AFTER early warnings about tone, and with a motion on members’ conduct on the agenda, the General Synod took a more gracious approach to the big selection of issues up for debate in Church House, Westminster, over last weekend.
In his presidential address firstly of the February sessions last Friday, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that observers of the Synod’s deliberations in recent times had noted the “angst-ridden tone” and “unfair attacks” — bitterness and private abuse had develop into normalised within the Church, he said.
“We have to assume the perfect moderately than the worst,” Archbishop Welby warned members. “Suffering and enemies are faced best in communities with trust across the divide moderately than in self-protecting and reinforcing huddles.” This was difficult, however the Church wouldn’t have the ability to minister to the surface world unless it was dealing well with its own internal issues.
Three motions coping with behaviour were delivered to the Synod.
A non-public members’ motion on sanctioning lay officers for bullying (News, 9 February) was brought by the Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven. Mark Ireland (Blackburn), and approved, on Sunday afternoon. It asked the Synod to recognise “the intense pastoral problems and unfairness that arise while clergy will be subject to penalties for bullying that include prohibition and removal from office but there isn’t a technique of disqualifying a churchwarden, PCC member, or other lay officer who’s guilty of bullying from holding office.”
Many personal examples of abuse of clergy by lay people got throughout the debate. The Revd Sonia Barron (Lincoln) recalled experiences of lay churchgoers who felt that they “owned the church” and so could openly undermine or intimidate the incumbent.
Also approved by a big majority was a Chelmsford diocesan synod motion asking whether a code of conduct for PCC members and lay volunteers is perhaps drawn up. A review would come with consideration of a disciplinary process for the removal of PCC members who showed “persistent departures from acceptable standards of behaviour”.
Introducing the talk on Saturday, the Revd Dr Sara Batts-Neale (Chelmsford) said that the motion was “not a few one-off lack of temper, a one-parish incident, a one clash of personalities. . . Sometimes, when things go incorrect, they go incorrect badly. . . Too many persons are getting hurt.”
Another motion, also passed on Saturday, requested the Business Committee to revise the present Synod members’ code of conduct. During a brief debate, Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) said: “Whatever side of the difficulty we stand on, the tenor of recent debates has, sadly, done us all a disservice.”
Debates on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process have definitely been fraught prior to now few years. This week was higher. A motion from the lead bishop on LLF, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow — that the Synod “welcome” a set of ten commitments to the method – was aired. Speakers managed to avoid restating personal views on how the agreed Prayers of Love and Faith (blessings for same-sex couples) can be implemented. But after an amendment calling for “legally secure structural provision” had been defeated, the Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, proposed that the talk be cut short through a procedural motion. Members agreed, within the expectation that more concrete proposals can be brought back in July.
This was accepted by a self-confessed “drained” Bishop Snow, who later described it as an “open, thoughtful, and gracious debate”.
Polarised views on marriage slipped into other debates, nonetheless — most unexpectedly throughout the approval of a draft Order prescribing parochial fees for the subsequent term. In his introduction on Tuesday, Carl Hughes (Archbishops’ Council) declared himself “singularly depressed” that the Synod had been unable to affirm a conventional view on marriage in an earlier motion commending a report from the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households, Love Matters.
Mr Hughes later apologised for the “inappropriateness” of his comment, which the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, described as “unnecessary and disappointing”. “Get over it, and get on with it,” she said in exasperation. “We are here for all and never only for the individuals who appear like us and speak like us and consider what we consider.”
Love Matters, which was commended by the Synod on Monday, affirms the worth of marriage, and features a advice that the Church offer high-quality marriage preparation.
During the talk, the Revd Jo Winn-Smith (Guildford) warned: “Putting marriage first as a dangling bough means we don’t deal with love first.” It brought the chance that folks would stay in damaging relationships; and kids in homes with same-sex couples was not a second-best place, she said.
Bishop Hudson-Wilkin made an identical argument for equality when she introduced a motion commending the outcomes of From Lament to Action: a report from the Archbishops’ Anti-Racism Taskforce, published three years ago (News, 22 April 2021).
She had seen the word “woke” bandied about in relation to racial justice, but its use was all the time incorrect, she said. The word had emerged amongst Black communities, and referred to the must be socially aware. The racial-justice mandate didn’t flow from “identity politics”, she said, however the Christian identity. The Church must due to this fact proceed in its work “embedding racial justice in any respect levels”, she said. “Lip service is not going to do, nor will ticking boxes.”
Most of the 24 speakers were from global-majority heritage backgrounds, and relayed personal experiences of racial discrimination. Daniel Matovu (Oxford), a recent member of the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns, said that “you white folks don’t know” of the experience of racial injustice. Rosemary Wilson (Southwark) said that a lot of her clan still reported that Christianity was not an option for them, because they didn’t see brown and black faces represented in its culture. “For years we’ve been saying it . . . now it’s time to sort it,” the Revd Folli Olokose (Guildford) said.
The Revd Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu (London) said that folks on the front line of the climate crisis had mostly been people of color, battling droughts, flooding, rising sea levels, and heatwaves. The mainstream environmental movement was built by individuals who cared about wildlife and trees but “didn’t care about black people”, he suggested.
Care of the environment was forefront during a brief debate on Saturday afternoon on a motion encouraging greater biodiversity and sustainable use of church land. It was introduced by the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Revd Graham Usher, as an invite to “live out the Fifth Mark of Mission” (a set of objectives agreed by the Anglican Communion) to safeguard the integrity of creation and renew the earth.
Church land was a present from God which parishes and diocese must steward properly, he said. “How can we manage it in such a way that it’s a blessing to nature and to the broader human community?” Churchyards “ought to be places of the living, not only the dead.”
The Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, also referred to the Five Marks in his paper on AI and the long run of labor, which was debated on Saturday. The paper concludes: “Work is a central theological in addition to anthropological concern. . . In line with the five marks of mission, Christians should welcome any technology that augments human dignity and value in work while resisting anything that exploits or requires humans to behave more like computers.”
Many welcomed the motion, which was passed, as amended by the Archbishop of Canterbury with an endorsement of the Rome Call for promoting an ethical approach to AI.
But the Revd Marcus Walker (London) accused the Church of England of “gross hypocrisy”. Given the way in which through which it treated its clergy, lay employees, and volunteers, he said, the Church didn’t have the standing to inform anyone else easy methods to behave. “Any stipendiary priest working over 50 hours per week can be earning lower than the minimum wage,” he said. “Non-stipendiary clergy are treated as free labour. The C of E has no capability to lecture anybody on easy methods to treat their employees.”
Clergy pay was also raised during a debate on clergy pensions, and what might be done to revive them to previous levels after a cut in real terms. The Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) didn’t mince his words. “The terms and conditions that we’re suffering as clergy are . . . an absolute scandal,” he said. “A clergyperson now earns less of their stipend than a first-year teacher.” Paying clerics properly in a cost-of-living crisis was “a matter of justice”, he said.
Robust speeches were also made during debates on the Church’s mission. The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, spoke passionately about his desire to refresh the Church’s commitment to estates ministry and evangelism. His motion called on the entire Church to deal with urgently structural and financial injustices was agreed unanimously by the Synod.
Several speakers gave personal examples of living in or ministering to impoverished housing estates, including the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Paul Williams, whose mother had found faith through an estates church on the age of 16.
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) said that there have been “gifted evangelists” in these deprived areas, who, despite hardship and poor education, ought to be considered for leadership roles. The Revd Chantal Noppen (Durham), who had worked on estates within the north-east for a decade, agreed: “They have taught me who God is, how God is, and why God is.” Canon Jane Richards (Chelmsford), speaking as a “council-house kid”, advised those discerning a call to estates ministry to not “make assumptions about us based on what you see or what you’re thinking that you see”.
Personal experience was also distinguished in a debate on a non-public member’s motion to remove the canonical impediment to ordination in relation to divorce. Under Canon C4, a college from an archbishop was required for candidates for ordination who were divorced with a living spouse, or married to someone who was divorced with a living spouse.
The Revd Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield), a divorcee who has married again, said that the one judgements made were from other Christians. “We are a faith called to forgive and never to evaluate,” she said. “And yet, due to the Canon C4 faculty process, this is precisely what we appear to do.”
Synod voted overwhelmingly to amend the canon in order that a diocesan bishop or acting diocesan bishop may grant a college to remove the impediment. An amendment was also approved that requested national assessment guidelines to be issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
An action-filled Synod it could have been, but not with reference to safeguarding. The Bishop of Newcastle, the Rt Revd Helen-Ann Hartly, said in an interview on Sunday that it was “disgraceful” that the Synod had not agreed immediately to adopt a recent, independent safeguarding structure. Apologies and accountability were demanded, and offered, during Saturday’s debate, but amendments that might have committed the Church to a recent, alternative safeguarding system — which Dr Hartley spoke in favour of — were rejected in favour a period of consultation.
The debate focused on two reports: Dr Sarah Wilkinson’s report on the demise of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) (News, 11 December 2023), and the report compiled by the previous chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), Professor Alexis Jay, which was published only three days before (News, 21 February). Much of the talk focused on this latter report, which beneficial the creation of two independent charities to perform and scrutinise the Church’s safeguarding work.
