General Synod of the Church of England at London, 26th February – 1st March 2007

Diary notes by Robert Key MP (Salisbury 407)

The official Record is available elsewhere, as is the record taken voluntarily by Synod Members from Salisbury Diocese

We met in the refurbished Church House at Westminster. Would it be true that members of the Church of England do not like change? Yes – it would be! Within minutes the complaints started coming about the re-ordered main hall. Gone were the raked seats and the heavy ‘pews’, replaced by a flat floor and very comfortable individual chairs. This gives a new flexibility to all those who currently use Church House – and to those who have been put off from using and hiring it for conferences and exhibitions in the past. Never mind – after a few days we had (nearly) all got used to it.

Trident
The first major debate was on a motion from the Bishop of Southwark on behalf of the Mission and Public Affairs Council. You wouldn’t think so from the press and media reporting the next day – but the conclusion was not that the Church of England rejects the replacement of Trident. No – we had a full and reasonable debate that concluded with an amended resolution that we welcomed the paper sent to the Commons Defence Committee asking ‘serious questions’, that Christians should make an informed contribution to the debate and that we ‘suggest’ to the Government that upgrading of Trident is contrary to the spirit of our obligations in international law and ethics.

The Archbishop made a strong speech in which he argued that nuclear weapons fell into that category of weapons, like chemical and biological weapons, that are ‘simply inadmissible, morally, in international conflict’. He concluded, ‘I believe the least a Christian body ought to do in these circumstances is to issue the strongest possible warnings and discouragements to our Government’.

I spoke in support of the original motion which I described as ‘accurate, true and justified’. I was unhappy with the amendment, and voted against it, because I had argued that from the evidence taken over a whole year of enquiry by the Defence Committee of The House, of which I am a Member, upgrading was legal and within our treaty obligations – though I criticised the Government for failing to take the initiative on a serious non-proliferation strategy.

This was a striking debate. Scratch the surface of a Synod member and you finds an amazingly wide range of expertise under one roof. During this and other debates we listened to contributions from a former naval nuclear weapons engineer, a retired Army Brigadier, theologians, parish priests, a World War II survivor from Japan whose life had been saved because the nuclear bomb had been dropped, a Tesco’s manager, a Metropolitan Police administrator, an off-duty Ministry of Defence official, – and many, many sincere contributors with sound things that needed saying.

Parsonages and Freeholds
Tuesday morning started with business on clergy pensions and then the Draft Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure. We have not heard the last of this. There is no doubt that what appears to be a ‘tidying up operation’ is actually a profound reform of the relationship between a parson and his or her freehold. More power to the Bishops? Maybe. But we agreed - for the time being.

Marriage
In the afternoon we debated the Revision Stage of the Marriage Measure – which makes it easier for people to marry where they had or have connections but not necessarily residence. This had been an archaic regulation based on an immobile population 400 years ago. It needs to change if we want more people to marry in Church. This scrappy debate was decisive for indecision. Synod just cannot make up its mind.

It’s Wednesday, so it must be sex again…
The best thing to do about the two long debates on sexuality is to pass over them as quickly as possible. Once again, prejudices were aired, the traditional Church of England stance reaffirmed, bids to turn back the clock were defeated and bids to move forward were rebuffed. Sad really.

Slavery, crime and the media
These were high quality debates – well worth reading in the official Church House accounts. However, there were no surprises and we were all relieved to discover that we are against them all!

Conclusion
You are right in thinking that my sketch is shorter than usual. This reflects my frustration that the pace of movement in our Church is so painfully slow. I am getting wise to the ways of Synod. I am also learning Synod’s very great strengths as well as its weaknesses.

The summer Synod in York has the advantage for me of requiring full-time commitment and an escape from the Parliamentary whips. This week in Westminster there was important business in The Commons which demanded my presence – usually in the evenings when the day job at Church House was over. This meant I was able to put in the hours in Church House – but I had to miss more fringe meetings than I would have wished. Those fringe meetings, as at a Party Conference, are often the most fertile and interesting of all the events at Synod.

I never forget what a privilege it is to be at the heart of our Church, episcopally led and synodically governed. And a double privilege to serve at Westminster to which our established Church looks for confirmation of its ministry to our nation.

Robert Key
Salisbury