OVERSIGHT of Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs) and other mission initiatives was tightened up by the General Synod on the Wednesday afternoon. In the wake of the Soul Survivor scandal, amendments to the Mission Initiatives Code of Practice were carried.
The Bishop of Exeter, Dr Mike Harrison, told the Synod that the House of Bishops’ Code of Practice had not been updated since 2018. The Scolding review of the Mike Pilavachi scandal had prompted a working group to contemplate amendments to the Code in light of weaknesses identified within the review. He said that the amendments proposed were to combat “unhealthy patterns of power” which could arise. Bishops would now should be certain that leaders of a proposed BMO arrange a plan to stick to safeguarding procedures before the BMO was established.
Other changes would come with making the set-up of BMOs akin to that PCCs, and the BMO’s Visitor would by default be an archdeacon, who who would even be the primary port of call for all complaints about safeguarding, bullying, or whistle-blowing. The C of E was committed to a being “mixed-ecology” Church, and mission initiatives were helping to achieve a wide range of people, Dr Harrison said. The amendments, subsequently, ought to be perceived not as attempting to stifle BMOs, but as attempting to strengthen them. “They are central to our ongoing work to make the Church a protected place for all.”
The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, welcomed the brand new Code, which might not threaten the “entrepreneurial” spirit of BMOs, but give them “appropriate accountability”, he said. His diocese had the second largest variety of BMOs, and the Code could be helpful. He said that the initiatives were positive and complementary to parish ministry, and infrequently created evangelistic opportunities. Southwark diocese sought to mirror as much as possible parish structures in BMOs, giving them the equivalent of PCCs and appointing archdeacons as their Visitors. He could be supporting the forthcoming amendments.
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) moved his first amendment, to emphasize that “unhealthy patterns of power” could arise, not only in mission initiatives, but in any form of church. There was nothing particularly “pernicious” about “entrepreneurial leadership”, he said.
Dr Harrison said that the intention was to not criticise entrepreneurs specifically: “Thank the Lord for planters and pioneers.” While he didn’t support the amendment, he was glad for it to be debated.
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) said that a BMO in his deanery had taken the gospel to people in “creative, prophetic, one might say, entrepreneurial” ways. He spoke in favour of the “helpful” amendment, as he agreed that entrepreneurial leadership was not necessarily prone to an unhealthy exercise of power. Any of God’s gifts might be misused without proper accountability, he said.
The Revd Ayo Audu (Oxford) resisted the amendment; it will stop the Code from highlighting the risks involved within the “gift” of entrepreneurial leadership. A greater “risk appetite” than average was mandatory for pioneers like this, he suggested.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun
Prebendary Pat Hawkins (Lichfield) also urged the Synod to withstand the amendment. As the Church felt its way into recent patterns of worship, it will throw up recent patterns of power, she said.
The Bishop of Tewkesbury, the Rt Revd Robert Springett (Southern Suffragans), who’s the deputy lead bishop for safeguarding, thanked those with experience of abuse who were a major a part of the group implementing the Scolding review. Of course, unhealthy patterns of power could occur in any church, he said, but there have been special vulnerabilities when starting recent things. He resisted the amendment.
Clive Scowen (London) said that, while he was not an entrepreneurial leader, he cherished what they did. He feared that, without the amendment, the language within the Code would send a message that the Church was “a bit doubtful” about pioneers. Backing the amendment, he invited Dr Harrison to present further thought to how the clause might be rewritten.
The Revd Adrian Clarke (London) said that his experience as an “entrepreneurial leader” within the C of E had been very positive, and he praised, specifically, the archdeacon Visitor of his BMO. He was nervous that BMOs were being picked on due to their history, although abuse had been uncovered in every corner of the Church. He backed the amendment.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Greenwood then moved his next amendment, to specify that the chair of trustees of a BMO couldn’t normally, without the approval of the bishop, be a licensed minister. Currently, the Code said that the chair have to be a lay person, which, he warned, was too restrictive and will cause problems down the road (although he backed the unique intention of stopping the BMO leader’s chairing the trustees).
Bishop Harrison supported the amendment.
The Revd Fraser Oates (Worcester) said that spiritual leadership and governance have to be integrated with safeguarding, which was fundamental to mission. BMOs were designed for brand spanking new creative initiatives, and the Church must spend money on a broader piece of labor to see how BMOs could grow in a protected, valued way, he argued.
The Archdeacon of West Cumberland, the Ven. Stewart Fyfe (Carlisle), declared an interest as each an archdeacon and a Visitor for a BMO. He said that whoever chaired the board of trustees ought to be the one that would best understand the misappropriation of the BMO. Some lay leaders won’t be best placed to do that: “their gifts might be higher deployed in other missional actions in support of the BMO.” The amendment provided for flexibility and discretion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was initially unsure the way to vote on the amendment. She contemplated where accountability might lie in the longer term leadership of BMOs, and the way boards of trustees might be higher chaired. She desired to hear the views of the Synod.
Supporting the amendment, Dr Andrew Bell (Oxford) said that his son was the minister of a “fairly long-established BMO”. He highlighted inconsistencies within the paper, resembling the eligibility to be a PCC member: “Either we will make these changes or we will mirror PCCs: we will’t have each,” he said. He questioned whether a clearly defined separation of presidency, governance, and leadership bodies could be helpful.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), also supported the amendment, noting the differences between PCC structures and typical charity regulations (which had clear separation between the trustees and the staff of a charity, whereas clergy at all times chaired PCCs). It could be higher to permit the minister potentially to be the chair of the trustees, he suggested, just as an incumbent chaired a PCC.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, backed the amendment. He warned that, from his own experience of attempting to model European chaplaincies on English ecclesiastical law, a few of the biggest problems had include boards of trustees which didn’t have the chaplain as their chair. At worst, this led to fights over money, property, and access to web sites. “Please don’t think separating the minister from the trustee body is the reply to all our issues,” he concluded.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Greenwood moved his next amendment, to require BMOs “normally” to incorporate references to the Charity Governance Code and commit trustees to operating policies as required by the Charity Commission. This would “soften” the language within the proposed Code.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Canterbury)
Dr Harrison was, “on balance”, supportive of the amendment.
Dr Phillip Rice (London) supported it, but said that BMOs were growing quickly — there was a plan to begin 10,000 of them — and that this could create quite a lot of work for bishops and visitors.
The Archdeacon of Southend, the Ven. Dr Sue Lucas (Chelmsford), supported the amendment for providing “needed flexibility” without unintentionally “crushing” an initiative with excessive governance requirements. She also wished the Church to contemplate more deeply how “out of step” it was with good charity governance to have a cleric chairing the PCC.
The Archdeacon of Totnes, the Ven. Douglas Dettmer (Exeter), often liked the word “normally”, because it provided flexibility, but he was uncomfortable about its presence on this amendment.
The amendment was carried.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), spoke of the combination of BMOs into the complete structures of the Church, and welcomed steps towards this within the Code of Practice. He also welcomed the clarity of the part played by Visitors (he’s one for 4 BMOs). If there have been tens of 1000’s of BMOs outside the parish system, nevertheless, this could cause huge ructions in the prevailing economy and structures of the C of E, he warned, even when that challenge was healthy.
Ed Shaw (Bristol), the leader of what he believed to be the second ever BMO within the country, said that he had learned to listen to the ability that he had because the founding leader of his church. He welcomed the additional levels of accountability and support being put in place for BMOs. He said that being a BMO increased the quantity of vulnerability. Also, his church had no funding or buildings from the diocese, and its place within the diocese was up for review every five years. There had been scandals involving BMOs, but not enough attention had been given to what number of BMO leaders had been burned out by the experience, Mr Shaw said. He questioned whether archdeacons were the perfect people to act as Visitors, provided that they were often very busy.
The Revd Janie Cronin (Manchester) was “blessed” to have a BMO and was grateful for the discussion about the way to keep these protected. She was, nevertheless, frustrated about how they were generalised: “My church is a church; it’s just not in a church constructing,” she said. Rules that were being put in, she argued, needed different structures.
Simon Friend (Exeter) had been part of huge and Charismatic churches for the past 40 years. Leaders of BMOs were often individuals with large personalities and power; it was highly unlikely that a lay person could be the chair when the leader would wish to chair the board of trustees. “We have to listen to power,” he said.
The document provided a “good basis”, the Dean of the Arches, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, said, but she emphasised that BMOs took many alternative forms. Some were under a “mother church”; others were, in effect, independent of parishes. Because of those diversity of models, Ms Ellis argued that there ought to be a transparent understanding of where the responsibilities for the diocesan safeguarding officers lay.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, referred to Archbishop Mullally’s query in regards to the position of trustees. There were large expectations of trustees of charitable bodies within the Church of England in relation to what they and dioceses were expected to know in regards to the activities of their charities. He expected these inquiries to return to future Synod meetings.
Describing herself as the girl within the Synod “who speaks in regards to the elephant within the room”, the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Canterbury), said that some BMOs didn’t want to be identified as Anglican and Church of England, but to be separate from the Church. She was also concerned in regards to the way during which BMOs were sometimes discussed: “This is my thing: it has nothing to do with you. Worse yet that you just’re a girl: you stay over there!”
Archdeacon Ayers argued that there remained an issue over the connection between trustees and the leadership of the BMO.
The amended motion to approve the Code of Practice was carried.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here
 and other mission initiatives was tightened up by the General Synod on the Wednesday afternoon. In the wake of...){kind=link}