:00:28. > :00:34.Thank you so much. Good afternoon. It's great to see you. Welcome to a
:00:34. > :00:38.special edition of The Big big big Questions. This week the nation
:00:38. > :00:42.appeared to lose lose its patience with the Church of England. There
:00:42. > :00:45.was an outcry of something must be done because of the vote against
:00:45. > :00:50.women Bishops. The Church of England has been discussing it for
:00:50. > :00:54.46 years and it's 37 years since parliament legally obliged every
:00:54. > :00:58.employer to treat men and women equally stfplt any wonder the Prime
:00:58. > :01:03.Minister suggested the Church needs a sharp prod? This morning, we are
:01:03. > :01:08.asking one Big Question: Should parliament force the Church of
:01:08. > :01:11.England to appoint women Bishops? We have assembled distinguished
:01:11. > :01:15.priests of both sexes, campaigners for women Bishops, campaigners
:01:15. > :01:23.against, politicians and commentators and they will be
:01:23. > :01:27.cheered on and challenged by our lively Peckham audience. APPLAUSE
:01:27. > :01:37.As always, and we would love you to, you can join in via our message
:01:37. > :01:42.board. The strength and the weakness of
:01:42. > :01:47.the Church of England is that it's a very broad Church. From Bishops
:01:47. > :01:51.who don't believe in little details like the virgin birth, to members
:01:51. > :01:55.of the evangelical wing who say the Bible is literally the unalterable
:01:55. > :01:59.word of God. That's why this debate has gone on for 46 years, because
:01:59. > :02:02.it was decided that special provision must be made for those
:02:02. > :02:09.who cannot accept a woman as Bishop because script ture and theology
:02:09. > :02:15.say it's plain wrong. Never mind 46 years, we have 42 minutes to sort
:02:15. > :02:18.it out. As to whether we will or not... I have my doubts. This was a
:02:18. > :02:22.bad week for you. How do you think the Church looks to broader
:02:22. > :02:26.society? The society that it seeks to serve? I think it looks
:02:26. > :02:31.appalling. I was in a state of shock myself. I think showed what
:02:31. > :02:35.happened in the vote is that the House of Laity, the House I belong
:02:35. > :02:41.to, sadly, basically betrayed the wider Church of England with the
:02:42. > :02:47.vote and when I tell you that overall in synod that it gained a
:02:47. > :02:53.74% majority, 94% of all the Bishops said yes. 77% of all the
:02:53. > :02:57.clergy and 64% of the laity and it still fell by six votes in the
:02:57. > :03:01.House of Laity and we have been debating this out in the dioceses
:03:01. > :03:05.so basically we have a House of Laity that is unrepresentative of
:03:05. > :03:10.the wider Church. There's now a call for a vote of no confidence in
:03:10. > :03:17.the current Chair of the House p Laity who used his position to tell
:03:17. > :03:22.people to vote against it. Has the Church been hijacked by a zealous
:03:22. > :03:26.caucus who subverted the whole process? Some people think that.
:03:26. > :03:33.think that's probably true, I think that the Church's actually being
:03:34. > :03:38.held to ransom now by the very conservative evangelicals who are
:03:38. > :03:42.using sort of finding the perfect arrangements as sort of a
:03:42. > :03:46.smokescreen because I think basically what they want is never
:03:46. > :03:50.to allow the Church of England to have women as Bishops. APPLAUSE We
:03:50. > :03:55.need to understand the argument and we need to understand - you are one
:03:55. > :04:01.of those aforementioned conservatives evangelicals. We need
:04:01. > :04:05.to understand these are deeply held convictions. You do not believe a
:04:05. > :04:08.man - you believe a man's role is leader of the home and leader of
:04:08. > :04:12.the Church and you said just before as we were having coffee, you
:04:13. > :04:17.prayed for guidance, the synod prayed and you believe God answered
:04:17. > :04:23.those prayers? I think as Christians we believe God does
:04:23. > :04:29.answer prayer and if we say that we pray that God's will will be done,
:04:29. > :04:32.I don't think we can argue when we get an answer about that. I am very
:04:32. > :04:37.concerned... You believe God's will was done here? This is what God
:04:37. > :04:43.wanted? That's what I prayed for, that's the answer I have got. I am
:04:44. > :04:48.trying to consider whether that is in fact God's voice, but if I
:04:48. > :04:55.prayed that God's will may be done, who my to argue the outcome?
:04:55. > :05:00.have somebody else who does not want to deal with women Bishops or
:05:00. > :05:05.be subjected to women in that role, Zoe, why not? Thanks, Nicky. I
:05:05. > :05:08.believe that men and women are completely equal in value. But I
:05:08. > :05:11.believe, similarly, that God teaches men and women have
:05:11. > :05:15.different roles in the Church. I think just to come back on whether
:05:15. > :05:18.the House of Lay slay representative, -- Laity is
:05:18. > :05:21.representative, it's important to realise people who voted on Tuesday,
:05:21. > :05:26.some will be opposed to women Bishops, but some of those will be
:05:26. > :05:31.for women Bishops, but want clearer provision for brothers and sisters
:05:31. > :05:35.in the Church who couldn't submit female Bishops. Part of the vote on
:05:35. > :05:41.Tuesday was about keeping our promises. I think God is a God who
:05:41. > :05:46.keeps his promises and as a Church we ought to keep our's and in 1992
:05:46. > :05:52.we promised that when we made women priests we would make provision for
:05:52. > :05:57.those who didn't agree with that decision. Certain provisions were
:05:57. > :06:01.put in place and the legislation we had before us was tearing up those
:06:02. > :06:05.provisions and we felt it was wrong to do that. It was absolutely
:06:05. > :06:10.generous provision and, Gerry, you and I disagree on this, we are
:06:10. > :06:16.friends and old colleagues on synod, but those arrangements would have
:06:16. > :06:20.worked and the mantra it wasn't enough, it's actually - it may come
:06:20. > :06:24.to show what we will go back and do now with what happened on Tuesday,
:06:24. > :06:28.is that the Church has voted to have women as Bishops, to remove
:06:28. > :06:32.any barriers to women as Bishops and the legislation that I
:06:32. > :06:37.originally wanted and many people like me would have delivered that,
:06:37. > :06:42.but no, we walked the extra mile, compromised, put in that statutory
:06:42. > :06:45.code of practice and the thing is that nothing, nothing will satisfy
:06:45. > :06:51.some people. I am not saying you, Gerry, but some... Should they
:06:51. > :06:55.leave? Not leave, face the fact that there are some people - we are
:06:55. > :07:00.trying to, you know, square a circle. We need to get women as
:07:00. > :07:03.Bishops and make the provisions in the dioceses as needed and forget
:07:03. > :07:06.this statutory code of practice. It's not that there's nothing that
:07:06. > :07:11.will satisfy us, I believe that in the past six years there have been
:07:11. > :07:16.two other measures and legislation on which those who opposed women
:07:16. > :07:23.Bishops were willing to vote yes. No, they voted on and rejected in
:07:24. > :07:27.General Synod. I was there, Zoe. You represent the - how do you
:07:27. > :07:36.think, just away from that for a second this looks to the wider
:07:36. > :07:40.world? It looks bizarre and and -- and arcane and backwards? It
:07:40. > :07:44.Depends whether you see the Church as a purely human institution. But
:07:44. > :07:49.it's what sort of equality do you want? Do you want an equality that
:07:49. > :07:56.says we have to have interchangability of function? Do
:07:56. > :08:02.you want an Orwellian set-up, some are more equal than others? Do we
:08:03. > :08:08.accept that we are equally in God's sight but have gender roles. Why
:08:08. > :08:13.did God make males and females? George Pitcher, is that answerable?
:08:13. > :08:17.I think it's quite interesting here that - God apparently appears to
:08:17. > :08:21.answer prayers by political party lines and that's extraordinary.
:08:21. > :08:25.APPLAUSE. The problem we have here here as we
:08:25. > :08:28.often do, is with, well, with conservatives. But with
:08:28. > :08:33.particularly toxic sorts of conservatives. The Conservative
:08:33. > :08:39.Party in parliament has historically been defined by what
:08:39. > :08:46.it despises, you know, poor people and - but, and in the Church you
:08:46. > :08:50.have this intractable conservative wing which is in danger, if the
:08:50. > :08:53.Conservative Party has been nicknamed in the past the Nasty
:08:53. > :08:58.Party, we are in danger of having the Nasty Church. Actually what
:08:58. > :09:02.it's doing is defining it self, not in gospel terms but what it loves,
:09:02. > :09:10.and what it includes and what it embraces, but defining itself by
:09:10. > :09:18.what it despises. It's increasingly obviously despises homosexuals and
:09:18. > :09:22.women and people that aren't it. You need to answer that, Zoe and
:09:22. > :09:25.then I will speak to Martin. clearly don't despise myself. I
:09:25. > :09:28.love women and I am passionate about women being involved in
:09:28. > :09:31.ministry in the Church. You are not going to submit to a women Bishop?
:09:31. > :09:36.Well, I guess it wouldn't be a problem for myself because I am a
:09:36. > :09:40.woman. But for those males within the Church who couldn't in good
:09:40. > :09:44.conscience submit to a female Bishop. I want them to be presented
:09:45. > :09:48.-- protected and provided for. Protected? The ministry of a woman
:09:48. > :09:50.called to the service and position... I mean protected from
:09:50. > :09:56.being pushed out. Offensive language. It's language of
:09:56. > :10:06.safeguarding and protecting. Protecting from someone like...
:10:06. > :10:07.
:10:07. > :10:10.This is the type of rhetoric. Hitchens. To hear the furious
:10:10. > :10:13.dogmatic rage, particularly from this quarter here, we are not going
:10:13. > :10:17.to put up with anybody who disagrees with us. It is exactly
:10:17. > :10:20.the position. It's exactly why there aren't women Bishops at the
:10:20. > :10:26.moment, because the faction which wants women Bishops wants them at
:10:26. > :10:30.all costs, it wants total unconditional surrender. It's true.
:10:30. > :10:35.Cow have had women -- you could have had women Bishops last summer
:10:35. > :10:39.and the reason for this farce was because a compromise was rejected.
:10:39. > :10:43.I couldn't care less whether women - whether Bishops or men or women,
:10:43. > :10:47.all I care about is whether they believe in God. The purpose of the
:10:47. > :10:51.Church is to be the Embassy of the kingdom of Heaven on earth and in
:10:51. > :10:56.this country and I see it Riven by petty dogmatic idea logical
:10:56. > :11:01.politics, purists who won't take compromise. The other point of the
:11:01. > :11:05.Church of England, it's been based on the idea we do not lay windows
:11:05. > :11:09.into other people's souls, we do not force people to believe what we
:11:09. > :11:16.believe. This is a difference. Your side could accept but by your
:11:16. > :11:22.furious intolerant dogma you forced us into this division. Not at all.
:11:22. > :11:26.And you... - you, George, describing political opponents as
:11:26. > :11:31.toxic. They're reasonable people but they have to accept that the
:11:31. > :11:35.other side has reason, too. Peter, thank you. If it had happened last
:11:35. > :11:39.summer, of course, it would have been a lesser form of Bishops,
:11:39. > :11:43.wouldn't it. It would absolutely have been and it would have created
:11:43. > :11:46.a Church within a Church and one of the things the General Synod haos
:11:46. > :11:50.agreed -- has agreed on time and time again is we don't want to have
:11:51. > :11:55.women as Bishops, changing the whole nature of what it means to be
:11:55. > :11:58.a Bishop, having two churches. all or nothing. We are not being
:11:58. > :12:01.the purists. We have gone so far. We have gone the extra mile and
:12:01. > :12:04.it's the people for whom we are trying to make the arrangements who
:12:05. > :12:09.are being the pure tans saying nothing will do and I would like to
:12:09. > :12:15.ask, what would do? The thing is we don't want to split the Church into
:12:15. > :12:22.a Church and also have all Bishops who are women women be second-class.
:12:22. > :12:32.That's simply not possible. We are going to bring Martin in Dale in. I
:12:32. > :12:34.
:12:34. > :12:38.promised Martin. Doesn't really matter! For you, it's all about the
:12:38. > :12:43.assurance, isn't it? Partly that. Let me explain that to people. I
:12:43. > :12:48.think people will be interested. So, for you it's not just a male Bishop,
:12:48. > :12:53.but a male Bishop who has not ordained women as priests, nor
:12:53. > :13:01.participated in the consecration of a woman Bishop nor been ordained by
:13:01. > :13:06.a woman nor nor been consecrated by a woman. Now, some people might
:13:06. > :13:12.think is God really that obsessed? I think we have to look back at
:13:12. > :13:14.what we have been doing for 2000 years and look at the views and how
:13:14. > :13:18.we have traditionally brought things through. I have to say what
:13:18. > :13:22.this vote was actually about was rather like David Cameron when he
:13:22. > :13:25.came back from Brussels the other day, and said it wasn't good enough.
:13:25. > :13:30.I think that's actually what was being said in synod, that this was
:13:30. > :13:35.not good enough, either. I would think for what we need to do is
:13:35. > :13:39.move on and work out a way in which, I believe we can, because we did it
:13:40. > :13:43.20 years ago, I can't see why if we had provision then we can't have
:13:43. > :13:47.provision now. The code of practice, if we had voted in favour of this,
:13:47. > :13:51.we would have spent a long time afterwards trying to work out a
:13:51. > :13:57.code of practice to make it work. I don't think things would have been
:13:57. > :14:02.any different but just a different way around. But that whole business
:14:02. > :14:12.about the tradition and the purity of the male line, do people - to
:14:12. > :14:16.many people watching, obviously not If you go to the Catholic Church or
:14:16. > :14:19.the Orthodox churches, that is the way that life has been. We are part
:14:19. > :14:23.of a big church. The whole Christian religion looks bonkers
:14:23. > :14:28.one awful lot of people are increasingly intolerant and
:14:28. > :14:32.contemptuous, because it is based upon very funny month will -- very
:14:32. > :14:37.fundamental and passionately held beliefs. I do not agree but what
:14:37. > :14:41.you say, but I accept that it matters to you. That is the point,
:14:41. > :14:44.accepting that it matters do and do you, compromising for the sake of
:14:44. > :14:54.the religion, instead of having a political battle for your own
:14:54. > :14:55.
:14:55. > :14:59.joyful star reverend Rose, good morning! What a welcome! Listen, I
:14:59. > :15:05.am sure you have caught the gist of our discussion, and I am sure you
:15:05. > :15:11.have heard that this matters deeply to Martin, Jerry, Zoe. Why should
:15:11. > :15:16.they have to change? They need alternative arrangements. I have no
:15:16. > :15:20.doubt that it metres -- it matters deeply to them. There is never
:15:20. > :15:25.going to be anything good enough for them, that is a fact, and we
:15:25. > :15:29.may as well be honest and open and say that. Really, what they are
:15:29. > :15:38.saying, tied up behind theological arguments etcetera, is not in my
:15:38. > :15:42.lifetime. And so, we had a complicated motion before as at the
:15:42. > :15:47.Synod, and it was so complicated because all of those who were
:15:47. > :15:50.working behind the scenes have been trying for years! It was not just
:15:50. > :15:55.yesterday, they have been trying for years to hold everybody
:15:55. > :15:58.together, to try to get the best thing on the table as possible. Now,
:15:58. > :16:05.I actually believe that we have gone too far, I really do believe
:16:05. > :16:11.that. We have wasted a lot of time. Other Anglican provinces have no
:16:11. > :16:16.problem with this. Exactly! They embrace the fact that we have women.
:16:16. > :16:19.Swaziland included. They have just done that. What I really hope is
:16:19. > :16:23.that our Church will have the courage of its conviction, and when
:16:23. > :16:28.it comes before the Synod again, that it will come with a single
:16:28. > :16:32.clause that says, we are going to have women bishops, serving as
:16:32. > :16:37.bishops within the Church. And if you do not like it, leave? We are
:16:37. > :16:42.all adults, we must behave like mature adults, in the same way that
:16:42. > :16:46.we have behaved like mature adults. I have seen women who are now
:16:46. > :16:52.grandmothers who have waited patiently, and the Church has kept
:16:52. > :16:59.saying no and no and no, and they have stayed with the Church. What
:16:59. > :17:02.is so special that you think you cannot stay with the Church?
:17:02. > :17:07.think one of the things that is worth exploring is what they are
:17:07. > :17:12.trying to do in Wales, which is to have two measures, one for
:17:12. > :17:18.provision, and the other for at this double ordination of women,
:17:18. > :17:22.running in parallel. Two bishops. Two arrangements within a thing. If
:17:22. > :17:27.we can manage to sort it out 20 years ago, I cannot see how we
:17:27. > :17:33.cannot sort it out now. We did not sorted out 20 years ago. This silly
:17:33. > :17:38.fudge that we created has let women in a position of being second-class,
:17:38. > :17:44.and that is a fact, and so I hope we do not do that again. The sad
:17:44. > :17:47.thing is that there were many women who were willing to make that
:17:47. > :17:54.sacrifice just so that we could hold everyone together. But you
:17:54. > :18:00.know what? They say it is in the Bible, this. If somebody gouges
:18:00. > :18:06.your eye out, that is in the Bible as well. Are we going to do that?
:18:06. > :18:12.An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? Jesus said, you have heard
:18:12. > :18:16.it said, but I say to... It was said in the Tour! If Jesus was able
:18:16. > :18:20.to look at the Torah, which was something that was held over
:18:20. > :18:26.hundreds of years, if he was able to say, actually, in this
:18:26. > :18:34.particular context, this does not make sense star what did Jesus say
:18:34. > :18:40.about women in... -- what did Jesus say about the possibility of women
:18:40. > :18:45.in the ecclesiastical authority? Laughably little, actually.
:18:45. > :18:49.witness to the risen Christ was a woman and was sent on an Apostolic
:18:49. > :18:54.mission to tell her brothers and sisters by the risen Christ. Now,
:18:54. > :18:59.if that is not the Christ giving women the most important Apostolic
:18:59. > :19:05.mission that can possibly be conceived in the whole of history,
:19:05. > :19:15.then how dare you suggest that the Church, a bunch of men in the first
:19:15. > :19:17.and second centuries, can trump that?! No-one is saying that!
:19:17. > :19:22.could not start from that rhetoric that we are discussing whether
:19:22. > :19:26.women should be bishops or not. This is absolutely not what is at
:19:26. > :19:30.issue. The question of whether women should be bishops is closed,
:19:30. > :19:38.it is a question of under what conditions there will be women
:19:38. > :19:41.bishops. Your rhetoric is designed to obscure that simple fact.
:19:41. > :19:49.Supporters of an absolutely intolerant, demanding to have women
:19:49. > :19:53.bishops... If I may, Peter... may! The General Synod, the
:19:53. > :19:58.discussion was not only about provision for those who in
:19:58. > :20:02.conscience could not accept women in ordained ministry, never mind
:20:02. > :20:07.bishops, but it regurgitated and it rehashed a lot of the frankly
:20:07. > :20:11.misogynistic arguments of the Church of the last 2000 years to
:20:11. > :20:17.resist women being bishops at all. I agree with you... That is not
:20:17. > :20:24.true. The matter is agreed, but these matters keep coming up.
:20:24. > :20:28.want to bring in Ben Bradshaw, an elected representative. I am just
:20:28. > :20:34.wondering, if they cannot sort this out, Ben Bradshaw, do they need
:20:34. > :20:38.more than a nudge from politicians? I think the first point to make is
:20:38. > :20:43.that the Church of England has a very unique relationship with the
:20:43. > :20:47.state through Parliament. It is answerable to Parliament, it is
:20:47. > :20:52.unique in that regard. What struck me this week was the unanimity
:20:52. > :20:58.within not just the House of Commons but also the House of Lords,
:20:58. > :21:01.in dismay and incomprehension that although 42 out of 44 diocese voted
:21:01. > :21:05.overwhelmingly in favour of women bishops, it could not get through
:21:05. > :21:08.Synod. There is clearly something wrong with that. I do not think
:21:08. > :21:12.Parliament wants to act, but because of the special relationship
:21:12. > :21:15.we have with the Church, with the message went out from Parliament
:21:15. > :21:19.that if this is not resolved quickly, it cannot be allowed to
:21:19. > :21:22.rumble on for another five or 10 years, it has to be resolved within
:21:22. > :21:28.the next three months. If not, I think Parliament will do something,
:21:28. > :21:32.yes. The point I have been trying to make for the last half-hour,
:21:32. > :21:36.thankfully they are a number of eloquent men to make it for me! As
:21:36. > :21:42.a woman priest, the arguments we were raising on Tuesday, too many
:21:42. > :21:47.were about women as priests, trying to reassert their validity, which
:21:47. > :21:52.we discussed in 1994. We agreed that I can be a priest, and I was
:21:52. > :21:56.made a priest, I know that happened, and I know that it is difficult for
:21:56. > :22:02.you and it is difficult for many or some within the Church... Visits
:22:02. > :22:06.difficult for you, Zoe? Yes, I myself would not want to go to a
:22:06. > :22:11.church where a female was the church leader, but I understand...
:22:11. > :22:15.Why not? For people just tuning in, remind us why not, for a lot of
:22:15. > :22:18.people this is unique. I believe that the Bible does teach that men
:22:18. > :22:23.and women are to play different roles in the church, and that does
:22:23. > :22:27.not make women less valued. What about the Queen being the head of
:22:27. > :22:31.the Church? I think Elizabeth I changed it from head of the Church
:22:31. > :22:39.to supreme governor to acknowledge that Jesus was head of the church.
:22:39. > :22:44.I am so sorry. While I respect your views, we have decided... Do you
:22:44. > :22:48.respect their views? Really? I do not agree with them. Not behind
:22:48. > :22:51.closed doors, you don't! We have agreed that we will have women
:22:51. > :22:55.priests and a place for those who disagree with women priests, and
:22:55. > :22:59.that is where we should have been discussing the issue the discussion
:22:59. > :23:03.should have been on the cause and whether or not it had adequate
:23:03. > :23:06.provision, and I have yet to hear a reasoned argument why they did not
:23:06. > :23:11.have provision for those women in the Church of England who disagreed
:23:11. > :23:14.with it. I have been on air and number of times with Conservative
:23:14. > :23:18.evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, and I have asked what they would
:23:18. > :23:22.like, and no-one has given a sustained answer in terms of what
:23:22. > :23:27.they would like which would allow a woman who became a bishop to
:23:27. > :23:30.function on an equal level to the men. I think I expressed its
:23:30. > :23:36.earlier, actually forced of there is biblical illiteracy in our
:23:36. > :23:40.church. That is deeply worrying, that there are clergy coming out of
:23:40. > :23:45.theological colleges with his illiterate view of the Bible. They
:23:45. > :23:49.are teaching it to our lay people. When lay people and women say to me
:23:49. > :23:55.that there ought not to be in a role that is giving authority over
:23:55. > :23:59.a man, what on earth are you doing on the General Synod?! If you
:23:59. > :24:03.follow through your argument, you should not be there, because you
:24:03. > :24:09.are making decisions over men! It is ridiculous, it does not make
:24:09. > :24:13.sense. It does not make sense. There is absolutely no tolerance at
:24:13. > :24:19.all. You dismiss your opponents. I am neutral in this argument, I
:24:19. > :24:24.watch you, and I see you dismiss with contempt your opponents.
:24:24. > :24:29.does not make sense. Your contempt for them is the problem. I respect
:24:29. > :24:34.you enormously, but I disagree. As the Anglican Church, we have agreed
:24:34. > :24:38.that we will uphold a range of different perspectives. I do not
:24:38. > :24:41.have a problem with that! understand that these views are
:24:41. > :24:45.done with as much intellectual integrity as I tried to do with
:24:45. > :24:51.mine, but I have come to a different conclusion. I do not want
:24:51. > :24:55.to eradicate those who disagree with me. You think it is a
:24:55. > :25:00.massively erroneous reading of scripture, that is the point. Let
:25:00. > :25:05.me get back to you, Ben Bradshaw, and Ruth, let me ask you this,
:25:05. > :25:09.because clearly it has all been trotted out again here, and
:25:09. > :25:13.fascinating as it is, one doubts it will come for a tidy conclusion any
:25:13. > :25:17.time soon. Do you agree that ultimately they may have to be some
:25:17. > :25:24.political influence exerted? He has spoken the MoTs sense of anyone
:25:24. > :25:27.here, really. You have a fan, Ben! Peter is talking about people
:25:27. > :25:31.treating views with contempt, talk about the pot calling the kettle
:25:31. > :25:37.black. But I think the evangelicals should have been careful what they
:25:37. > :25:39.played for. I'm not sure they have got a garden big enough to contain
:25:39. > :25:45.the elephants they have acquired within it, because the fact is you
:25:45. > :25:48.have got what he wanted, and there will be action in Parliament.
:25:48. > :25:52.Parliament will not sit back and let the Church get away with this.
:25:52. > :25:56.It is all very well to think of the Church, as it has been for many
:25:56. > :26:01.years, separate and divorced from public opinion, from the sector the
:26:01. > :26:04.world. Nobody had heard of what the House of Laity was before this, but
:26:04. > :26:09.now everybody knows, and I think their opinions of it are not very
:26:09. > :26:12.good. I'm afraid, like it or not, Parliament will intervene if the
:26:12. > :26:17.Church does not get its act together, and you will probably be
:26:17. > :26:21.landed with a single clause measure, probably within two years. And it
:26:21. > :26:25.will not be the church forcing the opponents out, but it will be the
:26:25. > :26:30.opponent's been put on the line. If you mean what you have been saying
:26:30. > :26:35.for the last 10 years, stay or go. Will there be a provision? I don't
:26:35. > :26:38.think there will be. They do not intend to have a provision. I am on
:26:38. > :26:45.the General Synod... Parliament gave the Church of England, the
:26:45. > :26:50.General Synod, and it watches tans are the Church's internal affairs
:26:50. > :26:56.after the 1928... Newt interrupting! Because you keep on
:26:56. > :26:59.talking nonsense! I will carry on, Parliament now is saying, we have
:26:59. > :27:03.in the Church of England it is complicated constitution, which it
:27:03. > :27:07.has followed, perfectly lawfully, but we do not agree with the
:27:07. > :27:11.outcome, so we are going to intervene. That seems to me to be
:27:11. > :27:15.fundamentally a lawless and unconstitutional. It is called a
:27:15. > :27:19.democracy, we live in a democracy. The Church of England's biggest
:27:19. > :27:24.mistake in history was to go with the flow of public opinion in 1914
:27:24. > :27:28.and be in favour of that war. That did more damage to the Church of
:27:28. > :27:35.England than anything that you or I can do. Let's not go there right
:27:35. > :27:38.now! Everybody thought it was right, just in the same way that everybody
:27:38. > :27:45.thinks this is wrong. Whenever we think something is right... And on
:27:46. > :27:54.a minute, maybe it isn't. Let me put it to you, it is the law of the
:27:54. > :27:57.land, the sexual discrimination Act, the Equality's Act, and one in four
:27:57. > :28:02.primary schools in England that are Church of England schools, one in
:28:02. > :28:08.seven secondary schools, your bishops have a unique place in the
:28:08. > :28:13.Western world in legislating as lawmakers, 26 big Beefy males there
:28:13. > :28:17.in the House of Lords. So ultimately it is entirely
:28:17. > :28:21.Parliament's business because he was so interwoven with society.
:28:21. > :28:25.Well, we are interwoven with society, you talk about church
:28:25. > :28:30.schools, and the heads of a lot of those schools are women. If you are
:28:30. > :28:34.talking about jobs, we talk about equality of opportunity to apply
:28:34. > :28:39.for jobs. The question is, whether you believe that being a bishop is
:28:39. > :28:46.a job that you apply for, or whether it is a calling from God.
:28:46. > :28:50.The point is... It is neither! People are appointed. The Church of
:28:50. > :28:53.England or parliament has devolved to the Church of England, initially
:28:53. > :28:57.to the Church Assembly and then to the General Synod, power to control
:28:57. > :29:02.its internal affairs. It has devolved to the Scottish Assembly
:29:02. > :29:06.power to sort out Scottish affairs. Now, if Parliament subsequently
:29:06. > :29:13.does not like what these devolved assemblies do, it has already
:29:13. > :29:18.devolved the powers and has to live Let's see what the audience think
:29:18. > :29:23.about this why you you gather your thoughts, everyone. Good morning.
:29:23. > :29:26.Good afternoon, sorry! As we have seen in the law before, not only in
:29:26. > :29:29.this country but other countries, changing the law doesn't always
:29:29. > :29:34.change attitude. Even if parliament were to pass a law forcing them,
:29:34. > :29:38.the Church of kpwhrd, -- of England to have female Bishops in equal
:29:38. > :29:47.standing to male Bishops, it wouldn't change the sexism of the
:29:47. > :29:53.Church in this decision. Yes, Sir, afternoon. If parliament is going
:29:53. > :29:57.to address the issue, then it strikes me from the point of view
:29:57. > :30:03.of equality, it can't actually discriminate against the Church of
:30:03. > :30:10.England so it would have to make sure that all religions and faiths
:30:10. > :30:16.and sects apply the opportunities. We are not going to see trans-
:30:16. > :30:19.gendered imams soon? The only way I think morally that parliament could
:30:19. > :30:24.discriminate is to disestablish the Church of England. That's another
:30:24. > :30:27.issue. Peter, you picked up a point. Legally there is a difficulty, I
:30:27. > :30:30.think Tony Baldry was saying this morning I think, that if you
:30:30. > :30:34.legislate on this you probably would have to legislate for other
:30:34. > :30:40.religious bodies in the same way T would be interesting asking mosques
:30:41. > :30:44.to appoint female imams, wouldn't it? See how far you get with that!
:30:44. > :30:47.If our debate there has not been real honesty and the real honesty
:30:47. > :30:50.is that we are never ever going to agree on this matter. I am never
:30:50. > :30:55.ever going to change your mind, you are never going to change my my
:30:55. > :30:59.mind. So bye? We need to learn to live together. Even our Lord was
:30:59. > :31:03.able to say let the wheat and tears grow together until the day of
:31:03. > :31:07.harvest. What is this great urgency to pull it apart and go separate
:31:07. > :31:12.ways. It doesn't make sense. Would you be tempted to join a Catholic
:31:12. > :31:15.Church if this happened. Which one, there's so many versions. The Roman
:31:15. > :31:19.Catholic Church. The position in terms of the other thing about the
:31:19. > :31:23.establishment is that we are not a state Church. Like we have in other
:31:23. > :31:26.countries. We do not receive any money from Government other than
:31:26. > :31:30.through what is grant aided which makes a different relationship. I
:31:30. > :31:34.gather that the Foreign Office has a faith toolkit which it sends out
:31:34. > :31:37.to countries that it wants to adjust their views on faith and
:31:37. > :31:43.things. I gather that might be quite a useful look for parliament
:31:43. > :31:49.before they even go down this road. It I say something about what the
:31:49. > :31:53.synod did in their - and people like Gerry and Martin who didn't
:31:53. > :31:57.like the package of the legislation, is speaker after speaker, I am not
:31:57. > :32:02.saying they did, but speaker after speaker of those opposed said we
:32:02. > :32:06.don't trust the Bishops, we don't trust the Church. We don't trust
:32:06. > :32:10.our legal office. What Rowan Williams said is, what when you
:32:10. > :32:17.have said to your neighbour, I don't trust you, what do you say
:32:17. > :32:22.next to them? Basically, I think now those who are opposed to this
:32:22. > :32:27.and have completely refused to accept all the arrangements that we
:32:27. > :32:31.tried pain-stakingly over years to provide is that if you don't trust
:32:31. > :32:34.us, what are you doing in a Church where you do not trust the
:32:34. > :32:39.authorities, do you not trust the people put in position of you?
:32:39. > :32:43.Basically, is that one of the things about it is that not only do
:32:43. > :32:48.we need to carry on living with each other, we need to re-build
:32:48. > :32:52.relations of trust and what we saw is that... You are fundamentally
:32:52. > :33:01.different readings of the script. It's different interpretations of
:33:01. > :33:04.the roles of women in the Church. It's irreconcilable. The Archbishop
:33:04. > :33:08.of Canterbury, everyone has recognised this really for the last
:33:08. > :33:13.20 years, and in a way what's happened in a perverse way might be
:33:13. > :33:19.for the best, because I think practically just for a minute to
:33:19. > :33:25.get into technical details, there is an Act that would require a 50%
:33:25. > :33:35.majority, not a two thirds, there's two motions to do that. That's for
:33:35. > :33:36.
:33:36. > :33:41.parishes that don't want to be administered by a women. The Act
:33:41. > :33:46.might now be resinneded which would leave the Catholics without the
:33:46. > :33:49.protection they currently get. It's a different situation for the
:33:49. > :33:53.conservative evangelicals and then you probably get a single clause
:33:53. > :33:59.measure through the synod. There are - the evangelical churches are
:33:59. > :34:06.incredibly successful and a lot of money goes - some are and a lot of
:34:06. > :34:13.money goes to the churches. I wonder if that muddies the waters?
:34:13. > :34:19.Does that? I think often we are too conscious of who is pulling the
:34:19. > :34:24.purse strings but can I also make the point if parliament intervened
:34:24. > :34:28.in the workings of the Church of England, that would be a disaster.
:34:28. > :34:34.If parliament felt it could get a foothold into controlling the
:34:34. > :34:38.business of the Church of England, then a lot of parliamentarians, a
:34:38. > :34:43.lot of MPs would be delighted to have a role in controlling what the
:34:43. > :34:47.Church of England does. Wait a minute. No, you wait for me, for
:34:47. > :34:53.once! You have been talking for a great deal of time. You have Monday
:34:53. > :34:57.opalised this debate, along with him. Excuse me! Love thy neighbour!
:34:57. > :35:01.I wanted to say the Church is at its best when it's a thorn in the
:35:01. > :35:05.side of the state and to have an Archbishop that's able to criticise
:35:05. > :35:08.freely welfare cuts or whatever is going on in parliament is a huge
:35:08. > :35:12.and respectable and honourable freedom. If the parliament starts
:35:12. > :35:16.interfering, we are in trouble. What about the broader issues, here
:35:16. > :35:22.we have coming down the rails towards us we have the debate about
:35:22. > :35:25.gay marriage, for example, is the Church's position now undermined as
:35:25. > :35:29.a player in that debate because of this? I am not sure it's undermined,
:35:29. > :35:32.it's more a case of the Church is very busy, lots of people talking
:35:32. > :35:36.about this, they don't have time or space to consider anything else. In
:35:36. > :35:40.the next five years, we are going to need them as George said, to be
:35:40. > :35:42.a thorn in the side of our legislature on many issues but
:35:43. > :35:47.whilst every time the Church of England is in the news it's about
:35:47. > :35:49.this, they can't do that. I think the incoming Archbishop of
:35:49. > :35:53.Canterbury made that point. He said that this vote has damaged the
:35:53. > :35:56.moral authority of the Church. It will make it less able for the
:35:56. > :36:01.Church to comment with any authority and for people to take
:36:01. > :36:06.the Church seriously and I say this as an Anglican and who supports the
:36:06. > :36:09.established status, I care deeply about having a servant Church
:36:09. > :36:12.that's there for everybody, that's the most wonderful thing about the
:36:12. > :36:17.Church of England and I will defend that. But the Church of England is
:36:17. > :36:22.damaging that itself by this attitude towards women Bishops.
:36:22. > :36:29.last point and then I will shut up, which is this, it discovered after
:36:29. > :36:31.the horrors of the 17th century and the 16th century as well, it
:36:31. > :36:37.discovered that a very important discovery for England in general,
:36:37. > :36:43.was that when dogma conflicted with kindness, then kindness should
:36:43. > :36:47.actually win. And what I see on the side of those who are facing me
:36:47. > :36:52.here saying we must have women Bishops, not just women Bishops,
:36:52. > :36:57.they could have them, on our terms, is dogma without kindness. And that
:36:57. > :37:00.is why they're causing all this trouble. Dogma without kindness, I
:37:00. > :37:07.see intolerance and I see rudeness flowing across at the other side
:37:07. > :37:10.from this side. Over and over again. This is madness! Let me say this. I
:37:11. > :37:14.don't need to speak for parliamentarians, they can speak
:37:14. > :37:19.for themselves, but what I see from parliamentarians on this particular
:37:19. > :37:24.matter is an overwhelming sense of disbelief that the people whom they
:37:24. > :37:28.represent in their constituents, the majority of whom would like to
:37:28. > :37:31.see women in leadership within the Church. How can you maintain your
:37:31. > :37:35.position as the established Church of this country if you flout the
:37:35. > :37:38.values of broader society which you seek to represent? Absolutely and
:37:38. > :37:43.that's something the Church is going to have to wrestle with.
:37:43. > :37:45.we saw is that at the House of Laity is now holding the wider
:37:46. > :37:48.Church of England to ransom. It doesn't represent the wider
:37:48. > :37:53.membership of the Church of England and we must do something to change
:37:53. > :37:58.that. Gerry? I think we have heard a lot of silly things said today.
:37:59. > :38:03.That legislation that we debated... What silly things? I am about to
:38:03. > :38:10.explain, may I, please? The The legislation was doomed to fail for
:38:11. > :38:15.a number of reasons. One is it recinded provisions made in 1992
:38:15. > :38:18.which we were promised wouldn't be. We then said that a par their
:38:18. > :38:22.disagreed with what was going on could issue a letter of request.
:38:22. > :38:25.Now if you were an Anglo-Catholic parish you were being asked to
:38:26. > :38:30.petition a Bishop whose orders you doubted, to ask her to delegate
:38:30. > :38:35.power that you didn't think she had, to somebody who agreed with you,
:38:35. > :38:37.and if he agreed he wouldn't be able to accept it. So far as
:38:37. > :38:42.conservative evangelicals were concerned we could petition a women
:38:42. > :38:45.Bishop, no problem with that, but she will be asked to appoint a a
:38:45. > :38:50.conservative evangelical Bishop who agreed but there aren't any who
:38:50. > :38:55.agree with us. Every so-called evangelical Bishop on Tuesday voted
:38:55. > :39:00.in favour of the motion. Was it acceptable to come to those
:39:00. > :39:04.parishes? Why not? You get more provision through the things you
:39:04. > :39:09.have just - in a way, we promised we would find you a Bishop who
:39:09. > :39:12.agreed with your particular theology. There aren't any.
:39:12. > :39:16.would have to, to meet that we would have to appoint some. How do
:39:17. > :39:20.you do that? I believe if we waited another five years in 1994 we
:39:20. > :39:24.wouldn't have found such a compromise and I think you are
:39:24. > :39:27.being a worse position if we wait five years because I think there's
:39:27. > :39:35.been such outrage at this particular vote. A lady here and
:39:35. > :39:41.you had your hand up earlier. Hello. Hello. I would just like to say, I
:39:41. > :39:47.am a bit miffed here, I used to be on the Bishops Council for about 16
:39:47. > :39:51.years so I know a few of the Bishops at the moment. What is this
:39:52. > :39:56.really all about? Are we - we have had a vote and the vote, of course,
:39:56. > :40:03.has been positive for the evangelicals, negative for those
:40:03. > :40:10.who are for women Bishops. However, is it really about A or is it about
:40:10. > :40:14.Z? What is Z? Is there something hid - a hidden agenda going on
:40:14. > :40:17.here? There is this fight, we have to have women Bishops. Fine. I am
:40:17. > :40:23.not against women Bishops and neither am I for women Bishops. I
:40:23. > :40:28.feel as though I am sitting here and abstaining. What is this really
:40:28. > :40:32.about? Is there a hidden agenda? What's going to happen? Is there a
:40:32. > :40:38.hidden agenda? George, answer that. What we are witnessing, you are
:40:38. > :40:41.right that there is something of a proxy going on. This argument is at
:40:41. > :40:47.the surface concealing under the surface what's going on, and that
:40:47. > :40:51.is a fight for the Church of England's soul, between, if you
:40:51. > :40:56.like, what many would describe as a liberal establishment within the
:40:56. > :41:04.Church of England, and the conservatives who are formed this
:41:04. > :41:08.odd, I wouldn't say unholy, alliance with Anglo Catholics and
:41:08. > :41:11.conservative evangelicals to resist that change. It's odder than the
:41:11. > :41:17.Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in parliament. If we had women
:41:17. > :41:21.Bishops what will happen? mission of the Church, a young man,
:41:21. > :41:25.Muslim background, who has come to faith, sent me an e-mail yesterday
:41:25. > :41:31.saying how devastated he was at the vote. He said, I have I have grown
:41:31. > :41:37.up seeing women in ministry and they're saying no to women, I find
:41:37. > :41:41.devastating. Half of those training for the ministry at the moment are
:41:42. > :41:47.women. Why not tap - a third of priests, why not tap into that
:41:47. > :41:51.wealth of talent and then you can flourish? Half the people training
:41:51. > :41:55.for ministry are conservative evangelicals. Are they against it
:41:55. > :42:00.do you think? I think they'll be staying in the Church because of
:42:00. > :42:06.Tuesday's vote. OK. As we said at the beginning. You believe God's
:42:06. > :42:10.will was done? Will God's will continue to be done on this? I am
:42:10. > :42:16.not saying God's will wasn't done. When people pray that God's will
:42:16. > :42:24.may be done, we make the assumption that God answers their prayers.
:42:24. > :42:31.Final word. Can I just ask, - the people over there. Our brothers and
:42:31. > :42:34.sisters. Why didn't you follow the lead of your 42 Bishops who voted
:42:34. > :42:39.in favour? We have to leave it there. The debate will continue on