Day Two of the Extraordinary Meeting of the United Reformed Church General Assembly began with worship, led by the Revd Jane Wade, Chaplain to the Moderator.
The Revd Richard Byass then continued his short series of Bible studies, this morning reflecting on St Paul’s letter to the Philippians, chapter 2, verses 1-13. His theme was “Growing Love”. He spoke of the Church’s potential for “tomorrow’s tomorrow and beyond”. He asked, “Who do you aspire to copy of emulate?” and considered the thought that any of us might be “the only Jesus” that someone else needs. He offered three questions for discussion: What does our individual Jesus look like? What does the URC’s (corporate) Jesus look like? Where can we each shine a light? He said, what we do and who we are should be about furthering God’s Kingdom in community. He said salvation should be the goal of our future endeavours arising out of the Church Life Review.
Paper A4 – Accounting support services for local churches
Many local churches struggle to manage their accounts, often due to a shortage of treasurers and uncertainty about needs. The impact of this is additional pressure on volunteers, compliance risks and even a threat to some church’s existence.
Synods are increasingly being asked for support, highlighting the need for a denominational response. As the Church Life Review has moved forward, accountancy has become a frequently cited area where support is needed at the local level.
At least two synods are currently providing practical support to a handful of their local churches, but the challenge is that this support is not replicable in every synod. The key challenge is to design a service which is scalable and hybrid in design.
Paper A4 and its resolutions proposed a two-tier accounting support service where churches would be given confidence-building support in the first instance, with a second-tier option for synods to request time-limited funded bookkeeping support for specific local churches who would experience defined missional benefit.
In presenting Resolutions 16-20b, the Revd Dr Romilly Micklem (pictured below) from the Church Life Review (CLR) Steering Group said: “There are difficulties that a growing proportion of churches face in bookkeeping and compliance legislation. The support service will be a significant step for churches to meet those requirements, but it can’t be a complete solution for such financial matters. It’s one piece of the jigsaw, and the resources hub will be a further vital resource for churches. The emphasis has to be on support.”
Tim Crossley, “a hard-pressed Synod Clerk and Office Manager,” asked if a service could be offered to synods before being offered to local churches. Dr Micklem said that the models were at the design stage and that requests would be taken on board. Tony Brett, Wessex Synod, welcomed the resolutions, “which will enable churches to keep flourishing”. The Revd Johnny O’Hanlon wondered if there would be a deluge of requests once live, and whether a pilot scheme would stress test the new models.
Dr Micklem said that the models would offer tailored support for different situations and that there would also be learning by experience.
Chris Atherton, National Synod of Wales, reminded the Assembly that this would not absolve Elders of their responsibility for managing finances, which is a sticking point for some local churches. Romilly Micklem reminded the Assembly that the denomination is unable tell local churches how to do their accounts, but can offer support.
Resolution 16, to establish an accounting support service consisting of support for churches, was caried. Resolution 17, to give advice to the URC Trust in relation to providing funding for the accounting support service, was carried. Resolution 18, to review the accounting support service annually, was carried. Resolution 19, inviting synods to request accounting support services, was carried.
In presenting the next resolutions, Romilly Micklem said the solutions for the needs of one church might not work in another. The CLR’s proposals would equip churches through training and support, tailored for specific contexts. Referencing the charity currently proposed to off this training and support, Steve Powell, West Midlands Synod, asked for clarification about the offer and what quality assurance had taken place. Dr Micklem said that a Church Life Review Living Lab had explored an alternative service provided by synod treasurers. Another speaker wondered if the resolution could be expanded to include other providers. The General Secretary responded, saying that capacity was an issue at present, referencing the size of the second Book of Reports for 2025 as an example of the amount of work being undertaken, but that other providers would be looked into. The Mersey Synod Moderator said that the Church should start the work now.
Myles Dunnett, Church Life Review Programme Manager, shared that Small Charity Support had been recommended by a URC in High Wycombe, with which it had worked for several years, and was offered as one of many solutions to come, not exclusively. The Revd Michael Hopkins said that these pieces of work were at the start of their journey and that the Assembly shouldn’t go down rabbit holes and tie itself up in knots.
Resolutions 20a and 20b were passed.
Paper A5 – Group Buying
Ms Elizabeth Hall, a member of the CLR Steering Committee, said currently all buying of services is done locally and independently by churches, synods and the offices of General Assembly; there isn’t a group buying service in the URC. The CLR Steering Group identified certain areas where churches would benefit from purchasing support – in the areas of energy, phone and broadband, maintenance and insurance.
She said that one of the benefits of a shared procurement scheme might be the ability to secure better prices through bulk contracts covering particular synods or the whole denomination, as well as gaining more reliable post-sales support service and/or preferential supply terms.
An added benefit would be ensuring that a supply chain is not involved in Modern Day Slavery or exploiting vulnerable workers.
Responding to a question about where the buying proposals sit in the priorities of work going forward, Ms Hall said she believed the Resources Committee would be able to judge what work should be given priority and when.
One speaker commended the proposals and said his treasurer had been especially keen to find a scheme of this kind to purchase copyright licences. Ms Hall said that ideas of this kind could be passed on to the Resources Committee following this Assembly.
Speakers identified the need for good consultation, and astute sourcing of suppliers. Another speaker said “the cheapest deal is not always the best deal” – quality and appropriateness needed to be considered.
Resolution 22 instructed the Resources Committee to undertake work to further investigate, cost, and propose a preferred procurement model to be adopted by the URC. One Assembly member was concerned about the potential effort (for how much benefit?) of researching a procurement scheme – she worried that developing “a business model” would distract from the core tasks of the Church’s mission. Michael Hopkins, Convenor of the Resources Committee, said the committee understood and welcomed the work that would be required and said exploring proposals such as the ones on procurement was designed to allow ministers and congregations to get on with the work of mission. There was further debate on the pros and cons of this work, with one minister saying this kind of research, which would be taken up by perhaps only a relatively small number of URC congregations, should be left until less “nebulous” and clearly beneficial work had been done.
In the end, Resolutions 21 and 22 were passed by majority.
Paper A6 – HR, IT, payroll, and property shared service
The Revd Lythan Nevard, Moderator of Eastern Synod and a member of the CLR Committee, presented Paper A6, which contained nine resolutions.
Mrs Nevard used a motor racing analogy and likened the resolutions to the creation of a pit crew who enable the car and the driver to shine; the crew is vital, albeit not as glamourous as the racing driver, enabling the exciting parts of motor racing to take place. In this way, these resolutions were designed to enable local churches to flourish in discipleship and mission.
Sticking to the motor racing analogy, Mrs Nevard explained how it can sometimes feel as if the URC is in competition with itself; how some synods “are like Ferrari and Red Bull with heaps of resources – HR support; strong IT, large property team”, while others are more like an under-resourced team that goes into liquidation.
She emphasised that the URC is not in a competition or a race, but “called to be family and find ways to allow each church in each place to shine – to provide parity of offer across the denomination”.
The resolutions arising from Paper A6 are a response to the consultation held around this time last year, which suggested that some things could be carried out better together, not so much to become more centralised, but to work smarter. The URC’s approach to safeguarding, for example, was held up as an effective model, where policy and practice is developed denominationally, through Good Practice, which local churches can access and receive more local support.
“There is much work still to do but the Steering Group feels that there are some exciting possibilities here that will mean that every church can fulfil its mission potential – and win the only race that matters – bringing God’s love into the heart of every community and the heart of every person,” said Mrs Nevard. She then explained how the resolutions flow on from each other, enabling this work to happen, giving a brief reminder of what each resolution was about.
A lively debate followed, with several points of clarification raised. Assembly members sought clarity on whether proposals would be funded by the CLR Fund or whether additional contributions would be required from local churches and synods; whether provision had been considered for occupational health support for lay employees; whether learning from ecumenical partners, including both successes and challenges, had been incorporated; and how significant the task of establishing shared IT infrastructure would be in practice.
In response, Mrs Nevard affirmed the importance of drawing on the experiences of other denominations, noting that the URC both learns from and contributes to wider ecumenical practice. She acknowledged that occupational health had not been part of the initial proposals but agreed this was a valuable suggestion for the Resources Committee to explore.
She also emphasised that the resolutions at this stage are intentionally broad, primarily commissioning the Resources Committee to undertake further work so that more detailed proposals can be brought to future Assemblies. She encouraged the continued submission of ideas, including from URC Youth, as the work develops.
The General Secretary added that the Church is not beginning from scratch in relation to IT infrastructure; rather, the intention is to build on what already exists across the denomination. Some synods and churches have strong systems in place, while others would benefit from shared support. Lythan reiterated that these resolutions were not about imposing uniformity or requiring synods to change their established ways of working, but about identifying what can be done together so that all have the essential infrastructure needed to focus on sharing God’s love in their communities.
Resolutions 23, 24, 25, 26a, 26b, 27a, 27b, 28, and 29 were then carried.
Paper A7 – Report on models of lay worker employment across the URC
The General Assembly received the findings of a report by the Christian research organisation Eido, which the URC commissioned as part of the Church Life Review. Assembly noted and backed the model put forward by Eido, and its toolkit.
Myles Dunnett, Church Life Review Programme Manager, said that it was a “theological necessity that we employ people safely and compliantly, for the employee, employer and for the trustee. We do not propose a one size fits all model, but present shared lessons and key considerations that must be addressed to do it well.”
The report revealed the complex picture of how lay workers are employed across the denomination and the tension between local control and the need for consistent, professional support.
Based on interviews with 24 lay workers, line managers, and employers across eight case studies, the report, Assessing Models of Lay Worker Employment in the URC, examined two main approaches: lay workers employed directly by churches, and those employed by synods trusts on behalf of local curches.
Both can work well, the report said, but neither is without issues. When churches employ workers directly, they are embedded in their communities, aligned with the mission of the local congregation, supported by ministers or Elders who understand the context.
Decisions are made quickly, but the model is demanding on local congregations because of HR and financial knowledge, employment law and capable volunteer capacity.
Even the best-organised congregations admitted they struggle to stay abreast of employment law, and all expressed a need for greater HR support from Synods or Church House, including access to model contracts, up-to-date guidance and advice if things go wrong.
The synod-employed model may be perceived to offer greater job security, better pension contributions and more professional HR oversight, the report said. Lay workers felt supported with this system, with space to innovate and learn from colleagues. Churches benefit from not having to deal with legal and administrative burdens.
Both systems also revealed similar issues: the need for clearer line management, better training and stronger communication between Synods and churches. The report recommended boosting HR expertise across the URC ensuring parity in pay and pensions and improving induction and supervision for all lay workers.
Lay workers are a blessing to ministry, but as employees, they deserve consistency, support, and security, the report said.
After clarifications about the roles of trustees, Elders, Public Liability Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance, the resolution was carried.
Paper A8 – Employment of Lay Workers
General Assembly passed a series of resolutions establishing new funding and structures for lay workers in United Reformed churches.
Tim Hopley of the CLR Steering Group, presenting the proposals, told Assembly that they offered and exciting opportunity to give much needed energy to elders and churches who have plenty of enthusiasm and vision, but less time than they would like.
Mr Hopley said that workers might support the church’s work with children and young people or with dementia sufferers. They might help with to help admin or back-office work. There were myriad possibilities.
Some discussion focused on the distinction between lay and ordained ministry in the work of the whole people of God. The General Secretary, the Revd Dr John Bradbury, said that the boundary line is very complicated, but there are multiple practical reasons why we must distinguish between employee and office holder, and between lay, and ordained or commissioned – in a tradition that doesn’t make that easy.
Other contributions made to the discussion included the following:
- children’s and youth work is demanding and needs to be paid well enough to be viable;
- the Church Life Fund Committee will collate lessons learned in the process of making appointments;
- the challenge of employing lay workers is not just funding but also questions of the employing entity and line management;
- whether Christian faith can legally be made a qualification for employees depends on whether it is a genuine requirement for the work;
- we should make use of students who need to work to support their studies, as many would love to be doing this kind of work;
- lay work could be a stepping stone to ordained ministry.
All five resolutions were passed.
Paper A9 – New URC Communities of discipleship and worship
The paper was presented by Ms Lindsey Brown, Head of Ecumenical Relations and Evangelism, and Mr Myles Dunnett, Church Life Review Programme Manager.
Ms Brown said the proposals were not about prioritising new communities at the expense of existing communities, or replacing them, but about creating new communities and putting appropriate support for them in place.
It was, she said, a paper of “dreams” and “processes” – two inextricably linked elements. Wide consultation had taken place with those with long experience in pioneering, and best practice had been considered.
The paper was designed to be “enabling, encouraging, and permissive, ensuring that those engaged in on-the-ground community building and development work and have agency, whilst also ensuring that the new church communities are URC-shaped, fit within the Church’s polity, and make good use of charitable funds.”
The paper didn’t include an exhaustive list of every possible type of new church community or places where such a community might be possible, but it did outline a “philosophy, process, and practice for the establishment of those communities”, and outlined opportunities and options.
Mr Dunnett pointed out that flourishing work with new communities has already grown in many places without the need for grants or additional funding. However, processes are required for the putting forward of applications and agreeing funding awards.
In general discussion, Dr Micklem clarified that the new communities, because of the nature of their work, would require longer-term funding. He said the real value of such endeavours would be felt after the first few years of work, not in Years 1 to 3. This view was affirmed by another speaker who added that there was nothing in the report about long-term sustainability after the initial funding has ended.
Another contributor asked, “Are we going to impose our culture and ecclesiology” on others – expecting them to be conciliar and eco-churches, for example? He said many of these communities will be “far back” on these journeys and might need to begin community in other ways. Ms Brown acknowledged that balance is required. The contextuality of communities has to be affirmed while nevertheless requiring them to adhere to the structures and values of the URC.
Dr Sam Richards asked about the word “local”, and Mr Dunett acknowledged that it could sound parochial, but that it could be read instead as “contextual”.
How do we ensure that the quick movers don’t take all the money, leaving others behind? asked another speaker. Mr Dunnett said this was a question that exercised the CLR and that care would be required in how the funding was distributed, being alert, for example, to communities existing on the margins of society.
Responding to the Youth Assembly Moderator, Ms Brown said URCYouth could apply for funding by attaching a proposal to a synod.
One speaker observed that the values and principles outlined in the paper appear more demanding than those expected of existing communities. A youth delegate affirmed the proposals for new Christian communities, reflecting on how they follow the example of Jesus, reaching out to “others” rather than expecting “others” to come to “us”.
Jo Clare-Young, convenor of the Equalities, Diversity and Belonging sub-committee, pleaded for the radical inclusion in the forming of new communities, especially of individuals who have been harmed before. Responding, Ms Brown talked about the way inclusion had been built into the principles and that this issue would be embedded in the deliberations of the grant-making body. However, Alex Clare-Young felt that the commitment to inclusion noted within the principles would not be possible within existing committee structures; oversight was required. Mr Dunnett confirmed that a member of the existing staff would be attached to the funding body with particular responsibility for overseeing inclusion and diversity questions. This was minuted.
A further speaker said she had been challenged by this discussion, concerned that for some in the URC, their theological positions would lead to different views about inclusion. The General Secretary offered pastoral reflections on these tensions that are held within the denomination, observing that we allow disagreement and don’t, like some sections of society, use it to create division amongst ourselves. His words were warmly received.
Within the resolutions, Stephen Newell wasn’t seeing sufficient reference to the overarching “discipleship and worship”, and these words were accordingly added into Resolution 39.
Resolution 36, receiving the new communities proposal, and endorsing the values and principles in part two, was agreed without dissent.
Resolution 37 concerning best practice was carried without dissent.
Resolution 38 concerning application and review procedures was accepted without dissent, as were Resolutions 39 to 41.
Paper A10 – Closure of the Church Life Review
Introduced by the Revd Steve Faber, Moderator of West Midlands Synod, and Myles Dunnett, CLR Programme Manager, Paper A10 outlined Resolutions 42–47, which collectively mark the conclusion of the second phase of the CLR and acknowledge that the wider work of the denomination continues.
Mr Faber invited Assembly to take a moment to reflect on the business discussed and decisions made over the past 24 hours.
“We haven’t simply waved our technicolour cards in the air, but have instead created real space for the next phase of our common life together and committed to further significant, measurable, change in the culture of this part of Christ’s Church,” he said.
“I believe we have in this council of the Church, worked to discern the mind of Christ, and worked well to get there, without too much kerfuffle, tomfoolery or palaver.” All to enable the local church to flourish with less burdens.
Focusing on Resolutions 42-44, Mr Faber asked Assembly to agree that the implementation of the design phase now needed to be embedded into the everyday life and structures of the denomination.
He expressed gratitude to Synod Trust companies and synod meetings for the generous way they considered and responded to proposals to establish a new Church Life Fund, which will provide more than £3 million annually to support shared services, the employment of lay workers in local churches, and the creation of new communities of discipleship and worship. But he warned that there was “no point in having a fund that couldn’t be spent”. He then likened Resolution 42 and its commissioning of a communications strategy to share news of the fund’s availability to a “high-energy, good news story” for the whole Church.
Resolutions 43 and 44 asked the Resources Committee to oversee the CLR implementation, report back to Assembly 2026 with progress and timelines, and release the steering and task groups from their Phase Two responsibilities with gratitude.
A second-year ministerial student was concerned about the amount of work being placed on the Resources Committee, but also felt they’ve got an exciting time before them in planning a way forward. A Children’s and Youth Development Officer (CYDO) expressed concern about what exactly was being declared a priority, with other working already having prioritised.
The focus of Resolution 42 was discussed: reaching young people within synods and local churches to get them involved within the wider URC and synod activities. The question was posed about how the Church planned to get information out across the URC.
Mr Dunnett said that exploring the answer to these questions forms part of ongoing work. There would be a communications strategy, reaching out to grass roots, and lots of consultation with churches using synods and pastoral committees. One speaker noted that different languages are used within the URC, for example sign language, and she asked for this to be taken into account during ongoing work.
Resolutions 42, 43, and 44 were carried with a resounding round of applause for the work of the CLR Steering Committee.
Picking up the presentation, Mr Dunnett outlined the next steps needed to carry the work forward, focusing on Resolutions 45-47.
Resolution 45 instructed the Business Committee to form a Strategic Reference Group to provide oversight of CLR implementation. This group will help preserve the insights, learning, and intentions developed through the Review. Some existing CLR members will be invited to join so that valuable knowledge is not lost.
Resolution 46 highlighted a fundamental issue not covered in the CLR brief: the future of the Ministry and Mission Fund (M&M). With ministry costs forming the majority of the fund’s expenditure, and it therefore being vital to sustain a fund for ministry, Assembly is asked to commission a major consultation involving all relevant stakeholders to consider sustainable future models.
Assembly was then invited through Resolution 47 to instruct committees to embed the new ways of collaborative working and to report to future Assemblies on the outcomes of this.
Discussions around the resolutions in this paper centred on whether all members within a local church – who, through their sacrificial giving, enable local churches to contribute to the M&M fund – would form part of the decision-making. Clear terms of reference were requested for the Strategic Reference Group (SRG), and an amendment was made to this effect.
Mr Faber said it would be the Business Committee that would go on to create the Terms of Reference, and explained that the aim of the SRG would be for it to act as a sounding board for the work going forward. A time-limit was also requested so the group would have an end point.
The General Secretary added that the point of the SRG would be for committees receiving new work to be able to engage with those involved in the huge amount of background work so that knowledge and learning, from members of past working groups, steering groups, consultations etc, could be drawn upon and not lost; to inform the work going forward if needed.
Resolution 45 passed by majority; and Resolution 46 passed unanimously, as did Resolution 47.
The day ended in reflective worship.