Scottish Episcopal Church
GENERAL SYNOD 2021
Agenda and Papers
CONTENTS
1. Agenda and Programme for Synod ...... 1
2. Preliminary Synod Business...... 7 Minutes of General Synod Meeting 2020 ...... 8
3. Standing Committee Budgets and Quota ...... 21
4. Faith and Order Board Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers ...... 43 Addition to Calendar of Jane Haining ...... 81
5. Inter-Church Relations Committee Our Common Calling: Approval of the St Andrew Declaration ...... 82
6. Church in Society Committee Climate Change ...... 85
7. Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group Report ...... 92
8. Administration Board Report on the Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report ...... 106 Report of the Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group ...... 112
9. Personnel Committee Complaints Procedure ...... 143 Bullying and Harassment Policy ...... 147 Clergy Time Off Guidelines ...... 150
10. Standing Committee Report from the Standing Committee on Ethical Investment ...... 152 Report from the Ethical Investment Advisory Group ...... 153 Elections and Appointments to Provincial Bodies ...... 156
PINK PAGES
11. Rules of Order ...... 159
12. List of Synod Members...... 165
13. SEC Representation on Other Bodies ...... 169
14. Synod Feedback Form ...... 172
GENERAL SYNOD 2021 AGENDA AND PROGRAMME
The 2021 meeting of General Synod will take place online
Thursday 10 June 2021
09:00 Welcome and induction
09:30 Opening Eucharist Online offering for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland Constitution of General Synod
10:15 Break
SESSION ONE: THE MOST REV THE PRIMUS IN THE CHAIR
10:30 Primus: Welcome to delegates and guests
Preliminary Business (Page 7)
Appointment of Tellers
Motion 1: That Malcolm Bett and Miriam Weibye be appointed as tellers for the meeting.
Appointment of Prolocutors
Motion 2: That the Rev Canon Simon Mackenzie be appointed as Clerical Prolocutor for the meeting.
Motion 3: That the Rev Canon David Richards be appointed as Clerical Vice-Prolocutor for the meeting.
Motion 4: That Hugh Morison be appointed as Lay Prolocutor for the meeting.
Motion 5: That James Gibson be appointed as Lay Vice- Prolocutor for the meeting.
Permission to speak
Motion 6: That the Rev Alexander Horsburgh be given permission to speak to Synod.
Motion 7: That Donald Bruce be given permission to speak to Synod.
Motion 8: That Alan McLean QC be given permission to speak to Synod.
1
Motion 9: That invited representatives from other churches and faiths be given permission to speak to Synod.
Minutes of General Synod 2020 (Page 8)
Motion 10: That this Synod approve the minutes of the meeting of the General Synod held on 5 December 2020.
11:00 Standing Committee – Accounts, Quota and Strategic Direction
Accounts
Motion 11: That this Synod accept the Annual Report and Accounts of the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church for the financial year ended 31 December 2020.
Budgets and Quota Overview (Page 21)
Breakout group session
12:00 Lunch break
SESSION TWO: THE RT REV THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW AND GALLOWAY IN THE CHAIR
14:00 Faith and Order Board
Liturgy Committee
First reading of the Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers (2021) (Page 43)
Motion 12: That the proposal that the Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers (2021) be added to the Schedule to Canon 22 be read for the first time.
Addition to Calendar of Jane Haining (Page 81)
Motion 13: That, upon the recommendation of the Faith and Order Board, the Scottish Calendar (1991) be amended by the inclusion of Jane Haining.
14:30 Inter-Church Relations Committee
Our Common Calling: approval of the St Andrew Declaration (Page 82)
Breakout group session
2
Motion 14: That the St Andrew Declaration as set out in the Synod Papers be approved and adopted.
15:30 Tea
SESSION THREE: THE MOST REV THE PRIMUS IN THE CHAIR
16:00 Institute Council
16:10 Standing Committee and Pension Fund
Triennial valuation: a paper with motion for Synod is enclosed separately
16:40 Evening Prayer
Friday 11 June 2021
SESSION FOUR: THE MOST REV THE PRIMUS IN THE CHAIR
09:00 Morning Prayer
09:20 Mission Board
Introduction from Board Convener
Church in Society
Climate Change (Page 85)
Breakout group session
Motion 15: That this Synod, recognising the urgency of the climate emergency, endorse and commend the Ten Points of Guidance set out in the paper from the Technical Group of the Church in Society Committee the programme of actions set out in the paper. Motion 16: That this Synod call on the Standing Committee of the General Synod to put in place appropriate structures to enable action at provincial level and report back to General Synod 2022. Motion 17: That this Synod call on Dioceses to put in place appropriate structures to enable action at diocesan level and to support action at congregational level and report back to General Synod 2022.
3
Motion 18: That the Synod call on the Scottish Episcopal Church to support through prayer, advocacy and practical action those people and nations suffering the most from the impacts of climate change. 10:15 Coffee
SESSION FIVE: MS JENNY WHELAN IN THE CHAIR
10:45 Faith and Order Board
Review of Canon 4
Report (Page 92)
Breakout group session, following which Synod members will be invited to express their preference for one of the following options:
Electoral Synod (Option 1) Electoral Council (Option 2) Neither of the above options (Option 3) Abstain (Option 4)
11:35 Administration Board
Clergy Stipends
Report on the Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report (Page 106)
Report of the Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group (Page 112)
Motion 19: That Standard Stipend 2022 be increased in line with increases in Church of England National Stipend Benchmark or CPI if greater.
Motion 20: That from 2023, Standard Stipend should rise at rate one percentage point above the rate applied to the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, or by one percentage point above CPI if greater, until such time as it reaches a level equal to 2006 Standard Stipend scaled up pro rata with CPI.
Motion 21: That in subsequent years, Standard Stipend maintain the same percentage uplift compared with Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, subject to a triennial review in the light of changes in CPI and other relevant factors.
4
Personnel Committee
Complaints Procedures (Page 143)
Motion 22: That the Complaints Procedures for the Scottish Episcopal Church as set out in the Synod Papers be approved and adopted.
Bullying and Harassment Policy (Page 147)
Motion 23: That the Bullying and Harassment Policy for the Scottish Episcopal Church as set out in the Synod Papers be approved and adopted.
Clergy Time Off Guidelines (Page 150)
Motion 24: That the Guidelines Concerning Holiday and “Time Off” Provision for Stipendiary Clergy as set out in the Synod Papers be approved and adopted.
12:30 Lunch
SESSION SIX: THE MOST REV THE PRIMUS IN THE CHAIR
14:00 Standing Committee
Ethical Investment
Report from the Standing Committee on Ethical Investment (Page 152)
Report from Ethical Investment Advisory Group (Page 153)
Motion 25: That the proposed policy framework for investment of Scottish Episcopal Church Unit Trust Pool monies in pooled funds as set out in the Synod Papers be approved and adopted.
Budgets and Quota (Page 21)
Motion 26: That this Synod, having examined the proposed budgets for the General Synod for the year 2022, agree to a quota figure of £660,000 for that year.
Elections (Page 156)
Institute Council Membership
5
Motion 27: That Patsy Thomson be appointed for a second term on the Institute Council.
Motion 28: That the Rev Stewart Cutler be appointed as a member of the Institute Council.
Clergy Discipline Tribunal Membership
Motion 29: That the Very Rev Kenneth Rathband be re-appointed for an additional term on the Clergy Discipline Tribunal.
Motion 30: That the Rev Canon Marion Chatterley be appointed as a member of the Clergy Discipline Tribunal.
Motion 31: That the Hon Lord Arthurson be appointed as a member of the Clergy Discipline Tribunal.
Preliminary Proceedings Committee
Motion 32: That John Stirling be re-appointed for an additional term on the Preliminary Proceedings Committee.
Pension Fund Chair
Motion 33: That the term of office of Richard McIndoe as Chair of the Pension Fund Trustees be extended until 31 December 2021 and that the Standing Committee be authorised to make an appointment to fill the vacancy arising then, subject to ratification of any such appointment by General Synod 2022.
15:00 Mission Board
Provincial Youth Committee
15:15 Evening Prayer, Confirmation of Acts of Synod and close of meeting
6
Preliminary Business
PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
1. Welcome to Delegates from Other Churches and Faiths Rev Frances Bloomfield: Baptist Union Major David Cavanagh: Salvation Army Mr Matt Driver: Focolare Mr Paul Goldfinch: Action of Churches Together in Scotland Rev Alexander Horsburgh: Church of Scotland Mgr Philip Kerr: Roman Catholic Church Rev Dr David Miller: United Free Church of Scotland Rev Mark Slaney: Methodist Church in Scotland Mr Srihari Vallabhajousula: Interfaith Scotland Rev Canon Paul Whittle: United Reformed Church Mary Woodward: Religious Society of Friends Guests from outwith Scotland Dr Eve Poole, Church of England
2. Tellers and Prolocutors The Standing Committee recommends the following appointments: Tellers: Malcolm Bett Miriam Weibye Prolocutors: Clerical Prolocutor: Rev Canon Simon Mackenzie Clerical Vice-Prolocutor: Rev Canon David Richards Lay Prolocutor: Mr Hugh Morison Lay Vice-Prolocutor: Mr James Gibson
3. Assessor The Primus has appointed Gavin McEwan as Assessor
4. Permission to Speak
5. Minutes of General Synod 2020
6. Any Matters Arising from Minutes
7. Elections The following will be dealt with in the final session of Synod: Institute Council membership Clergy Discipline Tribunal membership Preliminary Proceedings Committee membership Pension Fund Chair
8. Roll Call Online registration
7
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GENERAL SYNOD OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH HELD ONLINE VIA ZOOM FROM ST PAUL'S & ST GEORGE'S CHURCH EDINBURGH ON SATURDAY 5 DECEMBER 2020
WELCOME AND INDUCTION
A training video was shown before the beginning of the meeting.
OPENING EUCHARIST
The Synod was constituted at a celebration of the Eucharist in St Paul's & St George's Church, Edinburgh via Zoom at 9.30am on Saturday 5 December 2020.
The Most Rev Dr Mark Strange, Primus, delivered his charge to the Synod during the Eucharist, taking as his text “the night is fast spent, the day is at hand: let us cast off the works of darkness and let us put on the armour of light”. Commenting on how different the year 2020 had been, the Advent message of being led out of darkness into the light of Christ had never been more powerful. Both the darkness and the hope of light had echoed in his own physical and spiritual life. Many things planned or dreamt of for the year had had to be cancelled or significantly changed. The year had been one which had brought issues for both society and the Church to face up to. The Bishops had engaged in bullying awareness training in response to the Clergy Wellbeing report of 2019 which had hopefully enabled members of the College to understand and modify their own behaviours and to consider how to seek to change the behaviour of others. The training needed to be shared across the Church and processes prepared to enable everyone to have the courage to name bullying for what it was and to deal with it. The College of Bishops was in the process of agreeing an anti-bullying statement. In addition, it was planning to undertake a programme of bias training and racism awareness, following the realisation of Scottish Episcopal Church history in matters of slavery. There were many issues about which the Church needed to be prepared to speak out: international aid, gender violence and modern slavery. Many such issues had been difficult to consider, made all the more difficult by the lack of person-to-person interaction during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown.
The Primus thanked members of the Church for their letters and emails of support. Such communications had enabled him to speak with confidence to Government officials, Scottish Ministers and Anglican Primates about the care and effort displayed across the Scottish Episcopal Church. Members of the Church had served the people of Scotland in so many ways, including the running of food and clothing banks, deliveries to the housebound and letters to the lonely.
At the current time, the question was whether the Church wanted simply to go back to where it had been before the pandemic. The opportunity to watch nature during the year and the visual impact of atmospheric changes in some cities had indicated what could be achieved if better care was taken of the planet. There were questions about how the Church should invest its money, about how church buildings were heated, the extent of travel undertaken on church business and the resources needed to run the institution. There was a need for the Church to put its own house in order if pressure were to be exerted on governments and industry. The Church could not challenge others if it did not challenge itself.
Looking forward, the Primus said he saw a bright future – not a return to the past but a future as a living, breathing community of faith. Administering Communion in the first face-to-face service following lockdown, had been a moment of joy and hope for those present and a sadness for those not able to be there. However, at that moment and in subsequent weeks he had seen and felt the overwhelming desire of a church filled with the power of the Spirit seeking to lead others into a relationship with Christ. “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Alleluia”.
During the Eucharist, an offering was taken to support the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Anglican Communion Fund “Together in Unity” Appeal. The offering amounted to £547.50 (including Gift Aid).
SESSION 1: THE MOST REV THE PRIMUS IN THE CHAIR
1.1 Preliminary Business
1.1.1 Welcome
The Primus welcomed all members to Synod and urged that they be kind to each other and exercise good grace.
1.1.2 Appointment of Tellers
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) seconded, the following Motion:
“That Malcolm Bett and Miriam Weibye be appointed as tellers for the meeting.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 96 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention.
1.1.3 Appointment of Prolocutors
The Very Rev Alison Simpson proposed, and the Rev Canon Dave Richards seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Very Rev Kenneth Rathband be appointed as Clerical Prolocutor for the meeting.”
The Motion was put to the vote in the House of Clergy and passed nem con, 62 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions.
The Very Rev Alison Simpson proposed, and the Rev Canon Dave Richards seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Rev Dr Sophia Marriage be appointed as Clerical Vice-Prolocutor for the meeting.” 8
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 The Motion was put to the vote in the House of Clergy and passed by majority, 54 in favour, 1 against, 2 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Ms Jenny Whelan seconded, the following Motion:
“That Dr Nicola Mills be appointed as Lay Prolocutor for the meeting.”
The Motion was put to the vote in the House of Laity and passed by majority, 39 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Ms Jenny Whelan seconded, the following Motion:
“That Hugh Morison be appointed as Lay Vice-Prolocutor for the meeting.”
The Motion was put to the vote in the House of Laity and passed nem con, 39 in favour, 2 abstentions.
1.1.4 Permission to Speak
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) seconded, the following Motion:
“That Alan McLean QC be given permission to speak to Synod.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed unanimously, 107 in favour.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) seconded, the following Motion:
“That David Strang be given permission to speak to Synod.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 104 in favour, 1 against, no abstentions.
1.1.5 Minutes of General Synod 2019
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) seconded, the following Motion:
"That this Synod approve the minutes of the meeting of the General Synod held on 6-8 June 2019".
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 96 in favour, 11 abstentions.
1.1.6 Elections
The Rt Rev Kevin Pearson (Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway) proposed, and Ms Jenny Whelan seconded, the following Motion:
“That Bridget Campbell be appointed as Convener of the Standing Committee.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 104 in favour, 2 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Ian Paton (Bishop of St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dunblane) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Very Rev Sarah Murray be appointed as Convener of the Mission Board.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 98 in favour, 2 against, 7 abstentions.
The Rt Rev Kevin Pearson (Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway) proposed, and Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Rt Rev Anne Dyer be appointed as Convener of the Institute Council.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 96 in favour, 5 against, 8 abstentions.
The Rt Rev Kevin Pearson (Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway) proposed, and Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Rev Marjory McPherson be appointed for a second term on the Institute Council.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 92 in favour, 1 against, 11 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Rev Deborah Davison be appointed as a member of the Administration Board.”
9
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 97 in favour, 9 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) seconded, the following Motion:
“That Fraser Falconer be re-appointed for an additional term on the Clergy Discipline Tribunal.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 97 in favour, 1 against, 9 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) seconded, the following Motion:
“That Susan Horne be re-appointed for an additional term on the Clergy Discipline Tribunal.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 90 in favour, 1 against, 14 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Rev Canon Professor John Richardson be re-appointed for an additional term on the Clergy Discipline Tribunal.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 93 in favour, 2 against, 12 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) seconded, the following Motion:
“That John Whittall be re-appointed for an additional term on the Clergy Discipline Tribunal.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 92 in favour, 2 against, 12 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the appointment by the Standing Committee of Robert Phillips as a member of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee be ratified and that his current term of office continue until General Synod 2024.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 101 in favour, 5 abstentions.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the term of office of Richard McIndoe as Chair of the Pension Fund Trustees be extended until General Synod 2021.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 102 in favour, 5 abstentions.
The Rt Rev Kevin Pearson (Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway) proposed, and Ms Jenny Whelan seconded, the following Motion:
“That Robert Gordon be appointed as a General Synod Trustee.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed by majority, 102 in favour, 1 against, 5 abstentions.
1.1.7 Roll Call
The roll call of Synod members was taken from the electronic records of the meeting. A total of 110 members attended.
1.2 Standing Committee – Accounts, Quota and Strategic Direction
1.2.1 Accounts
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) explained that this would be his final appearance before Synod as he completed his term of office. He expressed thanks to General Synod Office staff for their significant work including, under that umbrella, the staff of the Scottish Episcopal Institute. A particular debt of gratitude was owed in the current year as they had laboured assiduously throughout a period of disruption, most of them having the mixed blessing of working from home whilst facing additional demands, notably in relation to digital communication and broadcasting, keeping abreast of and advising upon the Government regulations and guidance on church gatherings and making the arrangements for a virtual meeting of General Synod.
He offered personal thanks to the Treasurer, Malcolm Bett, for his assiduous work in relation to accounts and budgets and also thanked members of the Standing Committee for their support. He was delighted that Bridget Campbell had been appointed as his successor. 10
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020
Mr Gordon turned to the Annual Report and Accounts for the General Synod for the year ended 31 December 2019. The Standing Committee’s plan had been to avoid adding surpluses in 2019 by budgeting for a deficit of £136,000. In fact, the year had ended better off with a deficit of £75,000 giving an outcome £61,000 better than budgeted. On the income side, the distribution from the Unit Trust Pool had been £10,000 better than anticipated and an unexpected legacy of £32,000 had been received. Set against that had been the impact of departing congregations where, as discussed at Synod the previous year, it had been agreed that the Province would bear the impact of loss of provincial quota in an amount of £23,000. That had avoided having to increase quota requested of those dioceses which had no departing congregations. On the expenditure side, savings of £50,000 had arisen because the Child Poverty Grant Scheme budgeted to start in 2019 had taken longer than planned to implement. Payments had, however, been made in 2020. Additional expenditure of £19,000 had been incurred in areas which were notoriously difficult to predict such as legal and advisory services. The net effect of these was an outcome of £61,000 better than budget.
Mr Gordon then proposed, and Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) seconded, the following Motion:
“That this Synod accept the Annual Report and Accounts of the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church for the financial year ended 31 December 2019.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 103 in favour, 2 abstentions.
Mr Gordon then turned to the projected out-turn for 2020. The 2020 Accounts would be for approval at General Synod 2021, but he thought it would be helpful to share with Synod the current financial position and how that assisted in thinking for the future, when it was hoped to see churches across the Province emerging from the pandemic and implementing plans for an impactful future in the service of God, the support of communities and the protection of the planet.
In 2020, so as to avoid building up further surpluses, a deficit of £232,000 had been budgeted. At the time of preparing the finance report for Synod, contained in the Synod papers, a broadly breakeven position (a surplus of £7,000) was being forecasted. Since then, the surplus had increased by a further £31,000 because of additional receipts from the Unit Trust Pool. Mr Gordon paid particular tribute to the work of the Investment Committee and the Fund Managers for the performance of the Unit Trust Pool. The effect of these was that it was expected that 2020 would result in a position £270,000 better than budgeted.
Savings had accrued in various areas, as might have been expected for a period of lockdown, such as travel and meeting costs, residential and conference costs including the Glenalmond Youth Camp, and in relation to salaries with some staff on furlough, and delays in making other staff changes. Child poverty grants amounting to half of the Church in Society budget of £50,000 were expected to be disbursed but that Committee had recommended, and Standing Committee had agreed, £50,000 of exceptional year grants divided between Aberlour, Scottish Women’s Aid and Scottish Association for Mental Health.
Mr Gordon then spoke to the Standing Committee’s proposal for spending in the three-year period 2021-2023. The Committee’s thinking had been influenced by three factors: the need to acknowledge the financial challenges because of Covid-19; a strong desire to sustain ministry, support services and initiatives to which the Church was intentionally committed; an aspiration to support and foster new opportunities for service such as sharing the good news of Jesus, finding space for community building, reaching out to those in dire need and engaging in practical steps to save the planet.
Standing Committee proposed three actions. Firstly, it sought Synod’s agreement to cut provincial quota from £742,000 in the current year to £600,000 in 2021, with the aim of rebuilding to the current level in stages by 2024. This would give dioceses a measure of relief and allow them discretion to determine how best to address needs within their respective areas. Secondly, Standing Committee intended to maintain provincial spending specifically in support of charges in dioceses, in giving to others and in delivering corporate services from the GSO as required. It would also look closely at the experience of different ways of working adopted during lockdown to determine whether there were lessons which could be applied to allow the Church to operate more effectively and efficiently in more normal times. Thirdly, Standing Committee planned to deploy the bulk of the unplanned underspend against the 2020 budget – of the order of £270,000 – on a Recovery and Renewal Fund. That would be overseen by the Standing Committee and dioceses would be able to apply to take advantage of new opportunities opening in the wake of the pandemic. Precise criteria were still being developed and the breakout groups during the current meeting would provide an opportunity for Synod members to offer ideas to help inform further discussion within the Standing Committee. The aim was that applications would be considered in the second half of 2021 at the earliest to give time for charges and dioceses prayerfully to seek out and scope possibilities.
Mr Gordon reminded Synod that at General Synod 2019 he had referred to the possibility of joint working between the Standing Committee and the College of Bishops in early 2020. The intention had been to consider a revised overarching narrative for the Scottish Episcopal Church which would help sharpen priorities for action and spending in the 2020s. The ambition to have secured a concise, coherent and compelling vision for the future had not been possible because of the demands of responding to the Covid-19 crisis. However, the Primus and he had proposed, and the Standing Committee had agreed, the formation of a short life Task Group comprising two Bishops, two clergy and two lay members supported by the Secretary General and Treasurer, to identify and scope a range of short and longer-term emerging issues from a provincial perspective and to identify where action, further work and further thinking was required. That remained work in progress, but four main strands were being pursued. These comprised:
Managing through the pandemic: this included giving guidance on Government restrictions on communal worship and responding to detailed questions from dioceses and charges; identifying sources of support to 11
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 those who were exhausted by the demands of the pandemic; ensuring that the communications team were adequately resourced to enable those unable to attend church to have access to regular worship; keeping abreast of the financial impacts of the crisis through regular contact with Diocesan Treasurers; conducting as much ongoing provincial business as possible remotely through home working and digital means. Exploring governance models and support for charges which were concerned about viability and sustainability: the pandemic appeared to have brought to a head concerns in some charges with smaller and ageing congregations about their ability to continue to discharge governance responsibilities such as finding volunteers to serve on vestries. The Task Group would look at possible models which could involve stronger diocesan support. New opportunities: the intention was to ensure that the Church was alert, and ready, to take initiatives where new opportunities emerged. Work was underway to better understand digital opportunities – how, in more normal circumstances, could geographically dispersed, but digitally linked, groups develop community, worship effectively and grow in faith. Also, what were the opportunities for new or renewed forms of mission and engagement given anecdotal and research evidence of a growing interest in faith and service arising from experience of the pandemic. The Mission Board had already decided in principle to establish a new committee to address how local mission development could be encouraged and supported provincially. GSO role: this included opportunity to reflect on how business was transacted both until the pandemic was over or contained but also thereafter. What benefits of lockdown could be retained for the future and what was the appropriate balance between home and office working, remote and face-to-face meeting? Such issues, including office and room space requirements would need to be addressed in the coming months.
1.2.2 Breakout Groups
Synod members were then transferred into breakout groups on Zoom to discuss the following questions set by the Standing Committee Task Group:
1. Despite the difficulties of the pandemic, what have you found encouraging in the course of the last few months? 2. As we reflect on our experience since March, and as we look forward, what new missional or pastoral opportunities might there be for your local situation and which might benefit from some provincial funding, if available?
1.2.3 Quota
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) seconded, the following Motion:
“That this Synod, having examined the proposed budgets for the General Synod for the year 2021, agree to a quota figure of £600,000 for that year.”
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 100 in favour, 2 abstentions.
The Primus thanked Mr Gordon for his presentation.
SESSION TWO: THE MOST REV THE PRIMUS IN THE CHAIR
2.1 Faith and Order Board
2.1.1 Review of Canon 4
The Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) reported on the work of the Canon 4 Review Group of which he was the Chair. He explained that the consultation document produced by the Group was set out in the Synod papers for information and represented the thinking of the Group to date. He reminded members that they had already received that document with an earlier invitation to respond to the consultation in advance of Synod and he expressed gratitude to those who had done so.
He assured the Synod that the consultation to date had been wide-ranging. The Group had considered processes for the appointment or election of Bishops from other parts of the Anglican Communion and had sought comment from those who had had first-hand experience of their workings. It had invited each diocese to comment on the present Canon 4 and had invited all involved as candidates in recent elections or as members of Preparatory Committees to share their experiences and advice. From those conversations and other pertinent and wise insights, the Group had shaped the proposals contained in the paper.
Bishop Armes explained that the paper put forward two options: one, a thorough revision of the Canon, and the other a radical rethinking of it. The first held to the long tradition within the Province that each diocese ought to have the opportunity to elect its own Bishop. The second departed from that tradition but offered a process more in step with patterns of discernment and appointment appropriate to the 21st century. He could not emphasise too strongly the import of the choice. The Review Group could not ignore cogent arguments put to it in favour of an electoral council rather than an electoral synod but was not willing quickly to disregard a tradition that was so much part of the identity of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Consequently, the Group wished to put both options before the Church before travelling further down the path of canonical revision. The key point to be borne in mind was that the election of a Bishop was a matter of spiritual discernment. Which of the two proposals would provide 12
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 the best framework and setting for prayerfully discerning the movement of the Holy Spirit? The Canon could assist discernment but could not replace it.
The Group continued to seek the mind of the Church. It was delighted that 25% of Synod members had already responded to the request for feedback and would be pleased if more Synod members were to join in over the next phase of the consultation. In a change to the sequence set out in the paper, the Group was rolling out the next phase of consultation to vestries and individual members prior to Diocesan Synods in the hope that that would feed and energise a conversation at such Diocesan Synods in March 2021. Members of the Review Group would be available to attend such Synods to listen and to answer questions.
Time pressures meant that all questionnaires would require to be returned to the Group by the end of March 2021 to allow the feedback to be processed and reported upon to General Synod in June 2021. Bishop Armes emphasised that the purpose of the consultation was advisory and should not be regarded as a referendum or plebiscite. The ultimate decision about the Canon belonged with General Synod. The report in June 2021 would not offer a first reading of a new Canon but would be an opportunity for the Review Group to share its sense of the direction of travel and for Synod to confirm that, or not, as the case may be. Following that, the hope would be to present a Canon for first reading in 2022.
Mr Hugh Morison (Moray, Ross and Caithness) congratulated the Review Group on its paper. He noted that one option being put forward paid full attention to the need for discernment training on the part of those involved in the process but discounted the role of the diocese to a greater extent than he would wish. The other option largely followed present rules but possibly did not give sufficient scope for the expertise required. He suggested that the difficulty might be addressed by a two-stage process incorporating what was proposed in option one as set out in the paper but with a stronger Preparatory Committee, similar to that proposed for the second option. That Preparatory Committee would make recommendations to a Diocesan Synod comprising electors chosen by the diocese of possibly no more than 20 people. Those members would be people able to give the necessary time to acquiring the necessary expertise if that route were to be followed. He did not think it appropriate that the Preparatory Committee should present just a single name to the decision-making body because that would discount to a large extent the role of the diocese.
The Very Rev Dr Emsley Nimmo (Aberdeen and Orkney) thanked members of the Review Group for the report. He concurred with some of the objections raised under item 7 of the report, for example, the reduction of the shortlist to one name, why candidate names needed to be made public and the fact that if the appointment fell to the Bishops their nominee should be homologated by the Diocesan Synod. He was opposed to certain aspects of the proposal for an electoral council. Referring to section 18 of the report he would be alarmed that the task would be undertaken by a group of people chosen on the basis of their gifts and experience. He asked on what criteria such a decision would be arrived at – he considered it was a charter for a cabal. He was disappointed that circumstances meant that a motion from the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney to make Robert Lyon a hero of the faith would not be debated and he hoped that opportunity would obtain at the next General Synod to do so. Robert Lyon had believed that it was the inherent right of a diocese to elect its own Bishop and that that was synonymous with the liturgy and doctrine of the Church. To suggest otherwise was to hack at the roots of the Scottish Episcopal Church’s cherished tradition which was respected in other provinces of the Anglican Communion. A diocesan electoral synod knew the needs of the local area best and the Bishop Elect needed the empowering support of the majority of the clergy and laity of the diocese. He urged members of Synod to reject the option of a diocesan council.
Bishop Armes responded to comments made. He hoped that Mr Morison would take the opportunity to complete a feedback form in the consultation if he had not already done so and pass on his considered thoughts to the Review Group. Bishop Armes also noted the points made by Dr Nimmo and thanked him for contributions made previously by him to the Review Group which had weighed significantly with the Group. Bishop Armes emphasised that in relation to the proposal for a diocesan council, it would be intended that members of such a council would be elected either by their own diocese or by other dioceses and so it would not be a self-appointed body. Bishop Armes assured Synod members that all such matters would be considered fully by the Review Group before it brought proposals to General Synod in 2021 and members would have an opportunity to debate matters then.
The Primus expressed thanks to the Review Group for its work.
2.2 Safeguarding Committee (Committee for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults)
Mr Richard Baker (Convener, Committee for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults) invited Mr David Strang to speak to the Safeguarding Audit Implementation Progress Report.
Mr Strang explained that he was the Chair of the Safeguarding Audit Implementation Group. He reminded Synod members that General Synod 2019 had received the report of an audit of safeguarding across the Scottish Episcopal Church. The Implementation Group had been established after that Synod in order to implement the recommendations contained in the report. The Group comprised representatives drawn from bishops, clergy and laity and the most significant product of the Group's work to date had been the development of a new Safeguarding Policy which would replace the existing Child Protection and Vulnerable Adults Policy Statements and Guidelines. That new Policy was being presented to the current meeting for approval and adoption. The new Policy was based on the five commitments contained in the Anglican Communion Safe Church Charter: promoting a safeguarding culture; ensuring the suitability of people for ministry and positions of trust; developing standards for the practice of ministry; responding effectively to allegations of abuse; providing support where abuse had occurred. The emphasis arising from those principles was that of prevention of harm and the promotion of a culture of safety and well-being. It was so important that everyone in the church felt safe. Fundamentally, therefore, this was not solely an issue about compliance but more about ensuring that safeguarding was wholeheartedly embraced as part of the mission of the Church. The recent reports of the independent enquiry on child sexual abuse in churches in England and Wales reinforced that need. 13
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 Mr Strang explained that there remained a need to address the wider cultural and structural issues associated with safeguarding. A short-life working group had been established including membership drawn from the Safeguarding Committee and the Safeguarding Audit Implementation Group. It would examine more widely the existing barriers to effective safeguarding and explore potential solutions to improve and raise awareness of safeguarding in the Church. Following that the existing procedures and guidance would be revised along with accompanying training.
Mr Strang explained that the results of the audit reported upon the previous year had been analysed in detail. Summary reports had been sent to each diocese and detailed feedback in relation to each charge was available from the provincial Safeguarding Office.
Mr Baker then spoke to the report from the Safeguarding Committee and specifically to the motion contained in the Synod agenda for the approval and adoption of the new Safeguarding Policy: Principles and Commitments. He thanked all those who had contributed to the development of the new Policy, including the members of the Safeguarding Audit Implementation Group. The Church was fortunate to have been able to draw on the great expertise of David Strang to chair the Group.
Mr Baker reminded Synod that the audit had been taken forward by the Committee because it recognised the need not only for improved auditing and reporting on safeguarding but also to ensure that, as a province, that responsibility was given the necessary priority. Fulfilling the Church's obligations in relation to safeguarding was not solely about compliance with legislation and disclosure processes, important as they were, but there was a broader responsibility to promote a culture in the Church where everyone felt safe. The Implementation Group had been tasked with taking forward the work arising from the audit and had concluded that the current policy statements were no longer adequate and needed to be replaced with the new Policy being proposed to the current meeting. The schedule to Canon 65 referred to policy statements on the protection of children and vulnerable adults adopted by Synod respectively in 1998 and 2006. Approaches to safeguarding had developed significantly during the intervening years and the proposed adoption of a single safeguarding policy would be much more comprehensive and reflect current safeguarding practice. The new Policy included a much broader commitment than the existing policy statements, to promote safeguarding and was founded on the Anglican Communion Safe Church Charter which had been adopted by General Synod in 2016.
It was clear from the findings of the Safeguarding Audit that there was much more work to be done. The Committee was currently considering how support for those who had experienced abuse could be improved and it had welcomed opportunity for discussion with the Canonical Review Group as the latter considered potential reform to Canons 54 and 65. The proposed new Safeguarding Policy would provide a strong foundation and focus for that work.
In closing, Mr Baker expressed thanks to his predecessor as Convener of the Committee, Mr Chris Townsend, who had stepped down in May having served for about 10 years as member and subsequently Convener. He also expressed thanks to the Provincial Safeguarding Officers and all those who gave their time and commitment to safeguarding work throughout the Church.
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) proposed, and the Rt Rev Dr John Armes (Bishop of Edinburgh) seconded, the following Motion:
“That the Safeguarding Policy: Principles and Commitments set out in the Synod Papers for this Synod meeting be adopted and added at paragraph 1 of the Schedule to Canon 65 in substitution for the Policy Statements and Codes of Good Practice referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Schedule and that the remaining paragraphs of the Schedule be renumbered accordingly.
The Rev David Paton-Williams (Edinburgh) expressed thanks for the work which had been done and which had been discussed in his Area Council. It had been appreciative of the Policy in every respect, except one area. The question was what provision there would be for clergy and laity to feel safe in the face of malicious accusations? He recognised the need for every accusation to be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, but what pastoral provision and support would be available while such an investigation was underway, rather than such individuals feeling they were being "hung out to dry"? There was a need, if possible, for people to be protected from malicious accusations. If it was not appropriate for this to be embodied in the Policy then how else might it be addressed?
Dr Anthony Birch (St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dunblane) expressed thanks to the Group for producing the Policy and Principles which covered well the overarching aim of safeguarding. He considered that there had been some technical oddities in the audit survey including the possible misinterpretation by some vestries of certain questions. No audit was complete until the findings had been returned to those who had provided the original data. He considered that the length of time it had taken to make findings available had been grossly excessive.
Mrs Victoria Elliot (Edinburgh) asked how the Church could implement a culture of safety. Culture in organisations could take a long time and be very difficult to change. It needed to go beyond a training exercise. Also, in relation to preventing abuse she wondered about mechanisms for whistleblowing. That might be helpful in identifying patterns of behaviour before they became abuse. She wondered whether the Policy needed to be strengthened in relation to pre-empting abuse. She also wondered how much thought was being given to the virtual world and issues such as cyber abuse and also the fact that if members of the Church were maintaining a Facebook page or similar presence they needed to be aware that they would be perceived as representing the Church. There was a need for training for them also.
Ms Jan Whiteside (Glasgow and Galloway) expressed thanks for the work which had been done. She noted that the Policy talked about the provision of support for those who had been abused. Mr Paton-Williams had asked about malicious allegations. She emphasised that the Church was a place of forgiveness. She wanted to ensure that there were support mechanisms for those who had abused because they were part of the Church as well. They needed support as well as victims.
The Rev Canon Neil Brice (Aberdeen and Orkney) had had some experience recently of malicious allegations. He supported the comments made by both Mr Paton-Williams and Ms Whiteside.
14
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 The Rev Dr Sophia Marriage (Edinburgh) explained that she had been going to propose an amendment to the motion because she identified a serious omission in the Audit Report and she had been pleased to hear Mr Strang indicate that the results of the audit were now available to charges and dioceses. She wished to urge charges to make themselves fully aware of those results. The proposed policy addressed the question of change within the Province, made complete sense and was comprehensive. She wished to raise the question of the audit which had asked for responses at a busy time within a short timescale. The report which had been produced was a good one and had been presented to Synod 2019. The Synod had been told there were a number of charges deemed to have "red flags" but there had been no further information after that. She indicated that her Congregational Co-ordinator had made enquiries as to whether there were red flags against her congregation but had not been possible to find that out. Once evidence was available, it was essential to support churches to update their practices as necessary. She believed the matter was one of urgency. She hoped that by the time of the next Synod all charges would have had an opportunity to reflect on the information relevant to them arising from the audit. The Synod itself was partly responsible if things had gone unchecked in the previous two years.
Mr Baker expressed thanks for the comments which had been made. The level of interest in the motion was very welcome. If he failed to respond fully to comments which had been made, he encouraged Synod members to come back to him afterwards. On the question of malicious complaints, the Policy referred to effective responses to allegations and outlined the need for impartial determination of abuse allegations. It sought to be supportive of all. On the question of feedback following the audit, provision of information back to dioceses had been done in February 2020. The importance of feedback was understood. There would be more work and dialogue undertaken with dioceses in advance of the next meeting of General Synod. It was recognised that changing culture in the Church was a significant undertaking and that was why the short-life working group to which David Strang had referred was being established. It would examine broader cultural issues and recommendations would be brought forward in due course. It was hoped that that group would report by the spring of 2021. On the question of digital and social media impact on safeguarding issues, it was the case that power relationships and bullying could be encountered. The Committee was engaged in addressing safeguarding in such a context. Ms Whiteside had highlighted the issue of pastoral support for those accused of abuse. There was also the question of support for those bringing allegations. There was a need to provide support to all those who needed it and the Committee believed that there could be more guidance and support provided than was the case at present. The Committee had had specific meetings during the summer to consider such matters and further recommendations would be brought forward.
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 90 in favour, 0 against, 5 abstentions.
The Primus thanked Messrs Baker and Strang and the members of the Committee and the Implementation Group.
2.3 Administration Board
Mr Jim Gibson (Convener, Administration Board) reported on behalf of the Board. He likened the Scottish Episcopal Church to a motor vehicle in that it needed a driver to be competent and enabled to drive, bodywork which was in good repair and fuel. The role of the Administration Board was to share in the oversight of the driver, the bodywork and the supply of fuel by the support of clergy, the maintenance of church buildings and the management of investments which provided around 60% of the funds needed by the Province.
In relation to investments, Mr Gibson paid tribute to the diligence and professionalism of the Investment Committee and, Fund Managers, Baillie Gifford. Thanks to their efforts, the Province had a carefully invested portfolio which as at the end of November 2020, was worth approximately £114 million and which had escaped the worst of the ravages wrought by Covid-19. Since the Synod papers had gone to press, the Investment Committee had been able to announce an increased distribution for the second six months of 2020 resulting in a total distribution of the year of 58p per unit (compared with 55.5p for 2019) which represented a 4.5% increase.
The Board had been considering the issue of Standard Stipend and had established the Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group in 2019 to consider the level of stipend, housing and pension in the wake of the 2019 Clergy Wellbeing Survey. The Group had met over a five-month period in 2020 and had undertaken a confidential online survey with stipendiary clergy. The Board had received the Group's report at its September meeting and had had a full discussion of the issues raised. The report looked at comparisons with other denominations, the level of inflation as well as the responses from the survey. A major question posed by the report was whether to break the link between Standard Stipend and the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark. Some of the issues related to stipend which were in consideration included: whether stipend had adequately kept pace with rises in the cost of living; congregations’ ability to pay, especially in the light of Covid-19; the level of pension contributions and the effect of the forthcoming actuarial review; the career structure, or lack of it, in the Church; additional responsibilities undertaken by clergy; and the relationship between stipend and the energy efficiency of rectories. Any change in the process of setting Standard Stipend required the agreement of Synod. The issues merited fuller reflection and discussion by the Board which would bring a recommendation to General Synod 2021.
Ms Jan Whiteside (Convener, Personnel Committee) reminded Synod that the Clergy Wellbeing Survey undertaken in 2019, as well as raising issues concerning stipend upon which Mr Gibson had commented, had highlighted the fact that too many clergy had felt bullied or harassed. At Synod 2019, she had offered to listen to those who wished to tell her of their experience and their stories had allowed the Committee to explore a range of options. The matter remained work in progress. A culture where bullying was an accepted practice and unchallenged was not a culture that could be changed in the course of a year. The process was a long-term one and was a responsibility not simply of the Personnel Committee or College of Bishops but was a problem for the whole Church to address.
The involvement and support of the College of Bishops had been crucial and she expressed gratitude to the Bishops for that support. The approach being adopted would include prevention and support. In relation to prevention, this had commenced with the College of Bishops undertaking a half-day bullying awareness training session during the summer, subsequently followed up with a second half-day session looking at policy and strategy matters. Such bullying awareness training could easily be offered to clergy and vestries over a period of time. From the conversations which she had had, it 15
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 appeared that vestry members were not always as supportive as they could or should be and work was being undertaken to consider how that might best be addressed. A clear policy statement that bullying in the Church was unacceptable would be a starting point. A further measure, agreed in principle in discussions with the College of Bishops, was to implement a way in which vestries and priests could discuss a variety of issues of common interest and establish common values, for example around conduct within vestries. She had to believe that most bullying behaviour was not deliberate and that by building relationships based on honesty and a willingness to listen some of the unpleasant behaviour might disappear.
In terms of support, her conversations with clergy had been very helpful. It had been clear to her that, for some, the opportunity to talk in confidence and without fear of negative consequences had been helpful and had offered a measure of support. For others, more professional support and guidance would be appropriate. Consideration was being given to "buying in" such a service which would allow access to totally confidential professional support where required.
Ms Whiteside also commented that she personally had been keen to consider the issue of clergy "days off". It was her hope that the Church could look actively at how an additional day off every four weeks could be offered in addition to the weekly day off currently enjoyed by clergy. She understood there were issues in connection with superannuation and so the practicalities of how this might be managed would need to be worked out.
The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth (Glasgow and Galloway) commented that since clergy were officeholders, it was up to the clergy themselves to decide how much time to take off. He encouraged any statement on that matter to indicate that what was proposed was a minimum provision, not a maximum one. He himself took more than four days per month off and that enhanced his ability to minister. He urged that thought be given to how the recommendation was made.
The Rev Peter Mead (Brechin) concurred with the comments made by Provost Holdsworth. However, he urged that the first and second parts of the discussion be put together namely the connection between stipend and time off. Taking the points that the provision was a minimum, that the pandemic was continuing, that the majority of clergy had not been able to take time off and that there was to be a stipend freeze for 2021, he suggested that the Church should say to clergy that they should take an extra day per week in 2021, not five days per month. Clergy were exhausted at the present time and under pressure – he had in the past week undergone blood tests for possible lead poisoning as a result of lead pipework in an old rectory. It was inappropriate in the context of the pandemic, and a pay freeze, to offer one extra day per month. He believed that clergy should as a minimum take one and a half days, if not two days, off per week.
The Rev Markus Dünzkofer (Edinburgh) expressed thanks to Ms Whiteside for the work which she was doing, and he recognised it was an uphill struggle. If clergy were to aspire to a Benedictine model of priesthood there was a balance of prayer, study, play and rest. The idea of five days off per month was not enough. Vestries should be required to hold clergy accountable to take off two days per week.
Ms Whiteside responded to points which had been made. She understood that in relation to days off there was an issue to be resolved in relation to superannuation. In principle she had no difficulty in pushing for more than one additional day off per month. She agreed it had been a very difficult year. She encouraged those who were under particular pressure to speak to their Bishop with a view to taking appropriate time off. Her suggestion of an additional day off per month was intended as a step in the right direction.
Mr Gibson commented that the level of stipend and of pension contribution were factors to be taken into account in the Administration Board’s further deliberations on the question of stipend.
The Primus thanked the Administration Board and Personnel Committee for their work.
2.4 Standing Committee - Ethical Investment
Mr Robert Gordon (Convener, Standing Committee) reminded Synod members that General Synod 2019 had passed a motion under Rule 10 of the Rules of Order on ethical investment. Standing Committee had taken stock of that motion and had engaged in several conversations with members of the Church in Society Committee, of the Investment Committee and others in order to inform subsequent action. Such discussions had assisted the Standing Committee in developing terms of reference for an Ethical Investment Advisory Group, to identify membership with a range of experience and views, to seek a skilled independent chair and to organise a well-attended and hugely informative seminar at the end of 2019. That seminar had featured a substantive presentation by institutional investment advisers Mercer on the challenges of decarbonisation.
The Standing Committee had been delighted to receive the Interim Report of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group in September 2019 and was grateful for the thorough and thoughtful report now provided to Synod members. He expressed the thanks of the Standing Committee to the Chair of the Group, Alan McLean QC, and the Group's members for the sterling work which they had undertaken. The Standing Committee acknowledged that this represented just the beginning of a process and much more remained to be done.
The Rev Diana Hall (Edinburgh) spoke as a member of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group. She explained that the central motivation behind the motion which she had proposed under Rule 10 to Synod in 2019 was to catalyse action on climate change. In passing it, Synod had affirmed that the Church must address the climate crisis, develop and model good practice and offer prophetic witness as part of its mission. Climate change was only one of a number of concerns that an ethical investment strategy might address but the magnitude and urgency of the need to limit global warming meant that addressing fossil fuel investment had been the immediate priority for the Group's work.
The work of the Group was complex and nuanced and ethical investment principles required to balance moral and ethical imperatives, legal responsibilities and practical needs. As a Church there was a need to be faithful to spiritual and moral values under God, to be wise stewards of money entrusted to the Church and to be attentive to the practical implications for the Church's mission. The last of those had particular resonance for the Scottish Episcopal Church because as a denomination, the Church relied significantly on investment income to fund work. 16
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 During 2020 the last direct investment held in the Unit Trust Pool in a fossil fuel extraction company had been disposed of. That was not the end of the story. There was no "standard" definition of fossil fuel divestment. One common definition was to avoid investment in "any company that generates more than 10% of its turnover directly from extracting fossil fuels". However, it was fossil fuel burning that was the main cause of human induced climate change. That in turn opened up a demanding exercise even in relation to a single ethical concern: if there was divestment from fossil fuel extraction companies but continued investment in those which burnt significant volumes of fossil fuels, the Church's actions would be scientifically and ethically inconsistent. How should the Church respond?
The Group proposed focusing for the present on fossil fuel extraction and recommended an updated definition of divestments as "divestment from fossil fuels means the avoidance of any investment which results in the UTP holding, directly or as part of a pooled fund, any interest in any business which generates more than 10% of its turnover directly from extracting fossil fuels". That would create an additional "red line" applicable to UTP investment in any individual holding or pooled fund.
The Group had also considered whether it was possible to operate within ethical investment criteria while continuing to invest in pooled funds at all. The good news was that the investment market was in a period of rapid change, responding to increased demand for ethically screened funds. There were now several funds on the market that matched or exceeded the Church's current ethical investment criteria. There remained much work for the Group still to do.
Mr Alan McLean QC (Chair, Ethical Investment Advisory Group) outlined some of the many difficult questions with which the Group had wrestled and would continue to wrestle including:
How to decide what the SEC’s ethical views actually were at any given time and how to provide for such views developing in the future? On the issue of fossil fuels, what ethical advice might be given about investment in companies which did not extract fossil fuels but nevertheless made significant use of them? How to treat companies which, although not involved in extraction, were now looking to become leading investors in green energy, such as to Total or Shell? To what degree should the focus of advice shift from "fossil fuel divestment" to "carbon neutral investment"? How to go beyond the SEC's existing exclusionary rules towards positive engagement, given the limitations in the Church's resources as a small church and as a relatively small investor. Practically how and how often to monitor investments over time to check that exclusionary rules were being adhered to? How to set appropriate guidelines for the use of pooled funds when members of the Group had agreed that they would provide a highly appropriate way of managing the UTP? How to maintain for the Investment Committee the reasonable leeway needed to continue to fulfil its mandates to preserve the UTP and support the mission of the Church? How to select and monitor any fund manager advising on investments?
The Group had found such questions challenging and the were no simple answers. There was a wide variety of different approaches which had been adopted by churches, charities and other institutions and whilst they provided helpful models, none were likely to fit the Scottish Episcopal Church's specific needs without modification. The playing field, in terms of investment options, was also changing rapidly and offering more alternative approaches. Given the pace of change, in various respects the interim report was already out of date. However, the Group had a mandate from the Standing Committee to carry on the work which had been started and that would be done. The plan was to produce advice which was not only ethical but also practical. The Group would greatly value and reflect upon any comments that Synod wished to offer on the Interim Report.
The Very Rev John Conway (Edinburgh) spoke in support of the work of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group. The work was complex and it was clear that the Group had undertaken a thorough investigation of the issues involved for which he expressed thanks. The report, together with the motion shortly to be proposed by the Church in Society Committee, demonstrated the commitment of the Scottish Episcopal Church to action in relation to climate change. Responding to the climate emergency was the most urgent task facing all people and needed all the spiritual and intellectual resources available. To speak with any authority about that spiritual task required the Church and its members to put its own house in order. The report set the Church on that road as a first step. It was important for the Church to do the right things and also to be seen to do the right things, particularly since the world would look to Scotland in the year ahead in the run-up to COP 26 in Glasgow. He asked whether the report gave the College of Bishops, if it so wished, scope to sign a pledge on behalf of the Scottish Episcopal Church committing the Church to the process of divestment. Such pledges were readily available, and he would commend the one offered at the present time by Eco-Congregations Scotland and would encourage the Primus to sign it as soon as the report was welcomed by Synod and, he hoped, when the subsequent motion was passed.
The Rev William Shaw (Edinburgh) agreed that it would be good to sign the Eco-Congregations pledge referred to by Provost Conway. He noted that the report referred to the Unit Trust Pool and asked whether a similar approach could be adopted for the Pension Fund.
Mr Colin Sibley (Argyll and The Isles) noted the distinction between extracting and burning fossil fuels. However, a missing piece in the equation was that of the use of plastic. Whilst it was easy to transfer from plastic to paper bags, how, for example, was it possible to move from plastic spectacle frames (which he noted many speakers at the current Synod were wearing). There was a need to identify those applications of fossil fuels to products which were necessary in today's life and to distinguish such applications from those which could be discontinued for the sake of climate change. He agreed on the need to cut back on burning fossil fuels but if part of the policy was to discontinue investment in the burning of fossil
17
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 fuels, should access to funds generated by fossil fuels similarly be restricted? Many members of the Church would derive their pensions from occupational pension funds run by oil companies.
Mr McLean thanked Synod members for their contributions. The Group had not considered the issue of signing pledges and, therefore, he did not have a view on that. He suspected that there might be other considerations to take into account in the light of the debate which was to follow shortly. On the question of Pension Fund investments, the remit of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group did not extend to the Pension Fund. However, he believed that the Pension Fund Trustees were committed to reviewing the situation once the Group's guidelines had been completed. He noted the comments regarding the use of plastics and suggested that that was a good example of the complexities which arose. The Group had sought to divest from direct investment in fossil fuel extraction, including oil which might be used to make such plastics, as well as producing fossil fuel which was burnt. Also, in divesting from Total, the Group realised that it was divesting from a company which was shortly about to make a significant investment in renewable energy off the coast of Scotland. The example of oil related pension funds was also a good one to illustrate the complexities. The Group would carry on wrestling with such issues.
The Primus expressed thanks to Mr McLean, the Ethical Investment Advisory Group, the Investment Committee and everyone else who had been involved in the discussions since Synod 2019.
2.5 Church in Society Committee - Climate Change
The Rev Elaine Garman (Acting Convener, Church in Society Committee) noted that humanity was face-to-face with two global threats to humankind's way of life. One was immediate – Covid-19; the other was climate change which had even more far-reaching effects. During the previous nine months people had changed their lives to protect themselves and others during the pandemic restrictions. What if people had worked on reducing their carbon footprint in the same way? The Covid-19 pandemic had showed that it was possible to make changes, some of which had helped to reduce carbon footprints, but there was much more to do. There was a climate emergency and there was a need to mobilise like never before. For too long, the Anglican Communion's fifth mark of mission "to safeguard the integrity of creation and to renew and sustain life on Earth" had been seen by many as something that one would get around to at some point or that someone else would deal with it. It did not work that way. There was a need for everyone to act now and the Church needed to lead.
Burning fossil fuels on a global scale had altered the very climatic systems of the planet. Weather patterns had become more unpredictable and that risked health, threatened food and water security and increased the likelihood of conflict and displacement of peoples. Those most adversely affected were those who already suffered the greatest inequalities. There was a compelling need to listen to all voices but particularly those of young people who would inherit the successes and challenges of what was done, or not done, now. Salvation in Christ called Christians to responsibilities beyond themselves.
In 2015, the Paris Agreement had adopted universal legally binding targets to limit the impact of climate change: to keep the increases in world temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels, and aiming at 1.5°C, to be carbon neutral by 2050, with increasing levels of ambition as the deadline approached. Some current estimates were to the effect that 1.5°C was only a decade away and that it was now too late for gradual, incremental steps.
The motion being presented to the Synod was designed to engage the Scottish Episcopal Church formally in reducing negative impact on the climate. It headlined the issue, made a commitment to working towards the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2030 and to the drawing up of a programme of actions to make practical changes. Many wanted to make changes but were not sure how to do it. Other churches, other Scottish faith communities and various organisations were making similar commitments and good material and practices were available which could be drawn upon. The motion signalled an intention to draw up a programme to be brought formally to General Synod 2021 but that did not stop everyone doing what could be done already and, indeed, the Church in Society Committee would encourage that. The Committee wanted to avoid charges and others feeling put upon by a mandate from on high but wished to stimulate those seeking to make lives better for the least well off in local communities.
Change was already happening but the Church had a role to make it happen faster, to put its own house in order and to be part of Scotland's preparation for COP 26 in 2021. The Church had a responsibility to demonstrate courage and stir up complacency. Humankind had great ingenuity and capacity to solve problems when it had the ambition to do so. The Church had an important place to drive that ambition making a positive contribution in its own right and to build connection between people which drew everyone into a common aim. That could be the Church's legacy.
The Rt Rev Ian Paton (Bishop of St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dunblane), proposed and the Very Rev Sarah Murray (Convener, Mission Board) seconded, the following Motion:
"That this Synod, expressing the need for urgent action in relation to the global climate emergency, call on the Church in Society Committee, working in conjunction with other appropriate bodies, to bring forward a programme of actions to General Synod 2021 to resource the Scottish Episcopal Church in working towards achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2030".
Mr James Gardner (St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dunblane) welcomed the motion. He noted that Ms Garman had referred to the fact that young people would inherit the legacy of the current generation. Young people were part of the Church already and in the previous week he had been contacted by some young people within the Church who had asked him to ask a question of the Synod. They had been pleased to see that the Church intended to set a target to achieve net zero carbon emissions, but they wished to know at next year's Synod what action was likely to be taken and whether the Committee had considered how to monitor progress over the following decade.
The Rev Canon Cedric Blakey (Convener, Interfaith Relations Committee) spoke in favour of the motion. He noted that it called upon the Church in Society to work with "other appropriate bodies". It had been good to hear that other churches and faith groups were regarded as falling within that remit but he wished to underline the need to work alongside other faith communities in Scotland. The 18 members of the Scottish Religious Leaders Forum, which included the Primus, were currently drafting a statement of commitment on the subject of climate change. This would express a commitment to do three things: to give deep reflection in prayer, meditation and worship to discern how to care for the Earth; to make transformational change in their own lives as individuals as well as in their communities, including how such actions would 18
Preliminary Business Minutes, General Synod 2020 be audited; to be advocates for justice by calling on governments, businesses and others to put into effect the commitments of the Paris Agreement and to commit to science-based targets which were aligned to a healthy, resilient and zero emissions future. The task was enormous and he urged that it be addressed along with other faith communities in Scotland wherever possible. The Interfaith Relations Committee, including his successor as Convener, would be happy to support the Church in Society in its work.
The Rev Professor David Atkinson (Aberdeen and Orkney) spoke in support of the motion and expressed agreement with all of the contributions made during the debate. Whatever the Church did, however, needed to go beyond the secular agenda. There were things beyond that agenda which the Church ought to consider. It was important to take a broad view of what the Church could contribute. An example of this was that earlier in the week the Trustees of the Scottish Pilgrim Routes Forum had had a meeting on Zoom with representatives of the Church in northern Germany and Denmark. There had been discussion about the role of pilgrimage in raising awareness of the climate change agenda by encouraging people out into the environment and discussing it in both scriptural and other terms. This was helpful in developing a message which could be communicated. The Church could say more than the secular approach was able to and there was an opportunity to strengthen links between the Church and the community.
The Rev David Paton-Williams (Edinburgh) asked what was meant in the motion by "Scottish Episcopal Church". He assumed that it meant more than diocesan and central offices. He assumed that it included church buildings but it was the case that collective emissions from church buildings would represent a very small proportion of emissions generated by church members. How could congregational members be helped to make change a reality in their own lives. In his own church a series of webinars was being run as COP 26 approached focusing on how individuals could respond to the climate crisis.
Ms Jan Whiteside (Glasgow and Galloway) supported what had been said. She was aware that the heating of rectories could be difficult and she wondered whether financial support might be offered by the Province to churches which did not have sufficient funds of their own to change buildings or rectories to be more carbon neutral.
Ms Garman responded to comments which had been made. She agreed that there was a need to respond to every member of the Church, including young people. The Committee would look at other existing programmes as it considered possible actions and future monitoring since there was no desire to reinvent the wheel. At the present time she was not in a position to provide specific detail. She agreed that responding to the climate emergency was not just about practical steps but included wider theological considerations and how this affected doctrine and liturgy. The Committee wished to draw in the whole Church in thinking about such issues. On the question of what was meant by reference to the Scottish Episcopal Church in the motion, she agreed that it was about individuals as well as charges, dioceses and the provincial structure. There was a role in raising awareness on the part of individuals in relation to matters such as travel, leisure, etc. There was a need to help imbed a change in people's way of living. She also agreed that there was a need to consider what financial support might be available in relation to the heating of rectories and churches.
The Motion was put to the vote and passed nem con, 98 in favour, 5 abstentions.
2.6 Youth Presentation
A video from the Youth Committee was shown in which young people spoke about their experience of lockdown during the pandemic, the virtual Glen 2020 gathering which had taken place and involvement in Black Lives Matter.
The Rev Tembu Rongong (Convener, Provincial Youth Committee) expressed thanks to all involved in the work of the Committee, including Mrs Claire Benton-Evans the Youth Committee Enabler. The Primus expressed thanks to all leaders involved in the work of the Committee.
2.7 Thanks from the Primus
The Primus expressed thanks to all Synod members for their participation, to the Rt Rev Kevin Pearson, Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway, for being willing to step into the Chair of today's meeting had it been necessary, to those who had acted as facilitators and to the Rev Canon Dean Fostekew who had co-ordinated the facilitators and breakout groups. The Primus also expressed thanks to the Assessor and all those Conveners and members who were stepping down at the current Synod or had done so during the year including Bishop Pearson from the Institute Council, Canon Blakey from the Interfaith Relations Committee, Dr John Davies from the Liturgy Committee, Ms Rebecca Cadie from the Buildings Committee, the Rev Canon Jane Ross from the Mission Board, Mr Chris Townsend from the Safeguarding Committee and Mr Robert Gordon from the Standing Committee. He paid particular tribute to Mr Gordon who had led the Standing Committee and many parts of the Church through a number of changes. At times it may have felt that he had been pushing at a door which was difficult to open but the Primus wished to assure him that the fact that at all times Mr Gordon had walked alongside many in the Church through the complications and difficulties with great humour and determination had been greatly appreciated.
The Primus thanked Sanctus Media who had supported the technical aspects of the current virtual meeting, the staff of St Paul's & St George's, those who had arranged the Eucharist and would lead Evening Prayer and the staff of the General Synod Office.
Mr Robert Gordon expressed gratitude to the Primus for his remarks and thanked him for having chaired the meeting.
2.8 Report Back from Breakout Groups
The Rev Canon Dean Fostekew reported on the feedback from the breakout discussion groups which had taken place earlier in the day. A copy of the feedback from the discussion groups is attached to these minutes.
2.9 Evening Prayer and Close of Synod
The Synod closed with Evening Prayer at the end of which the Primus confirmed the Acts of Synod and gave the Blessing.
19
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
20
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota Budget Report
Format
The summary of all Funds (page 28) details the 2020 actual figures in the first column and the 2021-2023 budget figures in the final three columns. The individual Fund/Committee budgets (pages 29-41) detail the 2020 budget, actual and variance figures in the first three columns and the 2021-2023 budget figures in the final three columns.
Budget setting process
Boards agree budgets each autumn for the subsequent year and indicative budgets for the following two years. The budgets and associated requests for funding from the General Fund are submitted to the Standing Committee for consideration at its November meeting each year. Given that there were a number of decisions made subsequent to November with budgetary implications Standing Committee further reviewed budgets at its meeting in April. The budget for 2021 was also reviewed at that time to reflect major items of expenditure that it was known would not be incurred due to the continuing Covid-19 related restrictions in relation to travel and meetings.
In its oversight of the General Synod’s finances the Standing Committee’s focus is on the General Fund. The General Fund budget (which can be found at page 29) summarises all unrestricted income and its allocation to the Standing Committee and boards to fund their work. The budgeted allocations in effect represent the planned expenditure of each of the boards. Thus the General Fund statement provides a good overview of the overall financial position. In considering the budgets the Standing Committee is guided by two underlying principles: Budgets should be set with a view to achieving a broadly breakeven position in the General Fund. Large one-off receipts (such as legacies) should be capitalised to provide future income rather than being used to fund current operating costs.
Budget history
Investment income The General Synod’s main source of funding is its investment income derived mainly from its investments held in the SEC Unit Trust Pool. This accounts for approximately 60% of income. Until 2008 investment income increased broadly in line with inflation each year enabling a steady growth in expenditure. The rate of distribution paid by the UTP however fell by 15% in 2009 and only returned to its former level in 2020. The impact of the reduced rate of distribution has been partly mitigated by the investment of substantial legacies and part of the cash generated by recent General Fund surpluses. Market conditions continue to be volatile and it is difficult to predict what future rates of UTP distribution will be. The Investment Committee continues to
21
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota work closely with the fund managers with a view to achieving modest growth in distribution rates where possible. Increases in the distribution have been possible for the last five years – with an increase of 4.6% (2.5p per unit) being paid in 2020. The distribution is therefore keeping pace with inflation in recent years. For budgetary purposes it is assumed that there will be an annual increase of 1.5p in the distribution rate.
Quota income The second largest source of income is the quota received from dioceses. The importance of this source of income increased following the significant reduction in investment income in 2009. In 2008 quota income accounted for approximately 24% of total income. By 2018 it accounted for approximately 31% of total income but with successive quota freezes and the significant reduction in quota agreed for 2021, combined with increasing investment income, it now accounts for a smaller proportion of total income. In 2020 it accounted for 29% of total income.
In its Finance Report to General Synod 2020 Standing Committee outlined its financial response to Covid-19. One of the responses was to reduce quota for 2021 by about 19% to £600,000 with a gradual phased increase to £750,000 in 2024. Standing Committee is therefore proposing that quota for 2022 be set at £660,000 as detailed in that Report.
Surpluses Despite a significant reduction in investment income in 2009 there have been surpluses on the General Fund every year since 2010 other than 2019. This is partly due to the steps taken to reduce expenditure following the reduction in income but also reflects further reductions in expenditure against that budgeted and some additional unbudgeted income. (The total surplus for the eleven years to 2020 is approximately £1.5million.) It is not Standing Committee’s intention to generate such surpluses. The Surpluses have however helped fund a £2million lump sum payment to the Pension Fund agreed by General Synod in 2009 (reducing the need for increases in pension contribution rates) and allowed the investment of £700,000 in the General Fund’s investments providing additional annual investment income of about £30,000. The surpluses have augmented the General Fund’s reserves and have allowed Standing Committee the opportunity to freeze quota for a number of years and to suggest its significant reduction in 2021 as part of its financial response to Covid-19. The existence of such reserves has also allowed Standing Committee to create the Recovery and Renewal Fund and, more generally, to budget for deficits in the short term.
Why is outcome generally better than budget?
Standing Committee is aware of concerns regarding the continuing generation of surpluses and the extent to which in recent years actual financial outcome is generally better than budgeted. Standing Committee is keen to try to ensure that there is greater accuracy in the budgeting process and will work with the Boards to seek to ensure that the budget requests they submit are as realistic as possible and reflect their planned programmes. The unusual circumstances of 2020 resulted in a number of significant
22
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota cost savings which, combined with increased investment income, led to a General Fund surplus of about £50,000 rather than the budgeted deficit of £231,500. (More information regarding various factors contributing to the variance from budget were provide in Standing Committee’s Finance Report to General Synod 2020.) The current circumstances also add to the difficulties in setting budgets given the uncertainties regarding resumption of some activities and the extent to which meetings etc will continue to be held online.
Action agreed by Standing Committee
As reported to General Synod 2020 Standing Committee has agreed to utilise some of the accumulated General Fund reserves to finance a reduction in quota over the period 2021 – 2024. The proposed reductions in quota will utilise approximately £250,000 of the accumulated reserves.
A further £250,000 has been allocated by Standing Committee to provide a Recovery and Renewal Fund. Information regarding the Fund was circulated to Dioceses in March and Standing Committee looks forward to reviewing the application submitted by Dioceses on behalf of their charges at its September meeting.
In setting the budgets for 2021 – 2024 Standing Committee has agreed to deficit budgets to ensure that the ongoing work of the various boards is adequately funded. It is anticipated that almost all of the reserves of £1.05m will be used over the next three years.
Current budgetary pressures and uncertainties
There are a number of different areas of budgetary pressure and areas of uncertainty.
Quota income As outlined above it is hoped to restore quota to current levels by 2024. It is assumed that modest annual increases thereafter will again be possible. Any inability to increase quota will result in further pressure on the General Fund.
Investment income As noted above, whilst the SEC Unit Trust Pool is currently performing well there can be no guarantee that investment income will not fall during a period of such economic uncertainty. Investment income will be reduced if it becomes necessary to sell some of the General Fund’s investments to fund ongoing deficits.
Commitment to net zero carbon emission General Synod 2020 passed a resolution committing the SEC to working toward net zero carbon emissions by 2020. The financial implications of working towards this goal are not yet known
23
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Curate funding The number of stipendiary curates in training and the grant funding provided to the training charges has a significant impact on budgets. Currently annual funding of 50% of stipend and related costs is provided in respect of each curate in training – equivalent to about £18,000 a year over a three year training period. The numbers of individuals expected to commence curacies, even in the relatively short term, can change from year to year as personal circumstances change. Currently there are eight stipendiary curates in training. It is anticipated that this will reduce to six during 2021.
To ensure the availability of the required number of appropriate training opportunities for stipendiary curates it is possible that grant funding in excess of the traditional 50% might be required in some areas. To date enhanced funding has only been required in respect of one curate placement. In working with dioceses and charges in identifying the training places for stipendiary curacies the Institute Council will continue to assess the availability of funding and housing and the extent to which additional grant funding might be required. For budgetary purposes funding for all new stipendiary curates is assumed to be at the traditional rate of 50% of stipend and related costs.
Funding of full time ordinands (including Mixed Mode students) The Scottish Episcopal Institute currently offers two options for full time ordinands; the traditional route of combining studies at SEI with a three year degree course at a Scottish University and the Mixed Mode route in which ordinands combine their SEI studies with a placement in a charge. In both cases Ordinands are provided with an annual grant (currently £13,500). (For Mixed Mode students a third of the grant is funded by the charge / diocese in which the student is placed.) Currently SEI’s share of grant costs is funded by the SEI Training Fund and therefore has no impact on the General Fund deficit.
The SEI Training Fund was established in 2015 and benefitted from the generosity of individuals giving to the Lent Appeals of all the Bishops and to the General Synod offering that year. During 2016 further funds were transferred to it from two other miscellaneous funds administered by the General Synod. The Fund benefits from offerings uplifted at many ordination services and a small number of regular donors. Currently the resources of the SEI Training Fund are sufficient to fund the projected costs of grants to full time ordinands to 2022. It is however likely that from 2023 the continued provision of such grants will require some support from the General Fund. The budgets currently reflect a funding requirement of £12,000 in 2023 – increasing to about £75,000 - £90,000 a year thereafter. The number of full time ordinands in training will therefore have a significant impact on the General Fund from 2024.
New mission initiatives fund Standing Committee has encouraged the Mission Board to develop its thinking in relation to the suggestion emerging from its recent discussions that a new fund should be established specifically to finance new mission initiatives. Should such a Fund be established it is likely to have a significant impact on future budgets.
24
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
General Fund budgeted deficits
The General Fund budgets agreed by Standing Committee result in the following budgeted deficits: 2021 Deficit of £498,942 (£248,942 excluding Recovery and Renewal Fund) 2022 Deficit of £269,141 2023 Deficit of £223,941
Whilst recent experience suggests that actual financial outcome might be better than budgeted the scale of the budgeted deficits is such that it is considered likely that deficits will be incurred in the next three years. These will be funded from the surpluses generated in recent years. Standing Committee remains committed to ensuring that sufficient funds are available to provide appropriate training for authorised ministries within SEC and to seek ways of developing new mission initiatives whilst providing appropriate support for existing ministries. It will work with all boards and committees in addressing the financial challenges arising from the prospect of incurring deficits.
Projections beyond 2023
Given the number of variables and uncertainties detailed above, producing accurate projections beyond the usual three year budget period is difficult. For example, as noted above, the assumptions made with regard to the number of stipendiary curates in training and the level of grant funding required will have a significant impact on such projections. Standing Committee is however of the view that, given the scale of the deficits budgeted for the next three years and the absence of any apparent source of additional income, deficits are likely to continue beyond 2024. Whilst the surpluses of recent years provide a relatively sound base and will fund the deficits in the short term there is likely to be an increasing need to prioritise expenditure in the future. It is also increasingly likely that investments will need to be sold to finance deficits.
25
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Total budgeted deficits
The budgets for all the Boards and Committees, including miscellaneous and restricted funds are summarised on page 28. These indicate the following budgeted total revenue deficits: 2021 Deficit of £440,902 (£190,902 excluding Recovery and Renewal Fund) 2022 Deficit of £233,043 2023 Deficit of £192,577
The total budgeted surpluses / deficits differ from those budgeted for the General Fund due to small surpluses / deficits budgeted for some of the miscellaneous and restricted funds. For example the Retirement Housing Fund is budgeted to produce a revenue surplus which is then used as required to fund the purchase of new retirement housing.
Bridget Campbell Convener, Standing Committee April 2021
26
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
QUOTA 2022
All quota received will be credited to the General Fund.
It is recommended that total quota requested be increased to £660,000 in line with the general approach to Quota in the period 2021 – 2024 outlined by Standing Committee in its Finance Report to General Synod 2020.
The allocation between dioceses is based on dioceses’ quota assessable income. The amount of provincial quota requested from each diocese will therefore vary according to relative changes in its income. The allocation will be:
2022 2021 Change from 2021 £ £ £
Aberdeen and Orkney 71,262 63,240 8,022 12.69%
Argyll and The Isles 25,008 22,980 2,028 8.83%
Brechin 44,340 40,620 3,720 9.16%
Edinburgh 264,438 238,500 25,938 10.88%
Glasgow and Galloway 131,064 122,340 8,724 7.13%
Moray, Ross and Caithness 45,234 40,620 4,614 11.36%
St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dunblane 78,654 71,700 6,954 9.70%
660,000 600,000 60,000 10.00%
27
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota BUDGET SUMMARY – includes all revenue funds
Revised Actual Budget Budget Budget 2020 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £
2,008,554 General Fund Income 1,902,973 1,994,579 2,076,284 - Recovery and Renewal Fund (250,000) - - (1,958,698) ** Allocated to Boards (2,151,915) (2,263,720) (2,300,225) 49,856 Surplus/(deficit) (498,942) (269,141) (223,941) 1,000,975 Balance brought forward 1,050,831 551,889 282,748 - Transfer (to)/from capital - - - 1,050,831 Balance carried forward 551,889 282,748 58,807
836,835 Standing Committee ** Income (From General Fund) 912,170 1,003,910 1,016,900 - Income (other) - - - (836,835) Expenditure (912,170) (1,003,910) (1,016,900) - Surplus/(deficit) - - - - Balance brought forward - - - - Balance carried forward - - -
252,047 Administration Board ** Income (From General Fund) 259,820 267,320 274,820 374,594 Income (other) 350,363 356,119 362,878 (531,069) Expenditure (556,128) (568,509) (582,947) 95,572 Surplus/(deficit) 54,055 54,930 54,751 (31,009) Transfer (to)/from capital (335,775) (49,321) (49,119) 611,455 Balance brought forward 676,018 394,298 399,907 676,018 Balance carried forward 394,298 399,907 405,539
408,987 Institute Council ** Income (From General Fund) 476,830 484,600 490,390 115,152 Income (other) 89,620 116,005 111,412 (533,116) Expenditure (564,450) (624,510) (633,350) (8,977) Surplus/(deficit) 2,000 (23,905) (31,548) (735) Transfer (to)/from capital (800) (824) (849) 128,194 Balance brought forward 118,482 119,682 94,953 118,482 Balance carried forward 119,682 94,953 62,556
455,008 Mission Board ** Income (From General Fund) 476,820 481,400 490,390 134,428 Income (other) 138,710 142,108 145,501 (581,973) Expenditure (613,545) (618,435) (627,730) 7,463 Surplus/(deficit) 1,985 5,073 8,161 - Transfer (to)/from capital - - - 192,103 Balance brought forward 199,566 201,551 206,624 199,566 Balance carried forward 201,551 206,624 214,785
5,821 Faith & Order Board ** Income (From General Fund) 26,275 26,490 27,725 - Income (other) - - - (5,821) Expenditure (26,275) (26,490) (27,725) - Surplus/(deficit) - - - - Balance brought forward - - - - Balance carried forward - - -
- Publications ** Income (From General Fund) - - - 4,484 Income (other) 4,000 4,000 4,000 (3,401) Expenditure (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) 1,083 Surplus/(deficit) - - - 11,724 Balance brought forward 12,807 12,807 12,807 12,807 Balance carried forward 12,807 12,807 12,807
2,008,554 GRAND TOTAL Income (From General Fund) 1,902,973 1,994,579 2,076,284 628,658 Income (other) 582,693 618,232 623,791 (2,492,215) Expenditure (2,926,568) (2,845,854) (2,892,652) 144,997 Surplus/(deficit) (440,902) (233,043) (192,577) (31,744) Transfer (to)/from capital (336,575) (50,145) (49,968) 1,944,451 Balance brought forward 2,057,704 1,280,227 997,039 2,057,704 Balance carried forward 1,280,227 997,039 754,494
28
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
General Fund
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £
INCOME
Investment Income 1,151,840 1,192,980 41,140 UTP income 1,223,835 1,254,690 1,285,544 4,000 3,293 (707) Interest 4,000 4,000 4,000 21,243 21,243 - Net investment property income 21,243 21,243 21,243 1,177,083 1,217,516 40,433 1,249,078 1,279,933 1,310,787
Administration fees 2,000 4,276 2,276 UTP / investment administration 2,000 2,000 2,000 30,055 30,055 - Pension Fund administration 30,500 30,800 31,200 18,395 18,395 - Restricted Funds 18,395 18,846 19,297 50,450 52,726 2,276 50,895 51,646 52,497
732,018 732,018 - Quota 600,000 660,000 710,000
3,000 6,294 3,294 Donations and legacies 3,000 3,000 3,000
- - Other - - -
1,962,551 2,008,554 46,003 Total Income 1,902,973 1,994,579 2,076,284
ALLOCATIONS
969,280 836,835 132,445 Standing Committee 912,170 1,003,910 1,016,900 251,320 252,047 (727) Administration Board 259,820 267,320 274,820 489,290 408,987 80,303 Institute Council 476,830 484,600 490,390 459,910 455,008 4,902 Mission Board 476,820 481,400 490,390 24,250 5,821 18,429 Faith and Order Board 26,275 26,490 27,725
- - - Recovery and Renewal Fund 250,000 - -
2,194,050 1,958,698 235,352 Total allocations 2,401,915 2,263,720 2,300,225
BALANCES (231,499) 49,856 281,355 Surplus/(deficit) for year (498,942) (269,141) (223,941)
1,000,975 1,000,975 Balance brought forward 1,050,831 551,889 282,748
769,476 1,050,831 281,355 Balance carried forward 551,889 282,748 58,807
Note In addition to allocations from the General Fund some Boards / Committees receive income from other sources
29
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Standing Committee
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME 969,280 836,835 (132,445) Allocation from General Fund 912,170 1,003,910 1,016,900
969,280 836,835 (132,445) 912,170 1,003,910 1,016,900
EXPENDITURE A Costs of General Synod Office 417,000 388,511 28,489 Employees Salaries 409,800 443,400 449,300 38,000 33,138 4,862 N.I.C 38,100 40,100 40,700 133,000 128,477 4,523 Pension contributions 133,700 142,100 144,000 1,850 1,903 (53) Pensions ex-staff-old scheme 1,910 1,967 2,026 4,250 861 3,389 Staff travel & subsistence 4,250 4,378 4,509 1,910 30 1,880 Staff training 1,910 1,967 2,026 3,500 - 3,500 Recruitment Costs 3,500 3,605 3,713 599,510 552,920 46,590 Sub-total 593,170 637,517 646,274
30,000 23,747 6,253 Premises Building repairs & maint. 30,000 30,900 31,827 5,100 2,974 2,126 Rates 5,100 5,253 5,411 23,000 18,383 4,617 Light, heat & cleaning 23,000 23,691 24,400 11,000 11,453 (453) Insurance 12,000 12,360 12,731 69,100 56,557 12,543 Sub-total 70,100 72,204 74,369
4,500 5,521 (1,021) Administration Telephone 4,500 4,635 4,774 6,500 2,265 4,235 Postage 6,500 6,695 6,896 4,000 1,417 2,583 Printing & stationery 4,000 4,120 4,244 12,400 11,724 676 Photocopier 12,400 12,772 13,155 16,500 19,579 (3,079) Computing - Maintenance 16,500 16,995 17,505 2,000 12,471 (10,471) - Equipment 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000 7,957 43 Payroll Bureau processing costs 9,000 9,270 9,548 4,000 2,371 1,629 Miscellaneous 4,000 4,120 4,244 1,000 409 591 Office equipment & furniture 1,000 1,000 1,000 58,900 63,714 (4,814) Sub-total 59,900 61,607 63,366
727,510 673,191 54,319 Total Costs of General Synod Office 723,170 771,328 784,009
B Provincial Costs 15,000 6,272 8,728 Office of Primus Primus' expenses 7,500 15,450 15,914 12,150 12,150 - Assistance to Diocese 12,150 12,515 12,890 26,000 11,030 14,970 College of Bishops 8,000 13,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 - Election of Bishop 10,000 10,000 10,000 34,000 8,670 25,330 General Synod Annual meeting 8,000 35,020 36,071 1,000 739 261 Annual report 1,000 1,030 1,061 3,300 2,705 595 Synod papers 3,300 3,399 3,501 2,000 702 1,298 Office for Protec'n of Children & Vulnerable Adults 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 11,059 (1,059) Communication costs 10,000 10,000 10,000 350 1,162 (812) New Clergy Welcome Day 350 361 372 300 162 138 Clergy Legal Expenses Insurance 300 309 318 2,000 1,485 515 Trustee Liability Insurance 2,000 2,060 2,122 14,420 14,441 (21) Professional fees Audit 15,000 15,450 15,914 48,000 31,826 16,174 Legal / advisory 48,000 49,440 50,923 - 536 (536) Immigration Sponsors Licence - - - 2,800 2,762 38 Subscriptions Churches Main Committee etc 2,800 2,884 2,971 181,320 115,701 65,619 Total Provincial Costs 130,400 172,918 172,057
30
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Standing Committee
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £
C Committee Meeting Expenses 2,000 689 1,311 Standing Committee 2,000 2,064 2,134 400 8 392 Cttee for Protec'n of Children & Vulnerable Adults 400 400 400 - 252 (252) Ethical Investment Advisory Group 100 100 100 2,400 949 1,451 Total Committee Meeting Expenses 2,500 2,464 2,534
D Subscriptions to church bodies 4,000 4,145 (145) World Council of Churches 4,000 4,000 4,000 1,400 1,205 195 Conference of European Churches 1,400 1,400 1,400 5,000 5,000 - Churches Together in Britain and Ireland 5,000 5,000 5,000 12,500 - 12,500 Action of Churches Together in Scotland 8,000 8,000 8,000 34,150 35,644 (1,494) Anglican Consultative Council 36,700 37,800 38,900
57,050 45,994 11,056 Total Subscriptions to church bodies 55,100 56,200 57,300
E Grants 1,000 1,000 - Primus discretionary 1,000 1,000 1,000
1,000 1,000 - Total Grants 1,000 1,000 1,000
969,280 836,835 132,445 Total Expenditure 912,170 1,003,910 1,016,900
BALANCES - - Surplus/(deficit) for year - - - - - Balance brought forward ------Balance carried forward - - -
31
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Administration Board
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £
INCOME
251,320 252,047 727 Allocation from General Fund 259,820 267,320 274,820
251,320 252,047 727 Total Income 259,820 267,320 274,820
EXPENDITURE
Meeting Costs 1,000 775 225 Board 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 49 451 Building Grants Group 500 500 500 100 - 100 Investment Committee 100 100 100 400 84 316 Retirement Housing Committee 400 400 400 400 - 400 Buildings Committee 400 400 400 400 469 (69) Personnel Committee 400 400 400
2,800 1,377 1,423 Sub-total 2,800 2,800 2,800
Grants 9,000 11,150 (2,150) Child Allowance 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 11,150 (2,150) Sub-total 10,000 10,000 10,000
Allocation to other funds 239,520 239,520 - Building Grants Fund 247,020 254,520 262,020 239,520 239,520 - Sub-total 247,020 254,520 262,020
251,320 252,047 (727) Total Expenditure 259,820 267,320 274,820
BALANCES
Revenue - - - Surplus/(deficit) for year ------Balance brought forward - - -
- - - Balance carried forward - - -
32
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Administration Board Building Grants Fund
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
239,520 239,520 - Allocation from General Fund 247,020 254,520 262,020 17,980 17,980 - Donations 17,980 17,980 17,980 - 3,117 3,117 Unclaimed earmarking from previous year - - -
257,500 260,617 3,117 Total Net Income 265,000 272,500 280,000
EXPENDITURE
124,865 Grants - Issued 135,752 - Earmarked
257,500 260,617 3,117 Total Expenditure 265,000 272,500 280,000
BALANCES
Revenue - - - Surplus/(deficit) for year ------Balance brought forward - - -
- - - Balance carried forward - - -
Building Loans Fund
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
1,000 2,823 1,823 Interest on loans 1,500 1,500 1,500
1,000 2,823 1,823 Total Net Income 1,500 1,500 1,500
BALANCES
Revenue (liquid funds for advancement of loans) 1,000 2,823 1,823 Surplus/(deficit) for year 1,500 1,500 1,500 (262,533) 32,754 295,287 Transfer (to)/from capital (277,835) (1,500) (1,500) 260,758 260,758 - Balance brought forward 296,335 20,000 20,000
(775) 296,335 297,110 Balance carried forward 20,000 20,000 20,000
33
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Administration Board Retirement Housing Committee Supplementary Fund
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
40,580 42,029 1,449 Investment income 43,116 44,203 45,290 50 22 (28) Interest - Deposit account 50 50 50 2,000 2,000 - Cargill Trust - Widows and Orphans 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 113 113 Legacies & Donations - - -
42,630 44,164 1,534 Total Net Income 45,166 46,253 47,340
EXPENDITURE
4,000 216 3,784 Grants - Clergy 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,000 - 4,000 - Widows & Orphans 4,000 4,120 4,244 27,000 31,050 (4,050) - Christmas payment 27,000 28,000 29,000 1,400 1,354 46 - Yearbooks (retired clergy) 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,083 417 Pension Fund (CRBF) top up 1,500 1,500 1,500 150 - 150 Miscellaneous 150 150 150
6,145 6,145 - GSO Administration charge 6,145 6,300 6,455
44,195 39,848 4,347 Total Expenditure 44,195 45,590 46,993
BALANCES
Revenue (1,565) 4,316 5,881 Surplus/(deficit) for year 971 663 347 37,398 37,398 Balance brought forward 41,714 42,685 43,348
35,833 41,714 5,881 Balance carried forward 42,685 43,348 43,695
34
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Administration Board Retirement Housing Committee Housing Fund
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
3,000 1,784 (1,216) Interest - Deposit 1,500 1,500 1,500 25,719 26,637 918 Investment income 27,326 28,015 28,704 81,000 85,529 4,529 Rents 86,000 86,000 87,000
109,719 113,950 4,231 Total Net Income 114,826 115,515 117,204
EXPENDITURE 6,900 6,939 (39) Insurance 7,500 7,725 7,957 35,000 24,417 10,583 Repairs 35,000 36,050 37,132 8,900 8,954 (54) Gas appliance / electrical testing 9,100 9,373 9,654 2,500 - 2,500 Property surveys etc 2,500 2,500 2,500
11,750 11,750 - GSO Administration charge 11,750 12,046 12,342
65,050 52,060 12,990 Total Expenditure 65,850 67,694 69,585
BALANCES
Revenue 44,669 61,890 17,221 Surplus/(deficit) for year 48,976 47,821 47,619 (55,506) (63,763) (8,257) Transfers (to)/from capital (57,940) (47,821) (47,619) 10,837 10,837 Balance brought forward 8,964 - -
- 8,964 8,964 Balance carried forward - - -
CAPITAL ACCOUNT
Additions to capital 151,900 149,024 (2,876) Profit on sale of property 285,000 - - 370,000 183,269 (186,731) Purchase of property 370,000 200,000 200,000 15,000 - (15,000) Capital repairs 15,000 15,000 15,000 - Funds placed on deposit - - - 536,900 332,293 (204,607) 670,000 215,000 215,000
Disposals of capital 68,800 73,814 (5,014) Sale of property - book value 183,300 - - 260,694 45,692 215,002 Funds from deposit account 143,760 167,179 167,381 329,494 119,506 209,988 327,060 167,179 167,381
207,406 212,787 5,381 net additions (disposals) of capital 342,940 47,821 47,619
5,001,594 5,001,594 - Balance brought forward 5,214,381 5,557,321 5,605,142
5,209,000 5,214,381 5,381 Balance carried forward 5,557,321 5,605,142 5,652,761
Funding of capital movement 207,406 212,787 5,381 Funding required 342,940 47,821 47,619 151,900 149,024 (2,876) Profit on sale of property 285,000 - - 55,506 63,763 8,257 Transfer from/(to) revenue 57,940 47,821 47,619 - - - Funding shortfall - - -
35
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Institute Council
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £
INCOME
489,290 408,987 (80,303) Allocation from General Fund 476,830 484,600 490,390 26,000 33,161 7,161 Allocation from Training Fund 34,500 60,480 68,200 16,660 16,660 - Allocation from Mixed Mode Training Fund - - 3,195 3,307 112 Investment income 3,390 3,480 3,560 17,985 18,785 800 Fees 12,230 12,470 -
553,130 480,900 (72,230) Total Income 526,950 561,030 562,150
EXPENDITURE
A Board 2,500 503 1,997 Meeting costs 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 503 1,997 Total Board 2,500 2,500 2,500
B Scottish Episcopal Institute
Staff Costs 149,600 149,873 (273) Salaries, pensions etc 151,000 152,500 154,000 2,000 78 1,922 Travel expenses 2,000 2,000 2,000 3,500 2,227 1,273 Staff training / development 3,500 3,500 3,500 - - - Recruitment costs - - - 155,100 152,178 2,922 Total staff costs 156,500 158,000 159,500
Training costs 40,000 9,335 30,665 Residential weekends 22,000 40,000 40,000 7,000 654 6,346 Field Education (placement) costs 7,000 7,000 7,000 10,760 12,158 (1,398) Associate Tutors 10,750 10,750 10,950 - - - Course materials / moodle costs - - - 7,500 15,803 (8,303) Common Awards 12,500 12,500 12,500 65,260 37,950 27,310 Total training costs 52,250 70,250 70,450
Mixed Mode Training costs 56,670 56,431 239 Director of MM Training salary, pension etc 56,500 57,100 57,700 3,900 2,115 1,785 Director of MM Training travel, expenses etc 3,900 3,900 3,900 - - - Associate Tutors - - - 26,000 33,161 (7,161) Maintenance grants 30,000 42,300 47,800 - - - Residential weekends - - - 86,570 91,707 (5,137) Total Mixed Mode Training costs 90,400 103,300 109,400
Other costs 1,000 740 260 Library 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,372 (372) Admin / publicity 1,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 - 10,000 Lay Reader conference - 10,000 - 12,000 2,112 9,888 Total other costs 3,000 12,000 2,000
318,930 283,947 34,983 Total SEI costs 302,150 343,550 341,350
36
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Institute Council
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £
C Full Time ordinands - - - University fees ------Maintenance grants 4,500 18,180 32,400 - - - Total full time ordinands 4,500 18,180 32,400
D Curate funding 156,000 139,824 16,176 Curate grants 148,800 122,700 111,200 156,000 139,824 16,176 Total curate funding 148,800 122,700 111,200
E Recruitment and Selection 54,700 54,561 139 PDO stipend / salary 56,500 57,100 57,700 2,000 278 1,722 PDO expenses (travel etc) 2,000 2,000 2,000 - - Admin assistant - - - - - Provincial panels - - - 2,000 1,355 645 Discernment Meetings 2,000 2,000 2,000 13,000 432 12,568 Advisory Selection Panel 4,500 9,000 9,000 4,000 - 4,000 Training 4,000 4,000 4,000 - - - Materials etc - - - 75,700 56,626 19,074 Total Recruitment and Selection 69,000 74,100 74,700
553,130 480,900 72,230 Total Expenditure 526,950 561,030 562,150
BALANCES
Revenue - - - Surplus/(deficit) for year - - - Balance brought forward - - -
- - - Balance carried forward - - -
37
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Mission Board
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
459,910 455,008 (4,902) Allocation from General Fund 476,820 481,400 490,390
11,475 11,919 444 Investment income 12,225 12,535 12,840 1,000 981 (19) Legacies and donations 1,000 1,000 1,000
472,385 467,908 (4,477) Total Net Income 490,045 494,935 504,230
EXPENDITURE
3,000 428 2,572 Board expenses 3,000 3,090 3,185
346,900 346,900 - Mission and Ministry Support Grants 353,900 361,000 368,200
18,000 4,195 13,805 Provincial Youth Week 18,000 18,000 18,000
500 - 500 Children's work 500 500 500 1,000 184 816 Local Mission Resourcing Group 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 1,269 2,731 Youth Committee 4,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 40 960 Other activities 1,000 1,000 1,000 - - - Training Course 2,500 - -
374,400 353,016 21,384 Sub-total 383,900 388,590 395,885
Allocation to Committees - - - Global Partnerships Committee - - - 97,985 114,892 (16,907) Church in Society Committee 106,145 106,345 108,345 97,985 114,892 (16,907) Total allocated to committees 106,145 106,345 108,345
472,385 467,908 4,477 Total Expenditure 490,045 494,935 504,230
BALANCES
Revenue - - - Surplus/(deficit) for year - - - - - Balance brought forward - - -
- - - Balance carried forward - - -
38
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Mission Board Global Partnerships Committee
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
Allocation from General Fund - - - 108,076 111,935 3,859 Investment income Unit Trust Pool 114,830 117,725 120,620 - 12 12 Deposit account - - - 7,205 7,462 257 Noel Phillips Trust 7,655 7,848 8,041
- Grant awarded in previous year not required - - -
115,281 119,409 4,128 Total Net Income 122,485 125,573 128,661
20,000 23,444 (3,444) Grants Education 28,000 28,000 28,000 35,000 52,375 (17,375) Africa 33,000 33,000 33,000 9,000 6,878 2,122 Middle East and Pacific 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 1,000 Asia 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 1,000 4,000 Small grants 3,000 3,000 3,000 10,000 - 10,000 Companion Relationships 3,000 3,000 3,000 - 10,285 (10,285) Covid-19 Support 11,000 11,000 11,000 8,000 10,120 (2,120) Agency Support 6,000 6,000 6,000 12,000 79 11,921 Anglican Comm Network Support 8,000 8,000 8,000 10,000 3,616 6,384 South America 6,000 6,000 6,000 500 - 500 UN Sustainable Development Goals - - - Bank and currency transfer fees 5,500 5,500 5,500 3,000 195 2,805 Committee expenses Travel / meetings 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 (8) 1,008 Publicity / correspondence 1,000 1,000 1,000
119,500 112,984 6,516 Total Expenditure 119,500 119,500 119,500
BALANCES
Revenue (4,219) 6,425 10,644 Surplus/(deficit) for year 2,985 6,073 9,161 174,166 174,166 Balance brought forward 180,591 183,576 189,649
169,947 180,591 10,644 Balance carried forward 183,576 189,649 198,810
39
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Mission Board Church in Society Committee
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
97,985 114,892 16,907 Allocation from General Fund 106,145 106,345 108,345 1,000 981 (19) Donations 1,000 1,000 1,000
98,985 115,873 16,888 Total Net Income 107,145 107,345 109,345
EXPENDITURE
46,485 46,380 105 Grants 54,645 54,845 56,845 - 50,000 (50,000) Covid-19 Support grants - - - 50,000 19,152 30,848 Child poverty projects grants 50,000 50,000 50,000
2,500 341 2,159 Meeting costs / participating in consultations / conferences 2,500 2,500 2,500
98,985 115,873 (16,888) Total Expenditure 107,145 107,345 109,345
BALANCES
Revenue - - - Surplus/(deficit) for year - - -
- - Balance brought forward - - -
- - - Balance carried forward - - -
40
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
Faith and Order Board
Revised Budget Actual Variance Budget Budget Budget 2020 2020 fav/ (adv) 2021 2022 2023 £ £ £ £ £ £ INCOME
24,250 5,821 (18,429) Allocation from General Fund 26,275 26,490 27,725
24,250 5,821 (18,429) Total Net Income 26,275 26,490 27,725
EXPENDITURE
5,600 2,530 3,070 Board expenses 5,770 5,945 6,125 3,500 627 2,873 Work of Liturgy Committee 5,100 3,708 5,318 800 631 169 Work of Committee on Canons 800 824 849 2,000 97 1,903 Work of Doctrine Committee 2,000 2,060 2,122 5,150 349 4,801 Inter-Church Relations Committee 5,305 5,464 5,628 3,700 708 2,992 Europe Group 3,800 3,914 4,031 2,500 869 1,631 Interfaith Relations Committee 2,500 2,575 2,652
1,000 10 990 Diaconate Working Group 1,000 1,000 1,000 - - WCC Assembly - 1,000 -
24,250 5,821 18,429 Total Expenditure 26,275 26,490 27,725
BALANCES
Revenue - - - Surplus/(deficit) for year - - - - Balance brought forward - - -
- - - Balance carried forward - - -
41
Standing Committee Budgets and Quota
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
42
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
SCOTTISH LITURGY 1982
with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers (Revised 2021)
This new edition of Scottish Liturgy 1982 incorporates changes in language both in reference to humans and to God in order to reflect the changes in English usage that have come about since 1982 and to improve on and make formal the changes to gendered language permitted since 2010. Genesis tells us that humankind (adam) was created ‘in the image of God’, and that God created humankind ‘male and female’ (Gen. 1. 27). The implication is that God’s image encompasses both male and female. In Hebrew, all nouns have grammatical gender (masculine or feminine), which does not correspond to biological sex. Greek grammar additionally includes the neuter grammatical gender. In modern English, grammatical gender is largely reduced to pronouns, and largely conforms to biological sex or lack thereof, except in figurative language. Nevertheless, words that conveyed no connotations of biological sex at earlier stages in the development of English have come to do so in modern English, ‘man’ being the archetypal example. Assumptions based on contemporary English usage can therefore be misleading, if permitted to define appropriation of concepts developed in other languages and cultures. The use of gendered pronouns in English in relation to the Triune God (rather than the individual persons of the Holy Trinity), or to the Holy Spirit, can therefore be misleading in current usage, implying a biological sex identity. For example, the Hebrew word for Spirit, ruach, is grammatically feminine, while the Greek pneuma is neuter, and Greek paraklētos (paraclete) is masculine. This implies neither that the ancient Hebrews regarded the Spirit of God as female, nor that Greek-speaking Jews and Christians perceived the Spirit as an inanimate object, or the Paraclete as male. Nor was there any assumption either that a manifestation or emanation of the implicitly male creator god must share that masculinity, or that the partner in the creative work of God must have been female, even where figurative language is resonant with sexual imagery. In the light of these considerations, recent liturgical writing and theological discourse generally have sought to avoid gender-specific references to God wherever possible. There are, in fact, few if any contexts where the imagery and scriptural allusions demand masculine or feminine forms in relation to the Holy Spirit. The use of neuter pronouns inevitably sounds harsh and crude and conveys to modern anglophone congregations connotations of inanimacy. It may be that the English language is in flux, and that new conventions to address these issues may take shape in the future. Meanwhile creative and imaginative ways are being found to express what needs to be said without irritating repetition caused by the avoidance of pronouns. Some of the changes offered have been adopted from the document, Praying Together (published by the English Language Liturgical Consultation in 1988), an ecumenical document that was the result of wide-ranging scholarly consideration of the common texts used by the churches in their Eucharistic liturgies.
43
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers Additional Eucharistic Prayers for Christmas and Epiphany The Alternative Eucharistic Prayers added to the Scottish Liturgy 1982 in 1996 are seasonal prayers suitable for use during Advent (II), Lent (III), and Easter (IV). Christmas and Epiphany now also enjoy special provision in this way in Alternative Eucharistic Prayers IIa and IIb. These two new Eucharistic Prayers express and emphasise the mystery of the Incarnation, which is given Trinitarian exposition in the pre-Sanctus sections. They also allude to the vulnerability of human birth, and the particularly straitened circumstances recounted in the Gospel narratives, juxtaposing the human and divine natures of Christ, his Jewish royal pedigree with his manifestation to the nations, and make appropriate allusions to the Baptism of Jesus and the wedding at Cana. Like the other alternative Eucharistic Prayers, use is suggestive and not prescriptive. The nature of Prayer IIb means that it might appropriately be used at other times, for example, on the Sundays between Epiphany and Candlemas.
44
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers (Revised 2021)
The words printed in bold type are intended for use by the people as well as the presiding celebrant. All those sections marked † may be included or omitted according to the season or the circumstances. Indications are also given where alternatives are provided.
Authorised for use under Canon 22 on behalf of the College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
+ Mark, Bishop of Moray, Ross, and Caithness, Primus [date]
45
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers Scottish Liturgy 1982
PREPARATION
1 Welcome
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
2 Peace or at 16
We meet in Christ’s name. Let us share his peace.
3 Collect for Purity †
Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hidden: cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you, and worthily magnify your holy name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
4 Summary of the Law †
Our Lord Jesus Christ said: The first commandment is this: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is the only Lord. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all Your strength.” The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these. Amen. Lord, have mercy.
46
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
5 Confession and Absolution or at 15
God is love and we are God’s children. There is no room for fear in love. We love because God loved us first.
Let us confess our sins in penitence and faith.
Silence
God our Father, we confess to you and to our fellow members in the Body of Christ that we have sinned in thought, word and deed, and in what we have failed to do. We are truly sorry. Forgive us our sins, and deliver us from the power of evil, for the sake of your Son who died for us, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
God, who is both power and love, forgive us and free us from our sins, heal and strengthen us by the Holy Spirit, and raise us to new life in Christ our Lord.
Amen.
6 Kyrie †
Kyrie eleison. or Lord, have mercy. Kyrie eleison. Lord, have mercy.
Christe eleison. Christ, have mercy. Christe eleison. Christ, have mercy.
Kyrie eleison. Lord, have mercy. Kyrie eleison. Lord, have mercy.
47
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
7 Gloria †
Glory to God in the highest, and peace to God’s people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (with God the Son, Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit,) we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
3, 4, 6 and 7 are selected according to the season or the occasion
8 Collect of the day
48
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
THE LITURGY OF THE WORD
9a First Reading
9b Psalm †
10 Second Reading †
11 Gospel
When it is announced: Glory to Christ our Saviour.
At end: Give thanks to the Lord for his glorious Gospel. Praise to Christ our Lord.
12 Sermon † or other exposition of the Word
49
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
13 Nicene Creed †
We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
14 Intercessions
Prayer is offered for the world and its people, for those who suffer and those in need, for the Church and its members.
50
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
15 Confession and Absolution if not used at 5
God is love and we are God’s children, There is no room for fear in love. We love because God loved us first.
Let us confess our sins in penitence and faith.
Silence
God our Father, we confess to you and to our fellow members in the Body of Christ that we have sinned in thought, word and deed, and in what we have failed to do. We are truly sorry. Forgive us our sins, and deliver us from the power of evil. For the sake of your Son who died for us, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
God, who is both power and love, forgive us and free us from our sins, heal and strengthen us by the Holy Spirit and raise us to new life in Christ our Lord.
Amen.
16 Peace if not used at 2
We meet in Christ's name. Let us share his peace.
51
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers THE LITURGY OF THE SACRAMENT
The Taking of the Bread and the Wine
17 Offering
Silence
or
Let us present our offerings to the Lord.
Yours, Lord, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the splendour, and the majesty; for everything in heaven and on earth is yours.
All things come from you, and of your own we give you.
See Appendix for alternative use
52
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
The Great Thanksgiving
18 Eucharistic Prayer
The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.
Worship and praise belong to you, Father, OPENING PRAYER: in every place and at all times. Celebrating the work of All power is yours. Father, Son and Spirit, in You created the heavens and established the earth; creating, restoring and you sustain in being all that is. bringing to completion, all that belongs to God. In Christ your Son our life and yours are brought together in a wonderful exchange. He made his home among us that we might for ever dwell in you.
Through your Holy Spirit you call us to new birth in a creation restored by love.
As children of your redeeming purpose we offer you our praise, with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven, singing the hymn of your unending glory:
Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might, SANCTUS: heaven and earth are full of your glory. An anthem to God's glory Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. BENEDICTUS: Hosanna in the highest. The greeting to the one who came in the flesh, comes in Glory and thanksgiving be to you, the sacrament and is still to most loving Father, come. for the gift of your Son born in human flesh He is the Word existing beyond time, CHRISTOLOGICAL both source and final purpose, PRAYER: bringing to wholeness all that is made. Thanksgiving to God for all Obedient to your will he died upon the Cross. that was accomplished in the By your power you raised him from the dead. life, death and resurrection He broke the bonds of evil of Jesus. and set your people free to be his Body in the world.
53
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
On the night when he was given up to death, knowing that his hour had come, having loved his own, he loved them to the end. At supper with his disciples he took bread and offered you thanks. He broke the bread, and gave it to them, saying: “Take, eat. This is my Body: it is broken for you.” NARRATIVE OF THE After supper, he took the cup, INSTITUTION: he offered you thanks, An account of the Last and gave it to them saying: Supper. “Drink this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant; it is poured out for you, and for all, that sins may he forgiven. Do this in remembrance of me.” We now obey your Son’s command. We recall his blessed passion and death, his glorious resurrection and ascension; and we look for the coming of his Kingdom. Made one with him, we offer you these gifts and with them ourselves, a single, holy, living sacrifice. Hear us, most merciful Father, and send your Holy Spirit upon us EPICLESIS: We ask for the descent of and upon this bread and this wine, the Holy Spirit as the divine that, overshadowed by your Spirit’s life-giving power, response to our obedience. they may be the Body and Blood of your Son, and we may be kindled with the fire of your love and renewed for the service of your Kingdom. Help us, who are baptised into the fellowship of Christ's Body to live and work to your praise and glory; may we grow together in unity and love PRAYER OF PETITION: until at last, in your new creation, As members of the Church we enter into our heritage we pray for its whole life and in the company of the Virgin Mary, mission. the apostles and prophets, and of all our brothers and sisters living and departed.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom, and in whom, DOXOLOGY: in the unity of the Holy Spirit, A concluding act of praise. all honour and glory be to you, Lord of all ages, world without end. Amen.
Next Section: 19. The Sharing of Bread and Wine.
54
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
SEASONAL MATERIAL FOR INSERTION IN THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER Each clause is inserted at the same place in the paragraph which precedes the Sanctus.
ADVENT As children of your redeeming purpose ... who await with eager longing the fulfilment of all things in the coming of your Son, we offer you our praise, ... CHRISTMAS As children of your redeeming purpose ... for whom Christ Jesus humbled himself and become poor to make us rich, we offer you our praise, ... EPIPHANY As children of your redeeming purpose ... who have seen the radiance of your glory revealed to all the nations in your Son, we offer you our praise, ... LENT As children of your redeeming purpose ... who are called to share Christ’s suffering and be made like him in his death, we offer you our praise, ... PASSIONTIDE As children of your redeeming purpose ... for whom Christ endured the cross of shame to rise triumphant over sin and death, we offer you our praise, ... EASTER As children of your redeeming purpose ... freed by him who burst from the tomb and opened the gate of life, we offer you our praise, ... ASCENSION As children of your redeeming purpose ... who rejoice that in Jesus our human nature is carried for ever into the glory of heaven, we offer you our praise, ... PENTECOST As children of your redeeming purpose ... who are marked with the seal of your Spirit for the day of our final liberation, we offer you our praise, ...
55
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
TRINITY As children of your redeeming purpose ... who worship the mystery of your Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we offer you our praise, ... ALL SAINTS As children of your redeeming purpose ... called to attain with all your saints to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, we offer you our praise, ... MARY As children of your redeeming purpose ... who honour Mary, chosen mother of your Son, and with all generations call her blessed, we offer you our praise, ... ANY SAINT As children of your redeeming purpose ... rejoicing in communion with N. and all your saints, we offer you our praise, ... DEDICATION As children of your redeeming purpose ... your household, founded upon apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself the chief cornerstone, we offer you our praise, ... UNITY As children of your redeeming purpose ... called to bring all things in heaven and on earth into a perfect unity in Christ, we offer you our praise, ... HARVEST As children of your redeeming purpose ... and stewards of Your creation who give thanks for the fruits of the earth in their season, we offer you our praise, ... BAPTISM / CONFIRMATION / ORDINATION As children of your redeeming purpose ... who are marked with the seal of your Spirit for the day of our final liberation, we offer you our praise, ... FUNERAL As children of your redeeming purpose ... who as pilgrims on this earth are kept safe in your tender and steadfast love, we offer you our praise, ...
56
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Eucharistic Prayer II Anticipation (Suitable for Advent)
The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.
Worship and praise belong to you, God our maker. OPENING PRAYER: Out of nothing, you called all worlds to be, Celebrating the work of and still you draw the universe to its fulfilment. Father, Son and Spirit, in Dawn and evening celebrate your glory creating, restoring and till time shall be no more. bringing to completion, all that belongs to God. In Christ your Son the life of heaven and earth were joined, sealing the promise of a new creation, given, yet still to come.
Taught by your Spirit, we who bear your threefold likeness look for the City of Peace in whose light we are transfigured and the earth transformed.
As children of your redeeming purpose who await the coming of your Son, we offer you our praise, with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven singing the hymn of your unending glory:
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, SANCTUS: heaven and earth are full of your glory. An anthem to God's glory Hosanna in the highest. BENEDICTUS: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. The greeting to the one who Hosanna in the highest. came in the flesh, comes in the sacrament and is still to Glory and thanksgiving be to you, come. most loving Father. In Jesus you showed us yourself. CHRISTOLOGICAL Our hope is built on him, PRAYER: the first, the last, the living one. Thanksgiving to God for all Obedient, even to accepting death, that was accomplished in the He opened the gate of glory life, death and resurrection and calls us now to share the life of heaven. of Jesus.
57
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Before he was given up to suffering and death, alight with the vision of a feast that heralded a kingdom yet to come, at supper with his disciples he took bread and offered you thanks. He broke the bread, and gave it to them, saying: “Take, eat. This is my Body: it is broken for you.” NARRATIVE OF THE After supper, he took the cup, INSTITUTION: he offered you thanks, An account of the Last and gave it to them saying: Supper. “Drink this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant; it is poured out for you, and for all, that sins may be forgiven. Do this in remembrance of me.”
We now obey your Son's command. We recall his blessed passion and death, his glorious resurrection and ascension; ANAMNESIS AND OBLATION: and we look for the coming of his Kingdom. The work of Christ is Made one with him, we offer you these gifts recalled and linked with our with them ourselves, offering. a single, holy, living sacrifice.
Hear us, most merciful Father, EPICLESIS: and send your Holy Spirit upon us We ask for the descent of and upon this bread and this wine, the Holy Spirit as the divine that, overshadowed by your Spirit’s life-giving power, response to our obedience. they may be the Body and Blood of your Son, and we may be kindled with the fire of your love and renewed for the service of your Kingdom.
Help us, who are baptised into the fellowship of Christ's Body to live and work to your praise and glory; may we grow together in unity and love PRAYER OF PETITION: until at last, in your new creation, As members of the Church we enter into our heritage we pray for its whole life and mission. in the company of the Virgin Mary,
the apostles, and prophets, and of all our brothers and sisters living and departed.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom, and in whom, DOXOLOGY: in the unity of the Holy Spirit, A concluding act of praise. all honour and glory be to you, Lord of all ages, world without end. Amen. Next Section: 19. The Sharing of Bread and Wine.
58
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Eucharistic Prayer II a Incarnation (suitable for Christmas) The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.
Worship and praise belong to you, God our maker. OPENING PRAYER: Out of nothing, you called all worlds into being, Celebrating the work of and still you draw the universe to its fulfilment. Father, Son and Spirit, in Day and night celebrate your glory creating, restoring and till time shall be no more. bringing to completion, all that belongs to God. In Jesus Christ, your Word became flesh, and (on this night/day)1 was born of the Virgin Mary. He emptied himself, taking our human form, that through his incarnation and passion we might come to share in his divine nature.
Filled with the Spirit, who at the first Creation moved over the face of the waters, and who overshadowed the blessed Virgin at Nazareth, we await with joy the fulfilment of your new Creation. As children of your redeeming purpose
who celebrate the birth of your Son, we offer you our praise, with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven singing the hymn of your unending glory:
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, SANCTUS: An anthem to heaven and earth are full of your glory. God's glory Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. BENEDICTUS: The greeting Hosanna in the highest. to the one who came in the flesh, comes in the sacra- ment and is still to come. Glory and thanksgiving be to you, most loving Father. In Jesus the Messiah you have come to us, CHRISTOLOGICAL PRAYER: Thanksgiving to and lived among us, God for all that was accom- that we might forever live with you. plished in the life, death and In the manger at Bethlehem, resurrection of Jesus. in his flight to Egypt, and as the carpenter’s son, the Only Begotten humbled himself to meet us.
1 Words in brackets should only be used at midnight or during the day on Christmas Day. 59
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Obedient to your calling, he accepted death on the cross. When you exalted him on the third day, and bestowed on him the name above all names, he opened the gate of glory that we might be your children, and share in his kingdom of Peace.
Before he was given up to suffering and death, desiring to complete the work for which he came into the world, at supper with his disciples he took bread and offered you thanks. He broke the bread, and gave it to them, saying:
“Take, eat. This is my Body: it is broken for you.” NARRATIVE OF THE After supper, he took the cup, INSTITUTION: An account of the Last Supper. he offered you thanks, and gave it to them saying: “Drink this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant; it is poured out for you, and for all, that sins may be forgiven. Do this in remembrance of me.”
We now obey your Son’s command. ANAMNESIS AND We recall his blessed passion and death, OBLATION: The work of his glorious resurrection and ascension; Christ is recalled and linked and we look for the coming of his Kingdom. with our offering. Made one with him, we offer you these gifts and with them ourselves, a single, holy, living sacrifice.
Hear us, most merciful Father, EPICLESIS: We ask for the and send your Holy Spirit upon us descent of the Holy Spirit as and upon this bread and this wine, the divine response to our that, overshadowed by your Spirit’s life-giving power, obedience. they may be the Body and Blood of your Son, and we may be kindled with the fire of your love and renewed for the service of your Kingdom.
Help us, who are baptised into the fellowship of Christ's Body to live and work to your praise and glory; PRAYER OF PETITION: may we grow together in unity and love As members of the Church until at last, in your new creation, we pray for its whole life and we enter into our heritage mission.
60
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
in the company of the Virgin Mary, the apostles, and prophets, and of all our brothers and sisters living and departed.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom, and in whom, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, DOXOLOGY: A concluding act of praise. all honour and glory be to you, Lord of all ages, world without end. Amen.
Next Section: 19. The Sharing of Bread and Wine.
61
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Eucharistic Prayer II b Incarnation (suitable from Epiphany to the Presentation of Christ)
The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.
Worship and praise belong to you, God our maker. OPENING PRAYER: Out of nothing, you called all worlds into being, Celebrating the work of and still you draw the universe to its fulfilment. Father, Son and Spirit, in Day and night celebrate your glory creating, restoring and till time shall be no more. bringing to completion, all that belongs to God. In Christ, your only begotten Son, you have revealed yourself to the world.
By the leading of a star, you made him known to the nations as the son of David and king of Israel; that in following him, we might be led from darkness into his marvellous light.
Filled with the Spirit, who descended upon your Son at his Baptism in the Jordan, we who are baptised in his name strive for his heavenly kingdom in whose radiance we are transfigured and the earth transformed.
As children of your redeeming purpose [who celebrate the epiphany of your Son]2, we offer you our praise, with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven singing the hymn of your unending glory: SANCTUS:
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, An anthem to God's glory heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. BENEDICTUS: The greeting Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. to the one who came in the flesh, comes in the sacrament Hosanna in the highest. and is still to come. Glory and thanksgiving be to you, most loving Father. CHRISTOLOGICAL In Jesus the Messiah you have come to us. PRAYER: Thanksgiving to God for all that was accom- 2 Words in brackets are suitable for use on the feast of the Epiphany. plished in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. 62
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Our hope is built on him in whom you are well pleased.
Having been shown to the world as your beloved Son, he proclaimed the good news of your kingdom. The blind received their sight, the lame walked, the lepers were cleansed, and the captives set free. At his word, water became wine, the hungry were filled with bread, and the dead were raised.
Before he was given up to suffering and death, desiring to complete the work for which he came into the world, at supper with his disciples he took bread and offered you thanks. He broke the bread, and gave it to them, saying: “Take, eat. This is my Body: it is broken for you.” NARRATIVE OF THE INSTITUTION: An account After supper, he took the cup, of the Last Supper. he offered you thanks, and gave it to them saying: “Drink this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant; it is poured out for you, and for all, that sins may be forgiven. Do this in remembrance of me.”
We now obey your Son's command. ANAMNESIS AND We recall his blessed passion and death, OBLATION: The work of his glorious resurrection and ascension; Christ is recalled and linked and we look for the coming of his Kingdom. with our offering. Made one with him, we offer you these gifts and with them ourselves, a single, holy, living sacrifice.
Hear us, most merciful Father, EPICLESIS: and send your Holy Spirit upon us We ask for the descent of and upon this bread and this wine, the Holy Spirit as the divine that, overshadowed by your Spirit’s life-giving power, response to our obedience. they may be the Body and Blood of your Son, and we may be kindled with the fire of your love and renewed for the service of your Kingdom.
Help us, who are baptised into the fellowship of Christ's Body to live and work to your praise and glory; PRAYER OF PETITION: may we grow together in unity and love As members of the Church we pray for its whole life and 63 mission.
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
until at last, in your new creation, we enter into our heritage in the company of the Virgin Mary, the apostles, and prophets, and of all our brothers and sisters living and departed.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom, and in whom, DOXOLOGY: in the unity of the Holy Spirit, A concluding act of praise. all honour and glory be to you, Lord of all ages, world without end. Amen.
Next Section: 19. The Sharing of Bread and Wine.
64
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Eucharistic Prayer III Returning to God (Suitable for Lent and Passiontide)
The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.
Worship and praise belong to you, maker of light and darkness. Your wisdom draws beauty from chaos, brings a harvest out of sorrow and leads the exiles home.
In Christ your Son enemies are reconciled, debts forgiven OPENING PRAYER: and strangers made welcome Celebrating the work of Father, Son and Spirit, in Your Spirit frees us creating, restoring and to live as sons and daughters bringing to completion, all in our Father's house. that belongs to God.
We who by Christ's power follow the way of the Cross, sharing the joy of his obedience, now offer you our praise, with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven singing the hymn of your unending glory:
Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. SANCTUS: An anthem to God's glory Hosanna in the highest. BENEDICTUS: The greeting Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. to the one who came in the Hosanna in the highest. flesh, comes in the sacra- ment and is still to come. Glory and thanksgiving be to you, most loving Father, CHRISTOLOGICAL for Christ in whom the world is reconciled. PRAYER: Thanksgiving to Lifted on the Cross, God for all that was his suffering and forgiveness accomplished in the life, spanned the gulf our sins had made. death and resurrection of Through that dark struggle Jesus. death was swallowed up in victory, that life and light might reign.
65
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Before he was given up to suffering and death, recalling the night of Israel's release, the night in which the sons of Egypt died, your Chosen One, himself the First-Born, freely offered his life. At supper with his disciples he took bread and offered you thanks. He broke the bread, and gave it to them, saying: “Take, eat. This is my Body: it is broken for you.” After supper, he took the cup, NARRATIVE OF THE he offered you thanks, INSTITUTION: An account of the Last Supper. and gave it to them saying: “Drink this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant; it is poured out for you, and for all, that sins may he forgiven. Do this in remembrance of me.”
We now obey your Son's command. ANAMNESIS AND We recall his blessed passion and death, OBLATION: The work of his glorious resurrection and ascension; Christ is recalled and linked and we look for the coming of his Kingdom. with our offering. Made one with him, we offer you these gifts and with them ourselves, a single, holy, living sacrifice.
Hear us, most merciful Father, EPICLESIS: We ask for the and send your Holy Spirit upon us descent of the Holy Spirit as and upon this bread and this wine, the divine response to our that, overshadowed by your Spirit’s life-giving power, obedience. they may be the Body and Blood of your Son, and we may be kindled with the fire of your love and renewed for the service of your Kingdom.
Help us, who are baptised into the fellowship of Christ's Body to live and work to your praise and glory; may we grow together in unity and love PRAYER OF PETITION: until at last, in your new creation, As members of the Church we enter into our heritage we pray for its whole life and in the company of the Virgin Mary, mission. the apostles, and prophets, and of all our brothers and sisters living and departed.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom, and in whom, DOXOLOGY: A concluding act of praise. in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory be to you, Lord of all ages, world without end. Amen. Next Section: 19. The Sharing of Bread and Wine.
66
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Eucharistic Prayer IV New Life, The Lord, The Spirit (Suitable from Easter day to Pentecost) The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, It is right to give our thanks and praise.
Worship and praise belong to you, Author of all being. Your power sustains, your love restores, our broken world. You are unceasingly at work, from chaos bringing order and filling emptiness with life. OPENING PRAYER: Christ, raised from the dead, Celebrating the work of Father, Son and Spirit, in proclaims the dawn of hope. creating, restoring and He lives in us that we may walk in light. bringing to completion, all that belongs to God. Your Spirit is fire in us, your breath is power to purge our sin and warm our hearts to love.
As children of your redeeming purpose, freed by him who burst from the tomb and opened the gate of life, we offer you our praise, with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven, singing the hymn of your unending glory:
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, SANCTUS: An anthem to heaven and earth are full of your glory. God's glory Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. BENEDICTUS: The greeting Hosanna in the highest. to the one who came in the flesh, comes in the sacra- Praise and thanksgiving be to you, Lord of all, ment and is still to come. for by the Cross eternal life is ours and death is swallowed up in victory. In the first light of Easter CHRISTOLOGICAL glory broke from the tomb PRAYER: Thanksgiving to and changed the women's sorrow into joy. God for all that was accom- From the Garden the mystery shone clear plished in the life, death and that he whom they had loved and lost resurrection of Jesus. is with us now in every place for ever.
67
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Making himself known in the breaking of the bread, speaking peace to the fearful disciples, greeting fishermen on the shore, he renewed the promise of his presence and of new birth in the Spirit who sets the seal of freedom on your sons and daughters.
Before he was given up to suffering and death, recalling the night of Israel's release, the night in which slaves walked free, at supper with his disciples he took bread and offered you thanks. He broke the bread, and gave it to them, saying: "Take, eat. This is my Body: it is broken for you." NARRATIVE OF THE After supper, he took the cup, INSTITUTION: An account he offered you thanks, of the Last Supper. and gave it to them saying: "Drink this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant; it is poured out for you, and for all, that sins may be forgiven. Do this in remembrance of me."
We now obey your Son's command ANAMNESIS AND We recall his blessed passion and death, OBLATION: The work of his glorious resurrection and ascension; Christ is recalled and linked and we look for the coming of his Kingdom. with our offering. Made one with him, we offer you these gifts and with them ourselves a single, holy living sacrifice.
Hear us, most merciful Father, and send your Holy Spirit upon us EPICLESIS: We ask for the and upon this bread and this wine, descent of the Holy Spirit as that, overshadowed by your Spirit’s life-giving power, the divine response to our they may be the Body and Blood of your Son, obedience. and we may be kindled with the fire of your love and renewed for the service of your Kingdom.
Help us, who are baptised into the fellowship of Christ's Body to live and work to your praise and glory; may we grow together in unity and love PRAYER OF PETITION: As until at last, in your new creation, members of the Church we we enter into our heritage pray for her whole life and in the company of the Virgin Mary, mission. the apostles, and prophets, and of all our brothers and sisters living and departed.
68
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Through Jesus Christ our Lord, DOXOLOGY: A concluding with whom, and in whom, act of praise. in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory be to you, Lord of all ages, world without end. Amen.
Next Section: 19. The Sharing of Bread and Wine.
69
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Eucharistic Prayer V
The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.
Worship and praise belong to you, Father, in every place and at all times. OPENING PRAYER: You made us, Celebrating the work of all the people of the world, Father, Son and Spirit, in and everything that is. creating, restoring and bringing to completion, all You give us the daylight. that belongs to God. Your Word lights up our minds. Jesus was born among us to be light in our darkness.
Your Spirit lives in us so that we can look at the world with your eyes.
One day we will be with you in heaven, but already we laugh with the saints and angels, and sing their joyful song:
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, SANCTUS: An anthem to heaven and earth are full of your glory. God’s glory Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. BENEDICTUS: The greeting Hosanna in the highest. to the one who came in the flesh, comes in the sacra-
ment and is still to come. Father, you never forget us or turn away from us, even when we fail you. You sent your Son Jesus who gave his life for us. CHRISTOLOGICAL He healed those who were sick, PRAYER: Thanksgiving to cared for those who were poor, God for all that was accom- and cried with those who were sad. plished in the life, death and He forgave sinners resurrection of Jesus. and taught us to forgive.
For all your love we give you thanks in the way that Jesus showed us.
On the night before he died, while he was having supper with his friends, he took bread and offered you thanks.
70
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
He broke the bread, and gave it to them, saying: “Take, eat. NARRATIVE OF THE This is my Body: it is broken for you.” INSTITUTION: An account After supper, he took the cup, of the Last Supper. he offered you thanks, and gave it to them saying: “Drink this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant; it is poured out for you, and for all, that sins may be forgiven. Do this in remembrance of me.”
So, as we do what he told us, ANAMNESIS AND we open our hearts to him; OBLATION: The work of we remember how he died and rose again Christ is recalled and linked to live now in us. with our offering.
Together with him we offer you these gifts: in them we give you ourselves.
Send your Holy Spirit on us EPICLESIS: We ask for the and on this bread and this wine, descent of the Holy Spirit as that they may be the Body and Blood of Christ, the divine response to our and that, sharing your life, obedience. we may travel in your company to our journey's end.
With all your people we give you thanks and praise DOXOLOGY: A concluding through the Son and in the Spirit, act of praise. now and for ever.
Amen.
71
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
The Sharing of the Bread and the Wine
19 Breaking of the Bread
Silence
or
The living bread is broken for the life of the world. Lord, unite us in this sign.
20 Lord’s Prayer
As our Saviour has taught us, so we pray:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Do not bring us to the time of trial but deliver us from evil. For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen.
or
As our Saviour Christ has commanded and taught us, we are bold to say:
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
72
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
21 Communion
At the giving of the bread: The Body of Christ given for you.
At the giving of the cup: The Blood of Christ shed for you.
The Communicant replies Amen.
22 Communion Song †
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
or
Jesus, Lamb of God: have mercy on us. Jesus, bearer of our sins: have mercy on us. Jesus, redeemer of the world: Give us your peace.
73
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers THANKSGIVING AND SENDING OUT
23 Sentence
An appropriate seasonal sentence may be used
Give thanks to our gracious God: whose mercy endures forever.
24 Prayers One of the following is said
(a) Father, we have broken the bread which is Christ's body, we have tasted the wine of his new life. We thank you for these gifts by which we are made one in him and drawn into that new creation which is your will for all the world; through him who died for us and rose again, your Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
(b) Father of all, we give you thanks and praise that when we were still far off you met us in your Son and brought us home. Dying and living, he declared your love, gave us grace, and opened the gate of glory. May we who share Christ's body live his risen life; we who drink his cup bring life to others; we whom the Spirit lights, give light to the world. Keep us firm in the hope you have set before us, so we and all your children shall be free, and the whole earth live to praise your name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(c) Father, your steadfast purpose is the completion of all things in your Son. May we who have received the pledges of the kingdom, live by faith, walk in hope and be renewed in love, until the world reflects your glory and you are all in all; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
25 Blessing † A seasonal variant may be used
The peace of God which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord: And the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always. Amen.
26 Dismissal Go in peace to love and serve the Lord. In the name of Christ. Amen.
74
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
APPENDIX FORMS OF INTERCESSION Form 1
Through Jesus, whom we confess as Lord, we give thanks and praise to the Father, calling on the one who is judge of all: Father, your kingdom come.
Father, your kingdom come.
For all the peoples of the world; that they may know you as the God of peace, we pray to you, O Lord:
Father, your kingdom come.
For nations, for leaders and governments; that integrity may mark all their dealings, we pray to you O Lord:
Father, your kingdom come.
For all who labour for righteousness; that your presence and help may give them courage, we pray to you, O Lord:
Father, your kingdom come.
For communities torn by dissension and strife; that your forgiveness may bring them healing, we pray to you, O Lord:
Father, your kingdom come.
For the anxious, the lonely, the bereaved; that consolation and peace may be theirs, we pray to you, O Lord:
Father, your kingdom come.
For the Church, your household and family; that she may be firm in the confession of her hope, we pray to you, O Lord:
Father, your kingdom come.
For ... our Bishop, and for all who bear Christ's name; that their lives may proclaim your glory, we pray to you, O Lord:
75
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Father, your kingdom come.
For those who are separated from us by death; that theirs may be the kingdom which is unshakeable, we pray to you, O Lord:
Father, your kingdom come.
O God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep: make us perfect in all goodness to do your will and to be what you would have us be; through him to whom be glory for ever, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Form 2
O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom you chose us, before the foundation of the world, and destined us in love to be your own: help us to pray for all your children. For the life of the world; that your peace may be known and may prevail:
For ...
Lord, hear us. Lord, graciously hear us.
For all who suffer injury, death or loss; that they may know the hope to which you call us:
For ...
Lord, hear us. Lord, graciously hear us.
For all who exercise rule and authority; that they may acknowledge your power:
For ...
Lord, hear us. Lord, graciously hear us.
76
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
For the Church which is Christ's body; that it may live for the praise of your glory:
For ...
Lord, hear us. Lord, graciously hear us.
O God, you exerted your strength and power when you raised Christ from the dead, putting everything in subjection beneath his feet: accept the prayers which we offer in his name for the world you have created and redeemed; through him in whom you have set forth the mystery of your will, to unite all things in heaven and on earth, your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen.
Form 3 To the one God let us make our requests with thanksgiving, to the one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human.3
I ask your prayers for peace in the life of the world ... Pray for God's peace.
Silence
I ask your prayers for all who suffer injury, sickness and loss ... Pray for all who are afflicted.
Silence
I ask your prayers for all who wield authority and influence ... Pray for all who exercise power.
Silence
I ask your prayers for all whom we have wronged ... Pray for all who hate us.
Silence
3 1 Tim. 2:5; Philippians 4:6. 77
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
I ask your prayers for our bishop(s) ... and for all whom Christ has appointed to his service ... Pray for God's people.
Silence
I ask your prayers for ...
Silence
Give thanks to God for all in whom Christ has been honoured, (especially ... )
Silence
O God, whose will it is that all should find salvation and come to know the truth: receive the prayers and petitions which we offer in faith and love; through him who gave proof of your purpose, and who sacrificed himself to win freedom for all the world, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
78
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
ALTERNATIVE USE AT OFFERTORY Prayers of Offering
Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation; through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made: it will become for us the bread of life.
Blessed be God for ever.
Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation; through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands; it will become the cup of our salvation.
Blessed be God for ever.
ALTERNATIVE BLESSINGS
Advent Christ the Sun of Righteousness shine upon you and scatter the darkness from before your path; and the blessing ...
Christmas Christ, who by his incarnation gathered into one all things earthly and heavenly, fill you with his joy and peace; and the blessing ...
Epiphany Christ the Son of God gladden your hearts with the good news of God’s kingdom; and the blessing ...
Ash Wednesday to Lent 4 God give you grace to grow in holiness, to deny yourselves, take up your cross, and follow Christ; and the blessing ...
Lent 5 and Holy Week Christ crucified draw you to himself, to find in him a sure ground for faith, a firm support for hope, and the assurance of sins forgiven; and the blessing ...
79
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Scottish Liturgy 1982 with Alternative Eucharistic Prayers
Easter The God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, make you perfect in every good work to do God’s will; and the blessing ...
Ascension Christ our king make you faithful and strong to do his will, that you may reign with him in glory; and the blessing ...
Pentecost The Spirit of truth lead you into all truth, give you grace to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and to proclaim the word and works of God; and the blessing ...
Trinity Sunday God the Holy Trinity make you strong in faith and love, defend you on every side, and guide you in truth and peace; and the blessing ...
Saints' Days God give you grace to follow the saints in faith and hope and love; and the blessing ...
Unity Christ the Good Shepherd, who laid down his life for the sheep, draw you and all who hear his voice to be one within one fold; and the blessing ...
80
Faith and Order Board/Liturgy Committee Addition to Scottish Calendar
FAITH AND ORDER BOARD
Scottish Calendar (1991): Proposal for the inclusion of Jane Haining
Born 6 June 1897 Dunscore, Scotland; died 17 July 1944 Auschwitz Birkenau, German Greater Governance
Christian Missionary, Scottish Mission to the Jews, Budapest 1932–1944
Righteous Among the Nations (Yad Vashem, 1997), British Hero of the Holocaust (UK Government, 2010)
Under Canon 22.8, the Faith and Order Board recommends that Jane Haining be included in the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) Calendar on account of her faith-filled life and example that saw her die in the Nazi Concentration camp of Auschwitz Birkenau. Jane Haining was born in Dumfries and Galloway, lived in Glasgow and felt called as a Church of Scotland Missionary in Budapest, Hungary. Her mission work was caring for Jewish children. At the outbreak of World War II, she was asked to return to Scotland and refused. She was subsequently arrested and transported to Auschwitz having refused to abandon the children in her charge. Jane Haining is well-known in Hungary (there is a street named for her in Budapest) but less so in Scotland. Work has been going on between SEC and Church of Scotland colleagues on educational materials on Jane Haining and the Holocaust for Scottish schools. There has been a book on her life by Mary Miller, Jane Haining: A Life of Love & Courage, and a play by Raymond Raszowski Ross, A Promised Land. The honour of inclusion in the Calendar would be on a parallel with the Roman Catholic Church’s memorial to Maximilian Kolbe, a Polish Catholic priest and Conventual Franciscan friar who volunteered to die in place of a stranger in the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. He is venerated as Saint Maximilian Kolbe. Jane Haining was a faithful Christian, and the only Scot known to have died in Auschwitz. On account of her refusal to abandon those for whom she had care, and her death as a result, she is recognised as Righteous among the Nations (an honorific used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis). She is also an outstanding example of Christian witness in a life lived for others – and this case, those of other faiths – and the willingness to face death as a result. This is an opportunity not only to celebrate Jane Haining, her life and service, but also to include the Church of Scotland, Interfaith partners and the Hungarian community in so doing. The date suggested, 17 July does not clash with another celebration.
81
Inter-Church Relations Committee Saint Andrew Declaration
INTER-CHURCH RELATIONS COMMITTEE
SAINT ANDREW DECLARATION
Preamble
The Church of Jesus Christ has been present in Scotland for over 1,600 years. For over a century following the Reformation, the church in Scotland, and Scotland’s monarch, wrestled over the order of the church: was it to be Presbyterian or Episcopalian? Presbyterianism was suppressed after the restoration during the reigns of Charles II and James VII, but the Presbyterian ordering of the Church of Scotland was confirmed under William and Mary in 1690. Episcopalianism was suppressed, particularly after the Jacobite uprisings in 1715 and 1745; a small Episcopalian church survived in Scotland, and English immigration saw the establishment of Qualified Chapels which used the English liturgy. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Church of Scotland was racked by division, focused on questions of patronage and the relationship between church and state, while the nineteenth century saw a gradual consolidation of the small Episcopal Church in Scotland.
Whilst the ecclesiastical, social and political landscape has been shaped and reshaped on innumerable occasions, the calling of the Church to serve the people of Scotland in ministry and mission has remained a constant. The Church of Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church have now established a bilateral conversation expressed in the Our Common Calling Working Group. In the course of our discussions we have acknowledged our shared history and have named past conflicts, divisions and hurts. In so doing, we have learned from one another and have asked forgiveness of each other where we have caused pain by our words and actions. Within the context of these discussions, we have acknowledged that the theological, sacramental and liturgical emphases within our respective churches are consonant with the tradition which each represents. Alongside this, we have sought to acknowledge that our churches belong together as part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. In so acknowledging, we seek to explore ways in which we may better work together as partners in ministry and mission, to serve Christ by serving the people of Scotland.
Declaration
In the light of our common calling within the life of the Church of Jesus Christ in Scotland, shaped by our understanding of the mission of God, our agreement in faith and the opportunities to share in ministry and mission, we make the following Declaration:
We, the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church, make the following acknowledgements and commitments, which are interrelated.
A) Acknowledgements:
i. We acknowledge one another's churches as churches belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and truly participating in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God.
82
Inter-Church Relations Committee Saint Andrew Declaration
ii. We acknowledge that our churches share in the common confession of the Apostolic Faith.
iii. We acknowledge that in our churches the Word of God is authentically preached, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion are faithfully administered.
iv. We acknowledge one another's ordained ministries as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit but also Christ's commission through the Church and are given by God as instruments of grace for the mission and unity of the Church.
v. We acknowledge that personal, collegial and communal oversight (episkope) is embodied and exercised in our churches in a variety of forms, as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church's unity and continuity in apostolic life, ministry and mission.
vi. We acknowledge that our unity is as yet imperfect and look forward to the time when the fuller visible unity of our churches may be realised.
B) Commitments:
We commit ourselves to respond together to our common calling to proclaim the reign of God to all the people of Scotland by strengthening our partnership in ministry and mission. Through this commitment, we hope to enrich our continuing relationships locally, nationally and internationally with the churches of Scotland and throughout the world, that we may deepen our individual faith and serve God’s whole creation. We will welcome opportunities to draw other churches into the activities and initiatives that we share.
As part of that commitment to seek appropriate ways to respond to our common calling within the life of the Church of Jesus Christ, we will continue:
i. To pray for and with one another; to work towards the fuller sharing of ministry, and of spiritual, human, financial and physical resources;
ii. To encourage, affirm and support local expressions of our common calling within the life of the Church as it participates in the mission of God, and to explore opportunities for new partnerships in the communities in which we serve;
iii. To welcome one another’s members to worship and participate in the congregational life of each other’s churches;
iv. To stimulate theological discussions between our churches, including on the outstanding issues hindering fuller communion;
v. To work together in practical and prophetic ways on the social, political and ethical issues arising from our shared participation in public life;
83
Inter-Church Relations Committee Saint Andrew Declaration
vi. To ensure that these commitments are followed through at every level of our church life; to allocate resources to joint initiatives, and to hold one another to account on what we have agreed to do.
In order to assist our churches in living out the Acknowledgements and Commitments of the Saint Andrew Declaration, we will appoint Co-Chairs and members of a Church of Scotland – Scottish Episcopal Church Working Group, whose purpose will be to encourage the development of our common calling within the Church of Jesus Christ in Scotland. The Working Group will report annually to the Committee on Ecumenical Relations of the Church of Scotland and to the Inter-church Relations Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Joint meetings of church leaders will be held regularly, and we will welcome opportunities to draw other churches into the activities and initiatives that we share.
We see this as living out our response to the prayer of Jesus that we “may all be one ... so that the world may believe” (John 17: 21). In faithfulness, we commit to remain open to wherever the Holy Spirit may be leading our churches.
84
Church in Society Committee Climate Change
CHURCH IN SOCIETY COMMITTEE
Action plan on Climate Change to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth up to the present time.” (Romans 8:22)
Introduction
In response to the call of General Synod 2020, the Church in Society Committee presents a programme of actions and useful resources, aimed to equip the whole church for the urgent response that is needed towards achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2030.
General Synod 2020 motion That this Synod, expressing the need for urgent action in relation to the global climate emergency, call on the Church in Society Committee, working in conjunction with other appropriate bodies, to bring forward a programme of actions to General Synod 2021 to resource the Scottish Episcopal Church in working towards achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2030. We set out below ● 10 points of overall guidance ● a programme of actions for different levels of the SEC to pursue - congregations, dioceses, at provincial level, and as individuals ● more detailed action on buildings (the biggest part of our carbon footprints) ● suggested useful resources ● further work to be carried out by the Church in Society Committee.
We will supplement this with a Toolkit providing a more detailed set of resources, which we aim to have available in hard copy and on-line from summer 2021 containing practical recommendations to churches, clergy, staff, congregations, dioceses and you, the individual members of our churches. Our aim is to ‘resize’ a daunting task into manageable steps, which we can then build upon progressively and realistically. In November, the world’s governments come to Glasgow to take forward the urgent process of reducing emissions to a level that would be tolerable rather than catastrophic. Scotland’s response to the climate emergency will also be in the spotlight, including its churches. We repeat the statement in the 2017 Synod report that “On no conceivable ethical grounds can we simply continue ‘business as usual’”.
The changes we need to make encompass almost all aspects of our life as a church; not only our buildings, but in every area where we burn coal, oil, or gas. We need to transition to renewable alternatives as far as we possibly can, and where this is not reasonably practicable, we need to reduce, save and offset. We do not underestimate the challenge! But there are many steps we can already take which
85
Church in Society Committee Climate Change will make a difference and we need to plan now for how and when the bigger challenges could be met. It has to be done step by step. Each church’s (including church building, halls, offices, and rectories) plan of action will be unique to their situation, but some points of guidance can be recommended to all:
10 Points of Guidance 1. Seeking to reduce energy use in all our buildings and moving from oil/gas to electricity where possible 2. Implementing renewable energy solutions such as heat pumps and solar power on our property 3. Using less polluting forms of transport, moving to electric or hybrid cars, car sharing, wherever possible walking or cycling 4. Developing wildlife conservation schemes in our land 5. Using Fair Trade, environment- and animal-friendly products wherever possible 6. Reducing waste by composting and recycling as much of it as possible 7. Reducing paper usage (and then only using recycled paper) 8. Using online meetings often, but balanced with our need for human contact and Christian fellowship 9. Disseminating information on good practice, and seeking expert advice, practical help, and funding possibilities 10. Promoting sustainability through our preaching, liturgy and teaching, and setting a good example We recognise that not all of these apply to every congregation and that some will depend on the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions, but we can begin to plan now. Whole church action This programme is addressed not only to congregations but to the whole church, in all its structures and activities, congregational, diocesan, and provincial. But we also urge everyone in the church to consider as individuals and households how the guidance points can be applied in their own lives. We are encouraged that some congregations have taken wholehearted action following previous Synod motions on climate change, and others have done a little, but there is now a need for all to act to meet our 2030 target.
We see a crucial role for Dioceses to carry forward this agenda for climate action through their leadership role, in supporting and monitoring progress. For example, they may wish to establish an Environment Group or change the scope of the existing Diocesan Building Committee. Progress towards the target should be reported to Diocesan Synods. At a Provincial level, all aspects of our organisation must play their part: the College of Bishops, the Scottish Episcopal Institute, General Synod Office, the Standing Committee and its boards with their pendant committees. The Faith and Order Board have a significant role through the work on liturgy and doctrine to ensure that care for God’s creation is woven through all that we do.
86
Church in Society Committee Climate Change
Programme of actions:
In order for the Scottish Episcopal Church to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, we recommend that:
Congregations
Perform an audit of the present carbon footprint of congregational activities (not just the buildings) Produce an action plan to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, using the Toolkit (and summarised below in the Process Notes for Buildings) Congregations join and become active in Eco-Congregation Scotland Look at how to promote living in more environmentally sustainable ways Dioceses
Create a structure for supporting congregations to move towards net zero carbon emissions Ensure that all parts of diocesan activities (including offices, retreat houses, homes for the elderly, and schools) move towards net zero carbon emissions Monitor congregations and all parts of diocesan activities that impact on climate change Province
The College of Bishops speak and encourage action on climate matters at all levels of the church ● The Provincial Standing Committee establish a reporting mechanism that gathers information on progress from all parts of the SEC and reports annually to General Synod ● The Administration Board consider how to fund environmental improvements to church buildings ● The Mission Board promote climate action as integral in the mission of the church and its witness to the world ● The Faith and Order Board disseminate theological and liturgical resources ● The Institute Council and SEI Management Committee consider ways to enhance and further develop SEI's existing work on climate justice and the integrity of creation within its formation and training programme Individuals
Apply the guidance points to our own lives and households, seeking where we can play our part too As the global climate emergency requires effective action by wider civil society, the SEC should work at all levels to promote the adoption of national and local policies which will achieve the required reduction in carbon emissions.
87
Church in Society Committee Climate Change
Making an Action Plan for your Church The importance of action on Buildings One of the best ways of imagining our impact on climate change is to think of it as a carbon ‘footprint’. This is made up of all the ways in which the church, its clergy and staff, and its activities contribute (both directly and indirectly) to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This is what we aim to reduce to net zero.
For most congregations, the biggest part of the footprint by far is the energy used to heat the buildings in which people gather and reside – the church, its halls, rectory, offices and other buildings. We recommend that most congregations and dioceses start their journey to zero carbon with their buildings. It is about how we heat them, where and when we heat them, and by how much. Because this is challenging, we need to look at it step by step, starting with what can be done now.
The following notes outline the process we are asking those responsible for any building to follow. The Toolkit will provide a lot more detail, but we wanted to give some guidance in this Action Plan.
Understand your buildings:
● How do you heat your church, halls, and rectory? Are any in need of replacing? ● What is your current energy usage? Look at past and present utility bills ● Work out your carbon footprint using the Toolkit
Develop an Action Plan for the Buildings:
● Assess where you can make savings: conduct an energy audit to identify areas for action ● Identify things you can do now ● Identify medium term things you can start to plan, and longer-term goals ● Seek advice on what are your best options and where to find funding ● Identify actions, taking into account the views and experience of current users
The action plan for your buildings will ensure you set goals, help you to work towards realistic timescales, and allocate specific people to specific tasks. Identify measures of success, so that you can track your progress. An action plan may be very simple or require multiple steps to define what has to be done, when and by whom. As part of the action plan and to gain momentum and confidence, identify quick wins (easier actions you can do now that do not cost the earth).
Some Easier Actions
Here some easy actions to improve energy efficiency and increase the comfort and sustainability of your building. Consider which ones are relevant to your situation. 88
Church in Society Committee Climate Change
Get better thermostats, use better thermostat settings, refurbishing radiators Reduce draughts, using curtains, repairing faulty windows, Insulate pipework Replace lights with LEDs, reviewing floodlighting times, ● adding pew cushions ● Consider if you can reschedule times the buildings to reduce how many times you need to heat them from scratch ● Clear gutters
An Action Plan for all your activities
Make an action plan for reducing your carbon footprint in the other aspects of the church’s activities. What we consume: paper use, food purchases and their packaging, cleaning products Circular economy: recycling and reuse, not using disposable cups and teaspoons ● How we meet: more use of on-line or hybrid meetings
● How we travel: what else can you do to reduce car use for clergy, vestry members and congregation; sharing cars; planning meetings around rural bus times; avoiding long drives for scattered rural vestry members; installing a bike rack
Tougher Actions
Start now to identify the harder actions which will take longer and be more expensive. Here are examples of a low carbon ‘replacement list’ which will require greater investment. The Toolkit will suggest sources of good advice, for example.
● Move to a heat pump or electric heating system ● Use a renewable device alongside the existing energy system ● Buy energy efficient electrical equipment ● Install renewable energy generation like solar panels ● Replace petrol or diesel cars by electric or hybrid
Useful Resources
We are not alone in this task. It is being tackled by churches across the whole UK. We have gladly drawn upon the excellent work done by the Eco-Congregation Scotland programme and its English Eco-Church partners, on the Church of England’s and Church of Scotland’s expert advice on what to do in church buildings, and the Church in Wales’ practical actions, on Christian environmental organisations like A Rocha and the John Ray Initiative, and on relevant secular sources. We are also taking due note of wider initiatives in Scotland on climate action, such as the Just Transition Commission and the Scotland’s Climate Assembly, and the UK Climate Change Commission. 89
Church in Society Committee Climate Change
We encourage local churches to join Eco-Congregation Scotland as part of putting into practice the recommendations of this report. Eco-Congregation Scotland is a network of over 500 congregations across 15 denominations, which has been working for 20 years to be a catalyst for individuals and churches to act together in caring for God’s creation. It works ecumenically and has financial support from the Scottish Government in promoting environmental action at a local level. Over 30% of SEC churches are already members, as is the Scottish Episcopal Institute. Eco- Congregation provides resources, worship and teaching material, and importantly provides a network to help churches work together, share good practice, and drawing upon each other’s experience in caring for God’s creation.
Some Resource Links
Eco Congregation Scotland https://www.ecocongregationscotland.org/ https://www.ecocongregationscotland.org/materials/ideas-for-action/practical- living/greening-the-cornerstone/ Carbon footprint calculators https://360carbon.org/ https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx Climate Emergency Toolkit https://www.climateemergencytoolkit.com/ Church of England practical path to non-zero carbon churches https://www.churchofengland.org/resources/churchcare/net-zero-carbon- church/practical-path-net-zero-carbon-churches Church of Scotland better heating guide https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2998/heating _guide.pdf Climate Sunday https://www.climatesunday.org/ TEAR Fund https://www.tearfund.org/campaigns/reboot-campaign Eco-Church https://ecochurch.arocha.org.uk/ John Ray Initiative (on Christian environmental education) https://jri.org.uk/
Ongoing Work by the Church in Society Committee This Programme of Actions provides the Synod with an outline of the steps which are needed from all parts of the church aiming towards net zero carbon by 2030. We seek the Synod’s agreement on:
● 10 points of guidance ● the programme of actions that highlights the priorities for congregations, Dioceses, the Province, and individuals to progress action towards a carbon neutral church ● creating a structure within Dioceses and the Province to monitor progress towards the target A more detailed Toolkit is in preparation, which we hope to have available by the time of the Synod. In the period between March and June 2021, the Church in Society Committee will work on preparing this document together with the Communications Team.
90
Church in Society Committee Climate Change
To reach net zero carbon is an ongoing action over the next nine years and beyond. By its nature, the Toolkit and recommendations will be developed further as information and resources improve, and as good practice emerges. As we receive information from dioceses and congregations, we hope a picture of the church’s carbon footprint will emerge against which we can begin to measure progress towards our 2030 goal.
Technical Group on Climate Action, Church in Society Committee 15 April 2021
91
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
CANON 4 REVIEW GROUP
Canon 4 Review Group – Report to General Synod 2021
Over the past six months the Review Group has consulted across the Province about two options for revising Canon 4 – Of the Election of Bishops to Vacant Sees. This consultation was initially rolled out to General Synod members last autumn and then opened up for comment from diocesan synods, vestries and individuals. The basic question we asked was: Should we retain the present system whereby bishops are ultimately chosen by the Electoral Synod of their diocese or would we wish that election process to be owned instead by a smaller Electoral Council, including representation from the wider Province?
You will find the original consultation paper in Appendix A and a summary of feedback from Phase Two of the consultation in Appendix B (which was broadly similar to the Phase One feedback). Our consultation was not a scientific survey. It sought to involve as many people as possible in the conversation and to allow an honest exchange of views. This means that some respondents may have contributed in more than one forum and any votes taken (at Synods, for example) were purely indicative and non- binding. Nevertheless, we do believe that the following points came through clearly in responses from all parts of the Province.
Summary of Feedback
1. There was strong, though not unanimous, support for Option 1 (the Electoral Synod). This was expressed in terms of a wish to retain diocesan power over the electoral process – at the point of election there should be no provincial input. The choice of bishop, furthermore, was felt to be a matter for every charge in the diocese not a select group of electors. In most dioceses there are diverse constituencies (rural, urban, island, for example) each of which may have a different perspective. 2. There was a clear desire to simplify the Canon, to make it more easily understood and its timescales less rigid. A commentary on the canon itself and a set of guidelines for its working might help in this regard. 3. Many were looking for a Canon which was more obviously compassionate to all involved. In particular, the publishing of the names of those on the election shortlist was considered by many to be unnecessary, and cruel to those not elected. 4. Much was said about the size of the shortlist. At present a shortlist of between 3 and 5 candidates is required for the election to proceed. Some felt that 3 was too many and that in some circumstances a shortlist of one should be allowed – more generally a shortlist of two was felt to be the minimum. (We may note that a friendlier electoral process and a better way of identifying and nurturing senior leadership in the Province might make concern about shortlist numbers redundant.) 5. There was overwhelming support for the Review Group’s proposal that more training should be offered to Synod/Council members, the Preparatory Committee and, indeed, to the church at all levels. It was clear from the
92
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
consultation that some church members did not understand the electoral process or what a bishop does. Should not an educational process begin before the previous bishop retires? Much better use might also be made of the initial meeting of the Electoral Synod or Council with input from those skilled in spiritual discernment, human resources as well as an introduction to the Canon itself.
At General Synod 2021
The Review Group hopes that you will arrive at General Synod having had plenty of opportunity to reflect on your own preferences and to hear the views of others. At synod we shall spend time in group discussion, the contents of which will be fed into the Review Group’s ongoing work. You will then be invited to indicate which of the two options, the Electoral Synod or the Electoral Council, you wish us to develop into a draft Canon ready for a first reading in 2022.
You will, of course, be voting as an individual and you are not bound by any opinions offered by your Vestry, Area Council or Diocesan Synod.
After Synod
The Review Group will present the preference stated by Synod to the Faith & Order Board and, under that Board’s instruction, will work with the Canons Committee to draft the new Canon. We shall also seek the permission of the Board to develop a Commentary to the Canon and a set of Guidelines for its compassionate and effective working. These will all be ready, in draft form, for General Synod in 2022.
+John Convener of the Review Group
93
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
Appendix 1 Canon 4 Review Group For General Synod 2021
A Consultation on the Election of Bishops
1. Introduction In the Scottish Episcopal Church, as our name suggests, we look to our bishops for leadership and pastoral care. We seek to appoint to the office those with appropriate gifts and in whom we can affirm their sense of God’s call. This means that whilst canonical provision may facilitate this search it is in the end only the framework within which the church enters into prayerful discernment and careful listening for the guiding voice of the Holy Spirit. For this process to work well it requires two vital ingredients that cannot be legislated for in a Canon.
A cohort of clergy in whom the church has discerned and nourished the potential for senior leadership – people who are themselves exploring the possibility that God may be calling them to one of the senior roles in our Province. This unfolding of vocation should not be dependent upon episcopal or other vacancies; it should be a part of our continuing life as a church.
Appropriate training for all involved. Training is offered to those who assist in the discernment and selection of our junior clergy, surely it is equally important in the context of choosing our senior clergy.
2. Any process of discernment, especially one concerning senior leadership, should be robust and demanding. It is inevitable that some who generously offer themselves, believing that they may be called to episcopal office, will be disappointed. This means there is all the more reason to conduct the process with kindness and courtesy. As we have consulted we have discovered that, as it stands, Canon 4 has bewildered many and hurt others. Without exception those who have offered feedback have suggested revisions that range from a reworking of the present Canon to a complete reinvention of it. Indeed, our consultation has led us to propose that the Canon must be significantly revised.
3. In this document we outline two options on which we seek the opinions of church members. We shall roll out this consultation firstly to General Synod members then to Diocesan Synods and finally to the wider church membership. Drawing on results of this consultation we shall offer feedback to General Synod in 2021 and, with the approval of the Faith & Order Board, present a new Canon 4 for a first reading at General Synod in 2022.
4. The Present Canon The principle underlying the present Canon 4 is that a Diocese should choose its own bishop. The Canon is devised to make this possible whilst ensuring involvement from the wider Province and providing a means to bring about a resolution if the Diocese proves unable to elect. A brief summary of the canonical process is offered in the paragraphs that follow – for further details we would refer you to the Canon itself.
5. When a diocese falls vacant the Primus is required to issue a mandate which begins the electoral process. There are precise time-scales laid down in the Canon. A Preparatory Committee consisting of representatives of the diocese, the Province and the College of Bishops (Convened by the Primus or another bishop) considers nominations and aims to provide a short-list of between three and five names for the consideration of the Electoral Synod. The Synod meets the candidates and at a separate meeting seeks to elect a new bishop by a clear majority in both houses (of clergy and laity).
94
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
6. Should this first mandate not deliver either a short-list of candidates or a result from the Electoral Synod, the Primus will issue a second mandate which sets in motion a similar process (with a more limited time-scale). If this second stage also does not deliver a result the matter falls to the College of Bishops to elect, according to a process and a time-scale of their own devising.
7. Various objections have been raised about the Canon as it stands – some are listed here: It is confusing and unclear. Its timescales are too prescriptive and may not be altered at the discretion of either the College of Bishops or the Electoral Synod. There is little flexibility to take account of church seasons, for example, or to delay the start of the process should the previous bishop die suddenly in office. The Electoral Synod, which in effect draws its membership from the final Diocesan Synod under the previous bishop, may thus disenfranchise a significant number of clergy who arrive in post after that Diocesan Synod. The minimum size of shortlist (three) is considered by some to be too large. Why not allow the Electoral Synod to vote on two or even one candidate should the Preparatory Committee consider them to be suitable? Might discretion be allowed at a later stage in the process to reduce the size of shortlist? When a shortlist is produced the candidates’ names are made public. Why is this, when in any other clergy appointments confidentiality is considered paramount? Once the shortlist is decided and shared with the Electoral Synod, why is it necessary then to wait for a month before the Synod may meet the candidates? The Preparatory Committee does its work very thoroughly and produces paperwork to inform the Electoral Synod in its deliberations. Experience suggests that electors sometimes arrive at the Synod having failed to read this paperwork. This last point increases the likelihood that the subsequent election will be a ‘beauty contest’ decided on the basis of how well an individual ‘performs’ on the day rather than on a whole range of other factors which placed them on the short-list in the first place. (Equally, there is evidence to suggest that some voters have already decided who to vote for before they even hear what the candidates have to say.) The voting procedures laid down in the Canon itself seem to press too quickly for a decision. Might it be possible, in the event of stalemate, to allow a vote of both houses together? Is a process which depends on a large group of people, many of whom have no experience of the discernment of vocation in others or, for that matter, of making significant appointments in their secular lives really the best way of choosing our bishops in this day and age? If the election falls ultimately to the College of Bishops, do members of that College know enough about the context and aspirations of the vacant diocese to make an informed decision? Would it not be helpful for all concerned, that once the College has reached a mind, their nominee be presented to the Electoral Synod for a confirmatory vote?
8. Two Options The Review Group offers two options which we believe address these objections – but in quite different ways. The options are offered in outline only. Following this consultation, a detailed proposal will be offered for full and formal scrutiny by General Synod.
95
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
9. Option One – Electoral Synod The first would offer a significant revision of the present Canon but would retain the Electoral Synod as the key decision-making body.
10. The revised Canon would take account of the objections noted above. In particular, we would want to see the election as one process, activated by one mandate and followed to a conclusion over three possible stages. There would be few timetabling specifics and discretion allowed at each point. At the initial meeting of the Electoral Synod all members of the Preparatory Committee should be expected to be present as well as, ideally, the whole College of Bishops. Training in spiritual discernment and employment good practice should be provided for all involved.
11. As at present, the process would require a Preparatory Committee to produce short-lists, it will provide for up to two full meetings of the Electoral Synod and an election by the College of Bishops as a final resort. The timetable, which could be approved by the Electoral Synod at its preliminary meeting, might set out dates for meetings of the Preparatory Committee, Electoral Synod and College of Bishops (should the latter be required to convene as an electoral body).
12. The deadline for membership of the Electoral Synod should depend on the date of the mandate rather than the previous Diocesan Synod. We would also propose to offer greater flexibility in the voting procedures. We shall seek General Synod’s guidance on the size of the shortlist to be presented to the electors and on the question of whether this shortlist should be made public.
13. In favour of this option: This option retains the longstanding tradition in our church that in the first instance the diocese itself elects its bishop. This has long been a central part of our polity and is respected in other Provinces. It is deeply empowering to those bishops elected in this way to know that they have the support of the majority of the clergy and laity of their diocese.
14. Against this option: This option depends on every member of the Electoral Synod understanding the process they are part of and being willing to prepare themselves properly for the decisions they will be called to make. Experience suggests that the present process may sometimes fall down on this point. With a larger number of electors, confidentiality around names and process may be more difficult to maintain.
15. Option Two – Electoral Council The second option would be to replace the Electoral Synod with an Electoral Council.
16. The Council would be a much smaller body than the Electoral Synod but somewhat larger than the present Preparatory Committee. (We shall seek your views on the appropriate size of the Council.) The Province would be represented through members elected by each diocese and through two representatives from the College of Bishops (one of whom would usually be the Primus). Diocesan representatives would be elected by the Diocesan Synod at a specially convened meeting soon after the mandate for the election is issued. We would suggest that membership should be split 60%-40% in favour of the Diocese and, as far as possible, be divided equally between clergy and laity. This electoral process and the subsequent work of the Council would normally be overseen by the Primus. Training in spiritual discernment and employment good practice should be undertaken by all members of the Council.
17. As with the Preparatory Committee in the present Canon, we would expect Council members to familiarise themselves thoroughly with the life and mission of the diocese not least through a Diocesan Profile provided by the diocese. The Council should be free to determine
96
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group the details of its appointment process but it would be required to seek nominations and applications and, through a prayerful process of interviews and consultation, to elect the new bishop. This whole process would remain confidential and only the elected candidate’s name would be announced.
18. In favour of this option: Whilst retaining direct diocesan involvement in the process, the task will be undertaken by a group of people chosen on the basis of their gifts and experience and who are willing to offer considerable time to the responsibilities entrusted to them. The smaller number involved means that confidentiality should be more easily maintained. The resulting process, though robust, would be far kinder to the candidates.
19. Against this option: This option departs from the long-established practice that each diocese, every charge represented, elects its bishop. There may be a feeling of disenfranchisement and therefore a lack of ‘buy in’ amongst those not elected to the Council who may fear that their tradition or point of view will not be given proper weight.
20. Consultation with General Synod and the Wider Church The Review Group believes that both the above options have merits and before offering a draft Canon for first reading we seek to assess the mind of our church. The importance of this question should not be underestimated. The Episcopal Church that emerged from the eighteenth century was a church in which the clergy and people of each diocese elected their own bishop. The first option more clearly reflects this position; the second would introduce a significantly new approach for the SEC – although variants on this model already exist in other parts of the Anglican Communion. Do either of these options command wide support?
21. We offer this consultation to encourage a full and wide debate on this question in Synods and Vestries as well as amongst individuals. Once a Canon is offered for first reading it will be subjected to a formal round of scrutiny at Provincial and Diocesan level. As you will see, the feedback paper seeks your input both about your preferred option and on one or two consequent matters.
22. Once we have this feedback we can move to the detailed working-out of whichever option finds favour and, with the help of the Canons Committee and the consent of the Faith & Order Board, bring a Canon for first reading in 2022.
23. One Final Point We propose that whatever the preferred option the Canon should be accompanied by a commentary and guidelines (authorised under a resolution of the Canon) which establish principles for good process and care of all involved. Having listened carefully to those who have experienced the present Canon we have done some preliminary work on these guidelines. We offer a brief example of commentary and guidelines as an appendix to this paper. The final and full draft of this document will, of course, depend on the preferred option for revision of Canon 4.
05/10/20
Canon 4 Review Group Rt Rev Dr John Armes Dr Martin Auld Very Rev Fay Lamont Rt Rev Ian Paton Mr Graham Robertson Prof Alan Werritty
97
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
Canon 4 Review Group Consultation Phase 2 March 2021 Responses Appendix 2
This second phase of the Canon 4 Review Group Consultation was sent to all seven dioceses; to be discussed at diocesan synods and for vestries to be encouraged to respond. 186 responses were received in the period up to 31st March 2021. The full diocesan responses are not included, but poll results from diocesan synods are included at the foot of this document. For dioceses where diocesan synods did not take place, vestries were particularly encouraged to respond.
Which Diocese do you belong to? 186 responses
Aberdeen & Orkney 5 Argyll & The Isles 13 Brechin 5 Edinburgh 15 Glasgow & Galloway 51 Moray, Ross & Caithness 41 St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane 56
Are you responding on behalf of a group or as an individual?
As an individual 134 Group 53
98
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
GROUP In what capacity are you responding to this survey?
On behalf of the Vestry 48 On behalf of the Diocesan Synod See other form Other (on behalf of another group) - please state 5 Please tick all those that are applicable to your response
AS AN INDIVIDUAL
ASAS AN IN
99
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
Question 1a Canon 4 Revision
The consultation paper proposes that Canon 4 should be revised in one of two ways. You may, however, prefer to retain the present Canon 4 or to make other suggestions. Here you are invited to indicate and explain your preference.
Electoral Synod 94 Electoral Council 63 Retain the present Canon 4 21 None of these options 8
Question 1b - Selected Comments
I believe that the Electoral Synod is the most open and transparent mechanism. It means every charge in the diocese is involved and gives surety to a successful candidate that every charge has been able to contribute to the outcome. We prefer the Electoral Council option to provide a smaller, focused group dedicated to this important task, and to ensure confidentiality. We think that everyone involved in the decision should have the benefit of training in spiritual discernment and employment good practice. This goal is more realistic when the decision-making group is smaller. The well-established principle that a Diocese elects its Bishop is sound. The needs, hopes and aspirations of a Diocese, and where it is coming from, are fed into the process. By having a say through voting, the Diocese, takes responsibility for the decision so that the candidate elected is accepted and supported. Any thought, and here perceptions are important, that a Bishop is being imposed on the Diocese is avoided. Discernment of episcopal ministry is a complex matter that takes a lot of time and application, and a real effort to understand the ministry. It is a lot to ask of the current Preparatory Committee, let alone a whole Electoral Synod. Having a Council would provide the opportunity for training, deeper consultation and discussion and the recruitment of those with particular skills in discernment, interviewing etc. I think the process of electing a bishop, whilst retaining the element of spiritual discernment, needs to become more 'professional'. It would be beneficial to have a group of people who are experienced, including in conducting an interview, skilled and gifted, who have the time to be thorough and meticulous. I would like to see the provincial representation remaining largely the same from one election to another, so that they can build on experience. This does of course depend on time gaps between elections. This option also addresses the issues of confidentiality. Potentially reduce the feeling of disenfranchisement amongst those Lay Readers whole incumbents prevent them from serving as vestry members, lay reps or similar. Increase confidentiality
100
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
We think that the Diocesan voice is important as the Bishop will have authority in that area. We also think that tradition is important. Therefore the current arrangements should be retained but steps taken to remedy what is not working well. Specifically, we would like to see no minimum number of candidates, issues of confidentiality should be addressed, training should be provided to the Electoral Synod, and there should be flexibility in timings. I have found it very difficult to make a decision about whether option one or option two would be the better - there are sound reasons for choosing either, I think. What persuades me to think that option two is preferable is the need for electors to be well-informed and the need for complete confidentiality throughout the process. I feel it is necessary for a diocese to elect its own Bishop - to keep that unique sense of Scottish Episcopal values - collective, transparent and each diocese knowing its distinct needs and aspirations. A sense of each church having its own voice and equality in the election process. There should be more careful, prayerful consideration of electors, adequate training, support for electors and the necessary commitment and application from the individual electors. Neither of the options contain what we believe is a prayerful, fair and modern way forward
Further guidance - Electoral Synod (Option 1)
If it is decided to retain the Electoral Synod (Option 1), the Review Group will welcome your guidance on two consequent matters.
Question 2a - Shortlist
Shortlist. The Consultation Paper explains that the present Canon requires an election shortlist of candidates numbering no less than 3 and no more than 5. Some have argued that this is too large and that there should be scope to reduce the number with only one candidate being appropriate on some occasions. What do you think?
There should be a shortlist of between 3 & 5 37 There should be no minimum number 49 There should be discretion to vary the size of shortlist 100
101
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
Question 2a - Selected Comments
The nature of the position makes it likely that individuals may well be reluctant to put their names forward. It is therefore better to find only one, or perhaps two suitable persons rather than wait for more candidates If the preparatory committee are unable to find 3 people capable of taking on the role of Bishop who would satisfy that same preparatory committee it would suggest that there is either a problem with the role or a problem with candidates coming forward and not a problem with the process. I think the paper fails to address one of the most significant dangers of any episcopal electoral system: the pressure to appoint someone, anyone, even if no clear sense of call has been discerned by the electoral synod. Discerning a vocation is not a matter of deciding that a particular candidate is the best of the bunch. Reducing the short-list would increase this pressure. I would like to see this directly addressed in electoral synod preparations. I am a little bit ambivalent on this. My concern being that if there is an 'obvious' candidate, other options may not be pursued. I think a little flexibility is needed to allow the Electoral Synod some discretion. Do not agree with only one candidate, they may have performed well in the interview but still not the right person. So short list should be 2 or more. When people withdraw a process can collapse because there is no longer a minimum number. Also when numbers of nominees are small people can feel under pressure to continue to keep the process running even though they have realised this is not the right place/time for them. Maybe one candidate stands out as perfect for the position, or maybe a choice from two would be sufficient. I totally disagree that there should be a minimum number of candidates on the shortlist before an election can go ahead. I think that confidentiality is important, both in voting, and to protect the candidates. Having been involved for a number of years in recruitment, it is my opinion that is extremely rare for one candidate to stand out head and shoulders above the rest. It is only in comparison to other candidates that the interviewing body can identify what they might need in the shortlisted candidates. This was a majority decision, although a shortlist of 3 – 5 also has its merits, principally so that if, on a short list of 3, a candidate dropped out there should be an option to reduce a shortlist to 2 ie discretion to vary the size of the shortlist. A shortlist of 1 however, is not encouraged. Question 2b - Publication of Shortlist
102
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
Publication of Shortlist. At present the shortlist of candidates is made public prior to the election. Would you like this practice to continue?
Yes 54 No 132
Question 2b - Selected Comments
If I were applying for a new position outwith the company and my current employer heard about it, that employer would be disappointed to know that | planned to leave his employ. This situation could be the same in a parish and have a disturbing influence on that parish. Not publishing the shortlisted candidates would be more pastorally caring for those candidates who are not eventually selected, also to their families and church/charges. We were concerned to hear of the damaging effects on candidates of the election process, as well as reservations felt by potential candidates and those who would otherwise encourage them to come forward under the present system. Pastoral care for those not selected to proceed. If the individuals wish to make known they've been shortlisted then that is up to them, but I don't feel it should be part of the election process. The pressure on candidates is unreasonable and is not found in discernment for other ministries in our Province, nor for incumbent appointments. Synod members may be swayed by the opinions of those who do not have access to the whole range of evidence supporting a candidate's application. Publication flies in the face of privacy and confidentiality which are major issues nowadays. The candidate may be put off applying knowing that their application is in the public domain. He/ she might not want everyone discussing their application. Having said that there are many job application processes which now involve meeting the rest of the team before the job is offered. There is no justification and considerable harm possible for making the list public. It is difficult for the candidates and if, as happened two years ago, that there are 2 elections running simultaneously, it could affect or even prevent an excellent candidate from putting his or her name forward for more than one diocese. I believe that it is important that this list is made public in order to allow for proper scrutiny of the candidates from the whole diocese/province. Lay Reps are representing the congregations, how can they do so if the congregations are kept out of the process entirely? Further, names should be made public in order that their call to leadership in the church can continue to be supported and discerned for other ministries or indeed for episcopacy at a later time. Secrecy around discernment is very stressful for those undergoing it - it can lead to difficult situations where you feel you have to lie and can leave one feeling unsupported. We need to be more transparent in our processes as a church in order to earn the trust of our members and be able to support those in the midst of the process.
103
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
Further guidance - Electoral Council (Option 2)
Question 3a - Electoral Council
If it is decided to replace the Electoral Synod with an Electoral Council (Option 2), the Review Group would welcome your thoughts on how large this Council should be. The proposal is that it include representatives of the Diocese; representatives from the Province and the College of Bishops - weighted in favour of the diocese 60:40. Please indicate what you believe would be an appropriate size for this Electoral Council ?
20 people 92 30 people 94
Question 3b - Selected Comments
The Electoral Council should be restricted to 20 people. The Diocese should have the greater say in the choice of candidate and therefore we suggest a split of 80/20 in favour of the Diocese. 30 would allow smaller diocese to have a majority of charges involved and a significant number of charges in a large diocese. We suggest the larger group of 30 to ensure that the electoral council can properly reflect the range of traditions and viewpoints in the diocese and wider church, and also draw upon a wider range of professional recruitment experiences. You might consider having at least one member from each area council. I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of people from another diocese having a say in the election of a Bishop for a diocese that is not their own. I would prefer only representation from the College of Bishops. The selection panel should be made up of people who wish to be involved in the process not there because they happen to be the Lay Rep etc. Experience of the various issues Bishops have to deal with outwith the spiritual requirements should be addressed and the selection panel include expertise from say HR, employment law, administration to ascertain whether he/ she can cope with all aspects of the role Ensuring all charges are represented the smaller number underlines personal responsibility of members. I would think that the smaller number might lead to a more efficient process. I would prefer to see the diocesan/provincial ratio remain flexible within guidelines. This allows for more flexibility for focusing on getting the right people as opposed to the right ratio. A smaller group is preferable for the reasons suggested previously (anonymity, decisiveness) Those that favoured this proposal were certain that the diocese should be more represented - an 80%-20% split. Other members feared that diocesan church members and clergy could feel disenfranchised if the election was by "outsiders". There was concern about how council members would be elected and a lack of transparency.
104
Faith and Order Board Canon 4 Review Group
Data from Diocesan Synods
Option 1 Option 2 Option 4 None Option 3 Retain the Diocese Electoral Electoral of these Total Present Canon 4 Synod Council options Diocese of Aberdeen & 21 4 0 0 25 Orkney
Diocese of St Andrews, 43 18 0 3 64 Dunblane and Dunkeld
Diocese of Brechin 46 37 0 10 93
Diocese of Edinburgh - 5 2 0 0 7 Area Councils Diocese of Argyll and The Isles No Diocesan Synod held
Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway No Diocesan Synod held
Diocese of Moray Ross and Caithness Narrative report with no poll
Diocese of Diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney Brechin
16% 1 11% 1 2 2 49% 3 40% 3 84% 4 4
Edinburgh Diocese Diocese of St Andrews Area Councils Dunblane and Dunkeld
5% 1 29% 1 28% 2 2 3 71% 67% 4
105
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
ADMINISTRATION BOARD
Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Background In recent years much of the Administration Board’s focus has been on issues related to clergy wellbeing. Such issues have also been the subject of discussion at successive General Synod meetings. In 2019 General Synod received the results of the clergy wellbeing survey undertaken by the Personnel Committee earlier that year. The survey raised a number of issues which the Personnel Committee has continued to progress. The survey also raised issues regarding various aspects of the clergy remuneration package. The Board acknowledged that, notwithstanding the recommendation of its 2016 Review that a further review should not be undertaken for 10 years, it would be appropriate to commission an interim review to seek to address the concerns raised by the survey. At its September 2019 meeting the Board agreed a remit for an interim review. The Interim Review Group was subsequently appointed and undertook its work during 2020 – presenting its Report to the Board at its September 2020 meeting. The Board discussed the Report in some detail at the meeting and its subsequent meeting in March 2021.
A copy of the Report is included in the Synod Papers.
The Interim Review Group’s Recommendations The Report details 14 recommendations regarding three elements of the clergy remuneration package: stipend, housing and retirement and pension provision. The Board’s response to each of the recommendations is detailed in Appendix 1. The majority of the recommendations can be actioned directly by the Board and its pendant Committees. The Board will monitor progress on each of the recommendations at its meetings. Three of the recommendations however relate to stipend policy and therefore require General Synod’s agreement to enable them to be implemented.
Recommendations relating to Standard Stipend General Synod last agreed a change in stipend policy in 2000 when it accepted the Clergy Personnel Commission’s recommendation that SEC Standard Stipend should be set at a level equivalent to the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark. This policy was endorsed by the 2016 Clergy Remuneration Package Review. Following an agreed phased transition period parity with the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark was achieved in 2006.
As detailed in its Report the Interim Review Group has concluded that Standard Stipend has failed to keep pace with inflation and has therefore made a number of recommendations designed to restore Standard Stipend to a level equivalent to its 2006 adjusted for inflation. In its discussion of the Report the Board endorsed the Group’s general aim but slightly modified its recommendations to ensure that changes were implemented more swiftly and that the gap between actual and target stipend didn’t increase.
Specifically, the Board agreed that the following motions should be recommended to General Synod for its approval:
106
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
That Standard Stipend 2022 be increased in line with increases in Church of England National Stipend Benchmark or CPI if greater.
That from 2023, Standard Stipend should rise at rate one percentage point above the rate applied to the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, or by one percentage point above CPI if greater, until such time as it reaches a level equal to 2006 Standard Stipend scaled up pro rata with CPI.
That in subsequent years, Standard Stipend maintains the same percentage uplift compared with Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, subject to a triennial review in the light of changes in CPI and other relevant factors.
(These motions are included in the General Synod Agenda and Programme.)
Implementation of proposed changes to stipend policy Standard Stipend is currently £27,000 – approximately £1,440 less than it would be if it had kept pace with inflation since 2006. Given the number of variables in the proposed motions it is not possible to say how many years it will take to reach the target stipend level or what the annual additional cost to vestries will be. Any increases in stipend will also result in increased pension contributions. For charges with no employees other than a stipendiary priest there will be no additional National Insurance Costs (all NI will be covered by Employment Allowance). For other charges any increased stipend will result in additional NI costs.
Assuming, however, a ‘catch-up’ period of four years the annual costs of the additional stipend increases would therefore be about £475 or £525 depending on whether NI was payable. (See calculations below)
Church of England remuneration review As noted by the Interim Review Group the Church of England also undertook a review of its clergy remuneration during 2020. It is anticipated that the results of the review will be published later this year. The Administration Board will consider if the results of the review have any implications for the SEC’s stipend policy.
James N Gibson Convener, Administration Board May 2021
2006 inflation linked stipend (approx) 28,440 2021 Standard Stipend 27,000 Current stipend gap (approx) 1,440
Average annual increase over 4 years 360 Pension @ 32.2% 115 Total cost if no NI 475
National insurance @ 13.8% 50 Total cost if NI payable 525
107
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Appendix 1
Board comment Action agreed by Board Adequacy of Stipends 1 That increases to Standard Board endorsed the intention to Recommendation accepted Stipend in 2021 and 2022 should increase Standard Stipend over but modified. Motion to continue to be pegged to Church time to a level equivalent to 2006 General Synod 2021: of England levels. Standard Stipend plus CPI inflation since 2006. That Standard Stipend 2022 be Board was in favour of beginning increased in line with increases to implement changes in 2022 in Church of England National rather than postponing to 2023 Stipend Benchmark or CPI if and was keen to ensure that gap greater. between actual stipend and target stipend didn’t increase.
2 That from 2023, Standard Board noted that if Church of Recommendation accepted Stipend should rise at rate one England rates of increase were but modified. Motion to percentage point above the rate substantially less than CPI then General Synod 2021: applied in the Church of England gap between actual stipend and until such time as it reaches a target stipend could increase. A That from 2023, Standard level equal to 2006 Standard modified version of the Stipend should rise at rate one Stipend scaled up pro rata with recommendation was therefore percentage point above the CPI. agreed. rate applied to the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, or by one percentage point above CPI if greater, until such time as it reaches a level equal to 2006 Standard Stipend scaled up pro rata with CPI.
3 That in subsequent years, Whilst acknowledging that Recommendation accepted Standard Stipend maintains the comparison with Church of but modified. Motion to same percentage uplift Scotland Stipends was one of the General Synod 2021: compared with Church of factors to consider in any England National Stipend triennial review the Board agreed That in subsequent years, Benchmark, subject to a a modified and more general Standard Stipend maintains the triennial review in the light of recommendation. same percentage uplift changes in CPI and Church of compared with Church of Scotland stipends. England National Stipend Benchmark, subject to a triennial review in the light of changes in CPI and other relevant factors.
108
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Board comment Action agreed by Board 4 That the Administration Board The Board noted that a similar Further consideration of the considers what levels of comment had been made by the Recommendation be deferred. additional ecclesiastical Clergy Remuneration Package responsibility or experience Review Group in 2016 and that between incumbent and bishop the views of the College of might merit additional Bishops and Standing Committee remuneration, following the had been sought. At that time principles of stipend both as a both bodies were of the view was facilitator of ministry and (as that no such differential should with bishops) a partial be introduced. recognition of responsibility. Whilst recognising that the issue merited further consideration in the future it was not thought to be a priority for the Board at the current time.
5 That Dioceses review any Whilst acknowledging that recent Recommendation accepted. evidence of clergy recruitment, experience is unlikely to be Dioceses have been asked to retention or well-being issues in typical the Board agreed that provide further information by particular locations and there would be merit in August to enable the Board to consider whether in the light of requesting further information further consider the issue at its them there is a need to allocate from Dioceses to enable the September 2021 meeting. additional funds from their Board to further discuss the issue. Mission and Ministry Support Grant or otherwise to assist clergy in those locations with the additional costs of living and working there.
6 That vestries be instructed to The Board noted that to be Recommendation accepted. It obtain an Energy Performance consistent with General Synod’s is anticipated that the Certificate on their rectories; agreed policy of the SEC working Buildings Committee will and to pay additional heating towards net zero carbon consider this issue in more allowances, grossed up for emissions by 2030 it would be detail when considering a applicable income tax and appropriate, wherever possible, range of clergy housing issues national insurance, where the to replace energy inefficient and liaise with dioceses and Certificate rating is lower than E. rectories. vestries as appropriate. The Board noted that a benchmark rating of E was less ambitious than the targets being set by the Scottish Government for rented properties. (A D rating from 2022.) The Board agreed that obtaining Energy Performance Certificates was an important first step in considering the energy efficiency of current rectories.
109
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Board comment Action agreed by Board Clergy Housing 7 That vestries are again Recommendation accepted. It reminded of their obligations to is anticipated that the maintain rectories under Canon Buildings Committee will 60.2 and to undertake a consider this issue in more programme of regular detail when considering a maintenance to ensure their range of clergy housing issues upkeep. and liaise with dioceses and vestries as appropriate.
8 That dioceses (a) should take Recommendation accepted. It active steps to ensure that is anticipated that the quinquennial surveys of Buildings Committee will rectories are properly instructed consider this issue in more and carried out by suitably detail when considering a qualified personnel in a timely range of clergy housing issues fashion; (b) should obtain copies and liaise with dioceses and of defect reports and ensure vestries as appropriate. that remedial repairs are promptly undertaken; and (c) should make occasional inspections on request by clergy
9 Where a vestry is unable to Recommendation accepted. ensure appropriate The Buildings Committee to maintenance of rectories, that consider in more detail as part Diocese takes active steps to of its review of clergy housing arrange with the vestry that the issues. required oversight and maintenance is carried out, appointing factors if necessary and recovering the associated costs from the Charge.
10 That the Provincial Buildings The Board was advised that the Recommendation accepted. Committee reviews the current Buildings Committee had initiated Buildings Committee working minimum standards for such a review. towards completing its review rectories with a view to making by 31 December 2021. them more practicable for modern clergy family life and working practices.
11 That Dioceses are encouraged The Board noted that such a Recommendation accepted to review with clergy the review might be a natural but modified to be: suitability of their housing and, consequence of any revision of where appropriate, permit the minimum standards of clergy That Dioceses are encouraged Charges (subject to Diocesan housing and a consideration of to review with clergy the approval) to acquire energy efficiency issues. suitability of their housing and, replacement rectories that will It was thought that Diocese where appropriate, encourage should be encouraging such and permit Charges (subject to
110
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Board comment Action agreed by Board better enable the exercise of changes of rectories rather than Diocesan approval) to acquire ministry. just permitting them. replacement rectories that will better enable the exercise of ministry.
It is anticipated that the Buildings Committee will consider this issue in more detail when considering a range of clergy housing issues and liaise with dioceses and vestries as appropriate.
Retirement Benefits 12 That the format of future The Board noted that the Recommendation accepted. pension provision and its triennial valuation was underway Issue to be further considered funding be considered in the and it was anticipated that the once results of triennial light of the outcome of the preliminary results would be valuation are known. triennial valuation due at the known by General Synod. end of 2020.
13 That Dioceses should be The Board recognised the need to Recommendation accepted encouraged to run pre- ensure that clergy were well but modified to be: retirement courses to help prepared for retirement. It noted clergy transition to retirement, that current arrangements were That Dioceses and province and to continue providing likely to differ between dioceses. should be encouraged to run service in retirement to the Noted too that in the past such pre-retirement courses to help extent they wish to do so. courses had been run clergy transition to retirement, provincially. and to continue providing service in retirement to the extent they wish to do so.
Further work will be done to ascertain what provision dioceses currently make for pre-retirement discussions with clergy.
14 That professional advice is The Board noted the difficulties that Recommendation accepted. A sought on effective means of clergy could encounter in acquiring small working group is to be providing financial assistance to buy to let properties to let as part of established by the Board to clergy for the purchase of their retirement planning and agreed further consider the issue. property. that it would be appropriate to investigate the possibilities of providing assistance to the to enable then to better plan for their retirement.
111
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
REPORT to the ADMINISTRATION BOARD of the CLERGY REMUNERATION PACKAGE INTERIM REVIEW GROUP (prepared during 2020)
1. Summary
1.1 Introduction
The Interim Review Group (“The Group” or “IRG”) was commissioned to consider the remuneration of stipendiary clergy – specifically stipend, housing and pension – in the wake of the publication of the 2019 Clergy Wellbeing Survey, and having regard to a similar, though wider, review undertaken in 2016.
1.2 The Impact of Coronavirus on our Review
While the Group’s remit and formation predated the full effects of the Coronavirus epidemic, its consultation with clergy took place during lockdown. The Group considers that clergy responses may well have been influenced by the circumstances, and that care is required in interpreting the results of consultation. In particular, it would be inappropriate to conclude that ‘no response’ is equivalent to complete satisfaction with the status quo.
Coronavirus has also had a significant effect on the financial reserves of many congregations and the Group is therefore concerned not to recommend any measures that would add in the short term to the level of expenditure faced by vestries.
1.3 Results of our Survey of Stipendiary Clergy
A questionnaire was set to all stipendiary clergy (145) asking questions similar to those in the 2016 survey, but restricted to stipend. The results were also similar.
Responses were received from 66 participants – 46% of those circulated (2016: 47%) – around two-thirds of whom found stipend adequate and reasonable, much the same as in 2016.
However, over 50% in both surveys thought it was (or would be) ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ to live on stipend alone. (Only 10% each year thought it would be easy), and 42% (2016 44%) of respondents relied on a partner’s income.
Most respondents took the opportunity to raise additional comments – on housing and pension as well as stipend. These are summarised in Appendix 3.
1.4 Updated Comparison with Other Denominations and Price Indices
The Group obtained up-to-date information from other Anglican denominations in the UK and from the Church of Scotland. These are summarised in Appendix 2. Updated comparisons with price indices and average earnings are in Appendix 3.
The IRG concluded that Standard Stipend, while still pegged to Church of England levels had fallen behind in terms of inflation and average earnings. Moreover, SEC 112
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report clergy were paid less than their neighbours in the Church of Scotland, even after accounting for the more generous pension provisions in the SEC. Accordingly, the Group felt that the SEC should plan to increase Standard Stipend above Church of England rates, but to defer any increases for two years to allow vestries to recover from the financial impacts of Coronavirus.
1.5 Housing and Pensions
The Group noted that clergy expenses are the subject of a separate review being undertaken by the Personnel Committee, and this would include consideration of tax aspects of tied housing. It also noted that the next Actuarial Valuation of the Pension Scheme was due to be reported on during 2021. Although some significant trends were noted and important issues had been aired in clergy responses to the survey, the Group felt that it would be better to address these issues more fully in the light of the results of work currently in progress.
However, the Survey results indicate that there are still issues of poor maintenance of rectories and energy inefficiency, and the Group has made specific recommendations in relation to these.
1.6 Recommendations
The following recommendations arise from the results of the survey and discussions within the Group, tempered by an awareness of the present financial situation of many vestries and other aspects of uncertainty relating to Coronavirus and the nature of the ‘new normal’ to come.
Adequacy of Stipends
That increases to Standard Stipend in 2021 and 2022 should continue to be pegged to Church of England levels
That from 2023, Standard Stipend should rise at rate one percentage point above the rate applied in the Church of England until such time as it reaches a level equal to 2006 Standard Stipend scaled up pro rata with CPI.
That in subsequent years, Standard Stipend maintains the same percentage uplift compared with Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, subject to a triennial review in the light of changes in CPI and Church of Scotland stipends.
That the Administration Board considers what levels of additional ecclesiastical responsibility or experience between incumbent and bishop might merit additional remuneration, following the principles of stipend both as a facilitator of ministry and (as with bishops) a partial recognition of responsibility.
That Dioceses review any evidence of clergy recruitment, retention or well- being issues in particular locations and consider whether in the light of them there is a need to allocate additional funds from their Mission and Ministry
113
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Support Grant or otherwise to assist clergy in those locations with the additional costs of living and working there.
That vestries be instructed to obtain an Energy Performance Certificate on their rectories; and to pay additional heating allowances, grossed up for applicable income tax and national insurance, where the Certificate rating is lower than E.
Clergy Housing
That vestries are again reminded of their obligations to maintain rectories under Canon 60.2 and to undertake a programme of regular maintenance to ensure their upkeep.
That dioceses (a) should take active steps to ensure that quinquennial surveys of rectories are properly instructed and carried out by suitably qualified personnel in a timely fashion; (b) should obtain copies of defect reports and ensure that remedial repairs are promptly undertaken; and (c) should make occasional inspections on request by clergy.
Where a vestry is unable to ensure appropriate maintenance of rectories, that Diocese takes active steps to arrange with the vestry that the required oversight and maintenance is carried out, appointing factors if necessary and recovering the associated costs from the Charge.
That the Provincial Buildings Committee reviews the current minimum standards for rectories with a view to making them more practicable for modern clergy family life and working practices.
That Dioceses are encouraged to review with clergy the suitability of their housing and, where appropriate, permit Charges (subject to Diocesan approval) to acquire replacement rectories that will better enable the exercise of ministry.
Retirement Benefits
That the format of future pension provision and its funding be considered in the light of the outcome of the triennial valuation due at the end of 2020.
That Dioceses should be encouraged to run pre-retirement courses to help clergy transition to retirement, and to continue providing service in retirement to the extent they wish to do so.
That professional advice is sought on effective means of providing financial assistance to clergy for the purchase of property.
114
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
2. Background to the Report
In 2016, the Provincial Administration Board (“the Board”) established a group to review the level of stipend and ancillary benefits which together comprise the “remuneration package” for stipendiary clergy.
Reporting in September 2016, the Review Group made 17 recommendations, the last of which was that
“a further review of the Clergy Remuneration Package be carried out in 10 years’ time unless circumstances make it desirable that such a review should take place at an earlier date.”
In the light of the results of the Clergy Wellbeing Survey, reported to the General Synod in June 2019, and discussions around it, the Board decided an interim review of the 2016 Report would be desirable. An Interim Review Group (“IRG”) was formed with the remit and membership set out below. (See also Appendix 1)
Interim Review of Clergy Stipends, Housing and Pensions – Remit Approved by Administration Board, September 2019
To undertake an interim review of current policy and provision in relation to the remuneration, housing and pensions benefits provided to stipendiary clergy and make recommendations to the Administration Board for any changes thought to be necessary or desirable. The Review Group should have regard to the report of the Clergy Remuneration Package Review completed in 2016
This should include consideration of: -
(a) Clergy Stipends:- (i) the factors to be taken into account in assessing the appropriate level of stipend for clergy (including bishops)
(ii) whether current policy of setting Standard Stipend with reference to the Church of England National Stipend benchmark should continue
(b) Clergy Housing: the complex of issues concerning the relationship between tied and retirement housing.
(c) Pensions: whether the Church’s current provision is appropriate.
Composition of Review Body The group should comprise a lay convener, a Bishop, a member of stipendiary clergy, a person with HR experience (drawn from the provincial Personnel Committee if any of the former are not also Personnel Committee members). A representative of the SEC Pension Fund
Timescale The Review Body is asked to report to the Administration Board in time for the latter’s meeting in September 2020
The IRG comprised Mr Ian Lawson, Treasurer of Edinburgh Diocese (convener); The Rt. Rev’d Andrew Swift, Bishop of Brechin; Ms Jan Whiteside (convener of the Provincial Personnel Committee) and Rev’d Amanda Fairclough (member of the Provincial Personnel Committee). The Chair of the SEC Pension Fund was
115
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report unavailable, but the Group felt it would be sufficient to obtain information on pensions where necessary from Ms Daphne Audsley, the SEC Pensions Officer.
3. Methodology
The Group’s initial meeting took place on 20 February 2020. It noted the background to the Interim Review and in particular:
The report of the Clergy Remuneration Package Review Group produced in September 2016;
the Consultation Meeting which had taken place on 8 October 2018, arising from the debate at General Synod that year;
the outcome of the Survey of Clergy Wellbeing as reported to General Synod 2019.
That the ranking by stipendiary clergy in the Wellbeing Survey of issues in order of importance was: support for clergy wellbeing; adequacy of current stipend; adequacy of pension provision; adequacy of provision and maintenance of clergy housing.
That the purpose of clergy remuneration, including stipend, housing and pension, was not to reflect the degree of expertise or skill required, rather to provide the wherewithal to enable the recipient to exercise their ministry.
In relation to housing, the IRG noted that the Personnel Committee had a subgroup considering issues of clergy expenses which included consideration of various tax aspects of tied housing, recovery of expenses, minimum standards for clergy housing etc. It was noted, however, that since that group was already working on that topic, they needed to bring its work to a conclusion before recommendations could be made.
In relation to retirement provision, the Group noted that the next triennial valuation of the Pension Fund would be due at the end of 2020. Pending that valuation, it would be difficult for the Group to make specific recommendations in relation to pension benefits. The Group was able, however, to discuss retirement housing, making use of the experience of Ms Whiteside as a member of the Provincial Retirement Housing Committee.
In view of the limited time available, the Group decided to undertake a repeat survey of stipendiary clergy (but not of vestries), limiting the questions to stipend only, in the hope that a shorter questionnaire would attract a larger response. The Group also commissioned the Secretary General to provide an update of comparative information from other denominations, and a comparison of recent increases in stipend with rises in the cost of living.
116
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
4. Stipend
4.1 Comparison with other Church Organisations
The 2016 Review Group Report included a comparison of SEC stipend rates with those of the Church of England and Anglican provinces in Wales and Ireland; also with the Church of Scotland and the Baptist Union of Scotland.
However, the 2016 Review noted that direct comparisons were not necessarily relevant:
For example, in the Church in Wales whilst its stipend is less than SEC Standard Stipend, parochial fees are retained by the clergy personally and therefore supplement stipend. In the Church of Scotland, the clergy pension scheme has a contributory element with the level of contribution by the church being related to the amount of contribution paid by the member.
Updated comparative information is included at Appendix 1 to this report. The same proviso on direct comparisons applies.
Church of England as a benchmark
The 2016 Report argued that the Church of England provided the most logical benchmark because it is the Province/Denomination with which SEC has the greatest number of clergy transfers. And it noted the level of investigation and analysis undertaken by the Church of England in setting its stipend levels:
In the Church of England, the National Stipend Benchmark is a result of a consultative process that draws in not just objective measures of what is ‘sufficient’ in the economic context and affordable to dioceses but also what is ‘right’ and what supports other aims: clergy wellbeing; flourishing ministry; growth in vocations etc. Data considered is drawn from a wide range of sources including the Minimum Income Standard (Joseph Rowntree Foundation); disposable income measures (Office of National Statistics); and net household equivalised income (Institute for Fiscal Studies).
The Central Stipends Authority of the Church of England also sets Regional Stipend Benchmarks which adjust the National Stipend Benchmark for regional variations in the cost of living (excluding housing and travel) and provide general indications of the level of stipend required for each diocesan stipend to have the same purchasing power as the National Stipend Benchmark.
The IRG found no reason to depart from this broad principle. However, some responses to the Survey suggested there were two aspects to the current SEC stipend rates in comparison with other church organisations that gave rise to disquiet:
The lack of stipend enhancement to recognise experience, responsibility or simply long-service; and The higher level of stipend paid to neighbouring clergy in the Church of Scotland – including annual rises for 5 years based on experience.
117
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Grade differentials
In comparison with England, Wales and Ireland, the SEC has fewer ‘pay grades’. Apart from the curate scales, only two levels exist: Standard Stipend and Bishop’s Stipend (1.5 x standard).
The 2016 Review concluded that it was appropriate to maintain the existing differential for bishops on the grounds of greater responsibility – but to continue to calculate pension for bishops on the basis of Standard Stipend only.
The Group takes the view that most in the church would recognise that the level of responsibility carried by bishops – a responsibility borne not only within their respective dioceses but provincially for the whole of the SEC – merits the higher level of stipend currently paid.
On the question of differentials for other categories of clergy, such as Deans, the 2016 Report said:
It is the case that in fact many clergy within the church carry a degree of responsibility over and above that within their own immediate charge. In a small church such as the SEC, with limited numbers of stipendiary clergy, it can be expected that many clergy will have such additional duties. The Group considers that it would be invidious to introduce any greater degree of stipend differential than exists at present and therefore does not propose any change in that regard.
This is perhaps a difficult distinction to sustain. As one 2020 Survey respondent put it:
if it is not a reward for work done, then stipend should be uniform across all clergy (saving pro rata for part time) – so bishops, permanent deacons and curates in training should receive the same stipend as priests. Otherwise, if it represents levels of skill, training, expertise, responsibility, order of clergy etc then it IS partly reward, which is invidious.
There is some attraction in being able to offer entrants to the ministry a career structure with the potential for higher remuneration, and this could potentially be justified on the basis that it costs more to maintain a more senior ecclesiastical position. It would also provide an equivalent to the career progression options within the Church of England, so as not to discourage clergy transfers to Scotland.
The Church of Scotland position
Because of the proximity of neighbouring ministers, and working relationships with them, the perceived differences between SEC and Church of Scotland remuneration were felt most keenly by Survey respondents. A number of responses drew attention to the CoS increases triggered by years of experience.
The CoS standard stipend rises in steps from £28,137 in year 1 to £34,577 in year 5, respecting UK age discrimination law which allows long service pay awards to be restricted to the first five years in a post. As a result, CoS starting stipend is only 4% ahead of SEC standard, but by year 5 it is 28% ahead.
118
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
However, there are key differences in pension provision. In SEC, the employer pays 32.2% of Standard Stipend into a non-contributory pension scheme (all of which goes to fund future pensions). The Church of Scotland pension scheme since 2012 has been a defined contribution scheme with an employer contribution of 11.5%, rising to 14% if the minister contributes at least 2.5%. Combining stipend and employer’s maximum pension contributions we can see that SEC clergy are better off for the first three years of ministry, and on a cumulative basis ahead until year 6. However, the annual difference of £3,724 in favour of the Church of Scotland minister thereafter soon mounts up. (See table).
The IRG considers it would be beneficial to aim to narrow this gap, but also to point out to clergy that the more generous pension provision in the SEC means that the difference in remuneration is not as great as it might at first appear.
Table 1: Comparison of Stipend and pension between SEC and Church of Scotland
Note that this comparison is based on amounts paid by employers. What clergy will actually receive by way of pension will depend on length of service, years of retirement (SEC) and investment performance (CoS).
4.2 Comparison with Price Rises
The 2016 Report included a comparison of stipend increases over a number of years against key cost of living indicators: RPI, CPI and average earnings. An update of this information has been prepared by Malcolm Bett and is included at Appendix 2.
In the period to 2006, the SEC increased stipend at more than the rate of price increases in order to bring stipends in line with the Church of England benchmark. However, the 2016 Report noted:
Since 2006, the comparison against inflation indices is somewhat less favourable. However, in a period where average earnings increases have been relatively modest, increases in Standard Stipend compare reasonably with earnings increases.
119
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
This recognised that had stipend increased in line with RPI since 2006 it would then have been £2,507 more (CPI £1,138 more); however it was only £144 behind when compared to average earnings. Since then, the position has worsened (See table 2).
Table 2: Comparison with Standard Stipend in 2006 adjusted for inflation
The table suggests that Standard Stipend has failed to keep pace with inflation since 2006. Many would say that CPI is the more appropriate index in that it excludes property ownership costs (mortgage interest), and the position is not significantly worse than in 2016. But if a comparatively sluggish period for average earnings was used in 2016 to justify the status quo that appears to be no longer a reason.
Moreover, there is an argument that the correct index is RPI on the grounds that clergy are expected to be able to fund the acquisition of property to move to upon retirement.
The IRG concluded on the basis of costs of living that the current Standard Stipend was between £1,300 and £2,000 short of where it should be based on 2006 levels.
4.3 Results of the Survey of Stipendiary Clergy
A brief survey of Stipendiary Clergy was undertaken, using the same questions on stipend that had been asked in 2016, namely: is stipend adequate, is it reasonable, and to what extent is it (or would it be) possible to live off stipend alone (including the provision of housing) without additional income from other family members. Additionally, comments were invited on any other aspect concerning stipend, housing or pensions.
The distribution of the Survey and collation of responses was handled on behalf of the Group by HR Dept – an external specialist agency that had previously worked with SEC on the Well-being project. It was issued on 29 April with a request for responses by 15 May. Their report on the statistical results of the Survey (omitting individual comments of respondents) is included as Appendix 4.
Response rate
The Group was disappointed that only 46% of stipendiary clergy responded to the survey. We suspect that, notwithstanding the obvious importance of the subject matter, many clergy will have been overwhelmed by concerns over the impact of Coronavirus on their congregations and communities. We would therefore be reluctant to conclude that the 54% who did not respond were wholly satisfied with their remuneration. However, it seems undeniable that they were not entirely dissatisfied,
120
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report particularly as the result to the equivalent survey in 2016 also drew a low response (47%).
Is stipend adequate and reasonable?
The Survey (like the 2016 one) did not define these two terms. ‘Adequate’ implies sufficient to enable the exercise of ministry, while ‘reasonable’ carries connotations of appropriate recognition of value.
The responses were similar: around 70% agreeing that stipend was adequate and 68% that it was reasonable. The 30% (approximately) who disagreed represent only around 20 to 22 respondents out of 145 circulated. Nevertheless, some of the related comments are worthy of note:
It is inadequate if you have a large family It is inadequate to meet the costs of living in a large Victorian rectory It doesn’t cover the additional costs of living on an island It doesn’t allow me scope to save for retirement It is not enough to get started on the property ladder
Many of the comments on ‘reasonableness’ mirrored or referred back to those on adequacy, suggesting a distinction was not always being made. Those that made comparisons with other professions were discounted by the Group; we were more sympathetic about unfavourable comparisons with Church of Scotland colleagues.
One respondent made an interesting distinction between adequacy and reasonableness and summarised many of the issues. It is worth quoting in full:
The Stipend is ADEQUATE in that one can live comfortably on it if one has no debts or dependents and a modest lifestyle. There is little if any surplus for savings for either short or long term – particularly for one's retirement, notably a home in retirement. There is an expectation of some degree of sacrifice of the material in becoming a stipendiary priest but it has certainly affected my material rewards considerably. I do not feel that the current level of stipend represents a REASONABLE compromise, as it feels as if the sacrifice is rather one- sided.
Reliance on other income
Of the 66 respondents, 24 said the question on partner’s income didn’t apply to them, meaning presumably they have no partner, or their partner has no income. Of the remainder, two-thirds (28) said their partner’s income was crucial to their financial stability; one-third (14) said it wasn’t (this, of course, could be because they have a private income or pre-earned or inherited wealth).
However, over half the respondents (35) thought it would be difficult to live on the stipend alone, and only 10% (7) thought it would be easy.
Most respondents left a comment. Those living alone found the stipend, housing and pension benefits allowed a comfortable life; those with a partner and no children were
121
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report still able to live off a single stipend. However, almost all who had brought up families or who had family members overseas, had had to rely on additional funding, whether partner’s income, private income or parental support. The general impression is that stipend is only sufficient to allow the exercise of ministry if other funds are available to cover the costs of a full family life.
The Group’s conclusions and recommendations on stipend
The IRG recognised the sense of pegging stipend to rates applying in the Church of England. It respects the level of research done by the Church of England in setting standards that reflect the needs of their clergy. However, the Group is concerned that Standard Stipend has fallen behind national inflation and earnings indices, and that it compares unfavourably with the remuneration of neighbouring ministers of the Church of Scotland. The Group also notes, from the latest report of the Church of England Central Stipend Authority, that the Church of England is also carrying out a review of clergy remuneration, with a report due at the end of 2020.
In addition to its concerns over Standard Stipend, the IRG recognised that there are particular situations where Standard Stipend needs to be boosted to cater for the circumstances of individual clergy. Many of these were identified in the Survey responses: the additional costs of family dependants, rural or island living, inefficient accommodation. The IRG is concerned that financial assistance should be available at Provincial, Diocesan or Vestry level to deal with these.
In relation to rectory heating costs, The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 were due to come into force on 1 April 2020, requiring landlords to improve a property’s Energy Performance Certificate rating to at least ‘E’ before starting a new tenancy (‘D’ from April 2022). The start date has been deferred due to Covid, and vestries are not, strictly, landlords. Nevertheless, the Group considered this was a reasonable standard to expect vestries to meet in relation to rectory energy efficiency.
While we believe it would be inappropriate to expect Vestries to meet substantial additional costs at a time when they are affected by the financial uncertainties brought about by Coronavirus, we do consider that future improvements should be flagged now so that vestries have time to prepare. At the same time, we consider that some anomalies should be dealt with more quickly.
The IRG therefore recommends:
That increases to Standard Stipend in 2021 and 2022 should continue to be pegged to Church of England levels
That from 2023, Standard Stipend should rise at rate one percentage point above the rate applied in the Church of England until such time as it reaches a level equal to 2006 Standard Stipend scaled up pro rata with CPI.
That in subsequent years, Standard Stipend maintains the same percentage uplift compared with Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, subject
122
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
to a triennial review in the light of changes in CPI and Church of Scotland stipends.
That the Administration Board considers what levels of additional ecclesiastical responsibility or experience between incumbent and bishop might merit additional remuneration, following the principles of stipend both as a facilitator of ministry and (as with bishops) a partial recognition of responsibility.
That Dioceses review any evidence of clergy recruitment, retention or well- being issues in particular locations and consider whether in the light of them there is a need to allocate additional funds from their Mission Support Grant or otherwise to assist clergy in those locations with the additional costs of living and working there.
That vestries be instructed to obtain an Energy Performance Certificate on their rectories ; and to pay additional heating allowances, grossed up for applicable income tax and national insurance, where the Certificate rating is lower than E.
5. Clergy Housing
The basic remuneration package provided to stipendiary clergy consists of three main elements: stipend, housing and pension. In theory the provision of these should enable clergy to focus on their vocational ministry.
The IRG recognised at an early meeting (prior to launching the Survey) that there were potential issues with the provision of tied housing:
Issues of maintenance and upkeep of rectories could become a bone of contention between rector and vestry. These could exacerbate, or be exacerbated by, other tensions between clergy and vestry. Older rectories in particular tended to be less energy efficient and, therefore, more expensive for clergy to heat. Where clergy spent their working lives in tied housing, unless they were in a position to acquire, by mortgage or otherwise, a property in their own name, it was likely that they would need housing in retirement provided by the Church.
These issues had also been flagged in the 2016 Review which stated:
It is imperative that vestries ensure proper maintenance of rectories. Charges should be reminded that rectories should be included in quinquennial surveys (Digest of Resolutions, section 7.2.2). The onus should lie with the vestry to monitor the rectory regularly and attend to any necessary issues of maintenance. It should not be for the rector to have to ask.
Steps should be taken to render rectories as energy efficient as possible. Rectories should comply with the minimum standards for clergy housing recommended by the province and dioceses should survey their rectories to ensure compliance.
123
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Survey responses on housing
A number of Survey responses indicated that the three issues identified above are still proving problematic. Out of 45 general comments, 15 related to maintenance and energy efficiency issues, while 8 complained about tied housing and the difficulty of acquiring property for retirement.
It is disappointing to find that problems persist with inefficient and poorly-maintained rectories. The IRG therefore recommends that Dioceses are charged with ensuring appropriate action is taken on quinquennial reviews, and during vacancies, to remedy property defects.
Where vestries are unable, for whatever reason, adequately to look after their rectory, Dioceses might wish to take over their maintenance, using professional factors, with vestries contributing the costs of maintenance and management. (This is the position within the Church of England albeit the effectiveness of such arrangements varies from place to place.) It is possible that a centrally organised system might achieve some savings in cost if there were to be bulk purchasing arrangements. This might also result in a greater degree of reliability in relation to contractors.
Rectory replacement
Rectories can be brought up to standard in other ways. In Brechin Diocese a number of older properties were being actively replaced with new houses, decisions being taken on the basis of effectiveness for mission. The Group believes this, in conjunction with a review of provincial rules on accommodation standards, would be a worthwhile blueprint for Charges in other Dioceses with older and less easily maintained rectories.
Tied housing
In relation to the general principle of tied housing, the IRG is aware that there is a significant disadvantage for those clergy who, after a lifetime of service, have no property of their own to retire to. Many Survey respondents noted that there was no capacity within Standard Stipend to allow saving for property purchase. Yet there are advantages to tied houses in that they are suitably located, meet provincial standards and facilitate clergy mobility. Moreover, the provision of tied housing is a tax-free form of remuneration because, being a necessary aspect of the job, it does not count as a benefit-in-kind.
The IRG is aware that the Personnel Committee has a subgroup currently considering issues of clergy expenses, including various tax aspects of tied housing. As this Group has yet to report, the IRG felt it would not be appropriate to consider the merits or otherwise of tied housing. The matter of retirement housing is dealt with in Section 6 below.
124
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Conclusions and recommendations on housing
For tax purposes, stipendiary clergy are ‘employed’ by their Charges and vestries have a responsibility under Canon 60 to care for the fabric of the rectory. Bishops have a general role of pastoral care and oversight for clergy and dioceses can provide support by maintaining an overview of accommodation provided locally, so that clergy can afford the running costs associated with such accommodation and so that clergy are provided with an environment in which they can live and from which they can exercise their ministry without it becoming an unnecessary burden.
The IRG recognises that many vestries take seriously their responsibility to provide and maintain suitable accommodation. However, it is apparent that issues remain. The IRG therefore recommends:
That vestries are again reminded of their obligations to maintain rectories under Canon 60.2 and to undertake a programme of regular maintenance to ensure their upkeep.
That dioceses (a) should take active steps to ensure that quinquennial surveys of rectories are properly instructed and carried out by suitably qualified personnel in a timely fashion; (b) should obtain copies of defect reports and ensure that remedial repairs are promptly undertaken; and (c) should make occasional inspections on request by clergy.
Where a vestry is unable to ensure appropriate maintenance of rectories, that Diocese takes active steps to arrange with the vestry that the required oversight and maintenance is carried out, appointing factors if necessary and recovering the associated costs from the Charge.
That the Provincial Buildings Committee reviews the current minimum standards for rectories with a view to making them more practicable for modern clergy family life and working practices.
That Dioceses are encouraged to review with clergy the suitability of their housing and, where appropriate, permit Charges (subject to Diocesan approval) to acquire replacement rectories that will better enable the exercise of ministry.
6. Retirement and Pensions
Defined Benefit vs Defined Contribution
The SEC Pension Scheme is unusually generous compared to most pension schemes available to professional employees in that it is a Defined Benefit Scheme, providing retirement benefits for life. Most schemes nowadays are Defined Contribution Schemes, leaving it to the employee to decide how much they wish to pay out of their earnings into a pension scheme to support them in retirement. Very few will contribute as much as 32.2% - the current level of contribution paid by vestries into the SEC Scheme. (The Church of England rate is 39.9% - 32.8% to fund future pensions and 7.1% for historic deficit recovery.)
125
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
It could be argued that the present arrangement is paternalistic; that it would be better to increase stipend by 22%, pay the Government minimum of 8% to a pension scheme and let clergy put aside what extra they wish.
This, in essence, is what the Church of Scotland did in 2012. Having found its Defined Benefit Scheme critically underfunded, it moved to a Defined Contribution Scheme (for new entrants to the ministry at least). The Church contributes 11.5% of stipend, rising to 14% if the minister contributes at least 2.5%. Most contribute 5%, but even so, that is putting into the Scheme only 19% of £34,577, equivalent to 24.3% of SEC Standard Stipend.
The SEC Scheme at least relieves clergy of much of the worry of retirement planning and the temptation not to save; and in this it fits with the logic that stipend (and benefits) should free the recipient from the concerns of life – for the duration of life. Few Survey respondents took issue with the adequacy of pension arrangements, expressing greater concern over the adequacy of stipend – though that may be a reflection of the relative remoteness of pension issues.
Pension benefits and costs
The last major review of SEC Pension Fund benefits took place in 2012/2013. Congregations had indicated that contributions any more than 35% of stipend would be unaffordable, and this resulted in some adjustments to the benefit structure, including raising retirement age to 67. The actuarial revaluation of the Pension Scheme in 2014 showed some recovery and, with the changes to the benefit structure in place, it was possible to reduce the contribution rate to 32.2%. The main benefit remains the payment per annum of 1/80th of final salary for every year of scheme membership up to a maximum of 42.
The next scheme valuation is due at the end of 2020, and will potentially be affected by market turbulence following the Coronavirus outbreak. As a result, it is not practicable at this time to make specific recommendations in relation to benefits or contribution rates. We would, however, wish to note:
that stipend increases are likely to have a knock-on effect in relation to the total amount of the employer pension contribution (even if there is no change in the rate of that contribution); and
if congregations previously stipulated 35% was the maximum rate affordable, that is likely to be an even firmer conviction now.
One means of restricting vestry contributions would be to require a contribution from clergy. However, this would be impracticable without an equivalent increase in stipend. As the 2016 Review Group observed:
Were the non-contributory aspect of the scheme to be altered in the future, the Review Group wishes simply to note, for present purposes, that the introduction of any form of compulsory member contribution would, in effect, have a negative effect on the overall value of stipend.
126
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
The Survey was not sent to retired clergy, so we have no evidence to tell us whether the current benefits are adequate. But individual circumstances are likely to vary widely. Some current retired clergy will have mortgage-free property, no dependents and state and other pensions to live on. Others may be faced with medical or care costs and rent. It will be up to Dioceses to support their retired clergy and may possibly have special funds for that purpose.
There are, of course, a number of retired clergy that are still active and able to supplement their pensions with locum fees. Some may wish to do that but are underutilised. We considered that there was a general need to support clergy as they transitioned into retirement since that did not automatically happen as a matter of practice. There was a need to help people prepare for retirement and explore what life as a retired cleric might actually involve.
Retirement housing
One topic that came up repeatedly in Survey, whether respondents were commenting on the adequacy/reasonableness of stipend or on housing and pensions, was the difficulty of getting onto the property ladder or saving to buy a house for retirement. This was a special problem for those who needed to buy in expensive locations like Edinburgh so as to be close to a support group of relatives and friends.
Some clergy, of course, had bought property many years ago when it was relatively cheap; others have savings from a previous career. But for new entrants, it is apparent that there is no capacity within the Standard Stipend for the level of savings required to pay a deposit on a house. For those earlier in their careers who wish to buy a property and rent it out, a further difficulty is that mortgages are harder to obtain for ‘buy-to-let’ arrangements.
The SEC does, of course, run a scheme for the provision of housing to retired clergy who have served at least ten years in Scotland but have no accommodation of their own. Available options include the purchase by the Province of a property (subject to a limit of £180,000) which the cleric would then occupy on the basis of a standard, and favourable, rent. There is also a facility for shared ownership where clergy have sufficient financial resources.
The Scheme, while currently vital, has its drawbacks. On the one hand, for those clergy who have struggled to save during their careers, it may be galling to see those who have not done so benefit from the Scheme. On the other, those who do rely on the Scheme may find the means testing element and the feeling of throwing themselves on the mercy of the Church to be demeaning.
In past years the scheme has not been greatly used. The total number of applications for retirement housing assistance in the 20 years to 2019 was 35 (excluding applications for rehousing). However, of these years, 2019 had been the busiest with five applications, possibly suggesting the start of a rising trend as more clergy approach retirement without the benefit of housing acquired when it was more affordable. We understand that the Retirement Housing Committee is concerned at
127
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report the potential level of demand and has considered data gathering in order to assist in future forecasting.
The IRG contemplated whether some form of financial allowance could be provided to assist clergy to obtain a mortgage on another property, or whether the Church itself could offer loans to clergy to enable them to fund some form of initial deposit. We recognised that anything requiring more money in the current climate was very difficult; also that there could be risks from the Province's point of view such as a fall in property values. Nevertheless, the growing inability of clergy to afford retirement housing was not just of concern to the individuals concerned, but also to the SEC, and it would be worth taking professional advice to see what might be the most appropriate and tax- efficient way of making greater provision for retirement savings.
Conclusions and recommendations on retirement matters
The Group considers that, apart from the matter of retirement housing, current pension provision in the SEC is reasonable. This may change, however, when the result of the 2020 actuarial valuation is known.
Accordingly, the Group makes no specific detailed recommendations in relation to clergy pensions. Instead, it suggests that the outcome of the pensions triennial valuation due at the end of 2020 be awaited, recognising that future levels of contribution rate will inevitably be considered in the light of that valuation. If the overall effect of the recommendations of this report, and the implications of the 2020 valuation, is a material increase in overall costs being borne by congregations, then it would urge that consideration be given to phasing the introduction of costs in a manner to allow sensible financial planning. If thought appropriate, that might include the possibility, subject to Pension Fund funding considerations, of any contribution rate increases which might otherwise be necessary, similarly being phased in. It is recognised that such considerations would be for the Pension Fund Trustees and the provincial Standing Committee, representing the Church as employer.
In relation to retirement housing, we are satisfied that the current Provincial Scheme remains appropriate, but predictions need to be made of potential future demand, and in the meantime research should be carried out into efficient ways of supporting and promoting saving by clergy for the acquisition of property.
The IRG therefore recommends:
That the format of future pension provision and its funding be considered in the light of the outcome of the triennial valuation due at the end of 2020.
That Dioceses should be encouraged to run pre-retirement courses to help clergy transition to retirement, and to continue providing service in retirement to the extent they wish to do so.
That professional advice is sought on effective means of providing financial assistance to clergy for the purchase of property.
128
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
APPENDIX 1 - Interim Review Group Remit
Interim Review of Clergy Stipends, Housing and Remit of 2016 Review Pensions – Remit Approved by Administration Board, September 2019
To undertake an interim review of current policy and To review current policy and provision in relation to the provision in relation to the remuneration, housing and remuneration and other benefits provided to stipendiary pensions benefits provided to stipendiary clergy and clergy and make recommendations to the make recommendations to the Administration Board for Administration Board for any changes thought to be any changes thought to be necessary or desirable. necessary or desirable.
The Review Group should have regard to the report of the Clergy Remuneration Package Review completed in 2016
This should include consideration of: - This should include consideration of: -
(a) Clergy Stipends:- (a) Clergy Stipends:- (i) the factors to be taken into account in (i) the factors to be taken into account in assessing the appropriate level of stipend for assessing the appropriate level of stipend for clergy (including bishops) clergy (including bishops)
(ii) whether current policy of setting Standard (ii) whether current policy of setting Standard Stipend with reference to the Church of Stipend with reference to the Church of England National Stipend benchmark should England National Stipend benchmark should continue continue
(b) Clergy Housing: the complex of issues concerning (b) Clergy Housing:- the relationship between tied and retirement (i) the complex of issues concerning the housing. relationship between tied and retirement housing.
(c) Clergy Expenses:- (i) whether current provision of reimbursement of expenses is adequate
(ii) whether the current system of question of relocation expenses is adequate
(c) Pensions: whether the Church’s current provision (d) Pensions: - is appropriate. (i) whether the Church’s current provision is appropriate.
(e) Other Benefits:- (i) The identification of any other benefits routinely provided to stipendiary clergy and the extent to which there may be any disparity in policy as between dioceses in relation to such benefits (including for example in relation to car loans) and if so whether steps should be taken to standardise provision. Composition of Review Body Composition of Review Body The group should comprise a lay convener, a Bishop, a The group should comprise a lay convener, a Bishop, a member of stipendiary clergy, a person with HR member of stipendiary clergy, and a person with HR experience (drawn from the provincial Personnel experience (drawn from the provincial Personnel Committee if any of the former are not also Personnel Committee if any of the former are not also Personnel Committee members). A representative of the SEC Committee members) Pension Fund 129
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
APPENDIX 2
Comparative Stipend Rates
A. Scottish Episcopal Church
Standard Stipend 2020: £27,000 Grade A Priest in 3rd and subsequent years, Deacon in 4th and subsequent years: 95% of Standard Stipend: £25,650 Grade B Priest in 1st and 2nd years, Deacon in 2nd and 3rd years: 92.5% Standard Stipend: £24,975 Grade C Deacon in 1st year: 90% of Standard Stipend: £24,300 Bishop’s Stipend (1.5 x Standard Stipend) £40,500
B. Church of England
The National Minimum Stipend from 1 April 2020: £25,265. Under common tenure all full-time office-holders must receive stipend, or stipend together with other income related to their office, of at least this amount.
The National Stipend Benchmark from 1 April 2020: £27,000.
Stipends for bishops and cathedral clergy for the year 2020/2021
Senior Clergy in Senior Clergy equivalent or higher starting on or after paid post before 1 April 2004 1 April 2004 Archbishop of Canterbury £85,070 - Archbishop of York £72,900 - Bishop of London £66,820 - Diocesan Bishops £46,180 £46,560 Suffragan Bishops £37,670 £38,210 Deans £37,670 £38,210 Archdeacon £36,830 £38,250 Same % increase as Residentiary Canons relevant Diocesan £31,130 Basic Stipend Increase from previous year 2% 2%
130
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
C. Church in Wales
Minimum Full-Time Stipend Levels from 1st January 2020
2020 % of Incumbent’s
(£ pa) Stipend (approx) Assistant Curate, Cathedral 21,559 85 Chaplain
Incumbent, Vicar in Rectorial Benefice, Cleric in Charge and 25,363 100 cleric appointed to an extra- parochial office Incumbent of a Rectorial 26,631 105 Benefice Residentiary Canon 29,167 115
Archdeacon 38,805 153
Dean 39,313 155
Assistant Bishop 43,117 170
Diocesan Bishop 46,922 185
Archbishop 50,726 200
The majority of clergy receive a stipend at incumbent/priest-in-charge level, and new appointments such as Associate Priests, Pioneer Priests and Priests in Mission Area are at this level (fulltime or part-time).
Clerics who are Area Dean (previously Rural Dean) receive an allowance of 10% of an incumbent’s stipend. In some dioceses the role of Ministry Area Leader embraces the responsibilities of Area Dean and they receive the 10% allowance as well. In some dioceses Ministry Area Leaders receive 5% of an incumbent’s stipend bringing their stipend to that of a Rector of a Rectorial Benefice.
Clergy receive fees for the occasional offices of funerals and marriages.
The main benefit provided to clerics will be the house. Council tax is paid for and parishes pay the water bill.
131
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
The 2020 sterling ‘minimum approved £30,195 (or €38,234 in RI) stipend’ (MAS) Clergy also receive a ‘locomotory’ £5,770 to £6,913 allowance based in part on HMRC approved rates (Northern Ireland) which is generally worth between: Children’s Allowances £100 per child over 11 in secondary school £400 per child in third level education up to age 23 Car loans and removal grants are also available Bishops 1.75 times MAS Archbishops receive 2.25-2.45 times the MAS respectively Curates a proportion of MAS dependent on years into their curacy
The Clergy Pensions Fund (defined benefit scheme) was closed to new entrants and future accruals with effect from 31 May 2013 and continues to pay pensions based on service accrued prior to that date. An annual levy on parishes/dioceses to support the solvency of the Fund is currently in place at a rate of 13% of Minimum Approved Stipend per cure.
The Clergy Defined Contribution (‘DC’) Pension Schemes (NI and RI) provide pensions for service from 1 June 2013 onwards. Parishes/dioceses currently contribute 10% of Minimum Approved Stipend to a member’s DC pension, and the member contributes 9%. Of the 10% parish/diocese contribution, some 2% goes towards death in service benefits.
E. Church of Scotland
Stipend Scale (+Associate Ministers) 2020 Point 1 £28,137
Point 2 £29,977
Point 3 £31,817
Point 4 £33,658
Point 5 £34,577
132
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
The scale points relate to experience, normally with annual progression up the scale.
The package includes a manse for a Parish Minister, but manse provision is generally not made for Associate Ministers who receive the same pay as stipend but are regarded as employees rather than office holders. Congregations pay Council Tax and the Minister pays utilities apart from phone and internet connection. Travel expenses are paid at 45p per mile pastoral mileage and 25p per mile for Presbytery or Assembly related meetings.
The Church of Scotland moved at the beginning of 2012 from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme due to a hole in the pension pot – which was later deemed not to be so bad at the next triennial evaluation. The defined contribution scheme is run by Legal and General. The employer pays a minimum contribution of 11.5% but if the minister pays 2.5% or higher then the employer contribution goes up to 14%. A lot are paying 5% which gives a 19% total.
The scheme operates as PensionFlex so tax is deducted after the deductions for pension. This means paying a lower NI contribution.
Under the defined benefit scheme (which is run by the Church of Scotland) it was possible to have an enhanced pension if required to retire early on health grounds. The DB scheme also paid pension to the deceased minister’s spouse at 50%.
Under the DC scheme ill-health is governed by an Act of Assembly on Long-term Illness and a Group Income Protection Plan. For the minister deemed unable to work again on health grounds stipend is paid for 15 months after which time the income protection scheme is charged for a third of stipend and the minister continues on payroll receiving that third of stipend until they reach state pension age. Death in service pays out at 5 times stipend and there is no spousal pension. A refund of what has been contributed to the pension fund would also be paid should the minister die in service.
F. Baptist Union of Scotland
The Trustees of the Baptist Union have set the Standard Stipend as follows:
Year Standard % Increase Manse Stipend value 2020 £24,000 2.35% £6,248 2019 £23,450 3.08% £6,144 2018 £22,750 1.11% £6,000
Please note that the manse value relates only to the calculation of Pensionable Income for the Baptist Pension Scheme.
Updated 27 July 2020
133
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
APPENDIX 3
Standard Stipend – has it kept pace with inflation and growth in average earnings?
One potential concern regarding the level of stipend paid is the extent to which increases in stipend rates have reflected levels of inflation and growth in earnings. This paper seeks to answer that question.
The attached schedule details Standard Stipend, RPI, CPI and changes in Average Earnings for 1993 – 2020 and provides comparisons between the various indices and the rate of increase in Standard Stipend.
There are a number of inflationary measures that could be used none of which are likely to be a perfect comparison. RPI and CPI are however the most commonly used and generally accepted measures of inflation and appear to be a reasonable benchmarks against which to measure the extent to which Standard Stipend has retained its real value. CPI is likely to be more appropriate than RPI given that it does not account for many costs of home ownership which would not be incurred by most stipendiary clergy. (see extract of the ONS brief guide to Consumer Price Indices below). A variety of earnings statistics are produced for different industry sectors and regions – the one used reflects all full-time workers across the UK.
A number of averages have also been calculated to provide comparisons over a period of years rather than focussing on year on year comparisons.
In considering the question it is worth noting that, following the decision in 2000 to increase Standard Stipend to achieve parity with the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark, there was a period of 5 years (2002 – 2006) in which there were “inflation plus” increases in Standard Stipend. Analysis of stipend trends will therefore be influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of that catch-up period.
The averages and the extent to which growth in Standard Stipend compares with changes in the three inflationary measures are summarised in the following table (the table from the 2016 report is provided for comparison purposes):
134
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Averages Stipend RPI Stipend CPI Stipend Earnings Stipend increase less RPI less CPI less earnings
Over last 28 years 3.36% 2.80% 0.56% 2.13% 1.24% 3.23% 0.14% Over last 25 years 3.31% 2.83% 0.48% 2.03% 1.28% 3.16% 0.15% Over last 20 years 2.80% 2.85% (0.05%) 2.05% 0.75% 2.83% (0.03%) Over last 15 years 2.23% 2.97% (0.74%) 2.33% (0.10%) 2.50% (0.28%) Over last 10 years 1.85% 3.07% (1.22%) 2.24% (0.39%) 2.17% (0.32%) Over last 5 years 1.81% 2.46% (0.65%) 1.54% 0.27% 2.62% (0.82%)
Table from 2016 report for comparison
Averages Stipend RPI Stipend CPI Stipend Earnings Stipend increase less RPI less CPI less earnings
Over last 24 years 3.61% 2.80% 0.81% 2.16% 1.45% 3.26% 0.35% Over last 20 years 3.41% 2.80% 0.61% 2.02% 1.39% 3.20% 0.21% Over last 15 years 2.95% 2.84% 0.11% 2.16% 0.79% 2.65% 0.30% Over last 10 years 2.05% 3.04% (0.99%) 2.51% (0.46%) 2.11% (0.06%) Over last 5 years 1.90% 2.96% (1.06%) 2.28% (0.38%) 1.70% 0.20%
An alternative way of addressing the same question is to consider what Standard Stipend would be in 2020 if it had changed in line with specific inflationary measures over a period of time. The table below provides comparisons using two different base years – 1993 (the earliest year for which data has been collected) and 2006 (the year in which parity with Church of England National Stipend Benchmark was achieved).
135
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Base year - 1993 Base year - 2006 difference difference
Standard Stipend - 2020 27,000 27,000 RPI linked 23,300 3,700 30,815 (3,815) CPI Linked 19,253 7,747 28,272 (1,272) Average Earnings Linked 25,853 1,147 28,400 (1,400)
Table from 2016 report for comparison
Base year - 1993 Base year - 2006 difference difference
Standard Stipend - 2016 25,061 25,061 RPI linked 20,845 4,216 27,568 (2,507) CPI Linked 17,841 7,220 26,199 (1,138) Average Earnings Linked 22,945 2,116 25,205 (144)
Observations:
Over the longer term growth in Standard Stipend compares favourably with the three selected inflationary measures – with averages for all three over 28 and 25 years indicating greater than inflationary growth in Standard Stipend. This is also illustrated by the extent to which Standard stipend exceeds “inflation linked” stipends from using 1993 as the base year. More recent data (ie figures for 20 year or less averages) however indicate a less favourable comparison and suggest that Standard Stipend is not keeping pace with inflation and earnings. The impact of the ‘inflation plus’ increases to achieve parity with Church of England National Stipend Benchmark in 2006 will of course be a factor in the 20 years or less figures.
In the past five years stipend increases have compared reasonably favourably with CPI – stipend increases being in excess of CPI in three out of five years. Stipend increase have however been below RPI and earnings increases.
The last report was produced at time where earnings increases were modest – following a period of recession and the financial crash. Earnings since then have enjoyed larger increases – in excess of Standard Stipend increases.
136
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Conclusion
Any claim that Standard Stipend is / is not keeping pace with inflation will be heavily dependent on the inflationary measure used and the time period being considered. Using the commonly used RPI and CPI measures there appears to be some justification to the claims that in recent years (and importantly, since achieving parity with Church of England National Stipend Benchmark) Standard Stipend has failed to keep pace with inflation. This is also increasingly the case for comparisons with earnings.
Malcolm G Bett 19 May 2020
Extract from ‘Consumer price indices, a brief guide: 2017’
Currently the coverage of CPIH and CPI is identical, except for the inclusion of a measure of owner occupiers’ housing costs in the first. The RPI includes certain items relating to housing costs (such as mortgage interest payments) that are not included in the CPIH and CPI. Conversely there are also some services covered by the CPIH and CPI – such as charges for financial services – which are not in the RPI.
137
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Standard Stipend
Percentage RPI Stipend CPI Stipend Earnings Stipend Year Stipend increase less RPI less CPI less earnings (note 1 & 2) (note 1 & 3) (note 1 & 4)
£ % % % % 1993 11,160 3.9% 3.7 0.21% 4.3 (0.39%) 4.8 (0.88%) 1994 11,304 1.3% 1.6 (0.31%) 2.5 (1.21%) 2.8 (1.54%) 1995 12,000 6.2% 2.4 3.76% 2.0 4.16% 3.7 2.49% 1996 12,852 7.1% 3.5 3.60% 2.6 4.50% 2.9 4.20% 1997 13,764 7.1% 2.4 4.70% 2.5 4.60% 4.2 2.92% 1998 14,340 4.2% 3.1 1.08% 1.8 2.38% 4.9 (0.76%) 1999 14,940 4.2% 3.4 0.78% 1.6 2.58% 4.2 0.03% 2000 15,570 4.2% 1.5 2.72% 1.3 2.92% 6.3 (2.03%) 2001 16,236 4.3% 3.0 1.28% 0.8 3.48% 4.8 (0.49%) 2002 16,920 4.2% (note 5) 1.8 2.41% 1.2 3.01% 2.5 1.70% 2003 17,628 4.2% (note 5) 1.7 2.48% 1.3 2.88% 3.5 0.69% 2004 18,360 4.2% (note 5) 2.9 1.25% 1.4 2.75% 4.0 0.14% 2005 19,420 5.8% (note 5) 3.0 2.77% 1.3 4.47% 4.3 1.48% 2006 20,460 5.4% (note 5) 2.8 2.56% 2.1 3.26% 4.3 1.07% 2007 20,980 2.5% 3.2 (0.66%) 2.3 0.24% 3.6 (1.09%) 2008 21,600 3.0% 4.3 (1.34%) 2.3 0.66% 3.4 (0.47%) 2009 22,250 3.0% 4.0 (0.99%) 3.6 (0.59%) 3.2 (0.23%) 2010 22,470 1.0% (0.5) 1.49% 2.2 (1.21%) 1.2 (0.25%) 2011 22,810 1.5% 4.6 (3.09%) 3.3 (1.79%) 2.3 (0.76%) 2012 23,270 2.0% 5.2 (3.18%) 4.5 (2.48%) 1.8 0.23% 2013 23,740 2.0% 3.2 (1.18%) 2.8 (0.78%) 0.9 1.14% 2014 24,210 2.0% 3.0 (1.02%) 2.6 (0.62%) 1.5 0.46% 2015 24,690 2.0% 2.4 (0.42%) 1.5 0.48% 2.1 (0.15%) 2016 25,061 1.5% 1.0 0.50% 0.0 1.50% 1.9 (0.38%) 2017 25,440 1.5% 1.8 (0.29%) 0.7 0.81% 1.8 (0.34%) 2018 25,950 2.0% 3.6 (1.60%) 2.7 (0.70%) 3.2 (1.22%) 2019 26,470 2.0% 3.3 (1.30%) 2.5 (0.50%) 3.3 (1.32%) 2020 27,000 2.0% 2.6 (0.60%) 1.8 0.20% 2.8 (0.83%)
Averages Stipend RPI Stipend CPI Stipend Earnings Stipend increase less RPI less CPI less earnings
Over last 28 years 3.36% 2.80% 0.56% 2.13% 1.24% 3.23% 0.14% Over last 25 years 3.31% 2.83% 0.48% 2.03% 1.28% 3.16% 0.15% Over last 20 years 2.80% 2.85% (0.05%) 2.05% 0.75% 2.83% (0.03%) Over last 15 years 2.23% 2.97% (0.74%) 2.33% (0.10%) 2.50% (0.28%) Over last 10 years 1.85% 3.07% (1.22%) 2.24% (0.39%) 2.17% (0.32%) Over last 5 years 1.81% 2.46% (0.65%) 1.54% 0.27% 2.62% (0.82%)
Notes
1 Annual inflation rates shown are for preceding year (ie RPI figure shown for 2016 is that for 2015) 2 Source: ONS RPI all items: percentage change over 12 months (Table CZBH) 3 Source: ONS CPI all items: percentage change over 12 months (Table D7G7) 4 Derived from National Average Earning Index (to 2009) and Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2009 onwards) 5 Stipend increases 2002 - 2006 reflect implementation of policy of parity with with CoE National Stipend Benchmark
138
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
APPENDIX 4
Extract from HR Dept Report on Survey of Stipendiary Clergy
1. Participation Pool
The Provincial Administration Board has established a Group to review current policy and provision in relation to the remuneration provided to stipendiary clergy. The review will cover stipend, housing, and pension.
The Review Group is keen to consult stipendiary clergy on these matters and would be most grateful for your response to the questions set out below.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The information you supply will be treated in the strictest confidence and will be used only in the context of the work of the Review Group.
The Scottish Episcopal Church Standard Stipend is currently set at a level equivalent to the Church of England National Stipend Benchmark. Standard Stipend for 2020 is £27,000, with housing provided. Standard Stipend for curates is a percentage of this. Clergy are also automatically enrolled in a non-contributory defined benefit pension scheme.
66 participants responded to the survey overall out of the 145 it was sent to.
2. Summary
Overall, the respondent results displayed that the majority of Clergy within SEC would like additional support either by increasing the Standard Stipend or by providing further support and benefits.
3. Adequacy of Current Standard Stipend
Overview:
Overall, 71.21% of the respondents who participated in the study feel that the current level of standard stipend is adequate. 31.82% responded that they do not feel the current level of standard stipend is adequate. 139
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
The general feedback from those who answered ‘no’ was that the stipend provided would not suffice for a family of more than one person. It was also felt that the stipend was not in line with the national average wage or the current cost of living.
“If your answer to question 1 is ‘no’ please give reasons”.
25 individuals left comments in response to the above statement.
4. Reasonableness of Current Standard Stipend
Overview:
68.18% of the clergy responded yes to the Standard Stipend being a reasonable amount.
However, 33.33% of the respondents said ‘no’ and felt the Standard Stipend is not a reasonable amount.
The overall feedback from those who responded ‘no’ was again because they felt that someone with no family could manage on the current Standard Stipend however those with partners or children would struggle. The fact that the Church of Scotland stipend is higher than the Scottish Episcopal Church was also raised as a point of concern.
5. Cruciality of Additional Income
Overview:
140
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
42.42% of the Clergy responded ‘yes’ to this question, stating that their partners income was crucial to ensure their financial stability.
The minority of 21.21% answered ‘no’ in response which indicates their partners income where applicable is not crucial to ensuring their financial stability.
36.36% of respondents who the questions were asked said this was not applicable to their personal circumstances. Therefore 24 of the total 66 respondents this did not apply to.
6. Standard Stipend as Sole Source of Income
Overview:
Only 3.03% of the Clergy respondents answered that relying on the Standard Stipend as their sole source of income would be ‘Very Easy’.
Slightly more respondents answered that doing so would be ‘Easy’ at 7.58%.
The majority of Clergy respondents at 36.36% claimed they would find living on the Standard Stipend income alone ‘Neither Easy nor Difficult’.
A close 34.85% of the respondents felt that this would be ‘Difficult’ to do.
Lastly 18.18% of participants responded that they would find relying on the Standard Stipend as their only income would be ‘Very Difficult’.
7. Overview of Answers
Overall, the feedback from the participants of the survey for Question 6 was that without any other income to their home, especially those who have a family would not live comfortably on the Standard Stipend alone. It was felt that not all living costs are considered in the Stipend amount and that some may be able to live on the amount however there would be nothing left over for luxuries or savings.
141
Administration Board Clergy Remuneration Package Interim Review Group Report
Additional Feedback to SEC Clergy
Overview:
Do you have any further comments or suggestions relating to stipend, pension or housing that would help the Review Group in its work? (Please note that the Group’s remit does not extend to working conditions such as time off and leave, or to other matters covered in the 2019 clergy well-being survey).
Out of the 66 respondents of the survey, 48 members of the Clergy left comments or suggestions which they felt would be helpful for the Review Group in their work.
The theme that came through from the general Clergy is that housing can be older buildings and therefore the heating costs and maintenance costs can be substantial.
Other issues included pensions and retirement housing.
142
Personnel Committee Complaints Procedure
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
The Scottish Episcopal Church recognises that a person with a complaint or grievance must be listened to, and their complaint should be properly and fairly considered and addressed appropriately and confidentially.
Complaints concerning issues of Safeguarding
If you have information about a safeguarding situation where a child or adult is in immediate danger or requires immediate medical attention call the emergency services on 999. Do not delay.
Also, any complaint concerning a safeguarding matter, whether or not referred to the emergency services as mentioned above, should be referred immediately to the Provincial Safeguarding Officer on [email protected] (tel – 0131- 225-6357 or 07702-793553) who will advise on future process.
Complaints concerning issues other than safeguarding
The Church has different procedures for handling complaints, depending upon the nature of the complaint and the role of the person about whom the complaint is made.
Complaints may be made by a person directly and personally affected by the matter about which the complaint is made. They should be made promptly following the incident or circumstances giving rise to the complaint. Unless there is good reason not to have acted sooner, a complaint should normally be made within one month of the incident or circumstances in question. Complaints cannot be made about decisions or actions that have been taken as part of or as a result of following legal or canonical processes or protocols, due process and any appeal processes. A matter which is the subject of a separate grievance procedure or canonical process falls to be dealt with under such procedure or process and cannot be separately processed under a complaints procedure.
A high standard of integrity and service is expected of our bishops, clergy. laity and staff in the Church. Normally, that standard is met but, occasionally, individuals may fall short of what is expected. As a general principle, where the complaint is a minor matter, you are encouraged to share your concerns with the bishop, clergy or lay person involved to seek a mutual resolution. However, it is recognised that that may not always resolve the matter and that further process is required.
Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy were adopted by the General Synod in 2005 and are available at: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/vestry- resources/appointments-and-employment/professional-conduct-of-clergy/
A Code of Conduct for Conveners and Members of Boards and Committees of the General Synod was adopted in 2015 (revised 2018) and is available at: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/Code-of-Conduct-for-Boards- and-Committee-members-2018.pdf
143 Personnel Committee Complaints Procedure
What follows below sets out general guidance relating to various categories of individual. It is not an exhaustive list and an individual with a complaint may wish to raise the matter with the charity trustees responsible for the particular charitable body in relation to which the complaint arises (such as vestry in the case of a local congregation or the provincial Standing Committee in the case of the General Synod).
Complaints against clergy (other than a diocesan bishop)
Where your complaint is about a member of clergy, there are different ways to respond: –
1. When it is a minor matter, you are encouraged to share your concerns with the clergy person in question and seek a mutual resolution. 2. When that is insufficient or if the nature of the complaint makes that inadvisable, contact should be made with the Diocesan Bishop, who will arrange for the complaint to be taken up with the clergy person concerned so that the matter can be dealt with and rectified. Any notification of a complaint must be made in writing and include your name and contact details, clear details of the complaint, together with any supporting evidence, and a description of steps taken, if any, to resolve the issue before raising it with the Bishop. 3. Only when the problem is more serious and may amount to clergy misconduct warranting disciplinary action, will the provisions of the clergy discipline canon, Canon 54, apply, in which case a formal accusation may be lodged with the Secretary to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee, whose contact details are available from the Secretary General, General Synod Office, 21 Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh EH12 5EE.
Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy are available at: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/vestry-resources/appointments-and- employment/professional-conduct-of-clergy/
Complaints against a Diocesan Bishop
Where your complaint is about a bishop, there are different ways to respond: –
1. When it is a minor matter, you are encouraged to share your concerns with the Bishop in question and seek a mutual resolution. 2. When that is insufficient or if the nature of the complaint makes that inadvisable, contact should be made with the Primus, who is chair of the College of Bishops, (or if the complaint concerns the Primus, with the Senior Bishop), who will arrange for the complaint to be taken up with the bishop concerned so that the matter can be dealt with and rectified. The Senior Bishop is the bishop, other than the Primus, who has served longest as a diocesan bishop in the Scottish Episcopal Church. The Primus (or Senior Bishop) may appoint an appropriate individual to act on their behalf in processing any such complaint. Any notification of a complaint must be made in writing and include your name and contact details, clear details of the complaint, together with any supporting evidence, and a description of steps taken, if any, to resolve the issue before raising it with the Primus or Senior Bishop.
144 Personnel Committee Complaints Procedure
3. If the complaint constitutes a grievance, a separate Grievance Procedure under Canon 53.10 and Appendix 29 to the Code of Canons is available to clergy, in which case that procedure should be followed. 4. Only when the problem is more serious and may amount to clergy misconduct warranting disciplinary action, will the provisions of the clergy discipline canon, Canon 54, apply, in which case a formal accusation may be lodged with the Secretary to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee, whose contact details are available from the Secretary General, General Synod Office, 21 Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh EH12 5EE.
Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy are available at: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/vestry-resources/appointments-and- employment/professional-conduct-of-clergy/
Complaints against a lay person in the context of a Congregation
Where your complaint is about a lay person in a congregational context, there are different ways to respond: –
1. When it is a minor matter, you are encouraged to share your concerns with the individual concerned and seek a mutual resolution. 2. When that is insufficient, or if the nature of the complaint makes that inadvisable, you should contact your Rector or Priest-in-Charge, so that the matter can be dealt with and rectified. 3. When that is insufficient, you should consider with your Rector or Priest-in- Charge, whether you or they should raise the matter with the Diocesan Bishop. Any notification of such a complaint to the Diocesan Bishop must be made in writing and include your name and contact details, clear details of the complaint, together with any supporting evidence, and a description of steps taken, if any, to resolve the issue before raising it with the Diocesan Bishop. 4. The means of resolving a complaint affecting a lay member of the church are limited but, after due consideration, the Bishop may recommend some form of mediation, may issue a letter of warning or reprimand to the individual in question or may, in the case of a complaint against a congregational officer or vestry member, invite the matter to be considered by the vestry, which may have powers in appropriate circumstances to remove an individual from their office or vestry position.
Complaints against a member of a diocesan or provincial board or committee
Where your complaint is about a member of a diocesan or provincial board or committee, there are different ways to respond: –
1. When it is a minor matter, you are encouraged to share your concerns with the individual in question and seek a mutual resolution. 2. When that is insufficient, or the nature of the complaint makes that inadvisable, you should contact the Diocesan Secretary at the appropriate Diocesan Office in the case of a complaint against a diocesan board or committee member, or the Secretary General at the General Synod Office, 21 Grosvenor Crescent,
145 Personnel Committee Complaints Procedure
Edinburgh EH12 5EE in the case of a complaint against a provincial board or committee member.
The Code of Conduct for Conveners and Members of Boards and Committees of the General Synod is available at: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp- content/uploads/Code-of-Conduct-for-Boards-and-Committee-members-2018.pdf
Complaints against a member of diocesan or provincial staff
Where your complaint is about a member of diocesan or provincial staff, there are different ways to respond: –
1. If the complaint is by one member of staff about another, the processes available in internal staff grievance procedures should be followed.
2. If the complaint is by someone who is not a member of staff then:- a. When it is a minor matter, you are encouraged to share your concerns with the staff member in question and seek a mutual resolution. b. When that is insufficient, or the nature of the complaint makes that inadvisable, you should contact the Diocesan Secretary at the appropriate Diocesan Office (in the case of a complaint against a member of diocesan staff) or the Secretary General at the General Synod Office, 21 Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh EH12 5EE (in the case of a complaint against a member of provincial staff). If your complaint relates to the Diocesan Secretary, you should contact the Diocesan Bishop and if your complaint concerns the Secretary General, you should contact the Convener of the Provincial Standing Committee.
Complaints by a member of diocesan or provincial staff
Complaints by a member of diocesan or provincial staff relating to a matter relating to their work or working conditions or the behaviour or conduct of others toward them should normally be raised under the grievance procedure applicable to their employment.
Complaints relating to training at the Scottish Episcopal Institute
Complaints relating to matters concerning training and formation are dealt with by specific policies in place within the Scottish Episcopal Institute and the Common Awards programme, details of which are available from the IME1-3 Student Handbook available at: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/vocation-and- ministry/sei/
146 Personnel Committee Bullying and Harassment Policy PERSONNEL COMMITTEE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH BULLYING AND HARASSMENT POLICY
1. Policy statement on bullying and harassment
1.1. We seek to be a Church where everyone feels safe. Therefore, our policy is that everyone shall be treated and treat others with dignity and respect, free from harassment and bullying. All clergy and lay people should ensure that they understand what types of behaviour are unacceptable and consider whether their words or conduct could be offensive. We believe that we all have the right to worship and work in an environment which is free from any form of harassment and/or bullying. The bullying or harassment of any of our clergy, staff or laity is unacceptable behaviour.
1.2. All clergy and vestry members should be aware of this policy and ensure that they understand what types of behaviour are unacceptable. It should be drawn to the attention of vestries at their first meeting after each church AGM, whether or not the membership of the vestry has changed.
1.3. This policy may be amended should it be considered appropriate.
2. Bullying
2.1. Bullying is behaviour which may be reasonably described as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting, an abuse or misuse of power that undermines, humiliates, denigrates or injures the recipient. Bullying may be physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct.
2.2. Behaviour that is considered bullying by one person may be considered firm management by another (although it should not be assumed that bullying can only occur in a “top-down” direction). Most people will agree on extreme cases of bullying and harassment but it is sometimes the ‘grey’ areas that cause most problems. In the Scottish Episcopal Church, unacceptable behaviour includes (this is not an exhaustive list): 2.2.1. spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone (particularly because of age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation); 2.2.2. sending or copying communications (whether electronic or hard copy) that are critical about someone to others who do not need to know, ridiculing or demeaning someone, picking on them or deliberately setting them up to fail; 2.2.3. unfair treatment, deliberately excluding a person from communications or meetings without good reason, overbearing or intimidating supervision and/or other misuse of power. 2.3. Legitimate, reasonable and constructive criticism of the performance or behaviour of a cleric or member of laity, or reasonable instructions given to a cleric or member of laity, on their own do not amount to bullying.
147 Personnel Committee Bullying and Harassment Policy 3. Harassment
3.1. Harassment involves subjecting an individual to conduct which is unwanted and where the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating the victim's dignity, or creating an environment that is intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive to the victim.
3.2. Harassment also occurs where the perpetrator engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and that conduct has the purpose or the effect referred to above. An individual of any gender may be the victim of sexual harassment.
3.3. Harassment can occur whether or not it is intended to be offensive, as it is the effect on the victim which is important, not whether or not the perpetrator intended to harass them. Harassment is unacceptable even if it is unintentional.
3.4. Harassment may relate to: 3.4.1. age; 3.4.2. disability (past or present); 3.4.3. gender; 3.4.4. gender reassignment; 3.4.5. race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins; 3.4.6. religion or belief; 3.4.7. sex; 3.4.8. sexual orientation; 3.4.9. trade union membership (or non-membership); 3.4.10. stipendiary or non stipendiary status; and 3.4.11. willingness to challenge harassment (leading to victimisation).
3.5. The phrase 'relate to' is very wide and therefore covers harassment based on a perception of another person (for example that the person is gay, or is disabled, whether or not this perception is correct and even if the perpetrator knows that their perception is, in fact, wrong).
3.6. Whilst not an exhaustive list, forms of harassment include: 3.6.1. physical contact and obscene or offensive gestures; 3.6.2. ‘jokes’, ‘banter’, gossip, slander, offensive language, shouting and/or behaving in an intimidating manner; 3.6.3. offensive, insensitive or sectarian songs or messages (including electronic communications); 3.6.4. displaying offensive posters or pictures, graffiti, emblems, flags, offensive communications and screen savers etc; 3.6.5. isolation or non-co-operation and exclusion; 3.6.6. coercion for sexual favours and sexually suggestive remarks; 3.6.7. pressure to participate in political/religious groups; 3.6.8. intrusion by pestering, spying and stalking; and 148 Personnel Committee Bullying and Harassment Policy
3.6.9. continued requests for social activities after it has been made clear that such suggestions are not welcome and verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
3.7. Harassment is unlawful in many cases and individuals may be held personally liable for their actions. In some cases, their behaviour may also amount to a criminal offence.
4. Bullying and Harassment procedure
All allegations of bullying and/or harassment will be dealt with seriously, promptly and, as far as possible, in confidence. Anyone who feels that they have been subject to bullying and/or harassment must not hesitate to raise their concerns using the Scottish Episcopal Church Complaints Procedure.
149 Personnel Committee Clergy Time Off Guidelines
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
CLERGY TIME OFF
One of the issues which came out of the Clergy Wellbeing Review was that of ‘time off’.
There is no specific canonical provision setting out details of clergy time off or holidays. The Digest of Resolutions requires the vestry to pay for the services of a locum tenens for five Sundays each year to enable clergy holidays.
A number of years ago, following the Clergy Personnel Commission report, received by General Synod in 2000, Guidelines were adopted by the Administration Board and which were most recently revised in 2010. Those Guidelines envisage a six-day working week for stipendiary clergy, with four weeks holiday plus an additional 6 days after each of Christmas and Easter, giving a total of 36 days holiday each year.
Following discussion in the Administration Board with members the Personnel Committee, it is proposed that the Guidelines be updated. The proposed new Guidelines envisage two days off per week, five weeks holiday (25 days) plus the equivalent of 10 public holidays (it being recognised that clergy will in fact work some public holidays – such as Christmas and so such days would be taken as desired). That equates to a total of 35 days off each year. Working a five-day week would be similar to most of the working population in this country. The current expectation of a maximum of five Sundays off will remain.
The current pandemic has created issues for our clergy that could not even have been imagined before this. They have had to become more imaginative in offering services and support online, by telephone, by mail. For many, that was and continues to be a source of anxiety. Some have had to be shielding and have therefore been not able to move around in the manner that non-shielding clergy have been able to do. Caring for their congregation has taken on a whole new meaning. Concerns about mental health, unemployment, poor finances have multiplied. These issues have all ended up at their door.
I believe that this change will also support existing clergy who have young families and/or caring responsibilities.
The proposed change to the Guidelines is one which will also send a message to our clergy that they do matter, namely that the Scottish Episcopal Church has listened and cares about them, their families and their wellbeing.
Jan Whiteside Convener Personnel Committee
April 2021
150 Personnel Committee Clergy Time Off Guidelines
DRAFT GUIDELINES CONCERNING HOLIDAY AND “TIME OFF” PROVISION FOR STIPENDIARY CLERGY
The Administration Board recommends that stipendiary clergy and vestries observe the following as a minimum provision for clergy holidays and other “time-off”:-
Holidays
1 Five weeks basic holiday per annum (25 days), plus an additional ten days being equivalent to annual public holidays.
2 The congregation should be responsible for funding the costs of a “locum tenens” for up to five Sundays per annum to enable the clergy to take a holiday.
3 On the basis of a five day “working week” for clergy, the intention of the above provision is therefore that clergy should have annual leave of 35 days of which no more than 5 should be Sundays. (As mentioned above, bank/public) holidays are to be regarded as included within this provision rather than in addition to it.
Time Off
4 At least two days off in every seven.
General
5 Vestries should have power to augment the minimum standard set out above where exceptional circumstances pertain.
6 Vestries should ensure that they, and their congregations, are aware of and abide by the arrangements made with their clergy in relation to holidays and time-off and should encourage clergy to take holiday and time-off in accordance with such arrangements.
7 The above principles should apply to part-time appointments on a pro-rata basis.
151 Standing Committee Report on Ethical Investment
STANDING COMMITTEE
Ethical Investment – Pooled Funds Policy
In response to a motion adopted at the meeting of General Synod 2019, the Standing Committee established an Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG).
Synod 2020 was provided with a detailed Interim Report produced by the EIAG. As identified in that report, one of the next matters expected to be addressed by the EIAG was that of investment in pooled funds by the provincial Unit Trust Pool.
The EIAG has in the limited time since the December 2020 meeting of Synod worked diligently on this matter and Standing Committee welcomes its proposed policy framework for investment in pooled funds, a copy of which is appended. Standing Committee is grateful to the convener of the EIAG, Alan McLean QC and its members for their work and commends the proposed framework to Synod, which will be proposed for adoption by a motion included on the Synod agenda.
Bridget Campbell Convener, Standing Committee April 2021
152 Standing Committee Ethical Investment Advisory Group
STANDING COMMITTEE
ETHICAL INVESTMENT ADVISORY GROUP of the SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH
PROPOSED POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTMENT OF SEC UNIT TRUST POOL MONIES IN POOLED FUNDS March 2021
1. The SEC Unit Trust Pool (“UTP”) was established to provide the Dioceses and charges of the Scottish Episcopal Church with the opportunity to have their investments managed along with those of the General Synod. This provides investors in the UTP with access to professional fund management whilst benefitting from reduced management fees associated with economies of scale. All of the General Synod’s investments are held in the UTP. Dioceses and charges of the SEC are not required to hold their investments in the UTP and not all choose to do so. The majority of the UTP (approximately 65%) comprises the General Synod’s investments – the balance (approximately 35%) comprises investments held by Dioceses and about 180 charges. The Investment Committee of the SEC has responsibility for the UTP, under the supervision of the Standing Committee, who are the charity trustees for the General Synod. 2. The EIAG recognises that UTP investment decisions and the choice of investment managers are ultimately a matter for the Investment Committee, informed by, amongst other things, the advice of the EIAG insofar as that advice has been accepted by Standing Committee. 3. The EIAG recommended in its interim report dated 3rd September 2020 that the use of pooled funds should not be excluded for the UTP. This recommendation was received by Standing Committee and General Synod in 2020. We here give the rationale for this recommendation and a proposed policy framework by which we recommend its implementation. 4. By “pooled funds”, we mean investments in holdings that are themselves comprised fundamentally of collections of other investments selected and managed by a fund manager. Investors buy units in a pooled fund rather than owning shares directly. Examples of pooled funds are unit trusts, investment trusts and other professionally managed collective investment schemes. Pooled funds are contrasted with “direct investment” where shares in a particular company are purchased and held in the name of the investor. 5. We understand from the Investment Committee that investment in pooled funds is a valid and important strategy by which the UTP can be invested so as to meet its objectives. These particular advantages have been cited: (a) pooled funds can minimise volatility (fluctuation) in the overall value of the UTP, e.g. by spreading investment over multiple asset types;
153 Standing Committee Ethical Investment Advisory Group
(b) they can diversify the UTP so as to minimise investment risk (e.g. loss through businesses failing) by spreading investment over a wider range of investments than is practicable with direct investment alone; (c) they can maximise overall returns, e.g. by combining within a single investment assets which offer particular potential for capital growth alongside those which offer dependable income; (d) they can access investment opportunities which might otherwise be hard for smaller investors such as the UTP to access, for example in commercial property; (e) they can reduce average costs of highly-skilled investment management because the costs of managing the assets within the pooled fund are spread amongst all those investing in the fund; and (f) some individual pooled funds have ethically-focussed remits that may accord generally with the ethical values of the SEC and/or positively promote investment which reflects the SEC’s values, e.g. in clean energy generation and new technology to address issues of climate change (“impact investment”). 6. There is nonetheless a danger that investment in pooled funds may jeopardise the SEC’s approach to ethical investment, in that a pooled fund might at some point in time be invested partly in one or more entities which the UTP would not choose to invest in directly for ethical reasons. 7. Accordingly, the EIAG recommends the following policy framework for pooled fund investment for the UTP: a) If the Investment Committee is considering investing, or continuing to invest, in a particular pooled fund, it should review, and consider the suitability of, the pooled fund against the SEC’s broader policies on ethical investment at the material time, including any policies on ethical exclusions, the integration of environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors into investment management, stewardship and the desirability of impact investment. The Investment Committee should also consider how easy it will be in future to review the exposure of the pooled fund to investments which would not be permitted to be held directly under the SEC’s policies. b) The Investment Committee should not invest in a pooled fund if, as a result of such investment, more than 1% of the UTP’s total funds will be invested ultimately in businesses in which the UTP would not hold any direct investment on ethical grounds. The figure of 1% is chosen as a de minimis figure that allows some flexibility, given the practical difficulties for the Investment Committee and its selected investment managers in tracking the entities invested in, within pooled funds over time, and in monitoring what business fields each entity is involved in at any given time. c) The Investment Committee should review pooled funds held by the UTP on an annual basis so as to consider the continued appropriateness of the UTP investing in each pooled fund, and whether this policy framework is being complied with overall. d) If the Investment Committee is of the view, on such a review, that the holding of a particular pooled fund within the UTP has come to jeopardise
154 Standing Committee Ethical Investment Advisory Group
compliance with the 1% limit set out above, it should so report forthwith to Standing Committee along with their explanation as to how that situation has arisen and their recommendation as to the appropriate way to proceed, bearing in mind Standing Committee’s fiduciary duties in relation to the UTP and the need for efficiency and economy in management thereof. Standing Committee may then approve that recommendation or require its amendment. The Investment Committee will then forthwith implement the recommendation as approved (with or without amendment) by Standing Committee. e) If between such annual reviews it comes to the notice of the Investment Committee that compliance with the 1% limit has been so jeopardised, it may accelerate such a report to Standing Committee, notwithstanding that the time for the annual review provided for at (c) above may be far off. Standing Committee will have the same powers in those circumstances as under para (d) above.
155 Standing Committee Elections and Appointments
ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS TO PROVINCIAL BODIES
1. Institute Council: Membership
Members of the Institute Council are appointed by General Synod on the recommendation of the Standing Committee following consultation with the College of Bishops. Two vacancies arise in 2021.
Ms Patsy Thomson, lay reader in the Diocese of Moray, Ross and Caithness, this year completes a first term of office on the Council. The Standing Committee, following consultation with the College of Bishops, nominates Ms Thomson to serve for a second term.
The second vacancy arises as result of the stepping down of the Rev Prof David Jasper from the Council. The Council has expressed a desire to strengthen its ecumenical links (the Digest of Resolutions enables the possibility of up to two ecumenical members being appointed to the Council). In the light of this, the Standing Committee, following consultation with the College of Bishops, nominates the Rev Stewart Cutler to be appointed as a member of the Institute Council. A brief CV of Mr Cutler is as follows:
Education: 2017: Diploma in Theology for Ministry (with merit), Scottish Episcopal Institute, York St John’s University) 2010: MSc Social Research, Glasgow Caledonian University 1998: SQA D32 Module: Assessing candidates in a field work setting 1994: BA Community Education, University of Strathclyde
Previous experience: May 2017 - Present: Minister of Word and Sacraments, Stonehouse; St Ninian’s Local Ecumenical Partnership August 2005 - May 2017: Youth and Children’s Work Development Officer, United Reformed Church, developing work with children and young people in church and community settings, training and resourcing volunteers. February 2004 - August 2005: Youth Health Development Officer, NHS Lanarkshire, facilitating development of primary care youth health services and provision for Clydesdale & Motherwell areas 2002 - 2004: Section Head, Adult Ministries, Church of Scotland Board of Parish Education, Edinburgh National Adviser in Adult Education Managed and supervised team responsible for training and supporting Readers, Elders and Adult Learning, including congregational development and worship leading Contributed to policy development as part of senior management team
156 Standing Committee Elections and Appointments
1996 - 2002: Youth Development Worker, Church of Scotland Board of Parish Education, Edinburgh Supported youth workers and young people in congregational and community settings Developed CeVe accredited CertHE ‘Working With People in Church & Community’ TLS course through SCOC and acted as course director and placement assessor Developed materials and assessed participants in CeVe accredited National Training Courses in Youth Work, Children’s Ministry and Adult Education Developed and supported National Youth Assembly, Youth Representation at General Assembly, the interagency Crossover Youth Festival and General Assembly Youth Night Child Protection and good practice training 1996 - 1996: Project Leader, Street Level, Carluke, established detached youth work project
2. Membership: Clergy Discipline Tribunal (Canon 54)
Three vacancies arise this year on the Clergy Discipline Tribunal – two clerical vacancies and one practising lawyer vacancy. Appointments are made by General Synod and the Standing Committee is required to bring forward nominations.
The Very Rev Kenneth Rathband completes his term of office as clerical members of the Tribunal and the Standing Committee nominates him to Synod for re-appointment. The Standing Committee also nominates the Rev Canon Marion Chatterley, Vice-Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral, Edinburgh for the second clerical vacancy.
The Standing Committee nominates the Hon Lord Arthurson, Senator of the College of Justice (Court of Session Judge), for the practising lawyer vacancy.
3. Membership: Preliminary Proceedings Committee (Canon 54)
Appointments to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee under Canon 54 are made by General Synod on the recommendation of the Standing Committee.
John Stirling, solicitor, completes his term of office as one of the practising lawyers on the Preliminary Proceedings Committee and is willing to serve a further term. The Standing Committee nominates Mr Stirling to Synod for re- appointment.
4. Pension Fund Chair
Richard McIndoe’s term of office as Chair of the Pension Fund Trustees was extended at General Synod in December 2020 until General Synod 2021. A triennial valuation of the Fund, as at 31 December 2020, is currently underway
157 Standing Committee Elections and Appointments
and in order to give continuity during this period when the Fund is also in the course of arranging the outsourcing of certain aspects of the Fund’s administration, he has kindly agreed to remain in position until the end of 2021. Standing Committee has included a motion on the Synod agenda to extend his convenership until then and to authorise it to make an appointment of a new chair subject to ratification at Synod 2022.
The Synod agenda includes motions to fill the vacancies outlined above, for which the Standing Committee is required to make a nomination.
John F Stuart Secretary General May 2021
158 Rules of Order
RULES OF ORDER OF THE GENERAL SYNOD
(Amended 12 June 1997, 7 June 2012, 12 June 2014)
1. Application
These rules of order shall apply to the proceedings of the General Synod whether sitting as one body or in separate Houses of Bishops, other Clergy and Laity.
2. The Chair – Powers and Duties
Deference shall at all times be paid to the authority of the Chair. All points of order shall be addressed to the person occupying the Chair, stated briefly and audibly, and raised immediately the perceived irregularity occurs, otherwise the person occupying the Chair shall disallow them. Points of order shall not introduce new subject matter. Speeches shall not be allowed on points of order. Where, in the view of the person occupying the Chair, the matter raised does not constitute a point of order, the person occupying the Chair shall rule accordingly. On all points of order the ruling from the Chair shall be final and not open to discussion. When the person occupying the Chair rises to speak, any member of the Synod who is addressing the meeting shall sit down.
It shall be the responsibility of the person occupying the Chair to preserve order and secure that members obtain a fair hearing, to decide all matters of order arising at meetings of the Synod and to decide, if two or more members rise in their places, which to call to speak. In the event of disorder arising at any meeting of the Synod, the meeting may be adjourned by the person occupying the chair who shall also, then or subsequently, fix a time for its reconvening. Quitting the Chair in such circumstances shall, without further procedure, have the effect of a formal adjournment of the meeting.
3. Order of Debate
Members desiring to speak shall indicate their desire to do so in the manner directed by the person occupying the Chair, or in the absence of any other direction, by raising their hand. Those called upon to speak shall address the Chair. Speeches shall be directed to the motion or amendment being proposed, seconded or otherwise under discussion or to a question of order. No member shall be allowed to speak more often than once on any subject under discussion, save on a point of order or, with consent of the Chair, to make an explanation, but the mover of a motion shall have a right of reply. A member who is speaking when a question of order is raised shall stop speaking until the question of order has been decided by the person occupying the Chair.
4. Matters Taken in Private
The Synod may decide by a majority of those present and voting that:-
(a) any business shall be taken in private;
159
Rules of Order
(b) the Synod shall go into Committee for the informal discussion of any subject;
(c) the Synod shall go into groups for the informal discussion of any subject (in which case minutes of such informal discussion need not be taken).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chair shall have power to direct that the Synod shall break into small groups, for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, for the informal discussion of any subject (in which case minutes of such informal discussion need not be taken).
5. Adjournment
(a) Any meeting of the Synod may be adjourned to such other place, time or day and hour as may be set by the person occupying the Chair.
(b) Any meeting of the Synod may be adjourned to a later time on the same day and such an adjournment may be made on the direction from the Chair, or failing such direction, on the motion of any member, the vote on which motion, on being seconded, shall without amendment or discussion be taken by a show of hands as one House.
6. Quorum
The Quorum of the Synod shall be one half of the eligible membership of the House of Clergy and of the House of Laity and not less than three members of the House of Bishops, but no business shall be invalid because transacted without a quorum being present, unless the attention of the Chair has been called to the absence of a quorum. The person occupying the chair shall then ascertain, in such a way as seems fit, that no quorum is present, and declare the fact. This shall be a responsibility of the person occupying the chair, whose declaration, whether or not a quorum is present, shall be final. If it has been declared from the Chair that no quorum is present, no business shall be transacted until a quorum is declared from the Chair to be present except: (a) the consideration of a motion to adjourn; (b) such non-contentious business as the meeting, with consent of the person occupying the chair, sees fit to transact. If, however, a division is challenged on any subject other than on a motion for adjournment, the same shall not be dealt with by the meeting. No motion for adjournment shall be submitted until at least fifteen minutes after the declaration from the Chair that a quorum is not present, except with the consent of the person occupying the Chair.
7. Obstructive or Offensive Conduct
(a) In the event of any member at any Synod meeting disregarding the authority of the Chair, or being guilty of obstructive or offensive conduct, a motion may thereupon be moved and seconded to suspend such member for the remainder of the sitting. The motion shall be put without discussion.
160
Rules of Order
(b) The person occupying the Chair shall warn any member of the public who interrupts the proceedings at any meeting. If that member of the public continues the interruption the person occupying the Chair shall order the person concerned to leave the meeting, and not return.
8. Duration of Speeches
The mover of a motion shall not speak for more than ten minutes except with the consent of Synod. All other speakers taking part in the discussion on the motion or amendment shall not normally speak for more than five minutes, subject to the discretion of the person occupying the Chair. The mover of the original motion shall have the right to speak for five minutes in reply, but shall not introduce any new matter into the debate. Thereafter the discussion shall be held closed and the question shall thereupon be put from the Chair.
9. Motions
(a) The Synod shall consider only the following motions:-
(i) motions which have been included in the agenda and papers for that meeting;
(ii) motions which the Synod has agreed to consider in terms of Rule 10;
(iii) formal or procedural motions.
(b) All motions and amendments shall be stated, immediately on their being proposed to the meeting, by the mover, before being spoken to. All motions under Rule 9 (a) (ii) and all amendments shall be submitted in writing, signed by the mover and seconder and delivered to the Secretary General immediately on being moved.
(c) Every amendment shall be relevant to the motion on which it is moved. A motion may be amended by the mover with the consent of the meeting, which consent shall be by the majority of those present and voting. In the case of a motion emanating from a Diocesan Synod or from a Board or Committee of the General Synod, the mover of that motion shall have the power, unless specifically denied it by the body from which the motion has emanated, to accept the amendment to that motion, thus altering the text of the motion on which the Synod is asked to vote.
(d) A motion or amendment may be withdrawn by the mover with the consent of the seconder of the motion or amendment, but the Synod shall have power by simple majority of those present and voting to refuse to allow such withdrawal, in which case the motion shall stand.
(e) Motions or amendments which are not seconded shall not be discussed or inserted in the minutes.
161
Rules of Order
(f) If, in the opinion of the person occupying the chair, more than one motion deals with the same subject matter, only the motion first lodged with the Secretary General (whether by hand delivery or by post) shall be considered and if, in the opinion of the person occupying the chair, any motion deals with a matter already under consideration by a Board or Committee, that motion shall not be considered.
(g) If a member who has submitted a notice of motion is not present to move the motion, the motion shall fall, unless Synod agrees that another member may move the motion.
(h) No motion of any kind which involves a grant of money shall be competent unless it is printed in the programme of business with the observations of the Board or Committee within whose budget the grant would fall, with power to the Chair on special occasions to take the sense of the meeting with reference to matters appearing in the programme of business and, if satisfied, to dispense with the necessity of observations by the appropriate Board or Committee. Except as above provided, no motion (other than votes of thanks) shall be entertained unless notice has been given to the Secretary General in reasonable time to enable it to be entered in the programme of business, unless the person occupying the Chair sees fit to put the question to the meeting that want of notice shall be dispensed with and interprets it as the evident sense of the meeting that this be allowed. There shall be no poll on the question, but a show of hands may be taken to assist in coming to a decision.
10. Rule 10 Motions
(a) Notice of Rule 10 motions should normally be given in writing (to the Secretary General) before Synod starts.
(b) The motion shall be in writing, and signed by the mover and seconder, and supported by the signatures of twelve members (excluding the mover and seconder of the motion) of Synod who are present at the meeting.
(c) The mover of a motion under this Rule shall be given the opportunity to address Synod briefly (maximum of two minutes) as to why the Synod should consider the motion at that time before a vote is taken on whether the Motion should be considered.
(d) Subject to any contrary provision in the Code of Canons, in order for a Rule 10 motion to be considered by Synod, a two thirds majority of those present and voting shall vote in favour of its being considered.
162
Rules of Order
11. Motion: “That the Question be now put”.
(a) The amendment called “The previous question” shall not be allowed.
(b) It shall be competent for any member who has not spoken on the question before the meeting to move “that the question be now put”. On this being seconded, if it seems to the person occupying the chair that the question before the meeting has been sufficiently discussed, a vote shall be taken, without amendment or discussion. If the motion is carried, the mover of the original motion shall have a right to reply, and the question under discussion shall then be put to the meeting. If the motion “that the question be now put” is not carried, a similar motion may be made after every three additional members have spoken.
12. Voting
(a) After the question on which the vote is to be taken has been announced, and voting has commenced, no member shall be permitted to offer an opinion, or ask a question, except on a point of order, or otherwise interrupt the proceedings until the result of the vote has been intimated.
(b) Save as otherwise provided, all motions and amendments shall be passed by a majority of the members of the Synod present and voting.
(c) The person occupying the chair shall have a deliberative but not a casting vote. Where the matter which is the subject of the vote relates to the appointment of a member of the Synod to any particular office or committee, voting shall be by ballot.
(d) When the question is put to the vote, tellers shall be named from the Chair and shall give in their report of each division taken. Except where otherwise stated in these Rules of Order, the vote may be taken in the first instance on a show of hands, the result, in the opinion of the person occupying the chair, being declared therefrom. In all cases of doubt the vote shall be taken by counting the hands held up. On any question, if one third of the present and voting members of any House so wish, voting shall be by ballot.
(e) When voting by Houses, the Houses must meet separately if one third of the present and voting members of any House so wishes. When the Synod votes by Houses, the numbers of the vote in each House shall be recorded, and a majority of those present and voting shall be required in each House for the passing of the motion.
(f) A challenge to the accuracy of the minutes shall be made by way of amendment to the motion that the minutes be approved. Only those members who were present at the previous meeting to which the minutes relate shall be entitled to vote on the said amendment.
163
Rules of Order
13. Election, Selection or Appointment of Members to Office
In the case of election, selection or appointment by Synod of a member of the Synod or of any other person to any office where the number of candidates nominated exceeds the number of vacancies, the member or person to be elected, selected or appointed as the case may be shall be determined by a vote (or votes) by ballot in (each of) which members will be entitled to vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies. No member may record in the ballot more than one vote for any candidate. The candidate or candidates having the highest number of votes shall be declared duly elected. If there is equality of votes for the last vacancy, this shall be resolved by ballot or by a show of hands.
14. Assessor
The Standing Committee of the General Synod shall nominate an assessor, who may be a member of the Synod, but the assessor shall intervene as assessor only on the call of the Chair, without prejudice to the right of the assessor when a member of the Synod to speak and vote as such.
15. Suspension of Rules
The application of any or all of these Rules of Order may be temporarily suspended or amended by a majority amounting to two-thirds of those present and voting. Voting shall be as one House.
......
RULE 10 MOTIONS: PRACTICE NOTE
Before considering presenting a motion Synod members are encouraged to liaise with the Secretary General in order to consult with the Board to whom the matter will be delegated if the motion is passed. It is expected that in a majority of cases this will result in a co-operative response where the matter is taken on to the Board's agenda, and the need for a Rule 10 Motion will pass. Most matters can be dealt with using this process during the year through consultation with the relevant diocesan representative.
164
GENERAL SYNOD MEMBERS 2021
House of Bishops Most Rev Mark J Strange Rt Rev Kevin Pearson Rt Rev Dr John A Armes Rt Rev Anne Dyer Rt Rev Andrew Swift Rt Rev Ian Paton Rt Rev Dr Keith Riglin
Standing Committee Members not Otherwise Diocesan Representatives Ms Bridget Campbell Mr James Gibson Very Rev Alison Simpson Ms Jenny Whelan
ACC Representatives Mr Alistair Dinnie Rev Dr Jenny Wright (also a Diocesan Representative for the Edinburgh Diocese)
Aberdeen & Orkney Clergy Rev Professor David Atkinson Rev Dr Ruth Green Rev Canon Vittoria Hancock Rev Dr Jennifer Holden Very Rev Dr Emsley Nimmo Rev Canon Terry Taggart Rev Canon John Walker
Aberdeen & Orkney Clergy Alternates Rev Alastair MacDonald
Aberdeen & Orkney Laity Dr Martin Auld Dr Julia House Mrs Ginny Irvine-Fortescue Dr Nicola Mills
Argyll & The Isles Clergy Very Rev Margi Campbell Rev Amanda Fairclough Rev Alexander Guinness Rev Canon Simon Mackenzie Rev Canon Peter Moger Rev David Railton
Argyll & The Isles Clergy Alternates Rev Rebekah Cansdale
165
Argyll & The Isles Laity Mr Robert MacDonald Ms Sally McKim Mr Colin Sibley Mr Michael Smith-Tennent Two Members, names not disclosed
Argyll & The Isles Laity Alternates Mr Colum Scott
Brechin Clergy Rev Dr Francis Bridger Not attending 2021 Very Rev Fay Lamont Rev Peter Mead Rev John Skinner
Brechin Clergy Alternate Rev Denise Herbert Two Members, names not disclosed
Brechin Laity Ms Jean Fenwick Mr Harold Jack Dr Jaap Jacobs Mrs Judy Robinson Mr Graeme Stirling Mrs Vina Strachan
Brechin Laity Alternates Mrs Irene Butler Mrs Judith Chaffer One Member, name not disclosed
Edinburgh Clergy Very Rev Frances Burberry Very Rev John Conway Rev Markus Dünzkofer Rev Canon Dean Fostekew Rev Diana Hall Rev Dr Stephen Holmes Rev Canon Ruth Innes Rev Dr Sophia Marriage Rev Nicola McNelly Rev David Paton-Williams Rev Canon David Richards Rev Susan Ward Rev Dr Jenny Wright Two Members, names not disclosed
166
Edinburgh Laity Dr Vicky Clark Ms Victoria Elliott Mrs Karen Ellis Ms Emma Forrest Ms Lei Garcia Dr Michael Green Mr Ian Kerry Dr Anne Martin Mr Barnaby Miln Ms Helen Mitchell Ms Cathy Outram Mrs Wendy Pemble Mr Alex Stewart Ms Helen Wright One Member, name not disclosed Glasgow & Galloway Clergy Rev Janice Aiton Rev Andrea Hagenbuch Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth Rev Paul Singh Job Retnaselvam Rev Harriet Johnston Rev Matthew Little Rev Wilhelmina Nesbitt Very Rev Reuben Preston Rev Canon Jane Ross Rev Canon Dr Nicholas Taylor Rev Martyn Trembath Glasgow & Galloway Clergy Alternates Rev Canon Oliver Brewer-Lennon Rev Deborah Davison Rev Canon Gordon Fyfe Rev Heller Gonzalez Pena Glasgow & Galloway Laity Mr Ray Gascoigne Mrs Margaret Hanley Miss Trudy Hill Mrs Anne Jones Mrs Carol Lovett Mr Petko Marinov Miss Morag O’Neill Mr Alan Rumble Dr David Simmons Mrs Linda Whitby Mrs Jan Whiteside Glasgow & Galloway Laity Alternates Mr Richard Horrell Mr Richard Smith Two Members, names not disclosed 167
Moray, Ross & Caithness Clergy Rev Julia Boothby Rev Canon Dr James Currall Rev Canon Dr John Cuthbert Rev Canon Michael Last Very Rev Sarah Murray Rev Katrina O’Neill Rev Tembu N Rongong
Moray, Ross & Caithness Clergy Alternates Rev Dr Hamilton Inbadas
Moray, Ross & Caithness Laity Mr Michael Campbell Mr Iain Foyers Ms Alison Garraway Mr Hugh Morison Mrs Deborah Munday Mr Grant Swain One Member, name not disclosed
St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane Clergy Rev Canon Liz Baker Rev Canon Dr Alasdair Coles Not Attending 2021 Rev Tracy Dowling Rev Samantha Ferguson Rev Canon Professor Trevor Hart Rev Carol Latimer Rev Dean Norby Very Rev Kenneth Rathband Rev Canon Graham Taylor
St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane Clergy Alternates Rev Christoph Wutscher Attending 2021
St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane Laity Dr Anthony Birch Mrs Linda Brownlie Mr Robert Dickson Mr James Gardner Mr Euan Grant Mrs Elizabeth Roads Mr Ross Stirling-Young Professor Alan Werritty One Member, name not disclosed
St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane Laity Alternates Mrs Shirley Mann
168
Representation on Other Bodies
SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH
REPRESENTATION ON OTHER BODIES/ORGANISATIONS
There follows a list of current representatives appointed to represent the Scottish Episcopal Church on a variety of other bodies and organisations.
Most positions are held by volunteers but in a few cases the SEC is represented by staff members and the list is annotated to show this.
Vacancies arise from time to time in the positions in question and if you have an interest in serving in any of the areas in question, please make your interest known to the General Synod Office.
John F Stuart Secretary General May 2021
169
Representation on Other Bodies
SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH REPRESENTATION ON OTHER BODIES/ORGANISATIONS – May 2021
Body/Organisation Representative Appointing Body Start Date *No Fixed Term Date ANGLICAN COMMUNION Anglican Consultative Council Alistair Dinnie Standing Committee 2016-25 Jenny Wright 2019-28 Anglican Communion Networks and Commissions: - Family Network John Rea Mission Board 2007* Environmental Network Alan Werritty Mission Board 2003* Women's Network Ley-Anne Forsyth Mission Board 2020* ACTS (Action of Churches Together in Scotland) Trustee Board Paul Goldfinch Faith and Order Board 2015 Members' Meeting Bishop of Edinburgh College of Bishops 2017 Rev Canon John McLuckie Faith and Order Board 2016 (Alternate) Miriam Weibye1 Ecumenical Development Group Rev Canon John McLuckie Faith and Order Board 2016 Miriam Weibye 2 Finance Committee Mr Nick Cooke ACTS 2014* CEAS (formerly Scottish Sunday Lorraine Darlow Mission Board 2015* School Union)
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND Church Art and Architecture Rebecca Cadie Buildings Committee 2008* Alex Stewart (Alternate) 2005* COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH SERVICE Rev Christoph Wutscher Liturgy Committee 2021 SOCIETY CTBI (Churches Together in Britain and Ireland) CRJN (Churches Racial Justice Network) Rev Timothy Njuguna Church in Society 2008* Children’s Ministry Network Lorraine Darlow Mission Board 2013*
Senior Representatives Forum John Stuart3 ex officio Secretary 2007 General Global Mission Network Rev Eileen Thompson Global Partnerships 2008 Committee DIACONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE Rev Norma Higgott Faith and Order Board 2016* CHURCH OF ENGLAND
1 Church Relations Officer appointed as third SEC Representative. The position is non-voting. Officer presence helpful because of general overview of ecumenical relations. 2 Since this is the successor to the body which previously oversaw Local Ecumenical Partnerships throughout Scotland, it is appropriate that the Church Relations Officer, as the ecumenical officer for the SEC, should also participate in this. This is mirrored in appointments from other denominations. 3 The Forum comprises senior denominational officers ex officio. 170
Representation on Other Bodies
Body/Organisation Representative Appointing Body Start Date *No Fixed Term Date FAITH IN COMMUNITY SCOTLAND Appointment in hand Mission Board 2019* FAITH IN COMMUNITY SCOTLAND Rev Canon Fay Lamont Church in Society 2001 ACTION FUND (annual reappointment) GLENALMOND COUNCIL Primus ex officio College of 2014* Bishops
INTERFAITH GROUP ON DOMESTIC Hilary Moran Church in Society VIOLENCE INTERFAITH SCOTLAND Rev Bonnie Evans-Hills Interfaith Relations 2020* Committee MEISSEN COMMISSION (Celtic Rev Dr Maurice Elliot Church of Ireland 2021 Churches Observer) MISSION TO SEAFARERS Bishop of St Andrews, College of Bishops 2019* Dunkeld and Dunblane PORVOO CONTACT GROUP Miriam Weibye4 Inter-Church Relations 2016* Committee REUILLY CONTACT GROUP Rev Canon John McLuckie Inter-Church Relations 2005* Committee ROYAL SCHOOL OF CHURCH MUSIC Rev Christoph Wutscher Primus 2021
SCOTLAND4PEACE STEERING Rev David Mumford Church in Society 2008* GROUP SCOTTISH CHURCHES COMMITTEE Mike Duncan Admin Board 2021* John Stuart5 1996* SCOTTISH CHURCHES COMMITEE Donald Urquhart/ Ex officio 2007* SAFEGUARDING GROUP Daphne Audsley
SCOTTISH CHURCHES HOUSING Vacant Church in Society ACTION SCHA Affordable Housing Group Elliot Glen-esk Buildings Committee 2012 SCOTTISH CHURCHES PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE Coordination Group Rev David Mumford Church in Society 2020 Holyrood Group Miriam Weibye Church in Society 2020 SCOTTISH FAITHS ACTION FOR Rev Nick Bowry Church in Society 2019* REFUGEES SCOTTISH PILGRIM ROUTES FORUM Margaret Pedersen Mission Board 2013* UNITY ENTERPRISE Rev Les Ireland Church in Society 2013*
WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES Miriam Weibye Faith and Order Board ASSEMBLY One other WORLD DAY OF PRAYER (Scottish Rev A Wren College of Bishops 2018 Committee)
4 Officer well placed within the denomination to act as liaison point with the Porvoo Communion. 5 Much of the agenda of the Committee deals with issues of a legal/regulatory nature. The two SEC representatives have traditionally comprised one officer and one other. 171
GENERAL SYNOD 2021 FEEDBACK FORM
The Standing Committee values the comments of General Synod Members on the operation of the General Synod. Members are invited to complete the form electronically at the following link: https://bit.ly/3gcU45p. The questions in the online form are set out below so that members can see at a glance the entirety of the Feedback Form. It can be submitted anonymously. The electronic version of the form will close on 21 June 2021.
1. I found the experience of General Synod online to be generally positive AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
2. I appreciated the worship at General Synod AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
3. Sessions were generally chaired competently and clearly AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
4. Given the constraints of operating online, I consider that the agenda for AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE Synod was appropriate
5. I would have liked to have seen the following on the agenda:
6. I felt adequately prepared to participate in the Synod online AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
7. I understood how to vote on motions and in elections YES NO
8. I attended one of the training sessions organised before YES NO Synod (if YES, answer question 9; if NO, skip to question 10)
9. I found the training session helpful YES NO
10. I think consideration should be given to holding at least YES NO some future meetings of Synod online
11. I am a new member of General Synod YES NO
I am from the Diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney Argyll & The Isles Brechin Edinburgh Glasgow & Galloway Moray, Ross & Caithness St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane 172
I am a member of the House of
LAITY CLERGY BISHOPS I WOULD RATHER NOT SAY
If you would like to include your contact details: name, address, e-mail then please use the space below:
If you have any further comments you wish to make please do so in the space below:
Name (optional):
Thank you for completing the Feedback Form
173