General Synod of the Church of England
February 2008

Diary Notes by Robert Key MP (Salisbury 407)

(The ‘official’ record is produced by Church House. The Salisbury Diocesan record is written by the elected Synod members from Salisbury Diocese)

An unholy row – but what a trailer
The official Agenda for the February Group of Sessions was worthy enough – with reports on legislative business, crown appointments, the Anglican Communion Covenant, a motion on casinos, a debate on a Eucharistic Prayer for children, and another on mental health issues. However, nothing had prepared us for the furore that erupted the weekend before Synod, following a lecture the Archbishop of Canterbury had been invited to give to 1000 senior lawyers in the Royal Courts of Justice.

It was a very good lecture. I know, because I had to read it three times to be sure I understood what Rowan Williams was actually saying. That, of course, was the problem. It generated the worst of tabloid headlines – but the level of ignorance and prejudice was much the same whether presented to readers of red-tops or broadsheets. Sadly, it brought out the worst in some Synod members too, with magisterial – even regal – rebukes from predictable suspects.

I was invited to join in – with a modest interview on BBC Radio 4’s ‘PM Programme’ in which I sought to inject some propriety and reason into a feeding frenzy of comment. Even the BBC took three days to use the right word in all their reports on radio and television – the Archbishop had used the word ‘unavoidable’ not ‘inevitable’ in connection with the need to address the reality of Muslim culture in our country.

Monday 11th February was a glorious Spring day in London. The sunshine glinted off the massed ranks of TV and press journalists outside Church House and the Assembly Hall gallery had never seen so many journos. Not for the Agenda items, you understand. They would be off after the Archbishop of Canterbury’s first appearance. And so it was!

The Corporation Sole
However, before the first formal Agenda item, the House of laity met to discuss the thorny issue of changes to the ownership of parsonage houses. Should the parson continue to own the freehold even if the rectory was in quite the wrong place as far as ministry was concerned? Or should all parsonages be owned by new Diocesan Parsonage Boards, so that assets could be deployed flexibly and strategically? Surely, many rectories had been given by parishioners and benefactors for use in perpetuity? Maybe, said others, but they didn’t give with sticky fingers. Anyway, was this not a plot to give more central power to Bishops, against the spirit of checks and balances in the Church of England’s reformation settlement? This dress-rehearsal for the main debate in full Synod ended with a close victory (63 to 59) for the status quo.

At the same time, the House of Clergy met to discuss the same issue. I understand from impeccable sources that while our own Archdeacon of Dorset was in full flow, explaining the relationship between a Parsonage Board and a Corporation Sole, he became aware that all eyes had swivelled from him to the windows of the first-floor room, outside which, level with the fenestration, was the upper floor of an open double-decker bus bearing scantily-clad maidens denouncing the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of a three-letter tabloid. That did it. Our Archdeacon won the day.

At precisely a quarter past three, Rowan Williams entered the hall. The standing ovation was spontaneous and inevitable. So was the unwillingness of the members to stop their acclaim and get down to business.

Presidential Address
In his Presidential Address, the Archbishop of Canterbury began by clarifying what had and had not been said in his controversial legal lecture on ‘Islam and English Law’.

He confirmed his statement that the writ of English law must always run and always have precedence. There was no question of a parallel jurisdiction. There could be no blank cheque – especially when it came to the role and treatment of women and to human dignity. However, it was unavoidable that we should address the issue and debate possible ways of resolving certain kinds of disputes and how we could accommodate different social, cultural and religious traditions, such as mortgages. Nor could we avoid debate about issues such as apostasy which are very serious for Christians and Muslims alike.

We must consider the interface between faith and law. The law protects the conscience of religious believers. This is the burden and the privilege of the Church we are in and the land we are in. Christians should speak for the liberties and the consciences of others as well as ourselves.

The Archbishop spoke of the significance of the forthcoming Lambeth Conference and of the need to get to know one another. We should respect those who felt unable to attend – though we regret their decision, because we should be together. However, in the Anglican Communion there are in the south deep differences in theology, ethics and attitude compared to the west and north. We, in England, should offer our apologies for their bruised and half-buried feelings and seek better understanding and mutuality.

Rowan Williams reported that John Sentamu was on his way back from Kenya where he had been advising and assisting. The Archbishop paid tribute to the International Development team at Lambeth Palace.

On Zimbabwe, he chided the former Bishop of Harare and warmly endorsed his successor, Bishop Sebastian (who was in the gallery and was duly acclaimed).

He ended by saying that in the Anglican Communion we should stop talking about one another and start talking with one another. The Lambeth Conference would make it possible to think and speak together.

Following the Presidential address, which lasted 25 minutes, the Synod spent 30 minutes learning how to vote ‘yes’ and ‘no’ on the new electronic voting devices.

Women Bishops
The Bishop of Manchester reminded us (and we thought he had forgotten) that in July 2006, Synod had ordered the establishment of a legislative drafting group to make recommendations to the House of Bishops. Since it first met in January 2007 they had held 10 meetings. They would complete their Report in April 2008 and present it to the House of Bishops for their meeting in May 2008. The Report would be published in full for the Synod in July 2008 at York where it would be debated.

The temperature is rising on this issue. The tone of the debate is changing, too.

European Hymn Contest
On Tuesday morning an unsuspecting Synod started to sing ‘Praise to the Lord, the almighty…’ and then noticed that verse two was in German and verse three in French. That woke us up alright! Surprisingly good, really. Mind you, there should have been a verse in Latin, in my view.

We sped through Pensions and the Code of Practice under Part V of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Missions Measure 2007 (about which I had made a bit of a fuss in the Ecclesiastical Committee last year because it had been too vague). At last we reached the main course of the day – Parsonage Houses.

As I had pointed out in the Chamber of the House of Commons the week before, we were not just talking about changing the rules to make life easier; we were talking about church property with a market value of some £4 billion. Most contributors to the debate spoke wisely and earnestly on both sides of the argument. Some said this item was being rushed through with inadequate scrutiny. Others pointed out it had taken five years to resolve so far. In the event, when the (electronic) vote was taken, the status quo had won again, with a clear majority in each House voting against the establishment of Parsonage Boards. That part of the Measure was then withdrawn pending further consideration.

On Tuesday afternoon there was a debate about casinos. We agreed we didn’t like them.

Pulling together for York
On Wednesday morning the Archbishop of York addressed us. He had missed the opening day, because he was doing what Bishops should do – shepherding the flock in danger, this time in Kenya. John Sentamu told us 1000 people had been killed and up to 5000 were internally displaced. These ‘IDPs’ had nothing, No money, no food and no shelter. Churches and cathedrals were housing and feeding people – and Kenya’s bishops were leading from the front. Tear Fund, World Vision, Christian Aid the Red Cross and others were struggling to do their best. Kofi Annan was making progress on ending the violence, healing the political crisis, public service reform, and addressing poverty and inequality in Kenya. He appealed to us to give money urgently – and a collection swung into operation immediately. He exhorted us to pull together for Kenya – just as Christians were doing in that troubled land.

York’s Archbishop inspired us all – as he does. His moving address will be well worth reading. He is the perfect complement to Canterbury. How blessed we are to have them leading us.

Wednesday afternoon heard serious debates on the language to use at a Eucharist when children are present in numbers, on mental health as a key priority for the Church’s ministry and on the Anglican Communion Covenant.

Thursday was filled with good and indeed important debates – but the sparkle had gone out of the Synod by the end of the last day. That was a shame – because what had looked as if it would be quite a dull agenda turned out to have some very exciting moments with very long-term implications for our Church. That said, I really do think the whole Synod Group of Sessions should be one day shorter. That would concentrate the minds and spare the pockets!

If I am reading the runes correctly, all the players from the Archbishops and Bishops downwards, are on best behaviour until the Lambeth Conference at the end of July. So be it. But watch this space! .

Robert Key
Salisbury 407