The Church of England’s General Synod will meet in London from 10-14 February 2025. An Outline of Business has been published, and is available for download. It is copied below the fold.
GENERAL SYNOD: FEBRUARY 2025
OUTLINE OF BUSINESS
Full details and motion of each item will be on the agenda
Monday 10 February
2.30 pm to 7.00 pm
Opening worship
Introductions
Presidential Address
The Archbishop of York will give a Presidential Address
Business Committee Report
A take note debate on the content and shape of the Agenda
Questions
*5.20pm Makin Review
This will start not later than 5.20 pm
A debate in response to the Makin Review
Tuesday 11 February
9.00 am – 12.45 pm
Opening worship
Affirming the Racial Justice Agenda: an update and next steps on ‘From Lament to Action’.
A presentation and debate on the implementation of From Lament To Action (FLTA) in terms of the successes, challenges, and opportunities, and also affirm the future strategic direction of racial justice.
Structures of Church Safeguarding Independence
A presentation and debate on the next steps following the Jay and Wilkinson Reports
2.00 pm – 6.30 pm
Report of the Crown Nominations Commission
A take note debate on a report from the Crown Nominations Commission.
Diocesan Finances Review Update
A presentation with questions on the work relating to diocesan finances.
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Abuse (Redress) Measure – Final Drafting and Final Approval
The final stages for the Abuse (Redress) Measure which will allow a consistent approach to redress across the Church
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Abuse (Redress) Rules – For Approval
These Rules will set out the procedure for making claims and how financial redress is to be calculated.
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Clergy Risk Assessment Regulations – For Approval
These regulations relate to safeguarding risk assessments of clergy under Canon C 30. They had been circulated at the July 2024 group of sessions, and are presented for debate at this group of sessions.
Wednesday 12 February
10.30 am – 12.45 pm
Eucharist will be celebrated from 9am
Address by Archbishop of Estonia
PMM: Working Class Ministry
A debate on the Private Members’ Motion from the Revd Alex Frost (Blackburn) calling for a national strategy supporting people from a working class background into ministry.
Appointment of two members of the Archbishops’ Council
A formal debate to appoint two new members of the Archbishops’ Council.
2.00 pm – 7.00 pm
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Clergy Conduct Measure – Final Drafting and Final Approval
The final stages of the Clergy Conduct Measure which will set out a new statutory framework and establish the jurisdiction for dealing with cases relating to clergy conduct.
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Legal Officers Fees – For Approval
Next business was moved when the previous version of this Order was debated at the July 2024 group of sessions so a new Order will be brought to this group of sessions.
If required, the Safeguarding Code of Practice (Managing Allegations) and Safeguarding Code of Practice (Religious Communities) will be taken at this point.
Thursday 13 February
9.00 am – 12.30 pm
Opening worship
‘Growing Younger and More Diverse’ – Hearing and Responding to the Voices of Young Adults (18-25)
A debate on the continuing work taking place to enable the voice of young adults to feed into the work of the national Church.
Living in Love and Faith
A presentation with questions on the current work and progress relating to Living in Love and Faith.
*11.15 am Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to the Crown Nominations Commission
This will start not later than 11.15 am
A report proposing amendments to the Standing Orders relating to the Crown Nominations Commission.
2.00 pm – 7.00 pm
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
National Church Governance Measure – Revision Stage
The Revision Stage for the National Church Governance Measure which will introduce new governance structures for the national Church.
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Church Representation Rules – For Approval
The proposed Resolution is part of a package of election rules which need to be in place before the Synod is dissolved in July 2026.
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Election Rules – For Approval
These are the Election Rules for the Houses of Synod which will need to be in place for the elections to General Synod summer 2026.
Thy Kingdom Come – Renewing the call to prayer and evangelism
A presentation and debate relating to the 10th Anniversary of Thy Kingdom Come.
Friday 14 February
9.00 am – 12.30 pm
Opening Worship
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Mission and Pastoral Measure – First Consideration
The initial legislative stage for the revised Mission and Pastoral Measure.
DSM: Redistribution of Funds
A debate on the Diocesan Synod Motion from Hereford relating to redistribution of financial resources . The same motion has also been passed by Gloucester, Coventry, Bath & Wells, Blackburn, Chichester and Lincoln.
2.00 pm – 4.00 pm
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Vacancy in See Committees Regulation – For Approval
A number of amendments to update the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation.
Pattern of future dates
This sets the envelope for Synod meetings in 2027, 2028 and 2029.
*3.40 pm Farewells
This will start not later than 3.40 pm.
*4.00 pm Prorogation
This will take place not later than 4.00 pm.
Deemed business
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Safeguarding Code of Practice (Managing Allegations) – For Approval (Deemed)
The Code of Practice is circulated under section 5A of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016. This means it is deemed to be approved unless 25 members give notice in writing to the Clerk by the date given with the paper that they wish the
Code to be debated.
Special Agenda I: Legislative Business
Safeguarding Code of Practice (Religious Communities) – For Approval (Deemed)
The Code of Practice is circulated under section 5A of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016. This means it is deemed to be approved unless 25 members give notice in writing to the Clerk by the date given with the paper that they wish the
Code to be debated.
Contingency Business
Canterbury DSM: Add Confirmation Numbers to Stats for Mission
This DSM seeks to ensure that confirmation numbers are included in the annual statistics for mission request.
Sports and Wellbeing Ministry
This updates Synod on the National Sports and Well Being Project which has been running for the last 4 years with seven dioceses to see how sports and wellbeing can be integrated into diocesan mission strategies.
Questions
If time becomes available, any remaining questions will be taken.
* not later than
Deadline for receipt of questions: 1200 hrs Tuesday 28 January 2025
“Appointment of two members of the Archbishops’ Council”
An amendment should be proposed to terminate all present membership and appoint new and untarnished members.
Ideally (in the light of the ISB fiasco) further work should be proposed to limit the future authority of the Council, so that all decisions it takes have to be sanctioned by General Synod first. The Council should become solely an advisory board.
I don’t disagree but surely the abolition of the Archbishops’ Council would be a far better move. The “curialization” of the Church of England – initiated by George Carey and developed enthusiastically by his successors – has not been an unmixed blessing and – certainly from my perspective – has been responsible for much that has been unhelpful. In particular its role in hastening the creation of the “National Church” as something in many ways quite separate from – and at odds with – the ministry of the Church as it is in the day to day life of communities… Read more »
A former member of the Archbishops’ Council told me when I asked that they were there to help the local church. A mixed blessing I think.
The National Governance Measure (Thursday afternoon) will replace the Archbishops Council when the process is complete. That will be an interesting debate given the context. Synod has approved a direction of travel. There has been rather little commentary on the proposals given their potential significance.
The key debate is Friday morning. If significant assets can be prised from the icy grip of the Church Commissioners and redistributed to parish ministry, then the parish system might have a future. Otherwise we will see Diocese after Diocese gradually subside into austerity/bankruptcy, and death by a thousand cuts at parish level.
The proposals to break the Crown Nominations Commission deadlock (list of vacant sees soon to include Canterbury) seem on track. Take note debate, followed by standing order amendments a couple of days later. Events of recent weeks *might* make these easier to get through. Let’s see.
I hope they won’t go through …. The amendments suggested as I understand them won’t help with getting better bishops – they may avoid deadlock but only by lowering the bar. How can we know if the lower bar means ‘a good bishop who would have been passed on’ or ‘a medium bishop is now seen as good-enough’. The last few CNCs have produced outcomes – and female outcomes. [Not saying that a woman is a better bishop – but one accusation was women were being blocked in particular]. I have been involved in many recruitment processes were we had… Read more »
The problem is not whether or not they are appointable. Those shortlisted for interview (since interviews were introduced) are rarely not appointable (there have been some exceptions). The problem is that (some) CNC members are voting *solely* on the basis of tradition and the views (assumed or not) of the candidates on such issues as same-sex marriage. It is all very unedifying. And is no way to discern. They have been called out but only a change in the standing orders can deal with the problem. As to the overall quality of the candidate pool, that is another question. Were… Read more »
You say that everyone shortlisted is appointable with few exceptions. Neither of us can known with certainty, however given every shortlisting I’ve been involved in has occasionally shortlisted people who ought not (I can only think of one time when they were all good at interview, and it did not involve bishops), I feel it remarkable to assume we have “cracked it” for bishops. If it wasn’t for confidentiality I think counter examples of bishops who are very good suffragans but not capable diocesens would be easy to come by. The other comment that people are voting purely on one… Read more »
The CNC prompts two thoughts for me. One is that there always seems to be huge anxiety about vacancies. I think the time can be put to good use: there’s always administrative houses to be put in order, it can be an opportunity to have a really open discussion about where the diocese is going, and what the people want from the next bishop. The other is: why not abolish the CNC? England is the only province with this process for appointing bishops. It seems to me that moving to a direct election model would achieve two goals. First, there… Read more »
Who would get to vote?
How long have you got?! Nominations to diocesan bishoprics are Crown appointments under the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533. The Crown might not have a problem with how the Church of England produces a name, but the problem with election by the vacant diocese (via the diocesan synod or whatever) is how are the candidates for election to be selected – i.e. how do they get onto the ballot paper? It will politicise the process further. However, I am for more transparency. Candidates for nomination under the present system should be disclosed.
Thank you. I am aware of the involvement of the Crown in episcopal appointments in the Church of England. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t think the CNC in its current form goes back to 1533. The Act can always be amended. In places where synods elect their bishop, candidates are fielded by nomination boards. In other parts of the Anglican world bishops are elected either by the diocesan synod, or by an electoral board appointed by the synod. It is generally pretty difficult for ideologically-motivated people to hold a whole synod to ransom. One of the wider… Read more »
Well, the CNC is in effect a constitutional convention. When it was created (as the CAC) in 1975 as the result of the Chadwick Commission Church and State, it was the suggested machinery by the Church of England to produce two names from which the Prime Minister would chose one for submission to the Sovereign. James Callaghan, then Prime Minister, was content with it, the two names preserving the Royal prerogative (but broadly a fudge). Gordon Brown dispensed with the need for a second name. But being a convention, the Prime Minister still theoretically has power to intervene and reject… Read more »
I note the DSM on standby in the agenda is about collection of statistics for mission.
Ok – but there are older DSMs awaiting here: Diocesan Synod Motions | The Church of England
including one on safer-recruitment to PCCs and Synods. Given the current safeguarding ‘environment’ I would hope this is seen as a more urgent matter, particularly as it’s been waiting for some time.
The substance of the Lichfield motion is being dealt with through a different route, with the points it was seeking to make having already been raised during a DSM on qualification for PCC membership from Canterbury diocese. This was in July 2022, and allowed a member from Lichfield diocese to move an amendment bringing this area into focus and referring it to the Elections Review Group to work on. The Lichfield DSM has stayed on the list of those which can be called while the ERG completes that work.
Thank you. That’s good to note
What a splendid agenda this is – no-one would know that we have just lost an Archbishop, or that there is a great crisis of confidence in the leadership of the C of E. Business as usual is just what we need to keep up morale. Well done, chaps, well done.
Thank you for the positive feedback, as a member of the Synod Business Committee it’s always good to hear. You may notice that there is a debate on the Makin Report (Monday afternoon), the Jay and Wilkinson reports (Tuesday morning) and a full afternoon continuing the legislative work around different aspects of safeguarding. This has all been put towards the beginning of the agenda, allowing members to consider it as a coherent whole. Far from ducking the issues you raise there will be scope for members to have their say, alongside the right of members to submit written questions on… Read more »
Ah yes, I did see that the synod will have a whole hour and forty minutes on the Monday afternoon to discuss the Makin Review, much of which will probably be taken up with presentations from the platform. Why on earth would more time than that be needed for the affair that revealed a monumental scandal and toppled an archbishop? And yes, I did see that Jay and Wilkinson combined get half a morning on the Tuesday. Do you really think that adequate to the scale of the problem here?
Nic, thank you. A bit more explanation of this sort would be useful in cooling emotions and focusing on what can or might actually be done. TA is long on the emotion bit, with reason. It’s a therapeutic exercise, of sorts. However, at least for now, ability to work the system is the only way to deliver change. You work hard at it. Showing us where the effective pressure points are should be a regular item. I’m not a CofE player any more having migrated to the SEC, but as a church warden in England I tried hard and with… Read more »
Thank you, Nic, for that detailed response to Dexter’s inappropriate comment on the GS outline agenda for February’s synod group of sessions. It is good, too, to have the added notes in blue expanding on the items of business ahead of the full agenda when it is published in January: a welcome innovation. As a member of the Synod 2015-2021 who repeatedly sought unsuccessfully (by questions) to get previous so-called ‘lessons learned’ reports debated—starting with the Carlile report in 2017, commissioned following the controversial settlement of the claim by ‘Carol’ alleging child abuse by the late bishop of Chichester, George… Read more »
I’m impressed by your on-going trust in the synodical process. My cynicism about it stems in part from past failures to address these matters, the handling of the Carlile report being one of the first events to draw my attention to synod’s failure to get a grip on these things. But since you raise that particular report, perhaps Nic, with this new found enthusiasm to explain how synod the agenda comes to be, might explain to us why such things have been kept off synodical agendas in the past. If we are to get to grips with the long running… Read more »
I see in the Church Times today a proposal from the “Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order” to adopt a rotating presidency for the Anglican Communion. As I’ve said before, it seems to me the obvious direction of travel. But does anyone here better placed and more knowledgeable than me know if there is any chance of this affecting the appointments process for Welby’s successor, in terms of those voting and the way the role gets defined?
The recent amendments to the operation of the Canterbury CNC (soon to be tested) are a Welby legacy (albeit that he got them through General Synod). I can’t see anything changing before the forthcoming Canterbury CNC, and IMHO a rotating presidency of the AC wouldn’t greatly impact a Canterbury CNC other than for Commission members to note that if ++Cantuar (at any time) wasn’t the President, s/he would have a shed load more time for the real day job. However, if the AC voted to make this fundamental change, it would render the Welby CNC changes partly redundant, and the… Read more »