General Synod: Laity asked to pay for loss of power

With delegates gathering in York for this weekend's General Synod, expect a stormy debate on Sunday as laity and some clergy fight off an attempt to abolish the boards of education and mission and the entire structure of finance, minority, disability and other councils and committees. If passed, these proposals would represent an unprecedented handing-over of power back to the bishops and archbishops, as we report in The Times. In these recession-hit times, I'm all in favour of cost-cutting where possible. But at the same time as the laity are being asked to disenfranchise themselves in every area where their vote truly matters, they are being asked to stump up hundreds of thousands more pounds to pay for the clergy pension deficit. Better perhaps to do what Bradford is suggesting and cut the bishops back to size. If you aren't up in York, follow the debates on the live feed via the Church of England synod page. For a taste of what is to come, read on for the full paper presented by Oxford's Dr Philip Giddings, vice-chair of the House of Laity, at the Evangelical Group meeting in York this afternoon.

REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONS OF BOARDS AND COUNCILS

Some Questions in search of Answers by Dr Philip Giddings.

The basic issue here is: 'what do we understand by 'synodical government'? Does church government require constitutional and administrative arrangements which are the same as or different from those in the state, business and voluntary sectors? My understanding is that synodical government requires that bishops with representatives of the clergy and laity are involved together in the church's decision-making. There is a vital point here about the ministry of clergy and laity and their shared part in church leadership.

I am an enthusiast for that principle in synodical government. Whilst I realise it can means that taking decision-making is frustratingly slow and responsibility for them often diffuse, seen more positively it often means that the decisions are better informed, more widely owned and therefore more likely to lead some action in the decentralised polity which is the CofE. The proposals before us involve a significant change in the role of members of the General Synod: a move away from participation in decisions as they are made to scrutiny of them after they have been made. Do we think that would improve the quality of national level decision-making in the church? Some dioceses have (we are told) adopted this approach: what difference has it made?

The proposals also assume - apparently on the basis of an analysis of board and council minutes that the existing boards and councils 'take relatively few decisions' and do not work well from the point of view of most Synod members. Members will make up their own minds on this judgement but my experience suggest is varies from council to council and from time to time. In my view there are many examples of the boards and councils doing very good work in which the participation of members has been extremely valuable. That is certainly my view of what has been happening in MPA. On the principle of 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it!', do our present arrangements require fundamental change?

The proposals assert that the present arrangements are not cost effective. A potential figure of £100k cost savings has been floated. This needs to be rigorously probed. It seems to be based on a paper exercise calculating the cost of meetings (members' expenses and staff time) rather than a more thorough assessment of the outcomes and outputs of the boards and councils - value added needs to be compared with opportunity cost. This is not easy to work out when policy decisions are being made as the costs of mistakes can take time to assess. Much will be made of the need for cost-reduction and there is clearly a determined effort to reduce the scale of synodical activity. That needs to be assessed on its merits. Will these proposals result in real cost reductions - or will the costs simply be shifted elsewhere?

The proposals presuppose that the boards and councils are all wholly owned subsidiaries of the Archbishops' Council (AC). That is an excessively narrow legal view. In a number of cases the boards/councils bring together the work of other groups whose parents/sponsors are neither the Synod nor the Archbishops' Council - e.g.PWM, Urban and Rural Affairs, Hospital Chaplaincy. In some cases - e.g. Rural Affairs - that involvement brings valuable resource as well. There was a perfunctory acknowledgement of other stake-holders in the original proposals but, significantly, it only affected the thinking in the section on the Ministry Council and DRACSC where the House of Bishops looms large. Interestingly, that is an area in which - post the Guildford Review - an additional Council had to be created (rightly in my judgement) to co-ordinate the different aspects of the work to be done. So an important question to ask of these proposals is: how will the perspectives and interests of these other stake-holders be integrated into the work?

A fourth misconception in my view is the belief - which, to be fair, goes back much further than the work of the group which produced these proposals - that these boards and councils can be treated as a generic whole. The proposals adopt a 'one-model-fits-all' approach. Would not a more variegated model be more likely to be fit for purpose? For if we look at the actual work done, and the range of knowledge, expertise and interests which needs to be brought to bear to do that work effectively, we quickly see considerable variation between the boards and councils and divisions. Consider, for example, the different audiences addressed by the quartet of Ministry, Finance, Education, Mission-and-Public-Affairs, and the different stake-holders with which they engage.

The model proposed is of a lead person with his/her small group of appointed supporters, with the possibility of some delegation of responsibility if the AC agrees. This fails to take into the variability noted in the previous paragraph and will place a significant burden on the lead persons, each of whom (unless retired) will have significant other responsibilities (full-time in many cases), and upon the staff. This could work where the task to be done is primarily an executive one; it is fraught with difficulty where it requires the exercise of theological, political and ethical judgement for a church like the CofE.

I agree with the review group that the Synod needs to consider how it might conduct its scrutiny role, particularly now that the budgets and annual reports of the boards and councils are tucked away in the AC's budget and annual report and therefore rarely explicitly debated. If we limit our thinking to scrutiny, then the idea of groups loosely based on the parliamentary select committee model would be a good one to explore - but as a supplement to, not a replacement of, boards and councils. But scrutiny committees of the kind proposed raise the bigger question of the frequency and length of meetings of the General Synod: worthwhile scrutiny requires sufficient time for sustained Q&As, very different from Question Time.

Will Synod (be allowed to) set aside sufficient agenda time to make these scrutiny proposals work?

Looking at the proposals as a whole, members of General Synod, particularly its houses of clergy and laity, need to ask themselves whether (a) these proposals for streamlined boards and councils will enhance or weaken the participation of Synod as a whole in national decision-making; and (b) whether they represent a further tilt of the balance away from Synod towards the AC and the House of Bishops. The most significant criterion for answering those questions is what will enable the church as a whole (laity, clergy, bishops; parishes, deaneries, dioceses, national institutions; mission agencies old and new) to direct our resources (people, time, money) to the mission challenge we face.

Comments

[Peter Palladas]

If you're up in York and fancy a night out in contact with the real world, then try the Castle Howard Ox in Townend Street. Only a couple of long stone throws West of the Cathedral down Gillygate.

Good beer, fine atmosphere, great pool played and more superhuman capacity for men to stay standing when in truth they should be comatose from heroic and industrial scale consumption of alcohol. (Not far from the Sally Army HQ, but even they know not to pick a fight they couldn't possibly win.)

Be ready for a sudden, loud smacking sound when you first enter. Nothing to be scared of, it's just the massed jaws of folk hitting the counter stunned to see an attractive and cultivated female about the place.

Expect to be treated kindly - you will - but don't let anyone start betting you they can do weird things like make a ten pound note appear from within the confines of your undergarments. (Assuming you don't 'go commando' of an evening out. Which I assume you don't, but hey anything's possible in the modern Church.)

It's not that they are devious or even lascivious, but there are some genuine and astonishing conjurers to be found there. Watch for the Scots guy who can make a coin flip when you've got your palm firmly over it on a table, or the deeply alcoholic ex-sailor who creates stories from a pack of cards that you are holding and shuffling. Truly, deeply, maddenly amazing stuff.

Play your game of pool when your turn comes. Show no mercy and expect to be shown none in return. You may, if you can, beat anyone and only be applauded for your prowess.

Be aware that the ladies loo is right next to the outdoor smoking den, so if you are in the habit of breaking into song or somesuch expect it to be commented on.

Thursday night is - or was - curry night. The only time you can get more than an antediluvian pickled egg to eat, but great cooking and a bargain meal to boot.

How do I know all this? Had a four month contract in York last year and a B&B round the corner. Became my home from home. Can't think of a better place for Synod to reconnect with the world as it is. Never saw Sentamu there in my time, but I bet he'd love it and they him.

[Fr. Graeme Buttery SSC]

Ruth,
sitting in Synod is any easy way to become a conspiracy theorist: especially with some of the recent proposals we have had. while I don't go down that line, I do believe there is a culture or outlook among those who wield power in our Church which does not always sit easily with more traditional, anglican oultooks.
The whole fees nonsense is a case in point. If i wish to waive a fee I do not have to consult the diocese but I do the churchwardens! Why are retired clergy only worth half a fee? etc. Add the sinister proposals for the constitutions, saving money, then throw in recent debates - such as who owns clergy housing and you can see what I mean. We won't even go down the path of what happened to TEA etc.
I happen to think it is a combination of two things. Firstly a lack of trust, and secondly a culture in the power structures which only widens the gap between the worshipping and managing communities. It is all too sad.

Fr. Graeme Buttery SSC

[John Dingle]

Restructuring the church to save £100k! Apart from any love of lay representation (of dubious theological validity) is this realy worth it? I attend a parish church which pays more than that a year towards central costs. Somebody ought to get a sense of scale.

If we are decreasing in numbers, perhaps it is because we are not effective communicating the gospel of Christ to the world.

[Ordinary VIcar]

Ruth - for once you understate the case. The point is not that the power would become concentrated in the hands of the Bishops and Archbishops - they have neither the time nor the capacity to take on additional work in setting up, identifying, appointing and then servicing the appointed persons. This work would inevitably fall to the central secretariat of the Archbishops Council. And the link with the bishops would become diluted because the acountability would become increasingly to the Council rather than to the Synod.
Bishops currently answer for the board and councils they chair both within the House of Bishops and within the General Synod.

This set of recommendations has all the dangers inherent in looking for a financial and administrative convenience for an increasingly involved (and stretched) secretariat, rather than the proper tasking and scoping of work and its subsequent independent evaluation.

Synod groups of sessions are being because it has less business to do; this argues that it is playing a decreasing role in the formulation of policy and the calling to account of those who adminster it.

Philip Mawer once said in a response to a question 'I am the servant of Synod, not its master', and he meant it.

After 9 years the Archbishops Council still does not have a properly worked out self-understanding. It is time for a review of the Archbishops Council not the Boards and Councils appointed through Synod.