General Synod - Febraruy 2008
Synews
Some personal reflections on the meeting of General Synod in February 2008.What about the Archbishop and his hole? I’ll get round to that but far more exciting was the revision stage of the Clergy Terms of Service legislation. Bear with me…
We had a sparky debate and as anticipated the main issue to exercise us was the Revision Committee’s proposal to transfer ownership of vicarages to independent charities to be created by every diocese and known as Diocesan Parsonage Boards.
The proposal to create these boards and to use them as a vehicle for holding property grew out of the Synod’s rejection of an earlier plan that properties be owned by DBF’s. The new idea has gone down like a lead balloon and in summary the objections were:-
- They will be cumbersome vehicles which add to diocesan bureaucracy at a time when most dioceses are trying to streamline their organizations.
- The primary objective is to shield property from liquidators in the event of a DBF becoming insolvent but it’s far from certain that this is achievable.
- They represent a dangerous controlling and centralizing tendency. Of course they don’t…but when one’s mounting an insurgency this never fails to rally the troops round the standard.
- Corporations sole aren’t broke so let’s not fix them.
- Property ownership has nothing to do with effective HR practice.
The team from
There is a serious subtext here namely that the Revision Committee has failed to master the art of consultation. It has given generous opportunities for people to make representations but it hasn’t responded. It’s putting a tick in a box but missing the point of the box.
That’s all very interesting but as the smoke of battle clears, what about Rowan in his hole… well, I’ll leave him there a bit longer while we move on to casino’s.
This debate was resourced by a supporting paper which is as shockingly bad as the new Code of Practice on Mission Initiatives is good (it’s a superb example of the draughtsman’s art). Disjointed extracts from tired articles in The Daily Telegraph do not a serious paper make.
There were a few good speeches about the evils of gambling – notably from the Bishop of Rochester who confounded the punters and the form guide by keeping strictly to his time limit, but only one member directly addressed the theme of the motion. James Humphery again. Since I’d been tilting at windmills the urge to raise a maiden point of order became irresistible so I trotted out a little used old favourite of mine; Standing Order 17 which enjoins the Chairman to:-
“call a member to order for failure to address the chair, irrelevance, tedious repetition of either his own arguments or of arguments already well rehearsed by other members…”
The look of startled surprise on the faces of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prolocutor of the House of Clergy and the Chairman of the House of Laity as they realized they’d mis-read the motion was worth the price of being in a minority of four. That I persuaded three others to join me in voting against the motion was a minor triumph in itself. This is of course a very serious topic which deserved much better than we gave it. I don’t have space to develop it here so if anyone wants to know more, please let me know. We might develop some thoughts about the morality of Christian based organizations taking pious lines about gambling while clamouring for ever larger grants from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Think about it…
Thursday morning saw a return to a Church Hesitant as we debated the relationship between Church and State in the context of Crown Appointments. Last summer the Prime Minister boldly announced that he wouldn’t use the Royal Prerogative to exercise choice in recommending appointments to senior ecclesiastical posts. This came a few days before we met in
Readers may share my mild surprise at one of the findings of an analysis of responses to the Archbishops’ discussion paper on Crown Appointments which reveals:-
“ The belief that the Prime Minister’s Appointment’s Secretary has a record of promoting diversity in appointments (with regard to sex, marital status and ethnicity as well as churchmanship) whereas the record of both diocesan bishops and Church committees on this is less good.”
But what about Rowan in his hole?
He said mea culpa but stopped a long way short of saying maxima culpa then stood his ground and emerged with most, though not all, of his credit intact. His presidential address is on his and General Synod’s web pages. Read it. Then read the full text of his lecture in the Royal Courts of Justice on 7 February and reflect on what you want of an Archbishop.
Best Entrepreneurial Opportunity – to the priest from
Most Hopeful Punter – Tom Benyon, who doesn’t play the National Lottery but reckons his chances of winning are about the same as those who do.
The
The Golden Prayer, or What Can We Spend Your Money On Now Award – the Liturgical Commission for quoting us £10,000 to write a new Eucharistic prayer and for offering us a second new prayer written at the same time for the bargain price of only £5,000. You just can’t keep these liturgists down at the moment (see Synews, July 2007) - come on guys, see if you can make it a hat-trick in
Worst Paper – the fees working party for Four Funerals and a Wedding; a shambolic collection of ill considered and economically incoherent waffle. So bad we weren’t even allowed to debate it!
The Pamphleteers Award – Sadly there was only one nominee for this award which is reserved for the pamphleteers who remind us of our democratic accountability, but the lack of competition was compensated by the quality of the invective. The Oscar goes to Eutruth for:-
The Leadership Award – For his commitment to the Central African Province of the Anglican Communion, for advocating the exclusion of provinces which go beyond the limits of plurality and for daring to try to create space where previously there was none; The Archbishop of Canterbury.
James Humphery
