Episode 20 The Big Questions

Thank you so much. Good afternoon. It's great to see you. Welcome to a

special edition of The Big big big Questions. This week the nation

appeared to lose lose its patience with the Church of England. There

was an outcry of something must be done because of the vote against

women Bishops. The Church of England has been discussing it for

46 years and it's 37 years since parliament legally obliged every

employer to treat men and women equally stfplt any wonder the Prime

Minister suggested the Church needs a sharp prod? This morning, we are

asking one Big Question: Should parliament force the Church of

England to appoint women Bishops? We have assembled distinguished

priests of both sexes, campaigners for women Bishops, campaigners

against, politicians and commentators and they will be

cheered on and challenged by our lively Peckham audience. APPLAUSE

As always, and we would love you to, you can join in via our message

board. The strength and the weakness of

the Church of England is that it's a very broad Church. From Bishops

who don't believe in little details like the virgin birth, to members

of the evangelical wing who say the Bible is literally the unalterable

word of God. That's why this debate has gone on for 46 years, because

it was decided that special provision must be made for those

who cannot accept a woman as Bishop because script ture and theology

say it's plain wrong. Never mind 46 years, we have 42 minutes to sort

it out. As to whether we will or not... I have my doubts. This was a

bad week for you. How do you think the Church looks to broader

society? The society that it seeks to serve? I think it looks

appalling. I was in a state of shock myself. I think showed what

happened in the vote is that the House of Laity, the House I belong

to, sadly, basically betrayed the wider Church of England with the

vote and when I tell you that overall in synod that it gained a

74% majority, 94% of all the Bishops said yes. 77% of all the

clergy and 64% of the laity and it still fell by six votes in the

House of Laity and we have been debating this out in the dioceses

so basically we have a House of Laity that is unrepresentative of

the wider Church. There's now a call for a vote of no confidence in

the current Chair of the House p Laity who used his position to tell

people to vote against it. Has the Church been hijacked by a zealous

caucus who subverted the whole process? Some people think that.

think that's probably true, I think that the Church's actually being

held to ransom now by the very conservative evangelicals who are

using sort of finding the perfect arrangements as sort of a

smokescreen because I think basically what they want is never

to allow the Church of England to have women as Bishops. APPLAUSE We

need to understand the argument and we need to understand - you are one

of those aforementioned conservatives evangelicals. We need

to understand these are deeply held convictions. You do not believe a

man - you believe a man's role is leader of the home and leader of

the Church and you said just before as we were having coffee, you

prayed for guidance, the synod prayed and you believe God answered

those prayers? I think as Christians we believe God does

answer prayer and if we say that we pray that God's will will be done,

I don't think we can argue when we get an answer about that. I am very

concerned... You believe God's will was done here? This is what God

wanted? That's what I prayed for, that's the answer I have got. I am

trying to consider whether that is in fact God's voice, but if I

prayed that God's will may be done, who my to argue the outcome?

have somebody else who does not want to deal with women Bishops or

be subjected to women in that role, Zoe, why not? Thanks, Nicky. I

believe that men and women are completely equal in value. But I

believe, similarly, that God teaches men and women have

different roles in the Church. I think just to come back on whether

the House of Lay slay representative, -- Laity is

representative, it's important to realise people who voted on Tuesday,

some will be opposed to women Bishops, but some of those will be

for women Bishops, but want clearer provision for brothers and sisters

in the Church who couldn't submit female Bishops. Part of the vote on

Tuesday was about keeping our promises. I think God is a God who

keeps his promises and as a Church we ought to keep our's and in 1992

we promised that when we made women priests we would make provision for

those who didn't agree with that decision. Certain provisions were

put in place and the legislation we had before us was tearing up those

provisions and we felt it was wrong to do that. It was absolutely

generous provision and, Gerry, you and I disagree on this, we are

friends and old colleagues on synod, but those arrangements would have

worked and the mantra it wasn't enough, it's actually - it may come

to show what we will go back and do now with what happened on Tuesday,

is that the Church has voted to have women as Bishops, to remove

any barriers to women as Bishops and the legislation that I

originally wanted and many people like me would have delivered that,

but no, we walked the extra mile, compromised, put in that statutory

code of practice and the thing is that nothing, nothing will satisfy

some people. I am not saying you, Gerry, but some... Should they

leave? Not leave, face the fact that there are some people - we are

trying to, you know, square a circle. We need to get women as

Bishops and make the provisions in the dioceses as needed and forget

this statutory code of practice. It's not that there's nothing that

will satisfy us, I believe that in the past six years there have been

two other measures and legislation on which those who opposed women

Bishops were willing to vote yes. No, they voted on and rejected in

General Synod. I was there, Zoe. You represent the - how do you

think, just away from that for a second this looks to the wider

world? It looks bizarre and and -- and arcane and backwards? It

Depends whether you see the Church as a purely human institution. But

it's what sort of equality do you want? Do you want an equality that

says we have to have interchangability of function? Do

you want an Orwellian set-up, some are more equal than others? Do we

accept that we are equally in God's sight but have gender roles. Why

did God make males and females? George Pitcher, is that answerable?

I think it's quite interesting here that - God apparently appears to

answer prayers by political party lines and that's extraordinary.

APPLAUSE. The problem we have here here as we

often do, is with, well, with conservatives. But with

particularly toxic sorts of conservatives. The Conservative

Party in parliament has historically been defined by what

it despises, you know, poor people and - but, and in the Church you

have this intractable conservative wing which is in danger, if the

Conservative Party has been nicknamed in the past the Nasty

Party, we are in danger of having the Nasty Church. Actually what

it's doing is defining it self, not in gospel terms but what it loves,

and what it includes and what it embraces, but defining itself by

what it despises. It's increasingly obviously despises homosexuals and

women and people that aren't it. You need to answer that, Zoe and

then I will speak to Martin. clearly don't despise myself. I

love women and I am passionate about women being involved in

ministry in the Church. You are not going to submit to a women Bishop?

Well, I guess it wouldn't be a problem for myself because I am a

woman. But for those males within the Church who couldn't in good

conscience submit to a female Bishop. I want them to be presented

-- protected and provided for. Protected? The ministry of a woman

called to the service and position... I mean protected from

being pushed out. Offensive language. It's language of

safeguarding and protecting. Protecting from someone like...

This is the type of rhetoric. Hitchens. To hear the furious

dogmatic rage, particularly from this quarter here, we are not going

to put up with anybody who disagrees with us. It is exactly

the position. It's exactly why there aren't women Bishops at the

moment, because the faction which wants women Bishops wants them at

all costs, it wants total unconditional surrender. It's true.

Cow have had women -- you could have had women Bishops last summer

and the reason for this farce was because a compromise was rejected.

I couldn't care less whether women - whether Bishops or men or women,

all I care about is whether they believe in God. The purpose of the

Church is to be the Embassy of the kingdom of Heaven on earth and in

this country and I see it Riven by petty dogmatic idea logical

politics, purists who won't take compromise. The other point of the

Church of England, it's been based on the idea we do not lay windows

into other people's souls, we do not force people to believe what we

believe. This is a difference. Your side could accept but by your

furious intolerant dogma you forced us into this division. Not at all.

And you... - you, George, describing political opponents as

toxic. They're reasonable people but they have to accept that the

other side has reason, too. Peter, thank you. If it had happened last

summer, of course, it would have been a lesser form of Bishops,

wouldn't it. It would absolutely have been and it would have created

a Church within a Church and one of the things the General Synod haos

agreed -- has agreed on time and time again is we don't want to have

women as Bishops, changing the whole nature of what it means to be

a Bishop, having two churches. all or nothing. We are not being

the purists. We have gone so far. We have gone the extra mile and

it's the people for whom we are trying to make the arrangements who

are being the pure tans saying nothing will do and I would like to

ask, what would do? The thing is we don't want to split the Church into

a Church and also have all Bishops who are women women be second-class.

That's simply not possible. We are going to bring Martin in Dale in. I

promised Martin. Doesn't really matter! For you, it's all about the

assurance, isn't it? Partly that. Let me explain that to people. I

think people will be interested. So, for you it's not just a male Bishop,

but a male Bishop who has not ordained women as priests, nor

participated in the consecration of a woman Bishop nor been ordained by

a woman nor nor been consecrated by a woman. Now, some people might

think is God really that obsessed? I think we have to look back at

what we have been doing for 2000 years and look at the views and how

we have traditionally brought things through. I have to say what

this vote was actually about was rather like David Cameron when he

came back from Brussels the other day, and said it wasn't good enough.

I think that's actually what was being said in synod, that this was

not good enough, either. I would think for what we need to do is

move on and work out a way in which, I believe we can, because we did it

20 years ago, I can't see why if we had provision then we can't have

provision now. The code of practice, if we had voted in favour of this,

we would have spent a long time afterwards trying to work out a

code of practice to make it work. I don't think things would have been

any different but just a different way around. But that whole business

about the tradition and the purity of the male line, do people - to

many people watching, obviously not If you go to the Catholic Church or

the Orthodox churches, that is the way that life has been. We are part

of a big church. The whole Christian religion looks bonkers

one awful lot of people are increasingly intolerant and

contemptuous, because it is based upon very funny month will -- very

fundamental and passionately held beliefs. I do not agree but what

you say, but I accept that it matters to you. That is the point,

accepting that it matters do and do you, compromising for the sake of

the religion, instead of having a political battle for your own

joyful star reverend Rose, good morning! What a welcome! Listen, I

am sure you have caught the gist of our discussion, and I am sure you

have heard that this matters deeply to Martin, Jerry, Zoe. Why should

they have to change? They need alternative arrangements. I have no

doubt that it metres -- it matters deeply to them. There is never

going to be anything good enough for them, that is a fact, and we

may as well be honest and open and say that. Really, what they are

saying, tied up behind theological arguments etcetera, is not in my

lifetime. And so, we had a complicated motion before as at the

Synod, and it was so complicated because all of those who were

working behind the scenes have been trying for years! It was not just

yesterday, they have been trying for years to hold everybody

together, to try to get the best thing on the table as possible. Now,

I actually believe that we have gone too far, I really do believe

that. We have wasted a lot of time. Other Anglican provinces have no

problem with this. Exactly! They embrace the fact that we have women.

Swaziland included. They have just done that. What I really hope is

that our Church will have the courage of its conviction, and when

it comes before the Synod again, that it will come with a single

clause that says, we are going to have women bishops, serving as

bishops within the Church. And if you do not like it, leave? We are

all adults, we must behave like mature adults, in the same way that

we have behaved like mature adults. I have seen women who are now

grandmothers who have waited patiently, and the Church has kept

saying no and no and no, and they have stayed with the Church. What

is so special that you think you cannot stay with the Church?

think one of the things that is worth exploring is what they are

trying to do in Wales, which is to have two measures, one for

provision, and the other for at this double ordination of women,

running in parallel. Two bishops. Two arrangements within a thing. If

we can manage to sort it out 20 years ago, I cannot see how we

cannot sort it out now. We did not sorted out 20 years ago. This silly

fudge that we created has let women in a position of being second-class,

and that is a fact, and so I hope we do not do that again. The sad

thing is that there were many women who were willing to make that

sacrifice just so that we could hold everyone together. But you

know what? They say it is in the Bible, this. If somebody gouges

your eye out, that is in the Bible as well. Are we going to do that?

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? Jesus said, you have heard

it said, but I say to... It was said in the Tour! If Jesus was able

to look at the Torah, which was something that was held over

hundreds of years, if he was able to say, actually, in this

particular context, this does not make sense star what did Jesus say

about women in... -- what did Jesus say about the possibility of women

in the ecclesiastical authority? Laughably little, actually.

witness to the risen Christ was a woman and was sent on an Apostolic

mission to tell her brothers and sisters by the risen Christ. Now,

if that is not the Christ giving women the most important Apostolic

mission that can possibly be conceived in the whole of history,

then how dare you suggest that the Church, a bunch of men in the first

and second centuries, can trump that?! No-one is saying that!

could not start from that rhetoric that we are discussing whether

women should be bishops or not. This is absolutely not what is at

issue. The question of whether women should be bishops is closed,

it is a question of under what conditions there will be women

bishops. Your rhetoric is designed to obscure that simple fact.

Supporters of an absolutely intolerant, demanding to have women

bishops... If I may, Peter... may! The General Synod, the

discussion was not only about provision for those who in

conscience could not accept women in ordained ministry, never mind

bishops, but it regurgitated and it rehashed a lot of the frankly

misogynistic arguments of the Church of the last 2000 years to

resist women being bishops at all. I agree with you... That is not

true. The matter is agreed, but these matters keep coming up.

want to bring in Ben Bradshaw, an elected representative. I am just

wondering, if they cannot sort this out, Ben Bradshaw, do they need

more than a nudge from politicians? I think the first point to make is

that the Church of England has a very unique relationship with the

state through Parliament. It is answerable to Parliament, it is

unique in that regard. What struck me this week was the unanimity

within not just the House of Commons but also the House of Lords,

in dismay and incomprehension that although 42 out of 44 diocese voted

overwhelmingly in favour of women bishops, it could not get through

Synod. There is clearly something wrong with that. I do not think

Parliament wants to act, but because of the special relationship

we have with the Church, with the message went out from Parliament

that if this is not resolved quickly, it cannot be allowed to

rumble on for another five or 10 years, it has to be resolved within

the next three months. If not, I think Parliament will do something,

yes. The point I have been trying to make for the last half-hour,

thankfully they are a number of eloquent men to make it for me! As

a woman priest, the arguments we were raising on Tuesday, too many

were about women as priests, trying to reassert their validity, which

we discussed in 1994. We agreed that I can be a priest, and I was

made a priest, I know that happened, and I know that it is difficult for

you and it is difficult for many or some within the Church... Visits

difficult for you, Zoe? Yes, I myself would not want to go to a

church where a female was the church leader, but I understand...

Why not? For people just tuning in, remind us why not, for a lot of

people this is unique. I believe that the Bible does teach that men

and women are to play different roles in the church, and that does

not make women less valued. What about the Queen being the head of

the Church? I think Elizabeth I changed it from head of the Church

to supreme governor to acknowledge that Jesus was head of the church.

I am so sorry. While I respect your views, we have decided... Do you

respect their views? Really? I do not agree with them. Not behind

closed doors, you don't! We have agreed that we will have women

priests and a place for those who disagree with women priests, and

that is where we should have been discussing the issue the discussion

should have been on the cause and whether or not it had adequate

provision, and I have yet to hear a reasoned argument why they did not

have provision for those women in the Church of England who disagreed

with it. I have been on air and number of times with Conservative

evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, and I have asked what they would

like, and no-one has given a sustained answer in terms of what

they would like which would allow a woman who became a bishop to

function on an equal level to the men. I think I expressed its

earlier, actually forced of there is biblical illiteracy in our

church. That is deeply worrying, that there are clergy coming out of

theological colleges with his illiterate view of the Bible. They

are teaching it to our lay people. When lay people and women say to me

that there ought not to be in a role that is giving authority over

a man, what on earth are you doing on the General Synod?! If you

follow through your argument, you should not be there, because you

are making decisions over men! It is ridiculous, it does not make

sense. It does not make sense. There is absolutely no tolerance at

all. You dismiss your opponents. I am neutral in this argument, I

watch you, and I see you dismiss with contempt your opponents.

does not make sense. Your contempt for them is the problem. I respect

you enormously, but I disagree. As the Anglican Church, we have agreed

that we will uphold a range of different perspectives. I do not

have a problem with that! understand that these views are

done with as much intellectual integrity as I tried to do with

mine, but I have come to a different conclusion. I do not want

to eradicate those who disagree with me. You think it is a

massively erroneous reading of scripture, that is the point. Let

me get back to you, Ben Bradshaw, and Ruth, let me ask you this,

because clearly it has all been trotted out again here, and

fascinating as it is, one doubts it will come for a tidy conclusion any

time soon. Do you agree that ultimately they may have to be some

political influence exerted? He has spoken the MoTs sense of anyone

here, really. You have a fan, Ben! Peter is talking about people

treating views with contempt, talk about the pot calling the kettle

black. But I think the evangelicals should have been careful what they

played for. I'm not sure they have got a garden big enough to contain

the elephants they have acquired within it, because the fact is you

have got what he wanted, and there will be action in Parliament.

Parliament will not sit back and let the Church get away with this.

It is all very well to think of the Church, as it has been for many

years, separate and divorced from public opinion, from the sector the

world. Nobody had heard of what the House of Laity was before this, but

now everybody knows, and I think their opinions of it are not very

good. I'm afraid, like it or not, Parliament will intervene if the

Church does not get its act together, and you will probably be

landed with a single clause measure, probably within two years. And it

will not be the church forcing the opponents out, but it will be the

opponent's been put on the line. If you mean what you have been saying

for the last 10 years, stay or go. Will there be a provision? I don't

think there will be. They do not intend to have a provision. I am on

the General Synod... Parliament gave the Church of England, the

General Synod, and it watches tans are the Church's internal affairs

after the 1928... Newt interrupting! Because you keep on

talking nonsense! I will carry on, Parliament now is saying, we have

in the Church of England it is complicated constitution, which it

has followed, perfectly lawfully, but we do not agree with the

outcome, so we are going to intervene. That seems to me to be

fundamentally a lawless and unconstitutional. It is called a

democracy, we live in a democracy. The Church of England's biggest

mistake in history was to go with the flow of public opinion in 1914

and be in favour of that war. That did more damage to the Church of

England than anything that you or I can do. Let's not go there right

now! Everybody thought it was right, just in the same way that everybody

thinks this is wrong. Whenever we think something is right... And on

a minute, maybe it isn't. Let me put it to you, it is the law of the

land, the sexual discrimination Act, the Equality's Act, and one in four

primary schools in England that are Church of England schools, one in

seven secondary schools, your bishops have a unique place in the

Western world in legislating as lawmakers, 26 big Beefy males there

in the House of Lords. So ultimately it is entirely

Parliament's business because he was so interwoven with society.

Well, we are interwoven with society, you talk about church

schools, and the heads of a lot of those schools are women. If you are

talking about jobs, we talk about equality of opportunity to apply

for jobs. The question is, whether you believe that being a bishop is

a job that you apply for, or whether it is a calling from God.

The point is... It is neither! People are appointed. The Church of

England or parliament has devolved to the Church of England, initially

to the Church Assembly and then to the General Synod, power to control

its internal affairs. It has devolved to the Scottish Assembly

power to sort out Scottish affairs. Now, if Parliament subsequently

does not like what these devolved assemblies do, it has already

devolved the powers and has to live Let's see what the audience think

about this why you you gather your thoughts, everyone. Good morning.

Good afternoon, sorry! As we have seen in the law before, not only in

this country but other countries, changing the law doesn't always

change attitude. Even if parliament were to pass a law forcing them,

the Church of kpwhrd, -- of England to have female Bishops in equal

standing to male Bishops, it wouldn't change the sexism of the

Church in this decision. Yes, Sir, afternoon. If parliament is going

to address the issue, then it strikes me from the point of view

of equality, it can't actually discriminate against the Church of

England so it would have to make sure that all religions and faiths

and sects apply the opportunities. We are not going to see trans-

gendered imams soon? The only way I think morally that parliament could

discriminate is to disestablish the Church of England. That's another

issue. Peter, you picked up a point. Legally there is a difficulty, I

think Tony Baldry was saying this morning I think, that if you

legislate on this you probably would have to legislate for other

religious bodies in the same way T would be interesting asking mosques

to appoint female imams, wouldn't it? See how far you get with that!

If our debate there has not been real honesty and the real honesty

is that we are never ever going to agree on this matter. I am never

ever going to change your mind, you are never going to change my my

mind. So bye? We need to learn to live together. Even our Lord was

able to say let the wheat and tears grow together until the day of

harvest. What is this great urgency to pull it apart and go separate

ways. It doesn't make sense. Would you be tempted to join a Catholic

Church if this happened. Which one, there's so many versions. The Roman

Catholic Church. The position in terms of the other thing about the

establishment is that we are not a state Church. Like we have in other

countries. We do not receive any money from Government other than

through what is grant aided which makes a different relationship. I

gather that the Foreign Office has a faith toolkit which it sends out

to countries that it wants to adjust their views on faith and

things. I gather that might be quite a useful look for parliament

before they even go down this road. It I say something about what the

synod did in their - and people like Gerry and Martin who didn't

like the package of the legislation, is speaker after speaker, I am not

saying they did, but speaker after speaker of those opposed said we

don't trust the Bishops, we don't trust the Church. We don't trust

our legal office. What Rowan Williams said is, what when you

have said to your neighbour, I don't trust you, what do you say

next to them? Basically, I think now those who are opposed to this

and have completely refused to accept all the arrangements that we

tried pain-stakingly over years to provide is that if you don't trust

us, what are you doing in a Church where you do not trust the

authorities, do you not trust the people put in position of you?

Basically, is that one of the things about it is that not only do

we need to carry on living with each other, we need to re-build

relations of trust and what we saw is that... You are fundamentally

different readings of the script. It's different interpretations of

the roles of women in the Church. It's irreconcilable. The Archbishop

of Canterbury, everyone has recognised this really for the last

20 years, and in a way what's happened in a perverse way might be

for the best, because I think practically just for a minute to

get into technical details, there is an Act that would require a 50%

majority, not a two thirds, there's two motions to do that. That's for

parishes that don't want to be administered by a women. The Act

might now be resinneded which would leave the Catholics without the

protection they currently get. It's a different situation for the

conservative evangelicals and then you probably get a single clause

measure through the synod. There are - the evangelical churches are

incredibly successful and a lot of money goes - some are and a lot of

money goes to the churches. I wonder if that muddies the waters?

Does that? I think often we are too conscious of who is pulling the

purse strings but can I also make the point if parliament intervened

in the workings of the Church of England, that would be a disaster.

If parliament felt it could get a foothold into controlling the

business of the Church of England, then a lot of parliamentarians, a

lot of MPs would be delighted to have a role in controlling what the

Church of England does. Wait a minute. No, you wait for me, for

once! You have been talking for a great deal of time. You have Monday

opalised this debate, along with him. Excuse me! Love thy neighbour!

I wanted to say the Church is at its best when it's a thorn in the

side of the state and to have an Archbishop that's able to criticise

freely welfare cuts or whatever is going on in parliament is a huge

and respectable and honourable freedom. If the parliament starts

interfering, we are in trouble. What about the broader issues, here

we have coming down the rails towards us we have the debate about

gay marriage, for example, is the Church's position now undermined as

a player in that debate because of this? I am not sure it's undermined,

it's more a case of the Church is very busy, lots of people talking

about this, they don't have time or space to consider anything else. In

the next five years, we are going to need them as George said, to be

a thorn in the side of our legislature on many issues but

whilst every time the Church of England is in the news it's about

this, they can't do that. I think the incoming Archbishop of

Canterbury made that point. He said that this vote has damaged the

moral authority of the Church. It will make it less able for the

Church to comment with any authority and for people to take

the Church seriously and I say this as an Anglican and who supports the

established status, I care deeply about having a servant Church

that's there for everybody, that's the most wonderful thing about the

Church of England and I will defend that. But the Church of England is

damaging that itself by this attitude towards women Bishops.

last point and then I will shut up, which is this, it discovered after

the horrors of the 17th century and the 16th century as well, it

discovered that a very important discovery for England in general,

was that when dogma conflicted with kindness, then kindness should

actually win. And what I see on the side of those who are facing me

here saying we must have women Bishops, not just women Bishops,

they could have them, on our terms, is dogma without kindness. And that

is why they're causing all this trouble. Dogma without kindness, I

see intolerance and I see rudeness flowing across at the other side

from this side. Over and over again. This is madness! Let me say this. I

don't need to speak for parliamentarians, they can speak

for themselves, but what I see from parliamentarians on this particular

matter is an overwhelming sense of disbelief that the people whom they

represent in their constituents, the majority of whom would like to

see women in leadership within the Church. How can you maintain your

position as the established Church of this country if you flout the

values of broader society which you seek to represent? Absolutely and

that's something the Church is going to have to wrestle with.

we saw is that at the House of Laity is now holding the wider

Church of England to ransom. It doesn't represent the wider

membership of the Church of England and we must do something to change

that. Gerry? I think we have heard a lot of silly things said today.

That legislation that we debated... What silly things? I am about to

explain, may I, please? The The legislation was doomed to fail for

a number of reasons. One is it recinded provisions made in 1992

which we were promised wouldn't be. We then said that a par their

disagreed with what was going on could issue a letter of request.

Now if you were an Anglo-Catholic parish you were being asked to

petition a Bishop whose orders you doubted, to ask her to delegate

power that you didn't think she had, to somebody who agreed with you,

and if he agreed he wouldn't be able to accept it. So far as

conservative evangelicals were concerned we could petition a women

Bishop, no problem with that, but she will be asked to appoint a a

conservative evangelical Bishop who agreed but there aren't any who

agree with us. Every so-called evangelical Bishop on Tuesday voted

in favour of the motion. Was it acceptable to come to those

parishes? Why not? You get more provision through the things you

have just - in a way, we promised we would find you a Bishop who

agreed with your particular theology. There aren't any.

would have to, to meet that we would have to appoint some. How do

you do that? I believe if we waited another five years in 1994 we

wouldn't have found such a compromise and I think you are

being a worse position if we wait five years because I think there's

been such outrage at this particular vote. A lady here and

you had your hand up earlier. Hello. Hello. I would just like to say, I

am a bit miffed here, I used to be on the Bishops Council for about 16

years so I know a few of the Bishops at the moment. What is this

really all about? Are we - we have had a vote and the vote, of course,

has been positive for the evangelicals, negative for those

who are for women Bishops. However, is it really about A or is it about

Z? What is Z? Is there something hid - a hidden agenda going on

here? There is this fight, we have to have women Bishops. Fine. I am

not against women Bishops and neither am I for women Bishops. I

feel as though I am sitting here and abstaining. What is this really

about? Is there a hidden agenda? What's going to happen? Is there a

hidden agenda? George, answer that. What we are witnessing, you are

right that there is something of a proxy going on. This argument is at

the surface concealing under the surface what's going on, and that

is a fight for the Church of England's soul, between, if you

like, what many would describe as a liberal establishment within the

Church of England, and the conservatives who are formed this

odd, I wouldn't say unholy, alliance with Anglo Catholics and

conservative evangelicals to resist that change. It's odder than the

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in parliament. If we had women

Bishops what will happen? mission of the Church, a young man,

Muslim background, who has come to faith, sent me an e-mail yesterday

saying how devastated he was at the vote. He said, I have I have grown

up seeing women in ministry and they're saying no to women, I find

devastating. Half of those training for the ministry at the moment are

women. Why not tap - a third of priests, why not tap into that

wealth of talent and then you can flourish? Half the people training

for ministry are conservative evangelicals. Are they against it

do you think? I think they'll be staying in the Church because of

Tuesday's vote. OK. As we said at the beginning. You believe God's

will was done? Will God's will continue to be done on this? I am

not saying God's will wasn't done. When people pray that God's will

may be done, we make the assumption that God answers their prayers.

Final word. Can I just ask, - the people over there. Our brothers and

sisters. Why didn't you follow the lead of your 42 Bishops who voted

in favour? We have to leave it there. The debate will continue on