Members of General Synod met in the newly refurbished Church House, Westminster from Monday 26th February to Thursday 1st March. The Canterbury Province clergy met in Convocation beforehand, to discuss clergy terms of service, clergy pensions and housing.

Presidential Address

The Synod itself began with a presidential address from Archbishop Rowan. Unsurprisingly this focussed on where we are after Tanzania. The Archbishop reported that following the American General Convention last year the Communion was evenly divided between those who were satisfied and those who were not, with the EC’s response to the Windsor Report; most were frustrated that this matter was so consuming of time and energy, and thus giving the impression that “we are a Church obsessed with sex”. We may be in a conflict that we do not wish to be in, but the simple solution that many propose of giving up on the Communion will not really solve anything.

The Archbishop addressed two factors that, if not addressed, would lead to further problems: one is about decision-making processes and the other the interpretation and authority of scripture. “Whatever happened to persuasion? To the frustrating business of conducting recognisable arguments in shared language, one of the defining things about the Christian Church as biblically defined is surely the presumption (Acts 15) that the default position with conflict is reasoning in council and the search for shared discernment.”

1. Four elements emerged from the Primates’ Meeting: the need for the ’Listening Process’ to go forward
2. some serious study on the theory and practice of biblical interpretation.
3. the draft Covenant for the Communion will be circulated for comment
4. clarity requested of the EC as to whether moratoria sought are a reality, and providing a framework for oversight that would avoid interventions from outside the USA.

The Archbishop commended the Primates’ communiqué “for all its inevitable imperfections, as representing a serious attempt o go beyond the surface problems and to give us space to look at the underlying and neglected theological factors.”

The full text of the Archbishop’s address can be found at:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsabc2602.html

Future of Trident

This Synod debate has taken place near the end of the three months’ period of public debate initiated by the Government’s White Paper on “The Future of Trident”, which will culminate in a debate in the House of Commons later in March 2007. The debate was informed by the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury when “The Future of Trident” was published and by a submission from the Mission and Public Affairs Council to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee (both available from Synod members). The motion raised serious questions about whether the Government is right to proceed in the way proposed, given the underlying ethical issues. It was a passionate and well-informed debate, with 3 members from Salisbury contributing. It certainly highlighted the wealth and breadth of experience and knowledge within the Synod. The Synod voted in favour of a stronger amendment and this final motion was passed 206 for/38 against.

“That this Synod, recognising the fundamental responsibility of her Majesty’s Government to provide for the security of the country:

1. welcome the response from the Mission and Public Affairs Council to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s enquiry expressing serious questions about the proposed renewal of the UK’s minimum deterrent;
2. call on Christian people to make an informed contribution to the issues raised in The Future of Trident in the light of Christian teaching about Just War;
3. suggest to her Majesty’s Government that the proposed upgrading of Trident is contrary to the spirit of the United Kingdom’s obligation in international law and the ethical principles underpinning them. “

Questions

The Question Period took place on the first evening. This is an opportunity for Synod members to elicit information and raise issues with those with responsibility in the central hierarchy of the Church. 89 Questions were put down for answer and most were dealt with in the time available. Members are able to ask supplementary questions and these often elicit more information than the original one!

A Question was asked about what other Bishops were doing to limit air travel following the Bishop of London’s commitment not to travel by air for a year. The Bishop of Sodar and Man asked, as a supplementary, how he could possibly not travel by air to the mainland. The Bishop of London replied “By coracle”.

Your Synod members are always willing to take up matters on your behalf, so do feel able to approach them if you have a concern or are looking for information.

Clergy Pensions and Terms of Service

Important debates took place over the future of clergy pensions and also the new Terms of Service by which it is proposed that freehold should end and all clergy should be given “Common Tenure” The Synod accepted the recommendations about the pensions. It has been signalled for some time that there is not enough money in the pot to continue with clergy pensions at the present level. A major part of the problems lies in changes in Government legislation, which demand that all pension funds are put on a stricter financial basis. The Archbishops’ Council has consulted widely, asking for a return from all dioceses. The overwhelming response has been to keep the present scheme, but to amend it. Clergy will have to work for 40 years to get a full pension, although this will not mean that existing clergy have to work an extra three years, and future increases in the pension will be smaller. One speaker said that he has asked for details of what today’s pension would be, if there changes had taken effect ten years ago, and was told that it would be about £1,000 a year less. It was emphasised that the present arrangements cannot continue as they are, so some change is necessary. For more contentious was the issue of clergy housing. In terms of parsonages, there is a great deal of unrest in the proposal that all such houses might be transferred into the ownership of dioceses, rather than being part of the benefice. Questions were raised as to what would then happen if a diocese were declared to be insolvent. The other housing issue, which goes hand in hand with pensions, is the provision that is made (or not made) for clergy to get into the housing market when they retire. It was pointed out that not so long ago the CHARM scheme might have been expected to make adequate provision for clergy to find a house on retirement, but the scheme is no longer able to provide enough money to match the greatly increased level of house prices. This is an issue that will be looked at with some urgency. Full details of the pension proposals can be found at:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/gs1645.rtf

Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure

The new Pastoral and Mission measure is the single biggest piece of legislation to pass through the General Synod in over 20 years. The new legislation has three distinct elements. The first requires the consolidation of a virtually rewritten Diocese Measure, which becomes incorporated into what was the existing Pastoral Measure. The second element consists of reforms to the existing Pastoral Measure mainly for the purpose of streamlining the processes whereby pastoral schemes can be enacted. The last is the addition of brand new legislation allowing for Bishop’s Mission orders.

The new first part of this legislation replaces a virtually vestigial measure known as the Diocese Measure. The hope is that under the new arrangements a Diocese Commission will have teeth and therefore be able to look seriously at the size and effectiveness of any diocese and be able to propose pastoral change and re-organisation. The last part of the measure should through Mission Orders intends to give greater flexibility for local experiment and arrangement to enable fresh expression and imagination in relation to mission.

At this group of sessions the synod had the rather tedious task of going through small details in effect dotting i’s and crossing t’s. The measure amended was then put to synod for final approval. This requires and virtually unanimously achieved a two-thirds majority in each house. In his summing up the Bishop of Exeter described the new measure as practical and properly engaged with the nitty-gritty of church life. He commends it as devolutionary, straightforward, user friendly and flexible. The measure now goes to Parliament.

Church of England Marriage Measure

A Debate took place last July at the York General Synod with regard to who had the rights to be married in a particular parish church by banns (ie broadening the conditions from present residence and electoral roll). The overall feeling from that Session was that the present rights of marriage by banns is far from satisfactory pastorally or for the church's mission, and neither is it meaningful to those who approach us in our modern world. However, there was also a sense from the speeches and representations made to the Revision Committee that the qualifying conditions should not be too broad. Thus the Revision Committee came before Synod with a more reduced list of what constituted a qualifying connection.

It was, therefore, a surprise that most contributors to the February debate wanted to widen the qualifying connections again. One Bishop showed more humour than grace when he called the recommendations "a load of codswallop!" Though others liked his honesty and frustration perhaps there was a failure to acknowledge that unless everyone has the right to be married in every church, there do need to be some regulations regarding qualifying conditions and some way of providing evidence.

A Motion was put to the Synod with many amendments some of which were passed and others of which failed. The Process seemed rather laborious, as the decision had already been made that the Revision Committee should have another go and report to the July Synod.

Although more work and clarification is required it would seem that within 12 months or so those having a right to be married in a church will then include, inter alia, those who have been on the Electoral Roll previously, most of those who have been baptized and confirmed in the church, those who have resided in the parish in the past, who have worshipped habitually, who have had a parent resident or on the Electoral Roll, or who have had a parent of grandparent married in the church - but perhaps Synod will change its mind again!

Fresh Expressions

Steven Croft the Archbishops’ Missioner and some of his team updated Synod on the progress of outreach so far. ‘It is not about a set of scattered experiments’ we were told, but to resource and encourage fresh expressions of church as part of a mixed economy in every part of the two (existing and new) churches and beyond. Across the country, and since 2000, 1/3 of parishes have begun fresh expressions and a half are planning to do so. One concept which started in Manchester is hoped will be taken up elsewhere; this is ‘back to church Sunday’ when on one Sunday in September everyone is encouraged to invite back someone who used to come to Church. Statistics show that they are likely to become regular worshippers again. A wider review of the initiative is being sent to Dioceses.

Lesbian & Gay Christians

Wednesday morning began with worship and then moved on to two long sessions on contentious and lengthy private members motions on issues of sexuality. These matters came before General Synod just two weeks after the meeting of Anglican Primates in Tanzania and efforts there to maintain the unity of the Communion. Had the proposers known in advance of this timing of and the major amendments ("wrecking amendments" in the opinion of some) which the House of Bishops were to propose, it may have been the case that the motions would not have been pursued. Whatever views individuals had, it may be true to suggest that few came out of the chamber particularly uplifted!

Mary Gilbert’s motion could have been read as fairly uncontroversial. It spoke of a legitimate and honest diversity of opinions about homosexuality and in the reading of Scripture, of "orientation" rather than "behaviour," and "welcoming and affirming," but some of these and other phrases seemed ambiguous or coded. There was a feeling that it intended more than the sum of the words seemed to say, especially when read alongside the background paper, which itself was warmly welcomed by some and sharply criticised by others. Many stories were told of what all would have agreed as unacceptable homophobia, but there were unresolved issues around the authority and interpretation of the Bible, and whether society made the distinction between orientation and behaviour that many Christians have sought to make.

It was evident that the House of Bishops were most keen to maintain unity, albeit an uneasy one, and although there amendment was in turn amended the final more moderate resolution received wide though far from unanimous support. Readers may like to consider the whole text which seems to both affirm the existing position of the Church of England whilst perhaps going further (eg "full participation")

The Bishop of Gloucester’s amendment to Mary Gilbert’s motion (as amended by Mr John Ward):

“That this synod

1. commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion;
2. recognizes that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference resolutions (1978:10; 1988:64; 1998:1.10);
3. welcome the opportunities offered by these Lambeth resolutions, including for the church of England to engage in an open, full and Godly dialogue about human sexuality; and
4. affirm that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or to full participation in lay and ordained ministry in the church and acknowledge the importance of lesbian and gay members of the Church of England participating in the listening process as full members of the church.”

Electronic Voting

This debate focussed on the next steps for implementing the Synod’s decision in principle to adopt a system of electronic voting. The debate included the implications of producing and publishing detailed voting information, accountability in voting, the necessity to count abstentions, the security and reliability of the system, and its costs. The Synod agreed the proposal by the Chair of the Business Committee to approve the recommendations of the Business Committee report on this issue.

Civil Partnerships

This was the second “sex” discussion of the day. The motion was a sharply worded attack upon the existing guidance for civil partnerships (Pastoral Statement), which was considered unclear and confusing, and sought to replace it with some clear guidance as required by scripture and the canons. The proposer was quite clear that a Civil Partnership is never to be considered as a “marriage”, and is inconsistent with Christian teaching. This was not well received by the majority within Synod, and the speeches continued until the Bishop of Liverpool presented an amendment that changed the motion completely into an acknowledgement of the diversity of views, a recognition of their Pastoral Statement, and an intention to keep this under review. This amendment was followed by other amendments, but each of those fell except one which, effectively, just tinkered with the Bishop’s words. It remained for Synod to decide whether it wanted the original motion or the amended Bishop’s motion, and in the end it was agreed that the status quo would be maintained and the amended Bishop’s motion was carried by a vote of hands. Neither side claimed any victory!

Achieving the first 200 years

This year is the two hundredth celebration of the abolition of the slave trade or middle-passage, as it was known. 2011 will be the bicentennial year the National Society celebrating the establishing of mass education in England and Wales.

This education report to Synod reviews the progress achieved this millennium since the Dearing report. It sets out the positive changes and progress already achieved in endeavouring to ensure that Church Schools are at the heart of the Church’s mission. The report sets these mission aims in the context of continuing government legislation. Dearing marked a significant change in the Church’s policy towards education. This report sets out substantial targets to be achieved by our Church Schools by 2011.

The debate paid tribute to the excellent work of Canon John Hall soon to be Dean of Westminster. Under his leadership the National Society has gained respect and recognition by politicians and public. Many speakers in the debate noted examples of good work and practice. The original aims of increasing the numbers of Church schools by around 100 by 2011 seems likely to be surpassed. Much of the debate focused on how our schools can value all children as made in the image of God and on how our schools can be welcoming, distinctive yet inclusive. The special challenges regarding secondary education were aired and developing further our expertise and numbers in secondary education was noted as key issues.

Taking responsibility for crime

On Thursday morning there was a debate on Criminal Justice. This was supported by an excellent report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council entitled “Taking Responsibility for Crime”. At the invitation of the Archbishops, Mr Phil Wheatley, Director General of the Prison Service, addressed the Synod to provide background to the debate.

The debate itself illustrated the strength of the Synod and was of a very high standard. Among those who spoke were the Chaplain General of the Prison Service, the mother of a recently murdered young man, a deaf member who spoke of the difficulties of deaf prisoners, a magistrate, and the President of the Children’s Society.

The motion, proposed by the Bishop of Worcester, was strengthened during the debate. While recognising the need for prisons it called for an end to overcrowding and particularly urged action to remedy the treatment of women, children and young people, mentally ill people and members of black and minority ethnic groups.

I many Members view this was one of the best debates held in Synod for some time.

Media Standards

This debate arising out of a Lichfield Diocesan motion was skilfully introduced by Revd Richard Moy in such a lively way that it encouraged a spirited and helpful number of contributions. A bishop’s amendment would have had the effect of nullifying the thrust of the motion but this was resisted by a majority of Synod. We were told that the media cannot entirely be blamed as they only follow the trend of public interest; it is up to the churches to change the interests of the public not the media. Several speakers highlighted the downside of this argument by pointing to research showing how we are influenced by audiovisual prompting. For example, most people would react in some way or another as they pass MacDonald’s. In the final motion the Government was asked to note our concern about the influence the media can have on individuals, we need to be aware of careful research on the subject, and also a clause was added noting that ‘there are no regulations regarding the printed media for the sale and display of sexually explicit material...’

Farewells

Traditionally before Synod closes there is a time to say a number of farewells. Of interest to our Diocese was a farewell to Dudley Coates. He is well known to many of us. Dudley has represented the Methodist Church on Synod for two sessions of 3 years. His outstanding contribution was acknowledged and appreciation expressed for the many times he has spoken with care and insight into the debates.

Next meeting of General Synod

The next group of sessions will be held at York University from Friday 6th to Tuesday 10th July 2007

For more details see the Church of England News Page http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/