The management of debates in synod

I found the debate at Diocesan Synod about rescinding the Act of Synod a depressing experience.

After 12 years as a lay representative within the Church's synodical and semi-democratic processes, I have come to the conclusion that the existing system gives far too much power to those who consider themselves chosen or responsible for the "management" of such forums as our Church allows itself. It seems to me that the Bishops as the executive powers should not also be the presidents of our forums.

The role of Speaker or Chair ought in the General Synod and in our Diocesan Synods to be representative of the membership, and not of the leadership, if we are all to be confident in the freedom of debate. General Synod needs a permanent chairperson or Speaker, not a variety of temporary chairs put up by the Establishment to "manage" debate. A Speaker and Deputy Speaker would naturally owe their loyalty to the institution - the forum itself - and not to its management. They would be able to organise debate without the suspicion that they were serving "government".

In the case of the Diocesan Act of Synod debate, the Bishop of the Diocese chose speakers in a supposedly balanced and "representative" manner. But as usual the vast majority of those called were clergy rather than laity, often blinkered and repetitive. It is no surprise to me now that clergy do not really want to listen to laity, and that they consider themselves the effective owners of the institutional Church. Yet that is not how I understand ordination.

The issue of Synods as sounding-boards, and of debate as a means of listening to the mind of the people of God, is not a minor one. But what especially depressed me about the "rescinding" debate was the clear evidence from the vote that a majority wishes to ignore the views of a minority, and will be pleased when a part of that minority is forced to leave the Church. The Bishop of Woolwich spoke nobly on this matter, but was ignored. The Diocesan Bishop chose to sit on the fence and abstain.

How the Church of England now handles its minorities is not incidental but absolutely central to the kind of institution that it is. No doubt the Southwark view of the Act of Synod will not be shared widely elsewhere, and rescinding may be rejected by General Synod until a new Act of Synod to deal with the process of enabling women to become bishops has been passed.

At a late stage of the debate Bishop Tom invited a number of people including myself (who had indicated our wish to speak) to come forward if we felt we had something we were burning to say. My views against rescinding had found much support at Streatham deanery synod. However, as a supporter of women priests and bishops who accepts that the Act of Synod is currently essential, and who hears what the Forward in Faith element say about its necessity, I felt that the debate by that stage had gone stale, and that to reignite it would be impossible.

The staleness of the debate stemmed from the chairing and so-called "balanced" calling of predominantly clergy. The management of Diocesan Synods and of the General Synod needs to be shared between the office of each forum's Speaker and the Executive (meaning currently within the Church either the Bishop's Council or the Archbishops' Council). The episcopal leadership of the Church and those laity and rising clergy associated with them seem to regard our representational elements as a problem to be managed, which makes the whole representative process debilitating and futile, inflated by gesture politics and by the often dubious claims of "reforming" legislation. A change in attitude is needed.

Tom Sutcliffe, Streatham

Ed - See Synod report

Honest to God...
or a destructive denial of the Christian tradition?

It's a shame that the March edition of The Bridge saw fit to remember/celebrate the 40th anniversary of the publication of Bp John Robinson's 'Honest to God'.

Rather than, as Bp Hugh Monefiore puts it, 'a brave book' releasing 'a log jam of radical thinking', the book surely should be seen for what it is: not simply a fresh and vital re-statement of Christian truth, but in fact a destructive denial of the Christian tradition which the Church has held onto for nearly two millennia.

'Honest to God' was apparently born out of a realisation that 'traditional' presentations of Christianity were perceived as irrelevant to most people in inner city Britain in the 1960's. Robinson was right to insist that our childish notions of God had to go and we cannot contain or grasp the wholeness of God, but instead of re-addressing the abysmal failure in evangelism which was to blame, Robinson decided to fundamentally alter the very foundations of the Gospel itself.

Gone was the certainty of a supernatural, transcendent and personal God who reveals himself, and who also came to us in the flesh of Jesus Christ. Gone was the unifying anchor of Christian doctrine which joins us with our brothers and sisters in Christ across time and space. The Ecumenical Creeds were consigned to the dustbin of irrelevant traditional dogma, only to be replaced by a subjective, vague dogma of God as the 'depth at the centre of life', which looked suspiciously like the reflection of the radical theologians themselves.

Most Christians would agree that the message of Jesus Christ needs to be made accessible and comprehensible to every generation, but this cannot be taken to mean discarding the actual content of what we believe.

'Honest to God' may have been honestly representing the unorthodox views of John Robinson, but it can hardly be said to have been honest to God. After all, who are we to abandon, as Jude puts it, 'the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints'?

Rev. Andrew Cinnamond Clapham

There is a better way!

Michael Denton writes of the need to resist evil. I wonder what Jesus meant then when he said: 'Resist not evil'?

Did He not mean: 'Don't resist evil on its own terms' - i.e. by using evil means to overcome evil?

To overthrow Saddam Hussein by using cluster bombs, and maybe napalm on innocent people, especially children, as George W Bush and Tony Blair seem prepared to do, will in my opinion, be an act of utter wickedness. There is a better way of resisting evil, a way consistent with the love which Jesus came to show us. Both Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, and Martin Luther King, a Christian, followed this way and showed that it is practical.

For some, it is easy to drop bombs on innocent people. But for those among us who realise that they are brothers for whom Christ died, it is not so easy. To God their children are just as precious as our children.

I agree wholeheartedly with the words of Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Co-founder of the Peace People in Northern Ireland: 'Nonviolence is not for the elite few, it is for everyone to live. It is a way of life based on respect for each human person, and for the environment. It is also a means of bringing about social and political change, and resisting evil without entering into evil. It is a whole new way of thinking.'

This is what we should be teaching our Islamic brothers and sisters - not killing or maiming their children.

Sidney Fagan London SE3

Could you help co-ordinate a Community Festival?

We have just received funding to appoint a sessional community worker on the Denmark Hill Estate, to work with the steering group co-ordinating the Three Hills Community Festival (weekend of 7/8 June 2003).

Working with local people and organisations your task would be to encourage them to get involved in the festival and the Three Hills Community Forum; and, with the steering committee, to manage the festival publicity and events.

Total fee is £2,000 for an estimated 80 hours work between April and June.

We are looking for someone with skills in community work and co-ordination of events, with time available, including a full week leading up to and over the festival weekend.

This is the second Three Hills Festival - last year's was run on a shoestring, but remarkably successful. This year the festival has a multi-cultural theme, and we are particularly keen to involve local people from black and minority ethnic groups. The steering group has done some preparatory groundwork, and has already appointed a community arts worker to run the workshops. Further funding may be available for follow up community work.

To apply, write or e mail for a person specification and job description. The deadline for completed applications is Thursday 10 April and interviews will be held on Monday 14 April.

Contact Hugh Dawes, St Faith's Vicarage, 62 Red Post Hill, London SE24 9JQ Telephone: 020 7274 1338 or email: hugh@tcpost.fsnet.co.uk

Jill McKinnon Diocesan Community Development Adviser