group to explore
further more than one way forward but wish a code of practice to be among those
options will also need to reject it. Those who are content to see the code of practice
standing alone removed from the options will want to vote for it. Other than ruling out
the code of practice route, this amendment keeps the issues wide open. Those who do
not wish to narrow the options will almost certainly want to vote for it. If passed, it will,
of course, greatly change the shape of this debate and will remove the opportunity to
consider in turn the amendments that reflect the Manchester group’s options.
The Archdeacon of Berkshire (Ven. Norman Russell): Bishops are called to be leaders in
mission. Although archdeacons certainly believe in mission, it is our particular
responsibility to find practical solutions that make things work. I was very grateful
indeed to hear today the clear leadership of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury – a
317
11:40:27:11:08
Page 317
Page 318
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
speech made I am sure not without a great deal of personal cost – and I was grateful too
that three diocesan bishops in rather similar ways, but no doubt also at some cost, have
been prepared to put their heads above the parapet to offer leadership today in possible
ways forward.
I do not think that anyone in this Synod wants to see the Church of England fall apart;
we do not want to see women forced to leave the Church because they cannot put up
with the way they are treated, but nor do we believe that those who have held to the
traditional teachings of the Church should be driven out or be unable to remain with a
good conscience.
I have spent quite a good deal of the weekend talking to traditional Catholics. As most
members of Synod know, I am not an Anglo-Catholic, but I have been trying very hard
to understand their bottom line, and if I may say so – and they can correct me if I am
wrong, no doubt in debate – I think that there has been some movement.
As members will know, not too much has yet been done on the new dioceses option to
which reference is made in the Manchester group’s report, and I think that more needs
to be done. If I am honest, I began by being very wary of those proposals for all the
obvious reasons, but one of the things that has heartened me over the past 48 hours has
been to discover that many of my Anglo-Catholic friends are very keen to remain within
the mainstream of the Church of England and interested in what one might describe as
light-touch new dioceses. I think that there could be acceptability of new dioceses that
would not actually require very significant changes to the practical arrangements for
Church schools, for DACs, for faculty jurisdiction and so on, and it might even be
possible for archdeacons to function within their normal territorial dioceses and also
within new dioceses. It could even be the case that women archdeacons would also be
acceptable in these roles provided that the roles were distinctively archidiaconal.
That said – and I am not advocating new dioceses as such because I am very conscious
that conservative evangelicals may well still prefer transfer of jurisdiction to a
complementary bishop – I honestly do not believe that a code of practice will give either
traditional Catholics or conservative evangelicals the reassurances that they need to
foster vocations to the ministerial priesthood of those who will give 40 years’ service to
the Church. I very much hope that the Synod will back the Winchester amendment.
The Archdeacon of Colchester (Ven. Annette Cooper): I want to resist this amendment
passionately. Like so many in this Synod, I want us to be serious and generous in making
provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the positive development of the
ordination of women to the episcopate. I say to those who are fearful of this and hold a
view that is different from mine, ‘Fear not’ because I believe that, rather than in
legislation, a national statutory code of practice is a formal way of supporting and
including you and will not weaken your position but rather strengthen it in our journey
and pilgrimage together in the Church of England.
318
11:40:27:11:08
Page 318
Page 319
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
I thank the House of Bishops for the courage and leadership that they have shown in
bringing this motion to the Synod today. Let us work with that and not get bogged
down in the plethora of amendments before us. There have been times when I thought
we would never get to this place.
Of course, some have told me that this is where we should have started and others have
said, ‘It could all have been done in a few hours like it was in the Sudan’, but that has not
been the way we have handled ourselves. We have studied the Scriptures, we have
debated the theology, we have prayed and are praying, and we know that a positive
decision today is consonant with our faith and practice in the Church of England and is
essential to God’s mission in our nation.
I hope that the national code of practice will be in front of us in February and that we
can consider it with prayerfulness and care and work together. I took seriously
Archbishop Rowan’s challenge when in opening this quinquennium he said, ‘Take
unity as a personal responsibility. Pray with the brothers and sisters with whom you
disagree.’ Within that, my own Anglican identity has grown and our working together
has grown.
I urge Synod to resist this amendment. Let us not make too complicated a Measure that
might undermine bishops, male and female, and their authority; rather let us go for that
statutory national code of practice that will help us to move on and rejoice in this new
place to which we find God is leading us in the Church of England today.
Mrs Ruth Whitworth (Ripon and Leeds): In speaking to this amendment I would like to
make three brief points about why a code of practice is inadequate and legislation is to
be preferred. First, it is just not acceptable to those who are opposed in principle to
women bishops. I am sure that members of Synod must be aware by now that those who
are opposed to the proposals are not simply old men who cannot face change. They
include young men and women and young ordinands and clergy and they will not
disappear in ten years’ time. Their reasons are considered and conscientious and,
whether or not we agree with them, we have to respect the seriousness and sincerity of
their views.
Second, there is the question of trust: ‘Have a code of practice and you can trust the
bishops and dioceses to use it.’ Most of my working life has been spent in one of the
large clearing banks. The first rule of banking is that you do not trust anyone else.
Systems are put in place so that two people always deal with everything, and I am sure
that we see this in our PCCs, or we should do, where we ensure for instance that the
collection is counted by two people, that the giving envelopes are opened by two people
and that the banking is done by two. Full legal provision needs to be in place for
occasions on which trust breaks down. The Synod is a legislative body. If we all trusted
each other for everything all the time, there would be no need for any Measures and we
could all go home early.
319
11:40:27:11:08
Page 319
Page 320
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
Third, we actually have quite a good system of flying bishops: it is one of the few
creative things that the Church of England has done in the past few years. My father is a
vicar and an evangelical and he has immense support from, and I would say fellowship
with, his PEV, the Bishop of Beverley. I am very grateful for that on my father’s behalf
and I see no reason why a similar scheme could not be continued.
I urge members of Synod to vote for this amendment so that we can all go forward with
confidence.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells (Rt Revd Peter Price): I want to speak against the Bishop
of Winchester’s amendment, and I do so reluctantly. The issue of women in the
episcopate reminds us that justice lies at the heart of theology, and the need to resolve
this matter today is imperative because time spent on spiritual concerns within the
ghetto of the Church weakens our witness and prevents us engaging with the
overwhelming challenges of our contemporary world; and that is what concerns me
about this amendment.
Theology and justice go together in the economy of God. ‘Seek first the kingdom of God
and his saving justice’, said Jesus. Saving justice is marked by, among other things, a
compassion for those who are excluded. As the Archbishop of York reminded us on
Saturday, the kingdom of God is God’s movement for change, and we need to think
about the nature of change in the gospel as we continue this debate.
In St Peter’s vision at Joppa recorded in the Acts, Peter is invited to kill and eat food that
is ritually unclean. Peter refuses but a voice challenges him and challenges that refusal to
break the tradition of centuries of the old purity code. ‘What God has cleansed’, says the
voice, ‘you must not call common.’ Peter, of course, did not understand this vision,
not only because it was not about the purity laws as such, but as the prelude to the
Gentile mission of which we are all direct beneficiaries. How could he? Everything that
he had known militated against it, yet God called Peter to a developing understanding
of what the tradition gave, and I would plead that as we speak about tradition and
traditionalists we understand that truth in the Scriptures. Peter’s initial response was
one of anger – ‘How can God do this to me?’ – but God’s saving justice called Peter into
a new place.
The God of the Christian faith calls us from the deceptive religious security consciously
abiding safely in the bosom of the Church into human freedom. Christian faith cannot
gain from human bondage; it is being fully human that we are made in God’s image.
God’s saving justice calls all of us to inhabit new structures with grace and love, not
setting up new barriers, which is the inevitable outcome of legislation. The first rule of
the gospel is to trust, and that is what we have to learn as we come to this debate this
afternoon. I urge members of Synod to reject all forms of legislation and to oppose this
amendment.
The Bishop of Chichester (Rt Revd John Hind): I support this amendment. On Friday
Metropolitan John almost, but not quite, repeated something that he said at the launch
320
11:40:27:11:08
Page 320
Page 321
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
of the Anglican–Orthodox report The Church of the Triune God. Responding to a
journalist’s question about the ordination of women, he simply said ‘We have not
managed to persuade each other.’ We have not managed to persuade each other either
about the issue itself or what and how we decide we will reveal about the Church that
we are, think we are or want to be, even indeed what we think the Church is. For a
community seeking to discern the will of Christ, that is a serious theological problem,
not merely one of synodical arithmetic.
The question this afternoon makes the dividing line between the strictly theological and
the procedural very fine indeed. Given that we have not managed to persuade each
other, we have to find a way of honouring each other. If the Church of England is to have
women bishops, I think that we need to be guided by two fundamental principles. First,
the ministry of women bishops must be unimpeded by hesitations or qualifications
designed to protect anybody from them. Anything of the sort would be demeaning and
insulting to faithful servants of God. Second, those who cannot on theological grounds
accept this development must have a proper ecclesial home. They do not need
protecting, and anything of that sort would be as patronizing to them as it would be
insulting to the bishops.
I hope very much that these two principles will shape the way in which we respond
to both this amendment and the others before us. It is clear to me that any form of
code of practice as presently suggested, together with mandatory delegation or
mandatory transfer, will fall foul of both of those principles, and I shall certainly vote
accordingly.
The choice therefore is between the simplest possible approach and a structural solution
– options 1 and 3. Annex B to the report contains a draft of what the simplest approach
might look like in terms of a Measure. Although Annex C illustrates the new dioceses
approach, that, of course, is only one form of structural solution, and we do not have
before us a corresponding draft Measure to see what it would look like. I would also like
to say that although the 12th notice paper addresses the financial cost of one option it is
unfortunate that we do not have a financial statement about the cost of other options,
because every option has a price tag attached to it.
Given the depth of our disagreement, I hope that Synod will accept this amendment
and that it will provide for us a way to instruct the legislative drafting group to
prepare legislation on both options 1 and 3 so that we will have a clear choice in
February.
Revd Sister Rosemary CHN (Religious Communities): The bishop’s amendment begins
with a quotation that appears in the Manchester group’s report in bold type, that ‘far
and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is
the extent to which it wishes to accommodate . . .’ etc. May I respectfully disagree? I
would say that anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate, the most
important question we now have to face is how best their ministry can be welcomed,
enabled, encouraged, celebrated and carried out in collegial co-operation with their
321
11:40:27:11:08
Page 321
Page 322
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
brother bishops. That is not, of course, to say that the concerns of those who cannot
accept the ministry of women bishops are unimportant or should not be addressed;
there is no proposal before us that requires no arrangements for those who have a
conscientious dissent. Our task is to find the best of the options, but something in the
nature of a threat hangs over us in the form of some of them, namely that if what they
see as robust enough arrangements are not made they will leave the Church of England.
Another concern expressed in the Manchester report is that the Church of England
which emerged at the end of this process, i.e. if they were to leave, might possibly be
more cohesive but would undoubtedly be less theologically diverse. The report does not
spell out what it means by ‘less theologically diverse’ but I suspect it means that the
Catholic tradition would be lost from the Church of England; I would vigorously
contest any such contention.
If all those from the Catholic tradition who could not accept the ministry of women
bishops were to leave, there would still be many in the Church of England who value
sacramental theology, sacramental practice, the whole sweep of Church history, order
and beauty in worship, mystical prayer, Catholic spirituality, spiritual direction, the
sacrament of reconciliation, religious iconography, veneration of the Blessed Virgin
Mary and other saints, shrines, pilgrimages, festivals, incense, holy water, and of course
the religious life; many of us would still be left.
We who wish for the ordination of women to the episcopate are convinced that the
catholicity of the Church of England would be enriched and enhanced, not diminished,
by the full inclusion of women in the sacred ministry. Please accept us as loyal Catholic
Anglicans.
Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford): On a point of information, Mr Chairman. If I read the order
paper correctly, if this amendment is passed all the other amendments would fall except
for Items 73 and 74 and we would not be able to debate any of the other amendments. Is
that correct?
The Chairman: I am sure that the Synod is very grateful to you, Mr Lee, for pointing
that out. This is a very substantial amendment and it would have those consequences,
yes.
Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Under
Standing Orders will you accept a division by Houses?
The Chairman: I thought that we might have that request. We can have a division by
Houses if 25 members stand to seek it. Are there 25 members standing? There are.
322
11:40:27:11:08
Page 322
Page 323
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
The amendment was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(d)(iv) ordered a division
by Houses with the following result:
Ayes
14
62
78
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Noes
31
120
114
Abstentions
0
0
0
The amendment was therefore lost.
Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘Leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to
the episcopate”.’
In a sense we now return to the beginning again. Synod may want to ask: is this a play
on words? I have to say that it is – and quite deliberately so – and I hope that members
will understand that I offer this amendment today in a positive spirit for the sake of
conscience. If the Synod were minded to pass it, it would help many members to vote for
provision at the end of the day. Of course, if this one phrase is included, there will
remain many who, although they would like to vote for the right provision, will still
have a problem in principle with the overall motion. So, inviting Synod to support this
amendment, members will indeed be helping us all to move forward together; that is the
purpose of what I am trying to do.
I beg members not to read too much into it or to be too cynical about it, because that is
not my intention. I want it to mean what it says, which is why I am returning to the
original wording that we approved on the last occasion that we debated it. I have
deliberately kept in the word ‘affirm’ because, of course, we want to affirm where we
are, and on the last occasion on which we addressed the issue and had the theological
debate we affirmed the majority view of the House of Bishops, which became the
majority view of this Synod. That is where we are, and I want us to be honest about it.
I recognize, of course, the need to move forward. I too believe – I have said it before in
this Synod and like the Bishop of Gloucester want to say it again this afternoon – that
the priestly ministry of women has brought a great blessing to our Church, but to use
the words of my friend Fr Philpott, I want to get off the battlefield and on to the mission
field. We have to move forward. That is the purpose of this amendment, and I hope that
at the end of the day we will all want to make a positive decision in order to bring that
about.
323
11:40:27:11:08
Page 323
Page 324
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
Provision is for conscience sake, yes, but it is also for ecumenical reasons, as we have
heard the archbishop talk about this afternoon, and for giving an equal and honoured
place in the Church of England to those who cannot in principle accept this
development. We need to be able to recognize where we belong in our Church’s identity,
and that we do belong.
When ten years ago a group of Catholics from both sides of the argument in this Synod
went to Walsingham to discuss where we were, it was Archbishop Rowan himself who
taught me how it was possible to hold together both views in tension, that there was not
a right or wrong but two rights in this matter. Both sides are right because, as he
reminded us in this Synod as recently as last year, it is a matter of obedience, obedience
to Scripture and Tradition, and that is why it is so difficult for us to deal with it.
Yesterday in York Minister I was honoured, as I am each year, to be in the procession as
one of the officers of this Synod – and with other prolocutors we possibly look like
Puritan divines or maybe even Methodist ministers – with Judy Hunt, with whom I have
worked on the Clergy Terms of Service, with my friend Christine, the Archdeacon of
Lewisham, with Norman, who has as it were arms like a father keeping us all on board
together, as well as with my close colleague Fr Simon. That is an important image that I
want us to hold on to today, because we are together in this. There are no threats to
leave the Church, but if members could in the generosity of their hearts find it possible
to vote for this amendment to affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be
admitted to the episcopate, I believe that we would all be on board together in this and
would together be able to travel safely home.
The Bishop of Gloucester: Prebendary Houlding’s amendment is designed, as he has just
said, to make it more possible at the end of the debate for him and those who share his
view to vote for the motion if possibly through amendments the motion emerges in a
form that they can in every other way support. The Synod must decide whether it wants
to facilitate that by voting for this amendment. I do not think that anything fundamental
is at stake for those who support the motion in its present form.
The Chairman: I am inclined to hear a couple of speeches to begin with and then Synod
may perhaps want to consider whether to seek closure on this matter in view of the
Bishop of Gloucester’s comments.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath and Wells): David Houlding has asked us not to be cynical about
this and I do not want to be; rather I want to be synodical about it. I think that the very
clear point needs to be made that when we make a decision in Synod and are asked later
to do something about it, we should reaffirm that decision, but should not go backwards
and say that we are now affirming that a majority decided that something was to
happen. We need to make the point very clearly that we are talking about an episcopally
led and synodically governed Church, and if we are to fall foul of that we shall be in a
very difficult place indeed.
324
11:40:27:11:08
Page 324
Page 325
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
Revd Jonathan Clark (London): Tim Hind has made some of the points that I was about
to make, so fortunately I shall be even briefer than usual. It may not be Fr Houlding’s
intention, but if this amendment is passed he will not be the only person interpreting it,
and when we agreed with the view of the majority of the House of Bishops a couple of
years ago we were informed by many people that it meant we had not in fact decided in
favour of the principle as such.
I would invite Synod to oppose this amendment both for that negative reason that I
think it will be misinterpreted, but also more importantly because the motion before us
as it stands makes a positive statement about the reason we are approaching this issue.
We are here because most of us believe that admitting women to the episcopate is a
legitimate development of the Church’s tradition; we believe that it is consonant with
Holy Scripture; we believe that it is what the Spirit is calling us to today; and we believe
that it will strengthen the Church in proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ to the
world. Certainly no other reason would make me so eager to see it happen, no other
reason would enable me to want to move forward despite the distress of those who
cannot accept it, but if it is God’s will for us – and Tim is right that that is what we are
deciding synodically – we must approach it wholeheartedly and joyfully. I therefore
urge Synod to reject this amendment and to keep that positive note at the heart of our
debate.
The Chairman: In view of the fact that both of the previous speeches on the amendment
have been in one direction, I would prefer first to ask whether anyone would like to take
a different view.
The Bishop of Burnley (Rt Revd John Goddard): On Saturday I spoke about wanting to
stay, about not packing bags and about engaging, and one of the great points of
emphasis that has emerged over the past 48 hours has been on engagement.
The other day Tim and I had a deep debate that I believe was very helpful to both of us.
Shortly before that I had been talking to those convinced, ordained women about their
particular aspect; that informs. If we are to conduct this debate as we have done very
carefully over the past few days, honesty is important. Therefore if this motion remains
unchanged – and I am being honest here, hopefully with integrity – and even if, as I
hope, we consider carefully the issue of three dioceses, though I have problems with that
particular word because it comes with all the panoply of what we imagine dioceses to be
and I would love a much lighter and integrated touch to such matters, I could not vote
affirming as a member of this Synod my agreement with the ordination of women to the
episcopacy.
I therefore ask the Synod, as Prebendary David Houlding did, to give all of us this
opportunity – and I do not know what is going to happen during the rest of the debate –
325
11:40:27:11:08
Page 325
Page 326
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
to vote if the provision that emerges seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us. If a
consensus is arrived at and yet this remains, it would be difficult for me to vote.
Although I accept Tim Hind’s points about being synodical, I challenge the Synod to
accept some flexibility. Putting that aside, we have heard from the Bishop of Gloucester
that this is not fundamental, but it would enable us to vote totally as a Synod if we
should arrive at a consensus. I beg members to accept the challenge, to be flexible and
to allow all of us, whatever our integrities, to vote together. I support the amendment.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (London University): On a point of order, Mr
Chairman. Will you consider a vote by Houses?
The Chairman: That requires 25 members of Synod to stand. There are 25 standing.
The amendment was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(d)(iv) ordered a
division by Houses with the following result:
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Ayes
28
90
97
Noes
17
89
85
Abstentions
0
4
7
The amendment was therefore carried.
Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and in paragraph (d) leave out
“, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.’
The effect of my amendment is to avoid the Synod being committed from the very outset
of the drafting of legislation to simply a code of practice as the way forward, and that is
the context in which I wish to address the issue.
The Church of England has regular discussions with the Government to ensure that
legislation recognizes the special position of the Church in matters as diverse as the
Marriage Act, planning law, employment law or education, and these are eventually
written into the relevant Act of Parliament that emerges. In this week’s Church of
326
11:40:27:11:08
Page 326
Page 327
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
England Newspaper Bishop Tom Butler is reported as having spoken in a House of
Lords discussion during which he called on the Government to ensure that new equality
legislation pays attention to ‘the wider needs and doctrinal sensitivities of the faith
communities’. Amen to that! In 1992 this Synod made some provision for the wider
needs and doctrinal sensitivities of one faith community within our midst. It was enough
to keep many on board, but even so we were sadly parted from many friends.
I have spoken to many people this weekend and have found no one who in principle
wants to prevent the ordination of women to the episcopate going ahead. The issue that
seems to concern everyone is the way in which we do it, and I think that for the sake of
justice and equity we have to get it right. We cannot allow this legislation to become a
catalyst for strife. A code of practice however framed will ultimately enable the exercise
of discretion, and if we go forward with the bishop’s motion as it stands it will neither
provide for the wider needs and doctrinal sensitivities of many in our Church nor I fear
command a two-thirds majority at the end of several years of progress through all its
stages. We have to begin with some kind of consensus, because if this motion fails in
2011 or 2012 it cannot start again until 2015 at the beginning of another new Synod
with another longer period of debate to follow.
I would like to urge the Synod this afternoon to achieve a consensus – not a majority
which excludes one party or another but a consensus that we can all take forward. If
Synod passes my amendment it will remit the task of drawing up draft legislation to the
steering group without tying their hands to a code of practice, and then next February
we can see what the practical possibilities might look like and decide how to proceed
rather than gamble everything this afternoon on a controversial decision to bind
ourselves to a code of practice.
I hope that we can find a way forward together but I do not think that a code of practice
is the right way. I believe that if we commit ourselves in the way that the bishop’s
motion invites us to, it will actually prove more dangerous than advantageous to
proceed.
The Bishop of Gloucester: The effect of Fr Trott’s amendment is to decline to narrow
the options presented by the Manchester group. None of the group’s proposals is ruled
out, but if this amendment is passed the Synod will not have an opportunity to narrow
down the number of pathways that it is willing to consider. I suspect that those who are
clear about which option or options they want to retain and which they want to discard
will want to resist this amendment. Those who want to send the matter back to the
drafting group without any guidance on which options to develop will want to vote for
it, but I cannot imagine that the drafting group would welcome that.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (London University): There are three reasons for
resisting this amendment. The first is the comment that Synod has already heard from
327
11:40:27:11:08
Page 327
Page 328
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
the Bishop of Gloucester that the drafting group would want to resist it because they
will be asked to do a huge amount of work. I simply do not think that it is practical,
because the effect of the amendment still retains the possibility of asking them to have
all this stuff ready by February 2009, and to work up all the options into drafts by
February 2009 – I see my lord of Manchester nodding vigorously – is not practical.
Second, I do not believe that we have in the financial memorandum a statement of how
much that will cost in terms of staff time, but it will be enormous. Those are the two
practical reasons for resisting it.
However I want to resist it for other, perhaps more important reasons. I am quite
excited about today because we have a fairly clear steer in this motion that takes us
forward, and the effect of this amendment is to ignore that steer and to take us back. We
have had much information and comment about resolutions passed in the early 1990s,
but I have not heard much mention of the fact that it was actually as long ago as 1975
that this Synod agreed that there were no fundamental objections to the ordination of
women.
As the archbishop reminded us at the outset, we have been doing it in a theologically
nonsensical way by separating the orders so as to take time, so we spent the 1970s on
the principle, the 1980s on the deacons, the 1990s on the priests, and now the 2000s on
the bishops. It has been a theological nonsense but it has enabled us to discuss it and
make movements.
What has been interesting and exciting about this Synod is that although we have all
come to talk about the consecration of women to the episcopate, that is not what we
have actually been talking about, because it seems to have been taken for granted in
paragraph 11 of the Manchester report that this is the will of the majority of the Synod.
We are not even discussing the timing; it is now taken for granted in paragraphs 44 and
47 that the timing is about right.
We are asking what arrangements might we put in place as we go forward for those who
will find it extremely difficult, and since we have made all that progress since 1975 I do
not want to kick it back into the open. We therefore have a very clear steer and I think
that the code of practice is a very good way of moving it forward in relation to how we
might be able to maintain what Richard Hooker described in Laws of Ecclesiastical
Polity book III Ch.viii 9 as, ‘harmonious dissimilitude of those ways, whereby God’s
Church upon earth is guided from age to age, throughout all generations of men’; and of
course I hope that he would also now include women. That is a way of enabling us to
move forward with maximum comprehensiveness, with a code of practice but not
without legislating as separate structures, rather than kicking the whole thing back into
the open and starting all over again, which would be the effect of Fr Trott’s amendment.
I urge Synod to resist it.
The Bishop of Oxford (Rt Revd John Pritchard): I too want to resist this amendment. I
am deeply perplexed by this entire process, which puts me in a real fix because I
328
11:40:27:11:08
Page 328
Page 329
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
recognize that I want to have my cake and eat it. I want to honour women’s ministry
without equivocation, but also I very much do not want to lose in any sense the very
good Catholic priests that we have in the diocese of Oxford.
I would therefore like to introduce a different principle, that is the principle of elegance.
If we go into the further depths of scientific research we find that the deeper truths are
talked about in terms of elegance, beauty or simplicity. The deeper we go the more
elegant are the solutions, and I feel that actually elegance is to be found in this debate at
both ends of the spectrum of our approach; we have it in both the code of practice with
statutory enforcement and in the different dioceses.
I am clear though that I want to resist the different dioceses, the new structures, for all
kinds of reasons, not least because we would end up with two types of bishop and
therefore two types of Church, a refuge for people who have all sorts of difficulty with
bishops for all kinds of other reasons, and a missiological handicap – a Church that
actually does not accept women fully in its ministry really does appear somewhat
ridiculous to society – so there are all kinds of problem at that end. I therefore think that
we would be into elegance at the end of minimal legislation with a code of practice. I
know that there are many objections to that, but I feel that we should give the code of
practice much more rope – not to hang itself but to keep going! – because it has to be
tested.
There are objections certainly in practice and in ecclesiology. I know that in practice
people say that bishops cannot be trusted. I am very sorry about that because I think
that basically I can be trusted, but we need to look at how codes of practice have been
developed. They have worked very well in all kinds of places, and of course the Act of
Synod is a type of code of practice. So I am quite clear that we must hold bishops
accountable; male and female bishops have to use complementary bishops. There is also
the objection of ecclesiology. I understand that people could well say that the issue of
authority and jurisdiction is hopelessly compromised if a diocesan is a woman, but I
think that we could actually have oaths made to the office of bishop rather than to the
person of the bishop and I would like to explore that.
I believe that we should find the code of practice an elegant solution. I would like to try
that and see how far it runs; and I for one believe that I can be trusted. I urge Synod to
resist the amendment.
The Chairman: In view of the two previous speeches that have gone one way on the
amendment, I should be grateful to hear from those who may wish to support it so that
we achieve a balance.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): I find myself in an embarrassing position,
Mr Chairman, because you have called on someone to speak in favour of the
amendment but I wish to speak against it and I would welcome your advice on how to
proceed.
329
11:40:27:11:08
Page 329
Page 330
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
The Chairman: In that case, Fr Killwick, I suggest that you do not speak, if you do not
mind.
Revd Prebendary Sam Philpott (Exeter): I speak in favour of the amendment, and I am
glad that my colleague Canon Killwick gave way.
I would like to kill off the code of practice immediately. I want to say to my friend
Richard Burridge that he may be keen to go forward but that going forward in the
way that he proposes would leave many of us behind. I say to Annette Cooper that she
may well believe – and I do believe that she believes, and I respect that she believes that
she believes! – that God is leading her to that new place, but I have to tell the Synod
that he is not leading me. He is actually telling me to stay where I am, and that is our
problem.
I would also like to say that I do not need this Synod to tell me that I have an honoured
place. Each and every member of this Synod and of this Church has an honoured
place by virtue of his or her baptism. We are baptized brothers and sisters going in
different directions, and that is what we have to solve; a code of practice will not solve it.
That tells me that Synod is going to tolerate me. I am not prepared to be tolerated
and I am staying in this Church. If some members have bishops whom they can fully
accept, I need a bishop who I can fully accept, and therefore I do not want a code of
practice.
I do want a structural solution but do not want the one defined in the financial
statement, and I certainly do not want the one that is defined in the Manchester report. I
want to sit down with the Manchester group and discover how we might have new
kinds of bishop who are hands-on leaders of mission with their clergy and their people
in dioceses; and if members actually go with that, they may discover that God is giving
the whole of the Church of England a new gift.
Revd Professor Richard Burridge (London University): On a point of order, Mr
Chairman –
The Chairman: Perhaps it is the point of order that I am thinking of, that is to say that
if Synod passes this amendment all the other amendments would fall except Item 74,
which we would have to address. Is that your question, Professor Burridge?
Revd Professor Richard Burridge: No, but I am terribly glad that you have made that
point as well, Mr Chairman.
330
11:40:27:11:08
Page 330
Page 331
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
I understand that Under SO 98 we need to understand the financial implications of any
vote. We are told in the eighth notice paper that if the motion is passed unamended it
will cost around £45,000 to work up the one option. From that I deduce that to work up
the other five options will cost about five times £45,000 in addition, so the cost of
passing this motion will be something of the order of £300,000, but we do not actually
have that information and according to SO 98 we are supposed to have it before we vote
on it.
The Chairman: I am not a mathematician but I will enquire whether Mr Andrew Britton
of the Archbishops’ Council Finance Division can help.
Mr Andrew Britton (Archbishops’ Council, Ex officio): I think that probably there are
economies of scale to be taken into account. I would not like to tell Synod how large
those economies would be, but I think that to multiply it by five would be excessive,
while to multiply it by two would probably not.
A member: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Will you accept a division by Houses?
The Chairman: I can only accept a division by Houses if 25 members stand. There are
25 members standing.
The amendment was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(d)(iv) ordered a
division by Houses with the following result:
Ayes
3
28
36
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Noes
40
149
147
Abstentions
2
4
5
Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Durham and Newcastle Universities): I beg to move as
an amendment:
‘In paragraph (b) leave out all the words after “affirm its view that” and
insert “this should be done with the simplest possible statutory
approach, with local diocesan arrangements for pastoral provision and
sacramental care;”;
leave out paragraph (c); and
in paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code
of practice.”.’
Since amendments to this Measure have been encouraged, I feel we should have the
opportunity to express our mind on the option of the simplest possible statutory
331
11:40:27:11:08
Page 331
Page 332
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
approach. The Measure proposed by the bishops is fairly simple, but the requirement
for a code of practice introduces an unnecessary and, I believe, undesirable level of
complexity into the primary legislation. The effect of this amendment would be that
legislation allowing women to be bishops would be as simple, clear and elegant as
possible. We would simply be saying that we want women to be bishops.
The Manchester report describes this way forward as the clearest approach, with the
most obvious ecclesiological and theological coherence, which I hope will recommend it
to Synod.
Second, I speak on behalf of over 1,300 ordained women who have written to ask Synod
to pass legislation to allow women bishops without enshrining in that legislation any
distinction between men and women. Women and men must be the same kind of bishop.
We long to see the consecration of women bishops in our Church and we believe that it
is right, both in principle and in timing, but not at any price.
We find ourselves again and again asked by those outside the Church what the Church is
playing at. We find our mission to the nation impaired to the extent that the Church is
seen to be less than good news. So we ask that the final women bishops Measure be
simple and positive, affirming that this is the right way forward for our Church, without
fearfully looking over our shoulder at those who disagree.
It is important to be clear that this amendment would not mean that no provision was
made for the consciences of those who cannot accept women bishops. Its effect would
be to provide for an appropriate and proportionate local response to those with widely
varying theological difficulties over this issue. Models of best practice that were found to
work well would, of course, be shared across the dioceses and from across the
Communion and from other sister Churches.
Remember too that the simplest statutory approach is the option which has been passed
in all the 15 provinces of the Anglican Communion which currently allow consecration
of women as bishops. This is not experimental: the amendment offers us a way forward
which has been tried and tested across our Communion and which has proved to work
well for all concerned.
The opposite is also true. The option of separate arrangements and complex subsidiary
structures has been tried in this country over the past 14 years. It was hoped that these
arrangements would maintain trust and fellowship and would build bridges, enabling us
to work together in mission and develop a common mind. This has not worked. Instead
our fault-lines have become deeper and positions more entrenched. Let us not attempt a
way forward now which is proved not to work.
I trust my fellow members of the clergy and of the whole Church of England to find
ways of working together on a one-to-one basis, as they find themselves. From what I
332
11:40:27:11:08
Page 332
Page 333
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
have seen, I believe that setting up legal structures to dictate those ways will be counterproductive.
There is clearly a lot of fear in this debate, but the experience of all those provinces who
have ordained women as bishops is of celebration, not fear. I ask members to cast their
minds back to the group of sessions in February when the Synod debated the
Government’s proposal to increase the limit of detention without charge to 42 days. In
our debate then, member after member stood to make the point that we should not
allow our very real fears of terrorism to cloud our judgement about appropriate
legislation. We should not legislate out of fear. We should not legislate now on this or
any other issue out of fear. I ask you to support my amendment.
The Bishop of Gloucester: This amendment, as we have heard, allows us to test the
mind of the Synod on whether the Manchester group’s first approach – the simplest
possible statutory approach, with no binding national arrangements – is the way
forward. It does, of course, intend pastoral provision and sacramental care of those
unable to accept the ministry of women priests and bishops, but it envisages local
arrangements, not a national, let alone a statutory, code. Those in favour of this
approach will clearly vote for it; those who believe in national arrangements, whether
by code or by legislation, will clearly vote against it.
Mrs Christina Rees (St Albans): The motion that the House of Bishops has brought
before us today is good, but I think that this makes it better, better for what we are really
about today. We are voting on going forward with women as bishops. Three years ago
our Synod said, ‘Let us remove legal obstacles to women as bishops’. Two years ago this
Synod voted that we found having women as bishops consonant with the faith of our
Church. Whatever we put in our legislation, whether it is in the Measure or in
regulations, whether it is statutory or non-statutory, once it is in there it is part of how
we move forward with women bishops.
I would like to say that anything that distinguishes between bishops in our Church is
bound to make one set of bishops different. I would like to speak not only for the 1,300
women clergy mentioned by Miranda – in addition, many more hundreds have
contacted me, above that number – but also for the many, many hundreds of male clergy
who have said, ‘Please, do this. We’ve said we want women bishops. We are longing for
them. Please, though, we do not want anything that distinguishes between bishops in
our Church, for the sake of unity, for the sake of our Anglican understanding of what it
means to be a bishop, for the sake of dioceses, for all sorts of things. Once you introduce
something else, a distinction is made’.
We have been asked a lot this week what type of Church we want to be. I think that is a
really important question to keep in the forefront of our minds. I would like to think
that we could be a Church today that says Yes to a God who calls women as God calls
men, Yes to women being fully included in the ordained ministries of our Church. To me
that would work best if we could remove, once and for all, the question mark that has
333
11:40:27:11:08
Page 333
Page 334
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
been hanging over the heads of all our ordained women in the Church of England.
Having women as bishops will put them in that position in law, but unless we remove
any doubt that they are as fully bishops as our males are, some doubt will remain; there
will be distinctions.
It works in practice; through the 20 years we have had women priests, anyone who has
been in an LEP knows that the official Church line can say one thing but on the ground it
works. It comes back to the very word we have used so many times already this
afternoon: trust in relationships, and not only trust in one another but trust in God. We
are looking at one another and saying, ‘Yes we want more from one another, we
acknowledge that’, but what is God calling our Church to be?
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): I urge Synod to reject this amendment because really it
drives a coach and horses through the whole thing. It just is against the spirit of the
bishops’ motion. Next Monday we celebrate the 175th anniversary of the Assize sermon
given by John Keble. What would John Keble be saying now if he could be hearing what
Christina Rees has just said? She is talking about removal. What does she want to
remove? If this motion goes through as it stands she is really removing me from the
Church of England because I just could not accept that I any longer had an honoured
place in this Church.
My wife and I have been married for almost 22 years. For both of us it was a second
marriage, and so reception into the Roman Church would be difficult. We could, of
course, just go along to Mass and receive, like a thief in the night. That is not what either
of us wants, nor is it what is wanted by the 8,000-odd women who signed the petition
that Vivienne Goddard presented earlier on.
So, please, Synod, reject this. Unless the provision made is provision that can be
accepted by the Catholic group and the conservative Evangelicals, then it is really no
provision at all. The assurance we require is that there shall be some sort of provision
that will enable us to remain. Please be honest with us. In the words of the old music-hall
song, ‘We don’t want to lose you but we think you ought to go’. If that is what you are
saying, please do not be mealy-mouthed about it. We do look for kindness, if you want
us in. Otherwise sing the song, ‘wish me luck as you wave me goodbye’.
Revd Canon Professor Marilyn McCord Adams (Oxford University): Over recent days
we have heard a number of pleas from those who are conscientiously unable to receive
the ministry of ordained women that they are loyal Anglicans to whom promises of
protection, even quasi-legal protection, have been made. I believe this is a misleading
way of framing the issue. The Church of England is not governed by the laws of the
Medes and the Persians. The laws of the land and the Act of Synod which are relevant to
this issue are, and are known to be, changeable. To change a law is not to break a
promise. To reverse an Act of Synod may frustrate hopes, disappoint expectations but it
is not the same as reneging on an oath.
334
11:40:27:11:08
Page 334
Page 335
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
To recognize people as loyal Anglicans is not the same as to concede that their
conscientious convictions should all be given institutional expression. I take it for
granted that we are all loyal Anglicans, yet we regularly deny in this Synod one
another’s conscientious convictions at every meeting.
These communications go on to say that if these protections, these quasi-legal
protections, are not forthcoming, people will have to think long and hard about whether
or not they can remain within our Church. Believe me, we know the feeling. We have
wrestled for decades with the question of how we can remain in a Church whose sex and
gender policies run so contrary to our conscientious convictions about what the gospel
really proclaims. We decided to stay because we love our Church, because it is one of the
few institutions explicitly devoted to growing up people in the knowledge and love of
God and of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because it is the arena of gospel proclamation and
because it is the home of the sacraments. We chose to stay and work for change from the
inside, and we sincerely hope that you will make that choice too. You should not,
however, ask us to put sex and gender policies –
The Chairman: I am sorry, you are out of time.
Revd Canon Professor Marilyn McCord Adams: – that are contrary to our
conscientious commitments into institutionalized structures any more than you would
on the issue of race.
Revd Canon Chris Sugden (Oxford): What sort of Church do we want to be? The
argument for the one-clause Measure and against provision by Measure is powerful. It
goes like this, in a different but similar area of life: we all decry any form of racism, and
we will not allow any form of racism except in some special areas that have been
traditionally racist. We cannot allow such exceptions if you put the matter of acceptance
of women bishops at that level. It is being made a matter at the level of doctrine and
faith, but the Church of England since its inception has resisted the continental
Reformation and said that it would not require what Scripture did not require.
Our Church should be known for providing freedom of conscience, not for religious
absolutism, which has not been part of our English Church tradition. Indeed, it would
come about that the Church of England had only one defining characteristic: that it
required absolutely the acceptance by all of women bishops, whatever their
conscientious position on the matter. So there should be provision for those who cannot
receive the ministry of women bishops. Those who take this view already accept that
they are a minority. Our approach should be to ask what they would regard as a secure
safeguard by Measure. We should not take the step of telling them what special
provision we will allow them. That would be to express a condescension which would
be unworthy of our Church at its best.
This is not about them; it is about us. It is clear that those who cannot receive the
ministry of women bishops want provision by Measure. We should have the vision of a
335
11:40:27:11:08
Page 335
Page 336
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
big-tent approach, of generosity of spirit, and maintain a reputation for keeping our
word. Under the canopy of the eschatological future both Paul and Jesus affirmed the
spirit of the psalmist, who said, ‘He who keeps his oath, even when it hurts, he who does
these things will never be shaken’.
The Bishop of Lincoln (Rt Revd John Saxbee): This is one of the most difficult
moments in my life and in the life of this Synod since I became a member of it,
because I want exactly what Christina Rees wants and what this motion is arguing
for, which is the simplest possible way for women to be bishops in the Church of
England.
I am a veteran of the Guildford group. We went through the experience of having this
Synod almost unanimously applaud the work we did. When eventually it emerged what
the crossing of t’s and the dotting of i’s might mean, in terms of implementing
Guildford, we got a virtually unanimous thumbs-down. What did that tell us, that sort
of stalking-horse process? What it told us was that this Synod was very positive about
the spirit of the Guildford exercise, which was four bishops, all of very different
opinions, working together in order to come up with something that could hold together
as many people as possible. The spirit was affirmed almost unanimously; it was the
letter of the implementation that satisfied nobody.
That is why I find myself very negative in relation to any of these amendments that
propose we go down a legislative route, which therefore ought to lead me to the simplest
single-clause Measure approach (using the shorthand). Yet I want to say just a couple of
things. I want a situation where we are in trust with one another. I think trust is at the
heart of all this – it has been said often enough today. Tanya on EastEnders said the
Tuesday before last that where there is no trust there is no relationship and, believe me,
with Tanya’s marital history she should know! She is, of course, absolutely right. Mark
Oakley declares that the Church is a school of relating. Relationship is at the heart of
what we are about; trust is at the heart of relationship; so I want us to go forward on the
basis of bishops being trusted to work with clergy and laypeople in order to hold
together as many as we can. Again, all this points and supports the spirit of this
amendment.
Yet there are just two things. First, I can see that a code does have the potential to work
both ways. I think it could actually ensure that some of the things Christina Rees is
anxious about – that is, that there should be no discrimination against women – can be
enshrined in the same code that has other kinds of purpose. So, second, I want to see the
code. All that is being asked for in the motion as it stands is that the draft be produced,
and I would be greatly helped if I could see that draft. I think it might help me to know
how I could deal with those who dissent from this legislation, if it is passed. Above all,
what it would do is, I think, keep within our Church the possibility that a pastoral
solution could be worked out in our dioceses, assisted by a code that could work as
much to ensure the facilitation of women’s episcopal ministry as it could to keep within
our family those who will be most distressed by this decision.
336
11:40:27:11:08
Page 336
Page 337
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
Mr Barry Barnes (Southwark): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. May we have a vote
by Houses?
The Chairman: If 25 people stand to support. I think 25 people are standing.
The amendment was put and The Chairman, pursuant to SO 36(d)(iv), ordered a
division by Houses, with the following result:
Ayes
7
66
68
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Noes
37
107
118
Abstentions
1
9
4
The Chairman: I would like to ask your help, Synod. We are at this moment back into
the period of general debate on the main motion and I would like us to focus on the
themes represented in the next two amendments which we have loosely entitled in the
Order Paper ‘Manchester Report Option 3 (New Structures)’. I am going to ask Canon
Simon Killwick and the Bishop of Exeter both to speak to their amendments but not at
this moment formally move them; that will allow Synod to hear what they are offering
to Synod. I will then hear some speeches which address these in some way, and then I
will ask Canon Killwick formally to move his amendment and we will deal with it in, I
hope, a brief debate. If that amendment succeeds, we will not debate the Bishop of
Exeter’s amendment; if Canon Killwick’s amendment fails, we will debate the Bishop of
Exeter’s amendment.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): I want to say on behalf of the Catholic group
in General Synod that we do intend to engage positively and constructively with this
process and that is why, with regret, I was unable to support my friend Stephen Trott’s
amendment because I did not feel that it moved us constructively forward in any
direction; but, as I say, we are keen to engage constructively and positively and to enable
the Synod to move forward on this.
I also want to say on behalf of the Catholic group that we have moved. Since the
Manchester report was published we have taken a different view. For several years
before, I always took the view that a new province would be the right kind of provision
in the event of women bishops. I now believe that the Manchester report has offered us
something which is much better than a new province and that is the new dioceses
proposal. I want to explain to Synod why I believe that it is better.
337
11:40:27:11:08
Page 337
Page 338
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
New dioceses would be much more connected to the rest of the Church of England than
a new province would have been. New dioceses would be represented on General Synod
in just the same way as existing ones. New dioceses would share a lot of administrative
functions with existing diocese too, and there would, of course, be more informal
relationships at the local level, which would be ongoing. I am thinking perhaps of local
deaneries here: I certainly value the fellowship and support of colleagues of different
traditions in my own deanery, including several women priests. New dioceses are, I
believe, the best option for all of us. It is an option which has theological integrity and
legal clarity, and those are the right foundations for the kind of enduring arrangements
that we want to see because I cannot believe that any of us want to re-fight this battle in
a few years’ time.
The diocese is not essentially a legal or administrative unit; a diocese is essentially a
sacramental community gathered round the diocesan bishop, who is the focus of unity
and the source of sacramental life and therefore has jurisdiction in that community; in a
very real sense the diocese is the bishop. So if we are to have women bishops it is
thoroughly logical to provide alternative dioceses for those who cannot in conscience
accept the ministry of women bishops.
Everybody wins with this option. Women are admitted to a full episcopate, unfettered in
any way. They have full jurisdiction throughout their dioceses. Equally, those opposed
are provided fully with their own diocesan bishops as well.
It has been alleged that new dioceses are something extreme. I always thought that
‘extreme’ was some of the more exotic things that Sister Rosemary was describing to us
earlier on in this debate! I never thought that when I went to a diocesan synod I was
doing something extreme; I shall look at it in a new light the next time I go. I have
scoured the book of Revelation to see if there is a magic number for the correct number
of dioceses that there should be in the Church of England for all eternity, and I am not
sure whether it should be 43 or 44; but I cannot find either of those numbers in
Revelation with that sacred, immutable value. Let us not forget that it was only in 1980
that a new diocese was actually created, the Diocese in Europe. It can be done and it has
been done.
New dioceses, I believe, have not had proper consideration yet because of the way the
idea has been labelled extreme, but I believe that this is the best option for all of us, and I
urge its proper consideration. I say all of this very much in the spirit of conciliation. We
have all had letters from senior women clergy, asking for women bishops without
discrimination. In that letter they say that they reject mandatory delegation and they
reject the statutory transfer of responsibilities as being unacceptable to them. Nowhere
in the letter do they say they reject the new dioceses, yet I thoroughly understand why
they do reject the mandatory delegation and the statutory transfer. So it is in a genuine
spirit of conciliation and looking for convergence and consensus that I offer this
proposal. We have moved in the Catholic group and we long to see some movement in
certain other quarters.
338
11:40:27:11:08
Page 338
Page 339
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
The Bishop of Exeter (Rt Revd Michael Langrish): During both Saturday and today I
have sensed many people, including, apparently, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who
experience my own very real predicament. On the one hand, I want to affirm the
ministry of women priests in my diocese, to record my gratitude for the riches received
through their ministry and to express my hope that their God-given gifts will be
permitted to flourish as fully as possible in the service of Christ’s Church and kingdom.
At the same time, I also wish to affirm and to recognize the integrity of those many
clergy and laypeople who, in so many ways, show themselves to be faithful and loyal
Anglicans, deeply committed to that broad and generous expression of the Church
catholic which hitherto has been the Church of England, but who cannot, for various
reasons, receive the sacramental ministry of a woman. How are both groups to be
affirmed and enabled not merely to survive but to thrive?
In my own diocese, which has contained the largest number of petitioning parishes, we
have come a long way over the past ten years in learning to work together with growing
courtesy and trust. That we have been able to do so owes much to the provisions put in
place on the face of the legislation in 1992. In my judgement a code of practice on its
own would not have sufficed. How much more will there need to be statutory provision,
given the added complexities and consequences which will inevitably, as we have heard,
follow the ordination of women as bishops?
What kind of statutory provision might be required, and how in practice might it work?
The double affirmation that many of us wish to make would suggest legislation that
ensures two things and encapsulates two principles. The first is absolute parity of
jurisdiction for all diocesan bishops, male or female. It cannot be right to restrict the
jurisdiction of some bishops, women, and not of others, men. The second principle
must, therefore, be to ensure that those who continue to believe and behave as Anglicans
have traditionally believed and behaved should be enabled to do so in security and not
on sufferance. This for me suggests some sharing or handing-over of genuine
jurisdiction on the part of the episcopate as a whole, and it would need a Measure to
achieve this.
However, this is where I begin to struggle, and I sense that many others do too, for while
we have, for illustrative purposes, worked-up examples of Measures which embody (a)
the most simple way forward, (b) a statutory code of practice and (c) statutory transfer
of oversight, we do not have an equivalent illustrative Measure that embodies genuine,
shared and parity of oversight and jurisdiction for all. This could, as we have heard,
involve the creation of new, non-territorial dioceses; it might equally be a scheme based
on existing dioceses with appropriate provision for women bishops and priests within
them; it might be a structure that would look more like a light-touch national society,
say, than the traditional diocese. The key concern is that it should offer, in the words of
Archbishop David Hope, theological integrity and legal security to all.
The issues involved here are complex and for that reason I understand why the
Manchester group did not bring to Synod a worked-up example of how they might be
339
11:40:27:11:08
Page 339
Page 340
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
addressed in legislation and why some of my episcopal colleagues have reservations; but
this very complexity requires an illustrative Measure before I at least can know how or
whether such a diocesan solution might work, whether it might have elegance, whether
it might be just and whether it might just be the best means of going forward together in
the greatest unity of faith and order.
This is where I have a difficulty with Simon Killwick’s proposal. I find it difficult to vote
for something the shape of which I do not yet fully understand. My amendment would
mandate the Manchester group to prepare drafts of possible legislation along the lines I
have indicated and to bring them to Synod as a matter of urgency, if possible before the
February 2009 group of sessions. I do not want delay but I do want clarity about one
option that I believe we need fully to explore.
Revd Ruth Worsley (Southwell and Nottingham): I welcome the House of Bishops’
motion presented to us today, which seeks an inclusive Church, united behind a decision
we made 33 years ago that there are no theological barriers to the ordination of women
as ministers within the Church. I stand as an Evangelical woman who has made her own
personal pilgrimage from an acceptance of male headship to one where both men and
women recognize the headship of Christ within the Body of Christ but all have equal
and valued participation. I stand too as dean of women’s ministry in my diocese who
was one of those 1,300 women clergy who have now signed the statement, which
prompted the motion before us today. It is important for the catholicity and integrity of
the Church that what we do today ensures that all future bishops are fully recognized as
equal, authoritative leaders in the mission of God.
I also stand here as someone who wishes to speak on behalf of brothers and sisters from
a different tradition from that of my own. Our diocesan Society of Catholic Priests
recently met to consider the issues raised in the Manchester report. Some welcomed the
advent of women bishops; some could not; some have made a similar journey of change
to my own; but all recognized that true catholicity requires a willingness to accept and
engage with decisions made by the episcopal leadership and synodical governance of the
Church of England. Through conversation and letters, these brothers and sisters have
made their feelings clear: they have unanimously expressed a desire that we as a Synod
should take as simple a legal approach as is possible in this matter. I quote: ‘At a time
when the Anglican Communion itself is facing schismatic pressures, the last thing the
Church of England needs is to introduce within its own structures separate and parallel
systems of episcope . . . At St John’s we manage to live together as a local inclusive
community where different opinions about the rightness of women’s priestly ordination
are held in creative tension. We have not found it necessary to legislate for differing,
deeply held opinions but rather accept that both theological stances are held with
integrity. The same ought to be possible for a diocese and for a national Church’.
I urge Synod to resist any move to create separate jurisdictions, dioceses and structures. I
recognize that that will require a growth in trust between all. The foundation for that
trust will not be found in legal safeguards and protection but in the words of our
340
11:40:27:11:08
Page 340
Page 341
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
responsory in this morning’s Morning Prayer: ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and
be not wise in your own sight’. Can we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, trust God with
our single camel so that he can bring about a fair and just solution to the difficulty of
sharing 17 between three?
The Bishop of Portsmouth (Rt Revd Kenneth Stevenson): There is an understandable
dynamic this afternoon to unite around some kind of proposal, and there are friendships
and loyalties that are under strain, but in spite of that – or perhaps because of that, to
be honest – I hope that Synod will reject both these amendments. As far as a code of
practice is concerned, I do not quite recognize the way it has been spoken about here
when related to what I have to do. When a code of practice arrives on a bishop’s desk,
there is a sort of sigh at yet another piece of paper but also a welcome sense that
other people are going to hold you to account. For example, if I am appointing an
archdeacon in Portsmouth I know perfectly well that the Archbishop’s appointments
secretary will pursue me like a terrier, and if I am appointing an archdeacon to the Isle
of Wight and do not consult the pet mouse in every flaming vicarage, I will get 500 lines!
(Is she here?) I jest, but I am making a serious point. A code of practice has teeth. It is
also the kind of instrument that has a balance between responsibilities and rights. Some
of us sometimes feel that the arrangements made over the ordination of women as
priests are interpreted as if those who do not want women priests have all the rights
and the rest of us have responsibilities; and I know there will be others who will make
precisely the opposite observation. When you have it all in one package, however, it is
much more workable.
I was talking last night to the person I am staying with, Bishop David Tustin, that
veteran of the Act of Synod’s code of practice, and we were de-briefing on how it has all
worked out; and the advantage of a code of practice without legislation means that you
can revise it. That is very important, and I look forward to Christina Baxter’s
amendment later on.
Finally, the further down you go on that page of options, the more you hit structural
separatism, and the more likely you are to produce a Church in which there are two
groups that are not in communion with one another. That is a point that Bishop David
would make, were he here; and I would go further and say that if we are going to
produce a Church with two separate bits not in communion with each other we are
producing an ecclesiological nonsense and an ecumenical stumbling-block.
Revd John Cook (London): I want wholeheartedly to support the desire behind the
amendments of Simon Killwick and the Bishop of Exeter. We were reminded earlier on
that, as members of the Church of England, there is not just one test of belonging; it is
not just women presbyters and women bishops but is a much broader thing than that,
and therefore we need to be generous. I was very glad to see paragraph 157 of the
report, which says, ‘We stand ready to do further drafting work as soon as Synod has
come to a mind. We have drawn up plans for further meetings this autumn against the
possibility that Synod is able to come to a view in July.’ We are under way, we are
341
11:40:27:11:08
Page 341
Page 342
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
moving forward, and these amendments will help us get things further worked
out.
This is a very important day. We are trying to move ahead together as a Church,
together. Yes, we have begun; we have not yet concluded. What we are asking for today
is instructions as to how to move things ahead. We are not yet asking for legislation.
Simon Killwick talked about enduring relationships; we need time to work those out.
Speed is good if it is going in the right direction. Unless we look clearly at all the options,
particularly option three, we may find we break the comprehensive nature of the Church
of England. That would be a devastating own goal. We would lose our one strength: our
great unity. We have been a comprehensive Church. We can actually embody
disagreement, and it would be wonderful if we could do that at the end of this process.
I think that new structures may very well strengthen the mission of the Church to this
country, to people of no faith and of other faith. So let us stay together, to proclaim the
gospel to the whole country as a whole Church.
The Bishop of Birmingham (Rt Revd David Urquhart): I want to continue the plea we
heard earlier for clarity, particularly from my own experience of being a bishop in a city
where there are many bishops, Roman Catholic, New Testament Church of God, all of
whom are given equal parity across the civic and often religious life of the city. That
clarity, I think, will come if we do not just sit and accept the motion as it stands,
unamended, which only asks for further work on a code of practice. I feel that there are
particular un-clarities about those who, for doctrinal reasons, feel that this change –
which I welcome because I am looking forward to having women bishop colleagues – is
a change of fundamental importance with which they cannot live. There are reasons for
that, of course; it may be for traditional reasons or for reasons of headship. I want those
people to have a place which will be not just honoured but fully involved in the mission
and life of this country. Therefore, if today we end up without fully worked-out
examples being commissioned of either Measures as in Bishop Langrish’s amendment,
or of diocesan Measures, then we will have failed to do justice to those who have that
view.
This is a costly matter for all, as we have heard. Consensus is going to be very difficult to
achieve in a simple way, but we cannot tolerate mere tolerance; we must go much
further than that and create something which allows tolerance to move to appreciation.
We must go beyond respect – which is a sort of stand-off word in my city – to
participation. That is the experience of having a clarity which is based not on a sort of
mushy middle but on a clear, distinctive understanding of who we are and what we
believe. In that way we can actually get involved with each other in the matter of God’s
mission. So please can we have support for amendments which allow worked-up
examples of three dioceses, or whatever, in that way, and also Measures which will
bring about real clarity for all of us.
Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): I beg to move as an amendment:
342
11:40:27:11:08
Page 342
Page 343
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
‘In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
in paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all
concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”;
and
in paragraph (d) leave out “accordingly, including preparing the first
draft of a code of practice,” and insert “by preparing a draft Measure
and associated code of practice providing new dioceses for those who
cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or
priests,” and after the words “so that” insert the words “, if possible,”.’
The Bishop of Gloucester: Having ruled out the first of the Manchester group’s options,
the simplest possible approach, the Synod now has the opportunity to vote for an
approach along the lines of the group’s third option: legislation that would create new
structures within the Church of England for those unable to receive the ministry of
women bishops. The code of practice remains but, unlike the main motion that I
proposed, the code as it remains is part of a Measure and no longer one of the ways
forward in itself. So those who believe a code of practice is the way forward will, I fear,
have to reject this amendment, and indeed those who would like to see several more
options explored and, among them, the code of practice will need to reject this
amendment too; but those who believe that the creation of new structures is the best
way forward will want, of course, to vote for this amendment.
Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (London): I really just want to say that for us to go for an
amendment that creates a particular structure for those who do not favour the
ordination of women to the episcopate is to be creating a ghetto of no-go areas. In our
present deanery, some of those who do not want to work with women do not turn up,
do not participate, do not share fellowship. To create a separate structure is to create a
no-go area, and we cannot be doing that. We cannot be serious – it is like a John
McEnroe situation: ‘You cannot be serious’ – even to consider it.
I want to repeat that word ‘trust’. We need to set an example to the world outside that
we know how to live together. We cannot clearly be even thinking about creating a
Church within a Church. What will it be next? May I have a black church because I am a
minority and I do not agree, so I feel rejected and pushed out? May I have a gay church?
May I have a church with Mr Sugden in charge? (Laughter) Can we all in our different
minorities start asking? That, after all, is what we are doing: we are setting a precedent,
that whoever feels in a minority in the Church, whoever thinks that their views will not
be heard, is suddenly going to have that right.
We are always changing the goalposts. We have changed the goalposts for black people
and we have changed the goalposts for women. We need to say who we are as a Church
and be that Church. Where is Mr Houlding? We can be courteous and respectful to one
another. We do not need to live in two separate houses, as big as we both are! As big as
343
11:40:27:11:08
Page 343
Page 344
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
we both are, we can still find space in the same house. Please, please, please, Synod, let
us not go down that route.
The Bishop of Dudley (Rt Revd David Walker): I also would strongly urge opposition to
Mr Killwick’s amendment. For seven and a half years I have been a bishop of the
Church of England, and it is a huge privilege for me to minister across the range and
diversity of churches and people in my diocese. By God’s grace I hope I am able to be
something of a symbol of unity among them. I am glad I share in that with, among
others, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, who was consecrated by my side in St Paul’s Cathedral
and received communion by my side those years ago.
It is a bit muddled, but we are still one Church. We heard on Saturday that overlapping
territorial jurisdictions do exist in some places. New Zealand was cited, and it is also the
case in Europe with the Convocation of American Churches as well as our own diocese.
Yet there are huge differences between those overlapping jurisdictions that have arisen
for historical reasons or from different missions in a particular area or what Paul Bayes
wonderfully called ‘ethno-linguistic congregations’; I will leave him to explain that in
more detail. Neither of those has an impetus for further separation, but what is
proposed here, with the potential creation of additional dioceses, would have that very
centrifugal effect. I will spare Synod the mathematical model, but although in the early
days there would be many priests and bishops in the mixed gender presbyterate who
would be, in theory at least, acceptable in both, within a lifetime that would have gone;
the few who remained would have to be able to trace their episcopal antecedents, those
who had confirmed them and ordained them, and those who had confirmed and
ordained those predecessors, right the way back to now; they would go round clutching
their episcopal pedigrees like latter-day entrants to Crufts.
I do not want that Church. The House of Bishops’ motion with a code of practice keeps
us as one Church. Anything more structural, ultimately, when it came to the final vote, I
would probably vote against, even if that meant we lost the whole thing. The task is to
build trust. We began that on Saturday in those groups. They were very moving; mine
was, and I have heard that others found it so too. At one point I thought we should be
taking our shoes off because we were standing on holy ground. Let us continue to build
that trust, and let us find practices to enshrine in a code that allow petitioning (if that is
what they become) parishes to be ministered to sacramentally and pastorally by male
priests and bishops, a little bit as at present, but without straying either into the attitudes
of those priests and bishops or into their ecclesiastical pedigrees.
I beg Synod to resist Mr Killwick’s amendment.
The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe (Geoffrey Rowell): Someone asked what would John
Keble have said. We had a little sort of corporate effort, which I have expanded:
New every Synod is the love
Our voting and uprising prove;
344
11:40:27:11:08
Page 344
Page 345
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
Through codes of practice safely brought,
Restored to life, and power, and thought.
The Catholic inheritance is important. As a bishop I have a responsibility under God for
upholding the faith and order of the Church, something handed down and passed on,
not invented. St Paul reminds us, ‘What have you that you have not received?’ Apostolic
order is a gift, part of the DNA of the Church. The Church of England, as the
Declaration of Assent reminds us, ‘is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church’. It is not the whole Church. The unity of the Church is a gospel imperative, and
Anglicans have been conspicuous in their commitment to full, visible unity. Those of us
who find the particular move to having the consecration of women to the episcopate so
difficult without some structured provision are trying to remain faithful to where we
and, we believe, the Church of England ecclesiologically has always been. As members
heard from the Bishop of Winchester’s speech, the Lambeth Conference resolution
about the loyal Anglicans was something that I initiated with women bishops. It was not
part of the Lambeth Conference agenda, and yet 70 per cent of the bishops at that
Lambeth Conference voted for it. I do think that structures can liberate. I am bishop of a
diocese which could be said to be diocese-light, and members have heard that it came
into being in 1980; so there should be ways of finding some diocesan structures which
enable those of us who have particular theological convictions that I have outlined to
remain as loyal Anglicans with as great a degree of communion as possible with the
whole Church of England.
T. S. Eliot was, I believe, right when he said that there were many circumstances in
which the Spirit kills but the letter gives life, the assurance of a proper freedom to
flourish and to flourish in the fullest possible communion with fellow-Anglicans.
Structural legal provision is not the creating of a ghetto; it is to enable the freedom to
live together for mission, a sharing of the faith once delivered to the saints, which is
God’s gift to us, to be received, handed down and passed on.
So I would want to support both Canon Killwick’s amendment and, if that is lost, the
Bishop of Exeter’s.
Revd David Waller (Chelmsford): A lot has been said already about the need for trust,
to build trust, to establish trust, to live in trust; that is not quite true because there are
plenty of places where trust already exists. While I cannot account for or explain the
problems in Rose Hudson-Wilkins’s deanery, I can talk about the trust which exists in
mine. In my deanery there are four parishes which have taken Resolution C, one Reform
parish and five parishes with female clergy, all of whom work extremely well together.
What I want to invite Synod to do today is to affirm that trust, that collaboration, which
exists on the ground. What that means for us is that, unlike the position I would have
been in some years ago, I cannot stand here and argue that we should not now proceed
to the consecration of women to the episcopate because to do so, although that would
be my personal preference, would betray my trust and respect for the ministry of my
female colleagues. Similarly, however, they tell me – and although I have not seen the list
345
11:40:27:11:08
Page 345
Page 346
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
of signatories, I trust them – that they would never dream of signing the letters which say
there should not be structural provision for me.
The reason for that is simple. For me to continue – and my colleagues, and that includes
the laity in my parish of all ages, genders, nationalities – for us to continue to work
together collaboratively on the ground, I need something very basic. What I need is the
bishop to whom I can relate who has jurisdiction over us. That is what a diocese means
for the purpose of this; everything else can be mission-shaped, fresh expression, worked
up. We need that structure. You cannot deliver that by a code of practice. A code of
practice provides for sexists and misogynists and not for theological objections. I do not
need protecting from my female clergy; I need the provision which enables me to stay
and serve and love and work alongside them.
Mr John Ward (London): On a point of order, Mr Chairman. May we have a division by
Houses?
The Chairman: If we have 25 people standing. We do.
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Ayes
10
53
71
Noes
32
124
116
Abstentions
3
4
2
The Bishop of Exeter (Rt Revd Michael Langrish): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
in paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all
concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
in paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “accordingly” and insert
“by preparing drafts of possible legislation in accordance with paragraph
(c), to include further draft Measures, together with associated codes
of practice, based on diocesan structures for those who cannot in
346
11:40:27:11:08
Page 346
Page 347
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests, so that, if
possible, the Business Committee can include consideration of these
options in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”.’
The Bishop of Gloucester: The Bishop of Exeter’s amendment clearly has much in
common with Canon Killwick’s, which has just been defeated: the changes to
paragraphs (b) and (c) are identical, and the differences lie in clause (d). The bishop’s
amendment brings before us a new possibility, but it has also removed the possibility of
a simple code and insists on legislation. I am not sure that the bishop intended that, from
a conversation we had yesterday, but that is how it reads, I fear, so that those who still
want to keep the possibility of a simple code in the frame have, I am afraid, to vote
against this proposal, as they had to with Canon Killwick’s; but those who are clear that
only new structures will do and are happy to explore a way of achieving them by
something less than new dioceses, something that builds on existing dioceses, will
clearly want to support this amendment from the bishop.
Revd Jonathan Baker (Oxford): In supporting the Bishop of Exeter’s amendment, I
want to say first of all how much I have valued my time as a member of the legislative
drafting group thus far and how much I look forward to, as I hope, going forward with
them to do the further work that the Bishop of Exeter is asking for.
Donald Allister said this morning that one of the things he had been so appreciative of in
the debates on both the Church of the Triune God and the Methodist Covenant was the
priority given to theology, and although I look back sometimes with rather wistful
longing to the days before I went to theological college, when I had never even heard the
word ‘ecclesiology’ and being a disciple of Jesus perhaps seemed a little simpler then, it
is the theology that counts. We have heard an awful lot about the legal enforceability or
otherwise of codes of practice and indeed of other possible arrangements that
Manchester considers, but I have to say that the only thing that offers a way forward, I
think for me and for many who stand with me, with real theological integrity is to do
more work along the lines of something around a diocesan solution. I say ‘along the
lines of’ because we do not know yet exactly what that would look like. That is why the
Bishop of Exeter’s amendment asking for further work is so helpful.
We have heard phrases like ‘light touch’, and I am sure that is the road we want to go
down. We want to explore what it means, as Fr Waller said, to have bishops whom those
of us who need to can look to with absolute conviction and assurance but still play our
full part in this Church of England, because it is a full part in the life of the Church of
England that we are talking about.
I want to say very personally and with some passion – I think this is a time for personal
and passionate speeches at last – I want to say to all the women clergy whom I have
worked with, whether it is to do with liturgy, faith and order issues, vocation, in the
diocese and in the University of Oxford, wherever it may be, that the way forward that
the further work proposed by this amendment suggests would honour their ministry,
347
11:40:27:11:08
Page 347
Page 348
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
priestly and potentially episcopal, to the full; and that is what I want to do. However, I
also want to be in a Church where I can continue to rejoice in playing my part in
working with young vocations to the priesthood, young men who have difficulty with
the ordination of women but whom the Spirit is still raising up in great numbers.
I want to end with a reflection on some time I spent at Bec in Normandy recently, that
wonderful place which gave Canterbury Anselm. While I was there, Professor Henry
Chadwick died and in one of the obituaries about Professor Henry Chadwick we were
called back to what he said about a Church that is in danger of losing its memory. It was
a sad Church to belong to. I think that this amendment and the work that it would carry
forward would be the very best way – perhaps the only way, I do not know – of ensuring
that I and people who stand with me can not only be part of the memory of this Church
of England but part of its present and part of its future.
The Bishop of Blackburn (Rt Revd Nicholas Reade): I too, like the Bishop of Lincoln,
am a veteran of the Guildford group, but going back further I would still want to stand
by what a number have said in this Synod ever since 1975, and that is that I cannot see
where a bishop of the Universal Church finds his authority from to take part in the
consecration of a woman, and that to do this would be inconsistent with the great
tradition of the Church. However, if this is the route that the Church of England wants
to take we must make it work, and make it work in the way that we have been able to
accept women priests in the Church, but also with provision for those unable to accept
this change. I believe that the Manchester group should be given a chance to work up
this new structure that we have had put to us in this amendment so that this Synod can
see what it is like.
I ask that we remember what was written way back in 1993 in the House of Bishops’
report Being in Communion: ‘We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both
those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions
while the whole Church’ – what we heard on Friday, both lungs of the Church, East and
West – ‘seeks to come to a common mind. The Church of England’, the bishops’ report
went on to say, ‘needs to understand itself as a communion in dialogue, committed to
remaining together in the ongoing process of the discernment of truth within the wider
fellowship of the Christian Church. Giving space to each other, and remaining in the
highest possible degree of communion in spite of difference are crucial, as we strive to be
open to the insights of the wider Christian community.’
We want to continue along this route, and I have come to the conclusion that, if we still
want to live in this highest degree of communion and let women flourish as bishops in
the Church, there must be some handing over of jurisdiction, some structural provision.
The Archdeacon of Lewisham (Ven. Christine Hardman): There are two sets of words
that we often use indiscriminately and misleadingly in Church discussions: ‘Anglican’,
when actually we mean ‘Church of England’, and ‘parish’ when we are really talking
about ‘congregation’.
348
11:40:27:11:08
Page 348
Page 349
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
This debate has to do with the Church of England. The Church of England has a
particular nature and a particular vocation, most famously described by Archbishop
William Temple as being the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not
its members. One would not have guessed this from the debate on Saturday or indeed
today; it has largely been inward-looking and entirely preoccupied with the needs and
anxieties of those who are members. This blinkered navel-gazing is particularly
evidenced by the use of the word ‘parish’ when we mean ‘congregation’. We heard from
the Bishop of Exeter about petitioning parishes for extended oversight or for perhaps
non-geographical dioceses. Let us be quite clear: were this to be the route we chose, the
last people who would have any say about this or whose benefits would be considered
would be the parishioners, those who lived in the communities concerned. It would be
congregations who would make the decision, not parishes. Were we to follow this path,
whole communities, without their consent, would find themselves taken out of the local
diocese into a federation of congregations.
If we are to be true to the nature and calling of the Church of England, the decisions we
make today must be for the benefit of those who are not our members. That is our first
priority. We must equip the Church of England, in what we decide, to serve the people
of England. That means equipping our bishops, male and female, for the task of
spiritual leadership to which the Church calls them. This will not be achieved by
mandated, delegated authority, by transferred authority or by having separate dioceses
of congregations, not parishes.
I urge Synod strongly to resist this amendment.
Revd Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool): When I was ordained deacon back in 1986 there
were a few months before I was priested when I contemplated with my vicar that I
would not in fact get priested as I realized that the women who had been deaconed with
me were not going to be able to take that step. He talked me out of it, and I went ahead
and got priested, and it was a few years later that women were finally priested; but even
then, when it came out to deanery synods, I voted against the idea that women could be
priested but not made bishops. It was not because I was against women being priested
but I could not understand why there was to be a separation.
So as I stand here in 2008 it seems a very long time ago and I – though not as long as
some people here – have waited for a long time for this moment to send out to our
diocesan synods and our deanery synods this idea. I certainly do not want to send out to
them the idea that the only way in which we will be able to consecrate women as bishops
is if we have a separate diocese for people who are unable to accept it. That seems to me
something that they will be unable to understand. They will ask why we are wanting to
cause division in order to get this through.
I surely want if at all possible to keep people together for as long as possible, and I think
this is the mood of Synod. We have already rejected Simon Killwick’s amendment for
new structures, and this amendment which I am speaking against seems to be saying,
349
11:40:27:11:08
Page 349
Page 350
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
‘Please go and do some further work on something that Synod has already rejected.’ I
suppose the question is whether that further work will make it more or less likely that
we are going to accept the separate structures. I submit that we should just get on with it
and move now.
Simon did say, when speaking to his amendment, that everyone will win if we support
his idea. I think everyone will lose. I think we should reach out, if at all possible – people
who, like me, are in favour of the original motion – I want us to reach out and go for a
code of practice. Writing to the Ephesians, St Paul said, ‘Make every effort to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ We have been making every effort, and we have
been doing so for a long time. We are still doing that now; and I would rather keep
together, not divide, not separate. So I urge Synod to reject this amendment.
A member: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Would you consider a vote by Houses?
The Chairman: I will consider a vote by Houses if 25 people stand; I have no choice.
There are 25 people standing.
House of Bishops
House of Clergy
House of Laity
Ayes
14
65
77
Noes
29
116
112
Abstentions
2
1
0
The Chairman: Members of Synod, I would like to ask for your help. We really need to
try to complete the next amendment before we go to dinner tonight because there are so
many other things still to do beyond dinner. I ask Synod’s consent to extend the sitting
from 6.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. (Agreed)
You are doing very well, so let us press on.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (Rt Revd John Packer): I beg to move as an amendment:
‘In paragraph (c) after the words “affirm that these should be” insert
“either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”; and
350
11:40:27:11:08
Page 350
Page 351
Monday 7 July 2008
Women Bishops
in paragraph (d) leave out “complete” and insert “develop” and leave
out the words “first consideration of the draft legislation” and insert
“further consideration of both alternatives envisaged in paragraph (c)”.’
The purpose of this amendment is for the legislative drafting group to pursue in detail
two of the six options presented by the Manchester report: those of a national code
of practice, as envisaged in the main motion, and of statutory transfer of specified
responsibilities, as described in variation 4 of paragraph 115 of the Manchester
report.
I believe that we need to appoint priests who are women to the office of bishop in the
Church of God for the sake of the gospel and of the kingdom. I believe the Manchester
report is right in paragraph 47 to assert that the time has come to make our choice; that
the majority of us believe that such appointments are right; and that it is the particular
task of this Synod, under God, to make that choice and commend it to the Church. I
believe it would be wrong to refuse to move forward now because we cannot have the
particular arrangements we personally would prefer, and also that to delay would
deprive a generation of the real benefits of the ministry of women bishops for the
proclaiming of the gospel. Within the whole ministry of the Church they are called by
God for the sake not of the Church but of the kingdom. If that is so, we need to answer
the question at paragraph 22 of the report. I am clear that we do need to accommodate
the breadth of theological views on this issue that the Church of England currently
encompasses and indeed not only to accommodate but to encourage that breadth. We
need our colleagues.
I believe that we need to explore further whether this can be achieved by the code of
practice envisaged by the House of Bishops. I acknowledge the elegant nature of that
solution. Since none of us has seen a draft code of practice, we cannot know how it
might respond to the theological views of any of us and, in particular, those
theologically convinced that it is wrong to move to the appointment of women priests as
bishops. That is why I want the bishops’ option to be further developed.
However, I am not convinced that we should at this point restrict ourselves to this single
option, to be accepted or rejected in February. I find it hard to believe that separate
dioceses are the way forward, from the discussions we have just had. They would divide
us from one another and prevent our listening to one another or contributing to each
other in mutual support. They would trample on the natural sense of place which is so
crucial to both our parishes and our congregations and would leave some of them, I
believe, in an impossible dilemma as to which diocese to join. That is why I want to see
in more detail what statutory transfer would look like in practice, that is, legislation
which would itself transfer specified responsibilities from the diocesan bishop, male or
female, to the complementary bishop.
Annex E gives us a first view and I am grateful to the legislative drafting group for
that. This option does, I believe, provide a clear and honoured place for those unable
351
11:40:27:11:08
Page 351
Page 352
Women Bishops
Monday 7 July 2008
theologically to accept the ministry of women ordained to the priesthood and
episcopate; it meets the assurances made in 1993 and detailed in paragraphs 66–69 of
the Manchester report. It also enables us to move with enthusiasm and assurance to the
ordination of bishops who are women.
To ask for more work on these two options will concentrate our minds, and some of the
contributions made in the discussion about new dioceses could also help in that
discussion. We will be given a clear choice on what we commend to the Church, so that
we are exploring two options in depth rather than trying to juggle with six. I believe that
we must not wait for a decade or more to move forward, and I believe that this way of
moving on does give us that chance to learn how to bear one another’s burdens and so
fulfil the law of Christ.
The Bishop of Gloucester: This is a different kind of amendment from those of the
Bishops of Exeter and Winchester and that of Canon Killwick, for this one, as the
bishop has said, introduces a second way forward without excluding the code of
practice route in the original motion. The bishop is asking for both national code and
statutory transfer to be explored and for the Synod to see both fully worked up in
February and then to decide between them. Those who are clear that they are unwilling
to go beyond a national code of practice and believe that statutory transfer is entirely
unacceptable will, of course, vote against this ame

churchhs 18193 - The Church of England

Transcription

Similar documents

Radio Silence - WSJ

May 2013

Ministry of Sound and its worldwide evolution to the present

Bishop Galeone Statement

New Messenger May 2016 - Holy Trinity Anglican Church

August 20, 2013 Dear Full Gospel Family

Synod 2015 – One Lord, One Mission

From Rolling Stone to More Magazine, A Life in Design

November 2015 - Saint Paul Area Synod

April 2015 - Bethel Lutheran Church