2004 York Synod Report

This summer the agenda for General Synod looked to be low on the controversy count.  While that proved to be mainly true, Synod proved how good it is at grasping at the few opportunities on the agenda to have a really good debate, and a bit of healthy disagreement.

But let’s deal with the straightforward debates first.  Synod agreed that Fair trade is a good thing – following the lead of many diocese including Oxford.  We also agreed that it was good to work with our fellow churches in Europe.  Jayne Ozanne, of the Archbishop’s Council tried to get a bit of excitement into the debate by bringing in the issue of the referendum on the European Constitution, but it was quickly clear that we didn’t wish to muddy the waters with this sideline.

 Other debates which went fairly smoothly were the ones on the Mission Agencies, which we wanted to encourage.  We also agreed that restorative justice is to be encouraged in our criminal justice system.  This method of dealing with offenders was introduced by Thames Valley Police, and brings offenders and victims together.  It helps the victim feel that they are taken seriously, and confronts the offender with the human pain their actions have caused.  Other debates on social responsibly included one on drug misuse and one on domestic violence.  This included moving testimonies from those directly affected by this, and encouraged the church to speak out against this evil in our society.

Other debates in the sessions brought less agreement.  We discussed changes to the marriage law.  The proposals were to induce new rights, so that a couple may be married at any church where they can show a connection.  There would be a list to guide the clergy.  Some clergy argued that if we are going to leave the residential qualifications behind it would be simple to go the whole way, and have no qualifications at all.  This was put to the vote, and on a hand vote carried just.  But in a surprise move there was a call for a vote by houses and the amendment was lost, just, in all three houses of Synod.

We also had fun debating differentials in stipends for clergy.  Currently a Diocesan bishop is paid a stipend which is almost double that of parish clergy.  If it is a stipend for living expenses surely any extra expenses of being a bishop should be covered by working expenses and not in the stipend.  Synod decided to continue with the current situation, with extra money for extra responsibility.

But the debate that has raised most interest was that on a scheme to discipline clergy when their opinions go haywire.  The idea was that alongside new procedures for dealing with clergy who behave badly, we should update the system for dealing with them when they think badly.  The current system has not been used in 30 years, and had some clear faults.  The new proposals were that 2/3rds of a P.C.C. or 10% of both houses of clergy and laity in a diocesan synod could start proceedings against a wayward priest. 

This was the main problem that some in synod had.  Was the hurdle to start proceedings high enough?  Attempts were made and resisted to impose high numbers needed in diocesan synods.  The other problem was that the proposals would cover ritual as well as doctrine.  There were concerns that there was too much room for a big fuss by a few over some practices which are currently accepted within the breadth of the church, such as charismatic worship styles.

When a vote by houses was called for the laity and bishops passed the motion comfortably, but the clergy resisted it by a narrow majority.  It will be interesting to see when or whether the proposals return.