In my Election Address I promised that, if elected, I would report back via my website. So, here goes!

The 'official' account of the proceedings, written by Church House staff, is so good that it would be pointless to do anything other than publish it alongside my personal diary. This is the 'Hansard' of our Synod.

There has also been a tradition that your elected representatives from the House of Clergy and the House of Laity in the Diocese of Salisbury put together a more personal account of the business for circulation within our Deaneries - and I attach this, too. I can claim no credit for this excellent record, created by the home team of experienced observers and practitioners of synodical government.

As the new boy on the block, I will try and tell you what it felt like to be elected, to be there, to taste and see just how the Church of England orders its affairs.

The Election
There was something surreal about writing an election address for the second time in six months. Battle-hardened as I am to Parliamentary Elections - I have fought seven in a row, six successfully - this was to be something completely different.

I'd better start with a confession. When I was a child I recall my father going up to London for 'Bishops Meetings' and then for something more mysterious called 'Church Assembly'. I had always assumed that the Church of England was run by the Bishops so it came as something of a shock to realise that it was more accurate (though not completely) to say that our Church is led by Bishops and governed by Synod. This child-like trust in the authority of the Bench of Bishops has always coloured my perception of Church governance - and made me rather anti-synod.

Do those of us elected to represent the electors of the Deanery Synods really reflect the opinions of the 1.2 million people who go to Church on Sundays - let alone the 2.6 million who will go to Church on Christmas Day, or the 70% of our people who say they are Christians? Probably not. But should we? Does it matter? Well, I used to think it did - so when I was first sounded out to stand for Synodical Elections about a decade ago I said thanks but no thanks. So what has changed?

For a start I'm older and, I hope, wiser. One of the most attractive things about the Church of England is its tolerance. That is also an attractive characteristic of our nation. Our system of Parliamentary democracy is far from perfect - but it works and I must be doing something right to have been elected to Parliament six times in a row.

There's also my strong belief in the value of the Established Church and the need for its voice to be heard more clearly and surely in Westminster. So I took the plunge! I heeded the advice of a senior local cleric and wrote an address that did not beat about the bush but stated clearly my position on difficult and controversial issues. For over twenty years I have addressed controversial issues in Parliament rather than ducked them. I reckoned that if my Address was so controversial that it put people off, so be it. But if I won, I'd have a strong mandate.

Westminster Abbey - Holy Communion
No-one does pageantry like the British and no-one does liturgy like the Church of England. When the two combine the result is deeply moving. Gathering in the cloisters on a cold, damp morning an hour and three-quarters before kick-off did not bode well. But I need not have worried. Preceded by a schoolchild bearing aloft an identifying placard, each Bishop led his Members of the Houses of Clergy and Laity in procession up the Nave, through the Choir Screen to our places in the north and south Lanterns.

The finest of Bach, Mendelssohn, Widor and Ireland accompanied the processions of the Dioceses, Synod Officers, Representatives of other Churches, the Lord Mayor of Westminster, and a bemused Home Secretary. Then came a fanfare and the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Dean and Chapter of Westminster and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York moved to their places in the Quire and Sacrarium.

I was surprised (and delighted) that the Order of Service followed the 1662 version. The celebrant, Rowan Williams, led us with power and authority. John Sentamu, working the Order of Service as if he'd been doing it for years with Rowan Williams, gave us the Gospel (St. John 16: 13-15) and the Reverend Professor Frances Young, distinguished Methodist theologian that she is, preached brilliantly that we should not dare to imagine that we have all the truth.

The Abbey Choir (nearly as good as Salisbury) gave us Harold Darke's Agnus Dei in F and Stanford's Gloria in C and we ended with two verses of The national Anthem and HW Baker's rousing hymn, 'O Praise ye the Lord! '. The bells rang out as we processed out and returned to Church House.

The Queen's Speech
Over the road in Parliament the Queen's Speech is a formulaic account of future business written by the Government and read out patiently by our Sovereign. Not so in Church House! Her speech was short, punchy and personal. She told us that the Church of England must be contemporary and adaptable. We faced days of change and opportunity. We would not always be in green pastures or by still waters.

In thanking Her Majesty, the Archbishop of York agreed. We could not go on as we are. Discerning the mind of God was challenging and difficult. At the end of our debates we should decide, not divide.

Highlights
For me there followed two outstanding sessions. One was the consideration of the Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council, presented by the Bishop of Southwark, entitled 'Facing the Challenge of Terrorism'. Ton Butler reported that the Government should be commended for its resolution and thoroughness since 7 July. However, their approach had two weaknesses.

First they were pursuing measures (such as 90 days of imprisonment without charge) which risked undermining fundamental liberties without achieving their stated objectives. Secondly they had not paid sufficient attention to the underlying causes of extremism, thus neglecting engagement and co-operation with Muslim communities which is required to check terrorist recruitment and support.

The Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us that torture should always be rejected because it represented an invasion of the dignity of a human person. Our own David Jones from Bridport spoke most movingly from his own Army experience of the need to always occupy the moral high ground. He said we had strayed from it in the past in Cyprus where there had been torture and in Northern Ireland when we had used internment.

The Bishop of Bradford reminded us that Muslims notice when we make a principled stand. In doing so we speak for the people of other faiths.

The second highlight was the seminar on Episcopacy in the Church of England. This was designed to set the scene for our future deliberations on women bishops. It succeeded brilliantly.

The author of the Rochester Report, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, introduced the seminar. He reminded us that much turned on whether we considered it more important for a bishop to be seen as part of an apostolic tradition or as a President of Presbyters, teaching, sanctifying and governing. But above all, bishops should be servants of the scriptures.

I strongly recommend reading the words of Professor Thistleton and of the Bishop in Europe to get a balanced view of the debate.

Professor Frances Young reminded us that although Methodists in England, unlike elsewhere, do not have bishops, they do have ministerial oversight. She argued that church order had always reflected current social order. She reminded us of the link between monotheism and monarchy. She challenged us to ask what sort of bishops we should expect in a democracy. She pointed out that the first bishops emerged in a Roman culture and that the term diocese was borrowed from a subdivision of the Roman army. Similarly, an 'episcopos' was the overseer or Steward of a Roman household of about 50 people and that Caesar's 'household' was effectively his civil service. Since those days there had been no single model of what a bishop should be. They had adapted and conflated to the point where in England they had been Prince Bishops.

Professor Young reminded us uncompromisingly that the Methodist Church believes in the equality of men and women and that if the Church of England could not accept women as bishops there would be no unity between Methodists and Anglicans.

Footnote
A decade ago I was right to be cautious about General Synod. But things have moved on - including me! It is true there are similarities between the way Parliament and Synod work - which makes the learning curve less steep. But I have a massive amount to learn about the internal politics of our Church and the personalities who inhabit it. The quality of debate was as variable as it is the other side of Parliament Square. The legislative process is reasonably straightforward - and I will be on the receiving end of that as a Member of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament when we meet next month.

I am very grateful to all those who put their confidence in me and cast their vote my way. It was never my intention to be a talkative member of the Synod and I have yet to break my duck. I have cast my votes but saved my breath - surely sensible for a new-boy.

Robert Key