OVERSIGHT of Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs) and other mission initiatives was tightened up by the General Synod on Wednesday of last week, after it voted through amendments to the Code of Practice governing these in the wake of the Soul Survivor scandal.
The Bishop of Exeter, Dr Mike Harrison, told members that he was bringing the first revision of the code since 2018. This had been prompted by recommendations from the Scolding review into the Mike Pilavachi case (News, 4 October 2024).
Dr Harrison said that the amendments were being proposed to combat “unhealthy patterns of power” which could arise in certain fresh expressions, church-plants, and “new worshipping communities”.
Among the changes were rules to ensure that BMO leaders establish safeguarding procedures and governance that more closely mirror those of parish churches, before a bishop signs off on the order.
The Church of England was committed to a “mixed ecology”, he said, and mission initiatives were helping the Church to reach a wide variety of people. These amendments were, therefore, not trying to stifle BMOs, but to strengthen them, Dr Harrison argued. “They are central to our ongoing work to make the Church a safe place for all.”
Several Synod members spoke to praise the work of BMOs, which, they said, were helping the Church of England to reach diverse communities with the gospel. Most speakers in the debate welcomed the move to strengthen accountability to and ties with dioceses. This includes making an archdeacon the Visitor who oversees any BMO.
There was a brief discussion about one clause in the new code, which warned against the “unhealthy patterns of power” which could arise under some forms of “entrepreneurial leadership”. Many members expressed disquiet about this, on the grounds that it unfairly denigrated pioneers in the Church. An amendment to this paragraph was carried.
There was also debate about the chair of a BMO’s trustee body, and whether this should always — or simply normally — be a lay person.
Another amendment to give flexibility for BMOs in how they sought to keep up-to-date with the best practice on charity governance was also carried.
Other issues were raised, including whether BMOs should come under a neighbouring parish safeguarding officer; what to do with BMOs that sought to downplay or even obscure their Anglican nature; and how many leaders of these kind of church-plants ended up burned out and under-supported by their dioceses.
The amended code of practice was approved almost unanimously.