A SPLIT within the House of Bishops over proposals to reform the Church’s part of the episcopal nomination system emerged on Wednesday afternoon, as the Bishops voted to pass the decision on to the General Synod in February.

Most agreed that recent failures to appoint were a source of “regret”, but some bishops called for swift changes to address the “traumatic” experience some had of the process, while others urged a slower approach which did not erode trust with the appearance of an “episcopal power-grab”.

At a meeting of the House of Bishops in Oxford, the Bishops voted by 27 votes to nine, with three recorded abstentions, in favour of a motion from the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally.

Bishop Mullally presented a paper outlining possible changes to the process by which diocesan bishops are nominated. These include the removal of the secret ballot within the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), changes to the majority required for a nomination to be made, and the award of a casting vote to the presiding archbishop if three consecutive votes fail to secure the required majority (News, 12 September).

The failure in the past year of the CNC to reach a consensus on appointments for the sees of Carlisle (News, 15 December 2023) and Ely (News, 15 July) was invoked often in the debate, and was the background to the proposals put forward last week.

The meeting was chaired by the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, who began by clarifying that no decision could be made today: “The House does not decide for the CNC: that is the job of the General Synod.”

Introducing her motion, Bishop Mullally said that the process of dis­­cernment was costly. It was possible that the failures to appoint in Carlisle and Ely were actually an example of good discernment.

But she relayed concerns about the process which had been ex­­pressed by people across the Church, who questioned whether it was fit for its purpose. These concerns came from the spread of theological tradi­tions, she said, in particular from currently under-repre­­sented groups.

In the ensuing debate, the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, said that he had been on the Carlisle CNC, and that the experience had been “traumatic” for those taking part. He warned, however, against assuming a cause from a symptom.

“I think we need time to really think this through before taking this step,” he said. His intuition was that ongoing discussions about Living in Love and Faith (LLF) were a factor, as was “general dysfunction” in the Synod.

The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said that there were clearly problems with the pro­­cess, but that he thought that only one of the proposals might help. “I don’t believe these proposals will address all our problems, [or] will be a panacea,” he said, and ex­­pressed a fear that, instead, they looked like “an episcopal power-grab”.

The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, said that she thought that it was important “not to be going down rabbit holes”. Be­­cause the process was one of dis­­cernment, it was important for it to be collaborative, and she sought to distinguish between confidentiality and secrecy. “We need to be trans­­parent and clear that confidentiality in that process is not the same as secrecy. “

The Bishop of Peterborough, the Rt Revd Debbie Sellin, said that con­­cerns about the process voiced by those taking part needed to be taken seriously. “I have friends who say that they would not now put their names forward,” she said. “We will lose some incredibly good people.”

“I have no confidence in the pres­ent system,” the Bishop of Dover, Dr Rose Hudson-Wilkin, said. There was a “massive elephant in the room”, she said, which was that the discourse focused on “party groups”.

“Please, members, people of God, get rid of your camps and your labels. Just love the Lord. Serve the Lord and serve the nation that he has called us to, and not these ridiculous boxes,” she said. 

An amendment from the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, sought to alter the wording from the House, “acknowledging the diffi­­culties in the recent CNC processes”, to “re­­gret­ting” them. “We need to send the strongest possible signal,” he said. “I do not believe at all that we are acting in haste.” There would be time for further discussion of the pro­­posals over the coming months.

OTHER STORIES

After deadlocks, Crown Nominations Commission’s secret ballots may end

THE secret ballot by which diocesan bishops are nominated could be removed under changes intended to restore trust in the processes of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC)

The Bishop of Derby, the Rt Revd Libby Lane, said that it was im­­portant to express regret, as the failures were “not internal to the Church”, but were also lamented by Parliament, and across the nation.

The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that it was important to acknowledge that “LLF is at the centre of this. . . The dis­agreements will be with us for a very long time,” he said. While he sup­ported the main motion for the sake of making short-term changes, a longer-term consideration of the process was needed.

Dr Croft’s amendment was car­ried on a show of hands.

A further amendment was moved by the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, to replace the sub­­stance of the motion with a call for further, and wider, consultation, in­­cluding the current central members of the CNC, appointed by the Synod.

The current proposals, which, he said, focused on “arith­­metical” changes, had the effect of giving greater influence to the Arch­­bishops. “At a time when trust is fragile, and at a premium in the Church, this is something that should be thought about very carefully.”

The Bishop of Guildford, Dr Andrew Watson, warned of a “seri­ous train crash in Synod” if the proposals were voted on without wider consultation.

The Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, also backed the Bishop of Rochester’s amendment, and said that he hoped that bishops were alive to the necessity of the theological breadth of the Church being represented on the CNC.

The Bishop of Taunton, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, who is currently Acting Bishop of Coventry and a participant observer in the House of Bishops, said that, if she had a vote, she would oppose the motion.

“I am concerned that people like myself have already been silenced for long enough,” she said.

The Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, said that it was important to pay attention to power, but urged members to reject Dr Gibbs’ amendment, describing Bishop Mullally’s proposals as “modest and proportionate”.

The amendment fell by 13 votes to 24, with two recorded abstentions.

Dr Croft then moved his second amendment, which proposed to give a panel comprising the archbishop and the “five most senior diocesan bishops (by length of service)” the power to make a decision if a name was not progressed.

The rationale, he said, was to prevent lengthy vacancies. The back­stop that he proposed was merely “indicative”, he said, and he asked members not to vote on the basis of the specifics, but on the principle of a fallback measure in the case of a deadlock.

The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, sup­ported the amendment. “A backstop is vital,” he said.

The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Mark Tanner, said that he thought that the House was being “too detailed”, though he supported the overall motion, albeit with a degree of caution.

Bishop Mullally opposed the amendment on the grounds that it might appear to be a power-grab.

The amendment fell by 14 votes to 19, with eight recorded absten­tions.

In a debate on the main motion, the Archbishop of York spoke in favour, while praising elements of the current process. He was followed by the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Paul Williams, who warned that the proposals “plainly accrued more power to the archbishop”. This would clearly not engender greater trust within the CNC and the Synod, he said, and urged further consulta­tion.

The Revd Eileen Harrop, a par­ticipant observer, said that she was “closer to the pews” than the episcopal members. She said that it was heartening that the issue was being taken seriously.

Bishop Mullally said that the proposals were not definitive, but an effort to move forward in a way that would, in the near future, improve a process “which is clearly painful”.

The completed motion was car­ried by 27 votes to nine, with three recorded abstentions. The motion as amended read:

That this House, regretting the diffi­culties in the recent CNC processes as set out in HB(24)30 welcome the recommendations as set out in para­graphs 12 to 14 of that paper and request that work be undertaken to bring the proposals to Synod.

IN HER final remarks, Bishop Mullally had thanked those who had spoken in the debate, acknowledging that it could come “at a cost” that was possibly increased by the fact that the meeting was open.

What had initially been tabled as a 20-minute meeting stretched to an hour. It had been preceded by a discussion of the larger College of Bishops, closed to journalists.

House of Bishops meetings are not routinely open to the press and public, but throughout the LLF process, there have been calls for greater trans­parency. In June, it was an­­nounced that the minutes of meetings would be made available, but calls to open all meetings to the press and public were rejected (News, 19 June).

Nevertheless, an email sent earlier this week stated that Wednesday’s meeting would be open to a limited number of the press and public. A Church House spokesperson said that a request had been made by a member of the public to attend, and that the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops chose to open the meeting.