On Thursday the Archbishop of Canterbury released a statement announcing that the Bishop of Salisbury, Stephen Lake, has been suspended.
Bishop Stephen Lake
01/10/2026
The two complaints brought against the Bishop of Salisbury, Stephen Lake, under the Clergy Discipline Measure, will now proceed to the next stage and Bishop Stephen has been asked to respond to the allegations. He has been suspended from ministry by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Suspension is a neutral act while the allegations are progressed under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.
The complaints were brought following allegations of financial misconduct and concerns raised with the National Safeguarding Team relating to his conduct.
The same statement can be found on the Salisbury diocesan website, which carries the additional note that “Bishop Karen [Gorham, Bishop of Sherborne] remains Acting Bishop of Salisbury”.
While HR policies, legal frameworks, and institutions (like the Church of England) constantly repeat the phrase “suspension is a neutral act,” in practice, it almost never feels neutral to the person suspended, their colleagues, or the public. The moment a suspension is made public, the court of public opinion takes over. Even if an institution states that no guilt has been determined, human nature naturally assumes that “where there is smoke, there is fire.” The act itself creates an immediate reputational stain that is incredibly difficult to erase, even if the person is later completely exonerated. Legally, a person is… Read more »
Of course. I’m no lawyer but the only way that suspension can be lifted is that innocence were to be proved. How then can it be described as a neutral act.
+Christopher Lowson was also described by ++Welby as being a ‘danger’. Besides being a defamatory term to describe a colleague, it was hardly a ‘neutral’ term.
I wonder if it’s a lose-lose situation.
If you suspend someone and they are later re-instated, they bear the cost.
But if you don’t suspend someone and they turn out to be guilty, you’ve allowed them to minister after having transgressed, thus prolonging their opportunity to repeat offend.
Perhaps it might be possible to allow a suitably restricted form of ministry to continue while allegations are investigated, but would that be any less problematic, practically?
If the Bishop was able to step aside (as he had done) while investigations take place, it would be a much better option than moving to formal suspension. That should only be needed if he refused to step aside.
According to the official General Synod Digest detailing the rules approved for the new Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM), for misconduct, the regulations explicitly dictate that a case assessor must complete the investigation and issue a report within four months of being appointed.
The new rules establish an “overriding objective” that legally mandates all complaints be handled justly, fairly, and expeditiously, addressing the core criticism that the old system left clergy in limbo for years
Unfortunately, an exact date for the outcome is currently unknown, because Bishop Stephen Lake’s case is being processed under the old Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) 2003.
Suspension may be neutral as to outcome, but it is not neutral in effect, and I wish the Church would stop saying that it is. A bishop removed from ministry and publicly named alongside allegations of financial misconduct and safeguarding concerns, before he has even been asked to respond, carries a mark that no later finding can fully erase. The secular courts recognised this long ago: in Crawford v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (2012) the Court of Appeal rejected the idea that suspension is a neutral act, observing that it alters the status quo and inevitably casts a… Read more »
While recognising the need for accountability, whether priest, teacher, academic, etc. the degree of jeopardy and exposure for those in episcopal orders does feel quite scary. For me it brings back memories of the awful final months of Bishop Michael Perham’s life, and indeed our final encounter as he was losing the power of speech as a result of his brain tumour. This was of course after the police had dropped all charges. For those of us who walked with Michael, it is still difficult to separate the process he underwent from the manner of his death.
Let me recap the time scale so far. The financial question was first made public in the ChurchTimes on 9 April this year. That’s six months ago. We were told only that an audit of two specific financial accounts was being undertaken. But it was not until 7 September (so 5 months later) that we were told that the audit had concluded, and that a CDM complaint had then been filed (no idea by whom). Almost one month later, we are told that this complaint has proceeded to the “next stage”, and the bishop has (only) now been asked to… Read more »
Sounds odd doesn’t it, I heard someone say recently do you think these people are being forced out because of someones agenda or because they won’t go quietly and now they are being driven out by allegations? I for one would like to know more and know just who is pointing the finger.
That is a point both troubling and concerning.
Some very fine bishops have been minced through this meat grinding process and it raises profound concerns.
Let those who have ears consider well,
Is this a personality issue or a systems/governance issue? We are in the dying throes of a system where bishops had almost feudal levels of power. Whilst some did well, others used such power inappropriately. But whilst their use of power is now being increasingly challenged (often rightly so), a governance system fit for 21st-century is not yet in place. So what we have are processes which are messy, slow, secretive, and potentially unjust. People are being damaged, not just bishops, but also the victims, and those making accusations and complaints. But I would argue that the way forward is… Read more »
It’s one where perhaps diocesan bishops have to work closely with the Chair of the diocesan board of finance and their diocesan secretary, and all three of these need to be held to account by the diocesan synod and the bishop’s council. Whilst still maintaining the role of the bishop as chief pastor and chief minister of the sacraments.
I can agree with you Simon, but is this working in practise. Can we say with confidence that bishops and their senior staff are held to account by synod and council?
Are the archbishops and the Lambeth senior staff properly held to account by general synod and the archbishop’s council?
And if the governance process is not working well, do people end up feeling that the only way to to get things resolved is the disciplinary complaint route?
It’s a slow process of getting to that point I think. It probably needs several generations of bishops to move to a better understanding of this model of synodical government, together with changes in attitudes of DBF chairs, diocesan secretaries, and of course members of diocesan synods and bishops’ councils too. And we have to comply with church law, company law and charity law. We all have to step up and play our part in this governance — and in sharing in the whole mission of the Church. And secular models are not perfect — we don’t expect our bishops… Read more »
I fully agree with you Simon. Perhaps it’s a bit like the Roman Catholic Church and Francis’/Leo’s move towards synodality. It’s a culture change on both sides with lay and ordained getting used to a new way of working.
But during that long transition good people are getting chewed up by the process, alongside those who deserve to be held to account.
Do you think “held to account “ is the right relationship? Shouldn’t it be “supported”? With external oversight?
I would suggest that these relationships need to be mutual accountability – so things need to be open book, and all parties need to show reasonable curiosity. That may be a problem if someone has been appointed as bishop who is essential number-blind (as some people are). They need to work out what their coping mechanism is (which cannot be blind trust in the DBF and diocesan secretary).
If bishops need oversight, who will oversee the oversight they receive from their over-overseers?
We do what they did in the early church (according to the Didache), and what they do in many other churches such as the United Reformed Church, and what Pope Francis and Pope Leo are advocating for with Synodality in the RC Church: bishops are responsible to their congregation, and mechanisms are put in place to make such responsibility real in practise.
Very eloquently put.
I think surveying the experience of newly appointed suffragan and diocesan bishops would be worthwhile expenditure. I suspect many would say they were ill-prepared for the role.
‘I for one would like to know more and know just who is pointing the finger.’ In the case of a safeguarding allegation, the anonymity of those making allegations they have been victims of sexual offences is protected by law.
It isn’t always appropriate to know who is pointing the finger, but otherwise more transparency in these cases would be welcome.
Who can/does file a CDM against a diocesan bishop is an interesting question. The while thing would have to be at provincial level because no diocesan could issue or serve a CDM against a brother/sister bishops, and it would of necessity need to avoid involving an Archbishop in case they are needed at appeal stage. You need someone who has a diocesan role in the provincial sees, but who also acts across the province. Who could this be? An Archdeacon! In Canterbury it is the Archdeacon of Canterbury and in York it is the Archdeacon of York who do the… Read more »
None of those things, and the Archbishop is always involved! The complaint is made to the appropriate archbishop. The person who may bring a complaint against a bishop is set out in section 10 (1)(b) of the CDM: “10 (1) (b): in the case of a bishop, by— (i) a person nominated by the bishop’s council of the diocese concerned, if not less than two-thirds of the members of the council are present at a duly convened meeting of the council and not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting pass a resolution to the effect that the… Read more »
I was imprecise. I was commenting on who who serves the notice in writing to the bishop concerned. That is the archdeacons. But you won’t find that in the legislation.
Does anyone else find the number, the proportion, of bishops who have been suspended for one reason troubling? Is there something against which this could be compared?
In the US, the comparisons are sometimes made to teachers, Scout masters, and sports coaches (re youth abuses).
I feel we are dodging a fundamental issue: how are bishops appointed and are we choosing the best candidates ? I find the involvement of the monarch and a Prime Minister who is quite possibly an atheist very troubling even if that involvement is mostly ceremonial. Why do we have a bench of bishops that is majority homophobic ? If you appoint the wrong people as Church of England bishops you should not be surprised if there are subsequent problems.
Let’s be clear: bishops are selected by the Crown Nominations Commission, and the chosen name is passed to the Prime Minister for formal nomination by the Crown. If there is a problem with the bishops being chosen then the fault lies with the CNC. Apart from the two archbishops (or episcopal substitutes), who have themselves been chosen by previous CNCs, the membership is chosen by the General Synod and by the Vacancy-in-See committee of the diocese concerned. The General Synod is elected by deanery synod members, and the V-in-S committee by the diocesan synod which is itself elected by deanery… Read more »
This is all very very far from ordinary people having any real influence, or any idea how to deploy it if they had.
But even if we could get top quality CNC members in so far as having the “right” intentions, does the process actually provide them with the necessary information to make a decision? There is no probation period as is common in secular appointments.
I’m a deanery synod member. I do not need and should not have to put up with people checking up to find out if I have voted and for whom.
If you wanted to be on deanery synod there was every opportunity to stand and be elected. If you chose not to do so, that was your decision.
You are not now entitled to bend the ear of the people who did stand.
Good grief. I would assume most deanery synod members are ‘ex officio’ members of their PCC. Hopefully, most would have confidence at the next PCC meeting to give sound reasoning behind the choices made in voting in the election.
Pilgrim….ps…. My comment related to GS elections.
All deanery synod members are ex officio members of their PCC
I can only repeat the factual position. The vote is confidential. It has nothing to do with people “having the confidence” to explain themselves.
The do not need to do so. Obviously if these choose to do so, that is entirely a matter for them.
“All deanery synod members are ex officio members of their PCC” — I think that’s not quite true. It’s possible to be a member of a deanery synod but not be entitled to be a member of a PCC. This is the case with representatives of retired clergy, chaplains, and also with lay representatives from non-parochial bodies, such as cathedrals, royal peculiars, mission initiatives. In the case of the laity, these are all edge cases, and most deanery synods will have no one in such categories.
I was referring to the laity.
I am perfectly entitled to engage with and question members on Deanary synod. They are accountable to those who elected them. I would also hope they would welcome this as a sign of interest.
I never suggested otherwise.
The vote is confidential. That is the constitutional position. You are not entitled to know how, when or if electors have voted.
It is not a matter of opinion.
Peter. Not for the first time we are talking at cross purposes and I seem to have not understood the point you are making and why. The result tends to just raise the temperature. Probably easier if I leave engagement to others. Leaving a prayer as I go.
I would hope all deanery synod members — as elected representatives of their parishioners — would welcome discussions and conversations with their electorate. The decision on how to vote is up to the member, but it can be informed by the wider public (just as an MP’s vote in parliament might be informed by letters from their constituents). Additionally, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for parishioners to consider that voting in a General Synod election is an important part of a Deanery Synod rep’s role. The percentage who actually do vote is quite low, so encouraging them to exercise their… Read more »
I entirely agree with you and have said nothing to the contrary. As happens so often here, you are jumping in ignore the actual meaning of what has been said. My comment was a rebuttal of a specific call for people to go round asking deanery synod members if they have voted yet. You are not entitled to do that and deanery synod members are under no obligation to tell you. If you want to make the general point that it is good for people to vote in elections, or to have a general discussion on the election – go… Read more »
I see no reason why parishioners can’t ask their deanery synod reps whether they have voted in an election to the General Synod or their diocesan synod. Or indeed who they voted for. Those are perfectly reasonable questions. I agree that deanery synod reps are under no obligation to answer such questions, since the election is by secret ballot. It would also be wrong for such a question to be asked in a menacing or threatening way. On the other hand, deanery synod reps may want to stand again for another term. Like all elected representatives they are answerable to… Read more »
What people say in polite and courteous terms over coffee after a Service, or wherever, is obviously up to them.
You are, with respect, still ignoring my basic point.
The problem is public calls for everybody to go round asking deanery synod members who they have voted for – and there have been far too many such calls from people of all theological perspectives.
It is perfectly reasonable for deanery synod members – such as myself – to challenge such public calls.
My goodness, some of these comments really bother me. Anybody who is elected to an office (clue in the word ‘elected’) is accountable to those who have elected them and/or those who they are there to represent. So yes, in my view, those people have every right to ask their representatives if they have voted and indeed for whom. When a person is an elected member of a Synod they are not there to represent only themselves, their small interest group or their own views. For me, this is the fundamental problem with C of E synods, in all houses… Read more »
You can assert whatever view you like.
The fact is the vote is confidential. That is the constitutional position.
You are making general assertions about a democratic process which have no bearing at all on the point under discussion.
Deanery synod members owe nobody an account of what they do or do not do in regard to the General Synod vote.
Since General Synod publish voting lists, why do you think Deanery Synod should be different?
I don’t “think” anything.
I am a deanery synod member. It is a fact that my vote is confidential.
Might asking a deanery synod member whether or not they have voted yet be no more than an encouragement not to forget to do so, in the interests of increasing ‘turnout’? I don’t understand the angry tone.
I am not angry and if you do not understand my point it is because you have not actually read what I have actually said.
The issue to which I was responding was a public call – sadly, one of many – for people to ask deary synod members if they have voted and for whom they have voted, without any acknowledgement that those are matters that are confidential.
It is really not that difficult.
This is a rather strange disagreement, it seems to me! No one has really disputed the suggestion that the ballot for the election of General Synod members is a secret ballot — and therefore the electors are entitled not to reveal how or even whether they have voted, if they so wish. But to suggest that no one should ask them whether and how they voted, nor encourage them to vote for particular candidates — this seems to me to be unfounded. I’d have said they are good questions to ask, and if the voter doesn’t wish to answer then… Read more »
If you have an opinion about who should or should not be elected tell your deanery synod members. What reason do you have for wanting to know how the deanery synod member votes ? Maybe they will agree with you. Maybe they won’t. Why do they have to tell your their decision. On the “answering to their electorate at the next election” question, we are into the realms of fantasy there. Being a deanery synod member is a thankless and unpaid role and many such churches are completely unable to find people to take the role. If the electorate want… Read more »
I don’t think that was what the discussion was about though! It seems to me that you have been commenting on the principle of whether parishioners should have any right to ask their deanery synod reps these questions. The question of what effect that might have on whether those reps choose to stand again is an entirely different question.
Personally I have been a deanery synod member for rather a long time. I have no problem at all with people asking me questions, and I can choose whether and how to answer as I think appropriate.
For some reason the perfectly reasonable point I am making has been basically ignored.
I am pretty confident you would accept that our secular political parties are too often amoral and manipulative in their attitude to the electorate. All they want is the outcome they are seeking.
Christians are human, Simon. Organised lobby groups – on all sides – have set out to drive the GS election in one direction or another and have been calling for the electorate to be persuaded/convinced/arm-twisted/coerced into voting one particular way.
[teasing..]. Aha, so your first name is Peter, possibly, and you are a deanery synod member, possibly.
Is it possible to reveal a bit more about who you are so the wheels of a conversation can oiled?
There are a long list of people on this site who do not disclose their name.
Do not make an issue out of something that is commonplace amongst commentators on this site.
Another way of looking at it is that you are a very private person, and that spills into your views on how elections and lobbying is conducted. It also spills into how much you want your views here on TA to be public knowledge.
You do not know me and you know nothing about me.
Like many people on this site I do not disclose my full name.
Your inferences are entirely without merit or foundation.
I think Peter has made it perfectly clear (on a previous thread and now this one) that he only wishes to disclose his first name. Maybe respect that wish, and drop it? I have knowledge of Peter, and have shared in a meeting with him, and I can confirm that he is a faithful Christian of integrity. So long as the moderators are happy with his participation here, as they seem to be with mine and others too, then I think he should be afforded the respect to post here without repeated challenges as to who he is. He is… Read more »
Hidden sister,
I am grateful for your kindness and affirmation and wish you every blessing
Peter
Why is ‘failing to make an appointment’ such an issue? Bristol was ‘unable’ to make an appointment because of the withdrawal of a candidate for family reasons. There was therefore no ‘failure’ and it may well be that the appointment of an entirely unsuitable person was avoided. The process doesn’t stop with the inability to appoint and begin again in time. Its the same process which simply takes longer. In this case an able Suffragan is ably carrying out Acting Bishops duties.
We don’t really know what happened at the Bristol CNC meetings. We do know that their selected candidate withdrew. But a CNC has the option of also agreeing a second name, to be held in reserve in case the first preferred person is unable to take up the post. For whatever reason that didn’t happen at Bristol. It’s possible that they did select a reserve name, and that person, when approached after the withdrawal of the first person, declined. Or it’s possible that they chose not to agree a second name, or that they tried but could not get to… Read more »
Thank you. All that is fine, but it doesn’t negate my point that the use of the word “failure’ or ‘failed’ in a situation which is still mid-process is unhelpful and misleading . I agree that there may be particular circumstances here but if the failure is anyone’s it is the candidate who has possibly not divulged crucial information earlier. Thus avoiding a certain amount of embarrassment at a late stage.
I for one have no idea why the nominee for Bristol withdrew. It’s quite possible it was a situation that arose after the CNC meetings, e.g. a subsequent medical diagnosis (though I repeat I have no idea what occurred, that is just a random possibility).
People I know who have been members of CNCs that did not make an appointment have not hesitated about using the word “failed” to describe what happened, even while protecting the confidentiality of the process.
The. Bishop of Salisbury is homophobic? He will be surprised that that’s his problem.
The bishops are homophobic? I think the bishops are simply trying to manage a divisive issue in a tribal church, just as they did early in my ministry over remarriage after divorce, in the middle of my ministry over women’s ordination and now over sexuality. The post war days when different sorts of Church of England folk seemed to have a lot in common didn’t survive the post 60s as the traditions within it move further apart and inwardly divided. Stephen Sykes in ” The Integrity of Anglicanism “and a few others like Paul Avid voiced their concerns. But keeping… Read more »
I seem to remember reading that the then Bishop of Ely Stephen Sykes, had no faith in the Theory of Anglican Comprehensiveness, which he believed to be Bogus . Jonathan
I worked with +Stephen for 7 years and his views on Anglian comprehensiveness were complex, or nuanced…. He once said at a staff residential that he was not sure that evangelicalism was an entity. He may have thought that about Anglo-Catholicism or liberalism. He was wary of the party or tribal way of defining Anglican diversity. His book on Anglicanism makes no reference to it.
I worry about putting people into churchmanship boxes unless they are very broad labels usually relating to preferred worship styles. I am a liberal Anglo-Catholic but probably hold some evangelical views about the nature of Salvation through Christ but would not be comfortable with current evangelical worship styles, summed up to me by a friend as a gospel music concert followed by a 35 minute sermon. When I preach,there are certainly resonances of my evangelical upbringing especially in the use of scripture.
Your closing comment – “keeping the show on the road seems the most important thing rather than giving significant thought to what the show actually is” – deserves serious thought. Fallow times should provoke penitence and wisdom, yet we invest heavily in HTB plants and Resource Churches with their thin ecclesiology, weak sacramental imagination and functional understanding of ministry; all of which sit uneasily with Anglican identity: the liturgical formation of the faithful and a commitment to the whole parish through a ministry of presence and place. The parish embodies the principle that the Church is given rather than chosen.… Read more »
This is an interesting post, Allan, but like many TA posts it requires wider discussion; not just this thread but other recent threads about how the church should react to Christian nationalist membership, and Theo Hobson’s post on Professor James Orr, Everybody is a wound up about people like Daniel Thomas and his stop-the-boats crew, and their professed Christian ethos. but by focusing on him are we looking in the wrong place? Professor James Orr is a theologian and ethicist employed by Cambridge University, but also (until sacked) a key figure in Reform. He is also linked to HTB. There… Read more »
My goodness, you are muddling up a bag load of different issues to try and create a gruesome picture !
I am surprised you forgot to mention Donald Trump and his MAGA base.
We live in a free country. Paul Marshall can do what he wants with his money. Your insinuations regarding him are tendentious in the extreme.
Paul Marshall may be free to do what he likes with his money. Others are also free to ask what he is trying to buy with it.
Simon Dawson is doing much much more than ask what he is doing with it.
You are right to remind, Peter. Thank you.
Professor James Orr is best mates with J.D.Vance, Donald Trump’s vice president.
Gosh. Suddenly it all falls into place.
A vast right wing conspiracy to take over the world.
The scales have fallen from my eyes and at last I see it.
Was that meant to be sarcasm? There *is* such an effort, though it’s hardly a conspiracy, just a lot of very wealthy men using their money and influence to put their thumb on the scales of elections from Berlin to Brasilia and plenty of other places besides. In the UK we have wealthy individual(s) bankrolling anti-trans campaigners to sue organisation like the Guides and the WI and prevent them welcoming trans women. The far right are extraordinarily well-funded, own much of legacy and social media, and are on the march.
You are dividing the world into two groups.
People who agree with you and the rest who are the “far right”.
It is a shrivelled political analysis and it will win no converts to your cause
There are plenty of people who disagree with me about all sorts of things who are not part of the far right. I draw a line at people who try to use the force of law to deny others’ humanity, and those who promote doing the same using street violence. If you disagree with my analysis, say why, don’t jump to a different argument about tactics which has nothing to do with whether I’m right or wrong.
You are not offering an analysis of any kind.
Nobody wants to use the force of law to deny others’ humanity and nobody promotes doing the same using street violence.
You will, of course, now tell me the people who you assert are doing those things.
You are not engaging in either analysis or reasoned debate.
You are advancing your particular views about a particular group of people who you dislike. That is all
You don’t think Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and co are treating asylum seekers as less than human?
I used the term “analysis” because you did. I’m not going to get into an argument about what does and doesn’t count as that.
Peter,
I am glad the scales are falling from your eyes. The problem is that issues like this don’t get reported in most newspapers, as the papers are owned by the likes of – Paul Marshall and his friends. They are reported instead in on-line sources.
But the following may help the scales to fall further.
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/02/22/revealed-the-shocking-tweets-of-gb-news-co-owner-sir-paul-marshall/
Despite this Paul Marshall has been involved at the highest levels in the CofE, especially under Justin Welby.
Is this what we want?
Perhaps I should clarify – I wasn’t being entirely serious.
But I am Peter. I am deadly serious When a man has a social media pattern which is islamophobic and homophobic, and he supports statements like: “If we want European civilization to survive we need to not just close the borders but start mass expulsions immediately. We don’t stand a chance unless we start that process very soon.” and “The other side is so passionate, so committed to worshipping Satan, evil, homsexuality and corrupting children, that even if god wasn’t real, believing in him to fend these demons off is preferable” Then perhaps we should know about it. (Note that… Read more »
Does Lambeth Palace have a long spoon?
A good question Allan. I am hoping that ++Sarah has a longer spoon than ++Justin (also an HTB convert) seemed to have.
You don’t like Paul Marshall – fair enough.
That is the only significance of your comments.
Are you saying there’s nothing wrong with the quoted statements beyond personal dislike? Or are you implying that Marshall doesn’t, in fact, support such sentiments?
I am saying neither
Sherborne not Sherborne
Thanks, corrected.
“Suspension is a neutral act”. Er…. nope.
Point of information on the General Synod Elections.
It is a confidential vote. The electorate do not owe anybody an account of how, when or if they have voted.
If you have a strong view on the elections the solution was in your own hands. Stand for deanery or diocesan synod. Put in the time and effort required of the electors. Then vote.
If you don’t have the time, then accept the election decision rests with other people.
There is a surprising level of confusion about the role of deanery synod members evident in the comments on the matter – including from clergy, who one might hope would know better. Deanery Synod members are not delegates – they are not there to vote in accordance with the views of those who might choose to press their opinions onto them. Deanery Synod members are required to vote – in confidence – on the basis of their own wisdom and conscience. They may make a decision that is at odds with the decision which would have been made by every… Read more »
As a complete outsider in such matters, I wonder to what extent the General Synod-appointed members of a CNC, who presumably have wider knowledge and more experience of the Chuurch and its politics, tend to over-influence the local representatives to vote for a candidate who does not quite fit the vacancy. Just wondering.
I think it will depend on whether the 6 local reps are of a common mind and stick together.
My advice to diocesan representatives (and I talk to a lot) is that if you want a new diocesan bishop (in the current CNC climate) come to the meetings with at least one candidate you are all agreed on. That way you will usually get the two archbishops (or their substitutes) voting with you, plus two central members.
It varies a lot. The 2017-2022 CNC quinquennium which I served on (until November 2021) as a central member was excellent (note the humility). We never failed, and the record shows the CNCs (working as one body – central members and the diocesan representatives) nominated a wide range of candidates. The 2012-2017 CNC quinquennium was dire. ++Welby was new and didn’t hide his complete frustration. CNCs were marked by few women nominations and evident homophobia. It led to the report by Professor Oliver O’Donovan Discerning in Obedience, few of whose recommendations were implemented owing to right wing lobbying against. The… Read more »
Your analysis is a text book display of the very tribalism you claim to deplore
Attempting to “both sides” this doesn’t make the strong arm tactics of the anti-gay and anti-women lobby groups go away.
There is no anti gay or anti women lobby.
There are people who do not share your particular views.
None so blind as them that will not see. Read the comments under one of Ian Paul’s blogs and tell me that again.
Obviously the discussion is about General Synod.
You and I may agree on almost nothing, but I do share your view of the deplorable sentiments found in the comments section of Ian Paul’s blog.
I would not even share a meal table with some of the people on that site
Do you not think those who comment on Ian Paul’s blog are broadly representative of his party within the CofE? The public facing bits use more polite language but the sentiments are the same.
Not on the slightest.
There are rude and belligerent people everywhere.
It is a fundamental category error to say that belligerent people who articulate a particular general view also define that view.
There are exceptions. There were no good National Socialists. But the extremes do not set the general category rules.
I hope you’re right that they’re unrepresentative.
Actually I don’t think they are. Many are not Anglican. But they effectively act as a block on the discussion that this tradition urgently needs.
The 2017-2022 CNC quinquennium was not marked by members arriving with candidates ‘in their back pockets.’ You will have to take my word for it, not being a central member.
Why are you addressing this to me. I have offered no view at all on the specific comment you quote
Not being a central member, holding a plan in reserve seems like a sensible strategy and potentially avoids a lot of wasted effort, so I am not sure what point you are making, other than being tribal.
Diocesan representatives (usually broadly representative) coming with an agreed candidate is very sensible in the current environment. Central members (and other members of the tribe) constantly peddling their ConEvo candidates regardless of the needs of the diocese and only because they want another conservative in the House of Bishops is rather different. Not sure you’ve understood the politics.
Is this from 2017-22 Anthony, or current. If so how do you know and who is telling you and why are they being indiscreet?
Your own tribalism is so thinly veiled I think I understand the politics. At least the Conevo members are open about it.
I think the vast majority of candidates and electors involved in various synods of the CofE are orthodox. I presume that what you mean is that you (and the lobbyists you criticise) are opposed to equal marriage? The representative vs delegate distinction is a valid one and I’m not keen on the idea of elected representatives taking a poll of their electorate and sacrificing their best judgement to what may be a knee jerk or misinformed view. However, and it is a big however, I also believe that in a representative system it is absolutely incumbent on those standing to… Read more »
I agree with most of what you say
Not sure what it is like in your Dio, but where I am the short statements by candidates for General Synod appear to be carefully worded to avoid making it clear where they stand on well-known key issues. This is all in line with CofE defaulting to secrecy whenever possible, and I do not think that it is healthy.
Sadly some do, but not all. All candidates supported by the ‘Together’ and ‘Inclusive’ networks have a policy of transparency in their views. It is not to do with any CofE default. It is to do with tribal positioning on certain issues.
In response to several comments above — does the Church of England have training programs for newly consecrated bishops? TEC has a mandatory training program for all newly consecrated bishops — a one-week residential program for each of the first three years of episcopal ministry. It’s commonly known as the Baby Bishops’ School (though the actual name, which no one uses, is “Living Our Vows.”). The training includes areas such as canon law, leadership training, media relations, diocesan administration, episcopal liturgies (e.g., confirmations and ordinations), and so forth. In the past (and perhaps now), new bishops from other provinces in… Read more »
Yes there is – and mentoring and transition coaching is on offer
I think that comments have drifted here and have become accusatory yet again. I would like to bring this back to the current Bishop of Salisbury and ask that we pray for him in what is a hideous but maybe and hopeful liminal transition that he finds himself in. It seems that humanity has been increasingly lost in process of so many of these comments about stony(sic) synodical processes and point scoring.
Section 37 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (as amended) This is the legislation for suspension of a bishop. I cannot see that it can ever be ‘a neutral act’ – the rules for it are explicit and not optional. See Martin Henwood’s comment at No 5 above and his reference to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Crawford v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (2012). Note that under whichever paragraph(s) of subsection 1 (there are evidently two charges in this case) suspension is imposed by the Archbishop, that can only be done with the consent of the two most senior… Read more »
The current Archers storyline suggests that the mysteries of Anglican discipline are about to be revealed to the masses. Maybe the scriptwriters are working on a devious Bishop character