 |
|
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 Advisor, 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.
Those representing
synods in March 2000 were:
Northern
Revd Pamela Ward, Dr Peter Clarke, Mrs Roberta Wood
North Western
Revd Geoffrey Townsend, Mrs Margareta Batchelor, Mrs Janice Cockcroft
Mersey Mrs
Lillian Covell, Dr Donald South Revd Gwynfor Evans
Yorkshire
Revd John Jenkinson, Mr Steve Wood, Mrs Val Morrison East Midlands
Mrs Jill Strong, Revd Clifford Wilton, Mrs Irene Wren
West Midlands
Mr Simon Rowntree, Mrs Erica Young, Revd Tom Bayliss
Eastern
Revd Michael Burrell, Mr Ken Woods, Revd Clive Sutcliffe
South Western
Revd John Rees, Mrs Mary Eden, Revd Sandra Lloydlangston
Wessex
Mr Graham Rolfe, Revd David Williams, Revd Simon Thomas
Thames North
Mr Keith Webster, Revd Rachel Poolman, Mr Geoffrey Duncan
Southern
Mrs Christine Meekison, Revd Margaret Collins, Dr Graham Campling
Wales
Dr Jean Sylvan Evans, Mrs Delyth Rees, Mr Peter Devaney
1 Our
meetings
1.1 During the year Mission
Council has met residentially twice at The Hayes Conference Centre,
Swanwick, and for a one-day meeting at the Arthur Rank Centre, Stoneleigh.
Inevitably time and energy has been given to considering the consequences
for the church of the 1999 Assembly debate on human sexuality. However it
has also been possible to devote significant pieces of time to issues of
direct concern to the mission of local churches and the whole United
Reformed Church.
1.2 The Moderator has made
a distinctive contribution to the meetings, helping the Council with both
his perception and his humour. The worship also took the Council into deep
places, and in this the Moderator worked effectively with his chaplain,
Revd Peter Poulter.
1.3 Theological reflection
at the residential meetings was provided by the Revd Dr Noel Davies and
Professor Mary Grey. Their reflections enabled the Council to see the hand
of God in what otherwise could have been remembered only as very full
agendas.
1.4 At each meeting
progress towards union with the Congregational Union of Scotland was
reported. This, coupled with the presence and involvement of members of
the Union at all the meetings, made Mission Council aware that it was
working at a time of significant change. At the conclusion of its March
meeting it looked forward to the first meeting of the Mission Council of
the United Reformed Church, including four representatives of the synod of
Scotland.
2
Responding to the Assembly
2.1 Discipline of church
members. In 1996 Assembly asked Mission Council, among other matters,
to “review the procedures for disciplinary action for all members of the
URC whether they be ordained or not”. The other matters have been dealt
with and a task group, convened by the Revd Julian Macro, has produced a
report indicating the responsibilities of local churches in matters of
discipline. However, in receiving the report, Mission Council recognised
that the situation has moved on considerably. In particular, experience
with the Section O disciplinary process for ministers, once it has been
reflected on, may have relevant insights to contribute. It is also the
case that the Doctrine, Prayer and Worship committee is encouraging a wide
discussion of issues of church membership, and this may also provide
insights into questions of discipline. Mission Council does not therefore
intend to proceed with this matter at the moment. It does draw the
attention of Elders’ and Church Meetings to part of the task group’s
report. The responsibility for adding people to, and removing them from,
the membership roll lies with these meetings, as does the maintaining of
standards of membership. Occasionally complex questions arise which may be
outside the experience of local churches. In such cases they are strongly
urged to use the wider experience of their district councils and synods.
2.2 Human sexuality
pastoral group. This was set up by resolution 41 of the 1997 Assembly.
The members of the group are: Elizabeth Caswell, Malcolm Hanson, Jim
Hollyman, Glyn Jenkins, Lis Mullen and John Waller. Mission Council agreed
to keep the group in existence until at least October 2000. It has been
consulted on a small number of occasions. Contact can be made through the
General Secretary or Deputy General Secretary.
2.3 Small churches.
Resolution 6 of the 1998 Assembly required Mission Council to set up a
task group to consider and report on the opportunities, challenges and
difficulties which small churches face. The group was set up under the
convenership of the Revd Graham Robson and an interim report was presented
to the January meeting of the Council. The task group is continuing its
work, and it is hoped that it will bring a final report to Mission Council
in October.
2.4 Oversight of Growing
Up. Resolution 15 of 1999 asked Mission Council to oversee the
planning of this mission programme. Mission Council asked the General
Secretary to undertake this particular responsibility, bringing matters to
it whenever he felt it necessary.
2.5 Consequences of accepting the statement in resolution 34. The Human Sexuality Report of 1999 recognised that further work needed to be done on the possible consequences and it asked Mission Council to make the necessary arrangements (resolution 37). Recognising the sensitivity of the subject, Mission Council took considerable care in appointing a task group to do the work. Those appointed were: Revd John Reardon (convener), Revd Ken Chippindale, Mr John Ellis, Revd Malcolm Hanson, Mrs Barbara Martin, Mrs Helen Mee, Mrs Val Morrison, with the General Secretary acting as secretary. The group met on a number of occasions and produced a report which was presented to Mission Council in March. However, by that time it was known that the statement in resolution 34 could not be accepted because it had not received sufficient support in the councils of the church. Mission Council did not discuss the task group’s report, nor is it forwarding the report to Assembly, because it believes that discussing “what might have been” will confuse the discussion of the actual situation facing the Assembly in regard to the human sexuality debate. The members of the task group have been thanked for their work.
2.6 Report of the
Working Group on the Authority of the General Assembly and other Councils.
In receiving the Human Sexuality Report 1999, Assembly requested Mission
Council to consider the recommendations of this Working Group and to
report to a future Assembly (resolution 39(ii)). Mission Council decided
to remit this work to a task group of seven people, which would be asked
to report in 2001, first to Mission Council in March and then to Assembly.
Having regard to the content of the Working Group’s report, Mission
Council asked the Assembly’s Nominations Committee to appoint the
members of the task group. Those appointed are: Revd Adrian Bulley
(convener), Revd Ray Adams (secretary), Mrs Margaret Carrick Smith, Mr
Eric Chilton, Revd Jack Dyce, Revd Pat Nimmo, Mrs Irene Wren. The task
group has begun its work.
3 Actions
on behalf of the General Assembly
3.1 Appointment of the
moderator of the North Western synod. Acting on behalf of the
Assembly, Mission Council appointed the Revd Peter James Brain as
moderator of the North Western synod for a period of seven years to 31
August 2007.
3.2 Appointments to
staff posts. Acting on behalf of the Assembly, Mission Council made
the following appointments and re-appointments:
Miss Avis Reaney to be
Secretary for Finance from 1 April 2000.
Mrs Rosemary Johnston to be
Children’s Advocate for a further period of 5 years to 31 March 2005.
Revd David Lawrence to be
Editor of Reform and Media Officer for a further period to 31 August 2005.
Revd John Proctor to be
Director of New Testament Studies at Westminster College for a further
period to 31 August 2003.
3.3 Basic ministerial
stipend. Acting on behalf of the Assembly, Mission Council set the
basic ministerial stipend for 2000 at £16,308 p.a.
3.4 Gereja Presbyterian
Malaysia. In order to make clear that the United Reformed Church does
not claim any right to Presbyterian property in Malaysia, the following
resolution was passed:
In accordance with the
powers devolved upon it by the General Assembly of the United Reformed
Church and acting on its behalf, Mission Council resolves as follows:
to confirm that the United Reformed Church does not claim any right or authority to exercise control over any Malaysian property belonging to Gereja Presbyterian Malaysia and
to ratify the actions
taken by Gereja Presbyterian Malaysia with regard to the transfer of
properties in Malaysia under its control insofar as such ratification is
legally necessary and
to confirm that from
this moment the United Reformed Church relinquishes permanently to Gereja
Presbyterian Malaysia all such control and authority as may be vested in
it by any enactment or deed in relation to any such Malaysian property so
that in future Gereja Presbyterian Malaysia shall be able to act without
reference to the United Reformed Church and
to authorise the
officers of General Assembly to give any future consents or confirmations
which may be required in relation to the property and assets of Gereja
Presbyterian Malaysia.
3.5 Island House, St
Paul’s URC, Cubitt Town. Also in order to clarify the ownership and
control of this piece of property in east London, the following resolution
was passed:
Mission Council
confirms, on behalf of General Assembly, that control and ownership of
Island House rests with the Thames North Synod.
3.6 Appointment of a
director of a trust. These appointments are normally the
responsibility of synods, but as the area covered by this trust includes
two synods the following resolution was passed.
Mission Council, under authority delegated by the General Assembly (1994 resolution 11) in exercise of the power conferred on the General Assembly by section 7 (2) of the United Reformed Church Act 1972 appoints Mr. Michael Gabb as a director of the Congregational Union of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire Inc.
3.7 Changes to the Plan
for Partnership in Ministerial Remuneration. It had been realised that
the changes agreed by Assembly in 1999 regarding childrens’ allowances
would penalise ministers whose family income exceeded the basic stipend by
slightly more than £2000. It had also been recognised that changes in
legislation would require the existing arrangements for heat and light
costs to be ended. Having been persuaded of both these points, Mission
Council passed the following resolutions:
Mission Council, acting
for Assembly in a matter of urgency, amends the Plan for Partnership in
Ministerial Remuneration by the addition of the words in italics in para
6.1.5, and the re-numbering of the sub-paragraphs, which will then read:
6.1.5.1
Children’s allowances: Where a minister has one or more financially
dependent children below the age of 24 years, an annual non-pensionable
allowance of £800 in respect of the first dependent child and £400 in
respect of each additional dependent child will be paid, provided that the
minister certifies (on a form provided) that the total annual income of
the family (excluding state children’s benefits) is expected to be less
that £2,000 in excess of the basic stipend; (see para 6.1.5.6 below)
6.1.5.2 Any
casual earnings of, or educational grants for, dependent children, or
housing or fixed car allowances paid by the Church, may be disregarded as
family income; 6.1.5.3 The
allowance will be paid in accordance with the circumstances pertaining at
the date that the certificate is signed. Any subsequent change, e.g. when
the family income changes, will be disregarded in the current year;
pro-rata grants may be claimed in the year of the birth of a baby, and in
the year in which a child ceases to be dependent, or attains the age of
24;
6.1.5.4 The first
year in which this allowance will be paid is 2000. The sums of £800, £400
and £2,000 in paras 6.1.5.1 and 6.1.5.6 will be reviewed by the
MoM Committee for each subsequent year;
6.1.5.5 It is
envisaged that forms will be issued in February of each year, and grants
will be paid through the first available payroll run after the form is
received in the MoM office;
6.1.5.6 Where a minister certifies that the total family income, as defined in this para, is likely to exceed the basic stipend + £2,000, the allowance will be paid less 50p for every £1 that the expected income exceeds the basic stipend + £2,000.
Mission Council, acting
for Assembly in a matter of urgency, suspends para 6.1.2 of the Plan for
Partnership in Ministerial Remuneration relating to any cost of heating
and lighting incurred after April 1st 2000, and amends the Plan for
Partnership in Ministerial Remuneration by the deletion of para 6.1.2 with
effect from July 1st 2000.
3.8 Changes to the
Section O ministerial discipline process. Having been consulted about
a potential case, it was realised by the legal adviser that the process
put ministers in synod and Assembly appointments at a disadvantage from
those under the oversight of district councils. He advised that, even
though a case might not arise before the next Assembly, justice required
that the provisions should be changed immediately so that all ministers
were treated equally. The issue was carefully considered by Mission
Council and the following resolution was passed:
Acting on behalf of the
General Assembly, Mission Council resolves that the existing Paragraph B.9
of Part II of the Process for Ministerial Discipline (the Section O
Process) be replaced in its entirety by the following Paragraph B.9:
B.9.1
To enable them properly
to carry out their respective functions under Paragraphs 2(4)(xv) and
2(5)(xxiii) of the Structure of the United Reformed Church, every Synod
and the General Assembly shall act through a group of three persons
(“the Mandated Group”) which shall have mandated authority to act on
behalf of the Synod or the General Assembly as the case may be in every
matter requiring consideration under those respective functions.
B.9.2
Any Mandated Group
required to act on behalf of a Synod in a particular case shall be
appointed by the Synod Moderator and the Synod Clerk (or their duly
appointed deputies) from the Provincial Panel for that Synod.
B.9.3
Any Mandated Group
required to act on behalf of the General Assembly in a particular case
shall be appointed by the Deputy General Secretary (or, in his/her absence
or if for any other reason he/she is unable to act, by another officer of
General Assembly not otherwise involved in the Section O Process) from the
members of the Provincial Panels other than that of the Synod out of which
the case arises.
B.9.4
Paragraphs B.2, B.4,
B.5, B.6, B.7 and B.8 shall apply to cases falling within Paragraph B.9,
but with the following changes:
In Paragraph B.5 the
word ‘Standing’ shall not apply and, in the case of a Mandated Group
appointed in the name of General Assembly, the words ‘Deputy General
Secretary’ shall replace the words ‘Provincial Moderator’.
In Paragraph B.6.1, in
the case of a Mandated Group appointed in the name of General Assembly the
words ‘in consultation with the Provincial Moderator’ shall not apply.
In Paragraph B.7.1 the
words ‘the Minister concerned’ shall replace the words ‘a Minister
under the oversight of the District Council’, and the second reference
to ‘the District Council’ shall be replaced by a reference to ‘the
Synod’ or ‘General Assembly’ as the case may be.
In Paragraph B.8 the
first reference to ‘the District Council’ shall be replaced by a
reference to the Synod or General Assembly (or Mission Council on its
behalf) as the case may be and the appointment of the different Mandated
Group shall be made by repeating the procedure set out in Paragraph B.9.2
or B.9.3 as the case may be.
4 Other
Actions
4.1 Human Sexuality
Report 1999. As the core and working groups had been appointed by
Mission Council, the following resolution of thanks was passed and
conveyed to those who had been involved in this demanding piece of work:
Mission Council
discharges the core group and working groups on human sexuality, recording
its deep gratitude for the task that has been completed on behalf of the
whole church. It recognises that the work has been done with seriousness
and integrity, and that it has involved considerable pain. The result has
been widely appreciated – even by those who do not accept the
conclusion.
4.2 Mission Council
minute secretary. Following the resignation of Mrs Sally Brooks, Mrs
Barbara Hedgecock was appointed to this post.
4.3 Task group on the
grouping of churches. This group reported at two meetings. The final
draft of the report is to be sent to district councils with an invitation
to comment on it from their experience. There was strong feeling in
Mission Council that the ecumenical discussion and the pending questions
needed to be completed as soon as possible.
4.4 Information
Technology task group. Mission Council has been concerned to see that
developments in IT at Church House should be co-ordinated with those in
synod offices and throughout the church. A task group has been established
under the convenership of Mr Steve Wood (Yorkshire). Four members
represent the different functions within Church House (Mr Hilary Gunn, Mrs
Judith Johnson, Mr Chris Langham and Revd David Lawrence) and two other
members to represent wider interests were about to be appointed at the
time of writing. It is recognised that IT developments open up significant
possibilities for the church.
4.5 Personal and
conciliar leadership task group. The role and authority of synod
moderators, and its relation to that of district councils and synods, has
cropped up in Mission Council discussion at intervals over the last three
years or so. It has become obvious that changes in the mission situation
of the church, and developing ecumenical relationships, have modified the
URC practice of personal and conciliar leadership - but the basis on which
the changes have been made is not so clear. This new task group has been
charged to look at the principles and then to advise whether any changes
should be made.
4.6 Resource sharing
task group.
The annual consultation
between synod representatives heard encouraging stories of appreciation
for the benefits that the annual sharing of income has produced. Those
present were reminded that sharing involves both giving and receiving, and
that all synods are engaged in both aspects of sharing. Those synods which
give much more than they receive in financial terms, have been asked to
consider how the gift they receive, however small, should be applied. As a result of the
comparisons that have been documented, there is concern that the variation
in the standards of manse accommodation across the church is so marked. As
with the other differences that the resource sharing process has
identified, synods will be asking themselves whether they need to review
their own arrangements. On a more positive note, the consultation was very
pleased to see that the method of funding for Continuous Ministerial
Education responds fully to its stated hope that ministers would not be
disadvantaged as a result of working in a synod which had limited
financial resources. A further area of study has been initiated in the
comparison of funding for lay training.
The consultation took a
bold step to seek a commitment from all synods to move towards giving
based on 10% of investment income. It is hoped that this might be achieved
in 2001, based on income in a year of jubilee. The consultation in October
will discover whether this hope is to be realised.
4.7 Local church
premises task group. This group was set up as a consequence of a
discussion of the Growing Up report. Its task is to suggest ways in which
the premises of local churches can be used and developed as a resource for
mission. The group, under the convenership of Mr Martin Ballard, is
expected to report to Mission Council in October.
4.8 Deputy to the Clerk
of Assembly. It was recognised that arrangements needed to be made if
the Clerk is unable to be present at either Mission Council or Assembly
owing to illness or a sudden emergency. Mission Council resolved that in
these circumstances the General Secretary should act as Clerk. This was
because the rules of procedure already allow for the two offices to be
held by one person. It was recognised that if the Clerk’s absence was of
any length, the General Secretary might wish to propose a named person to
act as Clerk for a specific period.
4.9 Continuation of
staff posts. During the year Mission Council considered whether or not
the following staff posts should be continued for a further period, and in
each case resolved that they should: Editor of ‘Reform’ and Media
Officer; Children’s Advocate; Secretary for Church and Society;
Secretary for International Relations; and Secretary for Ministries.
4.10 General Secretary
and Deputy General Secretary job descriptions. Mission Council agreed
a revised version of these job descriptions at the request of the special
committee charged with nominating a General Secretary.
4.11 Nomination of
Principal of Westminster College. Mission Council was asked to judge
whether the Principal should be nominated by a group set up by the
Assembly’s Nominations Committee (which would then bring the name to
Assembly), or by a group set up by the Board of Governors (who would
present a name to the Board, who in turn would take it to Assembly). The
text agreed by the Assembly in 1996 setting up the Board of Governors was
not clear on this point. It was decided to follow the process beginning
with the Nominations Committee.
4.12 Nominations in
Scotland and Wales. The synod of Scotland preparation group sought
clarification of Part 5 of the Congregational Union of Scotland/United
Reformed Church union proposals, which provided for nominations to
representative bodies in the two nations to be made by the respective
national synods. The clear implication of this was that some appointments
previously made by the Assembly would in future be made by a national
synod. In order to establish a practice in time for the Unifying Assembly,
Mission Council agreed that:
All appointments to the
Assemblies and synods of sister churches, and to appropriate
representative bodies, relating to England, Britain and internationally
will continue to be made by the General Assembly.
From I April 2000, all
such appointments relating to Scotland and Wales will be made by the
relevant national synod and reported to the General Assembly.
It was recognised that this
did not prevent the national synods from appointing people from other
nations, nor did it necessarily end the practice of sending Assembly
officers as representatives to some church assemblies and synods.
4.13 Multi-racial,
multi-cultural development programme. (see Appendix 9) In 1996
Assembly agreed that a post to initiate and support this programme could
be established for “an initial period of three years”. The Revd
Marjorie Lewis-Cooper was in due time appointed to the post and her term
of service will end on 31 July 2000. Ms Lewis-Cooper has been supported by
a management group representative of the Church and Society committee,
Equal Opportunities committee and Overseas Exchange sub-committee,
convened by the Revd John Waller on behalf of Mission Council. The
question of the future of the programme and a post to serve it has been
discussed at the January and March meetings of Mission Council. In January
the following resolution was passed:
Mission Council:
acknowledges the support
given by the Council for World Mission and gives thanks for the ministry
of the Revd Marjorie Lewis-Cooper as multi-racial / multi-cultural
development worker during these past three years;
accepts the need for a
continuing programme of work which seeks to ensure that the United
Reformed Church becomes and remains an instrument for racial justice
within its own life and the life of society.
It was also agreed to
investigate the staffing and financial implications of this resolution.
The management group had proposed the establishment of an Assembly
Committee on Racial Justice, served by a full-time staff member. At the
March meeting Mission Council agreed to the establishment of a staff post,
but deferred taking steps to fill it until there had been discussion with
ecumenical partners and until a way had been found to guarantee the
funding required. In the meantime the programme will proceed under the
direction of the management group with a budget of £30,000 p.a., which
will enable the group to continue the racial justice advocates’ network
and to provide some staffing support. There was strong feeling in Mission
Council that the ecumenical discussion and the funding questions needed to
be completed as soon as possible.
4.14 Grants and Loans
Group. During the year Mission Council has looked to change the system
by which grants and loans are made to local churches for mission and
community projects. The change was particularly driven by the decision to
use the URC’s entitlement from the CWM self-support fund for local
projects. The Ministries Committee will now deal with grants for the
support of industrial and higher education chaplaincies. Ecumenical grants
are the responsibility of the Ecumenical Committee. This leaves all other
grants and loans previously made by the Advisory Group on Grants and Loans
(AGOGAL); the Church Buildings Fund committee; and all applications for
self-support fund money as the responsibility of the Grants and Loans
Group. Each synod has a representative on the Group, and this person will
be responsible for processing applications from local churches.
Information about the grants and loans available can be obtained from the
Secretary, Miss Jean Thompson, 28 Mountcombe Close, Surbiton KT6 6LJ.
4.15 Consultation on
resolution 34. At its March meeting Mission Council received the
following report from the General Secretary:
“At last year’s
Assembly the following resolutions were agreed:
34 In order to test the
mind of the church regarding homosexuality, General Assembly asks the
councils of the church to consider the Human Sexuality Report 1999 and to
come to a view on the following statement:
In the context of the
affirmations commended to the church in Resolution 31, the United Reformed
Church affirms and welcomes people of homosexual orientation within the
life of the church and society, but does not believe that there is a
sufficiently clear mind within the church at this time to affirm the
acceptability of homosexual practice.
35 General Assembly:
(i) invites local
churches, district councils and synods to discuss the statement contained
in Resolution 34;
(ii) agrees that if any
local church, district council or synod passes a resolution that the
statement be not accepted by a majority of members present and voting
at a duly convened meeting of such a body, notice of such a resolution
must reach the General Secretary by 14th March 2000;
(iii) agrees that if by
14th March 2000 such notice has been received from more than one third of
local churches or more than one third of district councils or more than
one third of synods, then the Assembly in its concern for the unity of the
church shall not proceed to accept the statement;
(iv) agrees that if by
14th March 2000 such notice has not been received, a motion to accept the
statement shall be put to the Annual Meeting of the Assembly in 2000, such
motion requiring a simple majority of the members present and voting to
pass.
The Voting
Since the Assembly of 1999 some local churches have closed and two district councils have joined together. The resolution did not make clear on what date the total number of local churches, district councils and synods should be calculated. In the event this does not affect the outcome but, to avoid any dispute, the table below gives the figures both on the day of the Assembly decision and the date given for the conclusion of the process.
7 July 1999 14 March
2000
The number of those NOT
in favour of accepting the statement in Resolution 34, shown also as a
percentage of the total number of churches, district councils and synods.
Local churches 439
(25.4%) 436 (25.3%)
District Councils 30
(40.5%) 29 (39.7%)
Synods 6 (50%) 6(50%)
It is therefore clear
that the Assembly will be in the situation envisaged in Resolution
35(iii). In its concern for the unity of the church, the Assembly will not
proceed to accept that statement.”
Mission Council considered
the consequences of this outcome at length, and is bringing resolutions 14
and 15 to Assembly.
4.16 The world beyond.
In all the variety of its concerns Mission Council has not forgotten the
context in which it has met. Among other things the Council heard about
and commended the Taiwan Earthquake Appeal, supported representations made
to the Indonesian authorities at a time of Christian-Muslim community
violence, and encouraged the Pilgrim 2000 visit in solidarity with
Palestinian Christians. That “God so loved the world that he gave his
only Son” is the key to all our mission. It is God’s mission.
Resolution 6 Changes
to the Structure
General Assembly agrees to
make the following changes to the Structure of the United Reformed Church:
Amend paragraph 2(5)(b) by
inserting “and” before “the Deputy General Secretary” and deleting
the words “and the Convener of the Assembly Arrangements Committee”.
Add a new paragraph
3(1)(h): For the purposes of this paragraph 3(1), only synods, district
councils and churches in existence on the date set for responses to be
made shall be counted in the calculations.
1.1 Paragraph 2(5)(b) deals with certain officers who are members of General Assembly. The Convener of the Assembly Arrangements Committee is made a member of Assembly by the following clause, which refers to all conveners of standing committees. The inclusion of this officer in 2(5)(b) is unnecessary duplication.
1.2 Paragraph 3(1) relates
to the reference of certain decisions to synods, district councils and
local churches. The present resolution 35 process has revealed a weakness
in this section, in that it does not say on what date the total number of
synods, district councils and churches is determined. This addition makes
clear that only those councils in
existence at the date set for responses will be counted.
Resolution 7 Changes
to the Structure
ion of July 1999 to make the following changes to the Structure of the
United Reformed Church (see the procedure for constitutional amendment set
out in paragraph 3(1) of the Structure):
a) Amend the existing
paragraph 1(2)(a) by inserting the following sentence after the existing
second sentence: “The expression “Provincial Synod” when used in the
United Reformed Church Acts of 1972 and 1981 shall in relation to property
in Wales be read as referring to the national Synod of Wales.”
b) Amend the existing
category at paragraph 2(3)(a) by deleting the words “deaconesses” and
“registered local pastors”. This paragraph would then read: “All
ministers, registered pastors (in Scotland) and church-related community
workers engaged directly in the service of the United Reformed Church
within that district, and Assembly appointed ministers who are members of
a local church in that district”.
c) Amend the existing
category at paragraph 2(3)(b) by deleting the words “deaconesses” and
“registered local pastors”. This paragraph would then read: “Such
other ministers, registered pastors (in Scotland) and church related
community workers as shall from time to time be appointed by the synod as
hereinafter provided”.
d) Amend the existing
category at paragraph 2(4)(a) by deleting the words “deaconesses” and
“registered local pastors”. This paragraph would then read: “All
ministers, registered pastors (in Scotland) and church-related community
workers who are for the time being members of district councils within the
province or nation.
e) Delete the present
category 2(4)(xiv).
f) Renumber the existing
categories 2(4)(xv) - 2(4)(xvii) as 2(4)(xiv) - 2(4)(xvi)
No objections have been
raised to this decision (Resolution 28 of 1999), which brings the
Structure in line with a number of other
decisions already made.
Resolution 8 Belonging
to the World Church - Membership of General Assembly
General Assembly agrees
to ratify its decision of July 1999 to amend paragraph 2(5)(e) of the
Structure of the United Reformed Church so that it reads: “Up to twelve
representatives from the partner churches of the United Reformed Church
outside of Britain and Ireland or such other number as the Assembly shall
from time to time determine;”
No objections have been
raised to this decision (Resolution 48 of 1999), which amends the
Structure so that representatives of partner churches can take the places
at Assembly which used to be allocated to missionaries on furlough.
Section
O process - ministerial discipline Changes to Part 1
General Assembly agrees to ratify its
decision of July 1999 to make the following changes to the
Section O process (See the procedue for constitutional amendment set out
in paragraph 3(1) of the Structure.):
Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.9
Delete Provincial
Paragraph 3.13
Insert a new Paragraph as
follows:-
References
to district councils shall be understood to include area councils in
Scotland, such area councils being in every respect identical with
district councils and wherever the words “district council” or “district’
appear they shall, as regards Scotland, be read as meaning “area council”
or “area”.
Paragraph 4.2
Delete the final sentence.
Paragraph 5.1
Delete Provincial
Paragraph 7.1.1
Insert a new paragraph as
follows:
No person shall be a member
of the Commission Panel or of any Appeals Commission and at the same time
also be a member of any Synod Panel or Mandated Group as defined in the
Rules of Procedure.
Paragraph 7.1.2
The existing Paragraph 7.1
will become 7.1.2.
Also delete Provincial.
Paragraph 10.2
Delete the existing
Paragraph 10.2 and add the following Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3.
10.2 If the Assembly
Commission or the Appeals Commission considers that there has been some
conduct, statement, act or omission on the part of the Minister which,
although not sufficiently serious to justify deletion is nevertheless of
sufficient concern to justify lesser disciplinary action against the
Minister it may, whilst allowing the name of the Minister to remain on the
Roll, take either or both of the following steps, the first being part of
its decision and the second being by way of recommendation:-
10.2.1 It may issue a written warning to the Minister that any continuance or repetition of any of the disciplinary matters complained of might be considered a cause for deletion by a future
Assembly Commission or
Appeals Commission.
10.2.2 It may append
recommendations to its decision in accordance with Paragraph 16.1.3.
10.3 If the decision of the
Appeals Commission is to delete the name of the Minister from the Roll, it
will in recording its decision also consider Paragraph 16.1.4.
Paragraphs 11.1, 14.2, 14.3
and 14.6
Delete Paragraph 10.2 and
substitute Paragraph 10.2.1.
Paragraph 16.1
Delete and substitute the
following:
16.1 In recording its
decision the Assembly Commission or the Appeals Commission as the case may
be shall comply with the following:
16.1.1 It shall state
whether its decision is unanimous or by a majority.
16.1.2 It shall append a
written statement of its reasons for reaching its decision, but shall not
be obliged (unless it wishes to do so) to comment in detail on all or any
of the matters of evidence laid before it.
16.1.3 In the event that
the decision is not to delete the name of the Minister from the Roll it
may in its written statement append such recommendations as it considers
will be helpful to moderators of synod, district councils, local churches
and others within the Church in relation to the future ministry of the
Minister.
16.1.4 If the decision is
to delete the name of the Minister from the Roll of Ministers it is
particularly requested to include appropriate guidance to assist
moderators of synod, district councils, local churches and others within
the Church concerning any restrictions which might be placed upon any
church-related activities involving the Minister after his/her deletion.
16.1.5 In addition to its
power to make recommendations or to offer guidance under Paragraph 16.1.3
or Paragraph 16.1.4 respectively, the Appeals Commission may if it sees
fit endorse, overrule, vary or modify in any way any recommendation made
or guidance offered by the Assembly Commission in the case in question.
Paragraph 21
In the first and second
sentences, delete Provincial Moderator and substitute moderator of the
synod.
In the last sentence delete
Province and province and substitute synod each time.
No objections have been
raised to this decision (Resolution 27 of 1999), which makes minor changes
to the Section O Process, in connection with the union of the
Congregational Union of Scotland and as a result of early experience of
the process.C
Changes to Part 11 General Assembly agrees to
make the following changes to Part II of the Section O Process
(the Rules of Procedure) :-
A.2.7 First line - replace
“Provincial” with “Synod” and replace “Province” with
“Synod”
A.2.9 Add an additional
definition as follows :-
““ The Structure”
shall mean the Structure of the United Reformed Church”
A.2.10 Add an additional
definition as follows :-
““ The District
Council” shall mean that District Council which in relation to any
minister exercises
oversight of that minister in accordance with its function under Paragraph
2(3)(i) of the Structure”
A.3 Third line - delete
“Provincial”.
Fifth line - delete “of
the United Reformed Church”.
A.4 Add an additional
sentence as follows :-
“The Assembly Commission
should also consider whether to make any recommendations under
Paragraph 16.1.3 of Part I or to offer any guidance under Paragraph 16.1.4
of Part I ”
A.8 Add an additional
Paragraph as follows :-
“In any case where a
person authorised or required to take some action regarding (i) the
appointment of persons to any Mandated Group under Paragraphs B.5 or B.9
or (ii) the calling in of a Mandated Group under Paragraphs B.6 or B.9 or
(iii) some other administrative or procedural matter under the Section O
Process is unable for any reason to do so, then, unless the Section O
Process already makes specific provision for such a situation, that
person’s duly appointed deputy shall take such action in his/her place.
This Paragraph does not permit any member of an Assembly Commission, an
Appeals Commission or a Mandated Group to appoint his/her own deputy.”
B Replace the heading of
Section B with “Appointment and role of Mandated Groups of District
Councils, Synods and General Assembly”.
B.2 First line - delete
“Provincial”
Second line - replace
“Provincial” with “Synod”
Third line - replace
“Province” with “Synod”
Fourth line - replace
“Province” with “Synod”
B.3 First line - replace
“Provincial” with “Synod”
B.4 First line - replace
“Provincial” with “Synod”
B.5.1 The existing
Paragraph B.5 shall become B.5.1. On the second line replace “Provincial
Moderator” with “Moderator of the Synod” and on the third line
replace “Provincial” with “Synod”.
B.5.2 Add a new Paragraph
as follows :-
“Persons appointed to any
Mandated Group or Synod Panel set up under this Section B are subject to
the restrictions contained in Paragraphs 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of Part I”.
B.6 Add a new Paragraph B.6
as follows :-
“If at any time the
Moderator of the Synod or (if for any reason s/he should be unavailable or
unable to act) the President of the District Council in consultation with
such officers of the District Council as s/he considers appropriate
believes that there is or may be a disciplinary issue in respect of any
minister s/he may forthwith in the name and on the authority of the
District Council call in its Standing Mandated Group”
B.7 This is the original
Paragraph B.6, now renumbered B.7. Replace the opening words “The
functions of the Mandated Group are twofold with the following :-
“The functions of the
Mandated Group called in by the person duly authorised for that purpose
under Paragraph B.6 in any particular case are twofold :-”
Continue with the original
B.6.1 and B.6.2, now renumbered, B.7.1 and B.7.2.
B.7.1 Replace the opening
words “To carry out the initial enquiry in consultation with the
Provincial Moderator” with the following :-
“To carry out its own
initial enquiry in consultation (where practical and appropriate) with the
Moderator of the Synod ....... ”
B.7.2 Add the following
words “ ........... and at the Hearing of any Appeal under Section G of
these Rules”
B.8 Delete the original
Paragraph B.8.
B.8.1 &
B.8.2 These are the former
Paragraphs B.7.1 and B.7.2, and will now be renumbered B.8.1 and B.8.2.
B.8.3 Add a new Paragraph
as follows :-
“The Mandated Group shall
forthwith notify the Moderator of the Synod and the Secretary of the
District Council in writing of the issue of the Referral Notice and the
Notice of Suspension”.
B.9.2 Replace the existing
Paragraph with the following :-
“In connection with the
any such steps under Paragraph B.9.1 as are required to be taken by a
Synod, if at any time the Moderator of the Synod in consultation with such
officers of the Synod as s/he considers appropriate, believes that there
is or may be a disciplinary issue in respect of any minister in membership
of that Synod, s/he may forthwith in the name of the Synod appoint a
Mandated Group for the particular case from the Synod Panel for that Synod
and the Mandated Group so appointed shall be deemed to be called in and
vested with authority in like manner to the Standing Mandated Group of a
District Council called in under Paragraph B.6”
B.9.3 Replace the existing
Paragraph with the following :-
“In connection with any
steps under B.9.1 as are required to be taken by General Assembly (or
Mission Council on its behalf), if at any time the Deputy General
Secretary, in consultation with such other officers of the General
Assembly as s/he considers appropriate, believes that there is or may be a
disciplinary issue in respect of any minister s/he may forthwith in the
name of General Assembly appoint a Mandated Group for the particular case
from a Synod Panel other than that of the Synod out of which the case
arises and the Mandated Group so appointed shall be deemed to be called in
and vested with authority in like manner to the Standing Mandated Group of
a District Council called in under Paragraph B.6”
B.9.4 In the first sentence
delete the reference to Paragraph B.6. In the first change referred to
replace “Provincial Moderator” with “Moderator of the Synod”. In
the second change replace “Paragraph B.6.1” with “Paragraph B.7.1”
and “Provincial Moderator” with “Moderator of the Synod”. In the
third change replace “Paragraph B.7.1” with “Paragraph B.8.1”.
Remove the fourth change altogether.
B.10 Replace “Paragraph
B.7.1” with “Paragraph B.8.1”
B.11 Add an additional
Paragraph as follows :-
“Once a Referral Notice
has been issued by a Mandated Group in any case, no further Referral
Notice shall in any circumstances be issued in respect of the subject
matter of that referral”.
C.1.3 Replace
“preliminary response” with “comments”.
C.1.5 Add an additional
Paragraph as follows :-
“Inform the General
Secretary of the receipt of the Referral Notice”
D.4 Add an additional
Paragraph as follows :-
“In cases where Paragraph
E.7.1 applies, the Mandated Group shall forthwith suspend its own
investigation during the period specified in that Paragraph”.
E.3 Replace the existing Paragraph E.3 up to the words “which shall :-” with the following :-
E.3 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 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, shall decide thereupon.
E.3.2 Having complied with
Paragraph E.3.1, the Secretary of the Assembly Commission shall forthwith
serve on the Minister and the District Council a notice which shall :-”
Continue with the
sub-paragraphs which are now renumbered E.3.2.1, E.3.2.2., E.3.2.3,
E.3.2.4, E.3.2.5 and E.3.2.6.
E.3.2.4 Elide the whole of
this Paragraph into one clause as follows :-
“Invite the parties to
state the names of persons whom they propose to invite to attend the
Hearing and, briefly, the purpose of their attendance and the approximate
length of time which each of the parties will require at the Hearing”
E.4.1 Replace the
references to Paragraphs E.3.3 and E.3.4 with references to Paragraphs
E.3.2.3 and E.3.2.4.
E.4.3 Replace the
references to Paragraphs E.3.5 and E.3.6 with references to Paragraphs
E.3.2.5 and E.3.2.6 and at the end of the existing text continue with the
words “ ....................... and copies of each party’s response
shall thereupon be sent by the Secretary of the Assembly Commission to the
other party”.
E.7.4 Add an additional
Paragraph as follows :-
“If the case falls within
this Paragraph E.7, the Secretary of the Assembly Commission shall, as
soon as practicable after the appointment of the Assembly Commission,
notify the parties of the compulsory adjournment of the case”.
E.8 Replace the existing
Paragraph E.8 in its entirety with the following :-
“Any of the following may
be taken into account by the Assembly Commission in reaching its decision
under Paragraph 10 of Part I that is to say :-
E.8.1 Any obstruction or
unreasonable delay on the part of either of the parties in complying with
the procedural steps prior to the Hearing and/or
E.8.2 The failure by the
Minister to attend at the Hearing without satisfactory explanation and/or
E.8.3 Any obstruction
caused by either of the parties to the Assembly Commission in the conduct
of the Hearing itself”
E.9 Replace the words “of
the consequences of such admission” with the following words :-
“
........................ that the consequences of such admission might be
a decision to delete or to issue a written warning .................. ”
E.12.2 Add the following
additional sentence :-
“S/He shall not be
present when the Assembly Commission deliberates and decides on the
case”.
E.14.2 Insert the “2”
in the Paragraph numbering.
E.14.3 Add the following
words :-
“ ............ , nor
shall s/he be present when the Assembly Commission deliberates and decides
upon the case”
E.16.1.1 Add a new
Paragraph number E.16.1.1 as follows :-
“In all cases the burden
of proving the case against the Minister shall fall upon the Council”.
The existing Paragraph
E.16.1 then becomes Paragraph E.16.1.2.
F.2.1 On line 2 after the
words “and the General Secretary” add the words “and the Moderator
of the Synod”
F.2.2 Replace
“omission” with “Commission”
G.1.4 Add an additional
Paragraph as follows :-
“Except for those Rules
which by their content are inappropriate for the Appeals Procedure, the
Rules set out in Section E shall also apply to Section G (with the
necessary changes).
G.8.2.2 Replace the
existing Paragraph with the following :-
“The General Secretary
shall consult with the Convener and the other members of the Appeals
Commission and, where possible, with the parties as to a suitable venue,
date and time for the Hearing and, having so consulted, shall decide
thereupon and shall forthwith send a notice to the parties informing them
of the arrangements for the Hearing”.
G.8.2.3 Delete this
Paragraph as it has been moved forward to become Paragraph G.1.4. The
succeeding sub-paragraphs will be re-numbered G.8.2.3 and G.8.2.4
G.9.2 On line 1 after the
word “Council” remove “and” and insert a comma.
On line 2 after the words
“Assembly Commission” add the words “and the Moderator of the
Synod”
H.2.2.1 Replace the
existing Paragraph with the following :-
“By delivering the
document personally to any person nominated by the Mandated Group to
accept service or, in the absence of any such nomination, to the
spokesperson for the Mandated Group”.
H.2.2.2 Add the following
words :-
“ .......................
or, in the absence of any such nomination, to the spokesperson for the
Mandated Group.
H.2.2.3 Delete this
Paragraph.
H.2.2.4 This now becomes
H.2.2.3.
H.5 Replace the final
sentence with the following :-
“Each Secretary must pass
all papers on to his/her successor, and the importance of retaining all
written records is emphasised”.
In proposing the Part I
changes to last year’s Assembly, the General Secretary stated that some
amendments to the Part II Rules of Procedure would be presented this year.
These are set out in the above Resolution. They arise from the cases which
have passed through the Process or from the various seminars and
discussions which have been held on Section O. They are all procedural in
nature, which is why a detailed commentary has not
been given.
Resolution 11 Role of
Mandated Group in Section O Process
General Assembly confirms
that once a Mandated Group has been appointed from the Synod Panel(s) in
connection with a particular case, it has full authority to act on behalf
of the appointing council (be it district council, synod or the General
Assembly) throughout the Section O Process to the exclusion of such
council.
1.1 It has come to light that some have not been sure about the nature of the relationship between the district council and its Mandated Group. Specifically, there has been uncertainty about whether, after a Mandated Group has been appointed and begun its work of investigation and preparation to present a case at the hearing, a district council has the right to intervene and act contrary to the authority of that Mandated Group.
1.2 In fact, the Section O Process was specifically designed to separate the district council’s pastoral role from the disciplinary action, and also to ensure confidentiality. The conduct of the case by the Mandated Group is regarded as one of the key factors in achieving these important objectives. We are advised that the Section O Process as we have it does make clear the intention that the Mandated Group should act throughout the Process to the exclusion of the district council and with fully mandated authority. However, it is felt wise to make certain changes to the wording so that such confusion will not arise in the future. Work has begun on this and a resolution to effect these changes will be brought to the next Assembly. In the meantime, for the avoidance of doubt, the Assembly is asked to pass this resolution in order to clarify the situation.
Resolution 12 Assembly
Committee Conveners
General Assembly resolves that normally
anyone appointed to the office of convener of an Assembly committee or
sub-committee shall be appointed to serve, ex-officio, for a preliminary
year as convener-elect.
1.1 The term of office of committee
members including the convener, is four years. This proposal would mean
that the person appointed as convener would serve a preliminary year in
addition.
1.2 It has been realised that, at
present, a convener may be appointed to a committee with no previous
experience of its working. This has sometimes resulted in a period of
uncertainty in the committee’s life. The preliminary year of service
will enable a convener to get to know the members, to become familiar with
the agenda and to observe the committee’s style of working. During the
year the convener-elect may play a full part in the committee’s work.
If agreed, this proposal will take
effect as soon as possible.
Resolution 13 Budget
for the year 2001
General Assembly accepts the budget for
the year 2001 set out in Appendix 1 to the Book of Reports.
1.1 The budget for 2001 shows a deficit
of £653,000 and continues the policy of deficit budgeting, adopted last
year, which is intended to take account of the effect of unanticipated
income and cost savings which arise in most
years. By planning to spend more than the income predicted in the budget
we hope to achieve a closer matching of actual income and expenditure and
avoid the accumulation of unspent income which has occurred in the past.
1.2 The most significant
item in the budget is the cost of stipendiary ministry. The budget
assumption is that this cost will rise by a net 2.5%, representing the
difference between the stipend increase and the reduction in the number of
ministers. The 1999 General Assembly agreed that the National Average
Earnings index (“NAE”) should be used as the guide for determining
future stipend increases. However, at the time the budget was being
prepared, the NAE was showing an exceptionally high level of increase and,
for budget purposes, a lower rate has been assumed. Mission Council has
recognised that careful judgement will be required when the 2001 stipend
level is considered in October.
1.3 In preparing the 2001
budget no account was taken of the Union with the Congregational Union of
Scotland as firm figures were not available. However, the overall
financial impact is expected to be small. It is hoped that a more accurate
assessment of this will be available by the time of General Assembly.
1.4 The significance of
unanticipated items, upon which the policy of deficit budgeting is based,
is well illustrated by the results for 1999 where, on our unrestricted
funds, the actual result was £453,000 better than budget and investment
values increased by £430,000. It is too early to predict whether 2000
will show a similar improvement. However, there is one situation which
gives cause for concern. The 2000 budget set a target for Ministry and
Mission contributions 3% higher than the budgeted amount for 1999 but so
far the promises fall short of that target by 1% or £175,000.
1.5 There is no hiding the
disappointment that, after three years during which the churches were
presented with no increase in the overall Ministry and Mission
contribution, the offers from Synods should fall 1% short of the 3%
target. A consultation of District and Synod Treasurers in February, as
well as Mission Council in March, were asked, in the light of this, to
consider the way forward for 2001. Each agreed that the increase for 2001
must take account of the expected 2000 shortfall (equivalent to less than
£2 per URC member, or 4 pence per week). In 1999 Assembly heard that the
projected increase for 2001 would be approximately 3% but this now becomes
4% and is represented by the figure for Ministry and Mission contribution
which appears in the budget statement.
1.6 Clearly, this is a
major challenge to the churches and their members. However, only by
regaining lost ground can we base our church’s finances on firm
foundations. Mission Council members were asked to be active advocates for
such a response and members of General Assembly are invited to be the
same. The shortfall will not be compensated by allowing a further
reduction in the number of ministers, nor a curtailment of programmes
affirmed by General Assembly. A diligent oversight of expenditure will,
however, be maintained.
1.7 The question is often
asked whether the URC has the resources, both human and financial, to meet
our demanding programme. Mission Council is confident that it has and
calls for the release of those resources so that the acclamation of
‘Growing Up’ and the Church’s self-evident desire to be a missionary
church can be fulfilled.
Resolution 14 Human
sexuality : continuing discussion
General Assembly,
recognising that the statement contained within Resolution 34 of 1999 has
received a measure of support in the councils of the church, but not
sufficient to allow it to proceed:
a) accepts that there is a
lack of agreement relating to issues of human sexuality, and that any
further resolution attempting to declare the mind of the church on this
subject would be unlikely to find sufficient support at this time;
b) affirms that the process the church uses to assess candidates and to call ministers is the means by which the church seeks to discern the call of God;
and
c) acknowledges that
discussion on these matters will continue within as well as beyond the
church and encourages the United Reformed Church to base its consideration
on the Human Sexuality Report 1999, wherever possible within an ecumenical
context.
The
present situation
1 The statement contained
within Resolution 34 has not gained a sufficient level of support in the
councils of the church. Therefore, by its own decision in 1999, Assembly
cannot now proceed to accept the statement.
2 Mission Council is of the
view that to search for an alternative form of words at this stage is
extremely unlikely to be fruitful, and would almost certainly prolong the
argument and hurt that has marked parts of our common life over the past
three years or so. In coming to that conclusion Mission Council is aware
that, not only have two different approaches failed to unite the church,
but various attempts to modify those approaches by amendment in Assembly
have also failed.
3 Mission Council, by
virtue of its representative nature, is also very aware that the
difference is not simply between two clearly-defined points of view. There
is a wide spectrum of opinion on many aspects of sexuality within the
United Reformed Church. Those who have voted for, or against, the various
resolutions have sometimes done so for very different reasons. Reason has
been a characteristic of this whole discussion. Yet in each person, as in
the other, emotion, experience and culture also play a part. None of this
encourages the use of more time in trying out another resolution on human
sexuality at the moment.
A way
forward
4 To leave the matter there may sound like a counsel of despair. It also leaves unanswered questions around homosexual candidates for the ministry. Mission Council believes that in the resolution and this supporting paper it has set out a framework within which members of the church may continue in worship and fellowship together, whilst still holding and discussing varied and often opposing views. It also allows any candidate for the ministry to be assessed according to a tried and tested process.
5 The framework will be an
uncomfortable one for a number of people. In an early draft it was
submitted to six former Assembly Moderators. Whilst they generally
supported it as a way forward in a difficult situation, for some it was
barely tolerable, yet for totally different reasons. The reaction of these
senior people will no doubt be reflected in the Assembly. Yet Mission
Council has searched for an inclusive framework because of the strong
commitment to unity contained in resolution 17 of 1997. A path that led in
any other direction was not to be contemplated.
6 Reference to resolution 17 of 1997 can serve as a reminder that Assembly has already found agreement on a number of resolutions within the human sexuality debate. These also are part of the framework:
General Assembly
commends to the church the affirmations set out in section 7 of the Human
Sexuality Report 1999.
General Assembly sets
before the church the challenges set out in section 8.1 of the Human
Sexuality Report 1999.
General Assembly, taking
into consideration the variety of views held within the United Reformed
Church on the matter of human sexuality, urges all members, congregations
and councils to continue in love together, respecting this diversity of
views, supporting each other through the pain and tension of our
divisions, seeking the mind of Christ and working together to fulfil the
purposes of God in the world.
General Assembly:
commends to the church
the report of the Working Group on the Nature of Biblical Authority for
the life of the Church, and encourages local churches to deepen their
studies of the Scriptures in an atmosphere of open listening in order for
the study of Scripture to come more alive throughout the church;
commends to the church
the report of the Working Group on Ordination and Human Sexuality as an
aid to study in the continuing discussions;
offers to the church the
report of the Working Group on Wider Issues of Human Sexuality to assist
in further reflection.
There are only two Assembly
resolutions which have not received adequate support throughout the
church.
7 Of course this cannot be
simply a matter of cool calculation, of assessing majorities and
minorities. All have to ask, where is God in all this? What is the Spirit
saying to the church? There is no doubt that God is in the situation. What
we have been debating is the nature of our creation in the image of God;
the interpretation of Scripture in order that we might hear the Word of
God; the ability of councils of the church to discern God’s will for
God’s people in the contemporary situation; and the nature of a holy
life, particularly in the case of those called to the ministry of Word and
Sacraments. In all the discussions and debates of the past three or four
years, prayer for guidance has been real and urgent.
8 So the question will
become; is the church in this situation because people have ignored, or
not heard, the guidance that has been given? Or is the current situation
the place of God’s leading? It is easy for anyone to say that those they
profoundly disagree with have ignored, or not listened to, the guidance
which God has given. In this situation, if for a moment it is possible to
be both dispassionate and compassionate, no-one can justly accuse the
other of ignoring God. To do so would be to overlook the hours of study,
prayer, discussion and tears that have been given to this matter. There
must have been serious openness to God in that.
9 Many have been attracted by the position that the four working groups reached in 1999: to a recognition that there are significantly different points of view held among us, views held with integrity and with Christian commitment: to a discovery that in charity it is possible to sit with those we disagree with and talk about matters that affect us all - but in vastly different ways. If that was possible for the working groups, why not for the whole church? Why not wait until the way forward is clearer? Isn’t that the finest model of Christian fellowship and community?
Some New
Testament considerations
10 This is no new model.
The debate in the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) over whether or not
Gentiles could be accepted into the church without first becoming Jews was
not one of quick and easy agreement. It was also followed by a sharp
disagreement between Barnabas and Paul. In Galatians 2 (1-14) we have a
sense of the strength of the differences within the church and
particularly between Paul and Peter, and the robust way in which they were
expressed. Yet these main protagonists remained within the church because
“we know that no-one is ever justified by doing what the law requires,
but only through faith in Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16a). Using a
different example, Paul in Romans 14:19 - 15:7 indicates how consideration
of one another may help people of different convictions to remain in
fellowship. This, however, seems to conflict with Paul’s advice to the
Corinthians (I Corinthians 5: 9-13). It seems likely that the Romans
passage is an indication of the way a Christian community should conduct
itself. It is only when things have got as far out of control as they
evidently were in the Corinthian church that more radical measures are
needed.
Unity and
diversity
11 Unity with diversity is
not a new experience for the United Reformed Church. It describes the
basis on which the church was formed in 1972, 1981 and 2000. Over that
time diversity has been revealed on such issues as the use of nuclear
weapons, the ethics of the national lottery, the covenant for unity, and
the alternative statement of faith. It is not always comfortable to
realise how different one is from those in the same fellowship, but the
church was never intended to be gathering of the like-minded. It is by
God’s grace that we are called and God’s grace embraces many with whom
we do not agree or even understand
12 Diversity is not of
itself a bad thing. It is not something always to be resisted. Often it
adds richness to human life. Yet it can bring serious tension to a
community. In our day the situations in Kosovo and Northern Ireland are a
witness to that. Therefore a challenge for the Christian community will
always be to show an example of how diversity can be held within unity.
For us this is a matter of good relationships: for some in the world the
right balance between unity and diversity is a matter of life and death.
13 It seems inevitable that
in human society there must be a point at which diversity is so great that
it destroys unity. As a separate exercise, it may be helpful if one or
more of the synods did a study of legitimate diversity in the United
Reformed Church.
14 Some have seen unity as
in a sense an alternative to truth. If we know something to be true, why
compromise it for the sake of unity? Unfortunately it is not as simple as
that. Unity is itself part of revealed truth (John 17: 20-23, Ephesians 4:
1-6). The wrestling between different understandings needs to go on,
without deadlines, in the belief that “the Lord has yet more light and
truth to break forth from his Word”.
Candidating for ministry
15 If we end the current
stage of the debate in this way some questions remain unanswered. What is
to happen when people in homosexual relationships offer themselves as
candidates for the ministry? Are they to be accepted, rejected, or told to
wait until a conclusion is reached?
16 The Assembly is asked to
consider the possibility that it has been approaching the answer to this
vital question in the wrong way. That the mistake has been to take a
particular theological and ethical question and to try to relate it to
ministerial candidacy in a way that is different from the way every other
theological and ethical question is approached. To see whether this may be
the case, part of the rationale for the consideration of ministerial
candidates needs to be rehearsed.
17 It is clearly part of
our tradition, and its uniting strands, that those called to the ministry
of Word and Sacraments should live in a way that is consistent with the
Gospel. At ordination a question is asked about a candidate’s
willingness to live a holy life. It is a serious matter that we look for
godly ministers. (Titus 1: 7-9)
18 However, the way in
which until now the church has assessed the suitability of a candidate is
to ask those who know him/her best. That is the point of asking the
candidate’s Church Meeting and minister and the representatives of the
District Council. No-one tells them what suitability means. Their
judgement will be informed by worship, bible study, fellowship and varied
Christian experience. Their judgement will also be informed by theological
and ethical discussion in the church at large. In recent years the
Assembly has guided that discussion by accepting Criteria for Assessment
in 1996 and a statement on holy living in 1997. It has now added the 1999
human sexuality reports.
19 Reflection makes it clear that over t |