The prospect of the five day General Synod meeting was daunting. Not only was five days the longest synod I can remember, but the range of topics was sensitive and important and the paperwork – someone counted 1200 pages – longer than ever. There seemed every prospect of contentious debate. 

The most high profile debate was on the future of church safeguarding. The Synod was asked by the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding to endorse a direction of travel (‘Option 4’) that would have taken Diocesan Safeguarding Teams as well as the NST into a new, as yet unformed, independent organisation. An alternative proposal, ‘Option 3’, would create an independent scrutiny organisation and would move most NST staff into this organisation but would leave diocesan teams within dioceses. Option 4 was supported by many victims/survivors, by the Second Church Estates Commissioner (who liaises with parliament) and recommended by Professor Jay. Option 3 was recommended by a large body of professional safeguarding staff and by the safeguarding audit company ‘INEQE’. In the event the Synod voted for a proposal put forward by the Bishop of Blackburn endorsing Option 3 and calling for further work as to the legal and practical requirements necessary to implement Option 4. This came as a considerable relief to me, as Option 4 would have been especially difficult for our European diocese. In the context of the debate, I gave a short speech thanking our DSAs and DSTs, as it seemed to me that their futures were being debated largely in their absence.   

A second major debate concerned the final approval of the proposed Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM) which will in due course replace the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). The most important feature of the CCM is that it will triage complaints into three alternative processes: grievances, misconduct and serious misconduct. This will channel the large number of complaints against clergy that are relatively low-level away from the heavyweight legal process associated with serious misconduct that we have in the CDM. The majority of complaints can therefore be dealt with faster and with much less stress to all concerned.   

A third major debate related to the revision of the National Church Governance Measure. This will simplify national church governance by bringing several centres of governance, including the Archbishops’ Council, into one new body – ‘Church of England National Services (CENS). 

The General Synod is first of all a law-making body, and there were several other significant pieces of church legislation debated. Sadly, a change to our canons which would have addressed bullying of clergy by laity (which was dear to the heart of the former chair of our own House of Laity) has been kicked into touch simply owing to a lack of drafting time. I am told that there are only three lawyers who have the relevant specialist skills to draft church legislation, and they are all working at maximum capacity!

As well as the legislation there were updates on key synodical themes, such as racial justice and human sexuality. The latter involved some important documents produced by the Faith and Order Commission, in which I have an especial interest as the Chair of that Commission. In addition, the Chair of the national board of finance, Carl Hughes, gave a sobering presentation on the worrisome state of diocesan finances and proposals as to how the Church Commissioners could help. Unfortunately, a motion from Hereford Diocese proposing a radical reconfiguring of national church finance could not be debated owing to lack of time. 

Amongst the heavy weight legislation and the difficult topics, there were some truly inspiring presentations – for example, on working class ministry, on confirmations, on youth ministry, on sports and wellbeing ministry. An address by Lutheran Archbishop Viilma of Estonia was a salutary reminder that living with the prospect of war, as Estonia does, puts the Church of England’s issues into proper perspective. 

There was a great deal more too. And even then, we couldn’t attend to everything on the agenda. This was the most demanding Synod I can remember.

Overall, for me, the General Synod is at its worst when it is rehearsing the wider society’s identity politics, and debates feel like shadow boxing with a presenting issue standing as proxy for something else. Synod is at its best when it is doing the legislative business well, and when it is getting behind the mission of the church in the world – and then Synod can be joyous and truly uplifting! I came away feeling encouraged, and more than a little relieved. This Synod was for the most part reflective, gracious and worthwhile.

+Robert Innes