THE General Synod revised the National Church Governance Measure in a debate on Thursday which was adjourned and resumed on Friday.
The one successful amendment out of several tabled required the brand new Church of England National Services (CENS) to have, in spending decisions, “particular regard” to the “provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required”.
Introducing the controversy, the chair of the revision committee, Stephen Hogg (Leeds), said that the laws was not, and will never be, perfect — as evidenced by the variety of amendments proposed. But the committee had reached what he hoped was a superb balance.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln), welcoming the work, said that the voice of the Synod had now been strengthened within the laws.
Professor Joyce Hill (Leeds) urged careful thought before voting for amendments that tied up the brand new governance schemes with complex provisions. Simplicity was alleged to be the aim.
Sandra Turner (Chelmsford) said that the Measure would bring clarity, simplicity, accountability, and order to the Church’s complex structures; and all of this is able to rebuild trust.
Canon Mark Bennet (Oxford), a member of the committee, said that there had been significant improvements. Each of the national church institutions (NCIs) in the brand new structure would have its own board of trustees and be subject to external regulation by the Charity Commission or Pensions Regulator. The Synod was being given input into setting priorities slightly than regulatory oversight, to avoid “unnecessary” duplication and excessive scrutiny, he said. As a result, the Church’s elected leaders would give you the option to act with strategic clarity.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, said that the proposals were a “significant step forward”, and would bring more clarity to the governance structures of the Church. There were still gaps, nevertheless, and this might leave “good people caught up in institutional impotence”. She had heard criticism that the Church was too dominated by top-down management. “I even have gazed into the guts of the Church of England, and located at its core incoherent governance structures,” she said. Although the Measure was a superb start, there was more work to do.
Professor Roy Faulkner (Leicester) said that the Measure was too focused on the interests of the bureaucracy slightly than the people within the pews. There must not turn out to be an “upstairs Church of bishops and bureaucrats” dominating a “downstairs Church” of vicars and parishioners. He feared a mentality that may result in cover-ups by an over-mighty bureaucracy. The Church should return to an approach of “the client is at all times right,” he argued, strengthening the “downstairs Church” by reducing the executive staff.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that, done well, the proposed Synodical Scrutiny Committee could help to make sure recent governance structures operated as intended.
The Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, who had chaired the unique governance review, said that clarification was required, not only simplification. At some point, the part played by the Synod would wish to return under the microscope — but he feared that members would strive to protect their very own power bases. Vested interests had killed off a previous generation of governance reform within the Nineties, because of “death by a thousand qualifications”. “Don’t lose sight of the larger picture,” he said.
The Synod took note of the revision committee’s report.
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) introduced his amendment that two independent members of the Governance and Nominations Committee could be appointed by the Synod’s Appointments Committee. This provision wouldn’t add extra complications, he argued. The recent Committee would comprise seven people, three of whom were CENS trustees. Two others could be from the Appointments Committee, and two more could be independent. It was these last two members that he desired to be appointed by the Synod slightly than by CENS.
The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Andrew Orange (Winchester) moved an amendment that was not intended to undermine the Measure, but would be sure that the charitable objectives for which CENS could use the Church Commissioners’ funds were in keeping with people who currnetly applied to the Archbishops’ Council.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Southern Deans) warned that it might limit the range of projects that CENS could fund, and that they’d be unable to operate properly with this limitation.
The amendment lapsed.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) then spoke on his amendment, to compel CENS, when spending money from the Commissioners, to have “particular regard to creating additional provision for the cure of souls” within the poorest parishes in England. Churches in probably the most deprived 20 per cent of the country were five times more prone to close than churches within the least deprived area, he said. Poorer churches had been stigmatised as failures because parishioners couldn’t afford to fund their very own ministry through giving. But they’d much to provide, including foodbanks, he said. In many places, ministry couldn’t be funded by local giving. His amendment would be sure that the poor were prioritised.
Dean Ford applauded Fr Walker’s intent, but argued that the amendment would make the decision-making strategy of CENS too complicated. It would mean that, in every decision, CENS had to make sure not only that each one spending was in keeping with its charitable objectives, but in addition pay special attention to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1840. That Act transferred the assets of cathedral estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in order that the cash may very well be best spent in poorer parishes. But it was at all times intended “to be alert to the entire system”, Dean Ford said, and never solely focused on the cure of souls in probably the most deprived parishes. Fr Walker’s amendment should due to this fact be rejected, she said, but asked for debate to proceed in order that the mind of the Synod may very well be “properly heard”.
The Acting Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Revd Martin Gorick, who’s the Bishop of Dudley, said that the cure of souls at all times required partnership and a “mixed ecology response”. It remained a tenet of the Church, and he desired to see it included somewhere within the Measure. “Let the cure of souls, a method or one other, come first.”
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, said that local people knew best the way to spend the Church’s endowment, in keeping with the unique purpose of the 1840 Act. The amendment sought to defend this principle, and, without it, CENS would allow money to be disproportionately committed to central projects not aligned with the unique purposes of the endowment. “Local dioceses know best: support ministry inside our parishes,” he said. It wouldn’t prevent spending on other things, but would indicate where the Church’s priorities should lie.
Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) praised the concept of the “cure of souls”: evangelism and discipleship rolled into one. The amendment wouldn’t specify how the Church should spend on the cure of souls in poorer parishes, just that it needs to be a priority. It would help to be sure that the Commissioners’ money reached the grass-roots level.
Carl Hughes (Archbishops’ Council), who chairs the Finance Committee, stood for simplicity, he said. The Measure was intended to streamline bureaucracy and make things more efficient. He agreed with Fr Walker in principle, however the amendment, he said, would create an enormous amount of recent bureaucracy and wasted time — each time a spending decision was made, staff would should justify the way it fitted with the Measure. Spending on things similar to net zero and racial justice — asked for by the Synod — needed to be funnelled through the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure 2018. “Let’s not further tie the hands of CENS,” he said.
Robert Zampetti (London), a Church Commissioner on the revision committee, said that there was agreement on the intent of the amendment, which, he argued, wouldn’t necessarily cause undue burden on the decision-making of CENS.
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) feared that the amendment had the potential to divert resources from places that helped everybody.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Orange then moved an additional amendment to require CENS to publish its assurances, sent to the Commissioners, that it had spent their grants in accordance with their charitable objectives. He had already tried to access these annual certificates from the Archbishops’ Council, and had been rebuffed, he said, and so wanted to alter the policy for the long run CENS.
Dean Ford resisted the amendment on the grounds that a statutory requirement to publish all information requested of CENS might compromise commercially or financially sensitive details. The amendment lapsed.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) introduced an amendment to provide the brand new Synodical Scrutiny Committee the facility to create sub-committees. The Committee was an important idea, hesaid, but, slightly than give more jobs to busy bishops, why not delegate tasks to sub-committees? The experience and skills were available on the ground of the Synod, he said. Expecting the seven members of the Committee to attain it alone was an excessive amount of, and their efforts would turn out to be superficial, he argued.
Bishop Watson arguing that the purpose of the Scrutiny Committee was to extend transparency. The Measure meant that the Synod could ask questions of the NCIs through a “small but powerful Committee” that often met with the CENS leaders. A parliamentary-style array of Select Committees wouldn’t be helpful reform, because the aim was to cut back the variety of committees.
The amendment lapsed.
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) introduced the primary of his six amendments (having withdrawn two) which might compel each of the NCIs to publish its response to the Scrutiny Committee’s reports inside three months, and have “due regard” to the reports in the way it carried out its functions. Speaking in regards to the thrust of his amendments, he said that it was vital that trustees of the brand new NCIs couldn’t be allowed to disregard the Synod’s views.
Dean Ford said that the Measure would “enhance” Synod’s existing powers of inquiry into the NCIs. The Synod shouldn’t turn out to be a “quasi-regulatory body for the NCIs” — a function that may be fulfilled by other statutory regulators. The Synod was a legislative assembly, not an inspector or an audit committee. The Scrutiny Committee aimed to foster higher working relationships, but Dr Johnston’s amendments would make it a more formal and aggressive regulator. She resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Dr Johnston then moved his second amendment, which might remove a clause saying that the Standing Orders of the Scrutiny Committee “may not have the effect of invalidating anything done” by any of the NCIs. Resisted by Dean Ford, this also lapsed.
Dr Johnston third amendment would oblige the NCIs to have “due regard” to any report written into it by the Committee of Inquiry. He said that he was just attempting to “encourage a more open conversation” between the NCIs and the Synod, because, when “push got here to shove”, the NCIs didn’t should seek advice from the Synod.
Bishop Watson said that any NCI was required to answer a report inside six months, and so the amendment was unnecessary. The amendment lapsed.
Dr Johnston then moved one other amendment, which was an additional effort to provide the Synod more opportunities to exercise oversight over the NCIs. The Charity Commission was already regulating the Archbishops’ Council, and that clearly had not worked. “Soft power” from the Synod had failed, and so he hoped to toughen up their role.
Bishop Watson resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Moving his next amendment, to provide the Synod the facility to request that an NCI make a report back to the Charity Commission, Dr Johnston said that Bishop Watson and Dean Ford were “missing the purpose” of their replies, as he wasn’t attempting to make the Synod a quasi-regulator.
Bishop Watson said that it was unclear why this amendment was vital, and it also lapsed.
Debbie McIsaac (Salisbury) moved an amendment that may make clear that references to “diversity” within the Measure encompassed diversity of church traditions.
Dean Ford resisted the amendment on the idea that diversity of church tradition was already contained throughout the terms of the Measure, and that it might be unhelpful to single out church tradition alongside other varieties of diversity.
The amendment lapsed
Mr Greenwood introduced one other amendment to remove the Archbishops as ex-officio members of CENS and boost the numbers of bishops from two to a few. It could be sensible to chop down the workload of the Archbishops, he argued, and slim down the trustee body. The Archbishops could still be elected by the House of Bishops in the event that they wished to be chosen, but this is able to give them the choice to let other colleagues sit on CENS.
In response, Bishop Watson said that, typically, rebalancing CENS away from elected members to appointed members was the intention. There needed to be a diversity of experience and experience to steer the “complex beast” that may be CENS, he said. A mainly elected body couldn’t provide that skill-base, and would depart CENS a “marginally tweaked version” of the Archbishops’ Council, he argued.
The query of the Archbishops had been discussed at significant length, they usually recognised that there was value in reducing the workload of the Primates. This was why the Archbishop of Canterbury would now not should chair CENS, but not having them there in any respect would create “shadowy back channels”, because the Archbishops would should be consulted on almost every thing CENS decided. This would contradict the transparency that the reforms were trying to attain, he said. Not having the Archbishops could be like not having an incumbent on a PCC.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, opposed the amendment, arguing that the Archbishops were in the midst of a “tug of war” throughout the Church. They were leaders of a more centralised Church, and yet the Church increasingly desired to remove them from executive power. “Some people think there’s a large race to be the following Archbishop of Canterbury, but they’re incorrect: the race is generally in the opposite direction,” he said. The job was already unattainable, but removing them from CENS would make it “much more unattainable”.
The Archbishops had the most effective top-down view of the Church, and were needed to develop a technique that they were expected to execute, he argued. For leaders to be accountable, they’d to have some decision-making powers first.
Ms Chapman backed the concept of the Archbishops’ sitting on CENS not by default, but only in the event that they won an election among the many House of Bishops. This would help to tackle deference and make all members serve limited terms, she argued, as a substitute of getting a separate caste of ex-officio members.
Bishop Mullally said that an independent chair of CENS was a wonderful reform, but having the Archbishops ex officio was vital to “provide clarity and coherence”, stitching every thing within the Church together.
Canon Bruce Bryant-Scott (Europe) said that, if leaders were appointed in a Church, they needs to be permitted to guide. The Archbishops were going to be leaders regardless, he said, so higher to have them as a part of CENS slightly than exercising power in additional informal ways.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) urged members to withstand the amendment on the idea that, if the Archbishops weren’t on CENS, it might create gaps in governance.
The amendment was defeated.
The revision stage concluded on Friday morning, after Mr Greenwood withdrew three amendments in regards to the membership of CENS.
