Last day of Synod - so this will be the last of the Anglican Futures 'quick read' accounts of what happened at Synod - but look out for some more reflective pieces next week.
Today was more about what didn't happen - and that made it even more confusing than normal to follow proceedings.
1) This morning, the timetabled debate regarding the redistribution of funds, from central coffers to local parishes, was postponed into the afternoon, in order to bring forward the approval of the 'Vacancy in See Committees Regulation 2025', pushing the former debate into the afternoon.
2) The Vacancy in See Committee is the group within the diocese who draw up the Statement of Needs for a new diocesan bishop, and from whom the six local representatives of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) are elected, (the CNC is the group that actually select the diocesan bishop).
Following complaints that these committees have been 'unrepresentative' and that a number have failed to elect any female clergy onto the CNC, a number of changes to the rules were presented to Synod, including preventing more than one person from any particular 'worshipping community' sitting on the Vacancy in See Committee and the need to elect at least two women onto the CNC - one clergy and one laity.
'Progressive' members of Synod saw this as a matter of 'justice', while more 'conservative' members considered the proposed changes to be another power play to undermine the democratic 'advantage' their greater numbers offer.
Mrs Helen Lamb voiced her frustration.
The conservatives were not able to prevent the changes being implemented and as they come into force immediately the Vacancy in Committee, who will appoint the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be subject to them. This makes sense of why the business of Synod was rearranged to ensure that this debate was completed. Ironically, because Canterbury have to include members of the Anglican Communion on the CNC, the diocese can only elect three people, and now two of them will have to be women.
3) All this meant that there was very little time left for the debate on the redistribution of funds. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was due to introduce the motion, took Synod by surprise by calling for the debate to be adjourned, sayinh there was no time for the "serious consideration" that the matter required.
In 2024, he said:
35 out of 42 dioceses were working on an operating deficit;
Between them the extent of the deficit was £61 million;
23 hold less than 3 months’ cash reserves;
13 do not have any easily available investment assets to liquidate.
The bishop described this as having a "catastrophic effect on mission and ministry" and he was furious that the Business Committee had not afforded proper time for Synod to consider the matter - prioritising what he described as "the semantics of the last three hours," (more about that below).
Revd Marcus Walker then pointed out that this debate was also time-sensitive, and the adjournment of the debate to July would mean that Synod will not have had an opportunity to speak into the issue before the the Church Commissioners and Archbishops Council meet to determine spending/funding for the next three years. Having just spent three hours arguing about the importance of formal processes, wide representation and listening to different voices the Bishop of London, who chairs the relevant committee just assured Synod that she would ensure the motion was take into consideration, so synod voted to adjourn the debate.
4) And so after the Archbishop of York had given a glowing tribute to the Archbishop of Canterbury (and others leaving their posts, including two Church Commissioners) synod came to an end and members returned to their dioceses.
With thanks to Amy Elting from Unsplash for the image
Anglican Futures offers practical and pastoral support to faithful Anglicans
If you would like to hear more:
subscribe to our regular emails
Comments