The Questions (and answers) for next week’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod were issued today. They can be found online here: Questions Notice Paper February 2025.
Questions will be taken on Monday afternoon (10 February).
Subscribe
28 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Bennet
1 month ago
There are some classy questions this time – but was the risk of publication in Private Eye considered when drafting the answer to Q18?
The information is not available due to improved data systems.
K B Scott
1 month ago
Q. 60 deals with the Archbp. of Canterbury’s settlement after his resignation. More broadly, does his resignation mean he receives a church pension, assistance with housing, and can he apply for a Licence to Officiate, even regularly conducting services in a parish?
Interestingly, John Perumbalath, having resigned from Liverpool, revealed in a blog in Anglican Ink that he receives none of these, and loses his status as a priest.
I don’t see how Perumbalath could have lost his pension entitlement, and his status as a priest? It’s usual to wait for 6 months before applying for PTO, and of course he might not get it given the safeguarding allegations against him. But he is still a priest. I don’t have PTO but I’m still an Anglican priest.
He won’t lose his pension entitlement altogether. But he has, I estimate, accrued only 24 years of contributions (since moving from India) and will not now have the opportunity to accrue further.
Furthermore, if he decides to take his pension now, as opposed to waiting to his normal retirement age, then his pension will be further reduced to take acccount of the fact it is likely to be paid for a decade longer.
One could take a CETV (cash equivalent transfer value), transferring the actuarial value of benefits in the clergy scheme out to a private pension provider.
Beware of Anglican Ink: they invariably borrow what people write elsewhere and reproduce it on their site so it looks as if it was written for them. In this case, the borrowed text was posted on Facebook (not publicly visible), leaked, and subsequently deleted by its author.
Sadly, ‘Answers’ continue to tend toward defensiveness, even dismissal, rather than an openness to consideration. ‘There are no plans’ (at present); ‘we have had no request’; or as in the ‘answer’ to Q46, ‘the settled position’- well, how about ‘unsettling’?
At least Q46 is high enough up the list of 153 questions to have a prospect of a ‘Supplementary’ (or 2?) being asked. What chance the others, in the time allotted?
In the inadequate time made available to ‘Questions’ at Synod today, Q94 was reached (Failure to correct misleading statement) and the Archbishop of York made a response to a Supplementary questioning of how, in the light of failing memory that memory might be improved. That was the last Question reached at the time set for closure , so Q95 ‘Complaint by Gilo; resolution’, and all questions beyond, were not debated.
I note that this item was worthy of being a Radio4 news item this evening. ‘Answers’ to Synod questions are newsworthy; and canons worthy of challenge and change.
Absolutely. Yet again we’ve made the headlines for the wrong reasons. Front page of the Telegraph today ‘Church: Communion can’t be gluten free’.
My daughter is coeliac, as are several members of our church, and we have 4 alcoholic recovery groups that meet on our church premises. I for one will continue to offer alcohol-free wine (or simply grape juice) and gluten free wafers. The ‘settled position’ is clearly wrong. I wonder how many clergy actually follow it, or whether any of us have been disciplined for not doing so?
Totally agree. The parish church I attend has always offered a non-alcoholic alternative along with gluten free wafers, and now all the bread is gluten free.
Explanation? Listening online to Synod Questions, IIUC it’s because +Ipgrave’s written answer as published was somewhat ‘legalistic’ and failed to take account of the should-have-been-expected and reasonable response representing current, widespread and sympathetic response of ‘the church’ on the ground. Sadly an element of regrettable and regretted element of his ‘out-of-touch-ness’.
Francis James
1 month ago
I am not a sensitive soul, but I do find the tone of too many of the responses patronising and/or evasive. Even quite simple questions about statistics, that should be easy to answer, are batted away. Transparency???
Adrian Clarke
1 month ago
Answer to Q114. PLF as commended do not bless couples of any configuration, only individuals. I’ve read and re-read this answer a number of times and still can’t make sense of it. It must be hidden away in the PLF preamble somewhere to overcome legal and theological concerns, otherwise what is the point?
As I understand it, heterosexual marriage, as an institution, is held to be a good thing, but a homosexual marriage/relationship is held to be problematic. So in a heterosexual marriage service you can ask for God’s blessing on three things, the man, the woman, and the marriage. PLF however asks for a blessing on the two men or the two women contracting the relationship, as individuals, but it is very careful not to be seen to be blessing their relationship. Hence the answer cited in Q114. “The Prayers of Love and Faith, as currently commended with accompanying guidance, do not… Read more »
If it is merely a blessing of individuals, then one wonders what has been the point of this whole process. No special authorization is needed for priests to bless individuals, and if the prayers do not bless same-sex partnerships “in any configuration” then any theological objections to the latter are moot here.
The point being to give the appearance of change without actually changing anything.
Sadly very few people have realised the subtlety of this move, including most of the press, hence all the welcoming but inaccurate headlines about the introduction of gay blessings.
A more accurate word than subtlety would be disingenuousness.
At least, as the minutes of meetings of the House of Bishops (belatedly published on 7 February as a response to questions at General Synod: see the answers to Q153 and Q154) reveal, at least one bishop (unnamed, as all comments recorded are unattributed) said “That the only proper way of proceeding would be a liturgical process in General Synod under Canon B2.” (Minutes of the Zoom meeting on 10 December, HB(24)M8, para 6.2.1 on page 5.)
Adrian, the same issue of the blessing (or not) of same sex relationships came up in the discussion of question 43. I quote the texts, and then link to the supplementary. Mr Luke Appleton (Exeter) to ask the Chair of the Faith and Order Commission: Q43 If the implementation of Prayers of Love and Faith seeks to honour same sex marriages as something God blesses whilst also maintaining that they are doctrinally proscribed, is it the view of the Faith and Order Commission that it is possible for two completely contradictory truth claims to both be true? The Bishop of… Read more »
There are some classy questions this time – but was the risk of publication in Private Eye considered when drafting the answer to Q18?
The information is not available due to improved data systems.
Q. 60 deals with the Archbp. of Canterbury’s settlement after his resignation. More broadly, does his resignation mean he receives a church pension, assistance with housing, and can he apply for a Licence to Officiate, even regularly conducting services in a parish?
Interestingly, John Perumbalath, having resigned from Liverpool, revealed in a blog in Anglican Ink that he receives none of these, and loses his status as a priest.
I don’t see how Perumbalath could have lost his pension entitlement, and his status as a priest? It’s usual to wait for 6 months before applying for PTO, and of course he might not get it given the safeguarding allegations against him. But he is still a priest. I don’t have PTO but I’m still an Anglican priest.
He won’t lose his pension entitlement altogether. But he has, I estimate, accrued only 24 years of contributions (since moving from India) and will not now have the opportunity to accrue further.
Furthermore, if he decides to take his pension now, as opposed to waiting to his normal retirement age, then his pension will be further reduced to take acccount of the fact it is likely to be paid for a decade longer.
I didn’t know one could “decide ” to take a clergy pension “early” unless it was retirement on health grounds… it did not used to be the case.
One could take a CETV (cash equivalent transfer value), transferring the actuarial value of benefits in the clergy scheme out to a private pension provider.
Obviously, financial advice would be needed.
Beware of Anglican Ink: they invariably borrow what people write elsewhere and reproduce it on their site so it looks as if it was written for them. In this case, the borrowed text was posted on Facebook (not publicly visible), leaked, and subsequently deleted by its author.
No ‘Supplementary Question’ asked on this at Synod.
Still thinking about the coeliacs who can’t drink alcohol (Q46). The Canons were made for man, not man for the Canons?
Sadly, ‘Answers’ continue to tend toward defensiveness, even dismissal, rather than an openness to consideration. ‘There are no plans’ (at present); ‘we have had no request’; or as in the ‘answer’ to Q46, ‘the settled position’- well, how about ‘unsettling’?
At least Q46 is high enough up the list of 153 questions to have a prospect of a ‘Supplementary’ (or 2?) being asked. What chance the others, in the time allotted?
In the inadequate time made available to ‘Questions’ at Synod today, Q94 was reached (Failure to correct misleading statement) and the Archbishop of York made a response to a Supplementary questioning of how, in the light of failing memory that memory might be improved. That was the last Question reached at the time set for closure , so Q95 ‘Complaint by Gilo; resolution’, and all questions beyond, were not debated.
I note that this item was worthy of being a Radio4 news item this evening. ‘Answers’ to Synod questions are newsworthy; and canons worthy of challenge and change.
Absolutely. Yet again we’ve made the headlines for the wrong reasons. Front page of the Telegraph today ‘Church: Communion can’t be gluten free’.
My daughter is coeliac, as are several members of our church, and we have 4 alcoholic recovery groups that meet on our church premises. I for one will continue to offer alcohol-free wine (or simply grape juice) and gluten free wafers. The ‘settled position’ is clearly wrong. I wonder how many clergy actually follow it, or whether any of us have been disciplined for not doing so?
Lutheran church in Germany has been offering grape juice rather than wine since 1980s.
Totally agree. The parish church I attend has always offered a non-alcoholic alternative along with gluten free wafers, and now all the bread is gluten free.
The Mar Thoma Church, with whom we are in full communion, do not use alcoholic wine – are we going to break away from them?
There’s now an official statement saying that gluten and alcohol free are ok, but which doesn’t explain why the answer to the Synod question says the exact opposite.
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/no-were-not-banning-gluten-free-bread-or-non-alcoholic-communion-wine
Explanation? Listening online to Synod Questions, IIUC it’s because +Ipgrave’s written answer as published was somewhat ‘legalistic’ and failed to take account of the should-have-been-expected and reasonable response representing current, widespread and sympathetic response of ‘the church’ on the ground. Sadly an element of regrettable and regretted element of his ‘out-of-touch-ness’.
I am not a sensitive soul, but I do find the tone of too many of the responses patronising and/or evasive. Even quite simple questions about statistics, that should be easy to answer, are batted away. Transparency???
Answer to Q114. PLF as commended do not bless couples of any configuration, only individuals. I’ve read and re-read this answer a number of times and still can’t make sense of it. It must be hidden away in the PLF preamble somewhere to overcome legal and theological concerns, otherwise what is the point?
As I understand it, heterosexual marriage, as an institution, is held to be a good thing, but a homosexual marriage/relationship is held to be problematic. So in a heterosexual marriage service you can ask for God’s blessing on three things, the man, the woman, and the marriage. PLF however asks for a blessing on the two men or the two women contracting the relationship, as individuals, but it is very careful not to be seen to be blessing their relationship. Hence the answer cited in Q114. “The Prayers of Love and Faith, as currently commended with accompanying guidance, do not… Read more »
If it is merely a blessing of individuals, then one wonders what has been the point of this whole process. No special authorization is needed for priests to bless individuals, and if the prayers do not bless same-sex partnerships “in any configuration” then any theological objections to the latter are moot here.
The point being to give the appearance of change without actually changing anything.
Sadly very few people have realised the subtlety of this move, including most of the press, hence all the welcoming but inaccurate headlines about the introduction of gay blessings.
A more accurate word than subtlety would be disingenuousness.
At least, as the minutes of meetings of the House of Bishops (belatedly published on 7 February as a response to questions at General Synod: see the answers to Q153 and Q154) reveal, at least one bishop (unnamed, as all comments recorded are unattributed) said “That the only proper way of proceeding would be a liturgical process in General Synod under Canon B2.” (Minutes of the Zoom meeting on 10 December, HB(24)M8, para 6.2.1 on page 5.)
Sometimes one stumbles over the words and one finds oneself having to fill in the gaps!
Adrian, the same issue of the blessing (or not) of same sex relationships came up in the discussion of question 43. I quote the texts, and then link to the supplementary. Mr Luke Appleton (Exeter) to ask the Chair of the Faith and Order Commission: Q43 If the implementation of Prayers of Love and Faith seeks to honour same sex marriages as something God blesses whilst also maintaining that they are doctrinally proscribed, is it the view of the Faith and Order Commission that it is possible for two completely contradictory truth claims to both be true? The Bishop of… Read more »
How can one enter the Visitors’ Gallery tomorrow?