A VOTE on an amended motion related to trust within the House of Bishops was avoided on the Saturday afternoon when the General Synod voted by a narrow majority to maneuver to next business. A culture and governance review of the House, commissioned by the Bishops, will go ahead anyway.
The motion from Dr Ros Clarke (Lichfield) called for a completely independent review of the “culture and governance” of the House of Bishops, which, she said, would help to rebuild trust.
The House of Bishops, a part of the Synod, also meets individually around six times a 12 months, and, because of this, and since of its relatively small size, had an identity that the neither the House of Clergy or the House of Laity had, Dr Clarke suggested. It also had extra powers, including the flexibility to make statements on behalf of the Church of England.
She quoted an interim report from the House of Bishops’ Transparency Group, last 12 months which said that there had been a “lack of trust within the House of Bishops. . . It is perceived that bishops are insufficiently accountable to the broader Church of England.” Some changes had been made, including publishing minutes from the Bishops’ meetings, but a more thorough and wider-ranging, review was vital, she said, and this needs to be conducted by an independent body, to reassure the remainder of the Synod
Clare Williams (Norwich) spoke of the Church in Wales and the recent crisis within the Bangor diocese. With Welsh disestablishment, a considerable amount of power had come to rest within the Bench of Bishops, she said, and had created an unhealthy culture and a “monochrome episcopacy”. At times, the English House of Bishops had also used its power to drive things through or block things against the desire of the remainder of the Synod. There was a scarcity of transparency and trust, she suggested, and only a really independent review could address this.
“Christians don’t trust each other,” Jane Evans (Leeds) said — a conclusion drawn, she said, from working for a Christian organisation. This might partly be because disagreements became amplified, partly by the thought that “I’m made within the image of God; so I should be right,” she said.
The Revd William Harwood (Truro) said that individuals in his diocese often questioned why the House of Bishops had a lot power. An in-house review ordered by the Bishops wouldn’t suffice to deal with this, he said, provided that two female bishops who had spoken out on safeguarding had said that they felt unsafe and unwelcome — a reference to the Bishops of Newcastle and Warrington.
The Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) suggested that the motion exhibited “paranoia”, and that, while the Bishops weren’t all the time deserving of deference, they were deserving of more respect. He suggested that the motion was “a thinly veiled attack on the Bishops due to LLF [Living in Love and Faith], because some on this chamber haven’t agreed with decisions taken, and it’s a way of punishing them”. Dr Clarke’s proposal, he said, was “a complete waste of time, and just one other type of bullying”.
He was applauded at length.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham), the Chair of the House of Laity, moved his amendment, which struck out Dr Clarke’s original motion and welcomed the concept of an independently led governance and culture review, saying that the House of Bishops was already working on terms of reference for this. His amendment also called for this to be published in full and paid for by the Archbishops’ Council. A review may very well be helpful, he said, because the Church’s governance structures were reformed.
Responding, Dr Clarke was delighted that the House agreed that there was a necessity for a review, but said that what was being proposed was not fully independent, and, subsequently, couldn’t address the “gaping trust deficit” with the broader Church. It amounted to the Bishops’ each setting after which marking their very own homework, she suggested, which might waste each money and time.
As a comparatively latest Synod member, the Revd Dr Charlie Baczyk-Bell (Southwark) was struck by how often the “finger of blame” was pointed, often on the Bishops. He, too, was frustrated by the processes of the House, but when he had met bishops, he found them to be people of “kindness, labor, and private holiness”. Everyone made mistakes, he said, however the culture within the Church now was such that, whatever they did, it could not be considered the fitting thing.
The Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), said that sexual harassment happened within the Church, even when it was not talked about. She welcomed the cultural review already instigated by the House and disagreed with the unique motion. It was all the time tempting responsible the Bishops, but things were changing, she said. Work on misconduct that was serious but didn’t amount to safeguarding was urgently needed, she said, but a review of the entire Church’s culture was needed, not only the Bishops’. “Focus the work where it’s needed and never rating tribal or political points about something which deserves a more dispassionate and far-reaching approach.”
The Revd Neil Robbie (Lichfield) opposed the amendment. Unless the review was independent, it could not be possible to know that the Bishops, perhaps subconsciously, were attempting to “protect themselves from pain” in the best way during which it was carried out.
Dr Harrison’s amendment was carried, before the Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), moved that the Synod move to next business. She suggested that the amended motion amounted to little greater than an “incredible waste of cash”.
Dr Clarke argued that, since a review was to happen, the procedural motion wouldn’t get monetary savings, but prevent further debate on what independence meant for the review. But Dr Threlfall-Holmes’s motion was carried, by 154-144, with 16 recorded abstentions.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
