THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND THE DIOCESE OF HEREFORD Diocesan Synod The Palace, Hereford, HR4 9BL Tel: 01432 373300 Fax: 01432 352952 Email: diooffice@hereford.anglican.org GENERAL MEETING OF THE HEREFORD DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE and GENERAL MEETING OF THE HEREFORD DIOCESAN SYNOD Proclaiming Christ Growing Disciples Shared Priorities Spiritual & Numerical Growth Contributing to the Common Good Reimagining Ministry, Prayer & Worship Minutes of Meeting Thursday 19 October 2017 Group Total Vacant Attended Apologies No Indication % Attendance Bishops 2 0 2 0 0 100% Clergy 59 24 18 5 12 51% Laity 66 15 33 6 12 65% Lay Co-Chairs 13 2 7 2 2 64% Rural Deans 13 0 8 4 1 62% Clergy Co-options 5 5 0 0 0 All Vacant Lay Co-Options 5 5 0 0 0 All Vacant Clergy Ex Officio 5 0 4 1 0 80% Lay Ex Officio 7 0 2 0 5 29% Bishop's Nominee 10 7 0 2 1 0% Total Places 185 58 74 20 33 58% Total Filled 127 Quorum = 42 Opening Worship Led by Richard Hill of Condover Deanery ITEM 1 Apologies & Welcome 1.1 20 members as indicated above. ITEM 2 Minutes of the Previous Meetings (13 July 17) 2.1 Approved. 2.2 No Matters Arising ITEM 3 Presidential Address 3.1 Text of the address to Synod by Bishop Richard may be found at Annex A. 1
DBF AGM & Budget 4.1 The 2018 budget was introduced by Chris Smith. He outlined a number of positives compared to the previous year. A lot of parishes had worked hard to increase their offer. The budget review group oversaw 250,000 of improvements in the budget including unsustainable cuts in some areas, particularly clergy property. 4.2 The Peer Review panel in November may still be concerned about this budget and the papers show the on-going structural deficit. The biggest underlying problem has been the incoming money from parishes. The giving figure has remained static over the last six years, if it had just kept pace with inflation we would be 770,000 better off. 4.3 We look to the Bishop s Staff and Bishop s Council and ask them to consider ways to bring in money and reduce expenditure. In particular they must look carefully at the clergy deployment plan, the training we run, and the activities that we prioritise. 4.4 Stephen Herbert took the Synod back to the accounts 100 years ago. These contained a message that funds from the parishes had not kept pace with costs and the chairman was unhappy and encouraging parishes to think of ways to give more! It seems some problems are timeless. 4.5 Back to today, many parishes are recognising the need to think of ways to increase planned giving. A number have signed up to the Parish Giving Scheme. This is a good thing for everyone. Please read up about it, talk about it and get Richard Jones and Val Smith to visit. Some parishes are also trialling contactless payments. 4.6 This time last year, Synod approved a 750,000 deficit budget. This was declared as unsustainable. However Stephen was pleased to report in July that this was down to 400,000. Quarter 3 accounts show a further improvement following a huge amount of hard work. 4.7 This forecasted improvement does require every parish to honour the offer it made for the year. Currently 175,000 of parish offer money is delayed. 4.8 The in-year performance is better due to there being more clergy vacancies than forecast, a heavy reduction in spending on properties and a speeding up of (and increase in the number of) properties to let. Changes in Education funding and an increased contribution from the Uniform Statutory Trust have helped and there have been decreases in spend on diocesan budget lines. 4.9 This is reflected in the 2018 budget and in some cases we ve gone much further in making cuts, possibly at unsustainable levels in the case of housing expenditure. The problem is that offers simply haven t even kept pace with inflation. SH thanked synod for those who have courageously increased their offer but 1 in 6 have reduced their offer. 4.10 Stephen again said to the synod that parishes needed to look for ways to increase their planned giving. 4.11 Stephen then went through the detail in the budget. He confirmed that Bridgnorth and Ross & Archenfield have joined Ledbury in meeting the cost of ministry in their Deanery. 4.12 The budget showed small increases on money (investments), expenditure will be significantly lower; partly funded by cuts to clergy housing, increased vacancies and savings in budgets. 4.13 There has been a change to the budget since it was published to reflect the 3,000 each given to Churches Together in Hereford and Shropshire. 4.14 Even with the positive changes, the deficit is still unsustainable in the long term. 2
4.15 Stephen then shared that we are bucking the national trend on stats for mission. We are growing. If each of the 7,200 adults regularly attending church services gave an additional 1.25 a week, this small amount would wipe out our deficit. 4.16 Stephen received the following questions: 4.17 Richard Nightingale, Ross & Archenfield what should we do with all of the reserves? SH advised that parishes had 9.5m in unrestricted reserves as at end 2016. Not suggesting that money is released if it is needed, but that parishes do need to have in place a reserves policy (this is a Charity Commission requirement) and be mindful of their charitable objectives / provide public benefit. 4.18 Paul Baker, Ross & Archenfield wanted to encourage people to keep in mind that the Diocese had written off all arrears of Parish Share at the start of the Parish Offer scheme; this should encourage PCCs to be as generous as they can. 4.19 Richard Hill Condover Key word is evangelism. He promoted some evangelism courses taking place in the New Year. This would help the church to grow more people who in turn will give more in the future. 4.20 The 2016 Annual Report and Accounts were approved at the July Synod. SH advised that the agenda item to approve the appointment of auditors for the year ended 31 December 2018 was premature, and that this would be done at the July 2018 Synod. 4.21 There are no DBFX elections in 2017 but Synod members were reminded that the following are DBFX members: Revd J Rogers (Chair), Mr C Smith (Vice Chair), Mr C Hunter, Revd L Cronin, Mr Nat Hone, The Ven G P Benson, Rt Revd R M C Frith, Mrs S Lewis, Canon R Lording, Rt Revd A Magowan, Mr A Mence, Mr C J Whitmey, Mrs J Woodroffe 4.22 Action: Synod/DBF members approved the 2018 budget. There were 2 abstentions and none against. 4.23 Action: Synod/DBF members were informed that the vote to approve the appointment of Thorne Widgery Accountancy Ltd as Auditor for the period ending 31 December 2018 would be delayed until July 2018. ITEM 5 Prayer for our Diocese to Proclaim Christ and Grow Disciples 5.1 Brian Chave led the Diocese through a time of Prayer. Specifically the diocese prayed: to resource all that we do; for the intergenerational missioners; for the people that we know who want to find faith. 5.2 Richard Mynors Ross & Archenfield shared a good news story about an all age service conducted at St Weonards ITEM 6 Leominster, Ross and Archenfield, Kington and Weobley Deanery Motion 6.1 Bishop Richard assumed the Chair for this item 6.2 He started by addressing Synod with his expectations for how the vote would be conducted. Bishop Richard indicated that the proposer of the motion would have 7 minutes to speak and that after that there would be a speech limit of 3 minutes. 6.3 Matthew Burns set out the motion as follows: That this Synod request the House of Bishops to commend an Order of Prayer and Dedication after the registration of a civil partnership or a same sex marriage for use by ministers in exercise of their discretion under Canon B4, being a form of service neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter, together with guidance that no parish should be obliged to host, nor minister conduct, such a service. 3
6.4 Matthew felt that procedural matters had held up the motion and noted today is almost 50 years to the date that politicians voted to decriminalise homosexuality. It is also 35 years since Rowan Atkinson acted as are you a gay Christian in Not the nine o clock news. 6.5 This isn t about forcing people to do things that they don t want to do. Matthew highlighted that this motion isn t seeking to change doctrine and that was set out in the paper from the Bishop s Council. Matthew pointed out Bishop Paul of Liverpool said that a LGBTI identity is not a sickness. He set out the importance of how the church is seen in our community and that the C of E recognises that gay and lesbian people should form an important part of the church. He highlighted areas of the diocese where people in civil partnerships play a crucial role towards the life of the diocese. 6.6 He felt we need to look to ways to encourage more people to faith and there was currently a barrier to some being a part of this. Matthew shared a personal story of a couple he couldn t pray with or bless, despite their loving commitment to one another. 6.7 The debate was opened to the floor. Twenty members of Synod contributed to the debate. Those who spoke commented on the wide range of issues raised by the Motion. 6.8 During the debate Bishop Richard indicated that he wished to make a contribution. Rosemary Lording took the Chair. 6.9 Summary of the points made in the debate: The motion does not call for a change to the marriage doctrine of the church. God is Love and all should be welcomed by the church. A detailed description of a Sunday service was given. There were ten people in a service, the celebrant was gay, the organist was gay, the churchwarden was gay and two others were in a civil partnership. The question being addressed is about here and now not for a wave of people in the future. The motion may act as a prompt to move the debate forward. Attention was drawn to the Briefing Paper especially paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2. The speaker indicated an intention to vote against the motion but noted that Hereford Diocese is a small friendly diocese and we are called to serve together and therefore recognised that a vote against risked causing pain to people who are loved and valued. A strong plea was made for caution that we do not get hijacked by political forces. It was suggested that LGBTI groups have a stated aim to challenge the Bishop s and force them into making statements. The speaker thought this line should be resisted. Over time there has been a growing awareness of God and the teaching of the Bible. There is a dynamic relationship between God and human beings and a close relationship with God is key to that relationship. God would not want to bar people because of how he made them. It is good that we have the debate isn t that what we are here to do? To try to move things forward. Comment was made on the debate held in the Ross Deanery Synod this had been a positive debate. This motion does not force anyone to do anything. Reference was made to earlier debates about women Bishops and the anxieties prompted by proposed change. Comment on the Ledbury Deanery Synod debate. The question was raised about what might be lost if the doctrine of marriage is changed. For the speaker marriage allows for the possibility of children and the survival of our species. There was a plea for the motion to be deferred. This is part of a much bigger and wider debate. The point was made that this would lead to the potential of a compulsory requirement to conduct same-sex marriages. In opposing the motion the speaker identified a child s right to have a mother and a father, and the fact that all have sinned and should repent and seek God s forgiveness. 4
5 The motion was strongly challenged as not the right way forward. The Synod was urged to wait for the House of Bishops Teaching Document before moving to make changes to our practice. It was suggested that the General Synod will park the motion and no one will take any notice. The speaker suggested the motion was flawed and effectively unlawful according to the Canons. Reference was made to Para. 4.2 of the briefing paper. The call was made of a longer and theologically informed debate. It is important that we pass this motion to give clergy clear guidance and to protect them under Common Tenure. It was observed that the debate is about doctrine and scripture but also about people and their stories. The speaker shared something of his personal story and valued the affirmation he receives from others. He expressed his belief that God made him and loves him and that in the current debate there is nothing to fear. The Synod has the potential to make a statement about discrimination. A personal statement was given noting how living according to the churches teaching on marriage can feel. The speaker noted that others share this sense of discrimination. In a small village/congregation we should be able to celebrate with all who are willing to serve the church. It was recognised that God is love and loves everything he created, and that all of us are disordered in some way. We must remember that we are talking about people and their lives. Having outlined his understanding of the biblical principles of marriage, the speaker agreed with others that the motion was muddled. The suggestion was made that we need to keep the conversation going. However the motion was criticised for referring to civil partnerships and marriage. Reference was made to the way Jesus reached out to the woman at the well and to those beyond his own community. It was suggested that Jesus would have been as inclusive as possible. In response to speakers who said that we should delay the debate or adjourn, it was observed that we have had six months to prepare and a comprehensive briefing paper. Another contributor criticised the linking of civil partnerships and same-sex marriage and asked the chair for permission to move an adjournment. The Chair indicated that he would like to conclude the debate and would then return to the motion for adjournment. The speaker hoped that we would continue the journey together and avoid splits. There is always the risk of a breakdown of relationships the decision of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion was given as an example. We need to be more risky in the ways we show pastoral love to, and continue the conversation with, people with whom we disagreed. The speaker went on to regret that this is a muddled motion. Synod was urged to trust the General Synod and the Liturgical Committee to draft an appropriate liturgy. It was noted that the range of Eucharistic prayers are designed to reflect the wide range of theological understandings of the Eucharist within the Church of England. 6.10 Matthew Burns responded to the debate. We are not here to decide on the doctrine of marriage. We are not talking about sex, we are talking about a public showing of something that has already happened. We haven t been hijacked by the LGBTI community. We are talking about faithful, committed, monogamous relationships, guided by a belief in Christ. 6.11 Christopher Whitmey Hereford, moved a procedural motion to adjourn. Seconded by Clive Evans. Matthew Burns resisted the proposal. The procedural motion did not reach the required majority.
6.12 Charles Hunter Abbeydore, requested a secret ballot. This was seconded. Matthew Burns indicated that he did not wish to comment. The request did not have the required support of the members of Synod. Therefore the vote on the motion went forward with a show of hands. 6.13 Synod voted with 41 in favour, 18 against, 4 abstained 2055 2100 Item 7 2018 Elections 7.1 Synod noted that Elections for Diocesan Synod/DBF would take place between May and July in 2018. 7.2 In accordance with rules agreed by the Diocesan Synod in October 2002, the formula for determining how many members each deanery may elect to the Diocesan Synod/DBF is:- ITEM 8 AOB Lay: 1 representative per deanery for each 250 on the electoral rolls of parishes in the deanery, rounded up to the next whole number, plus the Lay Co-Chairmen. Clergy: 1 representative for every 2 members of the Deanery House of Clergy, rounded up to the next whole number, including the Rural Dean. 8.1 Simon Tarlton brought notice of a Diocesan Cricket Match on 8th September 2018, with Goodrich Cricket Club 8.2 Sam Pratley highlighted that Thy Kingdom Come in 2018 would take place on 20th May in the afternoon, at the Cathedral. 8.3 Synod received information from Christian Aid and the Marches Environmental Network 8.4 There was no other business ITEM 9 Dates of Future Meetings Meeting Date of Meeting Time Location Notes DBFX Tues 7 Nov 17 1400 Hereford B Council Thurs 16 Nov 17 1900 Hereford DBF/Synod Sat 3 Mar 18 1000 Hereford St Barnabas Church Centre DBF/Synod Thurs 12 July 18 1900 Ludlow DBF/Synod Thurs 11 Oct 18 1900 Ludlow (first after the election) Chairman:......................................... Date:....................... 6
Annex A +Richards address Diocesan Synod 19.10.2017 Diocesan Synod 19/10/17 It used to be said that there were three subjects which should not be mentioned in polite company death, sex and money. So, all we need this evening is for someone to raise a question about funeral fees and we will have a complete set. There are really effectively only two items on tonight s agenda the diocesan budget and the motion on same sex relationships. A Diocesan Synod inevitably has quite a bit about money. I am not going to add more than a few words about that now: just to say that my impression is that there is widespread and growing acknowledgement of the need for a step change in our giving, very much encouraged by the excellent work being done in parishes by Val Smith and Richard Jones, but that has yet to be reflected in significantly increased offers. That is where you, Synod members, come in, playing your part as opinion formers and decision makers in parishes and deaneries. The same sex relationship debate is an important one. Some people have expressed the wish that it would have been better not to have the debate at all as it is an inevitably divisive subject. I disagree with that view. Quite apart from synodical processes which make it common place for motions to come from Deanery Synods to the Diocesan Synod, we have nothing to fear from honest debate on a subject on which it is already known that Christians are deeply divided. However, I do know that some people for a range of reasons are anxious about it. At the last meeting the question was asked as to whether there could be a secret ballot. The answer is that there could be if 75% of those present wish that to happen. So, if during the debate anyone would like to propose such a move, we can test the mind of Synod. It is an important subject, but I must confess that I wish we could somehow generate as much passion about other important subjects, not least our priority of spiritual and numerical growth. Sam tells me that he has had more interest in tonight s motion than in any other subject we have tackled recently. Wouldn t it be great if Synod members were bombarding the Diocesan Office and my office longing for more to be done to ensure the gospel reached unchurched people across the diocese? It would be wonderful if we were wrestling with how to get the right relationship between traditional church and fresh expressions; that would be really positive. We have just updated our diocesan MAP, strategy, and the appointment of the intergenerational missioners is under way. 7
It is human nature to go in for displacement activity, and often in the Church of England we offer master classes in how to enable things that may be important to become so all-consuming as to give an excuse for avoiding other challenges. We are promised by Jesus that if we seek first the Kingdom of God, everything else we need will be given to us. Now I know that our approach to money and indeed our approach to relationships are part of seeking the kingdom of God, but there is a whole lot more as well. I continue to be thankful for many signs of God s kingdom around us. It is in that context that I want to encourage us all to pray for the life of the diocese 8