Crown Nominations Commission
From Mrs Anne Foreman
Sir, — Rather than have the Archbishops call time on the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) process, as suggested by Anthony Archer (Letters, 19 July), I suggest that the focus needs to be on the careful and prayerful preparation of the vacancy-in-see committee for its task and, in particular, on the election of the “diocesan six”.
The committee’s members need to ensure that they elect six representatives who not only understand the task but have, during its meetings and consultations, demonstrated commitment to the stated needs of their diocese. In short, those elected from the diocese to serve on the CNC need to bear in mind: they are representatives not delegates; strong views are welcome, but firm positions are unhelpful; the Ordinal remains a foundational text for the process of discernment.
In Discerning in Obedience, Professor Oliver O’Donovan comments: “ To represent others is to be trusted by those who share an angle of vision and to commend that vision to those who have other angles.”
Of course, part of that careful and prayerful preparation is for the diocesan synod and bishop’s council to ensure that the vacancy-in-see committee represents the varieties of communities and ministries within the diocese. To quote Professor O’Donovan again, to ensure that “members are prayerful, competent, articulate and capable of thinking for themselves.” Here, the ability for the bishop’s council to nominate additional (up to to four) individuals with particular experience and/or expertise is valuable and which the Exeter commitee utilised.
So, in the interests of those dioceses in a vacancy, not to mention those hard-working acting diocesan bishops, don’t call time on the CNC process, but take fully and prayerfully on board the nature of true representation and discernment and get on with the task.
ANNE FOREMAN
Chair, Exeter Vacancy-in-See Committee
12a Baring Crescent
Exeter EX1 1TL
From Mrs April Alexander
Sir, — I agree totally with Anthony Archer’s letter. What he did not mention, however, was the Archbishop’s assertion, in answer to a question, that the CNC had been “comprehensively reviewed in the previous quinquennium” and that there were no plans to repeat the exercise (Synod, 19 July). Indeed, it had been so reviewed, by a distinguished panel, largely of academics. The report, Working with the Spirit, was an exemplar of intellectual consideration of the issues.
Not one of its recommendations was implemented. Many would have involved changes in the nominations processes in the CNC which are found in Standing Orders (SOs). These were rejected out of hand by the Synod in a debate that was far too short.
Separately, work on a very important proposal on the election of members to the CNC in public by fellow members of the General Synod was undertaken, at the Archbishop’s invitation, by a traditionalist chair and a group of his choice. There was not a single other erstwhile or present member of the CNC. The key recommendation, that this election should take place “in full Synod” (i.e. hustings), was ignored and a regime emerged as secretive as before, but also unworkable.
Other recommendations for openness in the voting system during the nomination process, by show of hands rather than secret ballot, were all rejected by the Synod. Because strict secrecy has hidden the the inner workings of the CNC from view, the Synod as a whole is in no position to make decisions upon them.
A further recommendation never saw the light of day, as far as I know. It was that “after one failure to reach the ten votes required for a nomination the chair should be empowered . . . to accept the vote of nine members out of fourteen as conclusive.” This should have been a move after the Archbishop’s heart.
Had Professor O’Donovan and his team been adequately heeded, there can be little doubt that nominations for the Bishops of Ely and of Carlisle could have been made, and that many more nominations of women, in particular, would have been made since 2015. Further, the House of Bishops would not have remained the overwhelmingly male body that it is today, and it would have been better able to curb the current enthusiasm among its ranks for “structural change”.
APRIL ALEXANDER
General Synod 2000-20; CNC 2013-18
59 High Street, Bletchingley
Redhill RH1 4PB
Unhappy divisions
From Canon Chris Hollingshurst
Sir, — I watched with dismay the unpleasant and arrogant video posted by St Helen’s, Bishopsgate, after the “commissioning” service held there the previous day (24 July). The claim that “the Archbishops and most of the Bishops” are leading a schism, while the Alliance is actively setting up alternative structures, is hypocritical, to say the least. The content and tone of the video, and the action that it describes, fly in the face of “Love one another.”
The only compensation is that, outside of the usual echo chambers, few will be interested in such self-righteous posturing. Meanwhile, as the Church continues to strive for unity at any cost, the hurt of those prevented from participating fully in the life and ministry of the Church of England continues, and the Church’s witness is undermined. Do we hear the tears in heaven?
CHRIS HOLLINGSHURST
4 Cathedral Close
Guildford GU2 7TL
From the Rt Revd Jan McFarlane
Sir, — Considering our many factions and divisions within the Church of England at the current time, I find myself pondering how it might be if all “special-interest” groups were dissolved, and, instead of following Paul or Apollos, we simply followed Jesus. How it might be if instead of looking over our shoulders and asking “What about him?” we heard Jesus reply, “What’s that to you? You follow me.”
Just pondering. . .
JAN McFARLANE
19a The Close
Lichfield WS13 7LD
Traditionalists must be in full communion
From the Revd Martine Oborne
Sir, — It is extraordinary to note how normalised sexism is in the Church of England. You report (Features, 19 July) that the parish of St Augustine’s, Highgate, “recently received a £250,000 financial bequest from a former parishioner, on the basis that it had a male incumbent at the time”. How would that sound if we read: the parish “recently received a £250,000 financial bequest from a former parishioner, on the basis that it had a white incumbent at the time”? Or that it “recently received a £250,000 financial bequest from a former parishioner, on the basis that it had an able-bodied incumbent at the time”?
Jesus was God made human. Women are just as human as men. Apostolic succession is from human to human. If our Church recognises that God is calling women to be priests and leaders, then we have to find a way for all of us to accept this and to be one Church again, fulfilling the very understanding of a Church as one body of people in communion with each other.
MARTINE OBORNE
Chair of Women and the Church (WATCH)
Address supplied
ICJ on Israel and the Occupied Territories
From Canon Peter Liddell
Sir, — The ruling of the International Court of Justice on 19 July is magisterial (News, 26 July). Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Territories is illegal. It must end. Israel must withdraw. The settlements are illegal and must be dismantled. Israel should make reparations. Other nations are obliged not to render assistance in maintaining Israel’s presence.
Where has this massive declaration been noticed in the Church’s awareness? Is there to be any statement from Lambeth? There are plenty of templates. “The C of E welcomes the ruling of the ICJ and pledges itself to work to its fulfilment.”
PETER G. LIDDELL
25 St Marys Court
Ottway Walk
Welwyn AL6 9AU
Graves: ban on Star of David and other symbols
From the Rt Revd Dr Oliver Simon
Sir, — In your report, “Star of David ruled out on grave” (News, 26 July), Norwich’s Chancellor says that the decision to allow a Jewish symbol on a war grave in a parish churchyard was “highly exceptional”. The Chancellor may be right; the War Graves Commission takes a different view of these matters in its own cemeteries. There, you will see religious symbols of the deceased’s faith, whatever that faith, side by side, in death as in life.
The idea that representations of such realities other than Christian are not well regarded, or even welcome, on gravestones in churchyards should be contested and more widely debated. There are symbolic illustrations of people’s convictions on funerary memorials in churchyards: Masonic affiliation, for example. We have heard recently in our Sunday lection from Ephesians 2, when, referring explicitly to Jews and others (Gentiles, pagans), the author declares that Christ “has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances so that he might create in himself one new humanity . . . thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross”. How might this tenet inform such decisions?
OLIVER SIMON
Colcombe Mill Cottage
Colyton EX24 6EU
Clergy couples forgotten in remuneration debate
Sir, — The Rt Revd Dr Nigel Peyton (Letters, 26 July) quotes the figure of £55,000 as the average “total clergy remuneration package”, which includes “stipend and housing”. But the debates about this package regularly fail to recognise the particular disadvantage of clergy couples where both are in stipendiary posts that come with accommodation, and both receive stipends, but live in the accommodation attached to one partner’s appointment.
This effectively removes the “housing” element of the package from one of the couple and so significantly reduces the value of the overall remuneration, both for one individual and for the couple. Often, the Church benefits from this arrangement by reassigning (or renting commercially) the other partner’s property.
Particularly as clergy are now being encouraged to plan earlier for retirement, and there is greater emphasis on their arranging their own retirement housing provision, it is long overdue that this particularly discriminating situation be addressed.
Like many clergy couples, we would be significantly better off if one of us took a salaried post that did not include tied accommodation; but have both chosen to serve in places where we feel we have been called.
NAMES AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
What to look for among secondhand Ladybirds
From the Revd J. W. Flanagan
Sir, — I read with interest the article about the Ladybird books of the Bible. I grew up with a number of these on my bookshelf and, as a child, obtained much pleasure and perhaps some theological knowledge from their contents. However, the two jewels in the crown of the Ladybird series were not mentioned: What to Look for Inside a Church and What to Look for Outside a Church. This pair of very simple books show and explain the details of our beautiful buildings incredibly well, and I would recommend all clerics find copies and keep them on their shelves.
They are a huge help when showing groups around a church, and allow things to be explained in a very simple manner. Several school assemblies can be concocted from their content. They might be slightly dated today, but the content is still very good. As for Ladybird books’ being for children, I believe that the British Army used The Ladybird Book of Maps to teach basic map-reading skills to new recruits.
J. W. FLANAGAN
The Vicarage
Castle Court, Craylands Court
Kidwelly, Carms SA17 5EF
Listen — whether you think it’s ‘mush’ or not
From the Revd Emily Reynolds
Sir, — In response to “How the Church can recover its voice”, with a list of seven points of what we “should” be doing (Comment, 12 July), it is interesting to note that there is nothing mentioned about listening: it is assumed the Church should be doing all the talking.
If we deem the secular to simply be “mush”, in the phrase that the Archdeacon of Hastings, the Ven. Dr Edward Dowler, quotes from Tom Holland, does our voice instead become the equivalent of the stereotypical Brit on holiday, asserting dominance by talking more slowly and loudly to someone who doesn’t understand our language rather than seeking to learn and listen to the language of the country we are in?
Perhaps, at least one point in the list should be about listening more and speaking less — or at least stopping assuming that what others have to say is “mush”, as, to be honest, that kind of attitude probably puts people off listening to the Church in the first place.
EMILY REYNOLDS
Address supplied (Walsall)
Roma locuta — but the translation needs work
From Robert Tucker
Sir, — One stated objective of the Vatican’s Instrumentum Laboris (News, 19 July) is to develop lay ministry. May I suggest that a starting point might be to translate it into plain English?
It may well be valid to observe that “The Synodal process has highlighted the intensity of the ecumenical impulse” and is said to “counter cultural individualism and exaggerated communitarianism using a new synodal style”; but surely that language is unlikely to mean a great deal to those the authors seek to encourage?
ROBERT TUCKER
The Homestead
Castle Street
Bletchingley RH1 4QA