General Synod Election Candidates 2026

The Ven Stewart Fyfe
General Synod Election Statement 2026

I am seeking election to my third term at General Synod, partly because of unfinished
business and partly because of new ambitions. The high turnover in the house of clergy
makes it unusual for clergy to remain on Synod for multiple terms, but the complexity of
both the Synod processes and the matters under debate, mean that my experience can
make a unique and potent contribution. In terms of unfinished business, in the past
quinquennium I was elected to two senior roles: Deputy Prolocutor of the Province of York
and to the Dioceses Commission. I would look to stand again for election to each.

As Deputy Prolocutor, I sit on the Standing Committee for the House of Clergy,
overseeing the core business of Synod that affects clergy, such as the Clergy Code of
Conduct, the Clergy Conduct Measure and the Safeguarding Code of Practice. Each is
complex and technical, so long experience on Synod is a significant advantage. Having
become an Archdeacon since my last election has also brought a helpful perspective to
many of these issues.

The Dioceses Commission has responsibility for the size, shape and number of
Dioceses in the Church of England. It also approves all Diocesan applications for
Suffragan bishops. I have supported the Commission in maintaining the cultural
independence of Dioceses (and the authority of a Diocesan bishop to lead their diocese),
thereby staving off forced mergers, but we are in the middle of two key pieces of work: (1)
encouraging greater co-operation between Dioceses to avoid the nonsense of reinventing
the wheel in 42 Dioceses; and (2) looking at the nature of senior appointments in the
Church. Whilst the workload of senior clergy has increased over the past 5-10 years, the
proliferation of senior appointments is a concern, from a cost perspective (it limits money
available for parish ministry), from a governance perspective (with multiple points of
authority) and from a vocational perspective (when there are already too few priests
available for front-line ministry). I am keen to continue the work of shaping episcopal
responsibility to flatten our structures and simplify senior staff roles, particularly in
dioceses where area bishops and area archdeacons often trip over one another with
similar responsibilities and roles, or in dioceses (not Carlisle!) where Suffragans are little
more than episcopal curates. We need a far more flexible approach to episcopal ministry
than the inflexible, high cost option that we have at the moment.

Over the past 7 years, I have led the formation and development of the Rural Interest
Group on General Synod. Since there is no longer a National Rural Officer, or any
national Church oversight of rural affairs, this group has undertaken important work in
rural-proofing agenda items and advocating for the rural church. We have developed
fruitful links with Parliament through the House of Lords and played a part in wider
national rural issues such as farming, ecology, housing, climate resilience and food
security. As co-Chair, I am invited to sit as an adviser to the Rural Bishops forum. We
played a particularly prominent role in the discussions around triennium funding
arrangements, requiring that more Church Commissioner disbursements are made
directly to fund parish ministry. To make time for my new ambitions I now want to effect
an orderly handover of the leadership of the rural group to ensure its future.

As to my new ambitions, under a new Arch-episcope I will be campaigning to address the
underfunding of parish ministry which has occurred since the creation of strategic
development funding in 2015. Doing this work effectively requires insight into the
(considerable) complexity of church funding structures and the levers available to effect
change. Whilst I have some sympathy with the Save the Parish movement, I also consider
that some of their expectations are simply unrealistic, partly because they
misunderstand the national funding framework and partly because they overlook the
significant vulnerability of many rural parishes. I will continue work with them creatively
to support the parish as the base unit of ministry, but I think we need solutions that look
forwards, not backwards. In particular, I think it would be a mistake to lose strategic
development funding entirely. It is a matter of redressing the balance, not ‘either/or’.

I also intend to use my legal background to offer more detailed work on our legislative
business. Synod, like Parliament, is primarily a law-making body. This is specialist work
and as a number of experienced hands have stepped down lately, I feel called to step up
and offer more of my time to Revision and Steering Committees for new legislation. This
work will also allow me a more direct means of ensuring that legislation takes into
account the needs of local churches, including smaller rural parishes.

At the very end of the last quinquennium I presented our Diocesan Synod Motion on
Kairos Palestine. There is now a new phase of work to be done in framing the forthcoming
national conversation, particularly in our work with the Faith and Public Life Division to
provide the resources for that conversation. As well as input on the technical aspects of
this, I want to ensure that we maintain the careful tone that I believe I set during the
debate. This work needs to reflect both the urgency of the situation in Israel/Palestine
(and the effect on the worldwide church) but also the diversity of views within the church.
There is a need to navigate a chasm of difference with distinctively Christian values
including the ability to see the image of God in each other, to understand deeply, to speak
honestly, to display humility and to seek reconciliation, justice and blessing.

Finally, the LLF process which dominated the last quinquennium has ended, but the
issue remains and the journey continues through two new working groups set up to take
the work forward. Whilst it is unclear where the working groups will take us, I will
approach whatever comes next with the twin principles of doctrinal integrity and pastoral
generosity. Rather than seeking to change our doctrines, I would love us to explore the
riches of our doctrines more fully, to allow God to surprise us with unexpected areas of
agreement and scope for pastoral generosity. By shifting the focus to where we agree,
rather than our divisions, we can build unity and shared confidence in proclaiming the
Good News for all in the complexity of 21st century life.

In all the business before Synod, I will continue to listen extensively, speak carefully, and
pray unceasingly to discern God’s will. Thank you for reading this. I am praying for you as
you consider your vote. Please pray for me, and for all our candidates.

Stewart

clergy conduct,dioceses,doctrinal,ecology,farming,generosity,good news,house of lords,housing,israel,justice,llf,palestine,safeguarding,save the parish,workload