This post will be updated as the meeting proceeds.
The Church of England’s General Synod is meeting this week. The timetable is here, the agenda is here and the papers are here.
Live video etc
All sessions are streamed live on YouTube and remain available to view afterwards. Links have been provided in advance.
There is an official X/Twitter account.
Official list of General Synod members (updated February 2025)
[This includes bishops attending (without voting rights) in dioceses with vacancies for their diocesan bishop.]
Order papers
Notice papers
Business Done
Official press releases
Press reports and comment etc
Church Times
BBC
The Guardian
Christian Today
The Living Church
Liverpool Diocesan website
Independent
X/Twitter is a total cesspit, run by a man who is currently dismantling human rights in the USA. The Church of England should not be using it.
There are trolls on Twitter, but also good, honest, and kind people of integrity discussing important issues. The C of E officially, and Christians individually, are right to continue using it and engaging with discussions there. We are called to be salt in a corrupt world, and salt isn’t effective where it isn’t used.
…Or when salt gets contaminated, and that’s always a danger with social media, especially where there is no fact checking.
That’s arguable but the official comms account for Synod should still be elsewhere. It’s unreasonable to expect any trans or intersex Christian to use X any longer as it is truly dreadful for anyone with a trans history or trans loved ones with a high chance of abusive pile one. So the main comms account should be elsewhere even if some individuals choose to remain.
That’s the “I buy Playboy for the essays” argument recast. Musk is an appalling man. X/Twitter directly benefits him. Where would you draw the line: “we get good engagement on Stormfront?”
I won’t go near X. I judge organisations which continue to use it, because they are presumably tolerant of intolerance by using a platform which openly boasts of its tolerance of hate speech.
I don’t think Playboy is a good parallel – those who bought it for the good articles couldn’t help but see the soft porn pictures. Whereas on Twitter I hardly ever see photos of semi-clad males or females. I can’t remember the last time that happened. Trolls and bots can be blocked or muted, while honest players can have views influenced by sound argument. The better parallel is Paul’s discussion of whether or not Christians should buy meat from the common marketplace, where it might well have been sacrificed to idols. He concluded that it was a matter for individual… Read more »
I agree. Especially an echo chamber claiming to be ‘more moral.’ In the US, we have an amendment declaring free speech a right. An amendment forged in the vortex of a revolution and a memory of the lack of such a right — often in the name of ‘moral’ or ‘right’ or ‘for your good.’
A member of the national comms team recently did some training for us. To be fair, they were very good at what they did for us but they recommended X uncritically and would not be drawn into conversation about the morality of X. They seemed not to know that most bishops and most dioceses have abandoned X on moral grounds.
At very least should have warned of Trolls & bots on X. Otherwise I fear that the naive would think it quite normal that numerous ladies whose X profile showed them in states of undress suddenly had a sincere interest in CofE matters
Plus gentlemen
Just for the record. The morality police at work on Twitter was why it was bought. It isn’t a matter of morality, but *whose morality* — as Alisdair MacIntyre trenchantly described in Whose Justice, Which Rationality. We are not living in the time of Kant.
By all means, find a blog that suits *your* morality. And let us know where it is to be found.
PS–I avoid them all, and have never used Twitter or X or even Y.
Christopher. That you are an apologist for the Trump/Musk axis in US/World politics comes as no surprise, but to suggest that Musk bought Twitter as an act of cleaning up the morality police is a bit far fetched. And is rather troubling.
Very touchy on this topic. Hmm.
I am an apologist for nothing except avoiding hypocrisy. Censorship has been admitted by Zuckerberg and others, to a degree most suspected. His blaming Biden as 100% guilty may be a bit rich, as if he wasn’t also allowing it.
But the idea of some neutral ‘higher’ morality on a blog is intellectually unserious.
“But the idea of some neutral ‘higher’ morality on a blog is intellectually unserious.”
Completely agree! So the idea that Musk was becoming a saviour from the morality police, as you suggested above, isn’t exactly an argument that you can sustain. And neither is your argument that you avoid them all. If you avoid them, what are you doing commenting here and over at Psephizo?!
To claim that you never have never used twitter/X, & then pontificate about how it operates is simply hilarious.
I have never used it and happily so.
As if you need to be in the swamp to be aware of how this story has played out in real time. That is silly.
Interesting that you of all people are arguing for moral relativism!
My — I thought obvious point — is that ‘morality’ is defined by the Left one way, and by those opposed to their position, another way. Open Borders is the ‘moral’ position, e.g. Preventing crime, drugs, tax and social service burden on low-income citizens, is the ‘moral’ position.
Screening out any questioning of Fauci, mask wearing, forced vaccinating — ‘moral’?
Zuckerberg has famously admitted, quite vehemently, that he was told what could and could not be posted by the White House. ‘Moral’?
Christopher it is becoming clear from the number of Trump’s Executive Orders signed during his first days in office that the US is actually a dictatorship and not a democracy. There are no checks and balances. And it has obviously been this way for some time.
As you say, that is not moral. And it is truly frightening for the whole world.
Must Alisdair MacIntyre be right just because he’s recent? (any more than non-realism)
I would have thought that for almost all its history one of the distinctive characteristics of Judeo-Christianity is the belief that there is a God, and that this is the basis for a belief that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Let the cognoscenti scoff. Discerning it may be nigh on impossible sometimes but that’s not the same as denying that it exists.
‘Judaeo-Christianity’ belongs to the language of neo fascists and anti Muslim bigots.
George Orwell, the famous neo fascist and anti Muslim bigot, used it in a number of essays and reviews in the 30s and 40s to describe a shared set of ethical values. We would happily use it in school, in history, RS (I’m Head of RS), PSHCE, in the same way. Sorry you don’t like it.
Hello Matthew. I wasn’t expecting that reaction. I was referring to the fact that Christianity has its roots in, and considerable continuity with, Judaism, which I think is uncontroversial. Your comment seems aggressive, so what am I missing?
Been watching the debate on makin. Great speeches by helen king and martin sewell and many others.
It was good. Interesting that only two members of the clergy were called to speak. Three bishops, and 10 laity. Helen King and Martin Sewell were good. Julie Conalty (Bishop of Birkenhead) read out some moving victim statements. Simon Friend (Exeter) at the end on the need for tangible repentance (and what would that look like?). But will anything happen? The Redress Scheme is being dragged out. Option 4 on (radical?) safeguarding reforms is the preferred one, but has real problems. It’s not quite a permacrisis, but is getting close.
Anthony, in response to your comment that “only two members of the clergy were called to speak”, all those who stood, indicating that they wished to speak, were called. Accordingly, there was no need for a motion of closure and the debate came to a natural end when there was no one else standing. The debate was ‘timed business’, starting at 5.20 pm, and the counted vote on the amended motion (384-0-2) took place at 6.30 pm, half an hour before the scheduled time for close of business. In hindsight, the Questions session, which ended at 5.20 pm after reaching… Read more »
Would have been more precise to note that only two members of the clergy spoke.
Yes, the call for a tangible sign of repentance was good.
In all this safeguarding tragedy and the criminality of abuse what have we come to as a Church when Synod members walked out when +Ebor spoke? The gang mentality was then reinforced when on Channel 4 News +Newcastle twice spoke of the Archbishop as Cottrell.Even for those we disagree with civility costs nothing “See how these Christians love one another” or not if the cap(or mitre) fits
Since Hartley was speaking to the general public via news channel rather than within CofE it made good sense to use Cottrell’s surname
I cannot understand your argument here.
I’m way more concerned about “what have we come to as a church” re the heinous abuse and cover up.
If you’re more concerned by the use of a surname that speaks volumes. The deference culture is part of the problem.
See how Christians love one another – should be by protecting the most vulnerable. Not addressing someone responsible for cover ups and promotions of known abusers by their titles.
So basic respect is out now?
At the last Synod there was a lot of talk of rebuilding trust, the Archbishop of York is unable to do that. His words are not trusted: Robert Thompson openly accused him of having a suspiciously unreliable memory in front of the whole of synod; Ian Paul has recently published a blog at Psephizo where he accuses the archbishop of saying things that are “clearly not true”. His safeguarding record is not trusted: he promoted John Perumbalath and honoured David Tudor. He is not trusted on LLF: he is reported as saying contradictory things. He is not trusted with CNCs:… Read more »
We were reminded at every session on safeguarding that there were people present who were survivors of church abuse. There are several reasons why someone might walk out when +Ebor spoke: they might be a survivor who felt their case had been mishandled by the Archbishop; a survivor for whom the subject was so triggering they felt they couldn’t remain; or simply someone who had an urgent call of nature or an urgent message on their phone.
The silence at the end of the Archbishop’s speech was deafening. I wonder if he realises how bad things are.
“By not being aware of having a shadow, you declare a part of your personality to be non-existent. Then it enters the kingdom of the non-existent, which swells up and takes on enormous proportions…If you get rid of qualities you don’t like by denying them, you become more and more unaware of what you are, you declare yourself more and more non-existent, and your devils will grow fatter and fatter.”― Carl Jung
‘Evil has become a determinant reality. It can no longer be dismissed from the world by a circumlocution. We must learn how to handle it, since it is here to stay. How we can live with it without terrible consequences cannot for the present be conceived.’ Carl Jung
Indeed Eddie. In fact if you read Ian’s Paul’s letter, written after his disastrous Church Times interview and his speech yesterday, Ian points out that that Bishop Steven is no longer trusted by all sides of the church. Apart from his safeguarding failures, his failure to publish minutes of Bishops’ meetings for two years ( until just before this synod after pressure was applied), his failure to release legal advice concerning the LLF doctrine changes and most importantly, his failure as a Bishop to uphold biblical teaching concerning holy matrimony, he is left isolated. He should go now.
The silence in the chamber after the Presidential Address should not be taken as a lack of support for Archbishop Stephen. Rather it reflected a wider mood of pausing for reflection and seriousness. It wasn’t an appropriate time for performative applause. It should be noted that very few left the Chamber when he started his address, even though there was much speculation about this beforehand. The small minority who left were largely conservative evangelicals angry at ++Stephen for his support of LLF. I can also report that while someone has put down a Private Members Motion calling on ++Stephen to… Read more »
‘There is much support for the Archbishop across Synod.’ That sends a shiver down my spine. Support for a man who has two serious cases of safeguarding failure to account for. Support for a man who believes he is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Support for a man who who has accepted no mentoring or additional safeguarding training in the face of errors he admits. Support for a man who has made himself so indispensable (in his view) to the Church of England that he must remain in post. Synod sits enthralled as he makes… Read more »
Honest question: What is the difference between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury? Why was it good for Canterbury to resign, but good for York to refuse to resign?
My take, for what it’s worth, is that there is a lot of support for ++York across Synod, which I cannot understand and greatly lament, and that he does not realise how bad things are. I think he is absolutely convinced that it is right for him to remain in post and that he is able to lead the Church on to something that resembles an even keel. On that I think he is sincere and it is not an act. I also find that deeply troubling and think he is utterly wrong. I am, however, interested in +Warrington’s latest… Read more »
What survivors want from the Synod is a very different level and expression of kenosis, penitence and repentance and the means in the Holy Spirit to going from being trauma informed through to trauma reformed and on to being trauma transformed and that predicates the need for radical change.
Bishop Sarah spot on!!
As somebody who has criticised bishops in the past, It is only fair that I commend Bishop Sarah’s article in the Church Times.
She uses her experience of managing institutions outside the Church (Nursing and Whitehall) to argue that we don’t necessarily have a safeguarding failure in the church, we have a governance failure in the church. We can’t fix safeguarding until we fix governance.
Her list of areas of church governance failure and weakness seems pretty complete and convincing.
I respectfully but almost completely disagree.
The primary failure is not of governance but of culture. Blaming our failures on governance feels rather like scapegoating.
Trying to import yet more management and governance practices from the secular world seems more likely to reinforce the culture than to change it?
Like Bishop Sarah I have experience outside the church, in nursing, and the Armed Forces, and base my comments on comparing the various institutions. Whilst none are perfect, the church does not compare well. I would argue that governance systems are the processes put in place to hold people to account and make them behave properly within an institution. It is how you enforce and develop good culture, alongside training, and encouragement/leadership. If governance systems are weak, a poor culture can develop because people can get away with bad and abusive behaviour. Governance and culture are two sides of the… Read more »
I tend to agree. The main thing is to do the simple things asap, where possible, and not use culture as an excuse.
Priority is a combination of urgency, effort and importance.
Similarly distinction between vision and strategy.
Processes and training can change culture and behaviour,
One thing which the church needs to be aware of is reputation (although this got us into this mess in the first place). Media loves an excuse to say CoE has rejected calls for an independent safeguarding process.
One thing which I did notice. At the end of the Makin debate, the safeguarding leader (?) said that there was much more work which needed to be done. My fear is that she was talking about more committees, more discussions, more and longer documents. My view is the opposite. Less work. Delete all the unnecessary waffle from long documents. Cut and paste from safeguarding documents and processes from secular organizations. Do not spend a penny more on legal fees. I don’t like Musk at all, but the one thing he gets right is effective meetings. How long are the… Read more »
A good example of poor communication from a bishop. The bishop of Lichfield answered a question unequivocally – that gluten free bread and non alcoholic wine are not permitted in the Church of England. The media correctly reported his answer. Now he’s issued clarification and made things worse by stating the (questionable) belief that communion in one kind only is full communion. I strongly disagree. Our Lord, St Paul and others in the Early Church always received bread and wine. One of the 39 Articles is clear that the common cup should not be denied to the laity. If the… Read more »
I have in the past posted extensively on this site from what I would once have described as a “conservative evangelical” stance.
I am so deeply and profoundly ashamed of the monstrous behaviours of “conservative evangelical” leaders that I now reject that brand of tribalism and repudiate the associated cultures that produce wickedness.
I continue to rejoice in the Gospel of God and hold to the historic understanding of marriage.
I apologise to those on this site who I will have offended through a stridency of tone and stance over an extended period of past postings.
Peter
Hello Peter,
It must have cost you a lot to post that. How are you?
I suspect you and I will continue not to agree on some things but I think we , and a lot of others can happily accept that extreme tribalism from either side is deeply damaging to the present state of the C of E
Susanna, Thank you for your concern. I am heart broken is the honest answer to your question. How dare these men bring such harm into the lives of people. It is going to take time for those who hold to the traditional understanding to come to terms with what has happened. I do not mean to imply that traditionalists will lose their convictions. I do not believe that should or will happen. We must lose our sense of superiority. For myself I also repudiate utterly the pernicious nature of tribalism. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with Robert Thompson in… Read more »
Thank you, Peter, for your courage and honesty. God bless you for it.
Thank you, Janet.
That’s a very gracious and honest thing to write, Peter, well done.
Thank you, Mark
Peter, we have suffered in the past, but I know how difficult it to change ones “tribe”. I hope you are able to find a new worshipping community where you feel at home.
Thank you, Simon
Ace. This is how the church is re-united, one mind and one heart at a time. The current circumstances call us to value Christians with similar and dissimilar views to our own, and free us to re-evaluate old ideas anew, rather than presuming the correctness of leaders who did not follow their own teachings. For example, are conservative evangelicals actually all that conservative? By demanding a very straightforward reading of scripture, do they (we) not risk a simplistic and erroneous reading? And a bit more speculatively, does anyone actually want to change the historic understanding of marriage? Or do they… Read more »
I remain a traditionalist. I would have described myself as orthodox but am no longer willing to cause the level of affront that claim would make.
I also remain convinced that a non traditional view of marriage is a serious error.
I can no longer identify thoughtlessly with a tribe. I wish to stand with all those who affirm and seek to protect the dignity of people – especially women and the vulnerable. I am furious with wicked men who have taken leadership and acted monstrously.
I have no answers, other than to repent and lament.
I think you’d find a lot of people who share your views, as global anglicans. The term ‘conservative evangelical’ finds no home in the US episcopal thing. It is a term of use within the CofE. Most anglicans call themselves ‘anglican’ in the US context, and ‘evangelicals’ here understand what that means. Christians are not members of tribes, politically or religiously. We live in a world where votes are cast and political decisions made, but this is not the ultimate world by any means. It is the world where we pray for leaders no matter what their tribe, as the… Read more »
Hi,
That is really interesting and helpful.
It is difficult to find the words to express the sense of horror and disgust at what has gone on in “conservative evangelical” circles.
Weasel words about “ but it is just a few people” and “it’s not fair to tarnish everybody” only amply the sense of contempt and distrust.
I and many others continue to hold to the traditional convictions. The old certainties of tribe and club have been incinerated.
We still rejoice in the Goodness of God.
I wish you every blessing
Peter
Perhaps what is needed is a calmer conviction around your “I also remain convinced that a non traditional view of marriage is a serious error.” This has been hard to summon up in a context (western liberal democracy) where to hold such a view has led to charges manifold in nature. But, of course, no one has enforced a ban on such views, and in the CofE at least, this remains the doctrinal position of the Church, shared widely throughout time and space. It is possible to belong to a church body where one might rightly wonder whether such a… Read more »
Peter, Thank you for these comments which combine graciousness, honesty and a real desire that the tribalism which so damages the Church can be put aside.
Thank you, Tim.
Peter, thank you for your most gracious comment. Take good care of yourself.
Thank you
Prayers and good wishes to you Peter … thank you for your honesty.
Thank you, David
Churchtoo presumes too much! I did not and do not minimise the dire state we are in as a Church. I certainly do not condone heinous abuse or covering it up neither do I endorse a a culture of deference.My comments call for a civility in debate even with those we disagree with.To imply that all I am concerned with is the inappropriate use of the Archbishop’s surname is disingenuous
That you chose to use Hartley, a female Bishop, as an example to criticise for so called ‘inappropriate’ use of an archbishop’s surname says it all.
Lesley-Anne Ryder was good – it is what I have been trying to say, it’s all too complex.
I truly cannot believe what has happened today. It is such a kick in the teeth for survivors. Whoever the chair was, was terrible – curt and abrupt. He could have split the voting on the different motions – as was requested – but shut it down. And the arrogance of +Blackburn was bewildering. Yet another sad day for the church.
The chair has a name Douglas Dettmer. I know him, and I was there and I thought he was quietly firm and handled a long, complex and, at times, emotive debate, very well. So I do not recognise your description of his chairing – though I share your frustration at the outcome.
The arrogance of +Blackburn is always bewildering, whether it’s as a ‘champagne socialist’ telling the poor ignorant working classes what they do and do not need, painting himself as a safeguarding expert or any of the many other flavour of the month things to make him look good. Yet people fall for the act, left right and centre. I wish he would stop trying to get an advantage for himself in his public pronouncements and speaking as though he is the world’s greatest expert on whatever it is, and just keep on doing the quiet, good, things he also does,… Read more »
Archbishop of York admits ‘mistakes have been made’
Readers are referred to the excellent book “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)”, which perfectly dissects the passive voice in “Mistakes Were Made”. The question is, “by whom?”
To be fair to him, in the context of his remarks, he did answer that question at least in part: I know that trust has been broken and confidence damaged. And I am more sorry about this than I can say. I know mistakes have been made. I know that I have made mistakes. But I am determined to do what I can with the time given to me to work with others, especially my dear friend Bishop Sarah, to lead the change we all know we need. (https://www.archbishopofyork.org/news/latest-news/archbishop-yorks-presidential-address-general-synod) I have other qualms with what he has said. To share… Read more »
He isn’t sorry, and he doesn’t accept he’s made mistakes: it’s all performative. Take one of his most egregious decisions: to continue to reappoint David Tudor. In that case, his immediate response is to blame almost anyone and everything else; the process, the system, the legislation, contracts, rather than admit the truth, which is that he decided (or, lazily, didn’t decide but just allowed to happen) Tudor’s reappointment. In the case of the Bishop of Liverpool the allegations are unproven: in the case of Tudor, they are completely proven. The Archbishop of York (it’s apparently rude to call him by… Read more »
Yes I think that is probably fair.
I think it’s risky to claim to know the inner motives of others in these situations and to suggest he is lying. Of course he could say and do more. ,
I can’t help thinking that, as a result of Bishop North’s amendment, the absolute independence of the whole of safeguarding process has been kicked into the long grass in the name of expediency. Yes something needs to be done now, but this will not repair the damage in public confidence anytime soon. Essentially it’s business as usual because the Church cannot bear to give up an ounce of power and control. Such behaviour would not be tolerated by any other institution in the land. It’s time for Parliament to intervene and dictate what needs to be done now.
Yet again this packed joke excuse of a pretend legislature can be relied upon to do the Wrong Thing, even as the dismal reputation of the Church of England slides from the gutter into the sewer.
My personal preference would be to keep the see of Canterbury vacant indefinitely, as a well merited reproach and insult to the Church. Hopefully the see of York can soon be kept in indefinite abeyance for the same reasons. Certainly I do not think Canterbury should be filled by any current diocesan: seldom has any bench been so collectively and comprehensively discredited.
Martin Sewell last week said ‘follow the money’ – and guess what??? Little snouts firmly stuck in the trough ! Won’t INEQE be pleased – and presumably lots of Law Firms ?? I wonder whether this will have been just enough to buy off the Charity Commission again for a bit ? The DSO position is a fascinating one-so many of them wrote to Synod ( quite improperly in my view) demonstrating their independence (!!) by wanting to remain employed by the Diocesan Finance Committees So how vulnerable are they when the chips are down and a Big Beast has… Read more »
What does “absolute independence” mean? Does it mean that our parish safeguarding officers cannot be members of the PCC? (remembering that power dynamics in parishes can be problematic). I have noted before two significant issues we have to face – the first is accountability of office holders (noted in the debate as HR processes) – without change there, any future system is potentially as impotent as now, however “independent” it is. The second is financial independence – the financing of safeguarding has not been thought through, and uneven financing is one of the reasons for inconsistency. Quite simply, nothing that… Read more »
Re. safeguarding officers being members of the PCC, In my athletics club, the safeguarding is independent. The safeguarding officers are members of the executive, and report to the executive if appropriate but maintain confidentiality and independence, Its not hard.
So the safeguarding officer might say to the executive ‘there was an incident and it has been reported to the UK athletics safeguarding team, and I will report back when they have completed the investigation’. No names, no nothing.
They might report, in confidence, to certain coaches who need to know.
I think that what you are describing is, in terms of the options synod debated, option 3. i.e. the Parish or Cathedral Safeguarding Officer sits within the organisation (parish or cathedral) and, when an allegation is made, refers it to the independent safeguarding body to investigate – reporting that fact to the ‘executive’ (PCC or Chapter). For cathedrals, Option 4 relocated the Safeguarding Officer to another external body, meaning that, in the case of cathedrals, there would be no-one within the organisation responsible for operational matters of training, prevention and support. Whilst there would have been a member of Chapter… Read more »
Thanks. It is always a strain to push analogies too far. But to clarify: UK athletics organises all training and codes of conduct and codes of practice (although our own safeguarding officer also has great experience from a local school, which is typical for many clubs) UK athletics accredits all officials and coaches. We all have basic DBS, we are all volunteers at club level, and there is therefore no power issue between us and UK athletics. The worst that UK athletics could do would be to remove our accreditation. That is not going to happen. UK athletics employs very… Read more »
I think it does reach the point where the analogy doesn’t fit. For example, for a cathedral that does not have a choir school and recruits from various local schools (of which there are quite a few) there is a need to have someone to communicate with the DSL at the schools where there are safeguarding concerns. (This particular need os probably less acute where there is a single choir school, where there will be a Designated Safeguarding Lead within the school’s staff). Similarly, liaison with the local police force and mental health teams about those who are homeless, subject… Read more »
Thanks. There are indeed many organisational models. My concern is power and control. In a school, does the head teacher have any power over the school safeguarding officer? I guess formally not, but informally yes. Similarly, does the bishop have any power over a cathedral safeguarding officers? Is’t it power and control which has been the danger, and it looks like it will continue to be so? In short, I am not at all in favour of physically moving safeguarding prefessionals out of the cathedral, but I am in favour of the cathedral bishop and chapter having no influence or… Read more »
In a school setting the DSL reports to (or in a small school may be) the headteacher. They are responsible for good Safeguarding practice within the schools – but are accountable to the LADO and LCSP for this being the case – and is these and other statutory bodies that are responsible for investigations (which I think is the critical point of issue). (P.S. In a Cathedral which has its own CSO, the bishop has no power over the CSO – who answers to the Chapter/trustees through the SLT (and is externally supervised by NST – in the same way… Read more »
I should perhaps add that my preference would be for neither 3 or 4, but for a system with additional provision aimed at developing and maintaining good culture and practice at ‘service delivery’ level, allowing for: the independent oversight of safeguarding concerns that meet the threshold;an independent oversight body;whilst also allowing individual institutions to appoint/employ appropriately qualified/experienced individuals (be they PSOs or CSOs) to ensure that operational aspects of safeguarding strive for best practice.Again, looking at the particular situation of cathedrals (and possibly ‘larger churches’, at the moment Option 4 seems to mean that as soon as someone is employed… Read more »
There’s none so deaf as those who do not hear. +Grenfell on the BBC radio 4 Today programme this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0027tzv from around 2h45 suggested (IIRC) that maybe Synod did not hear strongly enough that ‘the nation is watching’! The Second Church Commissioner, Marsha de Cordova MP, who ‘speaks for the Church in Parliament’ (as do 26 honourable prelates) spoke, I thought, very clearly in Synod of what she wished to be able to convey to the nation in supporting Model 4, from 2h41:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtArdPtmooY
For an alternative point of view of Synod’s safeguarding decision Andrew Brown’s article is worth reading (included on this site above): https://andrewbrown.substack.com/p/against-independent-safeguarding
It is utterly dismal. This is yet another example of people falling for +Blackburn looking like he’s the good guy but actually he’s sabotaging the ultimate aim behind the scenes. On the face of it, I might have supported an amendment like this, as it seems to offer a short term solution that can be achieved right now, and commits to getting right a longer term solution of complete independence. But with what we know of the ways of this world – Billy Nye the Whitewash Guy and his cronies, the utterly incompetent Archbishops’ Council, and the interfering egotistical House… Read more »
Excellent summing up of Philip North. His Ultra-High Anglican belief in divine authority of bishops should not be underestimated.
It is indeed dismal. And it had looked as if it was going in the right direction when the preceding amendment, offering Synod the chance to opt for option 3 instead of option 4, was decisively rejected. But then came +North! Even those of us who think that his appointment as a diocesan was a travesty of catholic order and an insult to the women priests in his diocese, have to concede that he is a gifted preacher, and he used those gifts to sell the Synod a pup, persuading them that it was better than option 3 (or 4)… Read more »
A large part of the crisis the CofE finds itself in at the moment is because of the dominance of a certain kind of personality within the Church. Broadly speaking this kind of person is often male, with a highly charismatic personality, charm, wit, excellent communication skills and an ability to humbly carry themselves off as an authority on most things they put their mind to, they are often deeply religious, and have an uncanny ability to be respected even by those who deeply disagree with them, they are masters of masking their motivation with an argument that sounds highly… Read more »
A ‘heads up’ in respect of this morning’s business. The agenda paper, GS 2374, has this as the last item of business (item 16) before lunch: APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER OF THE ARCHBISHOPS’ COUNCIL (GS 2383) The Archbishop of York to move Details of the motion to be moved under this item will be given in a Notice Paper. Paper GS2383 describes the process that has been followed to recruit the person, who will also serve as chair of the Audit and Risk Committee of the Council, following the resignation of Maureen Cole in December 2024. It does not name… Read more »
Wearing my former headhunter hat, why would anyone possibly want to do this?
Given the situation roiling the CofE, it is good to have this reminder. Many inside the CofE, from various angles and for different reasons, have in these pages called for the CofE to be its own reality, and for the ABC to attend to that. Many outwith the CofE have called for the same thing, for their own reasons. Et voila,
https://livingchurch.org/covenant/a-new-future-for-the-anglican-communion/
I’m not sure what +Graham is saying, apart from the obvious and known. He is one of the architects of the situation in which the CofE now finds itself.