THE General Synod took note of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders referring to the membership, chairing, business, and procedures of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), on the Tuesday, prematurely of a vote later within the week.
Five of the nine amendments had come collectively from the CNC’s central members, who’re elected to it by the Synod. The remainder had come from the House of Bishops, and these were probably the most hotly debated: the Bishops were accused of a “power grab” and criticised for an absence of consultation.
One proposed that abstentions would not be counted as a vote against a candidate. Another proposed a change to the brink required for submitting a reputation to the Prime Minister. The third would mean that a show of hands would replace the key ballot. The fourth would allow the chair an additional vote in a case where neither of the remaining candidates had reached the choice threshold.
The proposals had been given greater emphasis by the failure, last yr, to appoint in Carlisle and Ely, and the breach of confidentiality implicit within the leaking of detail from the CNC which had appointed the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd John Perumbalath. They also got here within the context of the Canterbury CNC planned for 2025.
There had been 16 diocesan bishops appointments since 2022, the Archbishop of York reminded the Synod. Moving the motion, he emphasised that it was the prerogative of individual members to vote based on their conscience, and acknowledged: “We have to just accept that every now and then a nomination isn’t made.
“But, at the identical time, I recognise from the numerous conversations and communications I even have had that, when this happens, especially when it happens twice, confidence within the CNC process is affected, which has caused shock and dismay inside and out of doors the Church.”
Jane Patterson (Sheffield) suggested that a non-appointment may very well be regarded as discernment, not failure. “CNCs are very difficult — just a few extremely so, with pressure exerted from the chair. . . I even have been present when one other member has been pressurised to vary their vote. It does occur. For this reason, I regard the key ballot as an important safeguard.”
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) had sought and did not get an independent review of what had gone incorrect within the CNC process for Winchester, and expected that the identical request can be made by the central members after the discussion over the retirement of the Bishop of Liverpool — “And rightly so,” she said. “If you don’t reflect, we don’t learn.”
The proposals before the Synod represented “a shift in how we operate — frankly, shifting that power dramatically to those that already hold the vast majority of power”, she said. “These changes will undermine diocesan members, making it much easier for them to be pressured into particular decisions, and compromise the integrity of what’s a fastidiously balanced voting system.”
Nadine Daniel (Liverpool) had been on the Liverpool CNC in query. Her recollection, she said, had been “somewhat different to what appeared on Channel 4 News. The only thing I can say, because my oath of confidentiality could be very vital to me, is that, if I believed any person was being bullied, I’d have spoken up about it and I’d have been very ashamed of myself if I hadn’t. If I’m privileged to face again, I don’t want to be sitting in the identical room as that person.”
Robert Hammond (Chelmsford), speaking in his own capability and never as chair of the Business Committee, desired to see the event of a code of practice for CNC members, akin to the Synod’s own code. “We have no idea who leaked the main points of that CNC, but I’d hope that, in the event that they are members of the Synod, they will likely be open with us, they may not serve on any future CNCs, and, if members of other councils or bodies or commissions, they might resign, having clearly contravened a declaration of trust,” he said.
Canon Andrew Dotchin (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) urged CNC members — amid all the opposite voices, the “tap on the shoulder”, and the “walk within the garden” — to not “lose a way of the voice we should always be listening to — the Holy Spirit”.
The Revd Professor Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter) said that discerning bishops “in obedience to God’s will . . . could lead on us to something we hadn’t anticipated”. She urged the Synod to recollect the deeper theological issues.
The Revd Mark Miller (Durham) desired to “offer a voice to my female local CNC colleagues, who’ve given me permission to share these words and views. We should not all on the identical page relating to the theological matters before us. We are diverse in our views. There is protection for all in the key vote. . . There are so many dynamics, so many mismatches of understanding, knowledge, and, subsequently, power.”
The Revd Rachel Webbley (Canterbury) reminded the Synod that the open ballot had been advisable within the 2019 O’Donovan report Discerning in Obedience and had been only narrowly defeated. “Given our strenuous work within the long debate today, our culture of accountability does appear to be lacking,” she said. Adequate pastoral look after CNC members was a vital consideration. “However, I even have also spoken with other lay individuals who have found this narrative of intimidation of laity patronising and debilitating, actually perpetuating the hierarchical and unaccountable culture and clericalism that these changes are in search of to enhance.”
The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, spoke of “the way in which during which we create the opportunities in order that only ‘people like us’ — whoever that ‘us’ is — get on to certain committees, after which those committees make the choice in relation to ‘people like us’. However we would like to interpret that, I’m troubled by it, because I don’t see the Holy Spirit at work in it and thru it. There should be a greater way for us to operate, and a greater way for the Holy Spirit to have its way when it comes to the selection of leadership inside our Church than the way in which we ourselves orchestrate each other depending on the camps we belong to.”
Dr Ros Clarke (Lichfield) was glad that safeguarding continued to be central within the discernment work of the CNC. “This seems to me by far a more urgent matter than changing — or, dare I say, undermining — the democratic processes by which these appointments are made,” she said. “Synod, we all know higher than anyone how deeply divided we’re as a Church in the meanwhile. Are we actually surprised that, in a Church where crucial votes have often hinged on only a tiny percentage, that CNC committees are sometimes unable to succeed in that two-thirds majority? I feel we’re in peril of bringing a sledgehammer to crack the incorrect nut.”
The motion to take note was carried.
