Mission Council
The purpose of the Mission Council is to enable the Church, in
its General Assembly, to take a more comprehensive view of the activity and
policy of the Church, to decide more carefully about priorities and to encourage
the outreach of the Church to the community. Its service is directly towards the
Assembly, but its concern is with the whole Church and all its members, so it
will seek to be aware of the pains and joys, the adventures and hopes of the
whole body.
Members: The officers of the General
Assembly, the past Moderator, the Moderator-elect, the Legal Adviser, the
conveners of the Assembly standing committees (except the Pastoral Reference
Committee), the synod moderators, two representatives of FURY Council, and three
representatives from each synod.
The representatives of synods in March 2004 were:
Northern Synod: Revd John Durell, Revd Colin Offor, Mrs Susan Rand
North
Western Synod: Revd Chris Vermeulen, Mr George Morton, Mrs Janet Eccles
Mersey
Synod: Revd Martin Hardy, Revd John Kingsley, Mr Donald Swift
Yorkshire
Synod: Revd Pauline Loosemore, Mr Roderick Garthwaite, Mrs Val Morrison
East
Midlands Synod: Mrs Ann Ball, Mrs Barbara Turner, Revd David M Miller
West
Midlands Synod: Mrs Melanie Frew, Revd Simon Helme, Mr Simon Rowntree
Eastern
Synod: Revd Victor Ridgewell, Mr Mick Barnes, Mrs Joan Turner
South
Western Synod: Revd Roz Harrison, Revd Paul Snell, Miss Angela Bebbington
Wessex
Synod: Revd David Bedford, Mrs Glennis Massey, Revd Clive Sutcliffe
Thames
North Synod: Mrs Helen Clapp, Revd Dr Roger Scopes, Revd Jane Wade
Southern
Synod: Mrs Marion Bayley, Revd Lesley Charlton, Mr David Howell
National
Synod of Wales: Mrs Janet Gray, Mr Stuart Jones, Revd David Marshall-Jones
National
Synod of Scotland: Mrs Helen M Mee, Miss Catriona Smith
1. Our meetings
1.1 During the year Mission Council has met residentially at Ushaw
College, Durham; The Hayes, Conference Centre at Swanwick; and for a one-day
meeting at the Arthur Rank Centre, Stoneleigh.
1.2 The Moderator has guided Mission Council to reflect on the biblical
themes of freedom and hope, set in the context of worship led by the Moderator’s
chaplain, the Revd Carolyn Smith.
1.3 Theological reflection at the October meeting was offered by the
Revd Dr Des van der Water (General Secretary of the Council for World Mission);
and at the March meeting by the Revd Dr John Campbell, minister of South Aston
United Reformed Church, Birmingham. Both theological reflectors reminded Mission
Council of its primary task of discerning priorities for the whole Church, and
focussing resources on those priorities.
1.4 Three headline themes emerge from the work of Mission Council:
vision and review (3.1; 3.2); safeguarding (3.4; 3.5; 3.6); and the increasing
recognition of being a multi-cultural church in a multi-cultural society (2.1;
2,2; 3.7)
2. Actions on behalf of General Assembly
2.1 In anticipation of local and European elections, Mission Council
passed a resolution, on behalf of General Assembly, which noted with concern the
rise in many European countries of extreme right-wing and racist political
parties. The resolution stated that
2.1.1 ‘While we accept that such parties are entitled to operate within
the democratic process we believe it is vital that they do not become accepted
as part of normal political life. Within Britain we affirm that membership or
any form of support for organisations such as the British National Party is
incompatible with Christian discipleship.
2.1.2 As a Church we celebrate our increasing number of multi-ethnic
congregations. In advance of the forthcoming local and European elections we
call upon all local churches to continue to practise and promote racial justice
and inclusion.
2.1.3 We call upon local churches to encourage
voting during the local and European election in the light of these principles’.
2.2
Mission Council also agreed, on behalf of General Assembly, that the Moderator
sign a Joint statement (prepared by Churches Together in Britain and Ireland) by
Community Leaders of Faith Communities urging HM Government to legislate against
incitement to religious hatred.
2.3 Assembly-appointed ministries
2.3.1 Mission Council,
acting on behalf of General Assembly, re-appointed the Revd Arnold Harrison to
serve as Moderator of the Yorkshire Synod from 1 September 2004 until 29
February 2008.
2.3.2 On General Assembly’s behalf, Mission
Council re-appointed the Revd Dr Janet Tollington to the Glendyne Chair of Old
Testament Studies at Westminster College, Cambridge, for a further period of
seven years, from 1 September 2004 until 31 August 2011.
2.4 Assembly-appointed staff posts
2.4.1 Mission Council, acting on behalf of General Assembly, appointed
Mr John Brown as Secretary for Youth Work for a period of five years from 1
January 2004 until 31 December 2008.
2.4.2 Mission Council agreed that the post of CRCW Development worker be
renewed for two years.
2.4.3 In view of the impending retirement of Mr Hilary Gunn on 31 August
2004, a group was appointed to the review the post of Office and Personnel
Manager at Church House. Mission Council, acting on behalf of General Assembly,
consequently agreed to redesignate the post as that of Human Resources and
Facilities Manager; and to make an appointment.
3. Other Actions
3.1 The review requested by Mission Council in 2002 of the United
Reformed Church’s programmes and priorities has resulted in the process ‘Catch
the Vision for God’s tomorrow’. Its steering group reported to Mission Council
regularly during the year. The Group’s major piece of work has been the
production of a Vision Statement, which was discussed in Church Meetings during
January and February 2004. A major meeting between the Group and synod
‘listeners’ took place at the end of March, and the responses from local
churches were collated by the end of April. That meant that the Group was unable
to meet the deadline for the production of the Assembly Reports. However a
report, with proposals for the next stage of the review, will be brought
directly to General Assembly in July.
3.2 In view of the
thoroughgoing nature of the review process, Mission Council asked the Staffing
Advisory Group to undertake a review of all staff posts at Church House, with
the aim of presenting a report to Mission Council in October 2005. It was
expected that any redesignation of posts should be agreed by 2007. Staff
members, whose posts would normally be reviewed before that time (and provided
that the relevant committees are willing), should be offered a contract
extension until July 2007.
3.3 Personal and Conciliar Leadership and Authority in the United Reformed
Church
3.3.1 A task group convened by the Revd Rachel Poolman produced a report
which was discussed by Mission Council at several meetings. As a result, the
Council asked various Assembly committees to attend to issues which were raised:
the Doctrine Prayer and Worship committee was asked to give further
consideration to the section on the nature of the Church. It is anticipated that
the final document will be a valuable resource for those in conversations with
ecumenical partners. Ministries and Training Committees were asked to create a
development policy for Ministers and Church Related Community Workers, which
would include arrangements for continuing ministerial education and appraisal;
and the Section O Advisory Group was requested to produce a middle range
disciplinary procedure that matches the present grievance procedure.
3.3.2 The report asked (and Mission Council agreed) that all councils
and meetings of the United Reformed Church should examine their nominations
procedures to ensure that the breadth of the Church’s membership is
appropriately reflected, as far as possible.
3.3.3 That part of
the report which considered the role of synod moderators within a conciliar
understanding of the Church, led Mission Council to agree a revised procedure
for introducing ministers to pastorates (which is printed in full in Appendix
1).
3.4 Time for Action: sexual abuse, the Churches and a new dawn for
survivors: A working group was established to give initial consideration to this
report published by Churches Together in Britain and Ireland; and brought
initial suggestions to Mission Council about the United Reformed Church’s
response and action. The Life and Witness Committee was asked to convene a
meeting of relevant groups, committees and individuals to help Mission Council
develop a safe practice policy for the United Reformed Church. Further proposals
will be brought to Mission Council in time for the 2005 General Assembly.
3.5
Good Practice (version 3): Mission Council agreed that a copy of ‘Good
Practice-3’ should be sent to all local churches and Mission projects.
3.6
Mission Council also appointed a Criminal Records Bureau (Churches Agency for
Safeguarding) Reference Group to advise on child protection issues, to maintain
an overview of the policy offered to local churches regarding Criminal Records
Bureau disclosures, and to help synods when they support local churches respond
to child protection concerns as they implement Good Practice.
3.7 Proposed Change of name of Racial Justice Committee (Resolution 8)
3.7.1 The changing scene in which we live as the United Reformed Church
requires us to make sure that our structures keep up to date with new
developments and are able to respond to new opportunities for mission.
3.7.2 The Racial Justice Committee has a developmental role, not least
in relationships between the United Reformed Church and new migrant
congregations. Historically, links with the Ghanaian chaplaincies and
congregations have been sustained through the Ecumenical Committee, as have
connections to Christian groups from Pakistan. The International Exchange
Sub-Committee is currently responsible for overseeing a chaplaincy to Taiwanese
students and others in the UK jointly sponsored by the Presbyterian Church in
Taiwan, the United Reformed Church and the Council for World Mission.
3.7.3 The Racial Justice Committee increasingly describes its work as
multicultural ministry, and now wishes to include that term in its title. As new
migrant congregations seek membership of the United Reformed Church, there needs
to be a co-ordinated approach as committees (through their secretaries) work
with congregations, district councils, synod moderators, and others to help
congregations from non-United Reformed Church backgrounds relate to the Church,
and to help the structures and people of the United Reformed Church be more
welcoming and aware in an increasingly multi-cultural context.
3.7.4 Although the proposals before Assembly may be regarded as
‘housekeeping’, they are steps towards change, enabling new opportunities for
mission while at the same time maintaining an overview and ensuring
accountability to the wider structures of the Church.
3.8 Mission Council set the basic ministerial stipend for 2004 at
£18,576.
3.9 Mission Council notes the impending retirement of
Mr Hilary Gunn as Office and Personnel Manager at Church House, whose work has
included responsibility for the practical arrangements of running General
Assembly. The Council expresses its thanks and offers its best wishes for the
future. Mission Council also thanks Mrs Barbara Hedgecock for her term of
service as minutes secretary. She is to be succeeded by the Revd Ken Forbes.
4. Reports of Advisory Groups to Mission Council
4.1 Resource Sharing Task Group: When the Resource Sharing Task Group
last reported to the General Assembly in 2001, it was to convey the good news
that all the synods had agreed to share 10% of their investment income in the
year 2001. Concern had been expressed in the previous year’s report (in 2000 –
p.28) about the wide variation in manse accommodation standards and, largely
through the meetings of the Synod Property, Legal, Administrative and Trust
Officers, progress has been made towards the introduction of manse policies in
the synods that aim to ensure that ministers of word and sacrament do not
experience different standards of accommodation depending on the synod within
whose ambit they serve. Last year’s General Assembly resolution (no. 24) to
adopt manse guidelines greatly assists this objective.
4.1.2 The General Assembly in 2002 resolved, without dissent, to ask the
Resource Sharing Task Group to initiate a consultation between the synods on the
advisability and possibility of a more complete sharing of the financial
resources of the synods, with a view to a more radical and equitable
distribution of such resources across the whole church. Representatives of all
the synods have consulted together on three subsequent occasions with the
purpose of reaching a positive response to the Assembly’s challenge. The
meetings have not been easy but, based on the trust that has been developed
since 1996 and on the experience which has seen the amount of shared income
increase from 2% to 10%, those present at the consultation held in October last
year reached the conviction that the synods ought to work more closely together
to strengthen each other in mission. This was expressed in a commitment to the
objective of sharing all the income received by each synod by the year 2013. It
was recognised that a number of difficulties would be faced in achieving this
objective and work has continued, and will continue throughout 2004, to overcome
remaining obstacles.
4.1.3 At their March 2004 meetings, eleven synods resolved to work
towards greater sharing between the synods (seven voting ‘nem con’). Synods had
chosen different words to express that commitment, most referring to the 2013
target of achieving a more equitable distribution of financial resources across
the whole church. Concerns expressed in the synod debates ranged from the
difficulties that would be faced in the process, to the long period for its
completion. Two synods will address the matter at their October 2004 meetings
but will not allow the delay to interfere with their participation in the
ongoing process of resolving outstanding details and working towards an
agreement for sharing in 2005. At a time when the United Reformed Church is
seeking to clarify its vision of God’s purpose for this part of the Church, and
is being encouraged to “ensure that power is released to the places where the
work of mission is done”, the decisions of the March synods are very good news
indeed.
4.1.4 At the Assembly, Tony Burnham retires from the
convenership of the task group after an extended term of more than eight years.
Tony has led the work of resource sharing with characteristic vision and
pragmatism. He has chaired the consultations with good humour and wisdom and
always in the context of his gifted biblical insights. As the work of resource
sharing moves on, the United Reformed Church will want to recognise its debt of
gratitude for Tony’s contribution to what has been achieved so far. Mission
Council has appointed the Revd Elizabeth Caswell to succeed Tony Burnham and the
task group looks forward to her leadership in what is clearly a new, and perhaps
even more challenging, phase of its work.
4.2 The Ethical Investments Advisory Group
4.2.1 Resolution 56 of the 2002 Assembly gave a clear steer for work on
ethical investment. Mission Council’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG)
is able to report progress in each of the main areas it identified.
Assembly’s
first request was for EIAG to examine, in the light of the current United
Reformed Church guidelines, the more detailed research and policies of some
sister churches. EIAG has studied these and held discussions with Anglican and
Methodist colleagues. We are also seeking feedback from Synod Church and Society
Committees and others about the subjects of most concern to our members. It is
hoped to offer some revised policy guidelines to a future Assembly.
Assembly’s
second request was to consider the scope for greater United Reformed Church
participation ecumenically. The EIAG has reassessed the effectiveness of our
present engagements. EIAG members have actively encouraged a new approach by the
Church Investors Group, which has now been agreed. The Church Investors Group
consists of representatives of major Christian denominations. It is a great
opportunity for working together in the field of investment, and thus working
from a position of combined strength. The United Reformed Church is represented
on a steering group established in 2003, which is reshaping the Group so that it
develops both as a forum for sharing ideas ecumenically and as a platform for
acting in concert on matters of mutual concern. The changes should make the
Church Investors Group the key place for inter-denominational discussion and
action.
Assembly’s third request was to consider giving
day-to-day investment decisions to managers explicitly committed to a Christian
ethos. At the end of 2003, The United Reformed Church Trust transferred the
funds previously managed by a commercial bank into a Charities Investment Fund
managed by CCLA Investment Management Limited. The EIAG welcomes this move as
being in the spirit of the Assembly request. CCLA’s clients include some of the
largest Anglican funds as well as large and small charities. They are well aware
of Church concerns. Investing in a pooled fund means that the individual
investment decisions will be taken by CCLA, but the EIAG will monitor the work
of CCLA and offer comment to the Trust.
Although individuals are
free to make whatever investment decisions they wish, the work of the EIAG has
to take account of the legal requirements on Fund Trustees. These are equally
important for those making decisions relating to other Trust Funds in Synods and
elsewhere in the Church’s life.
4.3 Section O Advisory Group
4.3.1 During the year the Section O Advisory Group continued its
detailed consideration of the Ministerial Disciplinary Process (Section O in the
Manual of the United Reformed Church, known as the Section O Process).
4.3.2
Paragraph 9 of Part I states that cases must be judged by reference to the Basis
of Union and in particular Paragraph 2 of Schedule E. This in turn refers to the
responsibilities undertaken by ministers at ordination and sets out the criteria
which they must apply in the exercise of their ministry. There is no reference,
either in Schedule E or in Paragraph 9, to pre-ordination conduct, which might,
had it been disclosed during the candidating process, have led to a person’s
being rejected for ministry.
4.3.3 As a result, should any such
hitherto undisclosed conduct come to light subsequently, that conduct, however
serious, could not under the present wording of Section O form the basis of a
disciplinary case against the minister concerned. The proposed resolution
(Resolution 11) to add Paragraph 9.2 to Part I is designed to bring such a case
within the ambit of Section O.
4.3.4 The Section O Advisory
Group has been considering the question of a minister’s right to resign from the
Roll of Ministers and how this impinges upon the Church’s right to remove a
minister from the Roll on disciplinary grounds through the due operation of the
Section O Process. It has reached two conclusions. The first is that a
minister’s resignation does not become effective until it has been accepted by
the District Council under its appropriate procedures – see District Council
Function (viii).
4.3.5 The second conclusion is that no minister is able to resign once a
Section O case has commenced in respect of that minister by the calling in of
the Mandated Group. The resolution (Resolution 13) to amend District Council
Function (viii) is introduced to remove any inconsistency between that function
and the Section O Process.
4.3.6 When the relevant functions of
the District, Synod and General Assembly were drafted on the introduction of
Section O, it was assumed that the disciplinary process would commence with the
issue of the Referral Notice. It became apparent later that the whole process
begins earlier than that with the calling in of the Mandated Group to conduct
the Initial Enquiry and Section O was amended accordingly. The purpose of the
remaining resolutions, apart from the final one correcting a clerical error in
Synod function (viii), is to bring the Structure into line with Section O on
this point.
4.3.7 When first instigated, Section O carried an Introduction, which
was later omitted when the Guidelines were prepared. However, the first part of
the Introduction set the disciplinary process in its Biblical context and will
be re-instated when the Manual is reprinted.
4.3.8 During 2003
the Advisory Group completed the series of Guidelines mentioned in last year’s
Report and these can be accessed on the Church’s website.
4.3.9
This year the Advisory Group is running a Training Day for members of the
Commission Panel and a series of Training Days for the members of Mandated
Groups which will cover all thirteen Synods.
Resolution 6: Non-stipendiary Church Related Community Workers
General Assembly agrees to extend the principles of
non-stipendiary Ministry to CRCW ministry. The Assembly resolves that:
a)
non-stipendiary CRCW candidates would be expected to follow the same training
path as stipendiary CRCWs;
b) the minimum age
for commencement for training for non-stipendiary CRCW candidates shall be 21
years of age.
Resolution 7: Basis of Union
General Assembly resolves to amend the Basis of Union and
Structure of The United Reformed Church as follows (with additions and
amendments shown in italics):
a) Add to the
end of paragraph 22 of the Basis of Union (as agreed by General Assembly in
2003):
“Their service may be stipendiary or
non-stipendiary, and in the latter case their service is given within the area
of a District of area Council and in a context it has approved.”
b)
Amend paragraph B2(3)(A)(iii) on page B6 (July 2000 edition of the Manual) to
read:
“to appoint, or to concur in the
appointment of, non-stipendiary ministers and church related community workers
to their particular service and to review this service at stated intervals;”
1.
Since the ministry of Church Related Community Workers (CRCWs) was recognised by
Assembly in 1987, the various moves have been made to bring the policies for the
CRCW ministry closer to those for Ministers of Word and Sacraments. The two
ministries are not identical or interchangeable but Mission Council believes a
closer alignment is desirable where this is possible and helpful. In particular,
Mission Council believes that restricting the opportunity for non-stipendiary
service to Ministers of Word and Sacraments is an anomaly that should now be
removed.
2. Mission Council has considered a detailed paper on
the practical implications of having non-stipendiary CRCWs and how their
ministry could be integrated into existing structures. Copies of an updated
version of that paper are available from the Ministries Office.
3.
Key points in the detailed proposals included:
(i) All
non-stipendiary CRCWs would need to be called, trained and qualified in the same
way as stipendiary CRCWs. Training Committee is content with the budgetary
implications.
(ii) The minimum age for the commencement of
training for non-stipendiary CRCWs should be the same as for stipendiary CRCWs.
(iii)
Like some non-stipendiary ministers, some non-stipendiary CRCWs could be people
working in their home neighbourhoods under the guidance of the local church and
for an agreed number of hours per week.
(iv) Like some
non-stipendiary ministers, some non-stipendiary CRCWs could be employed by
agencies other than the United Reformed Church and express their ministry
through that work.
(v) All non-stipendiary CRCWs would be
members of their local District or Area Council and Synod.
4.
Assembly is invited to agree to the principle of having non-stipendiary CRCWs in
Resolution 6. If this is agreed, Resolution 7 would then start the process of
amending the Basis of Union and Structure to enable this change to happen. If
Resolution 7 is passed at this Assembly and ratified at the 2005 Assembly,
further resolutions will then be brought to amend other Assembly policies to
enact the intention of Resolution 6.
Resolution 8: Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry
General Assembly agrees that:
a)
the Racial Justice Committee be renamed the Racial Justice and Multicultural
Ministry Committee, with the secretaries for International Relations and
Ecumenical Relations becoming members ‘ex officio’;
b)
the Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry and Ecumenical Committees should
work together to develop relations with new migrant churches, recognising that
there may be reallocation of committee responsibilities in due course, which
will evolve gradually through practice. The Nominations Committee should be
consulted and briefed about the specific gifts and skills required to equip the
Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry committee to develop its new role;
c)
in order to facilitate change and exchange, the Convener of the Racial Justice
and Multicultural Ministry Committee shall be a member ‘ex-officio’ of the
International Exchange Sub-Committee, and that the Racial Justice and
Multicultural Ministry Committee shall be represented on the Ecumenical
Committee;
d) an inter-committee forum should
meet occasionally to discuss issues arising from the United Reformed Church’s
developing commitment to multicultural ministries. This will help avoid
duplication of work, and provide opportunities for mutual accountability;
d) the Mission Partners programme shall remain within the remit
of the International Exchange Sub-Committee.
Resolution 9: Budget for the year 2005
General Assembly accepts the budget for the year 2005, set out
in Appendix 7 to the Book of Reports.
Resolution 10: Ratification of Section O Part I changes
(Resolution 9 2003)
General
Assembly agrees to ratify its decision of July 2003 to make the following
changes to Part I of the Section O Process for Ministerial Discipline:
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1.2. Insert ‘disciplinary’ after the opening words ‘Once the’
Paragraph 2
Insert ‘(whether or not on appeal)’ after the words ‘particular case’.
Paragraph 3
Insert the following additional definitions in their correct
alphabetical positions and amend the sub-numbering of the other definitions as
required:
‘Initial Enquiry’ shall mean the enquiry conducted by
the Mandated Group in conjunction with the Moderator of the Synod during the
period beginning when it is called in by the Moderator and ending when it serves
either a Notice of Non-Continuance or a Referral Notice in accordance with the
Rules of Procedure. ‘Notice of Non-Continuance’ shall mean a Notice served on
the Moderator of the Synod by the Mandated Group at the conclusion of the
Initial Enquiry to indicate that it does not intend to proceed further with the
disciplinary case against the Minister.
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4.1 Delete the current paragraph and replace with:
‘Subject
to the age limit imposed by Paragraph 4.4, appointment to the Commission Panel
shall be by Resolution of the General Assembly on the advice of the Nominations
Committee (or such other committee as may in the future perform the functions of
the Nominations Committee), who shall in considering persons for appointment
take into account (i) the need for balance and for a variety of skills and
specialisations, particularly in the following areas – experience in ministerial
oversight, theology and doctrine, law, counselling, psychology, mental health,
experience in conduct of meetings and tribunals, and (ii) the advantages of
including on the Commission Panel persons from a variety of ethnic minority
backgrounds.
Paragraph 4.2 Insert the words ‘Subject to the age
limit imposed by Paragraph 4.4,’ before the words ‘Members of the Commission
Panel’
Paragraph 4.4 Insert a new Paragraph 4.4 ‘When any member
of the Commission Panel reaches the age of seventy, s/he must forthwith resign
from the Commission Panel and shall no longer be eligible to serve on any new
Assembly Commission, but any person who reaches his/her seventieth birthday
whilst serving on an Assembly Commission in a case in progress may continue so
to serve until the conclusion of that case.
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6.4 Delete all and replace with: ‘Those charged under this
Paragraph 6 with the appointment of the Assembly Commission shall (so far as
possible) (i) appoint at least one man and at least one woman onto the Assembly
Commission, and (ii) have regard to the nature of the case, the need for balance
and the skills, specialisation and cultural understanding of the members of the
Commission Panel.’
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7.1.1 Delete all.
Paragraph 7.1.2 Re-number as
7.1.
Paragraph 8
Delete all and insert ‘Procedural matters arising under the Section O
Process shall in every case be dealt with in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure.’
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11.3 Add a new Paragraph 11.3 ‘No-one other than the Parties
has any right of appeal from a decision of the Assembly Commission.’
Paragraph 12
Delete all and insert:
12.1 ‘The Appeals Commission for
the hearing of each such appeal shall consist of the following five persons:
(a)
a Convener who shall be a member of The United Reformed Church (but not
necessarily a member of the General Assembly) with legal and/or tribunal
experience to be selected by the officers of the General Assembly and
(b)
the Moderator of the General Assembly or if for any reason he/she should be
unable to serve, a former Moderator of the General Assembly to be selected by
the officers of the General Assembly and
(c) three other members
of the General Assembly to be selected by the officers of the General Assembly.
12.2
‘The relevant date for ascertaining whether persons qualify for appointment
under Paragraph 12.1 is the date on which under the Rules of Procedure the
Secretary of the Assembly Commission notifies the General Secretary that an
appeal has been lodged against the decision of the Assembly Commission.’
12.3
‘In selecting persons for appointment to the Appeals Commission in accordance
with Paragraph 12.1(c) the officers of the General Assembly shall, so far as
possible, apply the same criteria as are set out in Part I, Paragraphs 4.1 and
6.4, in relation to appointments to the Commission Panel and to Assembly
Commissions.’
12.4 ‘All persons proposed for appointment to an
Appeals Commission, in any capacity, are subject to Part I, Paragraph 7.1.’
Paragraph 18
Delete ‘shall, if requested to do so, appoint a representative to attend
any hearing conducted under the Section O Process for such purpose’ and insert
‘shall appoint a representative to attend the Hearing for such purpose, unless
his/her attendance has been expressly dispensed with by the Assembly Commission
or the Appeals Commission as the case may be.’
Paragraphs 21 & 22
Delete all and insert a new Paragraph 21
Save only as
provided in Paragraph 21.2, this Part I of the Section O Process is subject to
Paragraph 3(1) of the Structure.
21.2 Mission Council acting in
the name of General Assembly has authority by single resolution of that Council
to make as and when necessary and with immediate effect such changes to Part l
as are, on the advice of the legal advisers to The United Reformed Church,
required to bring the Section O Process into line with the general law of the
land consequent upon any changes in legislation and/or case law.
All
such changes to the Section O Process are made by Mission Council under
Paragraph 21.2 shall be reported to the next annual meeting of the General
Assembly.
Resolution 11: New changes to Section O Part I
General Assembly agrees to make the following changes to Part I
of the Section O Process for Ministerial Discipline:
Paragraph 4.2
Add the following words at the end of this Paragraph: ‘….but any person
who reaches the end of the term of his/her appointment on the Commission Panel
whilst serving as a member of an Assembly Commission in a case in progress may
continue so to serve until the conclusion of that case.’
Paragraph 9
The existing Paragraph 9 to become 9.1 and a new paragraph to be added
as 9.2:
‘9.2 As part of such consideration, the Assembly
Commission or Appeals Commission shall be entitled to have regard to any conduct
on the part of a Minister occurring prior to his/her ordination to the ministry
which, in the Commission’s view and when viewed in the light of Schedule E to
the Basis of Union, would have prevented, or was likely to have prevented,
him/her from becoming ordained, where such conduct was not disclosed by the
Minister to those responsible for assessing his/her candidacy for ordination.’
[This
resolution, if passed, will be subject to the constitutional rule for reference
to Synods and ratification next year]
Resolution 12: New changes to Section O Part II
General Assembly agrees to make the following changes to Part
II of the Section O Process for Ministerial Discipline:
Section A
Change the heading of Section A from ‘Introduction’ to ‘General’ to
avoid confusion with the Introduction to the whole of Section O, which is being
re-instated.
Paragraph B.6.2
Alter the wording in the brackets at the end of the paragraph to ‘(see
also Paragraphs B.8.2 and B.11)’.
Paragraph B.8.1
At the end of the paragraph, add the following words: ‘(as to the
contents of the written notice of suspension, see also Paragraph B.11)’.
Paragraph B.11
Add a new B.11 as follows:
‘The Notice of Suspension,
whether issued under Paragraph B.6.2 or Paragraph B.8.1, shall inform the
Minister that, in accordance with these Rules of Procedure, any conduct on
his/her part which breaches or contravenes Paragraph 4 of Schedule E to the
Basis of Union may be taken into account by the Assembly Commission in reaching
its decision under Paragraph 10 of Part I.’
Paragraph B.12
The existing B.11 to become B.12
Paragraph C.1.6
Add a new Paragraph C.1.6 as follows:
‘On receipt of the
Minister’s response under Paragraph C.1.2 and any documents which may accompany
it, provide the Mandated Group with copies thereof.’
Paragraph C.1.7
Add a new Paragraph C.1.7 as follows:
‘In any case
arising as a consequence of a Notice of Reference back, where comments are
received from either of the parties as a result of the invitation contained in
Paragraph C.1.3, provide the other party with copies thereof.’
Paragraph E.3.1
Replace the existing Paragraph E.3.1 with the following:
‘E.3.1
Unless the case is subject to compulsory adjournment under Paragraph E.7, the
Secretary of the Assembly Commission shall as soon as practicable after the
appointment of the Assembly Commission:
E.3.1.1 provide the
Convener and the other members of the Assembly Commission with (i) copies of the
Referral Notice, (ii) the Minister’s response under Paragraph C.1.2 and (iii)
any documents which may accompany it and
E.3.1.2 in the case of
any Assembly Commission appointed as a consequence of a Notice of Reference
back, provide the Convener and the other members thereof with copies of (i) the
Notice of Reference back, (ii) the documents, statements and information
delivered to the previous Assembly Commission in accordance with these Rules of
Procedure and (iii) any comments received from the parties as a result of the
invitation contained in Paragraph C.1.3 and
E.3.1.3 consult with
the Convener and the other members of the Assembly Commission and, where
possible, with the Parties as to a suitable venue, date and time for the Hearing
and, having so consulted, decide thereupon.’
Resolution 13: Changes to Structure regarding Resignation of Ministers
General Assembly agrees to the following changes to the
Structure of the United Reformed Church:
Paragraph 2(3)A(viii)
Insert the words ‘not currently the subject of any case within the
Section O Process for Ministerial Discipline referred to in Function (xviii)
below)’ after the word ‘ministers’.
Paragraphs 2(3)A(xviii), 2(4)A(xiv) and 2(5)A(xxiii)
In all these paragraphs, delete the words ‘following initial enquiry’ on
the first line and add the words ‘at the appropriate time as specified in that
Process’ at the end of the Paragraph.
Paragraph 2(3)(B)
Delete the existing Paragraph 2(3)(B) and replace it with the following:
B.1
‘As soon as any minister becomes the subject of a case under the Section O
Process for Ministerial Discipline, the District Council shall not exercise any
of its functions in respect of that minister in such a manner as to affect,
compromise or interfere with the due process of that case, provided that the
provision of such pastoral care as shall be deemed appropriate shall not
regarded as a breach of this Paragraph.’
B.2 ‘The responsibility
for calling in the District Council’s Mandated Group to conduct an Initial
Enquiry which marks the beginning of the Disciplinary Process rests with the
Synod Moderator acting in consultation with such officers of the District
Council as s/he considers appropriate.’
Paragraph 2(4)(B)
Delete the existing Paragraph 2(4)(B) and replace it with the following:
‘As
soon as any minister becomes the subject of a case under the Section O Process
for Ministerial Discipline, the Synod shall not exercise any of its functions in
respect of that minister in such a manner as to affect, compromise or interfere
with the due process of that case, provided that the provision of such pastoral
care as shall be deemed appropriate shall not regarded as a breach of this
Paragraph.’
Final unlettered paragraph immediately after Paragraph 2(5)A(xxiv)
Delete this paragraph and replace it with the following:
2(5)(B)
‘As soon as any minister becomes the subject of a case against a minister under
the Section O Process for Ministerial Discipline, neither General Assembly nor
Mission Council on its behalf shall exercise any of General Assembly’s functions
in respect of that minister in such a manner as to affect, compromise or
interfere with the due process of that case, provided that the provision of such
pastoral care as shall be deemed appropriate shall not regarded as a breach of
this Paragraph.’
Paragraph 2(4)(A)(viii)
Amend the reference in this paragraph from Function (xv) to (xiv).[This
resolution will be subject to the constitutional rule for reference to Synods
and ratification next year]
Resolution 14: Ratification of Westminster College Bursar
(Resolution 8 2003)
General Assembly agrees to
ratify its decision of July 2003 to make the following changes to the Structure
of the United Reformed Church about the role of the Bursar of Westminster
College.
Delete ‘and Bursar’ from General
Assembly function (vi) and replace ‘Board of Studies’ and with ‘Board of
Governors’ in that same function so that it reads:
‘…
to make regulations respecting Theological Colleges belonging to the United
Reformed Church, to appoint the principal, professors and other members of the
teaching staff, and Board of Governors, and to superintend their work’.
