St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

The right way to decide

As you probably know, I’ve been away at the General Synod of the Church of England in February, so you have a right to know what we’ve been doing with our time. Space forbids me writing about everything, but here’s one item we discussed.

Synod members have been unhappy with levels of Church Fees (for weddings and funerals) for many years. Some think they ought to be hiked up a lot, to charge what the market will bear and to “meet the true costs of providing the ministry” (whatever that might be). Others think fees are already too high. There are moans about “local fees” (should a wedding at a big church cost more than at a little one, because it’s more expensive to heat the building?) There’s an airing of these things each July as fees for the next year are set.

So the Archbishops’ Council had the bright idea of appointing a small group to go away and come back with proposals for change. The result was a report “Four Funerals and a Wedding” to bring in the changes. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line the group was given the instruction to draft new laws, so the report itself was a background document, and synod was asked to begin the revision stage of the legislation.

Paul Ayers (vicar of Pudsey) was one of those to make a brilliant speech pointing out some of the daftnesses of the proposed laws. And eventually we all voted to “adjourn” the debate until we had had a chance to discuss a report properly. Shouldn’t we be discussing the principles before drafting the laws? Revision committees are good at revising details of laws, but not good at tearing them up and starting again.

It all made me think about PCCs. If I, the vicar, have a bright idea about something I’d like to change at church, I shouldn’t spring it on the PCC and ask them to agree it there and then. Instead I should have a general discussion of the ideas with them (the “take note debate”). I shouldn’t write down the detailed proposals until after this discussion. Then the PCC is entitled to written notice of the proposals on their agendas, so they can discuss them (the “first reading”). If they’re all happy, then fair enough: but if not, I should ask them to appoint a couple of people to go through the suggestions with me (the “Revision Committee”) and look for some compromises with those who disagree. Only at the third meeting should we make a final decision. That way, those in favour know that the topic won’t drag on for ever, but those against know that they will have a proper chance for their views to be heard and registered.

John Hartley

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. March 2008, Page 4.
Home Page. Index of articles: by subject, by date. In this issue: (March 2008) Resurrection, Hymn, Revision, Question, Ecumenism. Other articles on democracy.	The right way to decide As you probably know, I’ve been away at the General Synod of the Church of England in February, so you have a right to know what we’ve been doing with our time. Space forbids me writing about everything, but here’s one item we discussed. Synod members have been unhappy with levels of Church Fees (for weddings and funerals) for many years. Some think they ought to be hiked up a lot, to charge what the market will bear and to “meet the true costs of providing the ministry” (whatever that might be). Others think fees are already too high. There are moans about “local fees” (should a wedding at a big church cost more than at a little one, because it’s more expensive to heat the building?) There’s an airing of these things each July as fees for the next year are set. So the Archbishops’ Council had the bright idea of appointing a small group to go away and come back with proposals for change. The result was a report “Four Funerals and a Wedding” to bring in the changes. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line the group was given the instruction to draft new laws, so the report itself was a background document, and synod was asked to begin the revision stage of the legislation. Paul Ayers (vicar of Pudsey) was one of those to make a brilliant speech pointing out some of the daftnesses of the proposed laws. And eventually we all voted to “adjourn” the debate until we had had a chance to discuss a report properly. Shouldn’t we be discussing the principles before drafting the laws? Revision committees are good at revising details of laws, but not good at tearing them up and starting again. It all made me think about PCCs. If I, the vicar, have a bright idea about something I’d like to change at church, I shouldn’t spring it on the PCC and ask them to agree it there and then. Instead I should have a general discussion of the ideas with them (the “take note debate”). I shouldn’t write down the detailed proposals until after this discussion. Then the PCC is entitled to written notice of the proposals on their agendas, so they can discuss them (the “first reading”). If they’re all happy, then fair enough: but if not, I should ask them to appoint a couple of people to go through the suggestions with me (the “Revision Committee”) and look for some compromises with those who disagree. Only at the third meeting should we make a final decision. That way, those in favour know that the topic won’t drag on for ever, but those against know that they will have a proper chance for their views to be heard and registered. John Hartley
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 26th April 2008.