A SPLIT throughout the House of Bishops over proposals to reform the Church’s a part of the episcopal nomination system emerged on Wednesday afternoon, because the Bishops voted to pass the choice on to the General Synod in February.
Most agreed that recent failures to appoint were a source of “regret”, but some bishops called for swift changes to handle the “traumatic” experience some had of the method, while others urged a slower approach which didn’t erode trust with the looks of an “episcopal power-grab”.
At a gathering of the House of Bishops in Oxford, the Bishops voted by 27 votes to nine, with eight recorded abstentions, in favour of a motion from the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally.
Bishop Mullally presented a paper outlining possible changes to the method by which diocesan bishops are nominated. These include the removal of the key ballot throughout the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), changes to the bulk required for a nomination to be made, and the award of a casting vote to the presiding archbishop if three consecutive votes fail to secure the required majority.
The failure up to now 12 months of the CNC to succeed in a consensus on appointments for the sees of Carlisle (News, 15 December 2023) and Ely (News, 15 July) was invoked often in the talk, and was the background to the proposals recommend last week.
The meeting was chaired by the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, who began by clarifying that no decision may very well be made today: “The House doesn’t determine for the CNC: that’s the job of the General Synod.”
Introducing her motion, Bishop Mullally said that the means of discernment was costly. It was possible that the failures to appoint in Carlisle and Ely were actually an example of fine discernment.
But she relayed concerns concerning the process which had been expressed by people across the Church, who questioned whether it was fit for its purpose. These concerns got here from the spread of theological traditions, she said, particularly from currently under-represented groups.
In the following debate, the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, said that he had been on the Carlisle CNC, and that the experience had been “traumatic” for those collaborating. He warned, nevertheless, against assuming a cause from a symptom.
“I feel we want time to actually think this through before taking this step,” he said. His intuition was that ongoing discussions about Living in Love and Faith were an element, as was “general dysfunction” within the Synod.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said that there have been clearly problems with the professionalcess, but that he thought that only one among the proposals might help. “I don’t consider these proposals will address all our problems, [or] can be a panacea”, he said, and expressed a fear that, as an alternative, they looked like “an episcopal power-grab”.
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, said that she thought that it was essential “to not be taking place rabbit holes”. Because the method was one among discernment, it was essential for it to be collaborative, and he or she sought to tell apart between confidentiality and secrecy. “We should be transparent and clear that confidentiality in that process just isn’t similar to secrecy. “
The Bishop of Peterborough, the Rt Revd Debbie Sellin, said that concerns concerning the process voiced by those collaborating needed to be taken seriously. “I actually have friends who say that they might not now put their names forward,” she said. “We will lose some incredibly good people.”
“I haven’t any confidence within the present system,” the Bishop of Dover, Dr Rose Hudson-Wilkin, said. There was a “massive elephant within the room” she said, which was that the discourse focused on “party groups”.
“Please, members, people of God, do away with your camps and your labels. Just love the Lord. Serve the Lord and serve the nation that he has called us to, and never these ridiculous boxes,” she said.
An amendment from the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, sought to change the wording from the House, “acknowledging the difficulties within the recent CNC processes”, to “regretting” them. “We must send the strongest possible signal,” he said. “I don’t consider in any respect that we’re acting in haste.” There could be time for further discussion of the professionalposals over the approaching months.
The Bishop of Derby, the Rt Revd Libby Lane, said that it was important to ask for forgiveness, because the failures were “not internal to the Church”, but were also lamented by Parliament, and across the nation.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that it was essential to acknowledge that “LLF is on the centre of this. . . The disagreements can be with us for a really very long time,” he said. While he supported the major motion for the sake of constructing short-term changes, a longer-term consideration of the method was needed.
Dr Croft’s amendment was automotiveried on a show of hands.
An additional amendment was moved by the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, to interchange the substance of the motion with a call for further, and wider, consultation, including the present central members of the CNC, appointed by the Synod.
The current proposals, which, he said, focused on “arithmetical” changes, had the effect of giving greater influence to the Archbishops. “At a time when trust is fragile, and at a premium within the Church, that is something that ought to be considered very rigorously.”
The Bishop of Guildford, Dr Andrew Watson, warned of a “serious train crash in Synod” if the proposals were voted on without wider consultation.
The Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, also backed the Bishop of Rochester’s amendment, and said that he hoped bishops were alive to the need of the theological breadth of the Church being represented on the CNC.
The Bishop of Taunton, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, who’s currently Acting Bishop of Coventry and a participant observer within the House of Bishops, said that if she had a vote she would oppose the motion.
“I’m concerned that folks like myself have already been silenced for long enough,” she said.
The Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, said that it was essential to concentrate to power, but urged members to reject Dr Gibbs’ amendment, describing Bishop Mullally’s proposals as “modest and proportionate”.
The amendment fell by 13 votes to 24, with two recorded abstentions.
Dr Croft then moved his second amendment, which proposed to provide a panel comprising the archbishop and the “five most senior diocesan bishops (by length of service)” the ability to make a call if a reputation was not progressed.
The rationale, he said, was to forestall lengthy vacancies. The backstop that he proposed was merely “indicative”, he said, and he asked members to not vote on the premise of the specifics, but on the principle of a fallback measure within the case of a deadlock.
The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, supported the amendment. “A backstop is significant,” he said.
The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Mark Tanner, said that he thought the House was being “too detailed”, though he supported the general motion, albeit with a level of caution.
Bishop Mullally opposed the amendment on the grounds that it would look like a power-grab.
The amendment fell by 14 votes to 19, with eight recorded abstentions.
In a debate on the major motion, the Archbishop of York spoke in favour, while praising elements of the present process. He was followed by the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Paul Williams, who warned that the proposals “plainly accrued more power to the archbishop”. This would clearly not engender greater trust throughout the CNC and the Synod, he said, and urged further consultation.
The Revd Eileen Harrop, a participant observer, said that she was “closer to the pews” than the episcopal members. She said that it was heartening that the problem was being taken seriously.
Bishop Mullally said that the proposals weren’t definitive, but an effort to maneuver forward in a way that will, within the near future, improve a process “which is clearly painful”.
The accomplished motion was automotiveried by 27 votes to nine, with three recorded abstentions. The motion as amended read:
That this House, regretting the difficulties within the recent CNC processes as set out in HB(24)30 welcome the recommendations as set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of that paper and request that work be undertaken to bring the proposals to Synod.
IN HER final remarks, Bishop Mullally had thanked those that had spoken in the talk, acknowledging that it could come “at a value” that was possibly increased by the incontrovertible fact that the meeting was open.
What had initially been tabled as a 20-minute meeting stretched to an hour. It had been preceded by a discussion of the larger College of Bishops, closed to journalists.
House of Bishops meetings are usually not routinely open to the press and public, but throughout the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, there have been calls for greater transparency. In June, it was announced that the minutes of meetings could be made available, but calls to open all meetings to the press and public were rejected (News, 21 June).
Nevertheless, an email sent earlier this week stated that it will be open to a limited variety of the press and public. A Church House spokesperson said that a request was made by a member of the general public to attend, and the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops selected to open the meeting.
