General Synod Diary

To begin my General Synod update, I would like to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not receive a standing ovation before he began his Presidential Address despite what was irresponsibly reported in the news! Anyone who reports regularly on Synod business will be well aware that at the beginning of each sitting, morning and afternoon, synod members stand as the chair, legal council and other members of the platform enter the assembly hall. There is then a short prayer and business begins. The fact that some members of Synod orchestrated a robust applause in support of the Archbishop even before he began his speech does not constitute a standing ovation…and no, I did not join in.

Although I have sympathy for the Archbishop as a man in the demands of his role and no doubt the pressure that bears on him personally and on his family, I do not see any reason to offer such show of sympathy to him as leader of the Anglican Communion. From where I stand I see that we have two Archbishops who think it ‘noble’ and ‘brave’ to stand unashamedly for issues of other faiths, the environment and even the Mugabe regime, but are somehow unable to stick their heads above the parapet in declaring their personal positions on issues concerning doctrinal orthodoxy; the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of scripture, and other issues regarding the present state of the world wide Anglican Communion. Heaven forbid that they risk offending Anglicans, when they can just make politically correct statements that everyone quite likes. The day I support the Archbishop in a genuine standing ovation at General Synod will be when he gets up and calls the nation to repentance for sin and to obedience to the Word of God. Now on to the business at hand.

Compared to the synod in London in February ’07, this one was tame, though interesting. The agenda was heavy with necessary legislative business and we even used electronic voting for the first time. And added dimension to Synod this time was that being so late on in my pregnancy; I found it difficult to sit through long periods in the assembly hall but still managed to get in a few good debates!

Tuesday 12th February: There had been a lot of pressure on clergy and laity in the build up to February to support the move to vest parsonage houses in new diocesan boards rather than in ‘corporation sole’. Good arguments were put forward on both sides, and as was pointed out, the present system is working, so the onus is on those wanting change to convince us the reason for it. This measure was defeated in all three houses for which I am pleased. The other two interesting points on the day came in the form of private members motions. Bible Availability was a motion put forward calling on all dioceses to take the necessary steps in making sure that bibles were available in all churches. At present there are many churches where bibles are not readily available and some even are not fulfilling the legal requirement of a bible on a lectern. Thankfully this motion was passed. The other motion carried was on Casino’s. This was a call asking the church to redouble its opposition to the Government’s “astonishing promotion of the opening of casinos.” Gambling had progressed from being a sin, to a vice, to a pastime to be encouraged with £50 billion being spent on gambling. This is not just a religious issue, but concerned damage to families, crime and rising debt. It was suggested that the government was blind to all but the £24 billion it received in tax breaks.

Wednesday 13th February: More business, this time on Ecclesiastical Fees. The synod rejected being asked to approve legislation on detailed matters of fees before discussing the principles behind them. Secondly, a diocesan led motion was tabled (and passed) asking synod to take steps to provide suitable Eucharistic prayers for children to be used in schools etc. It was noted that ‘how’ the eucharist was celebrated was just as important as the words used.
It was at this stage of synod that Mark came up to join me. I thought it would be good for him to catch sight of the inner workings of synod and meet some of my colleagues. I did this knowing full well that this type of ‘thing’ is not his cup of tea, but got him to come anyway. It was nice to be able to introduce some of the wonderfully faithful servants beavering away for the sake of the gospel at General Synod, but the real test would come in brining him into the assembly hall for a debate… so I chose an interesting and straight forward one. It was a ‘take note’ debate on the Church of England’s response to the first draft of the Anglican Covenant. Unfortunately I brought him in at the tail end of a report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council on Mental Health and there were numerous amendments and points of order. That left him teetering on the edge of semi-consciousness. Part way through the Covenant report he was dozing so I dragged him out for tea. As far as the Covenant goes, a second draft has already been produced and will soon be making its way to the other provinces around the world for a response. The Covenant is still not popular in some quarters as it is seen as a means to impose discipline on the church by some where there is disagreement on issues of faith and doctrine.

Thursday 14th February: Some final debates before going home…Growing Together in Unity and Mission – Report from the International Anglican / Roman Catholic Community for Unity and Mission. Synod welcomed this report, and the evangelicals put in an amendment asking that all the ARCIC Reports should be discussed at General Synod in future rather than just simply accepted and shelved. This amendment was passed. Finally, Synod expressed deep concerns about the 28 day detention without charge of terrorist suspects.

On this final day I took Mark to a lunchtime book launch with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. This was to launch the St. John’s Gospel commentary to be used by all bishop’s attending the Lambeth Conference this year.

One final note. Continue to pray for the spiritual health and well being of the Church of England. As I mentioned at the beginning of this report, so many public statements come from our church leaders that most people find politically correct and mutually comforting. It is so easy to talk in circles and get people to agree with you and we seem to welcome this because it avoids offending. There are many things the C of E could debate that are morally and ethically reasonable. God after all, has called on us as his creation, to take care of his creation and so on. However, my focus on seeking election to the General Synod was to challenge the moral and spiritual decline in our nation and in our church! Therefore when being faced with various private members motions to sign in order to get it to the floor for debate, I choose to be selective. I have signed a motion to discuss the Uniqueness of Christ but not one on the banning of Whaling. (although in principle I agree) There is plenty of other urgent business at hand and if I had wanted to join Greenpeace I would have done. Please pray for the Church of England, because sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the two!

Lorna Ashworth
General Synod Member (Chichester)

Special thanks to Father Jamie Houghton (St. Michaels, Eastbourne) for his helpful summary of Synod business which I have used in this report.