|
Towards 'New Synods'
A. Introduction
56. The Steering Group appointed a sub-group, under the convenorship of John Oldershaw, to give proper consideration to the question of the nature and number of councils in the United Reformed Church. That group was composed principally of the Synod Clerks, who brought to their task a remarkable range of professional skills, including management consultancy, educational and voluntary sector expertise, legal acumen, and theology, as well as many years’ experience of church life. Their brief was a completely open one, although they were mindful of the overwhelming response of responses to our questionnaire, namely that there should be just one Council between Church Meeting and General Assembly. It is worth recording again, that the vast majority of our correspondents thought that the layer which should go was the district council, although some had Synods in their sights. However, the Structures group were invited to address the matter afresh. After long reflection they decided to explore three models, which varied the size and closeness of the council to local churches. Summary of Structures Working Group’s Recommendations57. Synods
1. The number of New Synods should remain largely the same as at the moment. 2. We would encourage New Synods actively to explore, together and with ecumenical partners, opportunities for boundary changes which might improve effectiveness and which take account of sociological and ecumenical needs. 3. We support the suggestion that a London Synod should be established with appropriate changes to neighbouring Synods.
58. Districts
4. District Councils should cease to exist. 5. The functions of District Councils should be reallocated to New Synods in order to create one locus for decision making about resources and policy. 6. New Synods must encourage local Churches to work and share together (wherever possible ecumenically) to develop local mission (e.g. clusters, mission partnerships). 7. Key decision processes and functions (e.g. Candidating) should be reviewed to ensure they are both rigorous and equitable.
59. Expertise
8. Specialist expertise should be employed with central co-ordination, especially in the areas of Human Resource, Law and Health & Safety, to support and assist New Synods and local Churches. 9. Property and trust matters should remain at Synod level.
60. Councils
10. Committees and councils at all levels should be reviewed and, where appropriate, simplified in terms of membership and agenda with a focus on building relationships and enabling action. 11. The means of agreeing balanced representation on the councils of the United Reformed Church will need to be reviewed.
61. Leadership
12. Each New Synod will have a Moderator who will provide enabling, participative leadership and ensure appropriate levels of pastoral care for Churches and Ministers. 13. Moderators will seek opportunities to engage with other communities within their Synod out with the Church. 14. They will provide a focus for ecumenical leadership. 15. In view of the other changes proposed, Moderators should review their involvement in other operational aspects of their Synod and within the wider church. 16. The role, scope and purpose of the Moderators’ Meeting should be reviewed and defined. 17. With the removal of District Councils there should be a radical review of the work, strategy, processes and staffing of New Synods both paid and unpaid, including the role of the Synod Clerk to ensure that new levels of relationship and pastoral care with local churches are established.
1. The Process62. The consultation process, by questionnaire, correspondence, and the Synod listeners’ process revealed a widespread desire for change in the church, and a clear awareness that our present conciliar structure is too heavy and lacks a light touch. We heard that:
63. Most correspondents in the process asked that there be one less layer in our structure, and the overwhelming majority argued that the layer we should cut should be the district council. Whilst we heard that clearly, those comments did not pre-determine our conclusions. Rather, we took the principle ‘that there should be one level of council between the General Assembly’ and considered three models. The first envisaged nine ‘Synods/presbyteries/districts/regions’ (the name was at that point was immaterial). The second thirteen, the third thirty.
64. Before examining the strengths and weaknesses of each model, we examined the qualities which were required of the structure. We identified the following as important:
65. That confirmed our conviction that conciliarity is the essential mark of church government, but it is important that councils operate in an open way that also allows individuals to act, provided they are duly accountable. The United Reformed Church holds in tension the relationship between personal and corporate authority under Christ. Christ is the head of the church, but how is his will to be discerned? It is our experience that this happens when we meet together in Council - Church Meeting, District Council, Synod or General Assembly under the prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit. These councils of the church are upheld by principles of interdependence and mutual responsibility. The question we now have to ask is what form of conciliar structure is appropriate for the future which will allows us to continue valuing these treasures whilst freeing us from the burden of ‘too many meetings’.
66. The structure of the church is there to enable the church to fulfil its purposes, not exhaust its members. A structure is like a skeleton which supports the body and enables it to function. The purposes of the United Reformed Church is clearly and finely stated in the Basis of Union.
“ Within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, the United Reformed Church acknowledges its responsibility under God:
1. to make its life a continual offering of itself and the world to God in adoration and worship through Jesus Christ
2. to receive and express the renewing life of the Holy Spirit in each place and in its total fellowship, and there to declare the reconciling and saving power of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
3. to live out, in joyful and sacrificial service to all in their various physical and spiritual needs, that ministry of caring, forgiving and healing love which Jesus Christ brought to all whom he met
4. and to bear witness to Christ’s rule over the nations in all the variety of their organized life”
67. The union of 1972 creatively fused the Congregational and Presbyterian systems of church government. The Congregational Church Meeting fused with Presbyterian eldership; presbyteries were transformed into district councils, County Unions into Provinces. Both traditions held an annual Assembly, although of different flavours. An annual Assembly was therefore retained. The 1970 local government review which became effective in 1974 was the inspiration behind the creation of district and provincial boundaries. A few adjustments to boundaries have happened since 1972, mostly consequent upon the unions of 1981 and 2000. However, the union of 2000 brought with it the creation of National Synods in both Wales and Scotland, duly recognising the process of devolution within the British Isles.
68. The drafters of the Basis of Union and the Structure of the United Reformed Church deliberately built the maximum amount of flexibility into their system. They (like all of us in 1972) thought that this structure, elegant and sensible though it was, was but a stepping stone towards a greater united church in England and Wales. It was not intended to last for ever. Indeed, a Reformed church is on a never-ending journey into Christlikeness, always reforming itself (ecclesia semper reformnda ). It is therefore right that we should be engaged in this process. 2. Three models and a proposal69. We looked at three models for this new Council of the Church. Whether the model was of many or few, the guiding principle was that the council should both relate closely to the local church and offer a dynamic interface with the work of the General Assembly, especially with those functions which are embodied in Church House (eg. Finance, Ministries etc). The functions of the council were therefore uppermost in our minds, and we attempt to show how those functions might be performed in Appendix 1 (pp24-25).
70. We tried to be mindful of work already carried out, and had before us the papers presented to Mission Council on Authority and the Nature of the Church. We took soundings about the impact any changes would have on Trusts and we have been gratefully aware of the continuing development of resource sharing. We also considered the ways in which partner churches in the Reformed world have re-structured themselves, especially the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan.
71. In addition to this research, we gave careful consideration to the many options which present themselves when boundary changes are being considered in churches.
72. Government regions. There are those who would like the church to adopt the nine government region boundaries in England. With the addition of Scotland and Wales, that would give the United Reformed Church eleven regions. Whilst there would be a clear gain in terms of relating to government structures, the drawbacks are notable. They do not match other ecclesiastical boundaries. The future of regional devolution is not certain given the recent vote in the North East. The South East region is (even the government accepts) far too large. In our view, aligning with government regional boundaries in England would create upheaval in the working of the United Reformed Church for little gain.
73. Hind Training Regions. The Hind Report (Formation for Ministry within a Learning Church) is about the structure of training in the English churches. An Anglican process in origin, it became warmly ecumenical (although still an Anglican report), and the United Reformed and Methodist Churches were full participants. The report suggests that there be nine training regions in England. These boundaries are more ecumenically coherent because they are based on Anglican diocesan boundaries, and would at least offer a model for convergence should other denominations also change their boundaries. However, it is (at least at the time of writing) unclear whether and how the Hind proposals will be implemented across England.
74. Methodist Districts. One of our most natural ecumenical partner is the Methodist Church. We have many Local Ecumenical Partnerships together and the National Pastoral Strategy has stimulated new and continuing ways of deepening that relationship. There are 31 Methodist Districts, roughly twice the number of our Synods and half the number of our district and area councils. However, the geographical distribution of Methodist churches is very different to our own. For example, Methodism has considerable strength in both Cornwall and Devon, and they are served by two districts. We have seven congregations in Cornwall, five of which are united churches, and 39 in Devon. Where convergence is possible, however, as in the re-aligning of district boundaries in the North West Synod, it is warmly to be welcomed.
75. Those three external models stimulated our own thinking. We were also aware of the dynamics of the United Reformed Church itself. The growth and influence of Synods in the life of the church is set out in detail in the paper ‘The United Reformed Church: some realities’. Synods were in part founded to ‘ground’ the ministry of Moderators who had been part of the life of the Congregational Church in England and Wales since 1917. We believe that this ministry is treasured and valued amongst us, and we were aware that any changes that we proposed could have an effect on the way that ministry is exercised.
76. Nine ‘councils’
This would bring us closer to the English regional government model, allowing for seven ‘councils’ in England, and the national ‘councils’ for Scotland and Wales. There are 1507 congregations in England. Even an equal division would result in 167 congregations. The strengths of this proposal would be:
The weaknesses are:
We therefore rejected the model.
77. Thirty ‘councils’
This is a superficially attractive proposal. We have 1691 congregations. An equal division of those congregations into 30 councils would result in 56 churches per council. The strengths of this would be:
The weaknesses are
78. We did not, however, dismiss the model. We theorised that it might be possible to replace the office of Moderator with a ‘Regional Enabler’ (the function is important, not the title; we would have looked for a better one). This ministry would be focussed on the development of mission, pastoral support and deployment of ministers and CRCWs, keeping abreast of local activity, and providing support and encouragement. Depending on the size and complexity of the ‘region’ the Enabler could be either full or part-time. The ratio of ministers to ‘Enablers’ in this model would certainly be more manageable than that which is to be found in some of our existing Synods. It would reduce the current average of 1:88 to 1:40/50.4 We thought of the ‘Regional Enabler’ as a provider of pastoral oversight to all who staff and minister an increasingly diverse church, and as someone who would know where to find the expertise and good-practice which will become increasingly important for a successful and vibrant church.
79. However, we concluded that this might be impractical. So, we therefore explored two other ways in which it might work. First, we thought that these councils could be grouped into twos or threes, and share a Moderator and the other resources that are available regionally through our present structure. The North Western Synod presents a clear model of how this might work. Second, we explored whether Moderators could serve part-time, combining that work with either pastoral ministry or another role (eg. Development Officer).
80. As we consulted further about the possibilities of this model, it became clear that we had not given due weight to the significance of the Moderator’s role as an ecumenical regional leader, and as a leader within the Synod itself. It was also clear that there was disagreement on whether it would be possible to combine the role of ‘Regional Enabler’ with another, or whether one ‘Regional Enabler’ could serve more than one region.
We therefore decided to reject this model.
81. Thirteen ‘councils’
We therefore returned to the majority opinion received by the 'Catch the Vision' consultations, namely keeping the size of our one layer of council at ‘Synod’ level. The strengths of this are:
The weaknesses are:
82. However, we are convinced that this is the preferable option of the three, and that is why we bring resolution 40 to Assembly to test the mind of the church. A closeness of relationship and decision making is not about geography, it is an attitude of mind. We hope that Synods will be “all of us”, and not “them”. Synods will need to develop committees which enable effective decision making and support within their own context, made up of representatives of the various localities within the Synod. We used a phrase of “decisions by consent, not consensus”. By this we recognised that not everyone can be involved in all decisions, so we need to trust people to act on our behalf, with agreed systems of delegated authority and accountability. 3. The implications83. We bring this proposal in the knowledge that our existing Synods vary enormously. That is not apparent to many people, but it became very clear to us because the Synod Clerks were able to share with us the ways in which their Synods work. The reality is that in some places district councils have ceased to exist, or are desperately weak. A few remain strong and capable. Three Synods (Mersey, Northern and Yorkshire) are already well advanced on processes of re-structuring because the present structure simply did not work and something had to be done. Other Synods are examining their lives and exploring new patterns at theoretical levels. Yet others can’t see what all the fuss is about. That is where we are. That is the reality of the church.
84. We therefore face two interlocking tasks. The first is to produce a structural solution which will embrace the diversity which will allow the varying Synods to function in ways appropriate to their context, and the second is to ensure that there are uniform processes across the church (for example) for candidature for ministry, disciplinary processes, and terms of settlement.
85. The second is to allow Synods to work out how they will structure pastoral care, fellowship, and decision making. We are sure that a ‘one size fits all’ solution will not work, and that prescriptive Assembly resolutions would not help. Rather, we suggest that we take counsel together during the year to come, both within our individual synods, and between them.
86. Within our individual Synods we need to decide how we can best provide for decision-making, fellowship and mutual accountability. The aim of ‘one layer of council between Assembly and the local church’ is to simplify the way in which decisions are made, and to use the time God has given us more efficiently and effectively. It is the decision-making ‘business’ process that we wish to simplify. We are fully aware that pastoral care, mutual support in the gospel, and working together on priorities for mission needs to be delivered as close to the ground as possible. Whilst we hear much criticism of district councils, we also hear how valuable some district pastoral committees are. However, we believe that local people are the best judges of how that can be most satisfactorily achieved. Some Synods have already begun this process with clusters and local mission partnerships. Our proposal is intended to encourage Synods to create the structure which is appropriate to them. They will be free to do this in ways which best suit their geography, culture and ecumenical partnerships. This freedom comes because the consistent structure across the United Reformed Church will be the Synod; it is to this body that General Assembly, Church House, and local churches will relate in their different ways.
87. Between our Synods we must ensure that the same systems are in place across the United Reformed Church for such matters as candidature for ministry, appeals, disciplinary procedures etc. This process should take place in full consultation with the Assembly committees that presently have responsibility for those areas of work. These systems must eventually have mandatory force. Our hope is that a process of consultation will happen during the year, and a report be made to the 2006 Assembly about how the new structure will work. We have produced a draft which shows how we think the present duties of districts can be re-distributed, and a checklist of matters which would need attention during the consultation process. We will make these available to the consultation.
88. We wish to emphasise the fact that we believe these changes will alter our culture, and that is the reason we adopted the name amongst ourselves of ‘New Synod’ for this council. We would not wish that to be promulgated beyond this, but our proposals make clear that we have the opportunity of a new beginning.
89. We have taken legal advice on our proposal and are advised that in the main it can be accommodated under the existing legislation. There are references to the District Council in the United Reformed Church Acts of Parliament in the Second Schedule. The removal of District Councils has no impact on the references in paragraph 2 and subparagraph 2(d) and as long as evidence of Synod’s approval to action permitted under this paragraph can be produced and all other requirements are fulfilled the procedure in this paragraph could continue to be used. Only in paragraph 5 is a responsibility given to District Councils actually to instigate action. If there were no District Councils, paragraph 5 could not be used. That may be a theoretical limitation. We are led to understand that paragraph 5 has rarely been used as a means of removing property from the local church. However, we have been advised that this paragraph could be subject to two conflicting interpretations, and should our proposal be accepted by Assembly, we would recommend that Counsel’s opinion be sought on the interpretation of paragraph 5. In most situations however, paragraph 2 makes adequate provision for the disposal of property and the use of sale proceeds without the need for District Council involvement.
90. The proposal is easy to grasp and its implementation should not distract the church from its mission by protracted debate on internal structures. Whilst cost-cutting was not the prime motivation for this exercise, we envisage that there will be some financial savings. However, the greatest savings will be in time, effective decision making and reduction in frustration.
91. We are not proposing any changes to the membership of Synod, nor in its frequency of formal meeting. A revised schedule is Appendix 1.
92. United Areas would continue by decision of the New Synods concerned in devolving responsibilities which belong to these areas.
4. Synod boundaries
93. Our consideration of Synod boundaries and the recognition that there have been significant changes since 1972 in the political and social geography have led us to two conclusions.
94. Our boundaries should reflect this, and take into account the current ecumenical mood. Rather than offer a precise blueprint we encourage adjoining Synods, as appropriate, to discuss co-operation and adjustment to boundaries. Northern and North Western Synods have already carried out some sympathetic adjustment.
95. We were specifically asked to consider the suggestion that a London Synod should be created. London has changed since 1972. There was no M25, nor a Mayor of London, although there was a Greater London Council. We are aware that a London Methodist District is being created. We have therefore done some work on the feasibility of a United Reformed Church London Synod. We encourage the Thames North and Southern Synods to give serious consideration to the advantages of creating a Synod broadly based on the Boroughs within the M25 motorway. This would have an impact on Southern, Wessex, Eastern and East Midland Synods. It would create a Synod of approximately 150 United Reformed Churches, Southern would reduce to approximately 120 churches and the 50 churches currently in Thames North would need to be distributed to other Synods. We believe that it would be possible to deal with the Trust implications by co-operation rather than embarking on a time and financially costly change of trusteeship of local church property. We therefore propose that a Commission of Assembly be appointed to investigate the feasibility of creating a London Synod, to report back to the 2006 Assembly. 5. The further implications of the proposal
96. Altering one part of a structure inevitably causes changes elsewhere. Our remit was to consider the nature of our conciliar structure. We know that the next phase of ‘Catch the Vision’ will concentrate on the programmes and resources of the church. We would wish to make some observations about that from the experience we have shared this year. First, clear decisions need to be made about where particular functions are delivered. The way in which the functions of the Assembly Offices (Church House), Synods and local churches inter-react needs careful thought. We can see a clear need for specialist expertise in such areas as Human Resources, Health and Safety, and the increase in legislation that impinges on churches. Our recommendation would be that this expertise (some of which may be based in Synods) should be centrally co-ordinated.
97. We have given some thought to the way in which Synod Trusts operate. We are aware that some believe that one centralised Trust would solve many of the church’s problems. We do not believe this would be worth the effort that would be involved. Whilst we support moves for greater resource sharing, we feel this can be achieved by developing the processes already in place, rather than the costly task of changing the myriad of Trusts. Also local identity and sense of ownership/belonging is important.
98. ‘New’ Synod implies new and creative ways of operating, and therefore our discussions moved into the area of conciliarity and leadership. It is important that New Synods operate in creative ways, receiving clear leadership in terms of process for working and able to give leadership in taking the Church forward. Those discussions were conducted against the background of the work of the Task Group on “Personal and Conciliar Leadership and Authority” which reported to Mission Council in October 2002.
99. From this we noted: “The Task Group suggests that the hallmarks of a reformed council meeting include:
Para 4.11.5.9 Collectively, the Moderators have a collegial role which has evolved significantly since 1972 and which exercises authority in the life of the Church. Once a month, the Synod Moderators meet together. Though this meeting provides fellowship and enables Moderators to discuss general issues of importance, its main function is to decide upon the introduction of ministers to vacant pastorates. The annual Moderators’ report to Assembly is also influential.
Para 4.11.5.10 In affirming what God is doing amongst us in this collegial ministry, we acknowledge the need for it to be recognised, accepted and treated as a gift from God. It is not as yet integrated into the structures of the United Reformed Church – there is no theological justification for it in the Basis of Union. And lines of accountability are not clear.”
We suggest this thinking should be re-visited as part of the discerning how New Synods might work.
100. We believe that, whilst the resolution is simply put, it has radical implications for the way in which we work. It takes us back to something we know and asks is to look at it in a new way.
Appedix 1Newly defined functions for a newly defined structure
|
Executive summary, recommendations and resolutionsEXPLANATORY PAPERS:
|