CHANGES to the structure and operation of vacancy-in-see committees were approved on the Friday.
The changes were brought forward with regards to a review, published last 12 months, of the appointment of the Rt Revd Philip North as Bishop of Blackburn (News, 19 April 2024). The reviewer, Maggie Swinson, had found that the method had been followed accurately, but really useful that the appropriateness of the chairing of the comittee by a suffragan bishop within the diocese be reviewed.
Thus, one in all the changes that the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, proposed was that the chair be elected from among the many lay members of the committee. This, she told the Synod, would avoid the chance of other members’ feeling unable to talk their mind since the chair was their line manager, or in one other position of authority.
Other proposals were geared toward ensuring “higher representation of the diocese as an entire” on the Crown Nomination Commission (CNC), Bishop Mullally said. This included a requirement that at the least one woman be chosen to be among the many six diocesan representatives, and that two members of the vacancy-in-see committee couldn’t be connected with the identical parish.
In the initial debate on the proposals, Christina Baron (Bath & Wells) spoke in favour of the proposals, saying that it was essential that the committee members, particularly those that went on to serve on the CNC, be representative of the diocese.
Professor Lynn Nichol (Worcester) said that her experience as a lay person chairing a vacancy-in-see committee convinced her that a lay chair was symbolic of the importance of lay people to the work of the diocese. She welcomed the availability to make sure higher representation of girls.
Luke Appleton (Exeter) asked what teeth the regulations would have.
Nadine Daniel (Liverpool), in support, said that her diocese “has an issue” in relation to the CNC, and that this might not be addressed by the proposed changes. “That problem is that there may be anyone who can’t be trusted to keep up their oath of confidentiality,” she said, referring to a recent leak in regards to the CNC process for Dr John Perumbalath (News, 7 February).
An amendment from the Revd Jonathan Jee (Coventry) sought to remove the proposed restriction on people from the identical parish or other worshipping community serving on the committee. This would prevent “good people” serving and create a barrier to younger and more diverse representation. Membership, he said, must be kept open to everyone. Because some Synod members were robotically members of the committee, the proposals would disqualify anyone else who attended the churches of those gathered in Church House, he argued.
Abigail Ogier (Manchester) said that it seemed “palpably unfair” for any parish to have a couple of representative.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said that his parish church was diverse in ethnicity, class, gender, and age, and that, if this restriction was passed (and he was licensed to the parish), everyone who attended could be disqualified from membership of the vacancy-in-see committee in favour of him, a “middle-class, middle-aged white man”.
Dr Nick Land (York) said that no lay people in a cathedral could possibly be elected on to the committee due to the Dean’s inclusion as an ex-officio member. He asked whether the Synod really wanted to incorporate the ex-officio members.
Dr Gill Frigerio (Coventry) said that, in her experience, having multiple representatives from one parish negatively affected the functioning of the committee. She “couldn’t possibly comment”, she said, on whether having a couple of representative from a parish could possibly be connected to the committee’s not electing any female clerics to the CNC.
The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) said that the “demographic reality, prefer it or not”, was that young people attending church were increasingly concentrated in larger churches and cathedrals. The effect of the proposals could be to scale back the chance for young people to serve on the committee, he argued.
In a vote by Houses, the amendment was lost within the House of Bishops. Voting was: Bishops 7-14; Clergy 75-64, with three recorded abstentions; and Laity 82-79, with two recorded abstentions.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) then moved the primary of two amendments: the primary would remove the prohibition on the chair of the committee to be elected to the CNC, while retaining the clause within the proposals to make sure that the chair was a layperson. Removing the restriction on the chair would give the committee a wider alternative of who can represent the diocese, he argued.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesJennifer Fellows (Gloucester) moves her amendment
Bishop North felt that this was one one area during which suffragan bishops could safely participate, as they “know the diocese backwards.” It was “one other way of undermining their ministry and diminishing their role.”
Dr Chris Angus (Carlisle) echoed Bishop North. He had had experience of being chaired by a suffragan, and the committee had gone thoroughly, despite differences of tradition amongst them.
The amendment fell.
Mr Bacon’s second amendment would remove the requirement for the chair of the committee to be elected from the lay members of the committee.
Peter Adams (St Albans), suggesting that there was “an elephant within the room”, said that the Synod must be “naming our fear of the facility that sometimes the bishops represent for us. We have to work on the empowerment of our laity to talk in that situation without fearing that ‘power’.”
Helen Lamb (Oxford) found the entire process “incredibly patronising. . . We are micro-managed and over-legislating what must be a democratic process: one person, one vote. Let’s not get too big for our boots. Trust people to make use of their power well.”
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) spoke of the importance of holding space for the laity.
The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool), said that he was “amazed” at what he was hearing. “If the principles suit you, you almost certainly don’t want to alter them. . . And that we must always [even] think enabling a suffragan to chair was idea!” Better, he suggested, to “co-opt a lay one that possibly doesn’t wish to be on a CNC”.
The amendment was carried by 188-119, with 26 recorded abstentions.
Jennifer Fellows (Gloucester) moved an amendment to remove the requirement for at the least one lay person and at the least one cleric from those elected from a vacancy-in-see committee to the CNC to be female. The proposed change failed to handle issues of girls not being listened to: “We can still enthusiastically pursue and empower women to grow to be a part of the method.”
Bishop Mullally said that she was surprised at even having to bring this requirement. There had been no women on the vacancy-in-see committees in Durham, Exeter, and Coventry, and just one in Winchester, Sodor & Man, and Ely. “Women’s voices proceed to not be heard,” she said. “Why are we not ensuring that our members are 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women? Even if we only have two possibilities, we still have 4 who’re men. There proceed to be institutional barriers. We proceed to experience micro-aggression.” Visibly emotional, the Bishop turned away from the rostrum. This was met with prolonged applause. “People will say I actually have manipulated you,” she continued.” I actually have not manipulated you. . . Reject this amendment. Don’t just wear a blue ribbon. Do something about it.”
The Revd Kate Massey (Coventry) said: “Women should not one other minority within the Church. We are a majority. We are subject to legal discrimination due to the bodies we inhabit. You need the voice of local women in your discernment. Every CNC features a male priest, but not an ordained woman. This will not be an aberration: it’s an issue. We have to hear women in our church discernment. Vote against this amendment.”
The Revd Jo Winn-Smith (Guildford) said: “Here we’re today, debasing women. We are a majority within the Church’s congregations. I urge you to reject this.”
The Revd Kate Wharton (Liverpool) supported the amendment at one level: “I’m a feminist and an egalitarian who has proudly worn the blue ribbon all week.” She was in favour of equal representation for men and girls on all committees but said: “We must be beyond a time of reserving places for one gender. I need this clause not to want to exist. I need us to be higher about changing our culture.”
The Archbishop of York also “wished we weren’t having to have this conversation. But I do wish to stand alongside my sister Sarah, and lots of other sisters within the Church. . . I think God is looking and difficult us to search out ways of living with conscientious disagreement, and we face many many challenges over that. I wish we didn’t need any of those things, but we do, for the greater reason for unity and representation, and everybody feeling they’ve a spot across the table. Therefore, in the event you’re anyone who thinks, on some issues, you would like provision, in the event you support the Five Guiding Principles, then I hope that we are going to reject this amendment and easily accept that that is where we’re.”
Fr Thomas Seville CR (Religious Communities) was sensing a weariness within the Synod: “The quality of our discussions is getting very micro-focused. We need more time to return to a consensus.”
Bishop Mullally countered: “These are urgent matters. The quality of debate has been good: we’re giving it the correct attention due.”
Dr Catharine Rhodes (Sheffield), a consultant obstetrician, had been capable of train only part-time due to a government requirement that five per cent of trainees must be part-time. “It’s really essential we resist this item,” she said.
Canon Jane Richards (Chelmsford) looked to the day when no special provision needed to be made for girls — or any marginalised group — to be heard. “We still have to make sure that women are given equal voice and what we are saying is given equal consideration.”
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) said that girls were “allowed to be within the decision-making until it’s being decided. This is a minor level of provision, not political, not a theological position.”
The amendment fell in all three Houses. Voting was: Bishops 1-18, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 55-79, with nine recorded abstentions; Laity 68-90, with 4 recorded abstentions.
Also lost, in a counted vote of the entire Synod — 156-174 with 4 recorded abstentions — was an amendment from Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) to forestall the election to the CNC of a couple of person from the identical parish or other worshipping community inside a vacancy-in-see committee: “Don’t take the alternative away before diversity even starts.”
It drew the comment from the Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) that “well-connected churches have been scooping up CNC places.”
Returning to the foremost motion, Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford), on Zoom, believed that it was “tinkering, trying to manage the democratic process”, and would have unintended consequences.
The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Southwark) thought it sensible. “Show the Bishop of London a bit more respect than comparing what she’s attempting to do with Mugabe or South Africa,” he said. “There has been a lot speak about being attentive to power. This is being a bit ludicrous: we should not listening to the voices of those that don’t imagine they’re being heard. Just vote the thing.”
Kenson Li had been co-opted on to the Synod as one coming from a GMH background, he reminded the Synod. “The discussion before lunch made me feel I’d wasted one and a half hours yesterday pleading for the voices of young adults to be heard. Synod, in the event you think the system is working, don’t be surprised in the event that they [young people] leave us. They may have made their minds up that this Church will not be value their time.”
The motion was carried: Bishops 16-3, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy 83-64, with 4 recorded abstentions; Laity 93-64, with no recorded abstentions.
The motion that the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation 2024 (Amendment) Regulation 2025 be solemnly affirmed and proclaimed in an Act of Synod was carried.
