The Rector at General Synod

I thought it might be fun to create a few reflections on General Synod 'as it happens' - this is partly so that the parish knows what I'm doing with my time but also so that thoise members of the Oxford Diocesan Synod who will have the opportunity to ask a GS panel questions at the Diocesan Synod in March might bet a flavbour of what it is like to be here day by day.

Monday's Synod began, as I am sure you can imagine, on a slightly tense note! I arrived 'just in time' as I ahd conducted aFuneral service on Monday morning. Arriving at the side entrance to Dean's Yard I was immediately aware of the media and was very glad to see a Bishop approaching at the same time as myself - he was the one who was pounced upon by the waiting journalist! I had just time to find my way into the Chamber before the afternoon's proceedings began and Archbishop Rowan's arrival was greeted (as I had anticipated) with a supportive round of applause. It was fortunate that at this Synod the Presidential address was almost the first item of business since everyone was waiting to hear what he would have to say. Of course, this has been widely reported but it is perhaps hard for those who are not present to grasp the warmth of feeling for the Archbishop that was present in the debating chamber. I'm jhust glad that it isn't me that the huge lenses of the gathered press photographers are focussing on - it's intimidating enough to see them in the balcony and hear the consistent click and whirr!!

I think that most members of Synod are delighted when the intensity of the Media interest dies away as the more normal Synod procedures take over with the Debate on teh Business Committee report. This is normally an opportunity for members of Synod to comment on the things they wish we were doing or to let us know how we are getting things wrong. This Synod, however, is the introduction of electronic voting and Kay Garlick the Chair of Business Committee leads us thorugh an introductory vote so that we can practice the processand the practicalities of using the pin numbers and handsets. Sadly our practice motion - That all Diocesan Bishops should buy their Diocesan members chocolates for Valentines Day was defeated (in the House of Bishops!!- for Shame!). As I've given up chocolate for Lent I had promised mine to Brian Newey!

This debate, followed by Questions formed a good introduction to the Synod with questions about the progress of the Working Group on Women in the Episcopate, Sheffield numbers and the open letter of Muslim clerics. I rounded the evening off with supper in the company of the Open Syn od Group - a group whose intention is to provide a forum where ideas xan be shared openly and between people of all the different 'persuasions' that abound in Synod. On this occasion we hears about the report 'Four Funerals and a Wedding' proposing some changes to the way that fees for the Offices are managed. I hope to speak in this debate later in the week.

Tuesday dawns and we know that this is a day of serious business. At the beginning of the day there is some very formal business with the reading and signing of new Canons. However it isn't long before we are pitched into consideration of a Code of Practice for the Dioceses Pastoral and Mission Measure and then, before we know it, we are deep in the throes of clergy terms of service. This is one of those days when you open the order paper and your heart sinks at pages and pages of amendments. On such days the skill of the Chairman, the knowledge of the Legal advisors and (especially) the good humour of all concerned is of paramount importance!

Behind all the Clergy Terms of Service work is the conviction taht clergy should be treated equally and that there should not be such a gulf between those whose Licenses are held at what some describe as the 'whim' of the Bishop and those who ahve the Freehold. In principle of course veryone agrees that this is a laudable intention - but there are plenty of grounds on which to disagree with the Steering Group. Some of these are based on knowledge, some on experience and some on the determination to make sure that a particular interest is properly considered.

As everyone had predicted the major issue was around the Freehold and, in particular, the way in which clergy houses are held. The proposal that these should be held by a newly formed Parsonages Board in each Diocese was not well received. Either because you did not think the Diocese needed a new and expensive body to manage housing or (and this turned out to be the majority) because you felt that clergy housing not currrently vested in the Diocese should remain in the putative ownership of the Incumbent.