THE behaviour of the House of Bishops had made her “furious”, the Bishop-designate of Aston, Canon Esther Prior, told the General Synod on Thursday of last week, in a condemnation of its lack of consultation over proposed changes to Standing Orders concerning the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC).
The move, she said, had triggered memories of growing up in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, where the President had created a dictatorship, “standing order by standing order”.
A succession of speakers expressed grievances. The Synod had nine proposals relating to the membership, chairing, business, and procedures of the CNC to consider. The first five had been proposed collectively by the central members (those elected by the Synod), and these, though they brought out strong feelings from the floor, were all carried.
The last four, however, had come from the House of Bishops, and were seen by several members as a “power grab”. One was carried; three failed. Feelings ran high in a debate adjourned for lunch and extending more than two hours beyond its allotted time.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, who moved the motion and spoke to each proposal separately, acknowledged that confidence in the CNC process had been knocked significantly when no nominations had been made in Carlisle and Ely. Concerns had been raised last year by a variety of people, from a range of church traditions, amid suggestions of hidden criteria and lobbying, she said.
The Synod could use “three sledgehammers or three nutcrackers to tackle what is a relatively crackable nut”, the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, suggested at the outset. He pointed to “a significant shift of power” in three of the Bishops’ proposals and urged members not to vote for them.
The Synod agreed to an amendment to allow for the other central member of a pair to attend a meeting in the other’s place in an emergency; for deputies to be appointed for the Prime Minister’s or the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments; and another allowing for an interpreter when a member needed assistance or had limited English — something that would enable greater participation by unrepresented groups, Bishop Mullally suggested.
A concern about the cost of this last amendment elicitaed a speech in British Sign Language from Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans Together): “If you have good-quality interpreters, it shouldn’t slow down the process. As you can see, we are not prolonging it. Cost may be an issue, yes, and more than one may be required to keep with a process. But, if cost means we can’t do this, it is denying the right. It’s important that people contribute.”
The Canterbury CNC was the unspoken presence in the debate. It took a count by Houses to carry an amendment that made provision in an archiepiscopal vacancy for an Archbishop to direct a member of the House of Bishops to deputise. “We wish the Archbishop of York good health,” Bishop Mullally said.
More contended was an amendment to prevent the counting of an abstention as a vote against a candidate. The vote would be ignored in determining whether an individual had the necessary level of support.
This was what incurred the fury not only of Canon Prior, but of the Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury), who urged the Synod: “Pay attention to power. . . Help avoid a PR disaster. Reject these proposals [of the Bishops] as a power grab. Do they strike you as humble proposals to the amplify the voice of the Holy Spirit, or one particular voice?”
The Archdeacon of West Cumberland, the Ven. Stewart Fyfe (Carlisle), had found the confidentiality of the failed CNC “watertight”, in that he had been unable to tease out what had happened at Carlisle. “If it was a theological issue, this amendment just fans the flames,” he suggested. “If it’s to avoid non-appointment, it’s a wise exercise of your authority. What would have helped us was not going to the back of an 18-month queue as if we had been naughty.”
Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London) had been involved in 42 episcopal nomination processes, he said, and was concerned about the genesis of these proposals. CNC members had not seen any papers before, or any justification for what was being proposed. “At a time when trust has, sadly, been in short supply, this does not represent good progress,” he said. “This is a process of discernment, not a competitive appointment process.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Homes (Liverpool), disagreed. She said that she had been part of an “inner ring” of informal conversations about whether to weaponise abstentions. “Let’s not pretend it doesn’t happen,” she said. “It’s choosing not to vote. At the moment, they are being used to block any appointment. . . So make this change.”
The Revd Timothy Edwards (Rochester) believed that the effect would be to remove some of the checks and balances that he said, were among “the glories of the Church of England”.
YouTube/Church of EnglandThe Bishop-designate of Aston, Canon Esther Prior, addresses the General Synod on Thursday
Bishop Mullally defended the proposal as “not doing away with [abstentions]. . . It’s not about power being abused by bishops, but within the system. It is about a misuse of power. Do we want to continue to collude with it, or, rather, treat the symptoms and remove the cause? We want to address our power, but if we continue to put it in darkness, we will not do that.”
The amendment was lost in the Houses of Clergy and Laity: Bishops 16-9, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 83-84, with one recorded abstention; Laity 86-94, with one recorded abstention.
Next came an amendment to lower the threshold required for submitting a name to the Prime Minister from two-thirds to 60 per cent. The current threshold means that, when one or more members are unable to support a candidate, the search must begin again.
Nic Tall (Bath & Wells) thought that would be a good idea, “fixing a mathematical glitch that makes it harder for a CNC to do its job. The current threshold is 71.4 — about two-thirds. The proposal is for nine out of 14. It’s still a super-majority and a high bar to clear,” he said.
The Ven. Dr Adrian Youings (Bath & Wells) said: “We go for consensus every time. People in the room all have the power to veto, and every single time each member put aside the power in their hand and sought to come together to consensus. We’re not after winners and losers, but winners and winners.”
The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Southwark) said: “We should pay attention to power, also to truth. Speak honestly in the chamber. If the CNC fails to appoint, it is a failure to do the job we require you to do. It’s the truth we seem determined to skirt. We’re not here to speak in riddles and rhymes.”
A group of people were not being considered for diocesan appointments, he suggested. “LLF is being weaponised in the wider CNC process. We seem suddenly determined to crush vocation in this chamber. We need to get real. Pass this amendment, and let the CNC do its job as it is intended to do.”
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) moved an amendment to the amendment that would keep the two-thirds threshold for submitting a name to the Prime Minister, but with a fallback position that, when the threshold was not met, a name could be submitted if it had the support of a simple majority of the (usually) eight central members of the CNC and the support of a simple majority of the (usually) six diocesan members.
The Bishop was “offering a hammer”, but “I offer a nutcracker,” Ms Goddard said. There was considerable debate, but her amendment fell in all three Houses.
The main amendment was subsequently also lost in the House of Laity: Bishops 17-8, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 88-85; Laity 87-102.
The most eagerly awaited proposal was to do away with the secret ballot. Bishop Mullally said that there were concerns about coercion, lobbying, and lack of diversity. “The secret ballot creates a veil of mystery dividing us when we need to come together. . . It is perceived as a barrier to openness and transparency. It is because of a power imbalance that some feel they are safer with the secret ballots. It’s better to address power, and create an environment when open conversation can occur.”
Sam Wilson (Chester) said: “So many of us here at Synod vote the way we do because we are terrified what people will think of our vote. I understand the need for a secret ballot because some people are scared, but I’ll be voting in favour for this because I trust in all of you to say what you believe. When we leave here, the person we answer to is God.”
Canon John Dunnett (Chelmsford) found parallels in the 1984 Trades Union Act on secret ballots, introduced to reduce the power of activism to prevent coercion and intimidation.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) thought that it was a matter of Christian leadership: “If you’re elected to CNC, you’ve been invited into a leadership role within the Church. We need to have courage. There should be no fear in the process.”
For the Revd Andrew Mumby (Southwark), it was the difference between confidentiality and secrecy. “There’s no place for secrecy in the Church,” he said.
That amendment, too, was lost in the House of Laity: Bishops 15-6, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy 87-83, with four recorded abstentions; Laity 79-105, with one recorded abstention.
The final motion would give the person presiding at the meeting a second vote in a situation in which no more than two candidates remained under consideration and no candidate had received the required level of support after three rounds of voting.
The Revd Mark Miller (Durham) said: “Agreeing to this proposal would mean setting up the Archbishop of York and Archbishop of Canterbury to increased scrutiny — look what happened in Liverpool. Given the very public role of the Archbishops, or to protect them from themselves, please reject this.”
The Archbishop of York said: “I don’t want this added power, and, if you vote for it, Synod, I will choose not to use it.”
The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Canterbury), said: “Fear and power and trust have been buzzwords in the last few Synods, and in this one. It’s seen in the signing of petitions, the withdrawing of money if we don’t get what we want. I want to acknowledge power.”
The motion was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 4-14, with four recorded abstentions; Clergy 24-128, with seven recorded abstentions; Laity 23-149, with seven recorded abstentions.
Church House has issued this summary of changes approved and not approved:
Changes approved
- Where one of the central members serving on a CNC is unable to attend, allowing the other member of their “pair” to take their place.
- Enabling deputies to be substituted for the Prime Minister’s Appointments Secretary or the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary if they are unable to attend.
- Allowing the CNC to invite an interpreter to attend meetings where necessary.
- Where the see of an archbishop is vacant, enabling the other archbishop to appoint a bishop to act as deputy.
- A temporary amendment enabling a bishop to preside at a CNC meeting where neither archbishop can attend.
Changes not approved
- Changing the threshold required for submitting a name to the Prime Minister from two-thirds to 60 per cent of a CNC.
- An amendment which would have prevented an abstention from being counted as, in effect, a vote against a candidate.
- Replacing the requirement for a secret ballot with a requirement for a counted vote to be taken on a show of hands.
- Give the person presiding at the relevant meeting of the Commission a second vote where no more than two candidates remained under consideration and no candidate had received the required level of support after three rounds of voting.
