Andrea Heron, Chaplain to the General Assembly Moderator 2024-2025, offered reflections on John 2, the story of the wedding at Cana, on the final day of Assembly Executive 2025.
She talked about the actors’ game “Yes and…”, where people pair off, one person suggests a scene for them to act and the other goes with it and adds something.
“Trying to plan it out,” she said, “ruins it, but committing to the improvisation, trusting something unforeseen will turn up, forces you to come up with something better than you could ever have imagined and completely new.”
Andrea asked: “Do you believe in resurrection? Do you trust the process?” Jesus at Cana was faced with a moment he did not feel prepared for, from which there was no going back, and he chose to say yes, and step off the cliff. “Anything after ‘Yes and…’ is God’s bit,” said Andrea, “and better than anything we could have come up with.”
Session nine
A2 Committee Structures & General Secretariat
The General Secretary, the Revd Dr John Bradbury, introduced proposals to reorganise the URC’s committee structure. It needs to balance the need to develop policy while at the same time supporting and resourcing work at synod and local level.
It is proposed that the existing Discipleship and Mission departments be reworked into a Ministries Committee, and a Mission and Discipleship Committee, with staff working across both committee’s remits under the oversight of one Deputy General Secretary.
The goal is “to facilitate greater joined-up working at the strategic level, and to enable this to be expressed effectively operationally”, he said.
Dr Bradbury emphasised that there remains a desire that young people and children be involved in, have and ownership of, their own programmes – so a Children’s and Youth Work sub-committee would specifically deal with this area of work. Other specialist committees such as Complaints and Discipline will remain as they are. Detailed work on terms of reference and work on the composition of all committees would be brought back to General Assembly in July 2025.
Finally, Dr Bradbury introduced a proposed reshaping of the General Secretariat to comprise General Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, Deputy General Secretary, and the proposed Head of Governance.
He concluded by saying “it is unlikely we’re going to get this spot on right first time. And it’s very unlikely that there won’t be unintended consequences.” He said the proposed changes “are for the next stage of the journey, but they will need to continue evolving as the needs of Church life change over time”.
Responding to questions for clarification, Dr Bradbury agreed that for proposed new sub-committees (such as the Equalities Committee) questions arise about budgeting their work and how they interact with General Assembly. He said that resourcing and training lay people (which is primarily the work of the local church) would be shared between the two new committees.
Dr Bradbury believed that the make-up of the General Secretariat (broadly, two members reflecting the theological life of the URC and two reflecting the practical outworking of Church life) sends an “incarnational” message: “We do not separate out the theological and practical.”
Assembly Executive approved the formation of a Mission and Discipleship Committee and a new Ministries Committee – and the intention for the Business Committee to bring finalised composition and terms of reference to the General Assembly of 2025. It also adopted the formation of a Children’s and Youth Work Programme sub-committee of the new Mission and Discipleship Committee.
Executive instructed the Nominations Committee and the Youth Executive to bring names forward for the new Ministries and Mission and Discipleship Committees to General Assembly in July 2025. It was clarified that representation from the Youth Executive on specific committees might be covered as standing orders are agreed.
The Convenor of the Resources Committee recommended that Assembly standing orders be looked at to ensure enough time is available for the newly proposed committees had the time and space to bring resolutions to General Assembly.
There was further discussion about Resolution 5, concerning the make-up of the General Secretariat (and also its name). There were concerns about balancing employment law with a desire to be flexible about membership of the Secretariat, especially in relation to the proposed Head of Governance. Concerns were reiterated about the Secretariat’s make-up (a. the possibility of less than 50% of the Secretariat being members of the URC; b. becoming potentially more “managerial” than “missional”, one speaker said). Some members also felt hampered by the fact that, at this stage, there are no of terms of reference for the Secretariat. Dr Bradbury said that some of the very issues being raised in discussion were evidence for the need of URC governance to be better administered, and reiterated his belief that it is essential to have someone overseeing governance as part of the General Secretariat.
A facilitation group was established to agree a revised Resolution 5 on this matter. Revised wording was brought to a later session. It was designed to ensure that ensuing work will draw together, and define more precisely, all the strands of the Secretariat’s work. Assembly Executive debated at which point in the process of change terms of reference should be agreed. There was also more detailed articulation of the fact that governance is an integral element of the Secretariat’s work, and of the pressure on the General Secretary to address governance issues.
On a vote, Assembly Executive agreed that “the General Secretariat shall consist of the General Secretary, the Chief Operating Officer, the Deputy General Secretary and the Head of Governance as of the close of General Assembly 2025”. In addition, Assembly Executive requested the Business Committee to bring terms of reference for the General Secretariat to General Assembly, July 2025, and required the Resources and Ministries Committees to determine by July 2025 whether, for future appointments, the post of Deputy General Secretary for Mission and Discipleship should be restricted to members of the URC or ministers of the URC.
AD1 Resource Centres for Learning
Assembly Executive discussed an in-depth report into the Church’s Resource Centres for Learning (RCLs), presented by the Resources, Business and Education and Learning Committees.
The Revd Dr Michael Hopkins, Convenor of the Resources Committee, said: “As anyone involved in it knows, education is ruinously expensive, and in the URC, because of the number of students being trained, the cost per student is dramatic. The cost of RCLs per member of the URC roughly doubled between 2012 and 2020. We are spending £800,000 a year on RCLs, and we simply cannot go on spending this much. We need to shave £1m off the total MandM fund expenditure as a matter of urgency.”
Dr Hopkins said that RCLs were not being singled out as the only way to make savings to the Church’s budget; but, because of the length of time students spend there, changes can be slow to take effect, so the conversation needed to start immediately.
Victoria James, Chief Operating Officer, indicated the considerable complexity of the question due to differences in governance and the ownership of buildings.
Pippa Hodgson, Convenor of the Education and Learning Committee, told Assembly Executive that support for the colleges and for EM1 students amounted, together, to £1.2m in the 2025 budget. Westminster and Northern College both receive a block grant, while in Scotland the system is different.
The present funding structures are the result of a long, complex history, Mrs Hodgson said, do not work for anyone. ‘We would not start here,’ she said.
The following points came out of questions and discussion.
The synods of the Church would be welcome to provide funding for RCLs, but synods are being asked for support all the time, and their giving decreases their capital.
The New College fund is available for educational spending, but a large part of our existing funding comes from its interest, so we could only spend its capital in ways that would raise funding.
Annual spending must be variable according to variable income.
The RCLs have been involved throughout the committees’ deliberations
Other Churches face similar problems, but have not come up with convincing solutions. We would particularly want to avoid colleges being pitted against each other, as they are in other denominations, and keeping three colleges would lead to that.
On the other hand, could we learn from St Mellitus, the Church of England’s non-residential college, and move to a virtual (or blended) college rather than keeping three buildings?
Resolutions were drawn up in response to these discussions, and debated on the last morning of Assembly Executive. The proposals were for the Education and Learning Committee and Business Committee to undertake a review of the RCLs and bring proposals for the addressing excess capacity and associated costs to General Assembly in July this year.
It was agreed all round that this would involve a huge amount of work in a couple of months. But Assembly Executive was assured that the practicalities had been thought through, the work was feasible.
The General Secretary the Revd Dr John Bradbury agreed that it was a very ambitious proposal, “But we have to do it. The situation the RCLs have been living with is impossible.” He asked members to accept that those involved would be extremely busy and so “there will be things we will have to do when we’re doing this”.
The resolutions were passed.
Paper A6: Assistant Clerk
Following a review of the role of Assistant Clerk to the General Assembly by the Business Committee, it was agreed that post be continued. Assembly Executive voted to appoint the Revd Dr Alex Clare-Young to serve in the role from the close of this meeting to the close of the meeting of General Assembly in 2029.
Reporting team: Andy Jackson, Ann-Marie Nye, Steve Tomkins, Laurence Wareing. Technical support: Matt Collins.