Other Links

You are in: General Assembly > General Assembly Report 2005 > Mission Council

Mission Council 

The purpose of the Mission Council is to enable the Church, in its General Assembly, to take a comprehensive view of the activity and policy of the Church, to decide priorities and to encourage the outreach of the Church to the community. Its service is directed towards the Assembly, but its concern is with the whole Church and all its members: so it seeks 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.

Synod-appointed representatives to Mission Council in March 2005 were:

1 Finding your way around this report

1.1 The length of this report and the range of its concerns reflect Mission Council’s broad remit, which is to co-ordinate the work of General Assembly from one year to the next.It may be helpful to note that Mission Council passes resolutions in different capacities:

a) on behalf of General Assembly: Mission Council is authorised to take decisions which are considered to be urgent or time-sensitive, and which need action between meetings of Assembly. These decisions are reported to the following Assembly, as in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2.

b) on its own behalf:

i)  Mission Council has a number of advisory groups (e.g. Ethical Investments, Grants and Loans, Staffing Advisory, Section O) which report to its meetings, and which may bring resolutions. These groups have access to General Assembly only through Mission Council, hence the reports at paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4, and the resolutions 7 to 13.

ii) Mission Council can initiate work, and set up short-term task groups to look at certain matters in detail. These often result in resolutions which (if Mission Council accepts them) are brought to General Assembly for decision. Though, for example, the ‘Catch the Vision’ process comes to this year’s General Assembly as a separate report, it began life in a discussion in Mission Council nearly three years ago. Resolution 6 in the present report (the ‘Declaration of a Safe Church: a Charter for Action’ in paragraph 4.1) comes under the category of action initiated by Mission Council.

iii)  As Assembly committees report to General Assembly only in alternate years (except where for legal or administrative reasons annual reports are required) committees may submit emergency resolutions or those requiring ratification of a previous Assembly’s decision in the year in which they do not normally report. Resolutions 14, 15 and 17 come under this category (report paragraphs 4.7 and 4.9).

iv)  From time to time Assembly committees bring business to Mission Council which overlaps with the responsibilities of other committees. In such cases any resulting resolutions come to Assembly in the name of Mission Council. Resolution 16 (report paragraph 4.8) arises from a joint concern of the Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry, and Equal Opportunities committees.

2 Our meetings

2.1 During the year Mission Council met twice residentially and once for a one-day meeting. The Moderator led Mission Council in a number of biblical reflections on its task, while worship was led by the Moderator’s chaplain, the Revd Alistair Smeaton. Guest theological reflectors were the Revd Gabriel Ellis-Farquhar from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and Ms Francis Brienan, Mission Enabler for CWM Europe.

2.2 ‘Catch the Vision’ was the principal and governing topic on Mission Council’s agenda during its three meetings.The General Secretary has challenged Mission Council to think about the calling of the Church and its opportunities for mission and service in the next decade. Contributions from Baptist and Roman Catholic guests on ‘ministry today and tomorrow’, and from ministers of local churches involved in mission initiatives in city centre, and through cell churches, have helped Mission Council focus on a ‘vision’ which is both informed by the broad experience of life within the United Reformed Church, and rooted in local realities.  

2.3 Reports were received of a solidarity visit to Palestinian Christian communities in Israel’s West Bank, and of the Moderator’s own visit to partner churches in the United States during the significant period of its Presidential elections.

2.4 In January, Mission Council said farewell to Dr Andrew Bradstock who resigned as Secretary for Church and Society on being appointed Director of the Christian Socialist Movement.

2.5 Mission Council was supportive of the temporary appointment of a Campaign Officer for ‘Make Poverty History’, for part of 2005.

3 Actions taken on behalf of General Assembly

3.1 Appointments

3.1.1 Mission Council, acting on behalf of General Assembly, appointed:

a) the Revd John Lloyd Humphreys to serve as Moderator of the Synod of Scotland from 1st April 2005 until 31st August 2012.

b) the Revd Roberta Rominger to serve as Moderator of Thames North Synod from 1st September 2005 to 31st August 2010. 

c) the Revd Neil Thorogood to serve as Director of Pastoral Studies at Westminster College, Cambridge, from 1st September 2005 to 31st August 2012.

d) Miss Michelle Marcano to the post of Human Resources and Facilities Manager at Church House from 1st September 2004.

3.2 Resolutions on behalf of General Assembly

3.2.1 Subject to the granting of a Charity Commissioners order, Mission Council approved the change of use of the Yardley Hastings Centre and the executing of a lease by the URC Trust to the East Midlands Synod Trust for that process.

3.2.2 Mission Council endorsed the decision of the Synod of Wales to approve the text of the Declaration from the Commission of the Covenanted Churches in Wales.

3.3.3 Anticipating a General Election in 2005, and on the initiative of the Church and Society Committee, Mission Council passed a resolution calling upon all political parties in the run-up to the General Election to clear the confusion of the public over the different categories of immigrant, refugee and asylum seeker. Political parties were also urged to stop stirring up the racial conflict caused by their competitive hardening attitude and by the proposed tougher legislation towards asylum seekers.

Mission Council, further, called upon Her Majesty’s Government to review urgently and frequently which countries are safe for the return of asylum seekers; to minimize the detaining of families in removal centres; and to work urgently to eliminate trafficking of people to this country.

4 Other Actions

4.1  The report ‘ Time for Action: on sexual abuse and the church’ (published by Churches Together in Britain and Ireland) was first discussed by Mission Council in 2003, when it considered ways in which recommendations from the report could be implemented within the life and structures of the United Reformed Church. After further work, Mission Council brings to General Assembly the ‘Declaration of a Safe Church: a Charter for Action’ (Resolution 6). This seeks to ensure that high standards of protection and care are implemented throughout the Church, so that everyone (but particularly children and vulnerable adults) can have confidence in the United Reformed Church in all its activities and relationships being a safe Church. It is Mission Council’s intention that training material will be made available so that local churches, other groups and committees within the Church, can be helped to implement the Declaration.

Declaration of a Safe Church

A Charter for Action

This church accepts that sexual harassment and abuse is a serious problem which occurs in the family of the church as well as in wider society, and recognises that sexual harassment and abuse is always unacceptable and must be stopped.

We are all made in the image of God and Christ came that we should have life in all its fullness. Therefore everyone has the right to find nourishment for their Christian pilgrimage in a safe place. This means that:

i.          dignity should be respected

ii.         abusive behaviour will not be tolerated

iii.         every effort will be made to offer support to those who need it

iv.         allegations will be taken seriously.

This church is rightly the place of loving pastoral care and concern which, by its very nature, makes it possible for inappropriate behaviour to go unrecognised and unacknowledged. It is, therefore, the responsibility of everyone in this church to challenge inappropriate sexual behaviour.

This church will:

i. inform itself about support agencies available locally, publicise them and learn from them

ii. in all areas of its life, by teaching and example, emphasise that sexual harassment and abuse is a sin. This sin must be repented of on an individual and community level before healing can begin

iii. take the necessary steps to investigate all allegations of sexual harassment or abuse and ensure that appropriate action is taken

iv. put in place a reporting mechanism to receive any allegation or complaint and take appropriate action.

Every church will operate this Charter For A Safe Church.

4.2 Mission Council agreed to disband its Resource Planning Advisory Group, being satisfied that the Group’s remit had been incorporated into the ‘Catch the Vision’ process, and the agendas of three Assembly committees.

4.3 Mission Council set the basic ministerial stipend for 2005 at £19,176.

4.4 Mission Council approved the continuation of the post of Rural Officer/Consultant, the work and the funding to be shared equally by the Methodist and United Reformed Churches. The approval would be subject to satisfactory budget arrangements being made between the two churches.

4.5 Mission Council agreed the appointment of a Secretary for Church and Society on a temporary basis until not later than Assembly 2007.  It was agreed that the job description should as a matter of urgency include a commitment to ecumenical negotiations about the future of Church and Society work.

4.6 Mission Council noted that a consultative process had taken place between churches, other faith communities and the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department had concluded that it would not require ministers of religion to become ‘employed persons’, but would expect an agreed standard of good practice to be implemented by all churches and faith communities. This related to such areas as the provision of sick leave, paternity leave, etc. Though most of the DTI’s requirements are already within the United Reformed Church’s ‘Plan for Partnership’, some matters need further work: e.g. procedures for handling ministers’ grievances; mid-range disciplinary matters; and regular performance appraisal. Mission Council agreed that the Ministries Committee and others should consider these matters in time for an initial response to be made to the DTI during 2005. Any change in procedures requiring General Assembly’s approval will be brought to the Assembly in 2006.

4.7  Resolution 14 seeks Assembly’s ratification for the decision of the 2004 Assembly to introduce the principle of non-stipendiary Church-Related Community Workers (CRCWs). If this is passed, Resolution 15 will be proposed. This second resolution makes consequential changes to the Plan for Partnership, which sets out the arrangements for various payments to Ministers and CRCWs. The changes are not of a constitutional nature and therefore can be agreed by a single vote at this Assembly.

4.8  Mission Council (in Resolution 16) seeks Assembly’s endorsement of a proposal to address a concern both of the Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry Committee, and the Equal Opportunities Committee: that Nominations Committee, in appointing panels and boards in the name of General Assembly for specific tasks,(the panels usually consisting of small numbers of people with specific expertise or experience), should nonetheless set a target for the participation of equal numbers of men and women, and at least 10% representation from minority ethnic groups.

4.9 Mission Council asks General Assembly’s authority to act in its name (in Resolution 17) so that it can make such changes to the Church’s Equal Opportunities Policy as are necessary (on the advice of the legal adviser) in order to comply with changes in the law.

5 Reports of Advisory Groups to Mission Council

5.1 Resource Sharing Task Group

5.1.1 In last year’s report to General Assembly (paragraph 4.1.3) it was reported that eleven synods had resolved to work towards greater sharing between synods. It can now be reported that all thirteen synods have made a commitment towards the target set for 2013, and the work of the Task Group and the Consultations continues in that direction.

5.1.2 It is important to point out that there has been a significant change of emphasis in the approach to resource sharing, from what has been described as “trading money” to an approach which is “needs driven”. To achieve this, synods in the early summer of 2004, met in duo formation and subsequently in quartets to discuss synod budget proposals for 2005.

5.1.3 All the meetings were conducted in good spirit and synod representatives were able to recognise major differences and, in some cases similarities between synods not only financially but in ways of best practice. All synods were able to examine and compare budgets and highlight areas of difference and consistency of approach in many cases. All those involved felt the exercise to be worthwhile and ultimately at the conclusion of the process, agreed:

• each synod would continue to contribute towards resource sharing;

• each would identify core costs;

• prioritise expenditure;

• work to the schedules provided.

5.1.4 It has been agreed the same format will be followed in respect of budget preparations for 2006 and, work is already underway to ensure meetings are arranged and take place.

5.1.5 There is still much work to be done in seeking to harmonise synod policies on a number of issues related to sources of income. This work will continue under the leadership of the Revd Elizabeth Caswell. New appointments to the Task Group will be made in due course.

5.1.6 The Revd Roger Whitehead retires from the Task Group this year. He has made a significant contribution over many years to the Task Group and the consultation process and his knowledge and experience will be missed. Mr David Butler, Secretary to the Task Group and the Consultations, also retires after many years valuable service. He has been the driving force behind the whole concept of resource sharing and his knowledge and experience will be greatly missed. The United Reformed Church are indebted to both Roger and David for their service.

5.2 Ethical Investment Advisory Group

5.2.1 On behalf of Mission Council, its Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) continues to meet periodically. The Group includes representatives of the two major central URC capital funds (the URC Trust and the Ministers’ Pension Fund), the Finance Committee, the Church and Society Committee and our Anglican and Methodist colleagues.

5.2.2 During the year, EIAG has kept abreast of work on a wide variety of topics ranging from alcohol via stem cell research to proposals for disinvestment from Israel/Palestine. An article in Reform raised the profile of the subject and the Group is always keen to hear from church members of their concerns.

5.2.3 This year, EIAG has also returned to the subject of Nestlé and this is discussed in the Church and Society report to Assembly.

5.2.4 EIAG’s capacity for original work is severely constrained by available staff resources. Therefore, the relaunch of the Church Investors Group is particularly welcome. More than a dozen British denominations are active members of this Group, which is now equipped to provide much better background information and advice on the highly complex issues behind investment policy decisions. The United Reformed Church’s Financial Secretary, Avis Reaney, is a member of the Steering Group.

5.2.5  This year, there are two matters Mission Council wishes to bring to Assembly for incorporation into a revised ethical investment policy.  The current guidelines were adopted by the 2002 Assembly, which also said they were not a “final position”. These 2002 guidelines added pornography to the products to be avoided and amended guidance on how to decide whether a minority activity of a diverse company was large enough to justify avoiding investment in the company as a whole.  EIAG subsequently indicated they intended to provide further clarification.

Pornography

5.2.6  The current guidance has a separate clause on pornography urging that URC bodies avoid investment in “those companies whose business is the promotion of pornography”.

5.2.7  Pornography is easier to recognise than to define. However, it is obvious that current social attitudes in Britain allow, and arguably encourage, a more sexually candid media to flourish than in previous times. Members of the United Reformed Church are unlikely to be shocked to find images in the arts, advertising and on television which would not have been authorised a generation ago.

5.2.8  Nevertheless, however widespread and familiar, pornographic material fits awkwardly alongside Paul’s instructions to Christians to live in a way that honours the body (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4) and to fill our thoughts with “all that is true, all that is noble, all that is just and pure, all that is lovable and gracious, excellent and admirable” (Philippians 4.8).  As the Anglican equivalent of EIAG commented in their consideration of this issue:

Sex is a gift from God. Representation of its mystery should be identified with spiritual values such as joy, caring, compassion and dignity.  Exploitation, crudity, violence and oppression transgress the Christian vision of humanity that is created in the image of God.

5.2.9 For such reasons Mission Council sees investment in pornography as inconsistent with the theology of the United Reformed Church.  We are therefore glad the Assembly thought it right to add pornography to the product areas to avoid.

5.2.10  EIAG suggests companies promoting pornography should be taken to mean those which (a) publish “top shelf” pornographic magazines; or (b) own pornographic television channels; or (c) manufacture explicit sexual material in video or other forms marketed as “adult entertainment”; or (d) are wholesale distributors of such material.

5.2.11  Consistent with the United Reformed Church’s approach to other objectionable product areas, Mission Council proposes that companies should be avoided as investments when the share of their business in pornography is significant. We suggest parallel measurement criteria should apply as for other non-weapon product areas included in the policy and that pornography should be addressed in the same clause of the guidelines as these.

Defining “Significant”

5.2.12   Concern has been expressed to EIAG at Assembly and otherwise about the current interpretation of “significant” in deciding when a company is sufficiently involved in an objectionable product to be discouraged as an investment opportunity.

5.2.13  The 2002 guidelines were accompanied by a suggestion that although EIAG would be happy to advise on a case by case basis, they would generally take as a starting point 30% of a company’s business as being the threshold for “significant”. In other words, if a company had less than 30% of its business in objectionable products, it would generally still be consistent with the Assembly policy to invest in it.

5.2.14   Mission Council is well aware of how complex the whole area of ethical investment is and would still wish to avoid a rigid definition of significance that might then be applied with little regard to individual circumstances. However, we would now propose that the United Reformed Church reduces its benchmark to the region of 10-20% of a company’s business. We believe this threshold, while still higher than some United Reformed Church members would wish, is sufficiently low to show we are serious about our policy. It recognises that there is a balance to be struck where the majority of a company’s business is desirable and only a small part objectionable. It is also realistic about the possibility of unravelling the detailed structure of complex companies, with many business lines and subsidiary operations, and identifying tiny percentages of their activities.

5.2.15   A further important advantage of this definition of “significant” is that it would bring the United Reformed Church more into line with the criteria used by other Free Churches. The increasing ecumenical co-operation on ethical investment policy issues makes it desirable that we work with similar criteria as our sister denominations.  While no two Churches have exactly the same approach, in broad terms the equivalent figure used by the Methodist Church is usually around 20%, and by the Salvation Army 10%.

5.2.16   In the light of this advice from EIAG, Mission Council proposes (Resolution 7) that the Church’s formal policy statement be revised to read as follows:

It is the policy of the United Reformed Church to recommend that trustees and all those with investment responsibilities connected with the Church should avoid any investment in:

(a) companies directly engaged in the manufacture or supply of weapons of destruction;

(b) companies a significant part of whose business is in the supply of alcoholic drinks or  tobacco products or military equipment (other than weapons of destruction); or the provision of gambling facilities; or the publication or distribution of pornography.

The definition of these activities, or of what constitutes a significant part of a company’s business, requires judgement and the Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) of Mission Council is available to offer advice. In general, EIAG will deem “significant” to mean where the share of turnover derived from the activity concerned is more than around 10-20% of the company’s total turnover.

This policy can only be advisory as the responsibility for specific investment decisions remains with each body of trustees.

5.3 Section O Advisory Group 

5.3.1  During the year the Section O Advisory Group continued its detailed consideration of the Section O Process of Ministerial Discipline. In particular, the Advisory Group has responded to concerns expressed about the role of the Mandated Group which has the responsibility of investigating the case against the minister and presenting it at the Hearing before the Assembly Commission.  As a result the Advisory Group is recommending significant changes in the manner of selection of the Mandated Groups in order that they may be strengthened for their task. These are set out in Resolution 8 and involve a series of amendments to Section B of Part II. That resolution also proposes an important amendment to Section E of Part II designed to improve the procedure in a Section O case which remains adjourned because the minister is appealing against the decision made against him/her in a criminal case.

5.3.2  Section O remains under the overall control of General Assembly and all changes to it, large and small, require Assembly approval. This is stated in Part I, which also contains other fundamental provisions, such as the criteria to be applied when judging a case, the right of appeal, the exclusive nature of the Process and the fact that decisions made in accordance with the Process are final and binding. Recognising the importance of these matters and also of course the serious consequences of removal from the Roll for a minister, the core provisions of Part I must remain subject to the rule that any changes take two years to implement. Having said that, however, the Advisory Group  considers that the remainder of the existing Part I can be moved into Part II, to which changes can be made by a single Assembly. Resolution 9  brings a proposal to replace the existing Part I with a reduced Part I, the text of which is set out in the resolution. If passed, this will be referred to Synod and, hopefully, come to next year’s Assembly for ratification. The consequential changes to Part II will also be brought forward next year.

5.3.3  During the year the Church’s legal advisers were asked to prepare a procedure (to be known as the ‘Ministerial Incapacity Procedure’) to enable the Church to take effective action in respect of those ministers regarded as unfit to exercise ministry on account of medical, psychological or other similar or related reasons where the minister cannot be considered blameworthy or at fault in any conventional sense. The Advisory Group has been working closely with the lawyers as this has progressed and has been advised that the new procedure should be divided into two parts in similar manner to the Section O Process, i.e. Part I subject to the “two year” rule and Part II which can be changed by resolution of a single Assembly. In the course of the ongoing work on this, the Section O Advisory Group has consulted the Mission Council Advisory Group, the Assembly Pastoral Reference Committee and the Synod Moderators and has reported to Mission Council.

5.3.4  Consequently Mission Council now brings to the 2005 Assembly Part I of the new Ministerial Incapacity Procedure (Resolution 10). If the resolution approving this is passed, it will be referred back to Synods and presented at next year’s Assembly for ratification.  The Rules of Procedure are being prepared and will be placed before Assembly next year as Part II and thus the aim is to bring the whole of the Ministerial Incapacity Procedure into operation in 2006.

5.3.5  The introduction of the Ministerial Incapacity Procedure will involve  changes to the Structure and to the Section O Process since, although the two procedures are entirely separate, there will be some inter-relation between them, where the evidence indicates a possible need to refer a case from one procedure to the other (Resolution 11).

5.3.6  Two resolutions come to Assembly for ratification: both were agreed by General Assembly in 2004: Resolution 12 ratifies changes to Section O, Part 1  (2004 Assembly Resolution 11); and Resolution 13 ratifies changes to the Structure regarding the resignation of ministers (2004 Assembly Resolution 13).

5.3.7  During the year the Section O Advisory Group has maintained a dialogue with the Synod Moderators on a variety of issues of common concern, but particularly about their role in the Section O Process and about the importance of the work of the Mandated Groups. A need for continual training for the Mandated Groups has been identified and the Advisory Group has established an ongoing training programme. The close liaison between the Section O Advisory Group and the Moderators will continue.

5.3.8 Mr Brian Evans, the present Secretary of the Assembly Commission, completes his term of service at Assembly this year and we express our grateful thanks to him for his work in this demanding position and also for his wise counsel on the Section O Advisory Group. We welcome the Reverend Alison Hall as his replacement.

5.4  Grants and Loans Group

5.4.1 The following is an extract from the report of this Group to Mission Council:

5.4.2  “The Grants and Loans Group (GLG) has now been in existence for nearly 5 years, having incorporated the work of the former Church Buildings Fund (CBF), Advisory Group on Grants and Loans (AGOGAL) and the Council for World Mission (CWM) Self Support Fund. The Group has continued the policy of giving grants only to Synods and Churches with the greatest need.

5.4.3  The budget allocation for grants in 2004 was approximately £96000 from the Church Buildings Fund. This was used primarily to assist churches in the provision of facilities for the disabled. By the end of the year grants of £101745 were paid. Further loans of  £130000 have been approved from this fund. For Mission Projects the budget allocation was £115000, of which £111942 was spent by the year end.

5.4.4  Applications for grants for facilities for the disabled continue to be received but these are expected to reduce further in 2005. This should enable other projects within the scope of the 2005 budget to be considered.

5.4.5  Mission Project Fund: During 2004, four applications were received and three were approved. Reports back from projects which have been supported by this fund reflect the initiative, determination and commitment of people seeking to be the ‘church’ in our existing society.

5.4.6  Theological reflections: The Grants and Loans Group believes that the monies it makes available from Assembly funds is of real benefit both to local churches and their communities, and without it many projects would not get off the ground. Examples of the work supported are: -

• Community development work in the South Aston area of Birmingham

• An elderly day care centre and visiting service in Balsall Heath, Birmingham

• Community work in Nechells in inner Birmingham

• Youth work in Derriford and Abingdon

• Youth and Community work in Newquay

• Neighbourhood Renewal in Southmead, Bristol

• Supporting ministry in Brecon and Boulevard United Reformed Church 

• Pastoral work of Westborough United Reformed Church 

One of the applications contained the following statement:

‘Until we take church out of the religious box we have put it in, we will have nothing to say to a waiting and watching world. Conversion/becoming a Christian, whilst utterly essential, happens differently for everyone and at vastly different speeds. God needs to see that we are serious about caring for and discipling new Christians before he will give them to us.’

5.4.7  The Grants and Loans Group believes that it is now recognized that church and faith communities have an important part to play in the growth and sustaining of community life. They hope that the monies that can be given in grants and loans will help churches to develop more fully their roles in the local communities.

Mission Council Resolutions

top