Before I give my Presidential Address, Chairman, I should like to pay a brief tribute to a group of seven people who have made a most valuable contribution to the life and work of this Synod. Members of the last Synod will recall that we amended Standing Orders to allow, for the first time, representatives of other Churches to participate in our deliberations and speak in our debates. Those first appointments were for a period of three years from July 1995, and so will have run their course by the time we meet again in York this July.

Three have already been re-appointed, so we know it is but au revoir to Ephrem Lash, Keith Reed and David Staple. But four are retiring – Christine Craven, Ebenezer Odushola, Andrew Scobie and Bill Steele – so we say sad farewells to them.

I must emphasise two particular points in these few words. The first is their exemplary faithfulness in attendance – even for those debates which drive many Anglicans straight to the tea-room! The second is the way they have been so sparing, but yet so telling, in contributing to our debates: so high has been the quality of their interventions that they invariably leave us wanting more. As the first such representatives, they have borne a high burden of expectation. I have no doubt that we all feel they have thoroughly justified the value of this innovation.

Walking through the streets of Bristol during my post-Christmas break the damage caused by the ferocious January gales that had hit the West Country was all too apparent. Trees blown down; boughs hanging at odd angles; tarpaulins covering spaces where roof tiles had once been; collapsed scaffolding everywhere. Yet, despite it all, the buildings themselves had remained firm. What a different picture would have presented itself had their foundations been weak or flawed.

Thinking about that I wondered if, in concentrating on those images of the Church as the ‘body of Christ’, the ‘bride of Christ’, and ‘the people of God’ we have sometimes neglected the one so often used by the New Testament authors that speaks of the Church as God’s building. Let me trace some of those references. Supremely, of course, Our Lord is likened to the stone which the builders rejected which has now become the chief corner stone. And then there are a number of related images: ‘the house of God’; ‘the holy temple’; ‘a spiritual house’; ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit; ourselves as ‘living stones’. Suddenly static images of buildings become startlingly vivid and dynamic by association with themes of ‘life’ and ‘body’.

So too today, the foundations on which our Church has built down the centuries are those of the faith once delivered to the saints and there is nothing else that will give the Church of the future the security it needs. As the Lambeth Quadrilateral emphasises, in line with the 39 Articles, it is the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that contain all things necessary to salvation and are the rule and ultimate standard of Faith.

But to speak in these terms could imply that the superstructure built on those foundations should be unchanging as well. Not so, says St Peter in his First Epistle – rather the Church is a Living Temple and we are ‘Living Stones’ whom God is constantly at work on, moulding and refashioning us to serve his purposes in the world.

For God’s Church is neither static nor material: it is, above all else, a body of people, seeking to nurture and live out their faith in everyday life - eternally faithful to what God did once for all for us through Jesus Christ, but also willing to change and adapt when it comes to the institutions and conventions created by human beings in response to his love.

Now the Church, quite rightly, has mixed feelings about that fashionable word ‘modernisation’. As a Church we do not adopt modernity for the sake of it. Indeed, a facile preoccupation with being modern – or even post-modern - can lead one to neglect the eternal truths and the abiding values which people everywhere always need, and the cumulative insights and wisdom of previous generations. Rather we need to be discriminating in our attitudes to reform. For example, we oppose strongly the view that what is good, right, holy and just is merely a matter of individual opinion.

On the other hand, our Christian faith is also about the capacity for self-renewal that flows from repentance and openness to God’s forgiveness and grace. It is a religion about hope and fresh starts emanating from the restless energy of the Holy Spirit at work in God’s world. Over the last few years we have shown as a Church that we have the capacity to change and be renewed. I think of the changes relating to the position of women in our Church and the sweeping reforms for the better within the Church Commissioners. There have been very significant changes too in the governance of our Cathedrals. And now we have decided, as a whole Church, to take some of our organisational problems at the national level by the scruff of the neck so that our mission and witness can be more effective.

The whole Turnbull reform package is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It gives the opportunity for less fragmented and incoherent planning and action, but it is up to all of us to use the opportunities for the good. Being Anglican is not about being ineffectual. Bishop Stephen Neill wrote with feeling: ‘To be a bad Anglican is the easiest thing in the world; the amount of effort required for minimum Anglican conformity is so infinitessimal that it is hardly to be measured’. But he went on to say: ‘to be a good Anglican is an exceedingly exacting business’. In this Synod we are in the business of being good Anglicans, aiming for excellence in all we do, as we exercise our corporate leadership in our Lord’s service.

Thus , the reforms we have assented to still reflect a healthily dispersed pattern of authority and leadership through consultation and consent, with bishops, clergy and laity all bringing their distinctive gifts to the life and work of the Church and searching for a common mind together. None of that will change. The Archbishops’ Council will itself be a balanced body and will in fact be unable to achieve anything at all unless it be through consultation with and the consent of the bishops, clergy and laity of this Synod and of the dioceses of the Church of England whose internal governance is not affected by this measure. The test of whether these reforms are worthwhile will be whether a Church, no less Anglican in its insistence on consultation, openness and consent, can also be better organised in its mission and witness to the nation and offer better service to the dioceses and parishes and sector ministries which are the front line of the Church through the whole length and breadth of the land. So it is just as well that neither the Archbishop of York nor I are hungry for power. No; we are anxious to serve and we want to help more effectively in the service of Christ. We believe that this is an objective worth pursuing.

It is good that we have debated the Turnbull reforms at length, openly and frankly. That public transparency has, I believe, been a mark of our openness to God’s guidance within the whole process.

So let us all get behind the new arrangements and make them work to the glory of God.

Of course, what we have done so far is only a start: now we need to take advantage of the organisational changes to improve the effectiveness of our actual practice, and that is a task which never ends.

But it is not just in terms of our internal structures that it is important to be open to the possibility of building for change. It is true too of our relationship with our wider society. For instance over the last few months we have been seeking to build constructive and friendly relationships with the Government elected last May and to seek ground on which we can advance our common interests. I am glad to report that our relationships are cordial and strong. As with previous Governments, where they are doing things in line with our Gospel values, we want to affirm and encourage them. But let us all be absolutely clear that we minister to people of all political parties and none. Any Government, of any political colour in this country, knows that the Church of England will draw attention to injustices, and to any policies which in the light of our Christian beliefs it regards as damaging to the nation. The fact that we are the Established Church with a distinctive role alongside our sister Churches does not mean that we are compromised by our established status. For example, in the recent debates on the Human Rights Bill, the Bishops in the House of Lords, whilst not wishing to escape from our proper obligations under the Convention, have been working on behalf of all the main denominations, and other faith communities, to ensure that none of us is required by the Bill to act in ways which are contrary to our religious principles and beliefs. We retain a healthy, critical detachment and the Church of England’s record of prophetic witness on behalf of God’s justice and Gospel values speaks for itself and will continue to do so.

That same prophetic witness is something which I hope will be a significant element of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops as we meet together this Summer. From my position as president I am all too conscious that some will come wanting a showdown on the issue of homosexuality and seek categorical assurances from the assembled gathering for a final, definitive opinion. I am sure this would be a serious error. Such a move would dominate the entire agenda and confirm the world’s suspicions that we are obsessed with issues of gender and sexuality. Homosexuality will be considered calmly, theologically and in a Christian way but we must not allow it to sideline such crucial concerns as the mission of the Church in the new Millennium, relationships with Islam, our ministry to young people and the urgent matter of International debt.

Indeed, I very much hope that the issue of International Debt will be central. As I said in my speech to the Diplomatic Community in Addis Ababa last month there is nothing simple about resolving this, but for the people of sub-Saharan Africa today it is as important an issue to address as was that of slavery in the 19^th Century. It is my fervent hope that from the Lambeth Conference will come a powerful call to the rich nations of the world that the burden of unpayable debt is an immorality at least as contemptible as the Slave Trade was two hundred years ago. The difference is that two hundred years ago, few people in this land knew the terrible things we were doing to other peoples abroad. These days we cannot make that same appeal to ignorance. For every £1 we give in aid at least £3 is extracted in servicing debt. For some African countries, such as Mozambique, the cost of servicing their debt is greater than their budget for education, health care and social provision put together. Every Mozambiquan baby is brought into the world owing $350 to the rest of us. This is a situation we must speak out about boldly.

But the greatest strength of the Lambeth Conference lies not so much in the resolutions it passes as in the relationships it develops. One of our weaknesses as the Church of England is that we are still far too insular in our attitudes with such real dangers of self absorption that, at times, we may find it difficult to learn from the experiences of others. For instance we still have much to learn from those Provinces where poverty and suffering are an everyday reality. In stark contrast to our situation it is by no means rare in the Communion for a diocese, or even a Province to have no money in the bank to pay its clergy their stipends, still less a pension. Yet, as I have seen on many occasions, those clergy continue faithfully in their vocations, ministering to people and congregations as poor as themselves. We in this country need to heed the words of David Barrett in the World Christian Encyclopaedia: ‘The normal church is a suffering Church’, and to learn the lessons that such Churches can teach us.

But many dioceses in this country are now gaining an enormous amount from their links to other dioceses within the Anglican Communion. And here I pay tribute to the work of diocesan bishops and dioceses- together with dioceses in the United States of America and all around the Communion - whose generous contributions have made it possible for us to offer 250 bursaries of £5000 each to bishops of developing countries, to enable them to be present at the Conference.

As we develop these links still further so we will come to appreciate not only how rich we are in terms of our material resources but also the way in which Christianity has so deeply influenced the structures and customs of our society. By seeing those afresh through the eyes of others we will also discover ourselves expressing our gratitude to God in new ways. What we will also find is that we have much to gain in terms of liturgical innovation and new hymnody and new forms of mission and evangelism. If we take these opportunities of learning from the experiences of others then we will be far better equipped as a Church for the future.

Indeed, it was the Lambeth Conference of 1988 that focused our attention on the 1990’s as the Decade of Evangelism. As we now move into the 21^st Century we must not diminish the centrality of evangelism to our life as a Church. Instead we should be seeking to find ways of building on all we have achieved over the last few years. Mission and evangelism must permeate the life of our Church so profoundly that all our instincts are to relate faith to life and worship to witness.

The publication of "The Church of England Today – A Summary of Current Statistics" comes as a timely reminder of the scope and breadth of our mission. Not only are we committed to the 16,000 Parishes of this country, but we also have strong specialist ministries through our Chaplaincies in industry, schools, prisons, universities, colleges and the Armed Forces, many of which we share in strong ecumenical partnerships. The 10^th Anniversary of the Church Urban Fund reminds us of our commitment to the Inner Cities and the importance we attach to our continuing presence there. Many of our Voluntary Societies have remodelled themselves over the past few years to respond to the changes they have been facing inside and outside the Church both nationally and internationally. Such remodelling is a sign of strength, not of weakness.

And so much energy is coming at present from our congregations. We are an interdependent church- and must remain so - putting resources where they are needed most. I am delighted that congregations throughout the country are meeting this challenge by increasing their financial giving well ahead of price inflation. I have no doubt too that congregations have played a major role in encouraging so many more men and women to respond to the call to the ordained ministry in the past three years. These, and many other facets of our life, give good cause for being optimistic.

Where we have not been serving ourselves well, however, is in the way we present to the world these things in which God is giving us success. The picture is significantly more robust than we paint. We are a seven day a week church, serving God and the community in so many different ways. One important task now is to collect and present information which will more accurately reflect the reality and rich diversity of the Church’s life today.

Well, all this does not daunt me- it thrills me! As a new Millennium beckons so the challenge of a new world awaits a Church which knows that it is God’s future we are being drawn into. A chorus we have all sung from time to time is: ‘For I’m building a people of power; I am making a people of praise’. That is what God’s building is for- power in witness and service, praise in worship and adoration. So, directed towards the world we may echo the words of T.S.Eliot in The Rock where he says:

‘You have seen the house built, you have seen it adorned..

It is now dedicated to God.

It is now a visible church, one more light set on a hill

In a world confused and dark and disturbed by portents of fear.

And what shall we say of the future? Is one church all we can build?

Or shall the visible Church go on to conquer the world?’