THE Archbishops’ Council’s annual report, presented to the General Synod on Monday morning, reflected the Vision and Strategy objectives, said the Revd Charlotte Cook (Archbishops’ Council) in her introduction.
These she summarised as: a focus on a younger Church; a more diverse Church; revitalising parishes; new Christian communities; missionary disciples; safety and dignity; and sustainability. Also included was a goal to double the number of children and “young active disciples” by 2030.
The Synod watched a video on the subject, which said: “The Church must be prepared to chance to ensure that it’s a welcoming place for all ages.” It also featured a case study from St Leonard’s, Loftus, described as having just two children on an average Sunday in 2011, but seeing that number rise to 18 in 2019, thanks in part to a choir.
Another Council member, Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham), speaking about funding to support dioceses, said that the Council was “very conscious of the pressures in the system”. He was grateful to the Commissioners for changing their plans in response to these.
This included the provision of £4 million to 19 dioceses in Posts of First Responsibility Grants, an interim funding stream to help dioceses to fund curates who had completed their training but had been unable to secure a post of first responsibility (after their title post). The Council had also agreed to an independent review of events leading up to the formation of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) and its closure: “We want to focus on a rapid response to that . . . to come back to the Synod in November.”
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) noted that the reserves policy for training for ministry fund should be at least £1.4 million, but currently held £2.7 million. What consideration had the Council given to the level of reserves, to ensure that enough funding was reaching TEIs? Maureen Cole (Archbishops’ Council) said that it was within the boundaries set for reserves.
The Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) asked why diversity of sexuality and gender was not mentioned in the report’s call for “a more diverse church”. Ms Cook said that the Council needed to be more intentional about naming this in future.
The Revd Christopher Blunt (Chester) said that his diocese had not received any Lowest Income Communities Funding, and yet his parish was one of the most deprived in the country. Could the Council seek out those poorer parishes, to direct funding in areas neglected up until now?
Ms Cole said that his diocese could apply for money from the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board. There was also a need for “mutual support among parishes”.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, asked for a reference to ecumenical activity in the report. Dr Harrison said that the staff for this work were now based at Lambeth Palace. Vote 3 allocated money to this work.
Penny Allen (Lichfield) asked about digital worship. She would like to see expansion of it — was there sufficient staffing for this?
Ms Cook said that a piece of strategic work was currently being conducted by the digital team.
Fiona MacMillan (London) noted that £35 million had been allocated to a more diverse church — how much of this went towards disability projects?
Ms Cole said that this answer could not be provided directly, but that more information could be supplied.
Gavin Drake (Southwell & Nottingham) then moved his following motion to the report, which called, among other things, for an independent inquiry — led by a senior lawyer, judge or KC — into the safeguarding structures of the Church of England. This would create recommendations for a simplified and more effective structure, and the report could be brought to the Synod in November.
His motion was “not a vote of no confidence in the Archbishops’ Council”; nor was it a call for a wide-ranging inquiry into all safeguarding across the Church of England, he said. He was merely asking for a examination of the overall structures, which he described as “too complicated”.
He outlined the difficulties that he had encountered in bringing the motion, which had originally been designed to follow an update from the Archbishops’ Council on Sunday about its decision to disband the ISB last month. It had since been extended to tie into the annual report, and would be the “start of a journey” to a safer Church.
The debate was opened by Peter Adams (St Albans), who said that he shared Mr Drake’s concerns, but that this was not the best way to move forward. The Church was in “a deeply troubling place around safeguarding”. He sought a “truth and reconciliation process . . . We need the truth; we need justice, I agree. But we need to do that together with grace and mercy . . . We need to approach this in a deeply Christian and restorative way.”
Owing to timed business, Mr Drake’s motion faced the prospect of running out of time before being fully debated.
John Wilson (Lichfield), therefore, moved a point of order that the motion be adjourned until after the timed business. Mr Drake accepted the proposal, describing it as “good housekeeping”, and the Synod voted, by a show of hands, in favour of the move.
When the item returned later in the morning, however, the chair announced that there was less than a minute remaining for the motion to be debated, unless three-quarters of members present voted for Standing Orders to be suspended.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) accordingly moved their suspension. The importance of Mr Drake’s motion, he said, was that it posed a “fundamental question as to how we proceed: either with an independent route of an inquiry, or saying to the Archbishops’ Council: ‘You organise this.’”
The procedural motion narrowly failed to reach the threshold: 175-69, with 17 recorded abstentions. As a result, Mr Drake’s motion could not be debated further.