The 2025 meeting of the United Reformed Church (URC) Assembly Executive opened on 3 February at The Hayes Conference Centre in Swanwick, with a welcome by the Revd Tim Meadows, Moderator of the URC General Assembly 2024-2025.
The Moderator also welcomed members into new roles and new members of Assembly Executive attending for the first time.
Session one
Opening worship
Assembly Executive opened with worship led by Andrea Heron, one of the General Assembly Moderator’s Chaplains.
She reminded the meeting of the year’s theme of resurrection: “There is something profoundly shifting in our church and in what church is in our society,” she said.
The readings were from Amos 9, about restoring David’s ruined booth; and Acts 14, about Paul and Barnabas in Iconium.
Recalling her visit in the late 1980s to Kirchentag, the international Church gathering, in East Berlin, Andrea reflected on how the church offered safe place with reflection and consolation from the difficulty of their lives, for all comers. With Christianity in recession in the west, she said, we can fulfil that role again.
Minutes
The meeting approved of minutes of previous Assembly Executive a year ago. There were no objections and as Morag the minute taker said, ‘If anyone wants to object you can write them yourselves.’
An item was raised for any other business from the November 2024 Assembly Executive minutes, where the Treasurer of the URC, Alan Yates, ‘the M&M process is broken, and the URC needs to explore different ways to fund ministry.’
The General Secretary assured Assembly Executive that a paper would be brought, and that the matter was now with resources committee.
The facilitation group was agreed, to work on things that come up during Assembly Executive, such as the wording of new resolutions.
Churches Mutual Credit Union
Alan Yates, in his role as President of the Board of Directors of Churches Mutual Credit Union (CMCU), gave a short presentation to mark the tenth anniversary of the organisation. CMCU offers competitive, affordable loans and ethical savings to lay or ordained ministers, employees or trustees associated with partner churches, of which the URC is. Mr Yates said that loans offered by the union were approaching a total of £15m, and the present challenge was that they needed more investment to increase loans. Learn more about CMCU.
Ukraine Appeal and Commitment for Life update
Philip Brooks, Deputy General Secretary (Discipleship), said that in 2023 East Midlands Synod brought a resolution, taken forward jointly with Mission Committee, to establish a Ukraine Appeal specifically linked to the Transcarpathian Church. (The Transcarpathian Church supported rebuilding in Britain following the bombing damage inflicted during the Second World War).
The Church of Scotland offered links to the Hungarian Reformed Church, which runs a relief agency that operates vin the Transcarpathian region.
Philip presented a short film that shows how the appeal developed. The film has been made by Kevin Snyman, Programme Officer for Global Justice and Partnerships, who visited Hungary to see the Reformed Church’s work for himself.
Previous links with the URC’s Southern Synod were noted. The film also showed the work of social kitchens supporting those in need, and a farm that provides for the whole biosystem of in the Transcarpathian region. Kevin said that though Ukraine is out of the news cycle, its problems have not gone away. He said the Church does amazing work, and he encouraged URC members to support the appeal financially and with prayer.
Following up the film, Richard Lewney, Convenor of Commitment for Life, said that the global justice programme is there to support ongoing needs in partnership with other established charities. However, the establishment of one-off appeals (including for Gaza and Myanmar) has been a feature of recent work, and there is much gratitude for the way in which these have been supported.
To view Kevin’s film, see https://youtu.be/grZ3zCfhicU.
[embedded content]
H2 Ministries: Special Category Pioneering Posts
On behalf of Ministry Committee and in consultation with the Deputy General Secretary (Mission), the Revd Mary Thomas proposed withdrawing its Paper H2: Special Category Pioneer Posts. She said the committee had consulted with ecumenical partners and was also aware of discussions falling within the remit of the Church Life Review. As a result, the committee felt the paper needed further work, with a view to bringing it to General Assembly later in 2025.
Ms Thomas asked those already developing applications to continue doing so in order that these applications may be used as pilots.
On a vote, Assembly Executive agreed to the paper being taken away for further work.
Session two
A3 Ministerial Disciplinary Process Review
Paper A3, presented by the Revd Dr John Bradbury, in his Acting Convenor of Complaints And Discipline Advisory Group role, explores recommendations for an enhanced Ministerial Disciplinary Process, as outlined in a report commissioned by Dr Ed Morgan KC. Dr Bradbury explained that Dr Morgan, was appointed for his specialist vie: he is part employment lawyer, specialising in fitness to practice processes and works extensively with regulatory bodies. He is also a Roman Catholic canon lawyer and knows the fitness to practice and ecclesiastical disciplinary world well.
The process of the review of the URC’s Section O process included comparisons of current best practice against the processes of regulatory boards, such as the Midwifery Council, and a range of other denominations.
Dr Bradbury said the current Section O process is extremely difficult for all who come into contact with it, whether complainant, someone being complained about, or processing the information. Regardless, he called it a “significant discipline in the life of the church, illustrated by the numerous headlines in recent news with the Church of England”. He said it was “vital that we get this as right as we can” however we can have complete confidence in the decisions that are ultimately made through the process.
The General Secretary reminded Assembly Executive that in 2021 General Assembly adopted a new disciplinary process. Since its implementation in 2022, the process has been “far more rigorously tested through a greater number of cases”. He informed Assembly that number was 15 and that volume of cases has at times stretched the capacity of the process to its fullest.
Dr Bradbury said in light of this, it “would be remiss if the URC did not stand back and take stock” and that considering the number of cases and the stretch on the process, it became clear that external perspective was needed.
The Morgan report sets out the URC’s existing process against others and comes up with a set of recommendations for the URC to examine and take forward. Dr Bradbury explained that the recommendations only form the basis, not the end of the journey, which will continue to be refined to present a revised draft of rules and processes to be clarified so that the process and experience of all those with the process accords a sense of natural justice and best practice.
Having commissioned this review, the URC would need to stand on very firm ground to challenge the recommendations, explained Dr Bradbury who also explained that not every recommendation will find its way into the process.
John added that a process of consultation with serving and retiring ministers is also underway as it is important to consult those with whom the process concerns generally.
A lively discussion then took place where gratitude was expressed for the work undertaken. Comments concerned the length of time that those on suspension have to wait for disclosure which doesn’t always leave them with enough time to prepare their case. Therefore, it was asked if disclosure be a two-way process to provide sufficient time. Questions focused on whether the process should cover all officer holders or just ministers and CRCWs. It was explained that that would give the potential for the process to cover thousands of people the processing of which may beyond the capacity of the URC.
Concerns were expressed about where authority lay in terms of oversight in establishing draft procedures and processes. That it was much preferable for responsibility and accountability to lay with General Assembly, to better discern the will of God, rather than Business Committee, which was put forward to simply formalise the work already being undertaken within that area. After a straw poll, it was agreed that an alternative to Business Committee would be put forward in due course and that hopefully, recommendations would be brought to Assembly Executive/General Assembly in 2026.
In regard to the timing of disclosure to those on suspension, Dr Bradbury explained that sometimes when statutory organisations such as the police are involved, timing can be out of the hands of the process.
Others expressed whether a lay element could be added to resolution seven and suggested that that element come in the form of the Chief Operating Officer’s input.
Regarding a question about the general themes that had come up under the current process that was leading to a sense of urgency in the paper and what would be helpful for Assembly Executive to know about, in terms of mental health etc. Dr Bradbury firstly clarified that although 15 cases had been initiated, not all 15 cases had been concluded. From his viewpoint, themes he feels that have presented are that:
- some cases have emerged out of the collective trauma of the pandemic. As a result of that trauma, either the complainant has found themselves in a place to initiative a process, or a minister has acted in ways that are less than desirable. This is a theme in common with other third sector organisations. It is not just a “URC thing”.
- More safeguarding professionals are employed and there is a changing culture around safeguarding, which show a range of things that should always have been dealt with stringently but were previously treated pastorally.
- Some themes are because of the revised process which made significant changes earlier on in the process. For example, previously there was just one person, the synod moderator, who could instigate a process. Now a synod moderator sits as one of a panel of three. With that panel, the decision-making seems to attract lower threshold of tolerance.
Following more debate, Resolutions 6 and 7 passed. After a slight amendment, Resolution 8 also passed. Resolution 9 was withdrawn.