Thinking Anglicans

General Synod Timetable for February

Update An amended timetable was issued on 25 January 2019.

The Business Committee of General Synod has today published the timetable for the February 2019 Group of Sessions in London. The timetable can be downloaded here and an abbreviated version can be found below the fold.

GENERAL SYNOD FEBRUARY 2019 GROUP OF SESSIONS TIMETABLE

[DSM = Diocesan Synod Motion; PMM = Private Member’s Motion]

Wednesday 20 February

12.30 – 1.30 pm – Meeting of the House of Bishops (Article 7 business)
12.30 – 2.00 pm – Meeting of the House of Clergy
1.00 – 2.00 pm – Meeting of the House of Laity

2.30 – 7.00 pm

2.30 pm Worship
2.45 pm Introductions and welcomes
3.00 pm Report by the Business Committee
3.30 pm Pattern of meetings (vote)
4.00 pm Presentation on Evangelism and Discipleship by Anglican Communion Guests
5.00 pm Presidential Address by the Archbishop of Canterbury
5.45 pm Questions
7.00 – 7.15 pm Evening worship

Thursday 21 February

10.30 am – 1.00 pm

9.15 am Holy Communion (one of the Communion Guests to preach)
10.30 am Either
If an Article 7 reference is claimed on Amending Canon No. 39:
• meetings of the Convocations and the House of Laity will be held between 10.30 am and 11.15 am to consider the reference
• the Synod will meet from 11.30 am to 1.00 pm for Legislative Business
Or
If an Article 7 reference is not claimed, the Synod will meet at 10.30 am for Legislative Business.

2.30 – 7.00 pm

2.30 pm Legislative Business (Ctd. ….)
4.30 pm DSM: Refugee Professionals (Southwark)
5.30 pm Presentation by the Bishops of Coventry and Newcastle on “Living in Love and Faith” and Pastoral Advisory Group followed by questions
7.00 – 7.15 pm Evening worship

Friday 22 February

10.30 am – 1.00 pm

9.15 am Bible Study in the Chamber on Discipleship/SGPF
10.30 am London & Truro DSM on “Environmental Programmes” (adjourned from July)
11.30 am Debate on a motion on Evangelism and Discipleship

2.30 – 7.00 pm

2.30 pm Debate on a Motion from the House of Bishops on Growing Faith: Ministry amongst Children and Young People
4.00 pm Proposed amendments to Standing Orders
• Crown Nominations Commission
• Anglican Communion Representatives
5.15 pm Appointment of the Chair of the Pensions Board
5.25 pm Appointment of Archbishops’ Council Members
5.45 pm Debate on a Motion on Estates Evangelism
7.00 – 7.15 pm Evening worship

Saturday 23 February

9.15 am – 1.00 pm

9.15 am Worship
9.30 am Presentation on Ministry amongst Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities
9.45 am Debate on a Motion on Ministry amongst Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities
10.45 am PMM: Encouraging Youth Evangelism
12.00 pm PMM: Homeless Task Force

2.00 – 3.45 pm

2.00 pm Motion from the Ministry and Public Affairs Council on Advertising and Gambling
3.00 pm Farewells (45 mins)
• Chief Legal Adviser
• Chair of the Pensions Board
• Bishop of Dover
• Bishop of Norwich
3.45 pm Prorogation

The deadline for members to submit questions is 12 noon on Thursday 7 February, and the questions will go on the website on Sunday 17 February.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
19 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago

I notice this Private Members Motion [PMM] again at Feb’s General Synod, and wonder if it will be debated this time round (or is there more chance of seeing flying pigs getting landing rights here at Gatwick?): Private Members Motion [PMM] – David Lamming – Bishop George Bell and the Carlile Report MOTION DETAILS Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich) to move: That this Synod, (a) express its appreciation to Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC for his thorough review of the way the Church of England dealt with a complaint of sexual abuse made by a woman known as… Read more »

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago

(h) accordingly, call upon the Archbishop to retract that particular statement; and

(i) call upon those institutions that responded to the Church’s statement of 22 October 2015 by writing Bishop Bell out of their history, to reinstate Bell’s name and restore him to their historical narrative.

February 2018

30 signatures

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Owen

Thank you for that clarification Peter. Perhaps another reason why there was a premeditated delay to the Carlile Report, and a subsequent premeditated delay to the Briden Report. Or am I being ungraciously cynical towards the Church’s higher echelons of power?

Kate
Kate
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Owen

It’s very long. Each sub-point added gives people a potential reason not to vote for it. Based simply on length, I would see no chance of it flying.

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate

I feel sure David Lamming could shorten his Motion to a single paragraph – if requested to do so.

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Owen

Who is controlling the Agenda on this critical issue? I can’t see it being Archbishop Welby – he seems to be acting more and more like the proverbial ‘puppet on a string’ – albeit a big puppet. Is the ‘string-puller’ William Nye? Maybe. It has to be someone who works within power systems which operate both inside and outside the Church hierarchy. As the Church of England is this country’s State religion – under the authority of its Supreme Governor Her Majesty The Queen (with an Archbishop appointed by a Prime Minister) – I suppose it becomes obvious who is… Read more »

Simon Butler
Simon Butler
1 year ago

The House of Bishops and the Archbishops Council drive the agenda Richard; they are the responsible bodies. There’s no hidden agenda or string pulling; occasionally there is poor communication and bad decisions but this is not a conspiracy. People have genuine disagreements about what is the right thing to do; not everyone will agree but the constant drip of suspicion and cynicism is just as corrosive as institutional errors

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Butler

“There’s no hidden agenda or string pulling”

I’m sorry Mr Butler, but 3 years+ of trying to restore Bishop Bell’s place in history – but coming up hard against this Church hierarchy – has made it difficult to accept the truth of what you have just said above.

David Lamming
David Lamming
1 year ago

While I am grateful to Richard for giving further publicity to my PMM about George Bell, he knows (as Peter Owen has also pointed out in his comment, below) that, under General Synod Standing Order 6(9), a Private Member’s Motion needs the supporting signatures of 100 Synod members before the Business Committee can consider scheduling it for debate. My PMM was tabled just after the National Safeguarding Team announced, on 31 January 2018, that “fresh information” had been received about Bishop Bell, which was to be the subject of an “independent investigation” commissioned by the Core Group. After prolonged delay,… Read more »

David Lamming
David Lamming
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lamming

A correction and two further observations. Owing to the way the comments on this blog have been ordered, my reference to Peter Owen’s comment should be to his comment ‘above’, rather than ‘below’. Another PMM of mine, tabled in March 2017, concerning the withdrawal by Bishop Philip North of the acceptance of his nomination to the See of Sheffield and a call for the House of Bishops to consider whether there is a need to amend or amplify the ‘Five Guiding Principles’, now has the requisite 100 signatures (in fact 101 at the last count) for it to be considered… Read more »

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lamming

Brexit and/or Briden may well become “urgent or other specially important business” by February – as well as the use and abuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA’s) in Safeguarding cases.

Kate
Kate
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lamming

A review of the Five Guiding Principles seems very much something that should come before Synod, especially since Synod wasn’t given a true opportunity to debate them at outset. Similarly, the whole process for selecting bishops is long-overdue for reform. The bishops aren’t going to want either on the agenda, however. And even if they come up, a motion from Synod “to review” doesn’t allow Synod to indicate the sort of outcome it prefers. It seems to me that on substantive matters that Synod can only push jelly uphill. Rather than just NDAs, I think a broader Synod motion on… Read more »

David Lamming
David Lamming
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate

Kate – a debate would at least allow synod members to express their views on the issues (likely to be varied), which would be recorded verbatim in the ‘Report of Proceedings’ – the equivalent to Parliament’s ‘Hansard’. Also, once a PMM or DSM is included in an agenda for debate, it is open to any synod member to propose an amendment “relevant to the general purport of the motion”, and the proposed amendment will be debated and voted on if it has the support of at least two other synod members.

Simon Butler
Simon Butler
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lamming

The reason why it’s not got more than 30 signatures is because it is so long. Richard Symonds does need to stop assuming that this is anything more tnan a well-intentioned but badly drafted motion. Synodically speaking it’s dead in the water and maybe that indicates that it is time to face facts and move on.

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Butler

“Move on” says Mr Butler. Otherwise translated as “Turn a blind ecclesiastical eye to the injustice”

Richard W. Symonds
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Butler

“Synodically-speaking, it’s dead in the water….”, claims Mr Butler.

“Synodality”, as defined by the Intermational Theological Commission, is the “involvement and participation of the whole people of God in the life and mission of the Church”.

It seems General Synod has become unbalanced, with the big decisions made from the top of the Church hierarchy – without adequate “involvement and participation of the whole”.

Justice, especially in the case of Bishop Bell, is ill-served by this lack of balance.

Simon Butler
Simon Butler
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate

Synod very much debated the Five Guiding Principles Kate; they are the basis on which we were able to pass the legislation for women to be bishops.

Charles Read
Charles Read
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Butler

But the way in which the debate was conducted left a lot to be desired and the way they are being applied and interpreted now certainly needs debating.

19
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x