General Synod Election Candidates 2026

Revd Canon Mark Bennet
Team Rector, Thatcham
[email protected]

I am standing for General Synod this time, because I have been a member for the last 5
years and have enjoyed my time and the opportunity to make a contribution. Personally
I feel as though there is some unfinished business, including aspects in which I have
been personally involved.

Within the Diocese I have been a member of Diocesan Synod and the Diocesan Board
of Education for most of the fifteen years I have been serving as Team Rector of
Thatcham.

My contribution to General Synod over the last five years is a matter of public record. I
stood last time determined to ensure that candidates for ordination who had been
divorced and remarried (or who were married to spouses who had been divorced) are
treated rather better than they have been in the past. I presented a Private Members
motion to that effect (on Canon C4 faculties), which was amended by agreement
requiring negotiation and understanding from a range of people with differing
perspectives, and was passed with an overwhelming majority. But the changes initiated
by the motion have not yet been carried through. That work needs to continue. I learned
a great deal about the issues involved and would love to be part of Synod to see that
business concluded.

One thing I made sure to do was to be alert to questions arising from our own Diocese
which might need to be addressed nationally. I have asked a range of questions (again a
matter of public record), but always looking for a Diocesan angle. My main concerns
have included the environment/net zero (we need to do more than live on unfunded
hope), safeguarding (we need real and effective independence and culture change –
read the recent Ineqe report on the national church). I have also asked several
questions on projected future clergy numbers – an issue that has been on my radar for
the last five years, and has now been taken up by Save the Parish.

I am a parish minister by heart, and the work of the parish has undoubtedly got harder
over time. That is partly because of our national cultural context, but has also been
affected by our strategic financial decisions – to channel money more to projects than
parishes, which has led to growth in some places, but a salami-slicing effect on
parishes which have not received project funding. The reduction in clergy numbers
across the church (failure to recruit enough new clergy) is now having an impact even
here in our Diocese, which has been insulated in the past by local factors. I am not
affiliated with “Save the Parish”, but am glad that they have taken up some of these
issues, and would love to see a more consistent vision for parish ministry.

Other unfinished business includes the national Governance Review which
recommended restructuring the central bodies of the Church to make them more
effective and more accountable. That has been stalled for the moment by Parliament. I
was on the steering committee for that piece of work, which needs to be carried

forward in some form. A steering committee deals with every nuance of proposed
change, listens to and discusses every argument, considers a wide range of options
and learns a lot about what is possible and desirable. I would like what we learned to be
carried forward and not have to be relearned in the new Synod.

I also made a contribution to the revision of the Pastoral Measure: the revision of rules
about changing parish boundaries and the sad business of closing churches. These
things need to be done carefully and well, and I was able to reflect the concerns of our
Diocesan team in my submission to the revision committee.

At times during the last five years it felt like the whole Synod agenda was taken up with
safeguarding and the debates around “Living in Love and Faith”, and I am sure that
these issues will continue to be significant. Both involve the credibility of the national
church in the public sphere.

On safeguarding we need the emergent new national arrangements to be independent
and effective and we need to avoid the poor treatment of victims and survivors which
has been so much a feature of past case reviews. Our central culture has to be
addressed if we are to honour the excellent work now being done by the team in our
Diocese and by so many volunteers in our parishes.

On LLF I have voted consistently for change, to recognise, celebrate and rejoice with
the same sex couples who have been part of church life certainly for my whole lifetime.
The current impasse serves us all poorly, and feels like an act of denial. I have no wish
to unchurch those who disagree with me, but think we need to tell the truth of who we
are and who we have been in the past if we are to have any chance of moving with
integrity into the future.

But General Synod is so much more than these headline issues, and what the Synod
does affects our parish life in a multitude of ways. I have enjoyed getting stuck into the
other issues and doing my best to ensure that decisions made at the centre affect our
lives for the better. If I am elected I will continue to represent the Diocese as I have
done in the past.

In the end it is the power of God’s love shown in Jesus to change lives, including our
own, which lies at the heart of all we should be doing. It is my prayer that the new
General Synod will enable us all to serve God better and to proclaim Christ more
effectively in our nation.

clergy numbers,diocesan board,environment,living in love and faith,llf,net zero,ordination,prayer,safeguarding,same sex,same-sex couples,save the parish,survivors,victims