Simon Says ...

Now the Report of Proceedings from the July Synod is available online, I reproduce these two extracts from the question time when I asked two supplementary questions.   As ever, this is about transparency in relation to what happens at Synod. The first relates to Safeguarding, and to the difference in cycles between DBS checks and training requirements.   I have been involved in working out a Diocesan training schedule for Safeguarding and we have found that it misses a trick to combine the two cycles making record keeping (and hence reminders and up to date training and checks) simpler. 35. Revd Canon Jenny Tomlinson (Chelmsford) asked the Chair of the House of Bishops:  Can it be confirmed whether or not DBS checks are in future to be required every three rather than five years; and, if they are, what is the estimated cost to the whole Church, and benefit, of such a change? The Bishop of Durham (Rt Revd Paul Butler) replied as Chair of the Joint Safe...

This was the Synod when we had the ‘Shared Conversations’ about sexuality. All the build-up was about this.   As well as the normal bundle of papers, Synod members were sent three books – all about sexuality, from different perspectives.   I did read them all!   This Synod also stood in the shadow of the vote to leave the EU.   The Archbishops called an emergency debate, and the shadow of Brexit was long. The actual business of Synod, however, had to happen first.   We were addressed by a German Bishop, who reflected on the implications of Brexit and reminded us that the continent of Europe could not be voted away.   The Archbishop of York spoke about his Pilgrimage around his diocese, praying and speaking about the Gospel.   Duly fortified by this, we held the emergency debate on the EU.   The Archbishops proposed a motion that called ‘for all to unite in the common task of building a generous and forward looking country’.   We ...

I have sent a contribution to the Revision Committee about Draft Amending Canon No. 36 (which deals, in part, with clergy vesture). In the interests of transparency, I reproduce my contribution below: Draft Amending Canon No 36 – A contribution to the Revision Committee 1.      I am very grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the Revision Committee in relation to the Draft Amending Canon no 36.   2.      My concern is that in 1(3) and 1(4) the minister is only required to ‘consult’ the PCC about changing the form of dress at worship.   The consideration of what would ‘benefit the mission of the Church in the parish’ is entirely left to the minister.   3.      I am concerned that there is a clericalism here – the draft amendment seems to imply that only the clergy have wisdom on the missional needs of the parish and what would benefit that mission.     4.    ...