|
|
|
1. PREAMBLE 1.1 In 1997 General Assembly, in response to the report of the Task Group on Human Sexuality, passed a resolution (1997:18) asking the Mission Council to arrange for further work to be done in four areas which included (b) 'the relationship between the authority of General Assembly and the other Councils of the Church'. 1.2 In October 1997 the Mission Council responded to this request by establishing Working Groups to be responsible for each of the areas mentioned in Resolution 1997:18. 1.3 The Working Group on the Authority of General Assembly and Other Councils (hereafter referred to as the 1999 Group) reported to General Assembly in 1999 as part of the Human Sexuality Report 1999 (hereafter referred to as the 1999 Report). The Working Group made nine recommendations arising from their deliberations (section 3.3 of their report): i) The United Reformed Church needs to clarify whether its recognised colleges have the right (and if so, under what circumstances) to refuse particular recognised United Reformed Church candidates on any ground other than the academic suitability of their courses for the candidate. (3.3.1) ii) The United Reformed Church needs through the appropriate committees (Training and Ministries) to continue its consideration of the r™les of the colleges, the synods, the district/area councils and the local churches in the selection, training, call and ordination of ministers). (3.3.2) iii) The United Reformed Church needs to establish rules for the appointment of Task Groups to deal with matters of a serious and controversial nature. (3.3.3) iv) The United Reformed Church needs to develop a general policy on how to conduct and evaluate surveys of opinion. (3.3.4) v) The United Reformed Church needs to review its conciliar structure with the aim of improving the sense of relevance of one council to another and to enhance reception of decisions by other councils of the church. (3.3.5) vi) The United Reformed Church needs to assess and explore ways of improving training for representatives in the councils of the church. Such training in the areas of the United Reformed Church's understanding of church and polity, consultation, decision-making and implementation, should enrich the life of all its councils. (3.3.6) vii) The United Reformed Church needs further to develop reflection, based on the considerations set out in 3.1.6, concerning a theology and process of what it is right to do when radical disagreement harms the peace and unity of the church. (3.3.7) viii) The United Reformed Church needs to agree a process, such as that suggested above, for dealing with contentious issues. (3.3.8) ix) The United Reformed Church may wish to consider amendments to Standing Orders and the Structure, such as those discussed in paragraphs B2.3.1, B2.3.2 and B3.2.1d. (3.3.9) 1.4 General Assembly 1999 (Resolution 39b) requested the Mission Council to consider the recommendations of the 1999 Group and to report to a future Assembly. 1.5 In October 1999 the Mission Council responded to this request by asking the Nominations Committee to appoint on its behalf a Task Group of seven people with a view to a report being made in 2001, first to Mission Council in March and then to Assembly in July. 1.6 In December 1999 the Nominations Committee made the following appointments: the Revd Ray Adams (Secretary), the Revd Adrian Bulley (Convener), Mrs Margaret Carrick Smith, Mr Eric Chilton, the Revd Jack Dyce, the Revd Pat Nimmo and Mrs Irene Wren. Because of pressure of work, the Revd Pat Nimmo was unable to participate beyond the first two meetings, and subsequently resigned from the Task Group, though the contribution she made to early discussions was much appreciated. 1.7 The Task Group met on 8 occasions during 2000 and 2001. 1.8 Difficulties with gathering the group together during the autumn of 2000, caused by a combination of ill health and rail problems, led the group to request an extension to the original timescale to enable first reporting to Mission Council in October 2001. This request was granted. 1.9 Mission Council considered the report of the Task Group in October 2001. Some changes were made by Mission Council, and the Task Group was asked to produce for the March 2002 meeting of Mission Council a further report which would take the form of a draft of the Mission Council's report to General Assembly. The Task Group met in January 2002 to carry out this work, and their report formed the basis for this report, which comes from Mission Council. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Mission Council affirms the theological principles set out in the 1999 Report (Section 1: Groundwork Ð Authority in the Church: pages 59ff), and quoted below (1.1 and 1.2) as background to the present discussion: 1.1 Doctrine 1.1.1 For all Christians of whatever denomination and living in whatever church polity the source of authority in their individual and corporate lives is God who calls them. The response to this call is a longing to live in loving and willing obedience to God, a response expressed in baptism and in the life of faith in which disciples of Jesus Christ seek to proclaim and serve him, in the Church and in the world. Church life therefore must be rooted in obedience to God and a desire to acknowledge freely a commitment to God and God's authority over us. 1.1.2 Such love of God and longing to be obedient to God lead the Church to proclaim its submission to God's authority; the acceptance of that authority is an integral part of Church life as Christians seek God's forgiveness, worship God in adoration and ask for renewal. How that authority is discerned and expressed, however, is understood in various ways within the universal Church; this leads to great difficulty in the search for unity. 1.1.3 It is fundamental to the life of the United Reformed Church that it 'has been formed in obedience to the call to repent of what has been amiss in the past and to be reconciled. It sees its formation as a part of what God is doing to make his people one, and as a united church will take, wherever possible and with all speed, further steps towards the unity of all God's people' (Basis of Union 8). 'Believing that it is through the freedom of the Spirit that Jesus Christ holds his people in the fellowship of the one Body', the United Reformed Church acknowledges two equal responsibilities, namely to 'uphold the rights of personal conviction' and 'safeguarding the substance of the faith and maintaining the unity of the fellowship' (Basis of Union 10). These responsibilities have always to be kept in balance with one another; in contentious issues (i.e. issues which arouse strife and controversy) they often pull against one another. The first ten paragraphs of the Basis of Union express a strong theology of unity, which has formed the groundwork of United Reformed Church policy, even when there is difficulty and pain in its shared life. 1.1.4 The United Reformed Church 'acknowledges the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments, discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the supreme authority for the faith and conduct of all God's people' (Basis of Union 12). It acknowledges, too, 'its duty to be open at all times to the leading of the Holy Spirit' 'accepts with thanksgiving the witness borne to the catholic faith by the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds' and 'recognises ... its own particular heritage'. It has shown in its reception of both Scripture and tradition an awareness that through them the Church can be called to 'make ... new declarations of its faith' and to have 'its life ... renewed and reformed according to the Scriptures, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit' (Basis of Union 18 and 6). In contentious issues disagreement can arise over the meaning of the Scriptures and over what the Spirit is guiding the Church to do in changing circumstances and in face of new knowledge. 1.1.5 These doctrinal principles led to the creation of a Basis and Structure for the United Reformed Church in 1972 and again in 1981 which seek to be open to fresh developments, responding to disagreement and even to contention by affirming both freedom and responsibility. This has meant that no prior limits have been set to diversity (freedom) while the General Assembly has sought to prescribe rules when, and only when, it has become plain that a common practice is needed in order to safeguard the peace and unity of the United Reformed Church (responsibility). It is inevitable that there are occasions when some in the church plead for freedom while others are seeking a prescriptive ruling. The stress, which this sometimes produces, is to be preferred, in the opinion of this group, to the development of a detailed 'canon law'; we believe that such sustaining of stress affirms the doctrinal principles which are foundational for the United Reformed Church. 1.2 Structure 1.2.1 The United Reformed Church is a conciliar church. Its Basis of Union establishes a balance of oversight between its councils: the Basis gives authority, all the councils of the church participate in the exercise of it, and the General Assembly has as one of its tasks the guardianship of the distributed responsibilities. 1.2.2 The Structure of the United Reformed Church is based on the affirmation that church meeting/elders' meeting, district councils, synods and General Assembly shall each be recognised 'by members of the United Reformed Church as possessing such authority... as shall enable it to exercise its functions and thereby to minister in that sphere of the life of the United Reformed Church with which it is concerned.' (Structure 1.3). This fundamental paragraph of the Structure (embodying what some call the principle of subsidiarity) affirms that wider councils should recognise that more local councils make decisions appropriate to their sphere, while the wider councils exercise an oversight which maintains unity and peace; it is the need for unity and peace that requires a structure that sets limits to local liberty and to conciliar decisions and actions. District council and synod each exercise oversight in their own particular sphere and the General Assembly 'shall embody the unity of the United Reformed Church and act as the central organ of its life and the final authority, under the Word of God and the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, in all matters of doctrine and order and in all other concerns of its common life ...' (Structure 2.5). Local churches, district councils and synods are expected to receive and to apply reports and decisions from the wider councils; they also have access to the wider councils on any matter by reference or by appeal. 1.2.3 It must always be remembered that a free church is a voluntary society; authority can offer precept but can only enforce practice by an ultimate sanction of depriving a person of membership - and even that does not compel the person to follow the precept. 1.2.4 The members of the United Reformed Church are 'publicly admitted to the full privileges and responsibilities of membership of the Church of Jesus Christ and in particular to the membership of the local church' (Basis of Union, Schedule A). They are encouraged both to develop their personal convictions and to learn from one another in the councils of the church. Ideally such learning from one another leads to consensus but where disagreement persists the United Reformed Church recognises that it can be right to move to a decision by majority vote, always in the setting of prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, careful consideration of the witness of the Scriptures and open discussion. 1.2.5 Such is the constitutional understanding of authority within the United Reformed Church, regularly reaffirmed in acts of worship and in particular at ordinations and inductions of ministers of the Word and Sacraments. 3. THE TASK Mission Council was asked to give further consideration to the recommendations contained in the 1999 Report: 3.1 The United Reformed Church needs to clarify whether its recognised colleges have the right (and if so under what circumstances) to refuse particular recognised United Reformed Church candidates on any ground other than the academic suitability of their courses for the candidate (3.3.1) 3.1.1 The United Reformed Church recognises for ministerial training Westminster College, Cambridge, which is under the direct authority of the General Assembly, and other colleges and courses which have a formally independent status. 3.1.2 The United Reformed Church has an agreed procedure for the selection of candidates. Mission Council wishes to affirm the importance of the partnership between the councils of the Church and the recognised colleges and courses throughout the entire process of candidating and ministerial formation, yet believes that decisions about candidates' suitability for ministry should remain within the sole jurisdiction of the councils of the Church. 3.1.3 The United Reformed Church recognises that all colleges and courses may occasionally decline to receive individuals for purely academic reasons when a person appears unlikely to benefit from the learning programme in a particular place. 3.1.4 In exceptional circumstances, a college or approved course may consider that a candidate's beliefs or conduct may cause serious disruption to the life of the learning community. Decisions on such matters of a formational nature (which are broader than solely academic suitability) also rightly fall within the remit of colleges and courses, recognising the importance of close liaison between them, the Training and Ministries Committees and synods at all stages of training. 3.1.5 While Westminster College is the only college under the direct authority of the General Assembly, Mission Council believes that on this issue the Church should not treat it differently from other recognised colleges and courses. It could be argued that because the Assembly has the authority, it could insist that the College takes whomever the church accepts for training, but Westminster College should have the same capability as other colleges to use discretion in exceptional cases as outlined above. 3.2 The United Reformed Church needs, through the appropriate committees (Training and Ministries) to continue its consideration of the roles of the colleges, the synods, the district councils and the local churches in the selection, training, call and ordination of ministers (3.3.2) 3.2.1 Mission Council recognises the importance of the National Assessment process for providing a standard of assessment that is consistent across the whole church. The General Assembly has placed the final decision for the selection of candidates with synods. The Training and Ministries Committees have given an assurance that these matters remain on their agenda and Mission Council believes it to be important that they do so. 3.3 The United Reformed Church needs to establish rules for the appointment of Task Groups to deal with matters of a serious and controversial nature (3.3.3.) 3.3.1 Task groups can be a valuable method of undertaking detailed or complicated work to ease the burden of the agenda of councils of the church or to progress difficult issues. If there are to be rules, they should apply to all cases and not only to those which are deemed to be of a serious and controversial nature at the beginning. The following are offered as guiding principles for the appointment of task groups: i) The remit of the group must be clear and unambiguous. ii) A group cannot enjoy greater authority than the council appointing it and it is answerable to that body alone. iii) If the work of the group involves, or the results are taken forward to, other councils of the church, it is done in the name of the appointing council, under its authority and in the terms it specifies. iv) Its work and reporting should be transparent. 3.3.2 If the General Assembly appoints a task group, that group is responsible to General Assembly and must report to it. This holds even though the Mission Council may well need to clarify the remit and monitor the work of the task group. If the draft report is first considered by Mission Council, it may only be amended by agreement with the task group. It would then be presented as a report which is supported by Mission Council. If there is disagreement, the original report should be presented to General Assembly by the Convener of the group with the amendments proposed separately on behalf of Mission Council. 3.3.3 If a task group is appointed by Mission Council either at the suggestion of General Assembly or under its own initiative, it will be responsible for the work of the task group. 3.3.4 The General Assembly needs to be clear under which category the appointment is made, and to whom a task group will ultimately report. 3.3.5 It is a mistake to assume that task groups appointed by General Assembly are necessarily more representative than those appointed by Mission Council. The Council has more synod representatives present to consider names than the Assembly Nominations Committee, which is the normal mechanism for making General Assembly appointments. 3.4 The United Reformed Church needs to develop a general policy on how to conduct and evaluate surveys of opinion (3.3.4) 3.4.1 Misunderstandings arose over the conduct of and interpretation of the responses to the canvassing of opinion which took place in the period immediately before the 1997 General Assembly. The task group which had been appointed 'to work out a process whereby the United Reformed Church can be enabled to hold an informed debate on the matter of human sexuality and come to a decision on the implications for ministry within the church' had invited the councils of the church to discuss the issues, and had set out certain questions as starting points for those discussions. There was insufficient clarity in the councils where those discussions took place as to whether or not votes should be taken, the form of the response which should be made, and the use to which those responses would be put. Furthermore, when the report was presented to the Assembly, some accorded the analysis of the responses more authority than they deserved, given the differences of interpretation among the respondents and the self-nominating nature of those respondents. If, therefore, a 'survey of opinion' were to be carried out in the future, it would be important that it be done in a more rigorous way, with due regard to proper sampling methods, including caution when respondents effectively self select. 3.4.2 However, the Task Group questioned whether it is appropriate for the United Reformed Church to be undertaking such surveys. If, a survey having been carried out, the Assembly is nevertheless free to make a decision which is perceived to be contrary to the majority view expressed by one or more of the sets of councils canvassed, people could say: 'You asked us what we thought then ignored what we said.' 3.4.3 The conciliar structure of the United Reformed Church is specifically designed to operate in a very different manner. The function of Assembly at 2(5)(A)(ix) of the Structure 'to remit questions concerning the witness and judgement of the church for general discussion in church meetings, elders' meetings, district councils and synods and to call for reports from these councils.' is not about conducting surveys of opinion. It says nothing about counting votes. It does not suggest a referendum. It isn't about asking for all the councils to vote, then adding them up and using the result as the answer. It is about the General Assembly gathering information before reaching a decision. The Assembly will probably have received reports from committees and/or task groups. It remits the questions to the other councils, receives their reports, and then, taking all that into account, together with the debate at the meeting of the Assembly itself, will seek, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to reach a view as to the way forward. 3.4.4 The Task Group considered the possibility of including provision in the Structure for the Assembly to decide, in exceptional cases (perhaps those of great sensitivity, or which it judges could be divisive) to adopt another method whereby all councils are asked to vote, and then the Assembly would be bound by the result. But, if that were deemed to be the correct way to handle such important issues, why wouldn't it be right for all matters? The value of listening to one another and the Holy Spirit in Assembly would seem to have been discarded. Ultimately the church could have a paper ballot and there would be no need for Assembly to meet at all! If this were deemed to be the best way to deal with the important decisions, then why not extend it to the other councils? Some members of the Task Group thought that if we were to provide for a special, different way of handling these exceptional issues, they would be so rare that it would be better to determine in each case the appropriate procedure to use. 3.4.5 In summary, then, the Task Group considered three options: i) The General Assembly having, where it deems it right, remitted questions to other councils of the church and considered the responses, makes decisions following debate. (See paragraph 3.4.3 above.) ii) The General Assembly carries out a proper, statistically valid survey to determine the views of other councils, and then, having considered the results, makes decisions following debate. (See paragraph 3.4.2 above.) iii) The General Assembly may decide, in exceptional circumstances, to conduct a survey of opinion within the other councils or to hold a referendum of all members (again in a statistically valid way) and then to take the result as binding. (See paragraph 3.4.4 above.) 3.4.6 In the end both the Task Group and Mission Council were persuaded that the means provided for in Function (ix) was by far the best option (Option i): the Assembly listens to the views of the other councils, encourages wide discussion, and then reaches an informed and inspired decision. What is needed is education and communication so that all understand the process, including what will be done with the reports of the discussions in the various councils when they are returned to the Assembly. The views expressed in response to the remitting of questions under Function (ix) need to be seen as of great value, and as a vital element which enables the Assembly to make its decisions properly. To attempt to devise a 'hybrid' which seeks to combine a survey of opinion with the ultimate responsibility of the General Assembly to act only causes confusion, and can lead to resentment. 3.5 The United Reformed Church needs to review its conciliar structure with the aim of improving the sense of relevance of one council to another and to enhance reception of decisions by other councils of the church (3.3.5) 3.5.1 Reflecting on a wide range of experience of councils and committees working within the United Reformed Church, the Task Group was divided between those who believe present structures can be made to work, and those who feel that it is time for radical restructuring. 3.5.2 In support of the first view, though people may be frustrated with slow and cumbersome church structures, and can feel that they are irrelevant and their decisions unacceptable, nevertheless there is sufficient flexibility within the present structures to enable them to work. Structures work best when people take responsibility for them, take initiatives and act creatively to make them function better. There is no perfect structure, only the attitude and competence of those who operate within it. The history of the wider Church also shows that no structure copes with individuals who fundamentally disagree with the majority. However, it is important to affirm that the pain of the struggle for justice and truth must be borne. The United Reformed Church feels this most keenly, existing as it does to encourage the unity of the whole Church, in order to bear witness to the one God. 3.5.3 The alternative view is that the existing arrangements do not work well for many reasons. Of significance would appear to be the changing pattern of life in society with its different perceptions of authority and decision making; its impatience with bureaucracy or delay; its scepticism of government and remote management. This has heightened the critical awareness of church members who are influenced by these trends and generally do not understand the conciliar structure or its relevance to local mission. Additionally, membership of the wider councils tends to come from a generation when society was different and it is difficult to see how this will change quickly to be more truly representative because of the pressures on younger generations with family and work commitments. They would also need to be persuaded that it was an effective use of their time. It would be preferable to make the functions and workings of the conciliar structure more relevant to the present church. 3.5.4 The Task Group considered the implications of these two views as set out in 3.5A and 3.5B below: 3.5A Areas for improvement within existing structures 3.5A.i) Greater clarity and effectiveness Work needs to be done by those responsible for the agenda of General Assembly, synods, district/area councils, church meetings and elders' meetings to ensure that people understand the relevance of their meeting for the ministry and mission of the whole church. Consideration needs to be given to how representatives of local churches may be helped to understand the importance and r™le of the council on which they serve. Meetings should be organised in such a way that a balance is created between work delegated to committees and sub-groups, and issues in which representatives may share in real decision-making, rather than function as a rubber-stamp. Representatives should be helped to communicate to the council which they are representing, and be encouraged also to share local concerns with the wider councils of the church. Greater use could be made of the United Reformed Church website and Reform to get information directly from councils to individuals within local churches, and to equip representatives in their task of reporting back to those who appointed them. District/area councils could ensure, for example, that their representatives to General Assembly are allocated a certain number of churches to which to report on their return. This emphasizes that being a representative is a two-way task. The Group notes how the contribution of FURY representatives to General Assembly is made effective by preparation together beforehand. Other representatives could learn from their good practice. 3.5A.ii) Shared good practice From members' own experience, and from what has been written in recent Reports to Assembly (including several references in the reports from Moderators of Synod in 1997 and 1999) and other documents, the Group is aware that much is being done in the church to help to make the present Structure work more effectively. Training material is produced for those who are charged with being representatives to district/area council, synod and General Assembly. Imaginative ways of conducting meetings are being tried so that all present feel involved and able to contribute. Help is being given to those who are responsible for reporting back to the sending council on the business of a meeting. In some places innovative ways are being explored of using the flexibility which is already there in the Structure to change significantly the way district/area councils and synods operate. Some of this thinking has been stimulated by the recent work of Tony Burnham, former General Secretary, and further exciting ideas are already emerging. The Group suggests that each synod be asked to enquire of each of its district/area councils what good practice is being used and developed, and then to share this within that synod and with all other synods. It is envisaged that this exercise could be undertaken by means of the normal contact between officers (district/area secretaries' and synod clerks' meetings) and should therefore not place an untoward burden on already busy people. The rewards to be gained from sharing good practice and innovation could be great. Of course the Group acknowledges that what works in one place may be inappropriate for universal application. Nevertheless good ideas are always worth considering. 3.5A.iii) Transparency and precision In order to ensure good practice and greater confidence in our conciliar structure, care should be taken to ensure that councils do not exceed the limits of the authority given to them. Mission Council has a pivotal r™le shaping the agenda of General Assembly through monitoring the resolutions of Assembly committees, and taking necessary decisions between meetings of the Assembly. However, it is central to the life of the United Reformed Church to recognise that the final authority rests with General Assembly 'under the word of God and the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, in all matters of doctrine and order and in all other concerns of its common life' (Structure 2.(5)). When exercising that authority, and in the light of past experience, particular care must be taken when policy is being created or clarified. 3.5A.iv) Mutual Accountability and Support The church has a duty of care and support for those who are entrusted with authority within its councils. Some synods have carried out pastoral consultations with district/area councils to ensure they fulfil their functions as set out in the Structure and to offer support and encouragement. Such practice could be extended within the life of the church. District/areas might consider how they could report regularly to local churches on their work and vision, and invite feedback. Appropriate accompanied self-appraisal for synod and district/area officers could help identify areas where help can be offered, and good practice encouraged. 3.5A.v) Understanding the nature of the United Reformed Church The United Reformed Church lives with the creative tension between clarity of order and a commitment to be a church on a journey. As already established, any particular process of relating and working together must be under the authority of the Word of God, discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That discernment is for the building up of the church in its obedience and effectiveness in participating in the mission of God. We need to renew our understanding of the church as a theocratic rather than democratic organisation. Our conciliar system requires a mutuality of trust, support and empowerment, so that the church in all its gatherings may be life enhancing and life giving. 3.5B Suggestions and reasons for a more radical approach 3.5B.i) The local situation The present structure was set up in 1972 when our church was very different. Since then the membership of the church has declined by half and the number of stipendiary ministers has reduced by a third. However, the number of churches has only decreased by a sixth which has had a considerable effect on the pattern of ministry. There has been a marked decline in single church pastorates which historically had been the prominent feature. The foreseeable trend is towards a greater number of groups, clusters and local ecumenical partnerships (LEP). This is already placing added strain on our existing structures with additional meetings. As a result the authority of the local church is changing. This alternative view suggests that a more appropriate designation of the local situation is the pastorate, emphasising the people rather than the buildings. This should encourage the unity of its ministry and mission, help create clearer leadership and focus the need for team working and co-operation by the elders and amongst the members of all the constituent churches. Whilst the authority of the individual church may still need to be recognised on specific issues, this should be seen within the mission of the whole pastorate. Thus the concept of group pastorate councils, complementing the single church pastorate model, should be evolved further so that combined elders' and church meetings or their equivalent in LEP's are normal, with individual church meetings being held exceptionally. Mission Council draws attention to the report on the Grouping of Churches which was sent to all district/area councils in May 2001. 3.5B.ii) Synods and districts/areas The Structure of the United Reformed Church clearly delineates the functions of synods and district/area councils. In our increasingly diverse practice, however, there may be need for more interchangeability of these functions. The working practices in synods and district/areas vary considerably and there could be much to be learnt from this. Some synods and district/areas appear to function much better than others perhaps solely because of the resources available to them at the time. Where district/areas are deficient, especially where geography and the small number of churches make it difficult for them to fulfil their role adequately, some synods attempt to make good. Some question the need for both the synod and district/area council and would like to get rid of one or the other. It is not easy, without considerable research, to see how either option could be effected, particularly in the cases of the two national synods. Synods may be too remote from the local pastorate adequately to fulfil some functions, e.g. the oversight of all ministers and the care for all the churches. Equally district/areas might find it difficult with busy agendas to take on additional functions. Perhaps the r™les of synod and district/areas ought to be seen as essentially complementary and a single entity. The alternative view suggests, therefore, that the r™les of the synod and district/area council should be examined rigorously to identify the scope for rationalising their functions, avoiding duplication and streamlining their operations to reduce the burden of meetings and to improve decision making. Such an examination is taking place in Mersey and Yorkshire synods. 3.5B.iii) Conclusion All organisations, including the church, need to change because of moving trends in society. After almost 30 years of the United Reformed Church there are already a number of inconsistencies in practice and difficulties in operating the full structure in certain situations. This diversity is likely to increase. It is considered that the conciliar structure of the United Reformed Church should be thoroughly reviewed to improve its effectiveness and to help in the recognition of the authority of the various councils of the church. 3.5.5 Mission Council accepts the suggestions made in 3.5A, but considers that consideration of the radical review proposed in 3.5B should await the report of the Task Group on Personal and Conciliar Leadership. This Task Group was set up by Mission Council in January 2000 with the following remit: i) to examine from the perspective of our Reformed theology and ecclesiology, and with a concern for mission, the proper relationship between personal and conciliar leadership and authority, with special reference to the work of synod moderators; ii) to draw on previous URC reports, the experience of partner churches and existing ecumenical reports that relate to the subject; and iii) to report to Mission Council in March 2002 the result of the examination and any proposals that come from it. The Task Group is expected to report to Mission Council prior to General Assembly 2003. 3.6 The United Reformed Church needs to assess and explore ways of improving training for representatives in the councils of the church. Such training in the areas of the United Reformed Church's understanding of church and polity, consultation, decision making and implementation, should enrich the life of all its councils (3.3.6) 3.6.1 Mission Council concurs with the view that more opportunities for training would create a better-informed church, but recognises that training itself will not prevent conflict and pain when matters of profound disagreement divide the church. 3.6.2 Mission Council is aware of several documents prepared by district/area councils and synods to help new representatives understand their r™le and the nature of the council on which they have been appointed to serve. General Assembly may wish to ask Training Committee to consider the value of such materials as a training aid for representatives on every council of the United Reformed Church, and instigate a review of these with a view to producing training materials that could be used throughout the church. 3.7 The United Reformed Church needs further to develop reflection, based on the considerations set out in 3.1.6, concerning a theology and process of what is right to do when a radical disagreement harms the peace and unity of the church (3.3.7) 3.7.1 The 1999 Report (section 3.1.6 c, page 68) took the view that 'the questions surrounding separation between majority and minority (or equal) groups of local churches are distinct from those of secession by a particular local church and we recommend that these questions be discussed by the Mission Council as a theological/constitutional matter apart from the particular issues of the human sexuality debate.' 3.7.2 Mission Council reaffirms the theological principles quoted at section 2.1, in particular paragraph 8 of the Basis of Union: 'The United Reformed Church has been formed in obedience to the call to repent of what has been amiss in the past and to be reconciled. It sees its formation and growth as a part of what God is doing to make his people one, and as a united church will take, wherever possible and with all speed, further steps towards the unity of all God's people.'. The church which values unity with other churches so highly must seek as a fundamental principle to affirm and strengthen unity within the fellowship. 3.7.3 Mission Council recognises that unity is a gift of grace which needs to find expression in the continuing life of God's people. This will involve at times bearing the pain of division and conflict, but there is also a creative value in 'difference'. Experience has shown that where individuals who hold directly opposing views engage in dialogue in mutual love and respect they can reach a place of understanding where disagreement can be faced together with integrity. 3.7.4 Mission Council concludes that, while the church should continue at all levels to reflect on the meaning of our unity, it does not think it appropriate to develop a policy dealing with potential schism at the present time. 3.8 The United Reformed Church needs to agree a process, such as that suggested above (para 3.2.1), for dealing with contentious issues (3.3.8) 3.8.1 The procedure suggested by the 1999 Group entailed a five stage process: i) Pre-conciliar discernment Committees of the United Reformed Church and the officers of the General Assembly and Mission Council need to identify those potentially contentious issues that are likely to arise in the near future. ii) Pre-conciliar consultation An initial paper exploring the issue and underlying matters is prepared in consultation with councils of the church, ecumenical bodies and other relevant agencies/groups. iii) First General Assembly meeting The issue is identified and the initial paper discussed, revised (if necessary) and accepted as a consultative view to be offered in the name of the church. iv) Second General Assembly meeting (not necessarily in the year following iii) above) When responses from the other councils are received they must be seen to be taken on board in framing resolutions to be brought to Assembly. Synods which have expressed strong views should have the opportunity to put those views to Assembly. Some issues may be finalised at this stage. Issues regarded by Mission Council as divisive or contentious should be dealt with under the constitutional amendment provision [Structure 3.(1)]. v) Third General Assembly (normally in the year following iv) above): The resolutions return to Assembly for ratification or for further amendment [amendment would involve a further year of consultation under Structure 3.(1)]. 3.8.2 The 1999 Group, working in the ferment of the aftermath of the passing by the Assembly of Resolution 19 of 1997, felt it appropriate to recommend that a special procedure be created to deal with 'contentious issues'. In the calmer atmosphere provided by the distance of time, Mission Council considers that the adoption of such a prescriptive mechanism would not be helpful for the following reasons: i) Initially, it could be difficult to be sure that it was right to identify an issue as contentious. Of course, certain matters might be readily discerned to be such, but there might be other areas where controversy arose after a process of debate on an apparently non-contentious issue was under way. Alternatively, a matter might be thought at first to be potentially difficult, only to reveal itself subsequently to be easily resolved. ii) If a special procedure existed for contentious issues, there would be the danger that attempts might be made to initiate that simply as a way to delay resolution of a debate. It would be frustrating for the Assembly if trivial calls were made to invoke the special procedure. iii) Such a prescriptive procedure could not be generally applicable. For example, it is possible that an issue might be contentious, but also urgent, which would mean that a three or four year process would be unhelpful. iv) With respect to the 1999 Group, who rightly wished to help the church to learn from mistakes made during the long period of the debate on human sexuality, Mission Council considers that because of the polarity of views strongly held within the church on this issue (as in most other main-stream churches) the use of a process such as that described in the 1999 Report would not have prevented the painful division caused by the specific issue of the debate on human sexuality. 3.8.3 However, there are lessons to be learnt: One of the functions of the General Assembly (2(5)(A)(ix)) is: to remit questions concerning the witness and judgement of the church for general discussion in church meetings, elders' meetings, district councils and synods, and to call for reports from these councils. If the Assembly sees the need to remit a matter to other councils, there must be clear agreement about the process and the timescale, both of which might vary between issues. When reports are called for it is important that all concerned are clear about the form they should take, and how they will be interpreted and assessed. It should not be the intention of such a discussion and reporting stage to close down debate, but rather to open it up. The exercise of this function is to enable the Assembly to gather information to help it to come to a decision; the reports themselves are not binding on the Assembly. (See also the commentary in section 3.4 above.) 3.9 The United Reformed Church may wish to consider amendments to Standing Orders and the Structure, such as those discussed in paragraphs B2.3.1, B2.3.2 and B3.2.1d (3.3.9) 3.9.1 This recommendation refers to three paragraphs in the 1999 Report: 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 3.2.1.d. 3.9.2 Paragraph 2.3.1 This paragraph suggests three possible changes to the Standing Orders of the General Assembly to provide for (a) going into a committee of the whole Assembly, (b) alternative motions which could be voted on as an act of choice between the alternatives, and (c) a means of seeking a vote to discover whether the General Assembly concurs with the Moderator's judgement on a point of order. a) This would be a useful provision for those occasions when a document is attached to a resolution. At present only the resolution can be amended, which means that the presented document must be accepted in total, as it stands, or rejected. It has been useful, for example when considering a proposed revision to Schedule C to the Basis, for the Assembly to have the flexibility of working on the document in committee. If the Assembly were to work in this way certain practical arrangements would need to be made (e.g. sufficient time must be allowed and consideration might be given to asking someone other than the Moderator to chair the debate in committee). Therefore, it would be advisable to require 21 days' notice to be given of the intention to move that the Assembly go into committee. Any document which might need to be considered in this way would be included in the Book of Reports which is sent to members of Assembly well in advance of the meeting, so the requirement for notice should not present difficulties. At present if a document is to be debated in this flexible manner it requires that the Standing Orders be suspended. A motion to achieve this must be supported by three quarters of members in order to be passed. It would be excessive to require such a level of support for a motion that the Assembly should go into committee. It is, however, of sufficient significance to require a two thirds majority. Mission Council brings a resolution to effect this change. b) It could be helpful to the Assembly to be able to consider alternative motions together. The introduction of alternative motions would not change the rules about amendments. This would mean that if a member wished to move that one of the motions before the Assembly be amended, that amendment should be debated and decided before any further debate could be allowed on any other amendment or on any of the other alternative motions. It might be that when a motion is before the Assembly an amendment is moved which would be better taken in the form of an alternative motion. The Moderator should be able to rule that this be done. Resolutions would be moved in the normal way, but with an indication that the new resolution represented an alternative to a resolution already before the Assembly. The proposer and seconder of each of the alternatives would speak, then debate would take place on all the resolutions together. If an amendment was proposed to one of the alternative motions, then the debate and decision on that amendment would be completed before any further debate or amendment could be heard. Once the debate was over, the proposers would reply in reverse order to that in which they originally spoke. Votes in favour of each of the motions would be taken. Members of Assembly would vote only for their preferred option. The votes would need to be counted, and the result announced only after all the votes had been taken. If one motion achieved an absolute majority, then it would become the only motion before the Assembly. If not, the motion receiving the fewest votes would be eliminated. The same voting procedure would be repeated until one motion achieves an absolute majority. The Assembly would then be invited to vote for and against that motion in the normal way. Mission Council brings a resolution which would effect this change. This provision would be a new experience for the Assembly, and some might be apprehensive about how it would work. It would be quite reasonable to review the practice in the light of experience, and remove the provision from Standing Orders after a few years if it was found to be unhelpful. c) Mission Council, while understanding the concerns expressed by the 1999 Group, considers that it would be inadvisable to allow the Assembly to question the Moderator's judgement. Far from being a protection for the Moderator, as the 1999 Group suggested, Mission Council considers that a decision to overrule the Moderator could drastically undermine his/her position. In order for the Assembly to function it is necessary that the Moderator enjoys the confidence of its members. While unwise judgements might occasionally be made, the Moderator, advised by the Clerk and the General Secretary, must be trusted to guide the Assembly. Accordingly, no proposals for change are presented. 3.9.3 Paragraph 2.3.2 This paragraph asked for further consideration of the relation between interpretation of the United Reformed Church's constitution and alteration of it. Mission Council agrees that there needs to be a clear distinction, understood by all concerned, between change (under Function 2(5)(xi)) and interpretation (under Function 2(5)(x)). Given that clear distinction, the Assembly might wish to take the view that certain interpretation(s) should be taken under a process similar to paragraph 3.(1) of the Structure. However, there is no need for a change to the Standing Orders or the Structure to achieve this. It is at present open for a member of Assembly to move that the Assembly, under its function 2(5)(A)(ix), remit a question for wider discussion and report. Alternatively a motion might be brought under Standing Order 5c that decision be deferred to the next Assembly. Under the same Standing Order, at the discretion of the Moderator, the motion might be referred for consideration by other councils and/or committees. Further, it is also open for a member to move that a resolution be considered in a specified way which may be similar to the process set out in paragraph 3.(1). (Resolution 35 of 1999 was of this type.) Any of these routes could be used to test interpretations under Function 2(5)(A)(x). If a member of Assembly believes that a motion before the Assembly represents a change under Function 2(5)(xi), then s/he could raise a point of order to the effect that it should be dealt with under the provisions of paragraph 3.(1). No proposals for change are presented. 3.9.4 Paragraph 3.2.1.d Most of the suggestions contained in this paragraph have been commented upon above, but the final part of 3.2.1.d raises a different point. It reads: 'A process calling for positive acceptance of a resolution by a council, rather than the present system allowing a motion that the proposal be not proceeded with, might encourage and promote reception of the decision, though the present system, where a negative vote of more that one third of the relevant councils is needed to halt a proposal, protects the rights of significant minorities without being unduly weighted in a conservative direction.' Paragraph 3.(1) of the Structure which sets out the way in which constitutional amendments under the function of General Assembly 2(5)(xi) are to be made provides, in sub-paragraph (e), for the 'blocking' of a proposed change if more than one third of the councils consulted vote that it shall not be proceeded with. This provision is there, as the 1999 Group commented, to protect the rights of significant minorities without being unduly weighted in a conservative direction. It is worth reflecting here on what happened when the Assembly invited the councils of the church to consider the proposed Statement on Human Sexuality by means of Resolution 35 of 1999. Prompted by the suggestions incorporated in the 1999 Report as to how sensitive issues might be handled in future the Assembly decided to use (in a modified form) the mechanism from Paragraph 3.(1) of the Structure. It was made clear at the time that this did not imply that a constitutional change was involved. In the event, there was considerable misunderstanding throughout the church about the process, with many voices complaining that negative votes, not positive ones, were being counted. In places the General Assembly was ridiculed because people did not understand what was being done or why. In the light of this, two differing views could be taken: i) the 'negative' approach, while appropriate in the context of proposed constitutional changes, is inappropriate for use when sensitive statements are being assessed. ii) in cases where a sensitive matter is to be decided, even though there is no constitutional change proposed, the 'negative' approach should be used in order to protect the minority, without making the barrier to a decision so high that it can rarely be jumped. The latter approach would suggest that should a similar situation arise in the future the 'negative' model might be used again, but with much better communication as to what it means. Mission Council, in line with its belief expressed above that a flexible approach needs to be taken whereby the appropriate process is determined individually for any major, sensitive matters, would not seek to prescribe whether negative or positive responses should be sought. No proposals for change are presented. 4. GENERAL COMMENTS 4.1 This report is confined to commenting on the specific recommendations of the 1999 Group. 4.2 Mission Council wishes to pay tribute to the work of the 1999 Group, whose report merits further careful reading. Where Mission Council has concluded that the 1999 Group's proposals should not be implemented, it is not a criticism of their work, but reflects the fact that Mission Council considered the matter at a different time, and with more information to hand than was available to the 1999 Group (e.g. the reports of the other 1997 Resolution 18 groups). 4.3 Where strong beliefs and opposing views are held, as was the case in the debate in the United Reformed Church on human sexuality, no structure or process will be able to prevent pain. 4.4 It is most important that any decision-making process is understood and accepted by all before it begins. There may be those who remain troubled and dissatisfied by the ultimate decision, but if there is contention over technicalities it is worse. |
|