[Please note, this article offers highlights and general commentary of the meeting, with useful links and downloads. It is not a replacement for the minutes.]
The meeting took place in St Paul’s Church, Norton Lees. Bishop Pete opened proceedings by welcoming returning and newly elected members to the first meeting of the new three-year term of Synod. A round of applause greeted new and returning members. Bishop Pete also welcomed the new Finance Director Tony Gardiner.
Bishop Pete then referred to the news that Bishop Sophie has been announced as the next Bishop of Coventry. He spoke of his mixed feelings of delight for Bishop Sophie and Coventry but sadness for our Diocese as we see her go.
At this point Sophie ran up to the mic to thank people for the “overwhelming tidal wave of love” that had been shown to her. She couldn’t add anything about timelines and so hopes to say something on that soon.
Bishop Pete used this as an opportunity to acknowledge the recent turmoil in the CofE with the release of the Makin report, and the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archdeacon of Sheffield and Rotherham also spoke about our own safeguarding team and urged people to contact them over any safeguarding concerns they may have, no matter how trivial.
Opening worship was led by the Very Revd Abi Thompson, Dean of Sheffield and Tom Daggett, Director of Music at Sheffield Cathedral.
As this was the first meeting of the new term for Synod, the newly elected Chairs were announced and welcomed: Jacqui Butcher (Laity) and Matthew Rhodes (Clergy).
Jacqui Butcher then took up Chair of the meeting. She started proceedings by welcoming people again before noting apologies for absence. The minutes from the previous meeting, held on Saturday 13 July 2024 at St Peter and St Paul, Todwick, were accepted and signed.
First, the report from Bishop’s Council was presented by Fiona Kouble and Neill Birchenall, this is a new section in the meeting, previously it has just been a written update circulated prior to the meeting. Fiona and Neill spoke about how they hoped to make it more transparent and offer the chance to understand more about the business of Bishop’s Council.
Choral outreach was next on the agenda with Dean Abi and Tom Daggett again taking the lead on the Cathedral’s Schools Singing Programme. Abi took the microphone while Tom pushed the piano in front of the meeting. Tom then got everyone warming up their singing voices and led us in another song. It worked! Abi then spoke of how music had been important in her life, finding faith through music. Tom explained that they offer music that meets curriculum requirements. He said that they hope to be operating in a third of schools in Sheffield at the end of next year. Find out more.
Canon Ian Walker then took the Chair for the finance report and the budget for 2025. He introduced Katie Bell, Chief Executive, who gave some context to the wider picture of CofE central funding. Mark Wigglesworth, Interim Finance Manager then presented the figures of the budget. Key budget assumptions are:
- Common fund target remains the same at £3.5m
- Pay awards at 3% (plus recent NI changes)
- Property costs uplift at 5%
- SMMIB Bid to be submitted in Jan 2025 not factored in
- Clergy recruitment numbers in line with deanery mapping exercise
Following a series of questions, the budget was passed.
We were running behind on the agenda timings so we went to a refreshment break.
Bishop Sophie led an item on Love Matters. This is the name given to a summary report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Families & Households.
Bishop Pete led on the appointment for the next Bishop of Doncaster. This is a formal part of the process so that Synod can approve that the Suffragan See of Doncaster should be filled. A job description had also been circulated prior to the meeting. This was approved and we hope to hear more on the process in the near future.
Next, Tina and Jon Hidden presented a good news story from St Paul’s Food Pantry in Ecclesall Deanery. This offers a helping hand to those in the Norton Lees and Meersbrook area. No referral is needed and it opens from 9.30AM until 12.00PM.
A motion from Attercliffe Deanery was proposed and debated next. This was that this Synod:
- endorse the “Cry for Hope” expressed by Palestinian Christians and the ‘Global Kairos for Justice’ coalition (GKfJ);
- request that the Faith and Order Commission produce a report which analyses and refutes any theological justifications, for example, those promoted by some Christian Zionists, for the oppression of Palestinians;
- request the Ethical Investment Advisory Group to provide guidance to the National Investing Bodies (NIBs) and Dioceses that will enable them to screen their investments and thereby make decisions regarding engagement with, and divestment from, companies which profit from the occupation.
Cathy Rhodes, the Diocesan Environment Officer, and David Castle, the Net Zero Programme Manager did a double act presentation to update the meeting on the work in this area. Cathy spoke about how much progress and momentum has been made since March 2020. We now have 74 Eco Churches and are on our way to going for our Silver Award as a Diocese.
David then gave an update on the roll out of the Net Zero centrally funded programme.
Archdeacon Malcolm then gave the Safeguarding report.
Bishop Pete delivered his Presidential Address and started by speaking about the Terminally Ill Adults End of Life Bill which received its second reading in Parliament on Friday 29th November. Bishop Pete spoke of his disappointment at the bill passing due to having serious reservations about its content, while adding he respects everyone’s rights to having their own conscientious views on the matter.
“I’m praying for our representatives in Parliament who had difficult decisions to make, and will continue having difficult decisions to make.”
You can watch Bishop Pete’s full Presidential Address here:
The meeting concluded with worship led by Jon Hidden, Oversight Minister in the S8 Mission Area.
The date of the next meeting is Saturday 8 March 2025 at All Saints Woodlands.
To contact any of the people named in this report, browse the Central Team page.
Presidential Address to Synod, November 2024
Sisters and brothers, some familiar words from Psalm 71:
O God, from my youth you have taught me, and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds. So even to old age and grey hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to all the generations to come.
My dear friends, you are surely all aware that Kim Leadbetter MP has sponsored a Private Members Bill in Parliament, to legalise assisted dying – the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as it is properly called.
That Bill had its second reading at Westminster yesterday, and you will surely have seen and heard media coverage of the Bill during the past week and indeed coverage today of the passionate five-hour debate. The Bill was passed, by 330 votes to 275. The Bill still has a long way to go before it can become law, both in the House of Commons and then in the House of Lords. It’s clear from the relatively close nature of the vote, from the impassioned nature of the debate and from the keen interest of the media that this Bill is going to remain a live issue for our nation for many months to come. It’s partly for that reason, but also partly because tomorrow we enter the season of Advent, that I want to offer you some reflections about the Bill in this address today.
Traditionally in the Church of England, Advent has been a season to ponder four Last things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. But our society really doesn’t like to ponder death at all. We are in fact acutely uncomfortable about death, almost in denial about death. We have very successfully pushed death to the edge of our consciousness, shoving it behind a metaphorical curtain in fact. Where once most people died at home, and lay dead in the parlour front room until the funeral, now most people die in hospitals or hospices and lie dead in funeral parlours instead. Where once children played tag around the coffin in that front room, now we think it would be better for them if they did not attend the funeral. I don’t believe that over-protectiveness helps them. The result is that most people have never seen, let alone touched, the dead body of a loved one; and many have never been present as a loved one breathed their last. But many of us have done so, myself included, not only for family members but for parishioners. From time to time, we have the privilege of anointing the dead and the dying, of holding their hands as we commend them to the mercy of God their Maker and Redeemer. By contrast our society is generally uncomfortable about death, and people are generally uncomfortable talking about death. So we resort to euphemisms: we say someone has ‘passed’, because we fear it is too brutal, too direct to say they have died. But friends, this squeamishness is not helpful. Death is very much part of life and our society would be more healthy if we acknowledged the reality of it more directly.
So Advent, and our inescapable mortality, is the second reason why I want to address the issue of assisted dying this afternoon – and I suspect there is a connection between the perceived need for this Bill and that widespread unwillingness or inability to confront our mortality with honesty.
I am setting out my position today, fully aware that there will be a range of views on this matter in this gathering, and in some cases, strongly held views, borne of bitter experience. My decision to focus this address on the Bill was a bit of a risk – I had no plan B if the Bill failed. But I can honestly say that I am disappointed that it passed. I would rather it failed and left me with no address to give and with egg on my Presidential face.
So you probably won’t be surprised to discover that I am opposed to the present Bill. I have serious reservations about it. But if you support it, please don’t imagine that means I am opposed to you or have serious reservations about you. I respect your right to come to your own conscientious conclusion about what is at stake here. I am praying for all those across our country who even now are dying or are accompanying the dying, for all whose experiences of caring for the dying have been traumatic, for chaplains in hospitals and hospices and I am praying for our representatives in Parliament, so many of them new and inexperienced, who yesterday had difficult decisions to make, and who will continue to have difficult decisions to make as the Bill returns to Parliament in the course of the coming months. I am in no doubt how heavily the burden of responsibility is lying on the shoulders of many MPs at this time: they deserve our respect and gratitude for the seriousness with which they are attending to the competing views of their constituents.
So for the next few moments, I want to set out the nature of my concerns. But let me begin by acknowledging the great strength of the Bill, or rather the laudable concern which the Bill seeks to address, and the laudable virtue which motivates it. Because there can be no doubt that the Bill seeks to reduce the suffering which some terminally ill patients experience at the end of life; and I applaud the compassion which motivates that desire. To watch a loved one die in distress, especially if that distress is prolonged, is itself a deeply distressing experience. We don’t want such a death for our loved ones and we may fear it for ourselves. But I don’t believe this Bill to be a good or safe solution to that real problem.
What that problem calls for is improved palliative care, available to all. I have been aghast to learn that only 37% of palliative care nationwide is currently available through the National Health Service. The rest is delivered through hospices and private health care. The Sue Ryder Charity estimates that currently, less than 50% of all people dying in England receive palliative care, yet up to 90% may have palliative care needs.
This Bill is very carefully entitled the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It is generally referred to as the Assisted Dying Bill, but if I can say this without sounding inflammatory, I believe what it proposes is better described as Assisted Suicide. And just as I can’t in conscience support a decision to commit suicide, so I cannot support this Bill. Assisted Dying, by contrast, is what we already have, in palliative care. What we need is increased investment in research, to improve the effectiveness of such care, and increased funding in provision, to make it generally accessible. Let’s call on the government to focus there, and not on the provisions of time and money which this Bill, if law, would demand.
I have three significant reservations about the Bill. The first is that the proposed legislation seems to assume there are only good people in the world. As I pointed out in the Bishops’ Letter at the start of this month, the legislation appears to assume human beings only ever act out of the best possible motives. It fails to take into account human frailty and greed. It therefore places at risk those who are most vulnerable to coercion: the elderly, those living in poverty, those whose disability puts them at risk, and those in abusive relationships – all of whom are likely to come under pressure, or (and this is equally important) to feel themselves under pressure, to seek an assisted death. Jews and Christians are bound by our Scriptures to prioritise the needs of the widow, the orphan and the stranger, precisely because of their vulnerability. What begins as a right to die will all too easily, for the most vulnerable, feel like a duty to die, especially while adult social care is so expensive. Many elderly people, nearing the end of life, will inevitably wonder if they could do their families more good by leaving them the money which is going, week by week, to the care home. They should be spared that dilemma. I am far from convinced the proposed Bill will protect the most vulnerable from coercion. In fact the British Geriatrics Society stated its view this week that ‘effective legal safeguards cannot be created to protect older people from unwarranted harms’.
I recognise that the Bill does seek to put in place safeguards to offer protection to the vulnerable by restricting quite narrowly access to an assisted death: a person (being of sound mind) must make an initial declaration that they wish to take advantage of the provision under this Bill; they must then be certified by two doctors to be terminally ill in the last six months of life; they must then secure a court order; and they must make a second declaration that this is their settled decision.
But my second reservation about this Bill rests on the views expressed by many medical practitioners and lawyers that these safeguards are insufficient. The safeguards seem very capable of being circumvented, especially if a determined family member is driving the process, perhaps a person in urgent financial need. If one doctor will not commit to the view you have only 6 months to live, another less scrupulous doctor might do so, especially if paid to give that judgment. The vast majority of doctors are of course people of great integrity who take their hippocratic oath, to protect life and do no harm, with the utmost seriousness. But if there were no bad doctors, presumably none would be struck off by the GMC as close to 500 have been in the past 5 years (admittedly, that’s a tiny proportion of the 390,000 strong workforce). Yet even good doctors, rushed off their feet in an over-stretched NHS may make decisions which are hasty or insufficiently rigorous. In any case is notoriously difficult to give an accurate prognosis about how long someone has left to live. And it was Hippocrates himself, the 5th century BC father of the medical profession, who wrote as part of his original oath: ‘Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.’
And my final reservation about the Bill is the likelihood that it will not be the end of the process. In most cases, I am unimpressed by ‘slippery slope’ arguments, which rest on an objection that the first step is just the thin end of the wedge. But on this occasion, the argument has real force, because of the evidence in other parts of the world where such provision is already lawful: in Canada and Oregon, in Belgium and Switzerland, in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, in Australia and New Zealand. If I am reading the data correctly, and I believe I am, the number of assisted deaths has increased in every case decade by decade – in most cases by a factor of about 6 since the early 2000s, and in several cases this increase has been the result of the legalised widening of access to assisted dying. Disability campaigners are especially concerned about this and rightly so.
For these reasons, I cannot support the Bill and in so far as my diary allows, I will be opposing it in the House of Lords. Whatever your views, may I ask you to pray about the process, for a good outcome; and if you have not already done so, may I encourage you to contact your MP to register your conscientious convictions with them.
I can’t resist ending with the Advent Collect. Let us pray.
Almighty God, give us grace to cast away the works of darkness and to put on the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which your Son Jesus Christ came to us in great humility; that on the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge the living and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.