THE General Synod voted on the Thursday to approve some, but not all, of the proposed changes to Standing Orders referring to the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), after a debate that ran to greater than twice its allotted time.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, individually moved each of the nine amendments, to 2 of which there have been further amendments. Like the Archbishop of York in Tuesday’s take-note debate on the CNC report, she acknowledged that confidence in the method had been “knocked significantly” after no nominations had been made in Carlisle and Ely. Concerns had been raised within the previous yr from a wide range of people and a variety of church traditions, related to “hidden criteria, lobbying, and lack of diversity”.
“We can’t see this debate in isolation [from matters such as] safeguarding and HR. Behaviour and culture need to alter to make it possible to take care of the Holy Spirit,” she said. “If the CNC process is to work well, it will need to have the total confidence of the Church, especially those under-represented in senior roles.”
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, acknowledging “a big shift of power” in three of the latter proposals and urging members to not vote for them.
The Synod voted in favour of an amendment to permit for the opposite central member of a pair to attend a gathering in the opposite’s place in an emergency: one such pairing, the Revd Joanna Stobart (Bath & Wells) and the Revd Claire Lording (Worcester), celebrated this as “a possibility to live out our deeply held convictions about shared ministry”.
The Synod also voted to permit deputies to be appointed for the Prime Minister’s or the Archbishops’ appointments secretaries; and for an interpreter when a member needed assistance or had limited English — something that might enable greater participation by unrepresented groups, Bishop Mullally said.
Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans Together), using BSL, assured the Synod that this may not delay the method. Rebecca Mynett (St Albans), via Zoom, was in a position to allay the concerns of Prudence Dailey (Oxford) that, when it got here to the Canterbury CNC, with its five representatives from the Anglican Communion, there have been “extremely experienced interpreters specialising in churches”.
An amendment making provision in an archiepiscopal emptiness for an archbishop to direct a member of the House of Bishops to deputise, but not before the Synod had dismissed an amendment to this amendment from Clive Scowen (London), which sought to transfer that power to the House of Bishops. It resisted by the Revd Rachel Webbley (Canterbury) — “We ask the House of Bishops to do loads of work already, they usually do it collegially” — and from the Revd Chantal Noppen (Durham) — “We must trust the Archbishops.”
Support got here in a plea for common sense from Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford), on Zoom. The Acting Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Revd Martin Gorick, who’s the Bishop of Dudley, raised the position of suffragans, who currently didn’t have voting rights within the House of Bishops.
Mr Scowen’s amendment was lost within the Houses of Bishops and Clergy: voting was Bishops 8-13, with five recorded abstentions; Clergy 78-83, with 4 recorded abstentions; Laity 94-80, with two recorded abstentions.
Next got here an amendment to forestall an abstention being counted as a vote against. It could be ignored in determining whether a person had the essential level of support.
The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool), supported it. “If only 13 people [of the 14] vote, you realize someone has abstained. It’s vital to find a way to debate your vote together and are available to a good and accurate picture of the candidate under discussion. We are those who determine the principles.”
Canon Esther Prior (Guildford), the Bishop-elect of Aston, struggled to seek out words to specific her fury, going thus far as to suggest that it had triggered memories of growing up in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, where the President had created a dictatorship “standing order by standing order. We cannot see this in isolation, but as a part of the broader problem of accountability and proper processes. Without addressing it, change can be slow or may not come in any respect.”
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) urged the Synod: “Pay attention to power. . . Help avoid a PR disaster. Reject these proposals as an influence grab. Do they strike you as humble proposals to amplify the voice of the Holy Spirit, or one particular voice?”
The Archdeacon of West Cumberland, the Ven. Stewart Fyfe (Carlisle), had found the confidentiality of the failed CNC “watertight” in his efforts to tease out what had happened at Carlisle. “If it was a theological issue, this amendment just fans the flames,” he said. “If it’s to avoid non-appointment, it’s a smart 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, and was concerned in regards to the genesis of those proposals. CNC members had had no prior papers, and no justification of what was being proposed, he said. “At a time when trust has sadly been in brief supply, this doesn’t represent good progress. This is a strategy of discernment, not a competitive appointment process.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), disagreed. 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.”
The Revd Tim Edwards (Rochester) believed that the effect could be to remove a few of the checks and balances that were amongst “the glories of the Church of England”.
Bishop Mullally defended the proposal as “not eliminating [abstentions]. . . It’s not about power being abused by bishops, but inside the system. It is a few misuse of power,” she said. “Do we wish to proceed to collude with it or, somewhat, treat the symptoms and take away the cause? We want to handle our power, but, if we proceed to place it in darkness, we won’t do this.”
The amendment was lost within the Houses of Clergy and Laity: 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 to alter the edge 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 are unable to support a candidate, the search must begin again.
Nic Tall (Bath & Wells) thought this idea, “fixing a mathematical glitch that makes it harder for a CNC to do its job. It’s still a super-majority and a high bar to clear.”
The Ven. Dr 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 return together to consensus. We’re not after winners and losers, but winners and winners.”
The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Southwark) believed that “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.”
Rosemary Wilson (Southwark), via Zoom, said: “Trust has been a serious issue this quinquennium. . . It’s a vital time for the Church. We really must be pulling together. Ask whether this proposal facilitates that or not.”
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) moved an amendment to the amendment which might keep the two-thirds threshold for submitting a reputation to the Prime Minister, but with a fall-back that, where the edge was not met, a reputation may very well be submitted if it had the support of an easy majority of the (often) eight central members of the CNC, and the support of an easy majority of the (often) six diocesan members. The Bishop was “offering a hammer”, but “I offer a nutcracker,” she said.
The Revd Kate Massey (Coventry) said: “It has long been a priority that CNC membership is unrepresentative of the Church as an entire. . . It could be very difficult to appoint women on this quinquennium. They are being invited into the discussion process and never being appointed. They know easy maths is against them. You now have the chance to alter it. Vote for the motion and against this amendment.”
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) said that, while he had voted against the introduction of girls bishops, he accepted and lived by the Five Guiding Principles. “I find it offensive to be accused of discriminating in this fashion,” he said. Women had been appointed in each Coventry and Sodor & Man, for which he had been on the CNC.
Professor Joyce Hill (Leeds), who chairs the Standing Committee, told the Synod: “We have a longstanding tradition of a super-majority. But we don’t need the introduction at this point of a convoluted complexity.”
The Revd Graham Hamilton (Exeter) wondered why something that might not occur in a diocesan appointment should occur in an episcopal one: “It can’t be good for a bishop to be imposed on a diocese when a majority doesn’t want them.”
Busola Sodeinde (London) said that, once an appointment was made, it was incredibly difficult to remove a bishop, unless there was a scandal. She urged rejection of the foremost motion.
The Goddard amendment was lost in a vote by Houses: Bishops 8-18, with one recorded abstention; Clergy 79-93; Laity 93-93, with two recorded abstentions.
The foremost amendment was subsequently also lost within the House of Laity: Bishops 17-9, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 88-85; Laity 87-102.
An additional amendment was to dispose of the key ballot. “The secret ballot creates a veil of mystery dividing us when we’d like to return together,” Bishop Mullally said. “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.”
In a maiden speech, the Revd Martin Davy (Oxford) said that the key ballot protected members from “undue and unintended influence . . . from repercussions of those in authority. The reality is that members feel constrained by an unspoken expectation to adapt. Resist politicising the method.”
Samuel Wilson (Chester) said: “So lots 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 persons are scared, but I’ll be voting in favour of this because I trust in all of you to say what you suspect.”
Dr Catharine Rhodes (Sheffield) favoured the change. “How can you’ve got a full and open discussion without openly talking about candidates? We must open the door and let the sunshine in.”
Dr Diana Tremayne (Leeds) was also in favour. Knowing how each other had voted “might make it easier to specific opinion”.
One concern of the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Revd Jonathan Baker (Southern Suffragans), was pressure being placed on members in the event that they didn’t have “recourse to a personal place”.
Dr Nick Land (York) also feared pressure from bishops or from members’ own “inner ring”. The courage to vote in another way whenever you discovered that “the precise person got here from a distinct theology,” required the conditions of a secret ballot. “We need to raised reply to the Holy Spirit and alter our views.”
The Revd Professor Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter) believed that the perfect protection was “the confidentiality of the entire process”.
Canon John Dunnett (Chelmsford) found parallels within the 1984 Trades Union Act on secret ballots, introduced to scale back the ability of activists to forestall 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.
The amendment was lost within the House of Laity: Bishops 16-6, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy 87-83, with 4 recorded abstentions; Laity 79-105, with one recorded abstention.
The final amendment 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. Bishop Mullally described this as “giving the CNC an extra tool. It recognises that the reply should be no.”
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.”
Dr Laura Oliver (Blackburn), a GP, was used to managing people of various views, she said, but she had found herself “belittled, patronised, and deflated” by the CNC process. Reject the potential of an abuse of power, she urged.
The Archbishop of York said: “I don’t want this added power, and, when you vote for it, Synod, I’ll select not to make use of it.”
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester) also opposed it: “Everyone on a CNC is equal and has an equal vote.”
The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Canterbury), said: “Fear and power and trust have been buzzwords in the previous few 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 need to acknowledge power.”
Fr Thomas Seville CR (Religious Communities) supported the direction of the proposal as “getting the CNC out of a possible log-jam and stopping a failed nomination. It is, in effect, a casting vote,” he said. The Synod was “worrying an excessive amount of about Their Graces’ having an excessive amount of power”.
The motion fell 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 among 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 Appointment Secretary or the Archbishops’ Appointment Secretary in the event that they are unable to attend.
- Allowing the CNC to ask an interpreter to attend meetings where essential
- where the see of an Archbishop is vacant, enabling the opposite Archbishop to appoint a Bishop to act as deputy
- a brief amendment enabling a Bishop to preside at a CNC meeting when neither Archbishop can attend.
- changing the edge 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 necessities 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.
- changing the edge 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 necessities 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.
