THE behaviour of the House of Bishops had made her “furious”, the Bishop-designate of Aston, Canon Esther Prior, told the General Synod on Thursday, in a condemnation of its lack of consultation over proposed changes to Standing Orders regarding the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC). The move, she said, had triggered memories of growing up in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, where the President had created a dictatorship “standing order by standing order”.
A succession of speakers had grievances to bear. The Synod had nine proposals across the membership, chairing, business, and procedures of the CNC to think about. The first five had been proposed collectively by the Central Members (those elected by the Synod) and these, though they brought out strong feelings from the ground, were all carried.
The last 4, nevertheless, had come from the House of Bishops, and were seen by several members as a “power grab”. One was carried: three failed. Feelings ran high in a debate that adjourned for lunch and prolonged over two hours beyond its allotted time.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, who moved the motion and spoke to every proposal individually, acknowledged that confidence within the CNC process had been knocked significantly after no nominations were made in Carlisle and Ely. Concerns had been raised last yr from a wide range of people and a variety of church traditions, she said, amid suggestions of hidden criteria and lobbying.
The Synod could use “three sledgehammers or three nutcrackers to tackle what’s a comparatively crackable nut”, the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, suggested on the outset. He pointed to “a big shift of power” in three of the Bishops’ proposals and urged members to not vote for them.
The Synod agreed to an amendment that will allow for the opposite Central member of a pair to attend a gathering in the opposite’s place in an emergency; for deputies to be appointed for the Prime Minister’s or the appointed Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments; and one other allowing for an interpreter where a member needed assistance or had limited English — something that will enable greater participation by unrepresented groups, Bishop Mullally suggested.
A priority about the associated fee of this last amendment brought out a speech in British Sign Language from Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans Together), who signed: “If you will have good quality interpreters, it shouldn’t decelerate the method. As you possibly can see, we aren’t prolonging it! Cost could also be a difficulty, yes, and multiple could also be required to maintain with a process. But, if cost means we will’t do that, it’s denying the precise. It’s necessary that folks contribute.”
The Canterbury CNC was never removed from the Synod’s mind, nevertheless, and far of the talk was clearly viewed — if unspoken — through that prism. It took a count by Houses to hold an amendment which made provision in an archiepiscopal emptiness for an Archbishop to direct a member of the House of Bishops to deputise.
”We wish the Archbishop of York good health,” Bishop Mullally said.
Much more contentious was an amendment that will prevent an abstention being counted as a vote against a candidate. The vote could be ignored in determining whether a person had the vital level of support.
This was what provoked the fury not only of Canon Prior, but of the Revd Mark Tuffnell, (Salisbury), who urged the Synod: “Pay attention to power. . . Help avoid a PR disaster. Reject these proposals [of the Bishops’] as an influence grab. Do they strike you as humble proposals to the amplify the voice of the Holy Spirit, or one particular voice?”
The Revd Stewart Fyfe (Carlisle) had found the confidentiality of the failed CNC “watertight” in that he had been unable to tease out what had happened at Carlisle. “If it was a theological issue, this amendment just fans the flames,” he suggested. “If it’s to avoid non-appointment, it’s a sensible exercise of your authority. What would have helped us was not going to the back of an 18-month queue as if we had been naughty.”
Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London) had been involved in 42 episcopal nomination processes, he said, and was concerned in regards to the genesis of those proposals. CNC members had not seen any papers before, nor any justification for what was being proposed. “At a time when trust has sadly been briefly supply, this doesn’t represent good progress,” he said. “This is a strategy of discernment, not a competitive appointment process.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Homes (Liverpool) disagreed. She said that she had been a part of an “inner ring” of informal conversations about whether to weaponise abstentions. “Let’s not pretend it doesn’t occur,” she said. “It’s selecting to not vote. At the moment, they’re getting used to dam any appointment. . . So make this variation.”
The Revd Timothy Edwards (Rochester) believed that the effect could be to remove a number of the checks and balances, which, he said, were “one in all the glories of the Church of England”.
Bishop Mullally defended the proposal as “not casting off [abstentions]. . . It’s not about power being abused by bishops but inside the system. It is a couple of misuse of power,” she insisted. “Do we wish to proceed to collude with it, or fairly treat the symptoms and take away the cause? We want to handle our power, but when we proceed to place it in darkness, we won’t do this.”
The amendment was lost by a counted vote by Houses: Bishops, 16-9, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 83-84, with one recorded abstention; Laity, 86-94, with one recorded abstention.
Next got here an amendment that will change the brink required for submitting a reputation to the Prime Minister from two-thirds to 60 per cent. The current threshold signifies that, when a number of members is unable to support a candidate, the search must begin again.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesMembers of the House of Bishops within the General Synod on Thursday afternoon
Nic Tall (Bath & Wells) thought that will be a great idea, in “fixing a mathematical glitch that makes it harder for a CNC to do its job. The current threshold is 71.4 — about two-thirds. The proposal is for nine out of 14. It’s still a supermajority and a high bar to clear,” he said.
The Revd Adrian Youings (Bath & Wells) said: “We go for consensus each time. People within the room all have the ability to veto, and each single time each member put aside the ability of their hand and sought to come back together to consensus. We’re not after winners and losers but winners and winners.”
The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Southwark) said: “We should listen to power, also to truth. Speak truthfully within the chamber. If the CNC fails to appoint, it’s a failure to do the job we require you to do. It’s the reality we seem determined to skirt. We’re not here to talk in riddles and rhymes.”
A gaggle of individuals weren’t being considered for diocesan appointments, he suggested. “LLF is being weaponised in the broader CNC process. We seem suddenly determined to crush vocation on this chamber. We must get real. Pass this amendment and let the CNC do its job as intended to do.”
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) moved an amendment to the amendment that will keep the two-third threshold for submitting a reputation to the Prime Minister, but with a fall back that, where the brink was not met, a reputation might be submitted if it had the support of an easy majority of the (normally) eight Central Members of the CNC and the support of an easy majority of the (normally) six diocesan members.
The Bishop was “offering a hammer”, but “I offer a nutcracker,” she said. There was considerable debate, however the amendment was lost in a counted vote by houses. The fundamental amendment was subsequently also lost in a counted vote by houses: Bishops, 17-8, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 88-85, with no recorded abstentions; Laity, 87-102, with no recorded abstentions.
The most anticipated proposal was to eliminate the key ballot. Bishop Mullally said that there have been concerns around coercion, lobbying, and lack of diversity. “The secret ballot creates a veil of mystery dividing us when we want to come back together. . . It is perceived as a barrier to openness and transparency. It is due to an influence imbalance that some feel they’re safer with the key ballots. It’s higher to handle power, and create an environment when open conversation can occur.”
Sam Wilson (Chester) said: “So a lot of us here at Synod vote the best way we do because we’re terrified what people will consider our vote. I understand the necessity for a secret ballot because some individuals are scared, but I’ll be voting in favour for this because I trust in all of you to say what you suspect. When we leave here, the person we answer to is God.”
Canon John Dunnett (Chelmsford) found parallels within the 1984 Trades Union Act on secret ballots, introduced to scale back the ability of activism to stop coercion and intimidation.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) thought that it was a matter of Christian leadership: “If you’re elected to CNC, you’ve been invited right into a leadership role inside the Church. We must have courage. There needs to be no fear in the method.”
For the Revd Andrew Mumby (Southwark), it was the difference between confidentiality and secrecy. “There’s no place for secrecy within the Church,” he said.
That amendment, too, was lost in a counted vote by houses: Bishops, 15-6, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy, 87-83, with 4 recorded abstentions; Laity, 79-105, with one recorded abstention.
The final proposal would give the person presiding on the meeting a second vote in a situation wherein not more than two candidates remained into account and no candidate had received the required level of support after three rounds of voting.
This drew heated debate. The Revd Mark Miller (Durham) said: “Agreeing to this proposal would mean organising the Archbishop of York and Archbishop of Canterbury to increased scrutiny — look what happened in Liverpool. Given the very public role of the Archbishops or to guard them from themselves, please reject this.”
The Archbishop of York said: “I don’t want this added power, and, should you vote for it, Synod, I’ll select not to make use of it.”
The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson- Wilkinson, said: “Fear and power and trust have been buzzwords in the previous couple of Synods, and on this one. It’s seen within the signing of petitions, the withdrawing of cash if we don’t get what we wish. I would like to acknowledge power.”
That proposal was roundly lost in all three houses: Bishops, 4-14, with 4 recorded abstentions; Clergy, 24-128, with seven recorded abstentions; Laity, 23-149, with seven recorded abstentions.
Church House has issued this summary of changes approved and never approved:
Changes approved
- Where one in all the central members serving on a CNC is unable to attend, allowing the opposite member of their “pair” to take their place.
- Enabling deputies to be substituted for the Prime Minister’s Appointments Secretary or the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary in the event that they are unable to attend.
- Allowing the CNC to ask an interpreter to attend meetings where vital.
- Where the see of an archbishop is vacant, enabling the opposite archbishop to appoint a bishop to act as deputy.
- A short lived amendment enabling a bishop to preside at a CNC meeting where neither archbishop can attend.
Changes not approved
- Changing the brink required for submitting a reputation to the Prime Minister from two-thirds to 60 per cent of a CNC.
- An amendment which might have prevented an abstention from being counted as, in effect, a vote against a candidate.
- Replacing the requirement for a secret ballot with a requirement for a counted vote to be taken on a show of hands.
- Give the person presiding on the relevant meeting of the Commission a second vote where not more than two candidates remained into account and no candidate had received the required level of support after three rounds of voting.
