Updated Thursday
Updated again 17 September
The House of Bishops meets on 18 September. The Agenda is published here.
The paper to be discussed HB(24)30 is published here: Crown Nominations Commission September 2024.
General Synod members have today been sent an email, which includes the following:
House of Bishops
The House of Bishops will meet on Wednesday 18 September at St Hugh’s College Oxford to consider proposals for reform of CNCs. The paper and agenda will shortly be available on the House of Bishops section of the website . This will follow on from a meeting of the College on this topic at which all bishops will be able to speak. The House of Bishops Standing Committee has agreed that this part of the meeting should be open to the public and press, subject to limitations in the room, to observe. Priority will be given to central members of the CNC but if General Synod members wish to attend they are asked to notify synod@churchofengland.org and seats will be allocated on a first come, first served basis.
Updates
Law & Religion UK has this report: Bishops to discuss difficulties in Crown Nominations Commission processes
Church Times has this: After deadlocks, Crown Nominations Commission’s secret ballots may end
Second Update
An order paper has been issued for the House of Bishops meeting. The meeting will now last an hour (5.00 to 6.00 pm) instead of the originally planned 25 minutes. The bishops of Oxford and Rochester will be proposing amendments.
Law & Religion UK has also published the Order Paper text here. This copy includes live links to the GS documents referenced.
It’s huge step forward if CNC members’ votes are no longer kept secret. Also, it’s encouraging to see two proposals arising from Canon Swinson’s response to the WATCH inquiry into questionable practices over the recent appointment of the Bishop of Blackburn: (1) a suffragan bishop of the diocese of the appointment should not be chairing the Vacancy in See Committee (unlike +Jill in the case of Blackburn); and (2) there should be a minimum period set for consultations – so that the process is not rushed through – as it was in Blackburn.
interesting you say ‘questionable practices’ as if there were dirty tricks or wrong doing there. It was found that the Diocese of Blackburn acted fully within all regulations in relation to the process and the result was just. You just dont like the outcome and you are, once again spitting the dummy out. It is so sad what you have become, so sad what WATCH has been reduced to. A once great organisation standing up for women in leadership has become a stuck record, saying “Blackburn, Blackburn” as many times as possible and working on the personal vendetta of one… Read more »
Steady on John!…..you’re going over the top a bit….and there is a barb in that reply that is really not called for.
This is not the place for personal attacks. Ideas can be debated without attacking their proponents.
These are fair challenges, thank you. I am sorry that there are no such challenges to the spin put on events by the commentator that I was replying to. WATCH have a mantra that being told they are rude is just because they are being outspoken and speaking truth to power. I feel that is what I was doing in this instance.
The questionable practices referred to are things that were picked up by the Independent Reviewer in her report and hopefully will be addressed in the reforms: (1) whether a Suffragan Bishop from the Diocese should chair the Vacancy in See Committee, as was the case in Blackburn; and (2) whether there should be a minimum length for the consultation period which was 10 days in Blackburn.
I’m always a bit dubious that things can be made right by constantly adjusting procedures and protocols. It feels like it may be a frustrating enslavement to an ultimately unattainable humanistic utopianism. So, to be a bit of an advocatus diaboli – why should it be impossible for a suffragan to chair the DVISC? They may be just the right person to do the job. Approaching retirement, perhaps, with the widest sense of the diocese available, gentle wisdom and no dog in the fight? And if that’s not the case with any specific suffragan, can’t we trust the DVISC to… Read more »
Actually Martine is doing a good job of saying the emperor has no clothes when lots of others are saying the emperor has just come back from a productive trip to Savile Row.
To say that the process was followed in the letter does not mean that it was done well.
The line about the emperor returning from Savile Row is one I will definitely steal!
You and me both, thank you Charles!
As a member of WATCH, I take great exception to your unwarranted slur against Martine Oborne. I assume you are the same John Chitham who was the Bishop of Blackburn’s senior chaplain at some point, before you moved to St Albans. Contributors to TA are not noted for disclosing interests. Readers should discount such comments accordingly.
As in most things, the Church of England moves at a snail’s pace over appointments. Rushed through? The diocese had presumably had some notice of +Julian’s retirement – why on earth can’t people get on with working out the job spec, and taking the soundings for the person spec so that the diocesan VISC can meet the day after his last service and start their deliberations? I cannot think of another large organisations that can afford to leave senior positions vacant for months if not years at a time. I am completely unimpressed about arguments about discernment and prayer –… Read more »
Jeremy, the ViSC can meet before the retiring bishop actually leaves or before his/her final/farewell service. The trigger to start the process to find a successor is confirmation of the retirement date, when membership of the ViSC is ‘frozen’. Here, in the diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bishop Martin announced in February 2024 that he would be retiring on 28 February 2025. The ViSC held its first formal meeting on 8 May and, after several further meetings, has recently approved the diocesan Statement of Needs, now on the diocesan website. (Rightly, Bishop Martin had no part in the process… Read more »
Those more knowledgeable will know whether any part of a House of Bishops meeting has been open to the public and press before. A welcome development I hope. Significance of this?
“It is also proposed that there is a reserved place among the clergy places for one priest who is female, should a priest who is female be standing for election. ” Only in the Church of England. I have said that a lot recently but when secular organisations are focused on 50% female representation on boards and committees, the dear, backward Church of England thinks requiring one single woman is progress. I am shocked. I have said that a lot recently too about the Church of England but I truly am. That the archbishops can push for the inclusion of… Read more »
Not just the diaries of senior clerics though Kate. Just as important are the diaries of the priests and lay people who are also members of the CNC. Some of them might have to go back to work, for example.
And in practice the number of women on the CNC hasn’t been a particular issue. According to the list at https://www.churchofengland.org/about/general-synod/committees-and-commissions/crown-nominations-commission, at Sodor and Man there were 7 women; at Exeter 5; at Ely 6; at Coventry (meeting today and tomorrow) 6. That’s out of 12 elected members, to whom must be added the two archbishops.
It is not quite that simple. In Exeter only one of the diocesan reps was a woman – a lay woman.
Thanks – I hadn’t read the item as referring only to the 6 elected by the ViSC. But on re-reading it, I think you are right, even though the accompanying examples refer to CNC members other than those from the ViSC. Para 13.a).ii.
A possible concern is that the more you try to constrain the election, the less representative it is of other factors, especially when the number being elected is quite small (six people, of whom at least three must be laity). Such changes need very careful thought and scrutiny – the law of unintended consequences can apply.
If it is just those 6 that’s even worse as both archbishops are male which skews things right from the start. I don’t see anything in the proposals which is likely to offset the obvious bias against the appointment of women bishops, a bias which is so manifest in the outcome that it has occasioned an Act of Parliament.
I think that all members of the CNC should be required to make a commitment in front of God that they will treat all candidates equally regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, race or any disability.
If someone can’t make it they can just send apologies. The thought of missing the next session would concentrate minds and encourage people to vote for a resolution rather than risk that.
But it may well be that the people blocking an appointment are those who know they can reconvene next week, aware that others who don’t agree with them may not be able to be there. That’s less than helpful and would encourage blocking tactics.
There is a meeting of the House of Bishops in a given location and scheduled to run for 20 minutes if you exclude the prayers!! How is this going to be an opportunity for ‘all bishops’ to be able to speak and part of the meeting open to public and press? Seems like as soon as it has started it will be finished.
On the face of it is seemed like progress but once I had realised the duration it feels tokenistic. Who would actually take time and planet resources to attend? Seems bonkers
It appears that this formal House of Bishops meeting is to follow a meeting of the College, which is when all the bishops will have an opportunity to speak. The timing for the College meeting is not disclosed.
The House of Bishops meeting is now scheduled to last one hour, from 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm, according the the Order Paper published on the C of E website a short time ago (wrongly giving the date of the meeting as 18 October 2024). I understand that a journalist from the Church Times will be attending and that there is likely to be a report of the meeting on the CT website later tomorrow evening. Whether the meeting, at which two substantial amendments to the Mullally motion have been tabled (one dependant on the other failing to be passed)… Read more »
An hypothesis:
Might tinkering with the CNC arrangements be something of a displacement activity?
Yes, there may be procedural ways to make Diocesan appointments more ‘efficient’, presumably by effectively giving those who chair the meetings more clout to bring them to a conclusion, one way or another. But will the result be better? Might God be saying something more profound to us in this moment, calling us to turn to him? Rather than assume that this is simply a ‘problem’, that we can structurally ‘manage’?
Yes. It all seems like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
It seems palpably obvious that the divisions (mostly over LLF) in the Church of England mean that large number of people are no longer willing to operate under the same ordinaries.
A more creative solution needs to be countenanced to allow all factions to have a place where they feel like they can live out their convictions with integrity.
The actual discussion will have taken place in the College of Bishops meeting before this one. Although I am an advocate for greater transparency, even if I were free at this time, I’d be unlikely to travel into Oxford for a 25-minute meeting!
I think it’s unclear from the e-mail which ‘part’ of the meeting (singular) is to be open to the public and press. Maybe it’s the meeting of the college, not the short meeting of the HoB, since paper GS Misc 1387 (“House of Bishops Transparency Group: interim report”), included with the papers for the GS meeting in York in July, stated at para 2, that while proposing publication of the minutes of meetings of the House,”The House will continue to meet without public attendance and will amend its standing orders to be honest that it is doing so.” There would… Read more »
As a member of the general public, I have today applied for a ticket and been told that Synod Support will be in touch! Doubt they want a troublemaker doing sketches in the back row!
Perhaps the failures to appoint are God’s way of telling us we have too many Bishops?
The Dioceses Commission has been turning a deaf ear to that possibility for a long time, it may be thought.
It’s certainly possible
At the least, it does seem to be a failure of the scheme meant to select and train for high office those our masters deemed to be suitable.
If that’s the case, Janet, I for one am immensely grateful. From more of the same in their image, good Lord deliver us…
Amen to that!
Too many bishops (who knows what many of them actually do?)
Too many archdeacons (they proliferate in all shapes and sizes)
Too many policy wonks in diocesan offices
And all to so little effect.
But then if you decide to go for a bureaucratic church you must not be surprised when
a) it sucks up resources and
b) proliferates its own bureaucratic processes
The failures will be ascribed to anything but the model being used. But we see you.
In answer to Openmind’s question about whether God is saying something to the Church at this moment. PLF is only the tip of a very large iceberg. For those with eyes to see, I think there should be huge concerns over the right wing ideological battles being played out deep in the heart of Church of England. At this very moment two things might, for example, be signs for us. The strong connections between HTB (along with its offshoot projects), and a major funder and founder of GB News, who is currently extending their media empire to become a dominant… Read more »
That’s an impressive bit of guilt by association. Personally I’m glad that the Spectator has been bought up by a UK based Christian businessman who supports free speech, rather than being owned by Muslim oil money.
‘businessman who supports free speech’ is terrific joke.
I have been following the last few days posts ( which in my head I was beginning to subtitle Much Ado about Bishops ) with dismay , and thinking that it begins to have an uncomfortable sense of the American election about it, so I felt chimes of recognition when I read Anglican in Exile’s post . A huge amount of interest has been stirred up on the subject of bishops- the ‘accidental’ ordination by Dr Timothy Wambunya of a chum in another denomination of church-108 comments so far accompanied an apparent meek acceptance by senior COf E bishops of… Read more »
I don’t see arrogance in Bp Tim’s explanation. I do think he was in the wrong and should step down from his new appointment, but I also think the reaction here has been way over the top. So many people can’t seem to see beyond their own cultural assumptions and denominational conditioning.
Thanks Susanna, interesting thoughts. But I wonder if we can know the mind of the ABC regarding his duration of tenure. Your suggestions are plausible, but … maybe he just feels strongly called by God to endure? Perhaps he wants to build up his pension entitlement which isn’t yet maximised. Possibly he feels morally obliged to see the LLF process as far as he can having started the whole ***** thing off. Or has he been urging Diocesan bishops to delay retirement, rather than adding to the CNC logjam, and feels he should set an example. I just don’t know.
The gospel as HTB would see it is faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit for equipping for service in the world. This sits within a framework of being faithful to scripture, but being a charismatic evangelical is not the same as being fundamentalist which influential Southern Baptists in the US tend to be. The Alliance has drawn a line in the sand over prayers of LLF, as being a matter of faith representing a clear direction of travel towards same sex marriage, but I really don’t see this as… Read more »
Is that the whole extent of the gospel as HTB would see it?
Janet, I’d suggest the answer is on their Web pages. It has a rather wider “gospel action front” than most.
I’m not a member or their advocate just interested.
I can’t see anything on HTB’s website which gives a summary of the gospel, or alludes to their core beliefs.
And my question to Adrian was not about a ‘gospel action front’, but about whether the HTB gospel is restricted to forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Do HTB have a message for the victims of this world? The marginalised, those more sinned against than sinning? Those afraid of death, or afraid to live? Do they have a message about the kingdom of heaven?
Hi Janet… I really can’t identify your criticism with the HTB Web site. There’s lots of stuff there about their various initiatives. Certainly including the environment, social justice marginalised and victims.
https://htb.org/
I’ve looked again, and I still can’t see any statement of faith or description of their values or what they believe. But yes, there’s a lot about their activities. That doesn’t answer my question to Adrian about whether the HTB gospel is limited to faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and being equipped by the Holy Spirit for service.
I quite agree, we need bishops and arch bishops to be brave and hold fast to the orthodox teaching on human sexuality and marriage of the Church of England, to reject the current worldview. Such a view is not “right wing” or linked to any particular nation or politicians.
I seem to recall that in the last General Synod (2015-21) a proposal to remove the secret ballot was proposed by Archbishop Sentamu. It was voted down – to his obvious displeasure. I suspect any fresh vote in February will be close because the impact of it being carried will lead to finger pointing and name calling. That would be unfortunate, but this being the Church of England, and the parties within it being entrenched, one can’t easily see it not happening.
Two of the proposals canvassed in the paper HB(24)30 were debated by General Synod on 20 February 2019, namely removal of the secret ballot, and whether the requirement, also in SO 141(6), for a 2/3rds majority of the 14 voting members of the CNC should be changed: in 2019 the proposal was to replace it by a requirement for a 2/3rds majority of those present and voting, so that an abstention would not count. In that event, if one member abstained, only 9, rather than 10 votes in favour would secure the required 2/3rds majority, 2/3rds of 13 being 8.67.… Read more »
Interesting times the Scottish Episcopal Church used to make the names of the final 3 candidates for bishops public and have recently stopped this. Whilst it’s not a direct comparison. Churches always seem to struggle between openness and too much secrecy. The secrecy of the ballot is also paramount here will less people come forward if their votes are made public
The old system in SEC meant ordinary people could discuss candidates. Do you know why it has been changed? If someone wants to be a bishop why should (s)he not say so publicly? And does the SEC still have large electorates and if so how do other church members feel about being kept in the dark? And does it work or do names leak out as perhaps they should. Are clique -appointed bishops accepted?
Other people may be more knowledgeable than I am about SEC. I recall that before the retiring Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway translated from Argyll the Diocese had been unable to reach agreement on the well publicised names. Small electorates these days.
here is what i mean Changes to election of bishops backed by Synod – The Scottish Episcopal Church (anglican.org)
Having been on (only 1) CNC… I thoroughly disagree with the proposals. Secret ballots are often needed – I could be (and was) vocal about my views, but not everyone can be as loud. For example, the clergy members from the diocese would have to work with whatever candidate is appointed, and even if they get “their choice” (if you want to reduce it to that level) they need to be able to work with the other clergy on the panel who may have the opposite views. So they need to express a vague amount of nice-ness regarding all during… Read more »
The most sensible contribution to the debate IMO
I must confess that I can’t see how removing secret ballots will really help. It is just likely to lead to bad-tempered finger-pointing and people coming under pressure to conform (aka bullying).
Reforms in order to get a swifter decision are not the same as reforms in order to get a better decision.
Secret ballots are only one strand of the process that O’Donovan (GS Misc 1171) commented on, but it is clear why they are now back in focus. When the CNC (then CAC) was created in 1976, with +Hugh Montefiore being translated to Birmingham in 1977 as its first piece of handiwork, the view was that members needed to be able to express their preference without coming under pressure from the archbishops. The general levels of deference then were sky-high and it was clear that there were great imbalances of power. I attended my first CAC in 2002 (later to be… Read more »
Thank you for your reply. It seems to indicate that the problem is not with secret ballots but what happens before the ballot – that people say one thing in discussion (or don’t say anything at all) and then vote differently. Removing the secret ballot isn’t the answer. You need to get to the bottom of WHY there is this discrepancy between the discussions and the ballot. But the process of appointing a bishop needs far greater reform. For a start, the diocesan reps need to truly reflect the views of the whole diocese, rather than being partisan reps, whose… Read more »
There are as you infer myriad aspects to this. The most commonly expressed concern about the CNC (per House of Bishops paper HB(24)30) is that members can (and clearly do) participate in blocking candidates while being able to deny the fact due to the secret ballot. It comes down to trust and openness etc. I have participated in CNCs where after an inconclusive vote (no candidate with 10 or more votes) there has been an honest discussion. Might one of us agree to change our vote? Why might we have voted a different way and could we see our way… Read more »
I have added a link to an order paper that was issued today, extending the length of the House of Bishops meeting and including some proposed amendments.
The final possible amendment from the bishop of Oxford looks rather like an episcopal power grab, or at least a metaphorical gun to point at any recalcitrant CNC which looks as if it won’t reach consensus. Likely to foster increased trust between the bishops and the flock? Not convinced.
Think it’s just a suggested last resort process. The alternative might be to reduce the hurdle further, say 50% simple majority after five rounds. CNCs must discern the candidate being called. It is fanciful to suggest this might be nobody. Let’s see what the Bishop says.
‘It is fanciful to suggest this might be nobody’ But after previous occasions when a CNC made no appointment, the Archbishops said: the Commission‘felt that we needed more time to discern the next stages for mission and ministry in the Diocese. Taking time over appointments is important and the Commission is utterly committed to finding the right person to be your Bishop.’ (Hereford). and that the outcome should be taken ‘as a sign of the CNC’s commitment to finding the right person to be your next bishop’ (Oxford). So can it sometimes be appropriate to say that nobody has yet been… Read more »
You are right to focus on the question, what is going on? That arose in the House of Bishops debate today (see later TA post). Do these proposals simply address the symptoms (failure to nominate) rather than the underlying cause? But the underlying cause is ‘regrettably’ (to use the Bishop of Oxford’s word) all too clear. Central members and some diocesan representatives are simply voting on tribal lines. That is not discernment. “I will only vote for you if you interpret the Gospel my way” (as the Bishop of Dover said in an impassioned speech). On that basis, the only remedy is to deal… Read more »
They are reacting badly. The headline from their meeting might as well be ‘Bishops to discuss why clergy and lay people are bad at choosing bishops, with the threat that a group of bishops will decide who are bishops in the future.’ It looks like GS 2354 (Trust and Trustworthiness within the Church of England) has already been shelved.
I understand your take. If there’s a deficit of trust between the episcopal class and some among the clergy and laity, doesn’t that need addressing as a first priority. Rather than the episcopal class devoting time and energy to create ways for it to (in some circumstances) exercise power to the exclusion of others in the church. But maybe we’re beyond that, and the ‘efficient’ exercise of power has become the self-evidently appropriate goal. Parish appointment processes sometimes end with ‘no appointment made at this stage’. I don’t see why that shouldn’t sometimes appropriately be the case in an episcopal… Read more »
Indeed, parishes sometimes don’t appoint and sometimes regional directors after 1 round of interviews in the non-church world don’t get appointed. A big difference however is that the time until next interview is sooooooo long for bishops. So multiple non appointments becomes an existential angst. For diocesen bishops it’s an extra issue as they presumably have to share more work between them, and they (having written some of the references for candidates) presumably assume that someone should have been suitable to appoint. Couple all of this with more tensions over llf and etc, and people get nervous. I think it… Read more »