DS 19 03 01

DIOCESAN SYNOD

DRAFT Minutes of the twelfth meeting of the Synod of the diocese held at 9.30am on 13 October 2018 at Soothill Hall, Ashville College, Green Lane, Harrogate, HG2 9JP.

1 Opening Eucharist. The Bishop of Leeds presided at a Eucharist service to close the Diocesan Synod term.

Chair: The Bishop of Leeds

2 The Bishop of Leeds welcomed: All the new members of the new Diocesan Synod for the 2018 – 2021 term. The Chair of the House of Clergy, The Revd Canon Sam Corley (Allerton Deanery) and the Chair of the House of Laity, Mr Matthew Ambler (Huddersfield Deanery)

The Very Revd , the new Cathedral (Simon is now an ex- officio member of the Diocesan Synod).

Melina Galibuna visiting the diocese from the link diocese of Tanzania.

The following were welcomed and given the Chair’s permission to speak (SO3):

Item 10 Children’s Society Presentation: From the Children’s Society, Mr Jonathan Turner - Senior Relationship Manager and The Reverend Mike Todd, Church Engagement Regional Manager.

Item 12 Diocesan Strategy 2019 – 2024: The Revd Canon Andrew Norman, Director of Ministry and Mission

Item 13 Diocesan Budget 2019: Mr Geoff Park, Chief Finance Officer Mr Irving Warnett, Chair of the Finance Assets and Investments Committee, Leeds Board nominee trustee (to be ratified).

Visitor to the Synod: Mrs Judith Calvert, Secretary to the Diocesan Mission & Pastoral Committee.

It was noted that Mr Paul Winstanley (Stewardship Officer) and The Revd Canon John Carter (Communications Officer) were both attending Diocesan Synod for the last time. Each was thanked for their twenty-one years of service to the diocese.

3 Apologies.

33 apologies had been received. Page 1 of 16

4 Declarations of interest – Members were reminded of the need to declare any conflict of interest on matters on the agenda.

Mrs Jane Evans, Calder Valley Deanery Declared a conflict of interest in Item 11 Ratification of Leeds Board members nominated by the Leeds Board, she was one of the Leeds Board Nominee Trustees.

Chair: The Revd Canon Sam Corley

5 Presidential Address.

The Bishop of Leeds gave his Presidential Address, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes.

6 Minutes of the last Meeting on 16 June 2018.

One amendment had been received to the draft minutes: the reference on page 2 to The Revd Canon Ann Nicholl should be to Canon Ann Nicholl. It was reported that the copy of the minutes to be signed had been amended to reflect this.

The Chair moved:

“That the draft minutes of the last meeting held on 16 June 2018 DS 18 10 01 be approved as a as a correct record”

The motion was approved with one abstention.

7 Matters arising not covered elsewhere on the Agenda.

There were no matters arising.

8 Questions for Synod Questions have been received from: Mr Graham Foster, Halifax Deanery (2 questions), Dr Sallie Bassham, Bowland and Ewecross Deanery, (2 questions) and Canon Malcolm Halliday, General Synod (2 questions). Written replies had been tabled (a copy of the questions and tabled replies are attached to these minutes).

Mr Foster had given his apologies for the meeting. There were no supplementary questions from the Synod members to Mr Foster’s questions.

It was noted that Dr Bassham was not present at the meeting.

Supplementary Question to Dr Bassham’s first question:

Mrs Christine Jack, Harrogate Deanery Asked if the lay membership of the Diocesan Synod could make provision for allocated representation from different areas of the laity eg Licensed Readers.

Debbie Child replied that this was an issue which could be considered by the Diocesan Synod in the future.

Page 2 of 16

There was no supplementary question to Dr Bassham’s second question.

No supplementary questions were asked by Canon Malcolm Halliday or Synod members to Canon Halliday’s two questions.

Chair: Mr Matthew Ambler

9 General Synod report DS 18 10 02 A report from the February 2018 General Synod meeting prepared by Stephen Hogg had been circulated to Synod members. Stephen gave a short presentation on his report. He particularly directed the Synod members to the website online reporting of the General Synod meetings for more detail. An item highlighted was the Church Representation Rules simplification process being led by Professor Joyce Hill, General Synod member for the diocese.

Questions The Revd Chris Lawton, Wensley Deanery Asked for an update on progress for a General Synod link person for each deanery synod without an ex-officio General Synod member. [This provision is set out in the Deanery Synod Rules Rule 6].

Debbie Child confirmed this would be looked in to.

10 Children’s Society presentation The Reverend Mike Todd, Church Engagement Regional Manager of the( Church of England) Children’s Society gave a PowerPoint presentation thanking the diocese for its support of the work of the Children’s Society. He outlined the work of the charity, which is directly with children and also campaigning and lobbying on children’s issues. The charity particularly focusses on young people in the 10 years to 18 years age range and the current issues affecting them, including body image, child sexual exploitation and children in care. Every diocesan bishop is a president of Children’s Society. The charity has some key projects in the diocese of Leeds and has shops in diocese for example in Morley and in Shipley.

The charity is known for Christingle, which is 50 years old this year. Revd Todd encouraged the Synod members to think afresh about their use of Christingle including use in new settings (ie not just in church buildings) and to use the new Messy Christingle resource. He thanked Synod for the opportunity to give the presentation and asked the Synod members to pray for work of Children’s Society.

Questions Christine Jack, Harrogate deanery Asked how the Children’s Society, as a faith based charity, related to other children’s support groups eg NSPCC and UNICEF including those who provide children’s homes?

The Revd Mike Todd replied The Children’s Society no longer provided children’s homes. It worked with children of faith and those of no faith and not all of those who worked for the charity were people of faith. It was not a proselytizing organization. The charity had proactively chosen to focus on 10 years to 18 year olds, as there were other charities who were expert and established in work with younger age groups. This meant the charity could fully commit its expertise, time and resources in one area.

Page 3 of 16

Professor Joyce Hill, General Synod Asked that the PowerPoint presentation given by The Revd Mike Todd be made available on the diocesan website or sent to the Diocesan Synod members.

The Revd Mike Todd confirmed he would make a copy available for adding to the diocesan website.

11 Ratification of Leeds Board members nominated by the Leeds Board DS 18 10 03

Synod members had been circulated with a document containing the personal statements of the four lay nominee trustees proposed by the Leeds Board for ratification by the Diocesan Synod.

Synod members were notified that The Revd Nigel Wright, Allerton Deanery, was unable to attend the Diocesan Synod and propose the motion for this item in his name and that The Rt Revd Dr , Bishop of Huddersfield, would propose the motion instead.

Bishop Jonathan Gibbs reminded members that the diocesan governance structure provided that as well as the elected and ex-officio members of the Leeds Board, there was provision for the Leeds Board itself to nominate five (one clergy and four lay) people who possessed particular areas of expertise to be Leeds Board trustees. These nominations needed to be ratified by the Diocesan Synod. The Leeds Board proposed the four lay people whose personal statements were contained in the document circulated to the Synod be ratified by the Synod. Three had already served on the Leeds Board and one (Irving Warnett) was a member of the Finance Assets and Investments Committee which advised the Leeds Board on financial matters.

Bishop Jonathan proposed the motion.

“That this Synod ratifies the appointment of the Leeds Board nominee trustees whose details are contained in DS 18 10 03”

Synod members did not wish to debate the motion.

Synod members voted unanimously for the motion.

A refreshment break was taken.

Chair: The Revd Canon Sam Corley

12 Diocesan Strategy 2019 – 2024 DS 18 10 04

Page 4 of 16

Synod members has been circulated with a document outlining the final draft of the proposed strategy for the diocese for the period 2019 – 2024 (DS 18 10 04).

Using a PowerPoint presentation, the Bishop’s Strategy Group gave a presentation to the Synod members to update following three previous presentations at Diocesan Synod.

The Rt Revd , , Chair of the Bishop’s Strategy Group Introduced the Bishop’s Strategy Group: The Very Revd , Dean of , The Ven , , Mrs Jane Evans, Calder Valley Deanery and Leeds Board Nominee trustee, The Revd Canon Andrew Norman, Director of Ministry and Mission and Mrs Debbie Child, Diocesan Secretary and Secretary to the Diocesan Synod.

Bishop Paul outlined the context of the proposed strategy, which was rooted in the diocesan vision: Confident Christians, Growing Churches, Transforming Communities and was characterized by the value statement of Loving, Living, Learning. In discerning how to achieve a vision, the Bishop’s Strategy Group had identified three enabling means: Clergy and Lay Together, Purposeful Resourcing and Dynamic Partnerships. The group had consulted various different groups and honed the proposals in response to these consultations. The document was not exhaustive but was suggestive. It needed to resonate with financial resources: the diocese would need to consider what it could pursue and what it could not.

Jane Evans, Calder Valley Deanery Reminded members that they had been circulated with the final draft proposal and that they had had an opportunity to see an earlier draft at a previous Synod. Five long-term goals will take the full five years to achieve. Each goal had objectives outlined for it. These were concrete, measurable attainments each with its own timescale. Initiatives would be developed both at diocesan level and locally to achieve the objectives. These would need to be applicable to deaneries’ and parishes’ own contexts. Jane outlined each of the five goals and their objectives in turn, highlighting that each goal focused on a Bible verse. The goals are: 1) Thriving as a distinctive diocese whose culture is shaped by a shared vision and values; 2) Reimagining ministry; 3) Nurturing Lay Discipleship; 4) Building Leadership Pipelines and 5) Growing Young People as Christians. Some key points Jane highlighted were:

 The strategy outlined that there was a shared culture around the diocesan vision: an alignment but not identical working out of the vision.  There would be a range of models of ministry flourishing.  All members of the diocese’s congregations would be maturing in faith.  There would be a development of both clergy and lay leaders in an identified process.  Although not every church or cathedral may be a discipling community for teens, they would be able to identify where this was happening locally for teens.  It was important to recognize that there was a potential for some initiatives to support several goals, for example the goal for young people also relates to leadership and reimagining ministry.

The Ven Andy Jolley, Archdeacon of Bradford

Gave an example of an initiative around Goal 4 Objectives: An integrated intern programme operating in each episcopal area. At the last Synod, it was reported that the diocese was applying for Strategic Development Funding to create a greater impact for its initiatives. For example, the resource church initiative at Ireland Wood parish. In addition, The Revd Joanna Seabourne (Area Dean, Headingley Deanery and Team Vicar, Leeds St George) had been

Page 5 of 16

appointed as Director of Interns. A one-year ministry apprentices’ scheme was running in the Leeds EA. The interns shared houses and were working in a range of parishes. In the Bradford EA a scheme for two year Mission Apprentices in Resourcing Church, to grow in an area of ministry and develop others in leadership and a third scheme for Missional Community apprentices was being pursued. These would focus on places where the church has little or no presence for example estates. The apprentices would then be able to pass on their learning. These initiatives would feed in to the other strategy Goals for example, developing work with young people, developing disciples and reimagining ministry.

Andrew Norman, Director of Ministry and Mission Led the Synod members in an exercise to think together around the question “If we deliver on these goals….How different will the Diocese look and feel in 2025?” Synod members considered page 10 of the Strategy Document then in small groups discussed the question. Members reflected back on what they were seeing and feeling in response to the question.

Observations and reflections on the future from the Synod members were:

 There would be a support network for young people.  It was important to reach out to local communities and increase the church’s visibility in these communities.  It is important that the gaps be bridged between those who need help and those able to help.  The strategy was welcome and timely but was too “top down”.  From deanery experience, the nurture of lay discipleship has a significant impact on wider engagement and confidence in expressing faith in local community as parishioners would be able to see the difference they were making to their communities.  Working Christians had limited time to devote to out of workplace activities. With this in mind, would like to see other patterns of worship ie not just Sundays.

The Revd Canon Andrew Norman highlighted that Goal 3 Nurturing Lay Discipleship speaks about equipping people for Monday to Friday discipleship and connecting as disciples with the people they encounter on a day-to-day basis.

 The Synod and other church decision making bodies would be more diverse  Nurturing should make the Church more flexible and opportunistic  As well as more diverse, people would want to be involved in decision making  It would be better to have a more snappy presentation than the current strategy document, to make more impact.

Kay Brown, Allerton Deanery and Leeds Board elected member Spoke to her motion. She emphasized that lots of consultation had informed the creation of the strategy and that many people’s voices spoke through document. The Strategy would be a lens to look at what we do as a diocese and would give people permission to stop doing things we do “because we’ve always done them”. Instead, we would be able to focus on what brings light and life in to people’s lives. We could look at our local context and be strategic about how we use time, energy and resources. Kay was particularly pleased with the focus on lay leadership and ministry and that Goal 5 provided that every child in a Church of England school would encounter Christ and the Christian faith in a way that enhances their life. She reiterated the last paragraph of the Strategy document and asked the Diocesan Synod members to “……. to prayerfully consider your part in it and prayerfully support its implementation.”

Page 6 of 16

Kay Brown proposed that motion:

“That this Synod approves the strategy for the Diocese of Leeds set out in DS 18 10 04”.

Synod debated the motion:

The Revd Ruth Newton, General Synod Thanked the Strategy group for the strategy proposal and said she was pleased that it had an emphasis on lay discipleship and nurture. She recommended to the Synod members the diocese’s Digital Learning Platform. However, she was disappointed that the strategy was not more closely aligned to the Anglican Marks of Mission. The first two marks of mission (“To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom” and “To teach, baptise and nurture new believers”) were included but “To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation” and “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth” should receive greater emphasis. At the General Synod, the archbishop said that the environment was to be given a high priority by the church.

The Revd John Bavington, Inner Bradford Deanery From his experience of similar initiatives such as in London in the 1990s, he emphasized the need for resource materials for parishes so they could engage with the strategy.

Mr Justin Brett, Harrogate Deanery Reported that he was a new Diocesan Synod member and new to the area and so had not seen the previous versions of the strategy. He said on a fourth reading he was just about beginning to understand how it would apply to the deanery of which he was Lay Chair. He did not feel he could support the strategy, not because it was wrong, but because it was too difficult to understand and if it was put to the wider diocese it would not work because it was too hard for others to understand. Secondly, there was an issue of consistency. In the presentation on the strategy people, said different churches would pick different bits. However, that was not what the document said. The document says, “all churches” “all deaneries” “every church will”. This fundamental dissonance needs to be addressed. Either it applies to all or not but it needs to be clear which. Until these matters are dealt with, he was not able to support the motion.

Mr Ian Fletcher, Inner Bradford Deanery Agreed that the strategy needed more on creation, goal 1 refers to what the church will do for people but not for creation. Believed all five goals were inward looking. There needs to be more reference to Readers and lay leadership before the strategy is adopted.

Mr David Corps, Huddersfield Deanery It was important that the strategy was interesting for PCCs. He cautioned that the Bible verses in goals 2 and 4 in presentation were not the same as those in the circulated strategy document.

The Revd Jude Smith, Allerton Deanery Was excited by the potential of the strategy but cautioned about context. She felt it needed to be clear that context was rapidly changing.

Mrs Christine Jack, Harrogate Deanery She said she was also secretary of Churches Together in Harrogate and Zero Carbon Harrogate. She did not agree entirely with the strategy, she felt it needed simplifying into a wider framework that the church could grow in to. She reminded Synod that as well as being part of the Church of England, church members were part of the Anglican Communion and the whole

Page 7 of 16

created order. She outlined that “green Christians” were those who realize environment issues affect all of our lives and these are issues the church needs to consider.

Mr Ian Grange, Dewsbury Deanery Was pleased that the strategy addresses financial sustainability. However, it was unrealistic to claim the parishes would pay 94% of parish share by 2020 and 100% by 2022. Reviewing past initiatives, there are some churches who do pay, some who cannot pay and most worryingly, some who will not and do not. He felt the diocese needed to address the share system and in particular, it should be a levy and not a voluntary contribution.

Ms Tabitha Tanna, Wakefield Deanery It was good to have a cohesive view and she could see the value of a strategy, vision and objectives. However, we are not an institution; we are the Body of Christ. The strategy document was weak in the work of prayer and the direction of the Holy Spirit. There was little connection in relation to the heart: it was a head orientated document. She was concerned the strategy document did not address issues faced by rural parishes.

The strategy group responded to the debate

Bishop Paul Slater Quite a few comments had related to the roll out of the strategy for example prayer and accessibility. Goal 2 does refer to involvement in justice issues and environmental issues.

Mrs Jane Evans She thanked particularly those who were new to the Synod for their comments. The Strategy was a complex document. A took kit would be developed with simpler presentation which would make it clearer for parishes. For example, there would be questions for parishes and deaneries to discuss so it would be more obvious what pieces of action they could take. The toolkit would provide the guidance to discern what fits with a parish’s context.

The Revd Canon Andrew Norman It was important to recognize the context of the Strategy and the wider global framework of reference. For example, references to Anglican are always consciously aware of the wider Anglican Communion. Ideas and initiatives are re-contextualized across the World. In the same way the Strategy proposal was a re-contextualizing in the diocese: “Looking to the future, what does it mean to be Anglican “here and now””.

Ms Kay Brown Proposed the motion for approval.

Mr Malcolm Halliday, General Synod Thought the document needed some slight tweaking and so sought advice whether the Synod should move to a reference back motion or next business.

Mr Malcolm Halliday proposed the Synod move to next business. Mr Justin Brett, Harrogate Deanery, seconded the motion.

Synod voted on the proposal to move to next business:

For the motion: 25 Against the motion: 36 Abstentions: 04.

Page 8 of 16

The motion was lost.

The Revd Canon Paul Cartwright, General Synod Proposed that the Synod refer the matter back to the Bishop’s Strategy group. The motion was seconded by Mr Stephen Hogg, General Synod.

Synod voted on the proposal to refer the matter back:

For the motion: 40 Against the motion: 38 Abstentions: -

The motion was approved.

Bishop Paul Slater confirmed that the Bishop’s Strategy group would consider the matters of concern raised by the Synod members and that the Strategy Proposal would be brought to the March 2019 Diocesan Synod for approval.

Chair: Mr Matthew Ambler

13 Diocesan Budget 2019 DS 18 10 05

Members had been circulated with a Budget 2019 proposal document (DS 18 10 05).

Mr Stephen Hogg, General Synod A member of the Finance Assets and Investments Committee (FAIC). Two years ago, he had been asked to propose motion on diocesan budget. He had not done so because he was not comfortable to do so. He was very comfortable to propose the Budget before Synod this time. He thought it was a good way forward.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Irving Warnett, Chair of the Finance Assets and Investments Committee and Geoff Park, Chief Finance Officer gave a summary and overview of the Budget 2019 proposals.

Irving Warnett. He was the first independent and external FAIC Chair and was now a newly approved trustee of the Leeds Board. When he began advising the diocese, 7 months previously, there was an underlying deficit of £3m. There was plenty of property and investments (though many restricted) but the diocese was low on cash. FAIC supported the direction of the management team: controlling expenditure, identifying and accelerating property sales and implementing redundancies. These had halved the underlying situation and averted the cash issue. However, there was still the residual deficit to manage. There was no clear way of closing gap. Continuing cost cutting alone would not deliver the mission of the diocese. Addressing income was needed to achieve safe sustainability. This would require parishes to grow more people - more vibrancy generates more income. Income needed to grow by 2% to 3 % per year. Balancing the Budget was a work in progress but this was everyone’s task not just the finance department’s.

Geoff Park

Page 9 of 16

Reported that it had been a challenging 6 months. Synod members had received information over the summer about the financial situation of the diocese and there had been some reporting in the national press. Difficult decisions had been taken and they had begun to have an impact. The forecast for 2018 was now £1m better than budgeted. However, there was still work to do. The 2018 approved Budget included a £3.5m deficit. Although properties have been sold, it was ongoing expenditure which was the problem.

The proposed strategy for diocese is for it to flourish and grow. This needs to be done within the operational financial context. Actions were taken to address the immediate issues: strict spending approvals were introduced, property purchases were abandoned and there was a freeze on recruitment. The Lay Workers Defined Benefit Pensions scheme and a harmonization of staff salaries had been implemented and it was agreed to follow a redundancy programme.

There were several options for working towards a balanced budget. The agreed assumption was that the responsibility would need to be shared between parishes, clergy and central diocesan costs. For the 2019 Budget the proposal was to freeze the uncapped share request for 2019 and focus on working with parishes to improve the collection rate. Parishes would be asked to consider voluntarily contributing more if they could. The overall cost of ministry would be frozen to the 2018 forecast level of £12.6m. In addition, clergy stipends would be frozen to the 2018/2019 level. (Clergy pensions were not affected as they are based on a national minimum stipend).

Sustainability Plan 2019 – 2022 In the longer term, the diocese would need £1m more income over next four years. There would be decreases in the funding received from the national church. To offset this parish share will need to increase by £2m. This is a 3% year on year growth. It was proposed that the diocese incur £1m lower property expenditure by 2020 and its support costs return to 2017 levels. Work is ongoing to find the further £0.35m savings. There would be a fixed budget for ministry in the parishes of £12.6m, which assuming the proposed 3% increase in parish share would result in stipendiary full time equivalent diocesan clergy numbers being at a level of 294 in 2022. However, even with a share growth of 3% per year the forecast would still be a deficit of £0.6m in 2022. Therefore, work still needs to be done to achieve the parish share increase and prepare for what could be done if there is still a deficit in the future.

Synod was asked if there were any points of clarification. There was none.

Stephen Hogg – moved motion standing in his name:

“That the Diocesan Synod authorise (or direct) the diocesan board of finance to raise and expend a sum not exceeding £23,549,241 for the calendar year 2019”. Debate

Mr Ian Fletcher, Inner Bradford Deanery He commented that the proposal was clear and there was confidence that there was a proposed way forward. However, there was an ongoing deficit and there was less information about what this means for the cash flow. He was unhappy with the suggestion that there was scope to make further losses. He noted that there had been transfers from restricted to unrestricted funds. He was concerned about the impact of deferring expenditure, which could mean more needed to be spent later. He felt that the Share system was not working, particularly the capping method that had an adverse effect on receipts. He warned that reviewing the share system in 2020

Page 10 of 16

would be too late. Although it had been said that the proposal would not affect pensions, Brexit may affect the pension and therefore the contributions the diocese makes. He asked if the Synod could have information about the cash flow situation was well as the information about the proposed deficit.

The Revd Kathryn Fitzsimons Asked for clarification on whether the clergy present should declare an interest given that the proposal included a pay freeze for clergy.

The Chair confirmed that after taking advice from the Legal Officer to the Diocesan Synod (the Diocesan Registrar) he was comfortable that this was not the case.

Geoff Park replied to the points raised The proposed motion was for the total expenditure. Restricted reserves were only being used within the restriction criteria. For example, the Education section 554 reserves were only being used for education. The cash deficit - is funded through sales of properties which had been clearly identified. (A number of properties were vacant). Sales would include the former Bradford and Wakefield diocesan offices. Parish Share scheme – there were no easy answers. Dioceses had tried various models and some were struggling. For sustainability dioceses needed to grow income at parish level. Currently the parish share request was £14m and the cost of clergy and housing was £16m, so all the parish share was used clergy and parishes. Pensions deficit – the diocese is funding a significant deficit 1.5m per year over clergy and lay. Stephen Hogg moved the motion:

“That the Diocesan Synod authorise (or direct) the diocesan board of finance to raise and expend a sum not exceeding £23,549,241 for the calendar year 2019”.

Synod members voted unanimously for the motion.

Chair: The Bishop of Leeds

14 Bishop of Leeds Blessing and Close. The Bishop of Leeds notified the Diocesan Synod he would not be at the March 2019 Diocesan Synod as he would be on sabbatical and that The Rt Revd Paul Slater, Bishop of Kirkstall, would be the president for that Synod in his place.

The Bishop of Leeds led the Synod in prayer and gave his blessing.

Signature:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Page 11 of 16

Diocese of Leeds Twelfth Diocesan Synod, Saturday 13 October 2018

Presidential Address

When we decided to create the Diocese of Leeds back in 2013/14, who’d have thought that before five years had passed the UK would be leaving the European Union, Donald Trump would be in the White House, the Far Right in both eastern and western Europe would be organising and mainstreaming language and ideas that previously had been kept under the counter (as it were)? (Or that Manchester United would be sinking?) Assumptions about the effortless and inevitable progress of liberal capitalism have been proven illusory, and we have been reminded once again that civilisation – however it is ordered politically – is fragile: we take order for granted at our peril.

Well, I thought I would begin on this cheerful note simply because it sets the context for the business of the church and this synod. The church does not float around in a context-free realm of spiritual isolation in which individuals pursue their personal and privatised piety as if disembodied from the real world. And Christians do not come to worship in church or to deliberate in a synod without being shaped mentally by what is going on around and among us. It is no wonder, then, that Christians are as in danger as anyone else of being driven by fear and anxiety at a time of considerable national and international uncertainty.

I am not sure anyone would put a bet on how Brexit will turn out by the end of March next year. But, whether you are an ardent Brexiteer or a die-hard Remainer, both the uncertainty of the situation and the bitterness of the public discourse in these matters will be of some concern. What is of most concern to me at this point is that argument about substance has been submerged under polarised sloganizing designed at a visceral level to diminish real engagement. However we got here, we are where we are; and simplistic categories – Leaver or Remainer – do not help us steer a common future of mutual respect.

As usual, the language is the give-away. If “the will of the people” is a vacuous and fatuous statement incapable of clear rational defence, then so is the term being used for a second referendum (which, in fact, would be a third referendum…), “the people’s vote”. I don’t think the last referendum enfranchised budgies or aliens. Language really does matter – what is not said as well as what is heard.

But, this is the Orwellian problem we now face – one that will not be solved by liberation from the shackles of Brussels or a return to the Remainer status quo. We now seem happy with the normalisation of lying and misrepresentation by politicians. Just one example from the last few days: Boris Johnson claims that the 1.3 million majority in the referendum was “the biggest majority in our history” – only for the BBC Reality Check Twitter site to reply that the majority in the referendum on joining the EEC in 1975 was 8.9 million.

The point is not the numbers; the point is the shameless lying that, on being exposed, never provokes an apology or retraction. We are getting used to this and learning afresh in the twenty-first century the lesson clearly not learned from the twentieth century that public lying, the categorising and demonisation of other people, and deliberate or careless representation of facts always have consequences – and those consequences are not normally positive. And none of this has to do whether the UK should leave or remain.

However, analysis and criticism are easy. The question we face as a church goes beyond Brexit and Trump and Orban and the far right demagogues bestriding Europe like some embarrassingly pathetic Colossus; it has to do with the need for some agents of reconciliation who have the courage simultaneously to be prophetic and generous. This goes beyond political affiliation or referendum preferences, beyond feelings about immigration and economics. This present context must push Christians back to asking fundamental questions of theology (who is God and what is God about?), anthropology (what is a human being and why do we matter?), sociology (what is a human community and how do we enable the ‘other’ to thrive?) and Christology (who and what are we for if we belong to Christ and are primarily called to resemble Christ?).

I never cease to be amazed by the self-giving commitment of our churches which, often in the face of their own resource challenges, offer food to hungry people, company to lonely people, hope to diminished people, care to abandoned people, and dignity to unvalued people. We now also face the challenge of how to broker conversations and relationships between people divided by sloganized politics, visceral rejection of those who differ, and sheer anger at uncertainty or helplessness in the face of uncontrollable powers. The national church is attending to this, and I will be taking part in an ecumenical colloquium at Lambeth Palace next month as we take counsel from partners at home and abroad. But, each church in each parish needs at the very least to ask what steps – simple and achievable – can be taken in the next few months to bring together what has been divided and begin a healing of what has been wounded. This is our mandate – a ministry of reconciliation between God and people and between

Page 12 of 16

people and other people. Regardless of the outcomes next March, the need in the months and years to come for common healing, common vision and common repentance will be demanding and urgent.

Against this backdrop we also do our synodical business today. Our diocesan strategy has been under development for some time in order to flesh out how our diocesan vision might look as we prioritise and make decisions. The vision is the goal; strategy is the plumbing that helps us get there. Vision can remain nebulous and imaginary unless someone does the hard work of asking (and answering) the questions how, when, by whom, how much, and so on. Following considerable road testing with groups, individuals, the Bishop’s Staff, the Diocesan Board, and many others, we bring the strategy to the Synod today. This is not an imposition on parishes or individuals; like our three simple values Loving Living Learning, this strategy invites parishes and churches to ask which elements of it might help them in their local ministry and mission as they, integral constituents of a diocese that has a responsibility to make the best of the resources of people, money and things available, seek to see the Kingdom come in our parts of Yorkshire. I look forward to good and constructive engagement with the strategy as we debate it later.

Yet, this in itself depends on the resources we are prepared to make available for the work of the Church of England in our parts of Yorkshire. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, once famously described a financial budget as “theology by numbers”. I think he was right. How we direct our finances tells the world what we really think matters – what we really believe about God, the world and ourselves as Christians. Money matters – as Jesus made clear when he pointed out that the contents of our heart will be exposed by the way we use our wallets. (He put it more elegantly than that, but the point is the same.) Or, as I put it at the excellent Lay Conference back in June this year: “If we believe it and want it, then we will pay for it; if we don’t believe it or want it, don’t pay for it and we won’t have it.” Brutal, but with the virtue of clarity.

Now, I am not naïve, and it is not as simple as that. Some people, some churches and some communities are getting poorer while others are getting richer. The Church of England takes responsibility for territory – a unique vocation in itself – and this imposes demands on our parishes that can weigh heavily. Yet, we believe in mutual resourcing according to ability and need. What generosity looks like will differ according to context and the discipleship of the people. But, we cannot avoid the hard task and challenge of deciding together how we shall aim to fund the ministry and mission entrusted to us here in the Diocese of Leeds.

This will be challenging. Significant strides have been made to reduce the deficit – this will be explained later. More will need to follow, if we are to afford what we say we want. While all the hard work is going on to work this out, please continue to pray for Debbie Child and Geoff Park in particular as they face the day-to-day hard work of bringing us into line and keeping us real. And pray for those who have asked for voluntary redundancy or who might face difficult decisions in the future as we seek to balance the books. Some have served for a long time and with great loyalty through great change; this is not an easy time, and we thank them for their service, and wish them well in their future.

So, before we proceed with this important business, I want to thank you for being willing to sit on this synod and bring your wisdom and experience to our deliberations for the next three years. When we established our new governance in 2014 the Synod was clear about maintaining a large membership of both clergy and lay people – options had been presented that would have created smaller bodies. However, there are now deaneries that are well underrepresented in both Houses, and we need to explore the reasons for this without jumping to conclusions. That said, we now have a smaller Synod, and I hope all members will feel able to contribute in the knowledge that opinions will be listened to and heard (if not always agreed with) with mutual respect and generosity. Sometimes a single voice might shine light on a matter that a couple of hundred others have not.

I also want to thank and congratulate our new chairs, Canon Sam Corley and Matthew Ambler. Please be kind to them as they get to grips with their new responsibilities – not least in chairing this Synod today. And, as in all things, let us do our business in the name of the Christ who gave himself for us, claims us for his own, and calls us to minister through the church for the sake of his world. May God bless us as we do our best for his sake.

The Rt Revd Nicholas Baines Bishop of Leeds

13 October 2018

Page 13 of 16

Diocesan Synod 13 October – Item 8 Questions for Synod

First Question received from Mr Graham Foster, Halifax Deanery

“To The Bishop of Leeds, Chair of the Leeds Board:

Regarding the monthly parish share spreadsheet there is no way of telling from the spreadsheet who is paying the base parish share assessment, whether a parish is paying a lower figure as 80% of their unrestricted income or is being surcharged above their base assessment and by how much. This is surely information the parishes or Diocesan Synod members are entitled to know/see?”

The mechanism for calculating Parish Share was approved by Diocesan Synod in 2016 and is being applied consistently across the Diocese, without exception. The detailed information for how Parish Share is calculated is provided to individual parishes on the annual request statement. Whilst it is understood that the detailed calculations for other parishes may be of interest to some, it has the potential to create negativity when comparisons between parishes are made without the full understanding of the local context – both financial and non-financial.

------

Second Question received from Mr Graham Foster, Halifax Deanery

“To The Bishop of Leeds, Chair of the Leeds Board: Parishes who pay in full in 2017 to 2020 who have historic unpaid parish share get one third written off each year they make a full payment. What is going to be offered to parishes who fall into arrears between 2017 and 2020? Some have no historic arrears pre 2017 and are being surcharged above their base assessment 2017 to 2020.”

The policy around the write-off of historic share only applies to unpaid share as at 31 December 2016. There is currently no policy to write-off unpaid share accrued since the introduction of the new share formula in 2017.

------

First Question received from Dr Sallie Bassham, Bowland and Ewecross Deanery

“To Debbie Child, Secretary to the Diocesan Synod

The information circulated about membership of Diocesan Synod shows both lay and clergy vacancies. In those deaneries with a full complement of elected members, how many held contested elections, and in how many was the number of nominations equal to the number of vacancies?”

There was one contested election for the Laity places in Birstall deanery. In five deaneries the number of nominations was equal to the number of vacancies.

Page 14 of 16

Second Question received from Dr Sallie Bassham, Bowland and Ewecross Deanery

“To the Bishop of Leeds, Chair of the Leeds Board

How many of the diocesan staff who have been made redundant have been in their current post for less than a year: does this affect their redundancy pay?”

There were no diocesan staff made redundant who have been in their post for less than a year – we did not receive any applications from any staff members who fall into this category. Employees who have been employed for less than one year are not normally entitled to receive any redundancy pay. However, we did offer to staff members who fell into this category the equivalent of one months’ salary.

------

First Question received from Canon Malcolm Halliday, General Synod

“To the Bishop of Leeds, Chair of the Leeds Board

Your very helpful and comprehensive Budget and Sustainability Plan omits one very important fact ie precise stipendiary clergy/salaried lay ministers planned for and the number of vacancies assumed. This is important as the figure shown for each year going forward under "Ministry in Parishes" is £12,585,000, which is the expected outcome in 2018. Will you please provide, broken down between the 5 Episcopal Areas, (shown as full time posts (2 half- time = 1 full-time)) for last year, the current year and each year going forward to 2022 and the number of vacancies assumed. Please also explain how the allocation between each Area is determined - or is it just randomly set at the 2018 position until this Diocesan Synod has approved the outcome of proposals arising from the work with Areas proposed at sub.para d.v. on page 12 of DS 18 10 04?”

The average number of full time equivalent stipendiary clergy (including curates in training) in 2017 was 318 and is currently forecast to be 308 during 2018, versus a budget assumption of 313. The table below shows the budget going forward based on the assumption of future stipend growth of 1% per annum and two additional curates per year. The budget per area is derived from the existing allocations per area, which were developed using the 'Sheffield formula'.

Page 15 of 16

Average No. of Paid Posts Budget per Area 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Bradford Episcopal Area 45.7 44.1 43.2 42.2 41.2 Huddersfield Episcopal Area 56.7 54.6 53.5 52.2 51.0 Leeds Episcopal Area 58.4 56.3 55.1 53.9 52.6 Ripon Episcopal Area 56.7 54.6 53.5 52.2 51.0 Wakefield Episcopal Area 39.5 38.1 37.3 36.4 35.6 Non Parochial Stipendiary posts 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Total 262.0 252.7 247.6 241.9 236.2 Curates 51.0 52.1 54.0 55.9 57.8 Total Stipendary Budget 313.0 304.8 301.6 297.8 294.0

Average No. of Paid Posts Allocation 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Bradford Episcopal Area 51.5 49.7 48.7 47.5 46.4 Huddersfield Episcopal Area 63.8 61.5 60.3 58.9 57.5 Leeds Episcopal Area 65.8 63.5 62.2 60.7 59.3 Ripon Episcopal Area 63.8 61.5 60.3 58.9 57.5 Wakefield Episcopal Area 44.5 42.9 42.0 41.1 40.1 Non Parochial Stipendiary posts 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Total Allocation 294.4 284.1 278.4 272.2 265.9 Curates 51.0 52.1 54.0 55.9 57.8 Total (inc Curates) 345.4 336.2 332.5 328.1 323.8

The above numbers are based on assuming a fixed budget for Ministry in Parishes can be maintained, which is dependent on achieving total Parish Share growth of 3% p.a.

------

Second Question received from Canon Malcolm Halliday, General Synod

“To the Bishop of Leeds Chair of the Leeds Board

I note that some Parish clergy vacancies are advertised in the "Church Times" and others by "Pathways". What is the criteria for deciding which and which route gives the greatest positive response?”

From September 2018, all diocesan Parish Clergy vacancies are advertised on the national Church of England Pathways website. Going forward, we will no longer be using the Church Times, as we have found little or no difference in the responses to our adverts. Pathways offers all clergy open access to vacancies posted by dioceses and is now a widely used service. Additionally there is a substantial cost difference between using Pathways and the Church Times with Pathways being the cheaper option. ------

Page 16 of 16