 |
Mission CouncilMission Council’s task is to take a comprehensive view of the work of General Assembly; to decide on priorities; and to encourage the United Reformed Church at all levels in its engagement with the world. The scope of this engagement ranges from the local to the international arena, and includes relationships with ecumenical partners in the UK and overseas. While Mission Council services and maintains the work of General Assembly from one year to the next, it is principally concerned about the Church’s future direction and the support of all its members.
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.
In March 2006 those representatives to Mission Council which had been appointed by synods were:
1. The way it works
Mission Council acts in
several different capacities, two of which are in evidence in this report: a) Actions 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 General Assembly. Mission Council may also be asked to
undertake a piece of work on the Assembly’s behalf. In such cases, the action is
reported to a following General Assembly, as in this report’s paragraphs 3 and
4. b) Actions on its own behalf: 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 6.1 to 6.5, and Resolutions 7 to 14. Mission Council may from time-to-time instigate work across the remits of different Assembly committees, and co-ordinate their response before bringing resolutions to General Assembly. It may also act as a conduit for resolutions which inter-synod groups wish to present to Assembly (as in paragraph 5.4 and Resolution 15).
2. Our meetings
2.1 During the year Mission Council met twice residentially and once for a one-day meeting. These occasions were enriched by the Moderator’s leadership helping the Council reflect on its task, and the worship led by the Moderator’s chaplain, the Revd Jill Thornton. Mission Council welcomed the Revd Sheilagh Kesting from the Church of Scotland to be a theological reflector on one occasion; and appreciated the General Secretary’s presentation on the history and development of Reformed Spirituality, as background to the ‘Catch the Vision’ process. There was also an opportunity to receive four visitors from the Northern synod who spoke about their experience of training in the United Reformed Church.
2.2 ‘Catch the Vision’ remained the governing theme of Mission Councils during 2005- 2006. The report of the steering group appears elsewhere in the Reports to General Assembly. As staffing levels at Church House are under review, Mission Council decided that any Assembly-appointed posts falling vacant (in Church House) in the period up to March 2006 should not be filled on a permanent basis beyond Assembly 2007. For this reason, two fixed-term appointments were authorised: the Secretary for Church and Society, and the Children’s Work Development Officer.
2.4 Though Assembly Resolutions 8, 9 and 10 had been referred to Mission Council by the 2005 General Assembly, the clerk subsequently advised that these matters could only be considered by Assembly itself. The resolutions therefore return this year (after alteration in some cases) as Resolutions 7, 8 and 10.
3. Action taken on 2005 Assembly resolutions which referred matters to Mission Council
3.1 Resolution 2: ‘ Saying sorry’ : ‘General Assembly, noting the actions of the Methodist Church with regard to those who have been sexually abused’, instructed Mission Council ‘to prepare recommendations for similar actions on the part of the United Reformed Church and to bring them to the Assembly of 2006’. Investigation into this revealed that there are certain circumstances in which a senior representative of the Methodist Church invites victims of sexual abuse to a meeting of a pastoral nature, and where genuine sorrow can be expressed on behalf of the Church by sitting alongside the person. There is no implication in this apology, however, that the Methodist Conference accepts direct responsibility for causing the abuse, nor that a ‘representative’ apology can replace that of the guilty party.
3.1.1 Mission Council, aware of the importance of such a meeting, strongly believes that a way must be found to make it possible to respond wholeheartedly to such suffering in the life of the Church, and intends to work further on guidelines to establish how this may be done without it being construed that the Assembly accepts legal liability.
3.2 Resolution 6c: ‘Declaration of a safe Church’: General Assembly in 2005 urged synods, district councils and local churches to affirm the declaration, resolve to apply it in all aspects of their life and work; and asked synods to report their response to Mission Council by March 2006. All synods, in their response, indicated that they had affirmed the declaration, but they were at different stages in considering its implications. Most had identified existing networks or had set up working groups to provide information, offer training and support to local churches. Mission Council undertook to convey any comments or questions received from the synods to the small working group which had produced the original material, and asked them to consider what further advice or follow up was required from General Assembly.
3.3 Resolution 34 c: Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry: Assembly instructed the Secretaries for Training, Ministries and Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry to evaluate the accessibility to minority ethnic people of the systems of candidacy and training for Ministers of Word and Sacrament, Church Related Community Workers, lay preachers and lay leaders, and to report with recommendations to Mission Council no later than March 2006. Assembly in 2005 also authorised the Committee for Racial Justice and Multicultural Ministry (in Resolution 34d) to conduct an audit of church structures, policies, procedures and practices for the presence of barriers to full participation of minority ethnic people, and to report with recommendations to Mission Council no later than October 2006.
3.3.1 Mission Council received an interim report from the Committee indicating that work was underway but that there was considerable overlap of related resolutions passed by General Assembly. Mission Council agreed that the committee should defer its report and recommendations on Resolution 34c until October 2006 when it would be considered in a broader context.
3.4 Resolution 42: London Synod Commission: General Assembly asked Mission Council to appoint a Commission of Assembly to investigate the feasibility of creating a London synod, and to report back to the 2006 Assembly. The Commission, convened by the Revd Bill Mahood with Mrs Sheila Brain as its Secretary, has drawn up terms of reference which include widespread consultation to assess the rationale for a London synod, and to see whether the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages. The Commission plans to consult in depth with the Southern and Thames North synods, and seek the views of the surrounding synods (Eastern, East Midlands and Wessex) whose boundaries might be altered significantly if a London synod is established. The Commission also seeks to consider the ecumenical dimensions of the proposal: the implications for future ecumenical work and mission in Greater London. It will explore alternative ways in which the United Reformed Church could relate more effectively to London in mission and service, and recommend practical ways in which any changes might be implemented. As these investigations will take time, the Commission plans to present its final report to General Assembly in 2007.
3.5 Resolution 53: Election of the Moderator of General Assembly: In 2005, for the first time in the United Reformed Church’s history, no synod had nominated anyone to be Moderator of General Assembly for 2006 by the due date (31st March) set out in the Rules of Procedure. Assembly asked Mission Council to ensure that the Rules of Procedure include a way of dealing with this situation if it should ever happen again.
3.5.1 In 2005 it became necessary to introduce a special resolution to amend the procedure, so that nominations could be received from Synod Executives after the closing date. Mission Council considered a number of options and decided to recommend to General Assembly that the form of words, found in Resolution 13, should create a new paragraph 3.5 of the Rules of Procedure (requiring the existing paragraphs 3.5-3.12 to be renumbered).
4. Actions taken on behalf of General Assembly
4.1 Appointments
4.1.1 Mission Council, acting on behalf of General Assembly, appointed: a) the Revd Rowena Francis to serve as Moderator of the Northern Synod from 1st January 2007 until 31st December 2013. b) Mr Stuart Dew to serve
as Secretary for Church and Society from 10th October 2005 until 9th October
2007. 4.1.2 Mission Council also noted the appointments of a) the Revd Graham Jones as joint United Reformed/ Methodist Churches’ Rural Officer. b) Mrs Linda Mead as Programme Co-ordinator for ‘Commitment for Life’.
4.2 Resolutions on behalf of General Assembly
4.2.1 Mission Council set the basic ministerial stipend for 2006 at £19,788.
4.2.2. Mission Council authorised the response from the Ministries Committee to the Department of Trade and Industry’s document ‘Clergy working conditions – statement of good practice’ on behalf of the United Reformed Church. It is intended that both the DTI statement and the Church’s response will be published on the United Reformed Church’s website.
4.2.3 Mission Council
agreed to the transfer of Leaside United Reformed /Methodist Church from the
Thames North synod to the Eastern synod on 1st September 2006, following the
agreement of the two synods concerned.
5. Other Actions
5.1 Advice to
Churches on Civil Partnerships
5.2 Ministerial development and appraisal (see Appendix 2 and Resolution 16)
5.2.1 In 2003 Mission Council considered a report on leadership in the United Reformed Church. The report addressed the challenge of allowing space for personal leadership, with proper accountability, whilst also honouring the conciliar nature of decision-making in our tradition. One result of debating this report was a request to the Ministries Committee, in conjunction with the Training Committee, to suggest a development policy for Ministers and Church Related Community Workers. Mission Council asked for particular attention to be given to the further development of arrangements for continuing ministerial education and for appraisal.
5.2.2 In 2004 Assembly received the new arrangements for continuing ministerial education embodied in the Education for Ministry programme (EM2 and EM3). At the same meeting and in 2005, Assembly welcomed aspects of the Equipping the Saints report that emphasised the need to see the leadership of the local congregation as a collaborative task, stressing in particular the role of the Elders. Ministry was certainly not just about Ministers.
5.2.3 Against this background, Mission Council now wishes to encourage the Assembly to adopt the principles of a new scheme for ministerial review which can complement Education for Ministry and recognise the collaborative nature of leadership responsibilities in the local congregation. The principles would apply to both Ministers and CRCWs, although some details of the processes used would be different.
5.2.4 Attached as an Appendix to this report (Appendix 2) is a paper providing some background on the existing scheme and setting out a possible new scheme. Mission Council has welcomed this as valuable work in progress. The comments of Assembly on the details would be welcome, either in open debate or by contacting the Ministries office before the end of July. Given the key role Synods would play in supporting such a scheme, and the variations in operating the existing self-appraisal scheme between the Synods, Mission Council recommends that the Assembly asks for a consultation with the Synods before final proposals are brought to the Council or a timetable for implementation agreed.
5.3 Review of the Inter-faith Relations Committee: General Assembly in 2001 (Resolution 7) agreed that the Inter-Faith Relations Committee should be extended for a further five years until 2006, with a review at the beginning of the fifth year. In view of the ‘Catch the Vision’ review of the Church’s governance structures, Mission Council agreed to defer the review of the Inter-Faith committee until proposals on governance are brought to General Assembly.
5.4 Mission Council
received a paper on Charity Trusts prepared by the Provincial Legal and Trust
Officers meeting (PLATO) (Appendix 3), which clarifies and alters advice given
to the General Assembly in 2001 and 2004. This information (for synods, synod
trust companies, districts/areas and local churches) is commended to General
Assembly through Resolution 15.
6. Reports of Advisory Groups to Mission Council
6.1 Resource Sharing Task Group
6.1.1 Work has continued towards the goal of greater inter-synod resource sharing. This includes the sharing of information between synods on various topics: finance, book grants, car loans and recently the Consumer Credit Act.
6.1.2 Two other important issues under constant review are Ministry and Mission contributions and fund raising. The Group has looked at sources of funding and how external sources may be accessed by employing a professional fundraiser. Wessex synod is looking at the possibility of sharing `legal expertise’ with other synods geographically close; consideration is being given as to whether it is possible to run a pilot scheme for a period, to be followed by a review.
6.1.3 Smaller groupings of synods will meet in 2006 as in 2005. Future arrangements will depend on the outcome of a consultation to be held in the autumn.
6.1.4 All inter-synod resource sharing meetings are held in good spirit and clearly there is greater understanding of the various problems faced by different synods. There is still work to be done in seeking to harmonise synod policies on issues related to receipts from property sale and manse funds.
6.2 Ethical Investment Advisory Group
6.2.1 In October 2005 Mission Council noted the calls from partner churches in the United States and elsewhere for possible disinvestment from companies whose activities are seen to support the occupation of Palestine. It asked the EIAG for advice on options open to the United Reformed Church.
6.2.2 The EIAG presented a report to the March 2006 Mission Council. Noting that there was no evidence of URC investments in the particular American companies most under scrutiny, Mission Council decided not to add any company to those currently avoided under the Church’s Ethical Investment guidelines.
6.2.3 Mission Council did ask that the United Reformed Church should express its support for the Presbyterian Church of the USA in its engagement with several major American companies active in Israel/Palestine. It also asked the EIAG to encourage close monitoring of the situation by the ecumenical British Church Investors Group and to provide some background briefing to Synods.
6.2.4 For the longer term, EIAG was asked to consider whether the United Reformed Church’s guidelines could be extended to take more explicit account of the impact of a company’s behaviour on, for example, human rights. EIAG will also discuss with the Synods better systems for monitoring the investments made by different United Reformed Church entities.
6.3 Section O Advisory Group
6.3.1 Ministerial Disciplinary Process
6.3.1.1 The Advisory Group continues to keep the Ministerial Disciplinary Process under review and brought to Assembly last year a series of suggested changes to Part II, which were embodied in Resolution 8. These changes were primarily designed to improve the efficiency of the Mandated Groups which investigate cases in the Disciplinary Process and present them before the Assembly Commission. Due to pressure of business, the Resolution did not come before Assembly and was referred back. The Group has made some significant modifications to the original proposals and now re-presents them to Assembly in Resolution 7.
6.3.1.2 Last year the Advisory Group also brought a proposal to replace the existing Part I of Section O with a reduced Part I (see Assembly Resolution 9 of 2005). Again, this was deferred and is re-presented this year with slight modification as Resolution 8.
6.3.1.3 The Advisory Group also brings a proposal to amend the Structure, which is now slightly out of line with the Section O Process as it has evolved. In particular, the Group wishes to make it clear that the Process begins with the calling in of the Mandated Group to carry out its initial enquiry and that it is the Mandated Group which carries out the required actions within the Process on behalf of the Council in whose name it is acting. This proposal appears at Resolution 9.
6.3.1.4 If
Assembly Resolution 41 of 2005 to abolish District Councils is ratified this
year, the changes needed to the Section O Process will be worked out once the
new structures are known and approved.
6.3.2 Ministerial Incapacity Procedure
6.3.2.1 In the Report to last year’s Assembly reference was made to a new procedure (to be known as the Ministerial Incapacity Procedure) which would enable effective action to be taken in respect of those Ministers regarded as unfit to exercise ministry on account of medical, psychological or other similar or related reasons. The Section O Advisory Group was instructed to carry out this task and its brief was specifically to produce a procedure appropriate to deal with the situations mentioned above. This work has now been done.
6.3.2.2 It is important for Assembly to understand exactly what it is that the Church is seeking to achieve by the introduction of the new procedure. Its purpose is to achieve ‘once and for all’ closure in the most extreme and difficult situations and the task of the Review Commission in any Ministerial Incapacity case will be to decide whether the name of the minister should remain on the roll.
6.3.2.3 It is absolutely clear from the wording of the Procedure that it will only be invoked as a last resort, when the Assembly Pastoral Reference Committee and others involved pastorally can do no more. We have to accept, with regret, that in certain instances – thankfully rare – pastoral care will not, of itself, restore peace and harmony and that, the longer a situation remains unresolved, the greater the damage to the Church – and, probably, to the minister as well. So, if APRC can do no more and has actually said so, the Church must find another way of achieving closure. In effect, the hope of resolving the matter through pastoral means will have already disappeared by the time a minister comes into the Ministerial Incapacity Procedure.
6.3.2.4 So then, this will not be another pastoral measure, but a formal procedure, because it concerns the question of whether a minister’s status should be terminated against his/her will, and the minister’s rights must be safeguarded in those circumstances.
6.3.2.5 Mission Council therefore brings two resolutions in order to introduce the new procedure. Resolution 10 asks Assembly to approve Part I and, as this deals with the constitutional aspects, it will, if passed, be subject to the ‘two year’ rule. Resolution 11 asks Assembly to note the proposed Part II, which contains the Rules of Procedure and the Advisory Group will be glad to receive comments on Part II (see Appendix 1) at any time up to the end of October. The intention will be to bring the complete procedure into operation at next year’s Assembly.
6.3.2.6 The comparable Resolution last year to amend the Structure in order to introduce the new Procedure was Resolution 11. The present Resolution 12 differs considerably because in the course of its further work on the new Procedure, the Advisory Group has come to the conclusion that the initiation of the Procedure should not be through the Councils of the Church, as with Section O. Rather, the new proposal is that the Synod Moderator or Deputy General Secretary, whichever of them believes that there might be reason for a Minister to be brought within the Procedure, should consult with the other of those two and with the Convener of the Assembly Pastoral Reference Committee. The initiation of the Incapacity Procedure would only follow if, having consulted together, those three persons, either unanimously or by a majority, believed that this was the right course to adopt. Once the Procedure has been commenced, the case would be dealt with entirely by the Review Commission. The Advisory Group considers this approach to be in line with the non-disciplinary nature of the new Procedure.
6.3.3 Training During the year the Group has maintained a dialogue with the Synod Moderators and has continued with the work of providing training, particularly for mandated groups. Training days are being planned for mandated groups and for the Assembly Commission later this year.
6.3.4 Personalia We are sorry that the Revd Alison Hall has reluctantly had to resign as Secretary of the Assembly Commission. We thank Alison for her diligent work while in office, and wish her well. The Revd Tony Burnham and Mr Hartley Oldham complete their terms of office as Convener and Secretary of the Advisory Group this year and the group would like to put on record its thanks to them both for their work during this past five years and for the experience and wisdom that their many years of service to the church have brought to the group. It is particularly grateful to Mr Oldham for agreeing to remain a member of the group for a little while longer in order to minimise any disruption caused by the change of convener and secretary. We are very happy that Revd Julian Macro and Mrs Margaret Carrick Smith have been appointed to these positions. We express our very grateful thanks to them and wish them well as they assume these important offices in the service of the Church.
6.4 Grants and Loans Group
6.4.1 The Grants and Loans Group (GLG) administers the Church Buildings Fund, which provides grants and loans to churches to assist with improvements/modifications to church buildings, and the Mission Project Fund, which provides grants for mission work. The Group has continued its policy of giving grants only to synods and churches with the greatest need.
6.4.2 For the year 2005 the budget allocation for grants from the Church Building Fund was approx £86,000. This is the expected income from dividends, deposit account interest and loan interest. It has again been used mainly for provision of facilities for the disabled. By the end of the year £54,500 had been spent with £33,000 granted but not yet spent. There is always a problem knowing exactly when the grants will be taken up as there are often delays in building work being carried out. If the grant is not taken up within 12 months an extension has to be applied for, but will normally be granted. A loan of £50,000 has also been given for urgent remedial work on a church.
6.4.3 The allocation for the Mission Project Fund was £120,000 of which £101,800 was spent, with outstanding grants of £11,000 not yet taken up.
6.4.4 The expected large drop in the applications for grants towards costs of facilities for the disabled has not occurred. Thus other projects have not been able to be considered within the 2005 budget. It is hoped that in 2006 other uses for this fund may be examined.
6.4.5 In 2005, ten applications were received of which nine were approved, but six were for extensions of existing projects. An annual report from all the mission projects is sought, and the Group is very encouraged by the initiative, determination and commitment of the people seeking to be ‘church’ in their communities.
6.4.6 The Grants and Loans Group believes that the monies it makes available from Central Funds provides a real benefit, both to local churches and communities, and that without it many projects would not get started. The hope is that if the projects are successful that they would eventually become self financing: thus, any requests for continuance of funding after the initial grant are always scrutinised very carefully. However it is becoming clear that some, especially inner-city, projects, despite their success, are going to find it very difficult to become self-financing. This poses a dilemma for the group: funds are always going to be limited; and if money is tied up in existing projects, however worthwhile, there will be less money available for new projects. The Group believes that one of its main priorities is to provide money to new mission projects as a seed corn to get them off the ground. However it would be sad to see some of the very successful inner city projects being reduced.
|