Day two of the 2025 meeting of Assembly Executive opened with worship, led by the Revd Andrew Mann-Ray, one of the General Assembly Moderator’s Chaplains. He reminded members that God lifts up the weary and gives hope to the hopeless.
The reading was from Romans 4, about Abraham trusting God’s promise of a son after all seemed hopeless.
Andrew spoke of his love of folk music and played Jon Boden’s song ‘Moths in the Gaslight’ about people returning to the city after the pandemic. He linked the coming of hope in the midst of despair with Abraham’s faith in God. He mentioned that our churches had a similar age profile to Abraham and Sarah and spoke of those in churches who are in despair, and of the need to give them hope in the promise of God.
Session four
Discussions around papers AD1: Resource Centres for Learning and A2: Committee Structures & General Secretariat will conclude on day three of Assembly Executive.
Session five
BDFH1: Towards a Ministry of Children’s & Youth Work
Revd Samantha Sheehan, Children’s and Youth Work Committee, and Mary Thomas, Convenor of Ministries Committee, presented Paper BDFH1 about a new formal ministry of church commissioned Children’s and Youth Workers.
Revd Sheehan advised that the paper presented was a continuation of resolutions brought to General Assembly in 2023. She provided a summary of those resolutions which were as follows:
- Recognise work amongst children, young people and families as ministry
- Invites synods to develop appropriate schemes to offer accreditation and recognition of local church roles (volunteer and employed)
- Is minded that there should be a formal ministry of URC Children’s, Youth and/or Family Ministry
Revd Sheehan asked for Assembly Executive’s help in discerning how work should progress to aid the task group which is working to explore what and how this distinctive ministry can be offered.
Mary Thomas, then explained some of the theology behind the resolutions, as shown in appendix one. Much in this appendix explains why children matter. “No matter the age, we all have a place at the table,” she said.
Mary explained that the role is distinct in itself. It is not a sub-branch of the Ministry of Word and Sacraments, not Church Related Community Work. The role is a ministry specifically among children and young people and is about discipleship, encouraging and enabling them in their Christian journey. The title of the role “Church Commissioned Children’s and Youth Workers” expresses that the clear intention and focus of work.
If the direction of travel is agreed, the Basis of Union would need to be updated, shown in Appendix Three.
The convenor then invited Assembly Executive into conversation and discernment, following on point seven and appendix one, and appendix two which proposes marks of ministry, in small discussion groups.
Assembly Executive was asked to answer on three questions, primarily focusing on the first two:
- Is this the correct direction of travel in developing this new ministry?
- What opportunities could this new ministry offer in your context?
Then
- How should this new ministry be financed and what may be the implications?
Following their return from group discussions, comments centred on whether the post would be stipendiary or non-stipendiary, or a paid worker post; would it involve presiding sacraments; would it not be better to resource existing CYDOs and children’s and youth worker; does the role also involves ministering to families; is an extra ministry really needed?
The convenor responded that task group wants to encourage synods to think about how they’re encouraging the paid workers in their synods, but this is an opportunity to see if there’s a desire to formally recognise a larger ministry rather than it just sitting in local ministry and synods. The role would be a formal ministry and so would be offered as a stipendiary post as well as non-stipendiary. It would also involve ministering to families also.
In regard to whether the role could be recruited to under the Certificate of Eligibility, Nicola Furley-Smith, Ministries Secretary explained that it would be very difficult to map those onto the URC’s requirements. Work is yet to be done to see what would be required for training, to then see if anyone would come forward, and then ascertain if they would have what would be required, or if they would need more training.
Following a query as to whether the proposals is linked to the Church Life Review, the Revd Dr John Bradbury, explained that it is not, but that it is a role parallel to Minister of Word and Sacraments and Church-Related Community Workers, not a salaried/employed role.
Concerns were expressed about how the ministry would be funded at the expense of taking funding away from something else.
Due to a lot of more discussion required, the convenor asked for resolution 14 to be withdrawn for more concrete proposals to be brought back to General Assembly.
Revd Sheehan said, that the committee noted that there is a coolness towards a formal ministry towards children’s youth and family work, but there is a desire to encourage children’s, youth and family work in its general and current sense.
This motion was agreed by Assembly Executive.
Session six
Amendments to Section O – Paper R1
Paper R1 is related to Paper A3, where the Complaints and Discipline Advisory Group (CDAG) commissioned Dr Ed Morgan KC to review the URC’s discipline system in the light of processes from other churches and regulatory bodies (including the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the General Medical Council, the Bar Standards Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Care Quality Commission).
CDAG felt it was also appropriate to bring some immediate amendments to the URC’s Section O process building on Dr Morgan’s work and after a consultation process.
These amendments included:
- the ability to act if the ‘home denomination’ of a minister serving with us does not attend to a discipline case appropriately
- clarify that Moderator’s recorded warnings are not part of the discipline process but that records of them should be kept on the minister’s file
- write in the new post of Secretary to the ASPD, created by the Business Committee, and which reflects the fact the Assembly and Appeal Commissions have Secretaries, clarify, at the investigation stage, the ASPD and Investigation Team responsibilities
- clarify what needs to be in a Commission’s written decision
- suggest the removal of a confusing paragraph in the Framework about suspension
- make clearer the time allowed to make and appeal
- to rename MIND to CDAG.
Andy Braunston, Secretary of the URC’s Assembly Standing Panel for Discipline (ASPD), introduced the paper and invited questions for clarification and discussion.
The resolution was adopted.
Session seven
En bloc resolutions
The following resolutions were passed en bloc. En bloc resolutions are voted on without debate, having been deemed uncontroversial. This has no reflection on their importance. The full reports and resolutions in each case can be read here:
A1 Reporting Business Committee decisions
The Business Committee will inform the Assembly Executive of decisions taken on behalf of the General Assembly since it last met.
G1 Pensions Committee Terms of Reference
Changes to the Terms of Reference of the Pensions Committee to reflect current oversight of pension schemes and associated benefits.
G2 Pensions Update
An update on the Ministers’ Pension Fund.
G3 Pensions Process and Delegated Authority
Setting out the process by which the Business Committee may make urgent decisions on pension ‘buy in’ and ‘buy out’ processes, if they cannot wait for General Assembly or Assembly Executive.
H1 NSM Expenses Policy
A new policy for expenses paid to non-stipendiary ministers.
H3 Revision of Section O Appendix D
Clarification that the Ministries Committee follows the URC Data Privacy Policy in regards to who has access to minister files during disciplinary processes.
I1 Mission Report
Commends ‘Journeying Together’, the Roman Catholic/United Reformed Church Dialogue Group resource.
J1 Nominations
Appointments to the Nominations Committee
Q1
Listed Buildings Advisory Committee Report
Notification of the increasing difficulties in staffing synod Listed Building Advisory Committees.
S1 PVG Matrix
Changes in the Protecting Vulnerable Groups Matrix, in line with the Disclosure (Scotland) Act.
S2 Safeguarding Terms of Reference
A change to the Terms of Reference of the Safeguarding Committee to broaden the description of personnel.
The future of governance – Paper A4
Assembly Executive welcomed the exploration of the United Reformed Church Trust company being replaced with a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO). A CIO is an incorporated structure designed for charities where trustees have limited or no liability for CIO debts or liabilities.
The meeting invited the Business Committee and the United Reformed Church Trust company to continue to explore this.
Assembly Executive further welcomed the exploration of a re-formed Business Committee, whose members would be members of the General Assembly, becoming the Trustee body of a new CIO, and invited the Business Committee and United Reformed Church Company to also explore this.
“We want to avoid the situation where different bodies within the URC disagree and pull away from each other,” explained URC General Secretary John Bradbury. “What happens if the trustees determine that an activity of the General Assembly isn’t compliant with the charitable purposes of the church?
“We need those who carry the responsibility of trusteeship to be closely embedded in the life of the Assembly. At the same time, those who carry the liability must have the authority to manage the risks of those liabilities. How do we best hold together those two needs?”
Currently, there are a range of legal structures available for charities, generally classed as incorporated or unincorporated structures.
The CIO is a new legal form for a charity crafted in response to requests from charities for a new structure which could provide some of the benefits of being a company but without some of the burdens.
The URC Trust believes that the future might be better served by the funds of the General Assembly and associated land and property being held in a CIO.
The potential benefits are:
- Allowing the funds of the General Assembly and associated charitable activity to be the charity itself, rather than a fund that the Trust Company holds.
- The CIO would only accountable to the Charity Commission, and would no longer need to report to Companies House, or act as a company.
- Because the charitable purposes of the CIO would be the funds’ charity of the General Assembly, it would allow a closer structural relationship between the General Assembly and its associated charity.
- It would maintain the benefits of incorporation and limited liability and indeed make it clearer that the activity of the church funded charitably, had the benefit of limited liability.
There was a wide range of questions from the plenary sessions and breakout groups.
Andy Middleton, the URC’s Legal Advisor, confirmed to Lindsey Sanderson and Romily Micklem that the English and Welsh CIO would be registered with OSCAR in Scotland, and that a clause would set out how Trustees are appointed.
Geoff Felton asked if there were implications for the Isle of Man, and Michael Hopkins asked about Jersey and Guernsey.
Lythan Nevard asked if the short-term nature of General Assembly Moderators (three years – as Moderator-Elect, Moderator and Immediate Past Moderator) would cause an issue. John Bradbury said that the Business Committee would need to be reformulated. Lythan further commented about the size of the committee.
Russell Furley-Smith asked what impact might be on local churches. JB said that some funds charities in local churches were being turned into CIOs, especially larger local churches which, for example, employs staff. JB said that a model is available, but warned that churches should ensure that it’s the funds charity, not the church, that becomes a CIO.
Chris Atherton, National Synod of Wales, advised that the type of CIO chosen was important, and Andy Middleton explained the difference between the different types, and which one was appropriate for what the URC wanted to put in place.
The Revd Dr David M Chapman, District Chair of The Methodist Church Beds, Essex & Herts District, an ecumenical representative, and a member of a group looking at similar processes, said that both churches were either thinking along the right lines, or both making the same mistake!
He encouraged the meeting by saying that the URC is thinking along the right lines. “Governance is a cultural matter and to understand it you need to understand our ecclesiological tradition.
“Unfettered control on the administration then moves into strategy, and strategy is related to policy, and in both traditions, a representative body such as General Assembly or the Conference has oversight of the wider church.”
The brand-new iteration of The Methodist Council has 20 members who are trustees. David commended the way forward.
John Bradbury responded by setting out the range of issues that would need to be addressed. “My hunch is that our successors would thank us for grappling with this now; the longer-term gain is probably worth it.” Andy Middleton answered some other questions.
Resolution 10 was passed and Resolution 11 was withdrawn by agreement of the meeting.
The future of General Assembly and the Assembly Executive – Paper A5
URC General Secretary John Bradbury presented Paper A5 from the Business Committee, which looked at the size and pattern of the General Assembly meetings.
“To maintain the current pattern of assemblies, agreed in 2018, means that Assembly takes an ever bigger proportion of the Maintenance of Ministry budget, and there’s a question about ‘right sizing’ General Assembly so that it takes a proportion that’s more realistic.
“The more spent on GA means the less to spend elsewhere.”
John went onto say that some Synods had struggled to fill quotas, which further suggested that the annual meeting might be larger than it ought to be. He wondered if a smaller gathering meant a greater number of people’s voices were being heard.
The meeting broke into groups and were asked to discuss if good governance mattered, what representatives warmed to and were cool to, and if there were items missing from the report. Various options were included in the paper.
Feedback from groups included several different ideas including how this work fitted in with other parts of the church such as URC Youth Assembly, how Synods brought matters to Assembly, the need for national pastoral issues, if a five-year term was feasible, how diversity and representatives would be managed with just four representatives per Synod.
John Bradbury responded by saying that the meetings were bigger than Synods, with, for example, youth and ecumenical representatives, and that there were other ways to handle many of the issues that a revised number of representatives would present.
Cost benefits exercises would also have to take place to ensure the URC was getting value for money by work being done outside of a larger meeting.
John further reminded the URC that church meetings can always suggest matters for the General Assembly to discuss. Churches meetings can agree resolutions that go to Synods that can, if agreed, go to the General Assembly. He invited all churches to remember that, regardless of the size and shape of the General Assembly.
Resolution 12 – Assembly Executive agrees that General Assembly 2025 should be invited to consider the size and pattern of meetings of the General Assembly – was agreed.
Resolution 13 was withdrawn.
URC Apology to Jamaica
Assembly Executive watched The Pilgrimage, a film about URC leaders’ visit to Jamaica in April 2024 to deliver an apology for the legacies of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
Afterwards two of those involved were interviewed by Stephen Tomkins, Editor of Reform. The Revd Dr Tessa Henry-Robinson, who delivered the apology, could not be present but sent her answers to be read out. The Revd Geoff Felton devoted his sabbatical to investigating the slave trade and its legacies, and went to Jamaica as part if that.
Tessa said that the apology was necessary to signal that the URC’s antecedents had been complicit in profiting from the legacies of the slave trade, and was called for by partner churches in the Caribbean, Africa and the UK for the sake of reconciliation, healing and deepening relationships.
She said, ‘Wrongs need to be named and made right. This is the beginning of a movement towards reparations that makes me feel proud to be URC.’
Geoff said that in coming from Liverpool he was aware of how the city had been built on the slave trade. He said that the apology had had an impact in Jamaica and been well-received. The apology was important, but must be followed by action, and the URC must listen to our partner churches to hear what action is needed.
The Pilgrimage is available to watch online here:
Reporting: Andy Jackson, Ann-Marie Nye, Steve Tomkins, Laurence Wareing. Technical support: Matt Collins.