Updated 25 January to add GS Misc 1339 (Prayers of Love and Faith: a note from the Legal Office) – see Monday’s papers.
Updated 5 February to add various notice papers.
The Church of England has published the papers for next month’s meeting of its General Synod, which meets in London from 6-9 February. I have linked to them all below the fold, but these three, in different ways, give an outline of the business.
Outline of Synod Business
Agenda Feb 23 v2 (GS 2283)
Report from the Business Committee (GS 2284)
Monday 6 February
Temporary Standing Orders (GS 2177)
Report from the Business Committee (GS 2284)
Amending Canon No 42 (GS 2269A)
Amending Canon No 42 Explanatory Note (GS 2269X2)
Revision Comtee Report Amending Canon No 42 (GS 2269Y)
Petition for Royal Licence and Assent for AC 42 (GS 2269C)
Diocesan Stipend Fund (Amendment) Measure (GS 2255A)
DSF (Amendment) Measure Explanatory Note (GS 2255X2)
Report of Revision Commitee DSF (Amendment) Measure (GS 2255Y)
CofE Pensions (Application of Funds) Measure (GS 2264)
CofE Pensions (Application of Capital Funds) Explanatory Note (GS 2264X2)
LLF group work (GS Misc 1329)
Prayers of Love and Faith: a note from the Legal Office (GS Misc 1339)
Tuesday 7 February
DBE Measure 2021 (Amendment to Regulations under Canon B 12) (GS 2285)
DBE Measure 2021 (Amendment to Regulations under Canon B 12) – Explanatory Note (GS 2285X)
CofE (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure (GS 2272A)
CofE (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure Explanatory Note (GS 2272X2)
Revision Comtee Report Misc PM and AC 43 (GS 2272Y-2273Y)
Resourcing Ministerial Formation (GS 2286)
Wednesday 8 February
Cost of Living GS (2287)
Parochial Fees Order (GS 2288)
Exp note Parochial Fees ORDER (GS 2288X)
Amending Canon 43 (GS 2273A)
Amending Canon No 43 Explanatory Note (GS 2273X2)
Living in Love and Faith (GS 2289)
Thursday 9 February
Governance Review (GS 2290)
Electronic Service Register (GS 2291)
Electronic Service Registers Explan Notes (GS 2291X)
61st Standing Orders Report (GS 2292)
Standing Orders report (NP1)
Safeguarding (GS 2293)
NST update (GS Misc 1335)
Insurance Premium Tax (GS 2265A)
Sec Gen Insurance Premium Tax (GS 2265B)
Deemed and Contingency Business
Prisoner Rehabilitation (GS 2294A)
Sec Gen note Prisoner Rehabilitation (GS 2294B)
GS Misc papers
Clergy Stipends Authority Annual Report (GS Misc 1330)
Dioceses Commission Annual Report 2022 (GS Misc 1331)
Summary of House of Bishops and Delegated Committees Jan 2023 (GS Misc 1332)
Report on the AC Activities (GS Misc 1333)
Recent Appointments by the Appointments Committee (GS Misc 1334)
NST update (GS Misc 1335)
Mission and Pastoral Measure update (GS Misc 1336)
Elections Review Group update (GS Misc 1337)
Churches Conservation Trust Annual Report (GS Misc 1338)
Prayers of Love and Faith: a note from the Legal Office (GS Misc 1339)
Notice papers
Standing Orders report (NP1)
Deadlines (NP2)
Progress of Measures Jan 23 (NP3)
Security (NP4)
Financial Statement Feb 2023 (NP5)
Order and Decorum (NP7)
Motions and Amendments (NP8)
Worship (NP9)
Group work (NP10)
SO 92 (NP11)
Loyal Address (NP12)
Motions and amendments (NP 13)
Financial Statement pursuant to Standing Order 108 – Parochial Fees Amendment (NP14)
Motions and Deemed Business (NP15)
WORSHIP_February_2023
Chairs of debates
Questions Notice Paper 1 – February 2023
Questions Notice Paper 1 (Annex) – February 2023
Questions Notice Paper 2 – February 2023
Questions Notice Paper 2 (Annex) – February 2023
Would any bishop sanction a parish priest who read the marriage liturgy (ideally within a nuptial mass) over a same sex couple following a civil ceremony? The Preface would have to be amended to remove references to ‘man’ and ‘woman’. It would also be desirable to omit the last two words of ‘marriage is a gift of God in creation’ (as the Canadian rite has) to get us away from undue references to Genesis 1 & 2 and set marriage in a more Trinitarian and eschatological frame.
Today’s ‘Bishops’ Response’ states that’s categorically not allowed, because it contradicts doctrine. As to sanctions, I suspect ONE priest doing that would be extremely vulnerable to sanction. However, if ‘Inclusive Churches’ have any courage they will: Network and propose a course of action. Get the PCC to commit to the course of action. Set a date from which that group actions will commence. Before they start, publicise to media and gain support from MPs. Then from ‘day zero’: Publish a common statement of belief, that they believe gay and lesbian people should be married in church, visible on their websites,… Read more »
Susannah writes: “if between 300 and 1000 churches signed up to do this …” 300 churches means roughly 8 in each diocese. It aint gonna happen. Many or most PCC members are over 60. Many or most are minding children of family members ar work. Some are frail and are on the PCC only because nobody else else will serve. Few if any have the appetite or energy for a fight. They want the familiarity of accustomed services, time away from the kitchen sink, and the company of their friends. Money talks. Withhold funds. Walk away. Or KBO in hope.… Read more »
It being, I suppose, inconceivable that anyone might adopt a different position on grounds of principle.
Not inconceivable but highly unlikely judging from my experience over decades of PCCs and Select Vestries. More likely that bishops’ edicts will be ignored albeit with a bit of chuntering.
It’s not that the people Stanley talks about are unsympathetic in principle; it’s that they aren’t the type to go along with mass action of the kind Susannah suggests. Interestingly, on another thread we have two diametrically opposed proposals: one is a call for Parliament to intervene (ie more establishment) while the other is the suggestion of a campaign for disestablishment. But in the absence of a “mass action” campaign, neither of these is going to happen. And, by the way, it’s unlikely that a Labour government would be at all enthusiastic because they would lose nearly 26 supporters in… Read more »
With regard to calls for more establishment/disestablishment, the reality is the House of Commons has come a very long way since the squabbles over the 1928 Prayer Book. The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
Meanwhile I suspect inclusive clergy will move slowly towards something that looks pretty much like marriage, to outside eyes at least.
“the prospect of locking out countless church communities from their own churches” Yet how could this happen in practical terms? If a PCC decides on a particular course of action, what effective authority does any bishop have to bar their use of their own church? Despite continuing ambiguities as to title, a parish church is, arguably, the ‘property’ of the incumbent/PCC and it is a building which every parishioner (regardless of faith) has a common law right to use for the purposes of attending services regardless of what any bishop might think (Jarrett v. Steele (1820) and Cole v. Police… Read more »
When divorcees with a former spouse still living were not allowed to be married in church, the Bishops authorised a liturgy: ‘A Service or Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage’. It laboured to present itself as other than marriage: the term ‘blessing’ was avoided, the couple were to enter together and without ceremony, and no rings were to be exchanged. In the event, it was seen as a blessing by couples and most clergy, and the rubrics roundly ignored. A few parish priests still offer it, but today most see it as a pinched, begrudging and graceless liturgy. I believe… Read more »
His Holiness the Chairman of Gafcon has released his response to the CofE bishops.
https://www.gafcon.org/news/response-to-cofe-bishops-statement
I doubt that any of us care what he thinks, but GS might not want to pick a fight.
Why not? This man has no jurisdiction in the Church of England
++Justin has already said he will not bless civil marriages because of his “responsibility for the whole communion”. Abp Beach has no jurisdiction, as you say, but apparently he has influence.
And herein lies the motivation for those conservatives in the Church to criticise the new initiative by the Church of England bishops to provide the Blessing of S/S Unions – the fact that the ABC has said he will not use the provisions himself for the sake of ‘Unity’. Here is the heading from the Episcopal News Service announcement: – “Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby commended the proposal and the years of churchwide work that led to it, but said that in his role as an “instrument of unity” for the Anglican Communion, he would refrain from using the prayers… Read more »
Spot on observation.
I read with some surprise in the Dioceses Commission Report that the role of the Bishop of Beverley is envisaged to be to minister to all traditions in the church. I read with less surprise that it does not appear to have refused a single request to appoint a new suffragan or area bishop. The Commission that likes to say yes!
Simon,
Hardly a surprise, sadly. Hard to think what it has been up to since the reorgan-isation’of Leeds/ Dales etc to create MORE bishops. Waste of time, space and breath. Sinecures.
How many bishops per worshipper?
Latest on the Diocesan Commission website: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/Dioceses%20Commission-Annual%20Report%202021%20.pdf
Time will tell (soon?) whether something similar may be said of Synod. Hot air, venting?
I note that General Synod meets 6-9 February this year. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby that: Welby emerged as a candidate to be the next archbishop of Canterbury; his appointment to the position was announced on 9 November 2012. In January 2013, Welby said that he initially thought it was “a joke” and “perfectly absurd” for him to be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, because he had only been a bishop for a short time.[41] His confirmation of election ceremony to the See of Canterbury took place at St Paul’s Cathedral on 4 February 2013 (by this, he legally became Archbishop of Canterbury);[2]… Read more »
Once again lies are told. The safeguarding papers state that the Devamanikkam review is nearing completion and ‘The Humphrey Review (on Trevor Devamanikkam) also starts the same process (as the Makin review) of consulting the victim at the centre of the review and those criticised in January 2023’. This is a blatant untruth. I have never co-operated with this review and never will due to the way it was set up and has been run. The NST and church hierarchy have been told this several times. Kate Blackwell KC on Radio 4 Sunday programme called the ‘review’ ‘compromised before it… Read more »