General Synod: Ask the experts

Canon Bruce Saunders from Southwark Cathedral and religion correspondent, Jonathan Petre, answered your questions in an interactive forum.

Click here to read the transcript

---

The Church of England's "parliament", known as the General Synod, begins a five day meeting on Friday.

However, the meeting could be overshadowed by the controversial nomination of gay priest Canon Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading.

Dr John has said he will not take up the post after calls for his resignation, but supporters say the dispute has made the Church look bigoted and prejudiced.

Although not formally on the agenda, the issue may be discussed in an emergency debate.

Topics that will be under discussion include racial justice, embryo research and the agreement for eventual unity with Methodist Church.

How damaging has the row over Canon Jeffery John been? What is the role of the Church in a modern society?

You put your questions to Bruce Saunders, Canon of Southwark Cathedral and a colleague of Canon Jeffrey John, and to Jonathan Petre, religious affairs correspondent with The Daily Telegraph in an interactive forum.

---

Transcript

Mike Wooldridge:
Hello and welcome to this BBC News interactive forum, I'm Mike Wooldridge. The Church of England General Synod gets underway today. It'll be the first time that the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will have presided over the General Synod, the church's parliament. But the meeting in York is likely to be overshadowed by the controversy that surrounded the short-lived appointment of a homosexual priest as Bishop of Reading. How damaging was that row to the church and how should the church respond to the issues it faces in today's society?

Well here to help answer your many questions is the religion correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, Jonathan Petre and we hope joining us later from our studio in Westminster Canon Bruce Saunders from Southwark Cathedral who's a colleague of the priest at the centre of the row Canon Jeffrey John.

Jonathan Petre for now welcome, on your way to York I think.

Jonathan Petre:
That's correct, I'm on my way.

Mike Wooldridge:
And expecting it to be a very lively Synod, this one?

Jonathan Petre:
It is going to be extremely interesting to say the least. The actual official agenda is more worthy than sensational but most of the action will be taking place off-stage, as it were, in the corridors and tea rooms.

Mike Wooldridge:
Absolutely. Our first question has been e-mailed by Patrick from England who said: "If someone repudiates the basic beliefs of the Labour Party they would be expelled. Why does the church allow people who both practise and teach things which are clearly contrary to scripture, in contravention to their ordination vows, to continue as ministers, let alone become bishops?" What do you say in answer to that - the comparison between politics and the church?

Jonathan Petre:
Well it's an interesting comparison. Of course the Church of England prides itself on being a broad church and a very inclusive church. And if you compare it, say, to other churches - the Roman Catholic church for example - someone like Jeffrey John maybe he wouldn't have survived in a senior post there if he had contravened what was seen as church discipline. The Church of England however has a tradition of tolerance and understanding to a wide range of views and that's been its history. I suspect in the Labour Party you can go quite far as well without being expelled. People seem to have quite diverging views even in that organisation.

Mike Wooldridge:
Another one the same issue really from Adam here in the United Kingdom, who says: "Oh dear, rejecting Canon Jeffrey John has shown that no matter how hard they try to show otherwise the church is split in two - traditionalists on the one hand, liberals on the other." Now I know you write a lot about splits Jonathan, would you agree with that - that the church is indeed now split along the lines he suggests?

Jonathan Petre:
Well I think the appointment of Canon John, even though it didn't result in his consecration, was a watershed because it has exposed these divisions openly and clearly and has caused each side to form up in its own battle lines. So although the split hasn't occurred the divisions are clear to see. And that's certainly precipitated a bit by this appointment of Jeffrey John, it has polarised the position as never before.

Mike Wooldridge:
As never before?

Jonathan Petre:
I think so, I think so on this issue. Obviously when the women priest debate was on that caused great divisions, the slight difference with that one was that it proceeded in a much more orderly fashion, in other words the General Synod had legislation to debate and people were either for or against. In this particular case we have a situation where a bishop has appointed someone and seemed to others to have forced the argument, in other words not going through the proper procedures. And the authorities in the church, including the Archbishop, has been trying to hold the ground when others are trying to apparently undermine the ground beneath them.

Mike Wooldridge:
James Cadogan, again from here in the United Kingdom, sends us an e-mail which says: "The issue of gay priests seems to boil down to a matter of doctrine. Should the Anglican Communion try to establish a clearer teaching authority through, for example, the Lambeth Conference?" Is it really the role of the Lambeth Conference to deal more with issues of doctrine than it does already?

Jonathan Petre:
Of course the 1998 Lambeth Conference decided by an overwhelming majority that clergy should not be practising homosexuals and - or at least they shouldn't be ordained if they were - and that the blessing of same sex unions should also be banned. So in a way it does rule on these controversial matters. But the structure of the Anglican Communion worldwide is such that these rulings are not actually binding - they're morally binding but not legally binding. And it is though joy or the problem of the Anglican Communion that it's both very broad and tolerant and yet tries to hold all these views together.

Mike Wooldridge:
That's probably what lies behind James Cadogan's e-mail isn't it - should they be made more binding, the doctrinal pronouncements of the Lambeth Conference?

Jonathan Petre:
Well there'll be many who would say they should but unfortunately the various parts of the world enjoy their autonomy and their freedom to dissent from the majority view and they're very unlikely to agree now to be bound in future. So places like, particularly America and Canada, which are very liberal, just won't really come round to agreeing that the Lambeth Conference should bind them. So it's a bit of an academic argument from that point of view - they should have done it at the outset of the Lambeth Conference in the turn of the century and put that rule in place but to try and impose it now would be very, very difficult.

Mike Wooldridge:
Sal, again from here in the United Kingdom, asks: "Does the church what is right or what is popular with its members?" Again possibly not unrelated to this particular issue but to many others as well of course.

Jonathan Petre:
Well this is a great balancing act isn't it. It depends where you view the situation from. For some this latest decision is right and done on principle, others it will be seen to be bowing towards - to the will of a minority, the liberals will say their position is both right and reflects society at large. So it's a difficult one and depends where you're looking at it from.

Mike Wooldridge:
Right, well now we can bring in Canon Bruce Saunders from Southwark Cathedral I think. Canon Saunders can you hear me?

Bruce Saunders:
Good afternoon.

Mike Wooldridge:
Good afternoon. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. You, of course, as a colleague of Canon Jeffrey John and have known him for quite some time presumably?

Bruce Saunders:
Indeed, five years yes.

Mike Wooldridge:
And we've had several questions on this particular issue, as you can imagine, one or two that we've been discussing here already before your arrival. Let me put one - before we move on to any other issues - let me put one more on this question - on this issue, first of all, to you. This is from Greg McAusland, from here in the United Kingdom, who says: "As a gay Christian I'm deeply upset at the prejudiced behaviour displayed by some clergy over this issue. I would like to ask is the evangelical wing of the Church of England becoming increasingly as fundamentalist as evangelicals in the United States of America?" What do you feel about that?

Bruce Saunders:
I think probably trying to lump all the evangelicals together is a dangerous and dishonest thing to do. There as many shades of opinion within the evangelical parts of the church I think as there are generally. There are certainly an extreme few who take a very literalist view of the Bible and I think it's they who actually are causing most of the difficulties at the moment because of the very simplistic way they are reading the text. It isn't helped by the fact that they are being rude about everybody else as well - as if other people are less Christian and treat the Bible with less authority.

Mike Wooldridge:
Can I also just ask you a question that Jonathan was dealing with earlier but I think it would be right to put it to you as well. This from Patrick here in England, who said: "If someone repudiates the basic beliefs of the Labour Party they'd be expelled. Why does the church allow people who both practise and teach things which are clearly contrary to scripture, in contravention to their ordination vows, to continue as ministers, let alone become bishops?" What would your view be of an attempt to sort of draw a parallel between what happens in the world of the church, what happens in the world of politics or in society at large?

Bruce Saunders:
Well the Labour Party has the advantage that its manifesto, as far as I know, was written in something approximating to normal English. The Bible, which of course all Christians treat as their sacred source, was written a very long time ago in various kinds of Greek, it's been translated many times and some of the versions that Christians use today are translations of translations and paraphrases and paraphrases. And it's the task of biblical scholars to try to strip away the false implications that have been added as translation processes happen over 2,000 years and to try to get back to what the original authors meant as far as possible. And it's generally in that process that the arguments arise. I mean I'm as committed to my ordination vows, which don't actually say anything about sexuality but they do say something about the Bible and a good deal of this argument is actually about our understanding of the Bible. And those who say there is only one way to read the half a dozen texts from the Old Testament and the New Testament that seem to be about homosexuality are simply wrong, there are more points of view within the church about that. So there is a range views so I don't think there is a single position in the Church of England.

Mike Wooldridge:
What you've just said would to some extent be challenged by an e-mail that we've had from Emily here in the United Kingdom and I'll just put this to you first and then bring you back in again, Jonathan Petre, on this one. Emily says: "It's the Bible that's on trial here, not just homosexuality. Does the established Church of England believe the Bible or not? Both the Old and New Testaments say homosexuality is a sin which needs to be rejected and repented. This is a battle for the Bible." What would you say to that then?

Bruce Saunders:
Well I'd say that Emma is actually wrong on that. The Bible doesn't say that about homosexuality at any point. The passage in Genesis that is very famously referred to is about gang rape and no one's endorsing that. The passages in 1 Timothy and also the letters to Corinthians by St. Paul, they're about perversion and promiscuity and prostitution. The two passages in the Old Testament that - in Leviticus - that people go to a great deal, one is about male homosexuality being condemned in the same way that masturbation is condemned in the Old Testament because the male semen is supposed to be sacred, it's very close to what the contemporary Roman Catholic doctrine about contraception is, wasted seed is taking life. And so no one who's ever used a condom, for example, can use those passages in defence of their position nor to attack homosexuality. And interestingly because of that view, about male homosexuality, there's no prohibition in Leviticus about female same sex relationships. So I don't think it's as simple as saying the Bible says it's wrong. Oh and by the way in Leviticus death is required if you find someone committing a homosexual act. In the Book of Romans I mean the argument's about naturalness and St. Paul condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and he's obviously talking about straight men who, to use the biblical term, leave or turn away from their natural sexuality and become - and start practising same sex relationships.

Mike Wooldridge:
Now I'm going to have to interrupt you there because Jonathan I'd like you to come in on this and we don't have time to take up every one of those references but what would you say about this issue of biblical references and how they're used and indeed whether this is, as Emily suggests, the Bible that is on trial here?

Jonathan Petre:
Well I'd be loathed to go into those deep waters, I've no great theological background. But all I would say is that the Bible has been interpreted not just through looking at the text but also through looking at what the early church perceived it to mean and through tradition. And there's always a danger, I think, that people on the other side of this debate fear is that once you unravel parts of the Bible the justification for other activities in the church also start to unravel. There's very little justification for the whole structure of the Church of England - clergy and bishops - in say the New Testament, there's very little justification for a lot of things that are accepted as the norm and based on the Bible in the church. So to determine that one aspect can be overturned leads to people questioning well why do we ban or approve of something else? And you can start pulling the string and the whole garment unravels very quickly. And there is an element or a fear I think of people that in that sense the Bible is on trial.

Mike Wooldridge:
Looking now at our overall theme today, as you know, is the role of the church. Keith, here in England, says in an e-mail: "What is the primary message of the Church of England? The leadership seem busy trying to appeal to the public but there is not clear message. Hasn't the church just become another charitable and social organisation with no real Christian message, other than the principle that it would be nice if everyone got along?" Canon what would you say - have a clearer message than that?

Bruce Saunders:
Well indeed I have yes and so has the church as a whole. I mean the church's big story is about the nature of God's love for his creation and that creation has a purpose and that we are held in God's love individually and collectively and our lives gain purpose when we are associated with God's great purpose which is about, as the Bible says, the reconciliation of everything in heaven and earth to himself. And so it's for that reason that love and tolerance and inclusiveness and forgiveness are absolutely vital marks of the church and I deeply regret to say that they haven't been widely on show in the last few weeks as we've sort of paraded our dirty linen in public as it were. But it is for the church to try to embody those qualities in the way we live, not just talk about them and preach about them.

Mike Wooldridge:
Jonathan your job is to write about religion, would you say that that sort of message comes across clearly enough or do you have sympathy for the point that was being made in the e-mail?

Jonathan Petre:
I do have sympathy, some sympathy with the points made because it is difficult for the church when it has got these big divisive issues overshadowing everything else to try and impress people that its true message is about love and God. But one of the distinctive things about the church, as opposed to the rest of society, is that it does seek to balance the totalitarian argument that the greatest of the greatest number by concentrating on every individual being equally important in God's sight or whatever and that is a very useful balance to a lot of expediency and politics elsewhere and that's a distinctive message the church has that very few other places have.

Mike Wooldridge:
There's much hand wringing of course that goes on about the church and the young and perhaps it will again at this General Synod that you're just about to go to. While we've been on the air Colin has e-mailed in, Colin from here in the United Kingdom has e-mailed in saying: "Young people are deserting the church. Why don't more churches follow the example of Holy Trinity, Brompton's sole survivor, lots of other initiatives of that kind? Whether the liberal or evangelical it is modern worship that we need to bring back young people like me." So Canon Saunders would you accept that - we need more of that new more innovative kind of worship - do you have it at Southwark Cathedral?

Bruce Saunders:
We have all sorts of things at Southwark Cathedral I'm happy to say. I think there is certainly an issue about how the church makes its culture more accessible to people. At the moment I think there is far too bigger - too stepper a step for people who actually might feel inclined to go to church but what goes on inside many churches is - could be in a different language entirely and they don't understand the rituals, the behaviour, the hymns don't seem to mean what they say. So there is a big job. Whether the Holy Trinity of Brompton and St. Helen's Bishopgate is enough I mean I don't know. I mean they seem to be very good at helping people to make the first step into Christian faith but they're not so good, I would say with great respect to them, about helping them to go on deepening that initial faith into something more mature and adult that will take them through the dark times of life when they're not young and beautiful anymore.

Mike Wooldridge:
Well also while we've been on the air Colin Lee has e-mailed in from Derbyshire saying: "Local churches should serve the needs of their parishioners. Why therefore do so many churches continue to serve the needs of members while ignoring the needs of those within the parish who would attend the church if it was relevant to them?" Jonathan Petre.

Jonathan Petre:
Well that's true, I mean if the churches' parish is operating successfully it should try and include as many people in the area that it can. And there are now increasingly moves by the church to encourage clergy and people who work with the church to get out into the streets and try and engage people where they are and really by example, by doing good work in the area, and lead people back to the church, people would say well that priest is obviously committed and we want to go and hear what he's - what's driving him, what's motivating him to do these things. But there may have been a period where the church rather retreated into its buildings and that hasn't helped.

Mike Wooldridge:
And do you as a journalist covering religion feel that the sort of controversy that we've just seen over Canon Jeffrey John and the question of whether he was or was not to become Bishop of Reading, controversy that you've been reporting, do you think that helps or hinders the church getting out among the people, if you like, being relevant to today's society?

Jonathan Petre:
I don't think it can help much. The trouble at the moment is that whatever some of the supporters of Canon John say and think in fact the evangelical wing of the church is much larger and more influential than they would like to admit and half of the ordinands currently in training are from the evangelical tradition. The future leadership of the Church of England is going to be largely evangelical, not necessarily liberal.

Mike Wooldridge:
Would you accept that Canon Saunders or not and what do you feel about this issue of relevance?

Bruce Saunders:
Well I mean the strength of the Anglican parish and I speak particularly of South London but it's true nationally is that on the whole we've stayed in small local communities long after some other denominations and churches have moved out to the suburbs. So it's - I mean it's part of our committed mission to stay with people in the inner city and in the poor areas. But I can hardly think of church in South London, in the inner city, which isn't also now widely used during the week for community activities and youth projects and community projects and asylum seeker projects and all kinds of things that are exactly for the community and that was one of the reasons why the Church Urban Fund was set up in 1985 and that's been a great success. About the politics of the church, yes I think we've had 10 years during George Carey's archbishopric when what Jonathan has described has probably been very true and it's certainly true about the theological colleges. And the Catholic end of the Anglican church hasn't managed to get its evangelism and mission act together as well as it should have done. I wouldn't be convinced about his figures about the relative size of things, certainly the evangelical colleges are noisy and better organised but .

Mike Wooldridge:
Does that alarm you at all, is there a balancing out that is needed so this remains as broad a church as possible or are you happy about that situation?

Bruce Saunders:
Well I mean the Church of England will only survive if it's a broad church. I mean if it becomes the placing of one particular party then it won't last five minutes, its diversity and its complexity that's helped it survive through five centuries and will give it a very positive future in a post-modern kind of world where adaptability and flexibility and local commitment will keep it alive. There are parts of the church that have a great deal to learn from the commitment and enthusiasm of the more, dare I say, the more intelligent end of the evangelical spectrum.

Mike Wooldridge:
A whole new debate there.

Bruce Saunders:
But I think - I mean I do think the Catholic church has to get its act together, it can't just simply go on doing what it's always done believing that saying the mass beautifully will be enough, it clearly isn't.

Mike Wooldridge:
Well thank you very much indeed. I'm afraid we have run out of time. My thanks to my guests: Canon Bruce Saunders of Southwark Cathedral and Jonathan Petre of the Telegraph. Thank you both very much indeed. And thank you all too for your e-mails and for taking part in this forum. From me, for now, Mike Wooldridge goodbye.