The Archbishop of Canterbury began his opening address to the Church of England’s General Synod by quoting Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, that “the world is coming off its hinges.” Some have felt that the church too is falling apart.
After four days of debate at Church House in Westminster, some Synod members said they detected a more generous mood, a greater willingness to listen when dealing with contentious subjects. Others said that the noise they heard was of cans being kicked down the road, as the Synod did not take action on independent control of safeguarding and the next stage of Living in Love and Faith (LLF).
What do you do when the world is falling apart? Archbishop Justin Welby reminded Synod of the message of George Bell, the wartime Bishop of Chichester: you keep on being the church. On the final afternoon of its deliberations, the Synod backed a motion calling on all United Kingdom’s political parties to reaffirm their support of Ukraine. “I am not neutral,” said the archbishop, who had visited Ukraine the previous week. “I will listen to both sides, but Ukraine is paying for our security — with money but also with blood.”
There was overwhelming agreement on several other issues. Synod unanimously recommitted the church to its ministry among marginalized housing estates, and called for necessary resources to be made available for further implementation of recommendations in the Commission on Racial Justice’s report, From Lament to Action.
“This felt like a much better Synod than many,” Bishop Philip North of Blackburn told TLC. “There were some good moments in which I felt a real sense of shared direction, especially the debates over racial justice and estates evangelism. Both of these created space to unlock some incredibly powerful stories from the ground, voices that Synod often does not hear.”
Among other items enjoying widespread support was a private member’s motion by the Rev. Dr. Ian Paul seeking to restore clergy pensions to their pre-2011 levels, a request to the Archbishops’ Council to draft legislation allowing for the disqualification of lay officers found guilty of bullying offences, and a proposal to make it easier for those who are divorced or married to a divorced partner to be accepted for ordination.
Then there were the perennial debates on which any decisive action or resolution still seems a long way off. Synod returned to the subject of safeguarding, the topic that had exploded at last year’s session in York after the Archbishops’ Council had disbanded its Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB). Synod was asked to welcome the Wilkinson Report, which led to the ISB’s dissolution, and another report into how the church might move to fully independent safeguarding.
The second report, by Professor Alexis Jay, was published just three days before the Synod began; the church’s recommended next steps on safeguarding were sent to Synod members before they had even read what Jay had written.
In a filmed address to Synod, Jay said safeguarding in the church fell below the standards set by secular safeguarding organizations, and would continue to do so for as long as its management remained within the church’s 42 dioceses.
“I have identified multiple concerns about the present system, including various interpretations of safeguarding, poor data collection, inconsistent supervision of safeguarding professionals, and inequity of funding across 42 dioceses,” she said.
Jay stressed that her criticisms were of structures and procedures rather than of individuals. Her report recommended setting up two independent charities to run safeguarding — one to deliver operational safeguarding and one to scrutinize it.
The lead bishop on safeguarding, Joanne Grenfell, then brought a motion that included an apology to survivors and members of the former ISB for the stress and harm caused by the ISB’s mistakes. Members were also asked to approve a process that would include setting up an internal response team to engage with diocesan safeguarding advisers and other stakeholders to develop proposals in response to Jay’s report.
Survivors expressed their concern that an internal response team would include some of those who had been involved in the ISB’s previous debacle. “Whilst I agree there needs to be a stakeholder group that now works on the detail of implementation, the Response Group as voted in does not have my confidence or that of the survivors who have contacted me, said Jane Chevous of Survivors Voices. “It should be independently chaired, as recommended by both Wilkinson and Jay; survivors should choose their representatives.”
Bishop Grenfell told Synod that, while urgent action was needed to both prevent future abuse and to address past wrongs, “I hear the wisdom of those who say we should not rush to a decision about new structures. … I also hear the wisdom of those who are wary of outsourcing safeguarding, fearing that we might lose the sense of safeguarding needing to be everyone’s business.”
Some members had wanted an immediate implementation of the Jay report. An amendment to do so, brought by the Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, was narrowly passed by the House of Laity but rejected by the houses of Bishops and Clergy.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr. Helen-Ann Hartley, one of eight bishops supporting the amendment, said on social media that it was “very disappointing that Synod did not vote for any decisive response,” later revising her assessment to “disgraceful.” The main motion eventually passed by 337 votes to 21, with 20 abstentions. Synod will return to the subject in July.
Many Synod members expressed weariness as they anticipated another debate about Living in Love and Faith (seven years and counting). It was alleviated by the charm and wit of QC Geoffrey Tattersall, who chairs the sessions.
Prayers of Love and Faith seeking God’s blessing for same-sex couples began during public worship in December. The church is also considering whether standalone services of blessing can be authorized under canon law, and awaiting guidance on whether clergy can enter civil same-sex marriages, but it remains deeply divided on the issue.
The lead bishop on LLF, Martyn Snow, presented a motion asking Synod to endorse a loose set of commitments through which it could pursue, in a spirit of reconciliation, a settlement with those who are unable to accept such changes in church practice.
Two amendments from traditionalist members of Synod were lost. One from Ed Shaw, a lay minister from Bristol, proposed an amendment acknowledging that the questions raised by LLF “are not matters on which (Synod members) can simply agree to disagree.” The Rev Charlie Skrine’s amendment asked Synod to approve an immediate move toward a “settlement based on legally secure structural provision.”
“Although there was a change in tone, there wasn’t a wide enough recognition of the dead-end we have got ourselves into,” Ed Shaw told TLC. “Legal advice has told us that we can’t do what a slim majority of Synod want to do at the moment (for instance, stand-alone Prayers of Love and Faith services). But new legal structures could open the way to all Synod wants to do at present — and more.”
He said that without those structures, he would struggle to persuade his parishioners to give their time, money, and energy to the Church of England.
Synod decided to move on to next business without voting on the main motion. Afterward, Bishop Martyn said he could see the logic in not proceeding with the debate without the more concrete proposals he is determined to bring to July’s Synod in York.
He said he had been struck by the “gracious tone of the debate. … I believe my brothers and sisters on Synod would not have been here if they did not believe that some degree of communion is still possible. What I’m picking up very clearly, though, is a growing desire in parishes for the Church of England to reach agreement and get on with serving our nation.”
