The 2026 meeting of the United Reformed Church (URC) Assembly Executive opened on 7 February online with a welcome by the Catriona Wheeler, Moderator of the URC General Assembly 2025-2026.
Session one
Opening Worship was led by the Revd Jane Wade, Chaplain to the Moderator, who called the meeting to centre its work in God’s kingdom, grounding decisions in faith, humility, and prayer, and reflecting on the challenge nationalism poses to Christianity’s inclusive call.
Drawing on Leviticus 19:34 and Matthew 25:35, it emphasised that faith is shown through welcoming the stranger, loving the vulnerable, and seeing Christ in those who are different or marginalised. It invited participants to move beyond comfort and fear, committing to lives and actions shaped by radical hospitality, compassion and unity in God’s Spirit.
Session two
En bloc decisions
As with all meetings of the General Assembly and the Assembly Executive, a number of matters were taken En bloc, meaning they were passed without debate. Representatives were sent the papers a few weeks before the meeting so they could be read, and resolutions taken out of En bloc if requested.
For the February 2026 meeting, the En bloc decisions were:
Paper A1: Accessing the Legacy of Slavery Fund for small-scale transactions
The Assembly Executive resolved that the Faith in Action (FiA) Committee would have the power to approve expenditure of up to £5,000 per transaction from the Legacies of Slavery (LoS) Fund. Expenditure of amounts greater than £5,000 will continue to require the approval of the Business Committee. This meant easier access to the fund for ongoing small transactions (eg consultancy fees) working towards the bigger repairing justice commitments being achieved.
Paper A2: Business Committee Revised Composition
The Assembly Executive adopted a revised membership of the Business Committee, to add the three core General Assembly committee convenors to the committee, to better ensure that the work of the General Assembly remains co-ordinated.
BG1: Terms of References: Resources and Faith in Action Committees
The Assembly Executive approved the updated Terms of Reference for the Faith in Action Committee and the Resources Committee. This ensures that the Terms of Reference remain accurate and allows for effective governance following the staff restructure in the Offices of General Assembly which took place during the summer of 2025.
The Faith in Action Committee now has responsibility for the communications strategy and content work and will include the branding associated with the bookshop items, the Resources Committee now has responsibility for the trading aspects of Communications, namely iChurch, Reform Magazine and the Bookshop, and the handling the commercial/financial aspects of these enterprises.
The Resources Committee will continue to oversee the URC website and will take responsibility for managing the URC database.
J1: Nominations report
The Assembly Executive appointed members of committees and representatives of the United Reformed Church, to various committees and groups and external appointments following their nominations and the safer recruitment process.
R1: Expanding number of ASPD members
The Assembly Executive amended Section O, Appendix H, to increase the number of members of the Assembly Standing Panel for Discipline (ASPD) by two to offer flexibility so that equal numbers of lay people and ministers can serve. There is no requirement to limit the lay members to Elders as ASPD doesn’t reserve governance to Elders and ministers. It is desirable, but not essential, for one member of the ASPD in each case to have a legal qualification or comparable experience.
Resolution 14
Assembly Executive confirmed the appointment of the Revd Michael Thomason to serve as Moderator of the North Western Synod from 1st April 2026 to 31st March 2033. You can read more about Mike on the URC website.
Paper A3: Review of the Structure of the URC
The General Secretary, the Revd Dr John Bradbury, introduced proposals to review the structures of the United Reformed Church – a task that he said had emerged as a logical consequence of the decision by the 2025 General Assembly to examine the size of the General Assembly and the size and function of the Assembly Executive.
He said there is a range of issues that make church life harder than it need be, and that there are things that can be done to ease the ways of working of churches and synods. He argued that, if the structures of the General Assembly and Assembly Executive are being reviewed, it makes sense to look at the whole picture rather than address a range of issues across the URC piecemeal.
Paper A3 gives assurance that the task would not alter the fundamental, conciliar structures of the URC (local churches/synods/General Assembly). Rather “it is an intention to review whether some of the details of the structure need to be evolved to meet the current needs and challenges of the Church”. To that end, the paper’s six examples of possible areas for discussion are, Dr Bradbury said, not be taken as a definitive list of areas for work but an indication of issues that have arisen from discussion so far.
Dr Bradbury said the proposers of the resolutions in this paper are aware of the scale of the task, and that this would delay the work that has been commissioned on the General Assembly and Assembly Executive. For that reason, he said a timescale has not been suggested. The paper indicates a hope of bringing the main proposals to Assembly Executive in February 2027, for agreement by General Assembly in 2027 and subsequent Church-wide consultation.
During discussion, Dr Bradbury agreed that this work would need to include considerations relating to local church polity. He also said that for any effective consultation to get “the granular insight” of day-to-day life in churches, face to face “qualitative research” would be required as well as other methods, such as online questionnaires.
To a question about financial impacts arising from the delay to changes to Assembly size, Dr Bradbury said this was hard to quantify but that savings are already being made by reducing the number of synod representatives. To another question he said that though in-person General Assembly meetings are currently assumed, he believed this was an understanding that could be reconsidered by Business Committee in light of, for example, today’s online experience.
All the resolutions were carried unanimously:
Resolution 3, initiating a review of the structure of the URC;
Resolution 4, incorporating the review of the functions of the General Assembly and Assembly Executive into this wider review;
Resolution 5, recognising that a new timetable for this larger review is required;
Resolution 6, maintaining the status quo as regards the number of synod representatives (12) at General Assembly;
Resolution 7, asking the Business Committee to appoint a working group to prepare work that can form the basis of wider consultation.
Paper F1: On Assisted Dying
The Assembly Executive of the United Reformed Church (URC) discussed the issue of Assisted Dying, last discussed by the General Assembly in 2007, in light of changes in the law and proposed changes to the law in UK jurisdictions. The Worship, Faith & Order Committee asked if the Church’s current position should be re-examined.
The Revd Dr Robert Pope, Convenor of the Worship, Faith & Order Committee, outlined what was passed in 2007, and noted that proposed changes to the law at that time were not passed. The mood of the country is different to what it was 19 years ago, and the committee wanted to see what the mind of the Assembly would be now. “We know that this is emotive and sensitive subject and requires more work to inform the debate, for discussion at a future General Assembly.”
In 2007, Resolution 51 stated that:
- all human life is God-given and precious; death is not the end
- stopping treatment that only prolongs dying may be appropriate
- pain relief, even if it may hasten death, is acceptable when the intention is comfort
- the URC opposes laws that would deliberately assist someone to die
- advance directives and living wills are useful, but should not be used to facilitate a person’s death
- better palliative care resources should be made more widely available.
The resolution also affirmed the role of carers, hospices, and pastoral support for the dying.
Since 2007, assisted dying has become legal in the Isle of Man and might soon become law in Jersey and Scotland. At the time of writing, the Bill to legalise assisted dying is currently with the House of Lords
After a discussion about whether the Assembly Executive could make this decision or whether it should wait until the meeting of the General Assembly, which the General Secretary, the Revd John P Bradbury said was the remit of the Assembly Executive, the resolution was taken in parts.
The Moderator of the General Assembly, Catriona Wheeler, reminded the meeting that this was a deeply sensitive subject which will touch many people personally, and that all should be held in prayer.
The Revd Romilly Micklem said that good material from the URC was already available and could be appropriated and updated. He also wondered if the deadline in the resolution of the 2026 General Assembly was realistic.
The Revd Steve Faber was disturbed by the suggestion that the theological conviction of the URC might change. He didn’t believe that assisted dying was God’s will, and that any revisions should focus more on palliative care. “There is no need for anyone to suffer difficult deaths in that way. Life is a God given gift.”
Sarah Hall, Wessex Synod, said that because the world is changing around us, we might need to revise this – the discussion needs to be had.
Lindsey Sanderson, National Synod of Scotland, said legislation before our separate Parliaments were different, and shared that the last time the National Synod of Synod discussed this, there was a variance of views. The change in public mood since 2007 makes it appropriate for the URC to review what it has said that people are asking a more up-to-date position.
Lorna Griffiths, Mersey Synod, asked what impact the decisions of Parliament would have on this work.
Dr Pope responded by saying that the study guide from 2007 would be the committee’s starting point, and that the intention was not to change minds. The URC is at a significant point where a change in the law might take place, so this is an apposite time to look at this again. The committee is of a mind to prepare churches to be informed, and he noted the significance of the work and the complexities and sensitivities involved.
The Revd Romilly Micklem said that nothing was done when other legislation was put before Parliaments in the UK, and asked that the URC to be more vocal about its position.
The Revd Lindsey Sanderson said that in 2010, the URC did speak out about the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill put forward by (the late) Margo MacDonald MSP (which was defeated in December 2010).
The Revd Clare Downing, North Western Synod, said that the resolution as written would be interpreted as being discussed at this July’s General Assembly.
The Revd David Downing added that there was a multifaith leaders’ group on assisted dying which could be part of this work.
Resolution 10a was amended to read: Assembly Executive instructs the Worship, Faith and Order Committee to: a) prepare resources to be available for Assembly 2026 to enable informed discussion in the wider church, to help discern, at a later Assembly, if the 2007 decision is still our understanding of the mind of Christ. This was carried by majority, as was 10b and 10c, after the removal of the end of 2026 deadline.
For information
The purpose of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a Private Members’ Bill, currently progressing through the UK Parliament, is to legalise assisted dying/assisted suicide in England and Wales for certain terminally ill adults. If enacted, the Bill would allow mentally competent adults, aged 18+, who are terminally ill with a prognosis of around six months or less, to legally request assistance to end their own life.
The Bill includes requirements and safeguards intended to ensure decisions are voluntary and well-considered and may involve independent review mechanisms.
Paper F2: Responding to Christian Nationalism
The Revd Dr Robert Pope, Convenor of Worship, Faith and Order Committee presented Paper F2 which focuses on the need to develop a series of liturgical, pastoral and theological resources to enable the denomination to navigate the dangers posed by Christian Nationalism.
Although the phenomenon, said Dr Pope, is more widespread in the United States than it is in the UK he hoped Assembly Executive would be minded to see a need to prepare resources. He described Christian Nationalism as a movement that perverts the message of the Gospel seeking to divorce it from the message and example of Jesus.
Although certain signs could not be certain, he explained that the do point to the possibility that Christian Nationalism will become more significant in the UK over the next few years. Dr Pope advised that the point of preparing resources was so that churches could respond to the phenomenon in an informed way.
Points of clarification focused on whether Christian Nationalism should be referred to specifically in the resolution. Dr Pope explained that Christian Nationalism was just a starting point and the paper was worded the way it was as nationalism covers a range of topics eg racism, misogyny, homophobia.
The General Secretary, John Bradbury, advised that the way in which resolutions gets reported and appear in records, without the context of the paper in its title, the resolution could be misconstrued. A minor change was then made to end the resolution “…confidently navigate the challenges to it thrown up by “Christian Nationalism”.
The Revd Lindsey Sanderson, Moderator of the National Synod of Scotland, highlighted a toolkit developed by JPIT on how to respond to Christian Nationalism, available freely on the JPIT website.
During the discussion phase of the paper, support was expressed for the paper, along with the need to hear what was behind the Tommy Robinson movement and appropriation behind the use of Christian language and symbols. The point was expressed that if the Church did not engage with the concerns that gives the abuse of faith traction, it could end up in an echo chamber.
Movingly, the Revd Dr Michael Hopkins, Moderator of Wessex Synod, said that the question presented in the paper was not new.
“Back in 1934, the German evangelical church issued what we now know as the Barmen Declaration with the very simple claim at the centre of it, Jesus Christ as he is attested for us in the holy scripture is the one word of God whom we must hear and trust and obey. And therefore, no weather, rough authority, no ideology, no nation, no leader could claim that allegiance. You won’t be surprised to hear me pointing out that this bears the unmistakable mark of Karl Barth, but theology was not about retrieving from the world, but refusing to allow worldly power to occupy the place that belongs to Christ.
“The danger is not bad politics, but false confession; the attempt to speak of God where God has not spoken, and to demand obedience, where Christ has not commanded it. The Barmen Declaration didn’t emerge out of theoretical anxiety, it emerged because far too late the church had discovered that nationalism could clunk itself in Christian language, while demanding ultimate loyalty.
“So-called Christian Germany was being preached from pulpits and the church was being asked not nearly to love its country but to sanctify it. The Confessing Church’s memorandum to Hitler in 1936 made this very explicit when it accused the regime of attempting to make the Church an instrument of political ideology. That memorandum did not stop the arrests. It did not prevent the camps, but it did draw a theological line. Where Christ is displaced, the Church must resist even when resistance is costly. The English Congregationalists understood this with particular clarity.
“Nat Micklem, the principle of Mansfield College, travelled to Germany repeatedly through the 1930s. In solidarity with the confessing Church, he was warned in 1938 that if he returned, he would be arrested and not allowed home. Several German protestant ministers fled to Britain and became English congregational ministers. One of them Herbert Hartwell was a Barth scholar, whose theology was forged in resistance. Mansfield College still honours Adam von Trott and alumni executed in 1944 for conspiring against Hitler.
“These are not little historical reminiscences or marginal stories. These are our influence and our inheritance. And this is a history that flows directly into the basis of union of our own Church. We confess that the Church belongs to God, but its faith and obedience are shaped by the living word of God. But it must be continuingly reformed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I learned Basis of Union leaves for a Church that simply baptises the spirit of the age. Whether that spirit is wrapped in national flags, cultural nostalgia or so-called appeals to so-called Christian values. Some will be uneasy at the suggestion that nationalism comes in varieties. While for many of us, including those who instinctively dislike nationalism nonetheless inhabited, if we refuse to name our own nationalism, that doesn’t make us neutral, it just means that we have not examined ourselves when churches fail to recognise how race and class and power shape who’s nationalism is invisible and whose is threatening?
“We run the risk of repeating the oldest mistake of the Church. Assuming that our location is universal, the lesson from the Barmen Declaration from Dietrich Bonhoeffer from the Confessing Church is not that Christians must reject love of country. The lesson is that the Church must never allow love of country to become a rival confession. When the nation asks for what belongs to Christ, the Church must say ‘No’, not politely, not eventually, but clearly publicly. And theologically, that’s why this paper matters, why the work that it is proposing matters. And that is why we must support it.”
The resolution was carried unanimously.
Written by the URC Communications Team: Ann-Marie Nye, Laurence Wareing and Andy Jackson. With thanks to the Revd Dr Alex Clare-Young, Assistant Clerk to the General Assembly.