What happened on Saturday at General Synod?
The one with many arguments over money
Today kicked off with consideration of the Hereford Diocesan Synod Motion. This is the motion, carried over from February, calling for a redistribution of assets from the Church Commissioners back to discuss
Main motion
‘That this Synod:
a) call upon the Church Commissioners and Archbishops’ Council to undertake everything necessary to effect a redistribution of financial resources directly to Diocesan Stipend Funds to reflect the value of contributions made by Diocesan Boards of Finance to the Church of England Funded Pension Scheme since it was established by the settlement of 1997 (£2.6 billion)
b) call upon Diocesan Boards of Finance to manage the funds redistributed as a result of the above to support parish ministry in the ways discerned locally to be most effective in enabling growth and sustaining the Church of England's commitment to be a Christian presence in every community
The Bishop of Hereford, in moving the motion, noted that the motion has been passed “by substantial majorities in one third of diocesan synods”. He believes that the amount asked for in this motion represents a just redistribution of funds, but concedes that such a massive capital transfer is “unrealistic.” However, “It’s the parlous state of diocesan finances that have prompted this motion.” The cumulative annual deficit of dioceses now touches £60m; it is that that results in merging parishes, cutting posts, undoable jobs, with the knock on clergy morale, and the depressive effect on parishes having to re-advertise multiple times with no applicants. This is, quite simply, “an existential threat to the Church of England.”
He noted that in his diocese they are managing to increase individual giving, but this is just asking for “more money from fewer people.” He hears the common riposte that people unwilling to give due to the large assets held by the Commissioners—£11.1bn.
Ultimately, it comes down to this question: “Who knows best how to get the maximum value from the Commissioners’ disbursements best to assist the growth and flourishing of churches, chaplaincies, and new worshipping communities?” Is that best made at a local level or by experts in National Church Institutions?
“I do not have confidence that central control disbursing money through SMMIB is the best way to disburse diocesan support”; it is much better to put control in the hands of local decision makers. He believes that we do need some money spent centrally, but on a much smaller scale. “This is a question of who knows best: the central or the local? I urge you to put your faith in the local.”
Andrew Hargreaves spoke of the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board (SMMIB) doing a lot of good work in parish revitalisation. It is good to call for funding for clergy, but we’re not producing enough vocations to replace attrition/retirement—SMMIB projects are effective at producing vocations.
Stewart Fyfe: “Cutting parishes is not a strategy for mission.”; that would be the death of the CofE as a national church. We need our deep-seated presence in every community to be properly funded. “Our money reflects our strategic priorities, and those shape the vocations we encourage.”
Alan Smith, the First Church Estates Commissioner, argued that the motion won’t achieve what is being sought, and even has the potential to do the opposite; even the Bath and Wells proposal for 1% of the fund each year would take up all of the discretionary funding available to the Church Commissioners. They would also need to move funds into lower yielding investments, hitting funds permanently.
Sheffield Amendment
The Bishop of Sheffield moved the following amendment:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“Noting the precarious financial position of many dioceses, concerns about the approach to National funding, and the challenges of sustaining stipendiary ministry in dioceses:
a) Recognise the successful management of the Church’s historic endowment over many years by the Church Commissioners, and the resulting significant uplift in recent triennia in distributions, and calls upon the Church Commissioners to continue to make available the maximum sustainable level of distributions in support of parishes and the work of clergy and other ministers
b) Welcome the greater level of stakeholder engagement which informed the spending plans for 2026-28, including the commitment to address concerns about clergy welfare through increasing clergy stipends and a range of other measures, and the commitment to increase funding for ministry in the most deprived communities
c) Call upon the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners to continue that engagement from now on, including ensuring Synod has a more formal role in the development of the future Funding Framework at a formative stage, as proposed in the draft National Church Governance Measure
d) Call upon the Business Committee of the General Synod to schedule early in the next triennium a full debate that will enable Synod to express its view on the approach to disbursing funding, including support for local stipendiary ministry. This should be based on robust financial modelling to avoid unintended consequences and to inform the development of the Funding Framework
It was an amendment seeking to say ‘let’s park the question of redistribution of funds until the next funding allocation round, so as not to completely destroy the work just done.’
Speaking to it, Bishop Pete stated: “I do regard prayerful, creative, missionary, stipendiary clergy as the greatest asset in the revitalisation of our diocese so that the good news of Jesus can be proclaimed in every place”; for that reason, he has great sympathy for the Bath and Wells amendment. However, how wise is it to introduce a new in-perpetuity commitment to £100m a year for diocesan stipend funds when dioceses aren’t even in a position to spend it due to the collapse of vocations?
The Bishop of Hereford resisted the amendment, but Synod supported its debate.
The Bishop of Blackburn, despite having some sympathy with more money for dioceses, said that he doesn’t want “no strings subsidy for the Diocese of Blackburn, because that would encourage torpor and disincentivise missional imagination”; Blackburn needs formula-driven support to support poorer parishes and access to grant funding; This is not about SMMIB versus the parish—in Blackburn, it’s SMMIB that is renewing the parish; you can’t spend your way out of a missional crisis, but can only grow your way out
Ian Paul argued that this motion is putting the financial cart before the spiritual horse, as we’re not yet in a position where the main motion would work. We can’t assume that dioceses do genuinely know best how to spend money for mission- look at the stats compared to 2019.
Marcus Walker asked, “where does power lie?” There has been a phalanx of Church Commissioners and members of Archbishops’ Council coming forward to tell us that power best lies in their hands. He wants to see power returned to the local church.
The motion was put to a vote by houses.
Bishops: 22 for, against 9, abstentions 2
Clergy: 89 for, against 75, abstentions 8
Laity: 87 for, 83 against abstentions 9
The amendment passed in all three houses. The Bath and Wells amendment was therefore not moved.
Debate on the amended motion
The Bishop of Rochester pleaded that if we’re going to kick this into the short grass, can we please make sure that grass doesn’t grow? He wants proposals brought back to Synod ASAP.
Alison Coulter pointed out that the projects discussed by SMMIB come from dioceses, not dreamed up by the board
Unfortunately, the sound started cutting out badly at this point in the debate, making it almost impossible to follow… This is the trouble with watching remotely rather than from within the chamber, I’m afraid.
The amended motion was put to a vote by houses.
In favour: 361 Against: 7 Absentions: 14
The motion as amended by the Bishop of Sheffield therefore passed.
The National Church Governance Measure
This has come back to Synod for final drafting and approval, meaning those moving it hope that it will pass today and become law.
There was a debate over the budget for the Church of England National Services (CENS) body set up by the Measure. The draft Measure provides for the CENS budget to be laid before the General Synod after it is approved by the trustees of the body.
Some members of Synod are unhappy to simply be given the budget for information, and want the power to approve or reject a proposed budget. Those arguing for that power point out that Synod currently has the power to do that with the Archbishops’ Council budget, which is being folded into CENS. Those against the idea point out that CENS will be a new, independent charity, and its budget is for its trustees under charity law.
Clive Scowen: the power to reject the budget would probably never be exercised, but if you don’t legislate for it, you will never have the power to do it even if it’s felt necessary.
Julie Dzięgiel pointed out that Diocesan Boards of Finance, which are charities with trustees, also need to have their budgets approved by Diocesan Synods—so this isn’t unusual even within the Church of England.
Carl Hughes argued that, “The need for clarity in governance is what the current measure is all about.” The trouble with this budget-approval proposal is that it would inject a lack of clarity back into this aspect of our governance. He pointed out that it’s a myth that Synod has approved the whole Archbishops’ Council budget, as it has only approved very limited parts of it before.
The amendment was overwhelmingly lost.
Discussion then turned to Marcus Walker’s amendment to require CENS to prepare its budget in time for discussion at Synod before the start of the relevant year. In current practice, this would require the budget to be prepared for the July group of sessions (6 months before the start of the relevant year), rather than the February group 6 weeks into the relevant year.
Marcus explained his reasoning that if there was to be any meaningful discussion of the budget, it needed to happen before the budget came into operation.
Stephen Hogg, chair of the steering committee, was against the amendment, not wishing to prepare a budget 6 months in advance as this isn’t considered financial best practice. “an overly early preparation of a budget makes for an unreliable budget.”
The Walker amendment was lost on a show of hands.
Next up was an amendment to the charitable objects of the Clergy Pensions Board, allowing them to work with clergy before retirement in order to help them plan well, even to acquire houses whilst still serving in stipendiary ministry.
Clive Mather (Chair of the Pensions Board): “A small change which could unlock something truly transformative.”
The amendment was carried by a show of hands.
After a few more technical drafting amendments, the measure moved to a discussion on final approval.
There were voices both for and against the measure.
Those supporting it welcomed it as much better and more transparent than our current mess of governance structures. Those rejecting it saw it as not offering enough oversight and centralising too much power.
Martin Sewell used his speech to announce his intention to resign from Synod after this group of sessions.
The chair called for a counted vote by houses.
Bishops: 27 0 0
Clergy: 116 0 0
Laity: 133 10 1
Those numbers say two things:
It comfortably passed in all three houses
Many synod members took the opportunity to go and do something else rather than go through the tedium of revising a governance measure again.
The afternoon started off with the first consideration of the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure. By way of reminder, this is the plan to give the Archbishop of Canterbury legal authority to license chaplains to HM Armed Forces, rather than that being done on a diocesan level.
The proposer described it as, “In one sense just a tidying up of a small area of ecclesiastical law.” In another sense, it is a massive support to the work of chaplains to HM Armed Forces. This legislation was first proposed in 1868, so it’s good that the Church of England is finally getting round to considering it. It was clarified that this applies only to where they minister in the capacity of a Forces chaplain, and regular parish ministry will remain subject to the usual rules around licensing and authority.
The change is overwhelmingly supported by both the MOD top brass and chaplains serving on the ground.
Bishop Hugh Nelson, the Bishop to the Armed Forces, called on Synod to enable chaplains to do the work they were called, selected, trained, and sent to do.
The Bishop of Norwich encouraged chaplains to nevertheless get in touch with the bishop local to wherever they end up serving, that they may be prayed for and supported.
The item was carried by a show of hands, with it looked like no-one against. The amending canon to make the change to canon law was then passed in a matter of seconds. The next legislative stage will come in the revision stage tomorrow afternoon. I will be highly surprised if anyone wants to try and amend this.
Next up was another straightforward matter: appointing two new members to the Archbishops’ Council (AC). Those moving the proposals took the opportunity to explain to new members the workings of the AC, acting somewhat as the board of trustees for the National Church Institutions. The AC will at some point in the next few years be wound up and replaced by CENS under the newly-passed National Church Governance Measure, but these seats do need to be filled in the meantime. Both Peter Doyle and Julie Jones were appointed without controversy.
With all of that uncontroversial business out of the way, attention turned to debate over the spending plans that were presented yesterday.
Making her debut speech, Lesley Jones spoke powerfully of the importance of keeping churches open in the most deprived communities, such as hers in Jarrow.
Also making his debut speech, Christopher Landau spoke of the dire position of full-time, residential theological training, lamenting the lack of support for it in these proposals. He implored those making decisions to give careful consideration to increase support for Theological Education Institutions offering this kind of training, for the health of the whole church.
Clare Williams cautioned that merely solving the financial crisis facing the church will not solve the crisis in clergy wellbeing. “Proper holistic support needs to go alongside financial assistance, and standardisation of that holistic support across each diocese.”
Julie Dziegiel spoke against the transfer of power from dioceses to the centre represented in the proposals, with dioceses being told how to spend an increasingly massive proportion of their budgets.
Nic Tall then moved an amendment:
‘At the end insert “and further request that 75% of the £236m funding allocated to the Diocesan Investment Programme be allocated directly to Diocesan Stipend Funds across all dioceses, with the remaining 25% to be available to fund applications to the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investments Board (SMMIB).”.’
It’s another attempt to twist the arm of the national church into putting more money into dioceses to fund stipends. He argued that most parishes don’t need hundreds of thousands of pounds in grant funding. Rather, they just need some breathing room from the pressures of paying enough parish share to pay the cost of clergy, “and they will do wonders.”
In response, the Bishop of London argued that the amount currently allocated for the Diocesan Investment Programme, earmarked to relieve financial pressures in dioceses, is much lower already than that requested, and much of it has already been allocated. To adopt this amendment would actually have far-reaching consequences and would hit diocesan cash flows in other ways. She therefore resisted the amendment, stating “We cannot pick and choose from the menu, this is an integrated package”. The team behind the spending plans is very keen that they not be changed even by a penny. That is upsetting many synod members, as this is the first opportunity they’ve been given to speak to the plans, and are now being told their only real option is to approve them.
25 members stood in the support of the amendment, and so the debate continued.
In common with most of the financial arguments this Synod, the debate could be boiled down to a tussle for control between dioceses and the National Church Institutions.
The Bishop of Norwich spoke against the amendment due to the financial practicalities of it. “This is a carefully prepared package, and there is much good news in it: we are a church of abundance, not a church of scarcity.” He then reiterated the above point that the whole package should stand together, and Synod shouldn’t be trying to pick it apart.
There was a call for a vote by houses.
Bishops: 3 for, 25 against, 1 abstention
Clergy: 58 for, 97 against, 8 abstentions
Laity: 68 for, 89 against, 12 abstentions
The amendment was therefore lost in all three houses.
Martin Poole then moved his amendment:
‘At the end insert “and request that racial and disability justice are each allocated separate budgets by adjusting the proposed ‘social and racial justice’ element of the package to the level of £20m for racial justice in line with the expressed will of General Synod which voted to ensure that ‘crucial resources remain available’ at that level for racial justice funding at the session in February 2025, and to the level of £5.7m for disability justice as the intended focus of ‘social justice’.”
This was an attempt to get the funding group to rethink their decision not to allocate another £20m for radical and social justice, discussed at great length yesterday.
The Bishop of London spoke against the amendment, but gave her consent for the debate to proceed.
Ian Paul spoke against the assumption members of the working group are not concerned about issues of racial and social justice. “My friends, the money is not simply shuffled around. It wasn’t then, and it can’t be now.” He warned Synod against tinkering with the work of those who have done the hard work and thereby causing issues.
Busola Sodeinde: “Racial justice is just one of many competing demands.” She spoke passionately about the work that is being done in this area, but pleaded with Synod to leave the motion unamended.
The amendment was put to a vote by houses.
Bishops: 7 for, 13 against, 3 abstentions
Clergy: 89 for, 52 against, 18 abstentions
Laity: 75 for, 80 against, 12 abstentions
The amendment was lost in the Houses of Bishops and Laity, and was therefore lost overall.
Debate returned the main, unamended motion. In the end, the funding plans were approved on a show of hands.
Clergy Pensions
Moving the motion, James Blandford-Baker highlighted the huge groundswell of support behind the motion, “an immense cloud of witnesses.” He announced that he would be supporting Adrian Youing’s “friendly amendment, which takes account of the intervening announcements on changes to stipends and pensions. “We shift the risk onto our clergy at the point in their lives where they are least able to bear it.” He noted that during stipendiary ministry, the tied house is counted as part of the overall remuneration package; in retirement, however, the need for housing is not remunerated. This means that clergy, who often can’t afford to buy a house in their stipendiary service, are put in a position of having to give the majority of their pension back to the church to negotiate housing. Called for our elders to be shown double honour; “a pension that provides dignity, not poverty.”
Youings Amendment
Adrian’s amendment welcomes the already-announced changes: restoral of the pension level to 2/3rds of the National Minimum Stipend, backdated to when the changes took effect in 2011, and the removal of the 1-year lag between stipend setting and pension setting that currently disadvantages retired clergy.
Call for full independent review of how this injustice happened; William Nye questions whether such a review would be worth the cost, to much smoke from Adrian. Referencing many examples of financial injustice, Adrian strongly urged synod to back the amended motion.
Lis Goddard spoke of the injustices faced by those serving in different ways who are not paid a stipend, or not a full one, and are therefore not eligible for a pension for those years of service. “Why is it beyond the wit of the Pensions Board” to solve this injustice?
Clive Mather, chair of the Pensions Board, spoke warmly of the amendment, and promised to bring back even more proposals in February addressing the remaining issues identified. He warned that any further work will be immensely complicated and will take time to work out and implement.
Ian Paul: “We have failed in our care of the shepherds of the people of God.” He urged Synod to vote for the amendment, including the review, to ensure that such a failure doesn’t happen again.
Carl Hughes, chair of the AC Finance Committee, strongly supported the amended motion, including the call for a review commission.
The Youings Amendment passed on a show of hands. The amended motion was put to a counted vote of the whole Synod.
For: 328
Against: 0
Abstentions: 3
Ros Clarke’s PMM on Governance and Culture Review of HOB
Time was very tight to consider this item, given how long was spent on the Clergy pensions item in the end.
Ros emphasised that her call is for a corporate governance and culture review of the HOB, and shouldn’t stoop to implicating any individual bishop. She noted that there have been many recent concerns around trust and transparency of the HOB, which operates far more independently than either of the other houses of Synod. She drew attention to the distinction between governance and culture, heading off those who wish to limit her proposal to merely a governance review. Without a review of culture, there is very little value in a governance review alone. “Culture eats structure for breakfast, and has governance for lunch and dinner.” Need to restore trust and have confidence that HOB is providing godly leadership
Clare Williams spoke of her experience in the Church in Wales, which has been much in the news recently for its own massive issues of governance and culture. “I’m not sure there is anyone who could dispute that we haven’t seen the House of Bishops use their power to push things through” Only a truly independent review into culture can assess how power can be better used and trust rebuilt. She strongly supported the motion
Jane Evans spoke of the need for Christians to learn to trust one another, and did not wish to impose a review on the House of Bishops. “Let’s put our own Houses in order first.”
I would simply point out that there haven’t been major reports calling into question the trustworthiness of the House of Laity…
Will Harwood spoke of his concern at the very idea of the House of Bishops jumping into to preempt this motion by passing its own governance review under its own terms. That in itself says quite a lot about their culture.
Jamie Harrison, chair of the House of Laity, was invited to move his amendment:
‘Leave out all words after 'That this Synod' and insert
“Noting the wider discussions about the culture and governance of the House of Bishops
a) welcome the decision to undertake an independently led review as proposed in GS Misc 1412 and the importance in the proposed Terms of Reference of the section on Culture and Ways of Working and
b) request that the Report of the Review be published in full and that the cost of the Review be met by the Archbishops' Council.”.’
In essence, it’s an amendment that nixes the substance of Ros’s motion and pats the bishops on the back for getting out ahead of this discussion and organising a review themselves.
Dr Clarke resisted the amendment, as what the bishops have proposed is not a fully independent review. “Not only a case of the bishops choosing to mark their own homework… setting, choosing how to do, mark, assess, and tell us how well they did"…
25 members supported the amendment, and it moved to debate
Several members spoke against what they saw as a tendency to “blame the bishops” and project all the ills of the church unto them. Because they saw this motion as doing that, they spoke against it.
Neil Robbie: “How are those in power in our church to be helped to lead well?” If the review is not truly independent, how will we know whether the bishops are protecting themselves from painful scrutiny?
Sam Margrave called for the amendment to be put to a vote by houses, but did not receive sufficient support. The amendment was carried on a show of hands.
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes called for a move to next business. There was a motion that that question be put to a counted vote of the whole synod, which was not sufficiently supported. The motion to move to next business was unclear on a show of hands, and was put to a counted vote after all.
After all that, Synod voted to move to next business, meaning that they didn't even vote on the (much watered down) amended motion. What a mess. Charlie Bączyk-Bell accused Ros of using this motion to bash the bishops over LLF, but it’s hard not to see the same sort of partisanship behind the group of people who colluded in the killing the motion procedurally.
Where we are on that is that the bishops will go ahead with the governance review that they announced and designed on their own initiative, but Synod chose not to have any sort of say over what that should look like or even to welcome it.
Coming up tomorrow:
The liturgical business discussing a proposed Festival of God the Creator and Commemoration of the Martyrs of Libya
Revision of the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure
The presentation on Thy Kingdom Come that was bumped off the agenda in February. For the sake of the presenters, let’s hope they leave enough time for it this time.