Press release from the Church of England
Report from December House of Bishops
13/12/2017
On Monday 11th and Tuesday 12th December the House of Bishops met at Lambeth Palace.
There was a varied agenda, including items on safeguarding, the importance of Black and Minority Ethnic clergy inclusion and representation, church planting, lessons learned from the appointment of the See of Sheffield, a review of the Crown Nominations Commission’s practices and the Anglican-Methodist Covenant.
Dame Moira Gibb and Sir Roger Singleton led a discussion on safeguarding that focused on survivors’ needs, with Q&As followed by group discussions. Dame Moira chaired the independent review into the Bishop Peter Ball case and Sir Roger, former Government adviser on Safeguarding, is currently working with the National Team.
The House accepted the four recommendations that were made by Sir Philip Mawer in his report on the See of Sheffield and reaffirmed its commitment to the Five Guiding Principles set out in its Declaration of 2014.
Renewed commitments were made to continue to strength the inclusion and representation of Black and Minority Ethnic clergy at all levels of leadership within the church.
There was a discussion as to the value of church planting alongside established parish churches in making a valuable contribution to mission.
Recommendations from a group chaired by Professor Oliver O’Donovan with regards to the theology of the Crown Nominations Commission’s work nominating Bishops was considered by the House. The report will be published and General Synod will have the opportunity to review and debate these recommendations in February.
Regarding the future relationship of the Church of England and the Methodist Church, the House agreed to ask the General Synod Business Committee for a debate on the proposals set out in Mission and Ministry in Covenant to take place at the February General Synod.
Maybe the bishops could consider the theology of having someone who is deeply involved in breakaway movements being on the CNC….
Oh No, Cassandra. That would be too confrontational. Remember the Church of England is used to nurturing cuckoos-in-the-nest. It simply wouldn’t be cricket to expel any AMiE Board Member from the General Synod – especially from the body that appoints bishops within the Church of England.
I wonder if the Archbishops have invited ‘bishop’ Andy Lines into the House of Bishops? Now this would be ecumenical, if not good for the C.of E.
And whose idea was it, exactly, to invite the Radio 4 Today programme in to Lambeth Palace, this morning? Toe curlingly embarrassing. Totally. A shop front for why most thoughtful and sentient people have no time for institutional religion.
According to the General Synod Standing Orders GS2010 there is nothing explicitly about conflict of interest. Even the section on the Crown Nominations Commission doesn’t cover it. The way I read it, this doesn’t break the rules.
The various councils and committees I am on normally have conflict of interest rules and introducing them is perhaps something that General Synod should consider. Does the relevant diocese cover conflict of interest in their standing orders?
Just because something doesn’t break the rules, doesn’t mean it is right.
The only people who can remove a Synod member are the electors at the next election.
Father Ron, nurturing cuckoos-in-the-nest is a great description of what the Church is (and has been) doing. We must find a way to block from positions of influence those who disagree fundamentally with the Church’s doctrine and refuse to live by its ethical teaching.
“This doesn’t break the rules.”
I imagine “the rules” do not mention theft either. Or many worse things.
Ann – I think the issue is one of disclosure. Certain CNC members did not disclose all their affiliations and ties in either their election address or the Church of England Yearbook. One can’t help asking why, and what role transparency should play. I know at least one Synod member has made a formal complaint about this.
Regarding access to Lambeth Palace in R4 yesterday, would it be too cynical to suggest the timing might just have been chosen to ensure the papers were full of that news story this morning, rather than the critical Carlile report??