The General Synod Blog

On ++Rowan's retirement - or Which Jesus?

2011-09-12T12:10:00.002Z

So Jonathan Wynne-Jones got the Sunday Telegraph splash with the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury is to retire in 2012 (perhaps, maybe), 9 years before he needs to.

Photo via Scott Gunn

Several have observed that:

this is not quite news (as it is yet to be substantiated)
that it was widely talked of at the July 2011 General Synod (I heard it from a very savvy bishop, not +Londin), and
that it had been published before (e.g. in Stephen Bates' Guardian diary).

Even so, JW-J has quite a good record on standing up stories that initially looked a bit flimsy. Even if there are bits of this one that are entirely calculable and predictable.

The quintessential academic, Dr Williams spent his 2007 sabbatical researching and writing Dostoevsky: Language, Faith and Fiction, and has spent much fruitful time in his career in universities. So it is not hard to surmise that is one avenue he may hope to return to, and especially at Cambridge.

He has already held the post for over 8 years, a bit more than Coggan, and (currently) just a bit less than Runcie and Carey. He has one 'Lambeth' under his belt, and may well want to give time for the next ABC to be in post long enough to prepare for the next one. He has had to deal with impossible things before breakfast, such as Women bishops on the home front, and gay clergy & the Covenant on the global scale. His tenure has come under criticism from many fronts. No wonder the conjecture that he may want to go - let alone being pushed.

However, there is no leader without criticism; no simple answers to impossible questions. No set time to serve in a post; and nor one to leave it. The next Lambeth is in 2018 - plenty of time before needing to start preparations.

That hasn't prevented much virtual ink being spilt on why, or when ++Rowan might go, and even more on who might succeed him, if, let alone when, he decides is the right time to go. Amongst those who have commented, several sagely, are Scott Gunn, Adrian Worsfold, Tim Skellett, Charlie Peer, Nick Baines, and even Mr Catolick has a cautionary video.

Could Dr Williams have done otherwise - with his every move being scrutinised, and judged, and found wanting by parties on so many different sides? I'm reminded of the Bishop of London in 1994.

+David Hope had supported women's ordination as deacons, but not as priests, and the formulation of the London Plan was the pragmatic response. His resistance to ordaining women as priests himself led to criticisms of traditionalism and misogyny from all the more liberal wings of the church. Then on the day that the London ordination was to take place by the then Bishop Willesden, hidden amongst the pageantry and media frenzy an un-announced - almost un-noticed - tiny procession led the diocesan bishop to his cathedra. I was there, and profoundly moved by the simple humility of the action.

Almost un-noticed - but not quite; as then all the more conservative wings of the church also turned against him 'for giving in to the liberals'. And he would have known and expected that. Yet he wanted to be there in person, to as best as he was able support those women to be ordained priest in his diocese and holding his license. For maintaining his own theological position, whilst supporting a view he could not himself hold as best he could, he left himself with few friends - but more integrity.

Rowan Williams is criticised by the conservatives for being too liberal; and by the liberals for too regularly giving in to the conservatives. Every now and then a cheer goes up from whichever lobby group feels it is currently winning - whether it is to do with women bishops, or whichever bishopric Jeffrey John should or should not be appointed to.

Image via St Patrick's Guild

There is a beguiling and challenging simplicity to the W.W.J.D., the What Would Jesus Do bracelets. In any daily - but particularly in any difficult - decision, it reminds the wearer to ask 'What would Jesus do' here. I am sure - in a theologically credible way - that is exactly what Rowan Williams has often done, and thereby sometimes found himself making choices other than his own first option.

Meanwhile, some of us will have to make sure that we do not fall in to the trap of making Jesus in to our own image, and expecting him to follow our own favoured choices.

What Would Jesus Do? Who's Jesus are we talking about?

Alastair Cutting (96 Chichester)

Penny Allen's synod diary

2011-07-18T21:16:00.000Z

Penny Allen (327 Litchfield) has been keeping a synod diary here:
http://pennyatgeneralsynod.weebly.com/

Her February 2011, and November 2010 diaries are also available there.

Alastair Cutting (96 Chichester)

The Bishop of Copenhagen’s sermon

2011-07-10T14:56:00.002Z

The Rt Revd. Peter Skov-Jakobsen, the Lutheran Bishop of Copenhagen, which the Church of England is in communion with through the Porvoo Agreement, preached at York Minster on Sunday 10 July with the General Synod present.

A Dane having worked in England for a few years, he described himself at one point as a foreigner in both places. The sermon is full of some beautiful images and quotes - please do try and read it. And in a wonderful aside from the printed text towards the end of the sermon, recognised Kingston-upon-Hull as the Venice of the North!

Text: Matthew 13, 1-9 & 18-23

It is odd; but as the years pass, I think that these narratives become even more strange – provocative – as if from another world – and yet they liberate a longing to become a person right here and now!

Let me draw you into a story in which Jesus will make us look at the world with different eyes. We have to go back to the time before any dogmatic church teachings had been agreed on, but there were still plenty of barriers between people.

I don’t know what the problem is with us human beings. Apparently we cannot stop protecting ourselves from one another, from finding security in our own thoughts, behind our own borders, behind our economy and our politics, behind our own culture!

And here we meet him again, this man who had such a colossal ability to listen, a man who once talked to a Samaritan – the outsider, the enemy. How dare he! And worse than that, a Samaritan woman! Oh dear. This was the man who, when they dragged before him a woman caught in adultery, told those without sin to cast the first stone - and no one dared. And then he told her to sin no more! He made friends with strangers, tried to make his fellow-Jews to think again, and guided people away from sin. Truly he planted seeds – seeds of reflection, and seeds of action.

The Russian writer, Dostoyevsky, was sometimes very critical of western culture, of our attempt to secure ourselves behind our knowledge, behind our technology, and we could add another word, that Dostoyevsky didn’t know: behind our ‘growth’ – are we planting seeds for growth or merely weeds? He thought that we had lost our feeling for Christ. He claimed that we no longer, as he put it, ’asked the heart for advice’.

Here at the start of the 21st century we should listen to that criticism. There is no doubt that even only 30 years ago many people thought that religion would soon be a thing of the past – we would outgrow it. Like a scorched plant it would wither and die as we moved into a post-secular existence. There are many things on the move at present in the thoughts and lives of modern man. But we must also acknowledge and accept our history – as well as one another’s histories, for then the walls come tumbling down, as we learn to listen and live alongside our neighbours – including our new, strange, neighbours.

Not for one second do I believe that there is any point in going back and finding cover behind the thick walls of dogmatic church teachings. Nor can we further any understanding of faith or the church by hiding behind an anxious defence of the Bible, and outdated view of gender roles or an unrealistic view of freer sexual morals. We must not make faith into a ghetto. We must not withdraw and just sit and talk among ourselves! We must be the seed that falls on fertile ground. not the seed that has no root and lasts only a short time.

Let us start our pilgrimage into the future with the words of the Welsh poet R.S. Thomas:

… … Was the pilgrimage

I made to come to my own

Self, to learn that in times

Like these and for one like me

God will never be plain and

Out there, but dark rather and

Inexplicable, as though he were in here?

It is our task to be part of the times and to draw attention to the fact that history has a heart, that there is a fundamental warmth of the heart beneath our existence.

I am sure that the good and dependable Yorkshire farmers are surprised at today’s text. Who on earth would sow seed on stony ground or on land with a thin layer of soil? Surely you only sow where you can harvest! The text is a typical example of the church not always believing that Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant, so to help that later generations they quickly sent out an interpretation to a text which in reality is very clear. There is a distinction between the superficial man, the worried man and the attentive man, - this is the stony ground, the field full of weeds – and the good soil!

Three types of men! Just consider that what this has brought with it is the history of the church! Just see what condemnations there have been in the air ever since! Just look at the hypocrisy has been enacted. We would hear the story much better if we dared to accept that all three types of soil are found within us ourselves: the disinterested mindset, the superficial, worried mindset, and finally the attentive and empathetic mindset.

And yet something has happened in the world. The heavenly, the eternal, the omnipresent qualities are found in language, in music, in painting, in craft, in decisions. They become present, and people’s lives are first and foremost influenced by our belief that God in His generosity gives Himself to all the world. God does not have time to be concerned with the quality of the soil.

There is sowing to be done.

We are not dealing with a God who desperately wants to change the world before he gives all of Himself. God is not waiting for the world to be ready. He is generous. He is not waiting for the new world to come. He is not looking to see whether people have understood. And suddenly it is as if the truth is close at hand, and heaven is present. Christ has plenty of time. He sees the birds of the sky, he sees the children playing, he sees the lilies of the fields, and he even has time to wait for a lost son. He is the Son of Man who meets people where they are, and not where some would have wanted us to be!

He empowers people to break the circles of anger and indignation and revenge so easily understood. The cheerfulness, happiness, and courage which is found in Christ must be found in the quiet and courageous protest. One such protest has stayed with me. The man in question was George Bell who spoke up in the House of Lords during the Second World War against the allied bombardment of the German cities, arguing that no injustice can be equalized by another. This was an important hour in the history of the church, but also of the parliament that we call ”the mother of parliaments”.

And again, we can all hear the indignation of love in a cruel time when we hear the story of Erik Mørch, the Danish seaman’s pastor in Hull during the Second World War, whose church St. Nicholas, was obliterated on the night between the 8th and 9th of May 1941. The following morning he went up to the smoking ruin and put up a sign with the words of the Danish theologian, Grundtvig, saying: “We are God’s house and church now, built of living stones”. No swearwords, no curses could express such life.

As the church we have one task: to tell the world that God loves His world magnanimously, and that we are constantly looking for this signature of Christ everywhere. Our faith has not been built for us to withdraw from the world. No, we must break into the world and explain that in the faith there is multiplicity present. The whole universe can be embraced in it – even the gracious gift of doubt is part of this universe.

It is even more important now that enemies and opponents can look one another in the eye and overcome their enmity. The memory of the resurrection is more important than any human enmity.

This is my hope for the world – and for myself.

In this country you love to tell a story about a Danish king who was so unbearably arrogant and foolish that he even believed he could stop the tide by sitting at the water’s edge and commanding the waves to withdraw. We Danes had already suffered from a bad press for many years. We had frightened the life out of women and children, and it was not the act of a gentleman when Thorkild the Tall plundered the cathedral in Canterbury and took the archbishop prisoner. I’m sorry about that.

Since then our empire has grown oh so much smaller, but a sense of humility has still found it difficult to enter Danish hearts. But we are looking to the future! At long last we have joined the Porvoo Communion! But you may have to accept that now and again there is a little girl sitting on the bench in Denmark saying, “But he’s got clothes on!”

As you get to know the Danish Lutheran Church over the coming years, you will encounter a church struggling to take seriously both tradition and contemporary society. Really struggling!

Thank you for your warm and friendly welcome and for the honour it is to preach a sermon on this happy occasion. For 9 years this part of England was my home, and that is why one of the first things I had to do after being elected by the Copenhagen congregations as their bishop was to make a pilgrimage to the place where I learnt to be a pastor: To Hull! Kingston-upon-Hull.

It goes without saying that I lost my heart to this country, its people, its culture, its traditions, and now I carry the yoke of the pain it is to be a stranger in two places – in this country because I am Danish, and in Denmark because I came to know Great Britain and saw that everything can be painted with a much bigger brush.

Deep down, nevertheless, I am happy with this sense of alienation. It gives me a feeling that nothing is simple.

Alienation gives me courage, and I live happily with polyphony, and I love variety.

So even though we believe that Canute was trying to demonstrate the exact opposite – that you cannot turn back the tide – please carry on laughing at us. That is better than praying the ancient prayer: “Merciful God, deliver us from the fury of the Norsemen!”

And maybe you can learn from our humour. History may have taught a proud little people and the rest of the world a humble truth in the words of our poet Piet Hein:

’The noble art of losing face may one day save the human race.’

Alastair Cutting
Chichester 96

Archbishop Rowan Williams’ presidential address

2011-07-09T14:11:00.002Z

The text for Archbishop Rowan’s presidential address is on the Lambeth Palace website.

Two weeks ago in Eastern Congo, listening to the experiences of young men and women who had been forced into service with the militias in the civil wars, forced therefore into atrocities done and suffered that don’t bear thinking about, I discovered all over again why the Church mattered. One after another, they kept saying, ‘The Church didn’t abandon us.’ Members of the Church went into the forests to look for them, risked their lives in making contacts, risked their reputations by bringing them back and working to reintegrate them into local communities.

Read more here...

Alastair Cutting, Chichester 96

A Boring Agenda?

2011-07-08T21:28:00.001Z

There has been some criticism so far - especially in the debate on the Agenda this afternoon - about the fact that our agenda in York this year looks rather dull. Certainly, there is a lack of big splashy topical debates, but despite the fact that it's what gets the coverage, the politics and problems of the day are not really what Synod is about. Its function is primarily a legal one, and there is plenty of that sort of stuff on the agenda. Also on the agenda - and seemingly missed by many - are two examples of another of the less glamorous jobs that Synod does, namely talking about and regulating the way in which we relate to other churches. If you look here and here, you will find documents that describe the current situation with regards to the Anglican Methodist Covenant, and which will inform a debate on Sunday afternoon. While we are still a way from unity, and while the process is moving at what seems to be a snail's pace, there is some progress happening. One piece of good news in a corner of the agenda.

In a similar vein, but perhaps of more importance, are the documents here and here, which will form the basis of a debate on Monday evening about relations with the United Reformed Church. The URC has its ultimate origins in the expulsion from the Church of England of Nonconformist dissenters following the Act of Uniformity in 1662, and if the recommendations in the report are passed by Synod, they will result in the request that "representatives of the two churches should join together in an act of worship in 2012, that would mark both the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection of nonconforming ministers following the Act of Uniformity 1662 and the 40th anniversary of the inauguration of the United Reformed Church. The service should contain an expression of penitence for our part in perpetuating the divisions of the past, a desire for the healing of memories and an act of commitment to work more closely together in the future." That strikes me as being at least as important a thing for Synod to be doing as the various things that people this afternoon said we ought to be talking about. Apart from anything else - this thing might actually make a difference...

Justin
(Chichester 289)

Outline Agenda for July Synod

2011-05-28T03:36:00.000Z

So - here we go again. The Outline Agenda for the July Synod is now available from the Church of England website. There is some interesting stuff here, although the irredeemably cynical bit of me wonders how we will cope with yet another Synod without either sexuality or women in the episcopate...

Although there is not yet any associated paperwork, it is possible to pick out some themes in the agenda, and a few points where we could be in for some robust debate. The Methodist Covenant is back on the agenda, as is an item entitled "Conversations with the United Reformed Church". For the observer of Synodical process there is the amusing prospect of Synod being asked once again to confirm the appointment of the Chair of the Business Committee. Personally, I think that one might have been left to ride for a while, but we shall see.

There are several worthy-looking reports - the substance of which will be revealed in due course. The Church and Education features here, Presence and Engagement is back on the agenda, and there is a report from the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns.

At the moment, however, it is the Diocesan Synod motions that look the most interesting. Bradford have one on admission of baptised but unconfirmed adults to Communion, which will no doubt spark some lively debate. London, however, have my pick of the pops, calling for "a thorough review of how the House of Laity of this Synod and the houses of laity of diocesan synods are elected, particular consideration being given to whether the electorate should be some body of persons other than the lay members of deanery synods." I very much hope that they get what they want - this is one turkey who will happily vote for Christmas if it means that the Laity elected to Synod will be more representative and elected in a fashion that actually gives the people in the pews a voice.

Justin
(Chichester 289)

Möbius Strips - Synod in One Dimension

2011-02-08T19:00:00.000Z

The synchronicity of a conversation in the parish last week and an aside in the Archbishop of Canterbury's sermon at the start of Tuesday's synod business both included comments on Möbius strips.

Image from WikiCommons

There is something curious about the Möbius strip is that it only has one side and one edge. Try following the side/edge with your finger...

Some might (cruelly) suggest it is quite an apt metaphor for the General Synod - one dimensional. But I think that misses a myriad of aspects hidden by such one-liners.

Today, synod had a presentation on The Wedding Project - it just demonstrated how not only can synod do stuff well (it was superbly presented, with two presenters, photos, videos, vox pop clips, laughs, a few 'ouch' moments), but also covers material that is as important to people outside church doors, as inside them. "England wants more Vicars" was a notable quote.

It may have only one edge, or side, but of course a Möbius strip is actually a very tactile and three dimensional object. Synod sometimes surprises us like that too; something of the mysterious, three-dimensional nature of God works his way into even the synodical processes. If someone tries to tell you the synod and it's work is shallow and pointless - one dimensional - then remember the Möbius strip.

Alastair Cutting Chichester 96

What The House Of Laity Did First...

2011-02-07T16:02:00.001Z

Synod officially started at 3.00pm today. However, immediately before that meeting there was a meeting of the House of Laity by itself. These don't happen at every session - most business is conducted by Synod as a whole. (The House of Bishops is different - they do meet regularly outside Synod - but that's for expansion elsewhere, perhaps.) This afternoon the House of Laity was invited to co-opt Dr Priscilla Chadwick as a member of the House so that she could be re-appointed as Chair of the Dioceses Commission. The short version of what happened is that we declined to make such a co-option.

The longer version is a bit more nuanced. The powers that be have managed to get themselves in a muddle. As the Dioceses Commission is set up, a certain number of its members have also to be members of General Synod, and its Chair has to be selected from among those members. Furthermore the Chair of the Commission is not allowed also to be a member of various other Synod-related bodies. The idea seems to be that the Chair should be someone who has been in some way elected by the wider Church, and also that they should not be someone who is already obviously part of the establishment. So far so good, you might think. Unfortunately, it turned out that none of those from Synod who ended up on the Commission were deemed by the powers that be to be suitable for the post of Chair, and instead Dr Chadwick was suggested for the job. Consequently, in 2008, the House of Laity was asked to co-opt Dr Chadwick so that she could chair what was then the new Commission. Reluctantly, we agreed.

Given that we were told that the first co-option was quite essential because Dr. Chadwick was the only person for the job, it came as something of a surprise that we were now asked to make exactly the same co-option. After all, this time Dr. Chadwick could have stood for Synod. She didn't. The point was made in the debate that actually there was a good argument for the Chair of the Commission not to be an elected member from a particular diocese on grounds of impartiality. While this was a sound point, it doesn't alter the fact that a set of procedures exist for the appointment of the members and Chair of the Dioceses Commission, and that the central bureaucracy has attempted to circumvent them because they were not delivering the result that the bureaucracy required. This isn't the right way of doing things, and this time we were not sufficiently convinced by the arguments from expediency to put aside what little democratic legitimacy we possess and roll over when required by the secretariat.

In all of this, the person I feel sorry for is Dr. Chadwick. For what it's worth, I think she has done a good job, and I have been very impressed with what the Commission has so far achieved. As I understand it she was asked to continue in her post, she didn't put herself forward. Perhaps those who did the asking might reflect whether they have really done her or the Church any sort of service in making that request in the way in which they made it. Perhaps they might further reflect on the suggestion that if your procedures are not delivering the results you desire, then the procedures themselves need to be changed. If you attempt simply to circumvent the rules you currently have then the only conclusion to which onlookers might come is that those rules didn't really count for anything in the first place. And surely that can't be true...

Justin
(Chichester 289)

Synod Papers & Live audio feed

2011-02-07T15:42:00.000Z

General Synod agendas and papers are here;
and there is also a live audio feed via Premier accessible here.

Alastair Cutting Chichester 96

So, what IS on Synod's agenda?

2011-02-07T15:27:00.000Z

Here is synod meeting again in London. The November 2010 session was the usual, brief, inauguration session at the start of a new synod. Once we get to the February session, that's when the real work gets going.

Or does it? People have been commenting already that the agenda for this session seems thin. Although the whole week was set aside initially, the synod is actually only meeting from Monday until Wednesday evening. This is a quick glance as to why it might appear reduced; and what some of the more significant items are actually still are. Papers, as usual are available on the General Synod pages of the all new Church of England website (which is apparently no longer a sub-domain of the anglican.org - probably worth a blog post in it's own right at some point...).

Firstly, as it is a new synod, not all new posts have been fixed. Synod business is organised by the Business Committee - but that is only just in the process of being elected for the quinquennium. Many other important boards and councils have changed membership too, and this has affected pulling together some of the preparations for this synod.

Secondly, synod has sent out to the dioceses for debate 2 major pieces of work - Women Bishops, and the Anglican Communion Covenant. As we await these items to come back to synod for the final stages of the legislation, synod gets a chance to catch it's breath.

Monday's business starts with a presentation by The Right Honourable Andrew Mitchell MP, Secretary of State for International Development. It is a number of years since synod was addressed by a member of the government - and a great department for us to be hearing from. The press were asking before Andrew Mitchell's speech for a copy of what he was going to say. They couldn't have one, as he stood to speak passionately, with only the sparsest of notes, of recent visits to East Africa, and seeing the vital work being done by faith communities and others on the ground.

Other key items coming up include the the debate on the way ahead for the next quinquennium; as well as the motion asking for initiation - baptism etc - liturgies that are more in language that those unfamiliar with church jargon can better grasp. Not to dumb down our theology, but to make it more accessible. More later...

Alastair Cutting Chichester 96

Reformation of Synod?

2010-11-30T07:29:00.028Z

@TheChurchMouse asked me to do a guest post for the inauguration of the new General Synod, and it was published a couple of hours before the inauguration service in Westminster Abbey.

Dame Mary Tanner: photo by David Michael Morris

However, as Dame Mary Tanner started preaching, I started to wonder if she had been looking over my shoulder (and - should she have even noticed my post - she may have wondered if I had got hold of an illicit copy of her sermon script in advance - full copy legitimately available here now). Have a look...

She started by highlighting what an inspired solution Synodical government has been:

Synodical government was a visionary initiative. It established definitively the voice of the laity in the governance of our Church, providing a place where laity and clergy, together with the bishops, meet to discern, to express consensus and to legislate.

She then went on to recognise that synod itself is now in need of reformation:

we know that our synodical system is – and probably always will be, like the institution of the Church itself – in need of reform and renewal. English parliamentary processes can have a negative effect, tending to polarisation, parties divided against one another, a culture of winners and losers. Thank goodness the call to the Synod – ‘decide’ – now replaces the former absurd practice of a bewigged lawyer crying ‘divide’ – just when the Synod was testing for consensus, testing for the mind of Christ.

- It was almost word-for-word what I had also written. I was encouraged to think that she, and others, share some of the thoughts I have been thinking too. And you cannot get more up-front than the sermon at the inauguration of Synod.

Mary Tanner starts by looking at the Jerusalem Council as her prime Biblical model for inspiration. It led her on - amongst many other things, to suggest:

Synod structures and procedures may need reforming. But perhaps what is most needed is for each of us to look at ourselves. We need to get hold at a deeper level of how costly listening can be. It is by listening with creative imaginations, not afraid of silence, that we form a space in which the Holy Spirit can lead us beyond polarisation to the place where we know that we need one another...

Towards the end of her sermon, Dame Mary said:

The most important thing you do is not the production of Measures, Acts of Synod, or Codes of Practice, important as these are, but the gathering together around the Lord’s Table to receive food for the synodical journeying.

Strive always to listen to one another with charity and generosity, and listen deep in the silence to the one who walks with you on the way, so that you too may say, like those at the Council of Jerusalem, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’.

So, there is Mary Tanner’s challenge to this 9th General Synod. In his introductory welcome to the Queen, and just before she also spoke to Synod, ++Rowan Williams observed that this was the first Synod that there were no longer any remaining members of the earlier Church Assembly present. Except for her majesty, that is - who has seen Synods, and Archbishops of Canterbury come, and go. The Queen’s speech also included words helping Synod look forward:

The opening of a new Synod is a moment when we can all give thanks for the witness of those who have gone before, and pray for wisdom as you seek to balance change and continuity in the decisions that lie ahead of you. ...

The new Synod will have many issues to resolve to ensure that the Church of England remains equipped for the effective pursuit of its mission and ministry. Some will, no doubt, involve difficult, even painful, choices. But Christian history suggests that times of growth and spiritual vigour have often coincided with periods of challenge and testing. What matters is holding firmly to the need to communicate the gospel with joy and conviction in our society.

I have already outlined some of the areas and ways I think we could see Synod start to move - I am hoping to see some of these begin to take shape, so that we may all the better fulfil the role that the Queen has reminded us is the calling of Synod.

Alastair Cutting 96 Chichester

To Covenant, or not to Covenant?

2010-11-24T10:46:00.001Z

Wednesday morning’s headlining agenda item is on whether the Church of England should join in with the Anglican Communion Covenant.

Well, who wouldn’t want to be a part of the Anglican Communion? (Only Anglicans of course need bother to answer that question...). Yet, there are some who clearly think the Covenant is not a good thing. Why, and how to vote at this stage?

As the Anglican church spread across the globe, different provinces of the communion started to develop, to make better sense of governing the church more locally (did you know that New Zealand and Australia were both originally included in the diocese of Calcutta, in India!)

So there are many different Anglican provinces, all gathered under the banner of the Anglican Communion. However, what happens when one province does something that other provinces find is un-Anglican, is an innovation that it impairs communion? Like, perhaps, ordaining a bishop in an active gay relationship? Other brands/examples are also available...

Some provinces then asked that there be some mechanism whereby different provinces can: sign up to be a something to be a part of the Anglican Communion. That something to sign up to, is the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant.

However, within the covenant, there are some ‘if this; then there may be a consequence that...’ situations. It is this part of the covenant that some are objecting to, as they feel the Covenant is perhaps being formed in to a stick to beat naughty provinces with. That, some consider is also un-Anglican.

Just as there is a Say No to the Covenant lobby, who feel it is restrictive and inhibiting; there are also other provinces who I understand feel that the lines drawn and sanctions outlined are not strong enough. Some want it less restrictive - some want it more so. That in itself implies the Covenant may have something of the ‘middle way’ about it.

So how to vote on it? Well, it is clear a number of other provinces are watching what the Church of England does about the Covenant before showing their own hand. We should not consider that the CofE is ‘equal, but more equal’ than others. It seems clear though, that without the CofE signing up to the Covenant, it is difficult to see what its purpose might be.

This particular debate is not the General Synod’s final say on the Covenant. Rather, what is proposed today is that the Covenant is then be passed to the dioceses for debate, before coming back to the General Synod for final agreement after that. I have some questions and misgivings about the text; but I certainly want to include the dioceses within the debate. So I will certainly be voting for the motion at this stage.

Alastair Cutting 96 Chichester

Dramas at Synod

2010-11-23T22:25:00.003Z

Arriving as a newbie at Synod can be quite frightening. So many people, procedures; standing orders, and members standing to contend with.

As part of the induction for new members, a dramatised and light-hearted example of a synod debate, with full commentary, helped members to understand synodical processes. When I first joined synod 5 years ago, I found a similar presentation very helpful, and many new members I have spoken to found this one similarly so.

Actually, it was such a useful case-study in debating procedure, that I managed to procure a copy of the script, and the permission to publish it. It may well be an aid to Diocesan Synod members too, especially the Chairs of House of Laity and Clergy.

Here are a couple of snippets:

Margery Kempe: Margery Kempe, Norwich, 1438. Mr. Chair, I am delighted to move this motion in my name. The Joint Ecumenical commission for motherhood and apple pie has spent the last two years considering both motherhood and apple pie from a variety of angles, as detailed in GS 1592…

Narrator: You will have noticed that she correctly started her speech by addressing the Chair. All speeches should be addressed to the Chair: only the person in the Chair addresses the Synod directly. After the opening speech the debate will be opened up to members... [etc.]

....

Narrator: Let’s hear how the first speaker gets on.

Hilda of Whitby: Hilda of Whitby, Religious Communities, 680. There are two points I want to make. First, in GS 1592 paragraph 23…

Narrator: Now this is good start – short, sharp, focused and directly to the point.

HW: … I could say more, but as the amber light has come on, I would say in conclusion that my main points are these … [etc.]

Other participants include (!):
Thomas Aquinas, Julian of Norwich, Catherine Parr, Hieronymous Bosch & Richard Hooker

Download the full sketch here, or continue reading it below the fold:

Alastair Cutting 96 Chichester

SYNOD INDUCTION SKETCH

Cast in order of appearance

Narrator

Registrar 1

Staff member

Chair 1

Margery Kempe MK

Hilda of Whitby HW

Thomas Aquinas TA

Chair 2

Julian of Norwich JN

Catherine Parr CP

Hieronymous Bosch HB

Richard Hooker RH

Member 1 (p.3)

Member 2 (pp.11-12)

Archbishop of Canterbury ABC

Set in the Synod chamber.

Narrator: I will be your guide through the wonderful world of Synod. So come with me as we examine the dos and don’ts and unravel the sacred mystery that is General Synod. The alert amongst you, sorry, a silly thing to say immediately after lunch, will have noticed how I started speaking. The first rule for the Synod orator; start with your name, diocese and Synod number. Your number will then be up, …on the electronic display so everyone can identify who is speaking
.

Let’s first get our bearings. Above us (pointing) is the Public Gallery, except for the rows of desks in the gallery to my left which is the Press Gallery, remember to smile to the camera! You may sit in the Public Gallery if you want, but this is not to be encouraged, and you certainly cannot speak or vote in a show of hands from there, for that you must be on the floor of Synod, that is the massed ranks of seats in front of me. The Archbishops, if not in the Chair, will sit here and the other Officers of the Synod, (the Prolocutors, the Chair and Vice Chair of the House of Laity and the Secretary General and Clerk to the Synod) will sit in the seats similarly placed on the opposite side of the platform. The House of Bishops usually occupies the first two circles of seats in the centre of the chamber, yes, just w
here you are sitting madam!

Staff member comes on and rings the five minute bell

Narrator: Now that bell is to get us under starter’s orders. It’s rung with gusto five minutes before every sitting starts. So we have a few more minutes yet, so as I was saying, the seats behind the platform are reserved for staff or in the case of the tables immediately behind me, for the members and staff responsible for the business under consideration.

Now, papers! You should bring with you the relevant papers for the day’s debates. As you come into the chamber, you will find more to add to your collection. (Holding up each) Of most immediate use will be the dark yellow Order Paper for the sitting that is about to start. This brings together in one document all the motions and amendments that are to be debated at that sitting, very useful. There may also be pale yellow Notice Papers giving you information of various kinds, most importantly notice of amendments received relating to forthcoming debates. You may also pick up a green Financial Statement from time to time, which, if required, will give you an estimate of the likely cost of implementing something that you are about to debate.

I hope that sets the scene, more later, but I’d better stop now, as we are about to get underway. In a moment the platform party will come on and the sitting will start with standing, if you see what I mean. Always stand when the platform party come on, it shows them you’re awake. Jump up, here they come.

The gavel is hit on the wall. The platform party enter and sit down. ‘Marjorie Kempe’ sits in members in charge place.

Chair 1 Good afternoon Synod, I hope you had a good lunch …

Narrator: The person speaking is in the Chair for this particular item of business. He or she will be a member of the Panel of Chairs appointed jointly by The Archbishops of Canterbury and York to take the Chair when either of them is not doing so. All Chairs are members of Synod and they oversee the conduct of the debate and call speakers from those who are standing to indicate their wish to contribute. They have a very difficult and important job to do. Let’s hear what she has to say …

Chair 1 Our first item of business is the Report of the Joint Ecumenical Commission on Motherhood and Apple Pie. This is a ‘take note’ debate and for it you will need GS1592. In a moment, I will be calling on a representative of the Commission to speak for up to ten minutes and to move the motion standing in her name, after which there will be a general debate for which the speech limit will be five minutes from the outset…

Narrator: Let’s just break in here. What she has just said illustrates an important point: always listen to what the Chair has to say at the start of a debate, as he or she will then explain how the debate is to be structured, something that will be of great value to you in following the debate. This is a relatively straightforward debate, but as we may see later, in a potentially more complicated debate with many amendments to a main motion, it is especially important to grasp the Chair’s plan of campaign early on. What the Chair has just said also contains two other valuable general points: first, the Chair will highlight the relevant papers you will need and, secondly, will often give you advanced notice of any speech limits that he or she intends to impose. The default speech limits are ten minutes for the opening speech by the mover of a motion and five minutes for all other speeches. However, the Chair has a discretion to vary the speech limit and may choose, for instance, to reduce it during a popular debate to allow as many members as possible to contribute. The Chair has also explained what kind of debate it is – in this case a ‘take note’ which translates into “the Synod has looked at this report but has not been asked to take a decision on it, either for or against”. But back live with the Chair…

Chair 1 I call on Marjorie Kempe to move the motion on behalf of the Commission, she has up to ten minutes.

Member 1: Point of Order…

The Chair consults with administrator and registrar

Narrator: Now, a member has raised a point of order,: he is questioning whether something is within the Standing Orders, the rules that govern how the Synod operates. While they are sorting that out, it gives me the chance to introduce to you the other two members of the platform party. The person sitting to your right of the Chair in the wig and gown is the Registrar of the Synod or as is the case for this debate, one of his equally glamorous assistants. As lawyers, they will advise the Chair on procedural questions, as at the moment, and also they will give you instructions when a division is called. The registrar will also monitor the progress of your speech against any speech limit that has been imposed. The lights that you see at the front of the platform and those at each microphone are green for go until they are turned to orange when you have one minute left and red when time is up. The handsome beast sitting to your left of the Chair will be the Secretary General or another equally radiant member of staff. They will be whispering sweet nothings into the ear of the Chair to assist him or her in a number of practical ways and specifically by identifying members who may have indicated they wish to speak. Ah, I think the great minds have reached a conclusion …

Chair 1 Thank you, I’m advised that what you
r request is not a valid point of order, so we continue; Margery Kempe.

MK Margery Kempe, Norwich, 1438. Mr. Chair, I am delighted to move this motion in my name. The Joint Ecumenical commission for motherhood and apple pie has spent the last two years considering both motherhood and apple pie from a variety of angles, as detailed in GS1592…

Narrator: You will have noticed that she correctly started her speech by addressing the Chair. All speeches should be addressed to the Chair
: only the person in the Chair addresses the Synod directly. After the opening speech the debate will be opened up to members, so I should say something now about what to do if you want to speak. First of all, you should complete a “Request to Speak” form as far in advance as possible before the debate. These are available at the Information Desk, where they should also be handed in when completed. As far as is possible, the Chair of a debate will seek to have a balanced debate, that is to say he or she will attempt to call an equal number of speakers for and against, and (subject to that) to ensure that there is a broad balance of speakers who are male and female, from each of the Houses etc. It’s obviously not an exact science but in order to do this as effectively as possible it is helpful for the Chair to know who wants to speak beforehand and to have an idea of what they want to say. Ah, it looks like she is just about to finish, so we’ll soon see what to do next.

MK ...and I look forward to the debate.

Chair 1 Thank you very much. The motion is now before Synod, do I see anyone standing?

(Members jump up and stand, wishing to speak)

Narrator: What a sight! But, they are acting correctly. You cannot speak unless called upon to do so by the Chair and for this to happen you must, I repeat must, stand to be called. If you have submitted a Request to Speak this does not guarantee that you will be called, but it will increase your chances. And even when you have submitted a request slip you must still stand. The Chair will not be impressed or swayed by gestures, smiles or winks. Just stand and wait for the call! If one of the Presidents stands, he will be called to speak, and
if one of the other Officer
s stands, he or she will be called to speak unless that is impossible in the time available. But the normal form is for the Chair, when faced with all those faces to say …

Chair 1 I call Hilda of Whitby. Please remember that a five minutes speech limit is in force.

Narrator: Let’s hear how the first speaker gets on.

HW: Hilda of Whitby, Religious Communities, 680. There are two points I want to make. First, in GS1592 paragraph 23…

Narrator: Now this is good start – short, sharp, focused and directly to the point.

HW: … I could say more, but as the amber light has come on, I would say in conclusion that my main points are these …

Narrator: This again is good, the end of the speech is timed, measured, unrushed and effectively delivered. The amber light tells you that you have a minute to wind up. When the red light comes on , the time for concluding is past. You must stop speaking and resume your seat straightaway.

Chair 1 Is Thomas Cranmer standing?

Narrator: That’s interesting! Remember that the Chair will not be able to identify all the members that he or she wants to call, so don’t take offence if the Chair doesn’t know what you look like!

Chair 1 I can’t see him, in that case I call Thomas Aquinas.

TA: Mr Chairman, I would like to be able to say ….

All Name?

Narrator: Now that is not a good start, he has wasted time and lost momentum by simply not giving his name, let’s see if it gets better …

TA: … oh… Thomas Aquinas…Diocese of Europe…… what is it now (finally gets number from pass 1274)…; Mr Chairman, what I wanted to say has been said by the previous speaker but I am very grateful to you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this matter which I have wanted to speak about in several debates but have not been called, although I am no expert by any means (microphone obscured – crackles)

Narrator: Sorry to say this, but this is developing into an example of what not to do: don’t waste your valuable time in a long preamble, get to the point quickly and if a previous speaker has raised a point that you wanted to make, try to use your time productively by saying something new. If you haven’t got anything to say that hasn’t been said before, don’t stand! What’s worse, don’t obscure the microphone as this will reduce your oratory to a blast of crackles!

Chair 1 I see no one else standing, so I will ask a representative of the Commission to respond to the debate. She has up to five minutes.

Narrator: This is what happens at the end of a debate on the motion
: the mover will be asked to respond to the debate before a vote is taken. While she is doing that, I should mention what to do if you are not speaking. First of all, don’t feel that you have somehow wasted your time if you have not spoken. It’s just as important to listen carefully to the debate so that you can make an informed decision at the end and also, not to be overlooked, so that you are in a position to make a full and accurate report once you return to the diocese.

MK: … this has been an interesting debate and I would urge Synod to support the motion that this Synod do take note of this report.

Chair 1 The motion is now before Synod, those in favour please show.

Members hands go up

Narrator: This is a vote by a show of hands, the commonest way for the Synod to decide on any issue. If a show of hands is too close to decide or the Chair decides that the numbers voting by a show of hands should be recorded, then he or she can order a division. When this happens, you will need to get out your voting card, slot it into your voting handset and follow the instructions the Registrar gives you. But in this case …

Chair 1 … and those against, that is clearly carried, and that concludes this item of business.

a new platform party come on (with a new Chair).

Narrator: There will now be a platform alteration, as they say at Clapham Junction, before the next item. This is the normal practice. It gives me some time to mention a few more items of good manners and etiquette: if you leave the chamber during a sitting to spend a penny or get a coffee, please do not leave or come back to your seat whilst someone is speaking, rather wait for the interval between speakers. Also please do not speak to your next door neighbour in a loud voice whilst someone else is addressing the Synod and remember that the use of mobile phones or any form of camera while the Synod is in session is a strict no no! Ah, they are now sitting comfortably and are ready to resume business.

Chair 2: Good afternoon Synod. We now come to item [3] - a Private members motion from Julian of Norwich. For this you’ll need the background paper GS1773A, the background note from the Secretary General, GS 1773B, and this afternoon’s order paper.

Narrator: We now have an example of a debate where there are a large number of members who wish to speak and where there are a number of amendments to the main motion to be taken. The Order Paper is essential reading in these cases as it lists amendments in the order they will be taken and explains how each will impact on the main motion (for example, an amendment might say “After paragraph (b) insert something” or “in paragraph (d) after the word “it” insert the words didum, didum”). The Order Paper will also explain in what circumstances each amendment will be taken (for example, two amendments could be alternatives, one to be taken “if item 18 is carried” and another be taken “if item 18 is not carried”) and so on. Each amendment is given a separate number on the order paper, so you can tell by looking at the electronic display which exact item of business is currently being considered.Oh, now, we mustn’t miss this bit, let’s hear how this Chair is planning to handle this debate …

Chair 2 I propose that we first have a general debate on the main motion
, after which I shall call the movers of all the amendments to speak to
, and move, their amendments in turn. As I have a large number of Requests to Speak for this debate, after the mover of the motion has spoken for ten minutes I shall be imposing a three minute speech limit from the outset. About half way through our allotted time, I shall ask for each of the amendments to be moved and for each to be voted on; we shall then resume the debate on the substantive motion as amended or not as the case may be. I hope that is clear …

Narrator …so now we know the master plan. I suspect that the Chair will be relying on the use of the motion for the closure (or just ‘the closure’, as we usually shorthand it) at various stages during the afternoon to bring the debate safely home in time. The closure requires the permission of the Chair and the ‘general consent’ of the Synod and is used sensitively to achieve a managed debate. The effect of the closure is to remove the right of those members who have not spoken on the motion or amendment to do so. Where it is carried on a debate - whether on the main motion or on an amendment
- it therefore brings the debate on that item effectively to an end.

Chair 2: So without more ado I call on Julian of Norwich to move the motion standing in her name, ‘That this Synod call on all parishes to ensure that only the best quality filter coffee is served after church services
’.

JN: Julian, Norwich, 450. Mr Chairman, I bring this motion before Synod this morning on behalf of all the fine burghers of Norwich, who are infuriated by being served inferior coffee after church. I am delighted that well over 100 people in this Synod felt similarly strongly that this is a crucial issue facing today’s church…

Narrator: Hmm! Yes, well. Any member of Synod can propose a Private Member’s Motion, and they are available in the Hoare Memorial Hall for you to read. You sign on the sheet if you’d like to support one or more of them being debated, and they are only put on the agenda, at a subsequent group of sessions, if they attract 100 or more signatures. If more than one gets past the 100 signature threshold, they are debated in order of popularity. Goodness knows why so many of you signed this one. My church has super coffee already.

JN … I’m sure you, like me, feel very strongly indeed that only the best is good enough for God, and that therefore only the best coffee is good enough for God’s people. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a mission imperative. We all know people who’ve gone to church once, only to come back and say the coffee was instant, the biscuits were non-existent, and the squash so watered down as to be homeopathic. There are many more arguments that I could make, and I’m sure we will have an excellent debate this afternoon. I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

Chair 2: Thank you. This matter is now open for debate.

(people stand to speak)…. Catherine Parr, followed by Hieronymous Bosch.

Narrator: The chair will often call two people at a time like this. The first named speaks first, while the second takes the time to get to the microphone and then awaits their turn.

CP: Catherine Parr, London, 1548. MrChair, I am sure that most people here will agree with the spirit of this motion, but I feel that I must stand to make the point that the coffee should certainly be fair trade. I’m surprised and a little disappointed that Julian didn’t address this point herself. Having been involved with fair trade for many years now, I am aware of the huge difference it can make to people’s lives, and of course the coffee is always good quality.

(she sits and people clap and stand)

Narrator: Two things there that are worth drawing your attention to. First, speak from your own experience. Synod always appreciates hearing from people with experience of the subject under consideration. Secondly, don’t just read out a prepared speech, but try if you can to respond to what the speakers immediately before you have just said. This makes a debate much more interesting to listen to, and works much better in getting your point across.

Chair 2: Thank you. Hieronymous Bosch, after which I shall call on Richard Hooker to speak to and move his amendment.

HB Hieronymous Bosch, Oxford, 666. Mr Chair, I am appalled by this motion and by what it says about this synod that we are even bothering to debate such trivialities when people are dying all over the world. This is the sort of thing that brings the Church of England into disrepute! The bible doesn’t even mention coffee! And another thing, what if I prefer tea! I don’t know, this is a silly piece of snobbery. I can’t even remember what I was going to say I’m so cross! I don’t know. Next Julian will be suggesting we open Starbucks franchises in our historic churches. Which is ridiculous when we have such a wonderful stock of medieval churches, some of the finest architecture in the world. Where was I? (shuffles notes)

Narrator: (coughs) Ahem. Another example of what not to do, I’m afraid. Speak from your own experience, and make sure you know what you want to say. Don’t get cross! And keep your speech on the matter in hand, don’t use the fact that you are on your feet to have another go at your particular hobby horse.

Chair 2: I’m going to have to stop you there Mr. Bosch, you are out of time.

HB: Pah! Ridiculous! (sits down)

Narrator: And don’t ignore the traffic light system! The amber light is on for a minute before the red light shows so he should have known he was coming to the end of his time.

Chair 2: Richard Hooker, to speak to and move his amendment.

RH: Hooker, London, 1600. My amendment is very simple. Whilst I support most of what Julian said, I think her analysis is a little too black and white, if you’ll pardon the pun! Ahem. As the last speaker pointed out, many people prefer tea to coffee. There are also those churches where there are significant numbers of children to think about, where the provision of squash and biscuits is of equal importance. So my amendment seeks to build on the motion before us, simply adding the words ‘recognising that the provision of tea, squash and/or biscuits is a matter for local variation and custom’. I trust this will be seen in the friendly spirit in which it is intended.

Narrator: We are now debating the amendment, not the main motion, and you’ll see that the number on the electronic display has changed from 210, the main motion, to 211, the number on the order paper for this first amendment.Any debate now should be on this particular amendment, not the main motion, until a vote has been taken and we're back to the debate on the main motion.

Chair 2: I call on Julian of Norwich to respond.

JN: I am grateful to Mr. Hooker for this amendment, and I am happy to accept it.

Member 1: Point of order Mr Chairman. Would you accept a motion for closure on item 211?

Narrator: Ah, I told you we’d be seeing some of these! You will soon start to spot the members who assist the Chair by moving motions for closure and how the Chair’s mind might be working when he or she drops subtle hints like …

Chair 2 Thank you, I would like to hear just one more speaker, after which I would be grateful for a motion for closure

Narrator: So after that speech is finished, the closure is likely to be put again and with the consent of the Chair and the Synod, it will bring to an end the debate on that particular amendment. The Synod will then move on to the next amendment and so on. See how it works? A few more amendments have to be taken but that’s probably as exciting as this debate is going to get and we are coming up shortly to some timed business, that is what we call items on the Agenda that are preceded by words like “not later than 3.15 p.m.”. This guarantees a minimum period of time for a debate. Well, I have been going on for so long without a closure that the Synod has reached the end of the debate …

Chair 2 We now come to vote on the main motion as amended …

Narrator: The main, or substantive motion, was “That this Synod urges all parishes to serve only the best quality filter coffee after church” and only one amendment was carried to insert the words “‘recognising that the provision of tea, squash and/or biscuits is a matter for local variation and custom’” at the end of the motion. So having voted separately on all the amendments, the Synod is now voting on the final motion as amended…

Chair 2 …which reads “That this Synod urges all parishes to serve only the best quality filter coffee after church, recognising that the provision of tea, squash and/or biscuits is a matter for local variation and custom’ But what’s this…

HB: Point of Order. Bosch, Oxford, 666. Please could we have a division by Houses.

(The platform party consult)

Narrator: This is a method of voting that we have not encountered as yet. A division is when you, the members, vote using the electronic voting system rather than by a show of hands. A division of the whole synod is one in which the votes are formally counted across the Synod as a whole, and the motion is carried if more than one half of the votes overall are cast in favour, whereas in a division by houses they are counted separately in the three houses (bishops, clergy and laity) and the motion is only carried if more than half of the votes in each of the three houses are cast in favour. Sometimes a division will be announced by the Chair without a prior request from a member and at other times it may come as a result of such a request, as we seem to have here, and in such cases as the Chair is about to say …

Chair 2 … Under Standing Orders I have to order a division by Houses if 25 members stand to request one, so are there 25 members standing?

(25 members stand up)

Chair 2 There are twenty five members standing, so we will have a division by Houses, I will ask the registrar to give us our instructions.

Registrar I am now about to ring the division bell to warn members that a division is to take place. Two minutes after it ceases the division will begin.

Division bell rings

Narrator: If you hear this noise, wherever you are, what ever you are doing, drop it and go immediately to the chamber. It’s like running for the Tube.

Narrator: Remember that to be able to vote in an electronic division you will need an electronic voting handset and your voting card. The Chair is now reading out the words of the motion after which he then says…

Chair 2: This is a division by houses. “This is a division by Houses. Those in favour should press ‘1’; those against should press ‘2’; those who wish to record an abstention should press ‘3’.”

Registrar: The voting period is now open and will end in one minute.

Narrator: Before I vote, I can tell you that once the registrar has received the votes, the Chair will announce the voting figures. In a division by Houses a motion is only carried if carried in all three Houses. If the electronic voting system were ever to break down for some reason- it happened last February- we’d go back to the old fashioned way of doing things, and vote by going through the various doors you see around the Chamber, with bodies going through being counted at each door. So let’s assume that the voting has taken place and the result has been announced.

Chair 2 That concludes this item of business, thank you Synod.

Narrator: When one thing finishes we don’t always have a complete change of platform party, sometimes we just move straight on to the next item. Remember the number in the agenda for each item of business will be displayed, so you can easily check what we’re doing at any particular time by looking at the electronic display.

Chair 2: We now come to the last item of business for today, Questions. For this you will need the Questions Notice Paper. Questions one to twenty are to the Chairman of the House of Bishops, question one from []…

Narrator: There’s always a Question time period at each session, normally on the first day. The Agendawillgive you a deadline for the submission of questions before the group of sessions begins and each member can ask up to two questions. These will be printed in the Questions Notice Paper and answered at Question Time. The purpose of Question Time is to obtain information and to monitor progress. An original question and any supplementary must not contain any argument or
‘imputation’ (that is, any criticism of anyone) or ask for any expression of opinion or for the solution of any hypothetical problem. Fair enough! The other important point to remember is that your question must be directed at the work of a Synodical body. For example you cannot ask the Archbishop of Canterbury what is his favourite colour, but you can ask him as Chairman of the House of Bishops, “Has the House considered issuing guidelines to bishops on how to choose their favourite colour?”

Chair Questions one to twenty are to the Chairman of the House of Bishops, question one from []…

ABC : The House has considered this report on numerous occasions.

Narrator: The questions aren’t read out, so we only get to hear the answer and you’ll need to be following the questions printed on the order paper to work out what is being referred to. Some questions will be skipped altogether in the session, because they have asked for a written answer. A written answer is much more helpful when information such as statistics are being asked for, and the written answers are displayed in the Hoare Memorial Hall after Question Time has finished, for you to peruse at your leisure.

Member 2 Supplementary.

Chair Supplementary.

Narrator: Any member can ask a supplementary question, but priority is given to the original questioner, and no more than two supplementaries to any question will be taken unless the Chair decides otherwise.

Member 2 Anne Boleyn, London, 27: Has the House considered the related report that has just been published?

ABC: It has not.

Narrator: Well, they are moving towards the end of question time, so back to the Chair, wait a minute, what’s this, I suspect that the Chair may, yes, I thought so, …

Chair 2 … we are making good progress but I would like to suggest an extension of the sitting so we can take the remaining questions on the Notice Paper. Under Standing Order 14(e) I may, with the general consent of the Synod, extend this sitting by not more than fifteen minutes …

Narrator: We have another procedural device here, which can be used at the end of a sitting to ensure that business is given enough time to be properly completed.

Chair 2 … I proposed an extension of the sitting of ten minutes. Does that have the consent of Synod?

Members Aye.

Narrator: A few more answers given and we are now moving towards the end of the sitting and, right on cue, here it comes…

Chair 2 That concludes today’s business and I call upon the Archbishop to dismiss us… .

Narrator: So that’s it! Fun isn’t it? You may find the workings of the General Synod rather formal at first, but don’t be put off by the formalities, they are only there to enable thorough and ordered debate. I would urge you
to attend as many of the debates as you can, get to know as many of your fellow members as you can and read, listen, speak and vote carefully and prayerfully. And remember the mentors at this group of sessions who are here to help you. I’m sure that you will all play your part, now I’m off to the tearoom!

*********************

Is Synod Fit For Purpose?

2010-11-23T19:10:00.001Z

The Church Mouse invited me to write a guest post on his famous blog, and you can find it here: http://j.mp/ChMouse.

Mouse starts:
Synod reform: Guest Post from Synod Member Alastair Cutting

There are some who feel, and I am amongst them, that doing church business in this way may not be the best. The General Synod has served well since its introduction in the 1970s, but is it fit for purpose now?

On the inauguration of the new Synod, Mouse is delighted to kick off a conversation about how General Synod could be reformed with a guest post from General Synod number 96, Alastair Cutting.

Read more here.

Alastair Cutting 96 Chichester

All Aboard For The New Quinquennium!

2010-11-23T13:21:00.001Z

So - here we are again. I'm writing this in my room at the monastery where I have stayed for London Synods for the last 5 years. It's 8.00am, and shortly I will head off to join the security queues to get into Westminster Abbey for the inaugural service of the 8th General Synod of the Church of England. Five years ago I was nervous and excited, and a bit daunted at the prospect of what I had found myself part of. Five years on, it's the same feelings all over again - but not entirely for the same reasons. The nerves are still there, but no longer because I don't know what to expect - instead it's because now I do know what might well be round the corner, and some of the choices that we are going to have to make are nerve-racking indeed. I'm excited, too - but again not so much because I don't know what's coming. Instead it's because I know that I will be meeting old friends once again and making new ones - and also, of course, because I find the process and business of the way organisations like Synod work endlessly fascinating.

But I'm also still daunted. Despite the fact that Synod seems (and, lets face it, often is) not particularly relevant to everyday life in the C. of E., there are times when what is said and done here can have far-reaching effects. There have been times over the last five years when I have been acutely aware that particular debates and decisions had the potential to do an enormous amount of damage to the way we relate to each other - both on a personal and an institutional level. It's the same again this time round. No doubt I will end up having more to say about Wednesday's big matter (the Covenant, that is) in places where I can be a little less objective than I feel I ought to be here - but it's enough to say for now that despite the lack of wider focus on it, Wednesday's debate is a very big deal.

So. The ship is about to sail. We are being launched in a couple of hours time by our Supreme Governor on another five year mission. I wonder where we will get to this time around...

Justin
Chichester 289

New Quinquennium

2010-11-22T16:10:00.000Z

Members old and new of General Synod have been gathering for the start of this new session. Monday has mainly included background and preliminary work for new members, including a light-hearted practise debate and voting procedures. I have asked about the possibility of sharing the 'script', as it helps people understand the debating processes, and may be of use members of diocesan synods also.

Tomorrow starts with the Inauguration Service in Westminster Abbey at 10:40am, followed by the Queen's speech (and briefly one each by the two Archbishops) before lunch. The afternoon kicks of with the Presidential Address from Archbishop Rowan, and then a debate on the Big Society. Outline agenda is available here; and all other papers and agenda here.

New members of General Synod are reminded they may join and contribute to this blog by emailing synod @ mac.com with a request to do so.

Alastair Cutting 96 Chichester

Coping with (electoral) rejection

2010-10-18T14:01:00.000Z

So, that's great for all those who were elected - what about those who weren't?

There were hundreds of candidates across the country who stood in the General Synod elections who were not elected. In some places - notably London, there were up to 5 people standing for each place. That's a large attrition rate, often with painful personal implications.

So, if you stood, but did not get in, I just wanted to say thank you.

For what it's worth, I have been there before (I stood in 2000 and wasn't elected), and so I know something of what it feels like to make yourself vulnerable by offering to stand, creating the election address, and then awaiting the results of the electorate...

Do not be too downhearted! Don't start thinking that is the only indication of people's confidence in you. It is difficult to see (even from the detailed results) the full extent of people's support for you - only three of those I voted for in my top 6 candidates were elected in our clergy election: so be assured that others have faith even in candidates who do not get elected.

I encourage you to think about continuing to support the church, and perhaps standing again in future. See what you can learn from those who did get elected this time; from their election addresses, and how they have become known across the diocese.

And if there are things that you think could be done a little differently next time elections are held in your diocese, please do suggest them - for example some dioceses had candidates election addresses, and even sometimes video of candidates online; or held real or 'virtual' hustings. (Bishop Alan in particular was asking for a more enlightened way of trying to do our elections. And that was before the results came out. Including his not getting elected this time either.)

So thanks again for your support by standing; please continue your interest and involvement in your parish, deanery and diocese. And please support those who were elected. Come and sit in on some of the General Synod's coming sessions: in London in Nov & February, and in York in July. All sessions are always open to non-synod members too.

Alastair Cutting (Chichester Diocese)

The New General Synod

2010-10-15T09:45:00.004Z

So, all across the country, excited new members of General Synod have been elected all this week! (Well, I guess the fact that you are reading this blog makes you & me the sort of people that probably consider synod elections exciting...) The official list is here; Peter Owen's helpful unofficial one is here.

So what happens next? Well, each diocese will be returning to Church House Westminster the official results from the elections.

New members will need the dates of General Synod meetings - but just so you have the immediate ones:

22 - 24 November for the Inauguration of new Synod in London, starting with a service in Westminster Abbey in the presence of the Supreme Governor, the Queen, who will then address the new synod back in the chamber at Church House immediately afterwards.

Synod then also meets in London again from the 7-11 of February; and in York 8-12 July, based in the university in York.

One of the other things new blog-savvy members of synod will of course want to do is to have the facility to contribute to this Synod Blog. Any member sending an email to synod@mac.com with 'Add to Synod blog' in the subject line will be included as a blog author.

And if you didn't get elected to synod, sorry - but at least you can celebrate with all the time you have saved. Dave Walker has a Press Release that you may also be able to use:

Alastair Cutting (Chichester Diocese)

General Synod results are (coming) in

2010-10-10T20:14:00.001Z

So, the polling stations for General Synod are closed (actually, it was a postal vote, but Friday 8 October was the last day for votes to arrive).

Election counting - credit link Reuters

Counting takes place this week; different diocese are holding counts on different days - Liverpool on Monday 11 October I gather, Chichester on Thursday 14.

In fact, some results are in already, the Channel Islands for example, and some in Chester. The definitive independent resource for membership lists etc comes from Peter Owen's page of Synod members. Expect to see the empty boxes on his grid populated with new members over coming days. (To help Peter keep his list up-to-date, please email him results here.) Peter also feeds a lot of synod data into the Thinking Anglican's posts related to General Synod.

What will be hard to discern at this stage, I suspect, is how the new synod will be likely to vote on key upcoming votes - like the annual parochial fees?? Only kidding...

Alastair Cutting

Online Election General Synod Addresses/Statements

2010-09-13T11:33:00.030Z

UPDATED WITH LINKS:

A number of folks have put their Election Addresses/Statements/Manifestos online. This page lists those that we have been informed of.

** If you are voting, please also see our post about voting too: Voting for General Synod, or General Custard.**

We will add any links to addresses online mailed to synod @ mac.com, or added in the comments below, for others to be able to access them quickly.

The prize for online- efficiency goes to the Diocese of Bath & Wells and Gloucester though, for not only having all their B&W Candidates papers and Gloucester papers on the diocesan website, but B&W are also holding an Online Hustings, up until 6 October.

Names are in alphabetical order of surname, within each house & diocese (where known):
Non-Diocesan candidates, including Suffragan Bishops, towards the bottom:
More...

B&W Diocese Clergy

B&W Diocese Laity

Bradford Diocese
Election addresses

Bristol Diocese
has extensive coverage including videos

Chelmsford Diocese Clergy
Phyllis Owen

Chichester Diocese Clergy
Alastair Cutting
Chichester Diocese Laity
Justin Brett

Coventry Diocese Clergy
Mark Beach

Gloucester Diocese Clergy
Geoffrey Burn
Sandra Millar
Richard Mitchell
Mike Parsons
Rachel Rosborough
Celia Thomson
John Witcombe

Gloucester Diocese Laity
William Belcher
Arthur Burgess
Steve_Grindrod
Lynda Hodges
Ruth Holman
Serena Lancaster
Carol Lee
Peter Liver
Margaret Sheather
Graham Smith
Jenny Tann

Leicester Diocese Clergy

Pete Hobson

Lincoln Diocese links
Address links

Liverpool Diocese Laity

Peter Owen

London Diocese Clergy
Jane Morris
London Diocese Laity
Rosalind O'Dowd

Manchester Diocese Clergy
Andy Salmon
Manchester Diocese Laity
James Townsend

Oxford Diocese Clergy
Rosie Harper (scroll down in post)

Ripon & Leeds Clergy
Ian Black

Southwark Diocese Clergy
Danny Kajumba

Southwark Diocese Laity
Jane Chelliah-Manning
Thomas McLean

Winchester Diocese Laity
Dan Barnes-Davies

York Diocese Clergy
Jeremy Fletcher

Southern Suffragan Bishops
+Pete Broadbent
+Alan Wilson

Alastair

Voting for General Synod, or General Custard

2010-09-10T14:06:00.000Z

So, the date for confirmation of General Synod candidates is now passed, and all over England you can hear the clicking of computer keyboards and the scratching of quill-pens as candidates fine-tune their election addresses, or statements. These go to all members of Deanery Synods, the electorate for most constituencies.

Voting is by the Single Transferable Voting system; General Synod being one of the few national organisations using it for their elections. So what is STV, and how does it work? - Well the subtleties of it are way beyond my explanations; but in short, it's not just a 'put a cross in a box'. The principle is that it preserves the voters' wishes for subsequent candidates, if your first choice candidate is not elected at the first count.

So if you have a list of 15 candidates on the ballot voting form, you don't just vote for your favourite 1. For a start, there may be 6 places to be filled (your milage may vary).

So, Yellow Custard, or Chocolate Custard?

If there are several Chocolate Custard fans standing for Synod, and you wish to support them, rather than the Yellow Custard fans, then for a start you must vote for them - all of them. But if there are only 5 ChocCustards, and 6 places available, then what? Well, YellowCustards may not be your favourites - but they may, in your opinion be better on Synod than the Marmite fans. So there could be advantages in making sure in general that all custard fans are ranked higher on your voting slip than the Marmiters.

Someone else has tried to summarise the principles as set out below. Me? I'm voting for the Marmiters.

If you have a vote, we would encourage you to use your vote fully for these candidates if you feel you can.
Numbering the candidates consecutively in your order of preference is the best way of ensuring that those you want to get elected do get elected.
It makes a big difference to go on voting down the preferences with a second and third and fourth choice and so on.
In the past some candidates from (insert 'party' of your choice...) have failed to get elected because voters only gave a first vote, whereas some subsequent votes (second and third choices etc) would have helped some candidates get over the finishing line.
The single transferable vote system which is used works in such a way that the later preferences you give in no way detract from those candidates to whom you have given earlier preferences.

Ballot papers for voting will be coming out in a week or so. Happy voting, voters!

Alastair Cutting

Nothing New...

2010-08-23T20:56:00.001Z

... under the sun. (Eccles 1:9)

Whilst hunting around for synod-relayed material, I came across a link to the site : newsynod.org.uk.

It appeared to have been set up in preparation for the 2000-2005 synod elections (hence nothing new under the sun, here).

Sadly, the site is no longer active - or at least I didn't think so. It now appears to link to a fancy dress outfitters. Wondering what that is trying to say...

Alastair Cutting

Election Addresses

2010-08-15T13:21:00.012Z

UPDATED...

You're thinking of standing for General Synod? Good.

So you have made the first moves, by getting the relevant forms from your Diocesan Office, and have an appropriate proposer and seconder? Not yet? Then you have until 3 September (a little earlier in some dioceses - do check) to get the forms in - it's not too late yet!

Then there is the whole thing of the Election Address or Personal Statement, which all candidates get a chance to make on a side or two of A4. What should you put in it? And what should you leave off?!

(Image borrowed from London, Canada's 2010 election site)

This blog doesn't have definitive answers, and I hope that people will contribute suggestions and observations in comments below. However, here are some starters for 10.

Firstly, remember who your constituency are - for lay members, it is all the lay members of all the deanery synods from your diocese. For clergy, it is those who are incumbents, and those who hold a bishop's license. They are who you are writing this for.

Key things for an address - it should be:

personable
memorable (there will be a lot of others for electors to read thru!)
honest

What about the 'Big Issues' likely to come up in this next quinquennium Synod? The obvious ones are likely to be Women in the Episcopate, the Anglican Covenant; and perhaps gay clergy/bishops and same-sex marriage. So, should candidates declare their hand, their opinions?

In the past candidates sometimes tried to disguise their opinions, or conceal where they stood on some of the key issues likely to come up. Electors would usually just like to know what your opinions are, if they are to vote for you, so making your position clear can only help them decide.

Having said that, it is important to try to do so in a way that will not alienate too many of those who disagree with your perspective. In most dioceses, there aren't enough of any single 'constituency' of opinion to make a partisan approach alone work all the way to being elected.

What else?? Perhaps add something about what your hopes are for the next session of Synod, and maybe how that ties in with things in your home diocese too. What are your hopes for the national Church of England, and it's General Synod? How do you want to see God at work in the church? Are there any particular issues you would like to make part of your focus, things that you are in a particularly strong or unique position to be able to deliver? Make sure people understand that you are not one of those candidates to be left off their voting list by accident.

To photo or not to photo? Unless you are exceptionally well known across the whole diocese, a photo of you helps remind some of those voting who you are. It's not vital, but helps clarify they have the right person in mind! Kissing babies? Careful there, unless they are your own...

Here's hoping for everyone's electioneering to the glory of God (you hadn't forgotten God at the heart of this had you?), and your part within it. Who knows, perhaps if you don't get elected this time, it may help you in becoming more involved in supporting and working with your diocese, deanery and parish in the meantime; as well as establishing a foundation for you in future!

UPDATED
Lesley Fellowes has a list of top ten tips in writing synod election addresses - unfortunately I fear her post is as a result of reading people's election addresses; and it is too late for this time around. The addresses are all published and circulated. They might be useful points for hustings though...

Bishop Alan also has some observations after being at a couple of hustings.

Alastair Cutting

The General Synod is dead - long live the General Synod

2010-07-17T14:47:00.003Z

So, at Her Majesty's instruction, the General Synod of 2005-2010 was dissolved on 13 July. A final Communion Service was held, and Synod 'prorogued' by the Archbishop of York.

The General Synod is dead; for which, some may rejoice. But only for as long as it takes to elect a new synod; and the new General Synod takes up it's place in November.

So who will be on it? Apart from the Diocesan bishops, who get places ex-officio, most will be elected over the coming months. The General Synod has a special site set up with details who can stand, both laity and clergy, and what being a member entails, and who the electorate are: http://www.generalsynodelections2010.org/

The site has a link to a video on YouTube:

There is also a downloadable leaflet from the site, with further details:

Official CofE leaflet

Some dioceses have also produced a leaflet of their own. This is the one from Chichester Diocese, and downloadable from their dedicated page too, or directly as a pdf by clicking the image below.

Chichester General Synod Election Leaflet

The contributors to this blog would encourage all who are eligible to consider standing. The timetable for the elections, which are by proportional representation by single transferable vote, is in the table below. Contact your local CofE Diocesan office for local details.

General Synod Election Timetable 2010

1	Notification to electors of the election timetable to be followed in the diocese and issue of nomination papers	Not later than Tuesday 20th July
2	Notification of the validity of any nomination	As soon as any nomination is received
3	Closing date for nominations	Friday 3rd September
4	Issue of voting papers	Friday 17th September
5	Closing date for return of voting papers	Friday 8th October
6	Day of the count	Monday 11th, Tuesday 12th, Wednesday 13th, or Thursday 14th October
7	Names and addresses of those elected and result sheet to be sent to the diocesan bishop, the Clerk to the Synod, every candidate and to the Election Scrutineer	Not later than the fourth working day after the date of the declaration of the result
8	The new General Synod is convened by the Queen at a service in Westminster Abbey	22nd-24th November

Justin & others & I have enjoyed contributing to the synodical chatter in the ether in the last 5 years, and hope that we helped to add to both your understanding of synodical processes, and to your enjoyment of synod.

If either of us are deemed electable by November, and you are elected too, please consider joining us on the blog, by emailing us at synod@mac.com, and putting 'Add to Synod Blog' in the subject line. If neither of us is elected - please someone take on the role of sharing Synod news in this way.

Thanks, & blessings.

Alastair (no longer Chichester 101)

So, what happened at Synod?

2010-07-15T13:04:00.000Z

Actually, there was quite a lot apart from Women Bishops on Synod's agenda (see further down on this) - you can see the full gamut of things covered here on the General Synod pages of the CofE web site.

Photo:Lorne Campbell/Guzelian,

These included the very diverse:

A discussion on the agenda for synod, known as the Business Committee report
Reviewing terms of office for Archbishops' Council elected members
Accepting the new 'pillar lectionary' to run in parallel with the main lectionary
Endorsing the recent update on pensions, and everything that goes with approving the instruments
The lively 'Questions' session
The presidential address by ++Sentamu
The draft budget for the Archbishops' Council for 2011
Establishing a new Faith & Order Commission, incorporating aspects of the previous 'Faith & Order Advisory Group', the House of Bishops Theological Group, and the Council for Christian Unity.
Links with the Church of Scotland
Reviews of the Constitution
A debate considering giving legal status to deaneries to aid mission & ministry
Receiving the Church Commissioners Annual Report
Receiving an Amending Canon - formally changes one of the Canons of the CofE - see photo
Directions relating to Terms of Service for clergy
Richard Moy's PMM establishing a 'library' of online resources for Fresh Expressions-style and other services/communities
Adjusting the rules of qualifying connection for weddings in parishes within a united benefice
Oh, and there was something on Women Bishops

Some of the most exciting and animated debates were the Fresh Expressions resources, and giving legal status to Deaneries debates. Both demonstrated considerable vitality and hope from local church communities across the country.

As to the Women Bishops material: There have been many headlines, there much spilt virtual ink on many tweets and blogs.

Looking back, so what happened? Well I found the commentaries by two Synod members, the
Bishop of London, from a more conservative background, and the
Bishop of Norwich, from a more liberal background, from here, contrasting and helpful.
Bishop of Ebbsfleet, one of the 'flying bishops' in place for clergy opposed to the ordination of women, leaves his comments here - he is one of those, if reports are to be believed, most likely to take up the Personal Ordinariate offer from the Pope.

Justin Brett, has another helpful post here on the Church Mouse's site, on how the headlines were rather misleading.

So what happens next? When will there be Women Bishops?
Steady on, this is the Church of England. Synod has now asked for the proposals to be sent to the dioceses to discuss, over the next year or so. Then in 2012, if the majority of dioceses are in favour, it returns to General Synod, not for changing, but for ratification.

What hurdles might there be? Well, an all new General Synod is about to be elected in the church's own version of a General Election. This takes place over the Autumn, and will be the subject of the next post on this site.

If the rumours are to be believed, the new House of Laity may not give quite the 2/3 majority support that the legislation requires. Certainly, conservative, catholic, evangelical, liberal, and central groups are all beginning to electioneer, and canvass for potential membership of the new Synod.

If and when the legislation comes to the Synod in about 2012, it needs to pass by at least 2/3 majority in each house. If it gets that, it then has to go to parliament, not for changing, again, but for ratification - or potentially being sent back. The indications if it is fairly clearly for women bishops, without too many limitations on their authority and responsibility, it should receive fair-wind. Then it will need Royal assent, and then the appointment of a woman, before the likelihood of anyone being consecrated as the Church of England's first woman bishop, in potentially in 2014/15. So, the main item on the agenda has a while still to run...

Alastair, Chichester 101

Synod: updates on the blogs

2010-07-12T11:47:00.016Z

At the start of the quinquennium 5 years ago, getting information out from synod as quickly as possible was much harder, and this blog was one way to try and fulfil that purpose.

In the July 2008 women bishop's debate, Justin was getting the votes on amendments out on this blog within seconds - this was the fastest place with the news.

Twitter has rather over ridden that now, as comments are now streaming constantly
http://twitter.com/#search?q=synod
The live Twitter feed is also available on the panel to the right here>>>

There is even a (not wholly compatible, we'll see what we can do about that) audio feed provided by Premier as well
http://www.premier.org.uk/streaming/synod.asx
Peter Owen & Simon Sarmiento keep us up-to-date with documents and sources and press news on Thinking Anglicans
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/

So much for the instant, the immediate responses to what is going on in the synod chamber. But how about the slightly more considered 'lay' (as opposed to press/news) commentaries? That is where the blogs can help us. They are all very individual, but help add to the bigger picture. here is a list of some of the ones we know of - let us know of others and we will add them to the list:

Edwin Barnes: http://www.theanglocatholic.com/
Nick Baines: http://nickbaines.wordpress.com/
Mark Beach: http://rugbyrector.blogspot.com/
Justin Brett: http://dodgyliberal.blogspot.com/
Church Times: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_home.asp?id=50222
Maggie Dawn: http://maggidawn.com/
Lesley Fellows: http://revdlesley.blogspot.com/
Kathryn Fleming: http://goodinparts.blogspot.com/
Jerry Fletcher: http://jeremyfletcher.wordpress.com/
Scott Gunn: http://www.sevenwholedays.org/

David Hamid: http://eurobishop.blogspot.com/
Trevor Jones: http://peterite.blogspot.com/
Peter Ould: http://www.peter-ould.net/
John Pritchard (on Lesley Followes blog) http://revdlesley.blogspot.com/2010/07/bishop-john-pritchard-on-outcome-of.html
The Church Mouse: http://churchmousepublishing.blogspot.com/
David Virtue: http://www.virtueonline.org/
Alan Wilson: http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/

Further suggestions can be added in the comments box.

Alastair, Chichester 101

Lots of reasons to vote against the Archbishops amendment

2010-07-11T00:39:00.003Z

So the Archbishops, without speaking to any other group, just days before Synod, come up with a new amendment to the Women Bishops legislation.

Most Synod members I was in touch with before gathering in York, were variously bemused, confused, annoyed or just downright livid. Why? Two main reasons. Firstly, it rather runs rough-shod over the work of the Steering Committee, who had taken months reviewing every-which option, and then it did something different. Secondly, and more importantly for me personally, it seemed to 'deliver' to nobody.

(photo: JoanaHard)

The archbishops' amendment firstly seemed to be re-introducing at least a degree of transference of responsibility and/or authority, in having 'co-ordinaries'. This must in some ways be perceived as taking away from the authority of potential women bishops in the future.

This adjustment was introduced - presumably - for the benefit of the traditionalist catholic members of the church. However, this is precisely the group that would least accept the diminution of any bishop's authority, responsibility, or jurisdiction. So it doesn't seem to suit either of the key parties it seeks to support, so appears completely unfit for purpose.

As a member of the synod who has been in favour of ordaining women to the episcopate, and voted for that; but (and not only because I am from the diocese of Chichester) I have also tried to take particular care to support those who find the ministry of women in the episcopate hard/impossible to accept.

In the run-up to synod, most of my reading and conversing led me to think that, despite it's significant sponsors, I was going to vote against the archbishops' amendment.

However, a number of things made me start to change my mind. I was aware that though this amendment didn't satisfy everybody; actually neither did any of the other amendments either, nor the measure itself; and synod needed al least something workable. The archbishops were giving an opportunity for a way forward that perhaps tried to inflict the least pain possible if people rallied around it.

Reports suggesting that the CofE was creating yet another fudge portrayed the whole debate in a more negative way than struck me as the reality. Mark Beach's blog also perceived this not very clean solution as being a rather more Anglican way of doing things. So here it is. Flawed, incomplete, compromised. But perhaps also gracious, enabling, and hopeful.

I had earlier spoken with a bishop for whom nothing less than separate dioceses would do (the first option that was rejected in debate) - but later I found that he was prepared to shift significant ground, and re-consider the archbishops' amendment as maybe a workable solution. He had been prepared for the sake of the Gospel and the church to move to a much more central position. Another bishop, who we have heard lobbying at other times for the simple 'single-clause measure', also spoke privately and and in debate about this perhaps being a real way forward. Here possibly was a solution that was both Catholic and Reformed - rather like, well, the Church of England.

The voting (now widely reported elsewhere: For: B25/C85/L106; Against: B15/C90/L86; Abs: B0/C5/L4; amendment passed in house of bishops and laity, but lost in the house of clergy, so lost overall) actually recorded an overall total number of votes in favour - but being recorded by houses, was lost - just like a crucial vote in 2008. And no house had a 2/3 majority, which is what will be required in a final vote.

I didn't like the way that this proposal still hints at women bishops having to be prepared to share some of their authority - but actually, in a diocese like mine, where none of the bishops will personally ordain women to the priesthood, under this proposal such a non-ordaining bishop would also have to share some of their authority.

That's why, against my original intention, and weighing all the reasons why I should have voted against the amendment, I actually voted for it, and am pleased to let the record show it. It is part of being a loyal Anglican; not un-thinking, kowtowing, or in blind obeisance; but for the sake of God's kingdom and it's traditional catholic, conservative evangelical and women episcopal members.

Monday's continuation of this debate will have more to tell us - this story is not yet finished...

Alastair, Chichester 101 (slightly apologising for a more personal and opinionated submission than I usually seek to post)

All Those Amendments...

2010-07-07T14:59:00.002Z

Justin has posted a very helpful explanation of how and why most of the amendments work, and how they will affect the proposed women bishops legislation on his blog. His theology - by self proclamation - may be both dodgy and liberal; but his insight in to the synod's debating process is insightful and illuminating.

Alastair, Chichester 101

Here we go again...

2010-07-06T08:57:00.002Z

Another July, another trip to York, and another huge debate about Women Bishops. Before I was elected to Synod in the Autumn of 2005 I went up to York in the July to see the Women Bishops debate, and get an idea of what Synod was like. And now, five years later...

Of course, women bishops are not the only topic of discussion at York - you can find a copy of the full agenda here or a brief digest here - but revision of the legislation will take up a large amount of this last Synod meeting. Alastair has already posted a link to the Revision Committee Report and the Draft Measure, and all the amendments are now in. This document tells you the order in which they will be debated, and Peter Owen of Thinking Anglicans has written a very useful summary of what they all mean here.

So what else is on the Agenda? There are a number of amendments to the Clergy Pension Scheme - you can find them all listed with the rest of the Synod Papers here - which are summarised in a general Clergy Pensions Report. The Diocesan Synod Motion about Deanery Synods that Alastair had hoped would be discussed in February is firmly on the Agenda this time round - he might be writing more about that in due course. There is also another bit of structural change that could be interesting. There is a proposal to appoint a Faith and Order Commission to replace the Faith and Order Advisory Group (FOAG), The House of Bishops Theological Group, and the Doctrine Commission (which has not met for several years). Sensible streamlined government, one would suspect, but the new group will be, like its predecessors, an entirely appointed body. I would expect some rumblings at least as to why Synod does not have a greater say in who is part of it, given that Synod has at least played a part in setting it up. There is, of course, a report - and you can read it here.

So, presuming you have nothing better to do, how can you join in the fun? Hopefully the Twitter feed from York will be entertaining. You can follow me, Alastair, Pete Broadbent and others individually - and of course the GeneralSynod twitter identity that feeds tweets directly from this blog. You can also use the #synod hashtag, and tweets mentioning "synod" show up live in the panel to the right in this window. There will also, no doubt, be some live blogging going on here and elsewhere. The Church Mouse has kindly invited me to do a guest post again, and as usual there will be some less objective stuff going up here. There should also be a live audio feed available via Premier Radio, although at the time of writing I am not too sure how to find it. On the other hand, England are probably losing a cricket match somewhere too...

On a final and more serious note, as ever there are aspects of this Synod that will be very difficult for some of us, and we would all be grateful for your prayers. Please pray especially for those who feel themselves to be under attack for their beliefs over the next few days, and for all of us that we can be open both to the Holy Spirit and to each other as we try to figure out where the Church of England goes next.

Justin
(GS 373)

Seeing through clouds

2010-05-10T23:44:00.001Z

So, the Revision Committee have produced their document on Women Bishops in preparation for July's General Synod.

A key feature is what Bishop Pete Broadbent calls 'monoepiscopy' (one Diocesan Bishop having authority in the Diocese) - as quoted by the Church Mouse.

Bishop David Hamid has a great word cloud from the report, which I blatantly link to here.

How will synod members, and those even further removed from the process of the debate, be able to see anything through the clouds I wonder?

Alastair, Chichester 101

Some Synodical Sweeping-Up

2010-02-14T14:42:00.000Z

So, that's it for another five months or so - Church House is preparing for the next conference, and the Synod staff breathe a short sigh of relief before the preparations start for York in July. Needless to say, the process is beginning of picking over the bones of what we did and didn't do in the course of last week. My own musings have been kindly hosted by the Church Mouse here so I won't bore you with them again. Also on the Church Mouse's blog is a very good summary of what he sees as major events of the Synod. In case you want the official version, you can find links to lists of decisions and audio of the debates here on the Church of England website.

One thing that has been interesting over the last few days has been the increasing use of Twitter. As Alastair and I were two of those who spent a lot of time up in the gallery 'tweeting' it was rather gratifying to see this blog post about the possible future and benefits of social media in a forum like General Synod. These days, a broadband connection has the potential to get you right to the heart of an extraordinary variety of events.

Anyway, that's about it for now. It only remains to add a huge thank you to all those people who have followed us, read the blog and prayed for us over the last few days. Thank you all for sustaining us during what could have been a very difficult week.

Justin
(GS 373)

ACNA debate

2010-02-10T19:01:00.001Z

So, the much-trailed debate on what sort of relationship the CofE can have with ACNA, triggered by Lorna Ashworth's private member's motion, took place thus afternoon.

Many wiser words are recorded elsewhere - but I was left reflecting on what was going on here. That is to say, who can we be friends with. And especially, whether you can be friends with two friends, who are not any longer friends with each other.

I was also trying to work out was what was being asked for here - potentially being in communion with two different churches within the same Anglican province, was a new precident or not - that may have had more significance on the result of the debate.

I found the answer - yes we already do have places where there are more than one group of Anglicans on the same patch. Europe for one - where the CofE diocese of Gibraltar in Europe overlaps with a the European wing of - oh yes - The Episcopal Church, TEC.

Thanks to Ruth Gledhill for the interview/pic

Alastair GS101

++Rowan : archbishop, theologian, preacher

2010-02-10T13:07:00.010Z

Dr Williams is a gifted and acknowledged academician - who can turn out a book on Dostoevsky in a brief sabbatical! Yet, his work is sometimes is often so rich and dense that the ordinary man or woman on the street to understand. Shucks - his academic work is hard for the ordinary cleric - certainly this one - to understand too!

Then there are the times that the Archbishop of Canterbury makes speeches from one of his many formal roles. There are times when these carefully crafted speeches are so subtly worded that again things are not so immediately clear to listeners.

And then there is Rowan’s preaching. What struck me, as he spoke briefly in this morning’s Synod Communion service, is how eloquent he is in preaching. In fact it was more than that - animated, lively, speaking freely, God-focussed, passionately, hardly taking his eyes off the members of the congregation.

To me ++Rowan looks more at ease preaching (- particularly in less formal settings), and is easier to understand, than in most of the other situations we hear from him. “Papa don’t preach”?? No way - “Preach, man Preach”.

(Wished I had taken a photo myself - but it was in the middle of a service...)

Alastair GS101

In praise of the Rowan Williams sound-bite

2010-02-09T18:44:00.004Z

Archbishop Rowan's presidential address is widely available on the net already - in fact it was up almost as soon as he finished speaking - so I won't bore you with a blow-by-blow. You can read the text here or in a number of other places. However, here a couple of fragments that I wanted to record.

"Not all goods are comparable in a fallen world"

"Christian freedom is freedom from isolation - to be free is to be free for relation"

"The other we meet is the person he or she is, not the person we have created in our fantasies"

He's not always the easiest speaker to follow, but the effort is almost always worthwhile - and rewarded by small delights like the fragments above.

Justin
(GS 373)

Democracy and Legislation

2010-02-09T16:49:00.002Z

I noticed an interesting phenomenon in Synod this morning during the legislative business. One set of amendments was put forward to the Code of Practice associated with the clergy discipline measure by one of the lay members from Salisbury Diocese, who happens to be a lawyer. His arguments were technical, but seemed to me to make good sense. Nevertheless two of the three were not debated at all by Synod. This is because amendments to legislative business in these circumstances are only debated if 40 members in the Chamber stand to show that they want a debate - and in this circumstance 40 members did not stand. There are good reasons why this rule is in place - it makes it more difficult to subject legislation to death by a thousand amendments, for example - but there are times when I wonder about the wisdom of it

The sequence goes that the proposer of the amendment has his five minutes, and then one of the sponsors of the legislation to be amended can get up and issue a rebuttal. Only then does the Chairman ask if 40 members will stand for the amendment to be debated. Now, in the case of these amendments we had a lawyer standing up saying that there was a potential legal problem with the code of practice - immediately followed by a bishop (who to my knowledge has no legal training) saying that there was no legal problem without bothering to address the concerns that were raised. And it was mid-morning, and synod was bored and sparsely populated, so only about 20 people stood. But here's the thing - those twenty members included all the synod members whom I know to be lawyers. I wonder what it was that they wanted to say. It could have been that they were all going to agree with the bishop, but I would still have liked to hear them.

And that goes back to my title, I suppose. Legislation is often - but not always - rather technical and more than a little dry. Lawyers often don't manage to make it any more accessible. Elected representitives are not always elected for their ability to unravel legal arguments - or even stay awake for them - and so it is that when confronted with a legal argument and a bishop saying it's all OK they go with the bishop. There isn't an answer to this, of course - and in this case I have no idea who was correct anyway. Still, it brings to mind the old adage that democracy is not always the best way of governing - it's just that all the other options happen to be worse.

Justin
GS 373

Live Synod Twitter stream

2010-02-09T12:07:00.001Z

There is now a live feed of Twitter comments that include 'Synod' in them on the sidebar at the right.

Twitter is very ephemoral - but very immediate. Bliog posts necessarily take longer to create, and are possibly more considered. It hink the two run well together in helping show what General Synod is up to.

Alastair Cutting; GS 101

Opening of Synod, and where are the Women Bishops?

2010-02-08T23:09:00.026Z

Usually the first day of Synod includes a plan of what is to come.

There are the expected welcomes and introductions, and usualy something from the Business Committee (who set the order and the agenda for Synod meetings).

So no Women Bishops debate this February. The Bishop of Manchester's Legislative drafting group had just too many people to hear from, and too many individual submissions to be able to come to this synod with legislation his time around.

The Bishop of Manchester was timetabled to give an update - most of which Ruth Gledhill was able to post about even before the words came out of his mouth. The Business Committee decided to prevent any discussion or even questions following the presentation, which I thought was a shame, but would probably have been some of the 'same old, same old' speeches, with no immediate way of concluding - so perhaps they were right.

However, this has triggered two things in my mind. After the Pope Benedict XVI signalled the Apostolic Constitution last October, Bishop Andrew Burnham suggested that the Feast of the Chair of St Peter (22 February) as a suitable day for clergy and parishes to "make an initial decisions" as to whether they wanted 'go' or not. That of course, on an earlier understanding of the debate timetable, would have come immediaely after discussions at this February Synod. The synical in me wondered if it would have allowed dramatic taking their ball away if the debate had not gone in the way they wanted. So now, with no extra debate, what wil the 'decisions' on 22 Feb be? I am guessing much less portentous.

Curious also that Reform should have used the start day of Synod to get publicity for their 'Warning to Synod' (dated 8 Feb) over women bishops. And after being on the go since late 2007, the number of clergy signatories on this is reported as, well, 50. (Recent church stats reveal over 12,000 licensed clergy, and a further 4,500 active retired clergy.)

Alastair GS 101

Feb 2010 Synod

2010-02-06T17:09:00.000Z

Justin has already reminded us about the start of the next sitting of Synod, with links to the material.

He has aso been flirting with the Church Mouse, and has One and Two posts there with more background on next week's agenda.

Last year's February Synod was the first that had Twittering added to the live blogging (Bishop Pete Broadbent signed up and started twittering from within the chamber, and the Archbishop of York now also tweets) - look out for Synod or #synod tags next week to see what is happening. If it works, I think that the rss feeds from this blog should show up on the GenSyn tweets, and Justin and I will be tweeting too. Tweet back to us...

Along with material here on the General Synod blog, there is much on Thinking Anglicans, Ruth Gledhill, Church Mouse and others I have accidentally failed to list, and then linked on from them.

As to subject material this time around, I'm glad that Women Bishop's isn't being debated (though there will be an 'update'); but it is only postponing the inevitable difficult debates until July, the last sitting of the current Synod.

Much air-time/newsprint so far on Lorna Ashworth's 'Lets be friends with the Anglican Church in North America' motion. I am worried by two things around this debate: by schismatics, which ACNA, with perhaps good reason, are; and by being in communion with some who act in a way that seems like they are out of communion with me, whilst others who are out of communion, seem closer to the agreed theology and doctrine of the Church of England of which I am a part.

Practically the final debate of this session is on what legal status Deaneries have, and as our local deanery has been working around this for a number of years, I will be interested in the direction of this debate being introduced by the Coventry diocese - I may even try to get to speak. So no sneaking off early from synod for me then...

Alastair Cutting GS101

Happy New Year

2010-01-11T20:09:00.004Z

While most of us are still crawling out of our snowdrifts and attempting to return to normality, almost unnoticed the outline Synod agenda for February has appeared. You can access it here, and in due course the full agenda and more paperwork will appear on this page.

There are several items of interest on it - both in terms of presence and absence. Notable for its absence is any legislation concerning the consecration of women as bishops. Given the smoke signals over the last few months this is no real surprise, but I doubt that whoever is doing the presentation mentioned in the outline agenda will get an easy ride. Present we have no less than four Private Member's Motions (all pedants please feel to comment on the position of the apostrophe) at least two of which might cause something of a stir. It will be interesting to see the reaction to the motions calling for recognition of ACNA and equal pension provisions for clergy widows/widowers and surviviors of civil partnerships. There might also be some controversy over the TV coverage of religious issues.

Also present is a large amount of legislative business (a symptom of the fact that we are drawing near to the end of the quinquennium) and four Diocesan Synod motions. I am not sure about the background to any of these, and no doubt more will appear in due course, but Manchester's motion about the compatibility of Science and Christian Belief could provoke some debate, and I am intrigued by Chelmsford's 'Confidence in the Bible' motion. In fact, the more I think about that particular title, the more I wonder...

Justin (GS 373)

Rome says "Welcome..."

2009-10-21T16:07:00.001Z

Well, there was a surprise! Yesterday's unexpected hurriedly put together press conference in London, responding to the Vatican's scheme for special Anglican ordinariates appears to have put cats amongst pigeons.

I am seriously struggling to understand what all this is about, where it is going, and I await the 'details' with interest.

It feels a little like we are being told: 'You know where the door is to come in, but here is a window you can climb in through, too'. Except I'm not one that feels I am standing outside, needing to come in. I'm already at home (even if some of the members of the family are a little strange).

If the CofE is truly catholic and reformed (or at least supposed to be!), I can see that for some, it may appear to be losing, or have lost significant degrees of it's catholicity. But this new 'solution' appears to reinstate quality catholicity at the high price of any degree of remaining reformed. I mourn any diminution of our catholicity - but so do I mourn any amelioration of our reformation.

It still sounds a bit like the little Orthodox book on ecumenism that I've picked up in Cyprus a number of years ago. Of the breakaway Roman Catholics, it says: You want unity? Of course you may have it. Simply renounce your schismatic ways, repent, and return to Mother Church and we will have unity.

I do hope that where the Roman church is saying "Welcome...", we are not saying "Grandma, what big eyes you have; what big ears you have..."

Does Rome really want this sort of complicated, bi-polar unity, with these sorts of Anglo-Catholics? I thought Bishop Alan's Blog was helpful. Many more links through Thinking Anglicans as usual.

(I had been half way through planning an update post on Women Bishops, but this subject has queue jumped it... Later.)

Alastair Cutting GS101

Early morning radio, and how many bishops?

2009-07-13T16:01:00.000Z

One of our Chichester General Synod members is Gavin Ashenden (to be accurate he is a University's rep; not a Chichester one, but we lay a claim to him too.

In his spare time, Gavin also runs the Radio Sussex/Surrey Sunday morning programme, nicknamed 'Get up with Gav'. When he is running short of sensible material, Gavin has been known to trawl around anyone who owes him a favour - which on a couple of occasions has included me. I did a very brief bit for his show a few weeks ago, and I got a 4am text message request on Sunday morning. There was a gap in the shows schedule - could I help fill it...

Rev'd Dr Canon Gavin Ashenden, at 5:30am

Over breakfast, I managed to trace another Chichester synod member, Lorna Ashworth to join me for the live link up (one earpiece each, chatting on mobile phone live with Gavin).

Lorna spoke a bit about her Private Members Motion is support of the ACNA, and Gavin asked me a bit about the synod motion from Bradford Diocese asking to reduce numbers of senior posts - especially bishops. Having been a member of the Chichester Bishop's Council for some time, and seen the work of bishops and archdeacons through the lens of being a General Synod member, I know the tremendous calls on their time and energy. I understand the expenses currently incurred by senior staff make them look 'expensive' but cutting their number will not help significantly. The discussion with Gavin provoked me to think of contributing to the debate.

Daily Telegraph report

"When was the last time you saw your bishop?" was the opening line of my speech, picked up by some of the press. My own speech was not nearly as erudite or historical as that by the Archimandrite Ephraim Lash - one of the ecumenical observers at synod from the orthodox church, who suggested that what was needed was the orthodox tradition of a bishop in every village! (The Church Commissioners blanched at the thought!)

It's not that we bishops, or other senior staff don't want to be in the parishes; they are too stretched to be so. So we need more of them. Not as they currently are, but in a different way. Already in some provinces the role of Archdeacon has been absorbed into the role of the Rural Dean.

Not long ago it was unheard of to have NSM clergy in charge of a parish, but now it is relatively common. How about NSM bishops? Yes, well it needs a bit more thinking through than just that, but we need to find ways of doing things a bit differently - and that was some of my 'heads-up' suggestions. Some folk seemed to warm to the idea.

... I may be able to add audio in to this post later...

Alastair Cutting GS101

Opening Doors - especially to those with Learning Difficulties

2009-07-12T14:30:00.002Z

I have always loved watching the signing for the deaf at Synod, and have posted on this elsewhere. Sunday afternoon has a debate on those at church with Learning Disabilities, and the the things that affect them, following a report called Opening Doors.

My wife trained as a teacher of those with learning difficulties, and still teaches them. I love the phrase 'Special Education', however pejorative it is sometimes misunderstood to be. These are special people. Before university, I worked on one of the large 'mental institutions' (as they were then called) set outside London - one that was so secure, that it was used as the film-set for the 70s sitcom 'Porridge'... How glad I am that many of those people are no longer 'imprisoned' but free to be in the community.

Churches, in my experience, 'collect' 'interesting' people. People with various learning difficulties have been members of every church I can remember have had 'special' members of the congregation. We have at least 3 'care in the community homes in our parish.' Should I have spoken today, I would have talked of:

Neil, who knows all the cricket scores form yesterday's matches, and can recite massive lists of kings of England, or programmes on the tv tonight, or the order of saints days of the year;
Mark who comes faithfully each Sunday for our service, and sings and joins in with responses loudly, even if he cannot read the words for them. One day when we used an old chorus, Mark knew every word by heart. He asked me recently "My dad's gone to be with Jesus. But he's not died has he?"
Ewan and Carol come to our Wednesday service each week. Ewan is dying to be thurifer for us - even though it is not our tradition, especially on Wednesdays.

I love these characters, they add much unexpected colour to our services (I have changed their names, but our congregation will know who they are!). Each has faith in their way, and in the words of the DVD that came with this report, help teach us to pray. Several speakers have said: "We have much to learn from people with learning disabilities". May we indeed have Opening Doors to these members of our communities. A report warmly received.

Alastair Cutting GS101

July Synod Friday's business

2009-07-11T20:39:00.000Z

Belatedly, as initial attempts to get online proved difficult...

Justin has already added a post, and Thinking Anglicans already has a write-up on Friday.

Links to all the papers for July's Synod are here.

Live feed from debates (via Premier Radio) are here.

The agenda on Friday, as usual started with the presentation of the Business Committee's report. They put the Synod agenda together, finalising what is on the agenda, and how debates are to be tackled. This July they got a rough ride as they decided to finish synod early, on the Monday evening. Some synod members felt not a wide enough consultation had taken place warning of that, and the many people had already booked train tickets etc and couldn't then cancel. There were a number of other issues about what was, or was not on the agenda. A grumpy start to Synod.

Then there was a presentation of a report from the National Stewardship Committee. Presented in a very lively way by one of Synod's elder statesmen. I am all for young members of Synod; but not at the exclusion of this sort of wisdom. We didn't quite finish the debate, and had to return to it later...

The final part of Friday's work was Questions. This synod, questions put by members were only to be for written answer, unless a verbal answer was particularly requested. This is, in my opinion, a crass move of synod, which most members circumvented, by asking for a verbal reply anyway.

The list of questions, and answers, does not yet appear to be online, but Simon Sarmiento 'Twittered' most of them.

In fact, the Twitter-ing that started at the February Synod has continued in a lively vein in York in July, and the live stream is available here.

Alastair Cutting GS101

Synodical Government

2009-07-11T20:12:00.001Z

At the start of July's General Synod, there have been one or two questions around synods, synodical government and the processes of how the church structures work.

The Church of England is "Episcopally led, and synodically governed", it is said. That means bishops have a say, and synod has a say. Both, it would appear, feel that sometimes 'the other' hampers the way they would like to operate. The House of Bishops, often a very diverse gathering of individuals, can at times - like one of those great shoals of fish - suddenly all sweep and swoop as one. Majestic to behold. And a few moments later, scatter once more to their individual pursuits.

One of the questions sitting at the back of Synod's mind, and sometimes at the front, and even voiced a number of times this July... is 'What is Synod for?'.

Synod, though often described in the press as 'The Church's Parliament', is really other than just that. Yes, it has legal business to deal with (this morning synod voted to change laws from the 1500s!).

But what should synod be for, and how how should the established church carry out it's business? I have some experience of the Anglican church in Aotearoa/New Zealand, where their General Synod, drawing people from a wide area of the the south Pacific, meets only once every 2 years.

Of course meeting as infrequently as that (though possibly appealing to some of the CofE General Synod!) , and saving considerable sums of money, has the negative consequence that people actually meet others so rarely, and creating fellowship becomes more of an art. The networking that the CofE synods allow is more than just friends meeting friends at the expense of parishioners; it is part of how we work as the national church.

There remain though, some real concerns that Synod (and possibly the Archbishops' Council) currently aren't quite fit for purpose; and we need to find ways of working slightly differently. Many old grey heads around - where are the under 40s; some are asking (he writes, slightly worriedly at the far end of the 40s). We need to have some of the next generation of leaders engaging in the church's structures and processes. (That does not preclude the wisdom and vitality of some of our older synod members - one almost septuagenarian led a very lively and important presentation, with a number of brilliant interventions including an up-to-the-minute cricket score!)

Blogs and Twittering at synod have been regarded with some light-hearted interest but assumed peripheral; but I wonder if some of the use of new media and styles might be pointers towards other ways of communicating, and debating.

But if I remember, ++Rowan's opening address of this quinquennium of Synod (which was before this blog got going) reminded us that the root of the word synod means 'walking together'. Just as gathering around the Lord's Table, eating together, is a family-oriented model for church; so is the idea of walking together.

This July's Synod has started a bit grumpily. The Agenda debate gave the Business Committee a hard time, and a number of debates have been crotchety, and the 'group work' considered inadequate this year. A third of the way in, debates on the Archbishop's Council and its budget, and tomorrows debate on the Constitutions, all point to some movement about how we may best be synod; how we may best facilitate the mission and ministry of the church of God in England.

Alastair Cutting GS 101

Synod Twitter Feed

2009-07-11T10:07:00.002Z

RSS Feed

GenSyn (this blog) Twitter stream

When is a Motion not a Motion...?

2009-07-10T14:24:00.006Z

When it's been amended.

Last time round I described the sequence of a debate through amendments and so forth, in an attempt to unpack a little of the process that we go through in turning a motion on the agenda into a resolution passed by Synod. One particular tactic that I didn't say much about last time - although it's the one I tried to use myself - was the tactic of complete substitution - "Delete all the words after 'This Synod' and add..." Obviously, one reason why someone would put an amendment like this in is because they think that the proposed motion is just completely wrong and ought to say something entirely different, and there is an example of this in the proceedings this session: Philip Giddings (Oxford Diocese, Chair of the Mission and Public Affairs Council, Vice-Chair of the House of Laity) has put in a "Delete all and add..." amendment to the debate on the Review of Constitutions.

However, there is another reason why this sort of amendment turns up, and we have two examples this time round. One is the contingency business, the other is the motion below:

The Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford) to move on behalf of the Bradford Diocesan Synod:
‘That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council to formulate proposals for reductions in the numbers of episcopal and senior clergy posts, taking into account reductions for the number of stipendiary clergy since 1979; and submit a report with recommendations to the General Synod within three years.’

Unless there is a very good reason why they shouldn't be debated - and Southwark's motion to rescind the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (Resolution C) is an example of this - motions from Diocesan Synods are always debated at General Synod, in the order in which they are received, and unlike Private Member's Motions they do not lapse at the end of each 5 year synodical period. However, this can result in some pretty forthright motions being put forward, and this is one of them. Clearly, a motion expressed in such bald terms would not necessarily be received with open arms by the hierarchy, but at the same time it would not be sensible for the powers that be to try openly to defeat such a motion. So what is the establishment to do? To the rescue comes our old friend "Delete all and add..." The tactic is to replace something potentially dangerous with something very much more anodyne - then everybody can support it, nobody in authority has to speak against it, and nothing much will happen as a result. This is how it is done:

Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell & Nottingham) to move as an amendment:
Leave out all the words after 'That this Synod' and insert:
", welcoming
a) the recent establishment of the new Dioceses Commission;
b) the decision of the House of Bishops to decouple, from January 2001, national support for episcopal ministry from actual episcopal numbers; and
c) the intention of the Archbishops' Council to prepare for the new Synod in November 2010 a progress report on the delivery of changes to the present pattern of dioceses and of episcopal deployment."

In Synodical terms, Christina Baxter is a very major player. She is Chair of the House of Laity, a member of the Archbishops' Council, and involved in a great deal else besides. Obviously, a Bishop could not have put this forward, it really had to be a lay person. The fact that Christina has been chosen to do it gives some indication of how seriously this motion is being taken.

I have to say, I hope the motion goes through unamended - for two reasons. The first is that I don't like this kind of interference. Bradford Diocese wanted a particular motion to be debated, and they should get that debate, not the debate other people think they ought to have. The second reason is that there is something peculiar about a church that has fewer people in the pews, fewer priests, but more people exercising oversight.

You can find more information from Bradford about their motion at here and a response from the Dioceses Commission at here.

Justin (GS 373)

Back Again!

2009-06-24T18:24:00.004Z

Well, here we are again, all getting ready for another York Synod. You can find the outline Agenda here with links to the various Synod papers. As of today (24th June) I'm not sure all the papers are up there, but the list should be complete by the beginning of next week as the final mailing goes out to Synod Members on Friday.

It might be a little quieter than usual in York this time. This Synod will be shorter - it's finishing on the Monday rather than the Tuesday as normal - and it doesn't look as though we will be arguing about sexuality or women bishops this time round. Still, I'm sure the usual suspects from the Blogosphere will be keeping you abreast of things, and Alastair and I will be Tweeting - we might even get some episcopal tweets from Pete Broadbent. For those of you who understood that last bit, look for #synod from Friday 10th July onwards! My username is justinbrett, Alastair's is AlCutting and Pete's is pete173.

See you in York!

Justin (GS 373)

Missed Synod? - Watch again...

2009-02-18T16:35:00.000Z

Last week's General Synod is due to be televised on BBC Parliament on Friday 20 February 2009, starting at 9am with Cardinal Cormac's address to Synod, and Archbishop Rowan's address at 11am. Several sections are to be repeated

Find the details of programming here.

Alastair Cutting GS101

Some Synod-Related Stuff

2009-02-17T20:40:00.003Z

I have generally tried (and usually failed) to keep my posts here as objective as possible - at least when they are reporting Synod business. However, you might possibly be interested in two pieces from my other (new) blog which is intended to be a little bit less objective. The first of them is on the Covenant Process - where are we and how did we get here sort of thing - the second is a few further thoughts on the BNP Debate.

My intention from now on is to try to do Synod reporting on this blog and provide subjective comment on the other blog - along with whatever other things occur to me in the gaps between Synods...

One final comment - it has been fascinating to see the growth of internet use over these last three years at Synod. Twitter has been a particular revelation this time round. Alan Wilson is a great fan (and fast on his way to becoming a Twitter guru) and I'm sure there must be others out there. If anyone comes up with any good ideas about how to use all this new media - in particular Twitter and Facebook - in the context of General Synod then I would be delighted to hear them. I suspect Alan would be too - he has mentioned a social media day in Oxford on 1st April. Anyway - see you all around (in a cyberspace sort of way) in July if not before.

Justin
(GS 373)

Asylum & Sanctuary

2009-02-13T11:22:00.003Z

Tinsley House Detention Centre, Gatwick Airport;

close to my own parish

One of synod's brilliant women clergy, Ruth Worsley, introduced a motion on asylum seekers on Friday morning. What at first glance might be considered a rather predictable synod sort of motion was actually inspired by some very valuable and practical work in Nottingham dealing with asylum seekers.

In preparation for the debate, Westminster Abbey had those seeking asylum, and today's synod debate, as the focus for the early morning Eucharist. After communion, synod members were able to meet some London based asylum seekers, and informally chat to them over breakfast in Cheyneygate.

Cheyneygates, as part of the original abbots accommodation in the abbey, and a place of sanctuary, seemed an entirely appropriate place to be meeting those currently seeking sanctuary.

I chatted with Duncan, an asylum seeker from XXXXXXX in Africa. Scars are evident on his head and face. He has been separated from his wife and three children for about 7 years, and though now he has regular phone calls with them, it was not always so, being out of contact for over 2 years at one point. He was part of a political oposition in a country where such 'legal' opposition is crushed by the party that has been in power for over 20 years.

One synod contributor felt that this country's system for asylum seekers could have been created by King Herod after reading Kafka. Another, seeking to allow a couple of Christian asylum seekers to marry, yet prevented currently by the need for banns to be read in another close diocese, is considering a little civil dissobedience to allow Christian marriage to more properly procede.

Although living close to Gatwick, and having visited on a few occasions, I am not personally very actively involved at the detention centre there, as they have a very effective chaplaincy already, and a good Welfare Group.

The motion, strengthened (unusually) by ammendments, was passed almost unanimously, 242 for, 1 against, 1 abstention. A powerful and worthwhile debate.

Alastair Cutting GS101

In Praise of the Tom Wright Sound-Bite

2009-02-12T16:46:00.004Z

Bishops have a reputation for being delightful, but sometimes perhaps a little dull - one might have the picture of the episcopal gentleman of Synod settling with gravitas (and the aid of a good lunch) into their chairs ready for the afternoon session. Dull, however, is not an adjective that one could apply to Tom Wright. He is an academic theologian of renown, and of course Bishop of Durham. He is also a master of the synodical sound-bite. Here are some gems from today:

"How do we tell which differences make a difference?"

"Lay Presidency in Sydney and Gay Presidency in New Hampshire"

"The very rich are doing for the very rich what they are not doing for the very poor"

"We need an economy that puts the needs of the poor first. We need Jeremiah-type repentence."

Justin
(GS 373)

Hope for Zimbabwe

2009-02-12T14:45:00.054Z

Archbishop John Sentamu of York, in an iconic tv moment, cut up his 'dog-collar' in an interview with Andrew Marr in December 2007, in a protest against Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe.

Archbishop Sentamu has not worn a clerical collar since, and says he will only do so once Mugabe has gone.

In an unrelated Synod debate on the UK's Financial Crisis and Recession, Sentamu was introducing the item, still without collar.

I had wondered though, after yesterdays swearing in of Morgan Tsvangirai at last as Zimbabwean Prime Minister, if there might be perhaps a half a collar evident. But no. But then neither has the president left.

Alastair Cutting GS101

A jar, an empty cupboard, and kissing the hand of the Queen

2009-02-12T11:59:00.065Z

Synod spent some time exploring 'Legislative business' - on Suffragan sees and other ecclesiastical offices (appointing some bishops and others...).

Recent changes in how senior CofE appointments are made - and No 10 and the Crown's involvement in them - were being discussed. Apparently, during some vacancies, in effect the Crown gains some rights, only returned to bishops when they make their oaths of allegiance to the monarch - and, we were led to believe, kiss the hand of the Queen.

As the Crown no longer wants to claim the 'jar' during a vacancy, as Pete Hobson put it, the 'empty cupboard' is no longer really needed. Except that, without the legal framework of the cupboard that could otherwise be disposed of, there would be no meeting of the newly appointed bishops with the Supreme Governor of the CofE. Indeed, the whole framework of the established nature of the church might be at risk, apparently. Christina Baxter, who has spoken of disestablishement before, wondered if this was the only reason for keeping this bit of legislation, this empty cupboard.

The bishop of Guildford brought some interesting light to these peculiar proceedings. Indeed just last week he had been at the formal swearing of oaths of two new bishops. During this, the Queen takes the hand of the new bishop, and the 'Clerk of the Closet' holds a copy of the scriptures, which is what the new bishop kisses.

For the Queen to be fully aware of who the new bishops in her church are, and that new bishops have their primary focus on the scriptures - however quaintly demonstrated - both sound good principles to me; even if it is strange to keep an otherwise empty cupboard...

Alastair Cutting GS101

A bunch of Twits

2009-02-12T10:06:00.018Z

Do you find all the reporting from Synod just too much?

If you want to follow Synod Reporting Lite, then Peter Ould spotted the text-message-long reporting available via Twitter.

Follow it here.

Alastair Cutting GS101

Reflecting on Women Bishops, and being ‘in communion’

2009-02-12T09:26:00.016Z

So the next step towards women bishops has been taken, keeping the CofE ‘on track for consecrating women bishops in 2014’ as Robert Piggot put it on the BBC. He also reported that this was making it more likely that some conservatives would leave the church.

The trouble is people are going to leave, whatever the Synod decides to do - or even decides not to do. Because doing nothing is not a workable option in a church whose synod has said there are no theological objections to he ordination of women, as traditionalists keep on hoping; and consecrating women bishops will almost definitely exclude some from the church too.

This slowly-slowly, gently, ‘period of reception’, let’s aim not to cause division, try not to hurt others feelings: is a very Anglican way of doing things, and is perhaps making the current process so much more difficult now. When the church of Rome decides to make a change, it is simply pronounced, and is enacted immediately. That day. Sorted. We
in the CofE try to be so much more accommodating, consensual. Synodical.

Take the ‘period of reception’. Traditionalists say we have not had long enough for that yet. That’s fair enough - but how long is long enough? It will be 15 years this year since women were ordained priest in the CofE. In informal conversations with some traditionalist colleagues, when I have ask them about how long the period of reception should be, the answer appears pretty close to a mathematical definition of infinity. Or some say until the Roman Catholic church accepts women in ministry. (In a slightly cynical moment, I wondered if some might then flee from such liberal catholicism to the Orthodox church.)

A ‘Fresh Expression’ of bishops was what the bishop of Dover, Stephen Venner, intimated as a possible way forward in yesterday’s debate. Some sort of alternative dioceses perhaps? Back in the July synod, in the first day long debate, I spoke of the church in Aotearoa New Zealand, and it’s three ‘Tikangas’, or ‘cultural streams’. Three layers of church laid over the map of the country, for the Maori, Pakeha (white settler), and Pasefika (the Diocese of Polynesia) churches. All sharing the same multi-lingual Prayer Book, canons, General Synod, and orders; but with different theological colleges, and little active interaction at anything other than national level. I suggested that this might be a way forward - but that it was far from a panacea. How much are they all really part of the one church? What of being in communion? Really in communion?

At the time, I thought it had little more to offer us in the CofE other than being interesting construct, but an unlikely pointer towards any solutions for us. I have begun to think otherwise. I have already submitted a short summary of the pattern and structures of the NZ church to the Manchester Group, and in the light of Bishop Nigel McCulloch’s conjecture that ‘every thing is now up for grabs’ in the next stage of drafting the legislation, I will probably submit something a little more substantial.

As things stand, I cannot see how complementary bishops will suit either those seeking, or rejecting, women in the episcopate. We need something different; and these ‘layers’ of church - rather than separate provinces - has every chance of being as realistic a way forward as most of the other possibilities.

However, I suspect that if there is a mistrust in an individual's orders, it is hard to be in communion with them. And not being in communion, it would seem to me, means fundamentally being in different churches already. Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with the other three ‘Instruments of Communion’, may remain the focus for unity and being in (the Anglican) communion. Until the Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman, that is...

Alastair Cutting GS101

Evangelism and Justice

2009-02-11T18:21:00.077Z

Wednesday afternoon's debates involved a Private Member's motion, and a Diocesan Synod motion (actually basically the same motion from two Diocesan synods - Newcastle and Winchester).

Paul Eddy's motion was to ask the bishops to report to the Synod their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in our multi-faith society, with examples and commendations.

There were a number of potential amendments, and in advance, some considerable concern about how this debate may go - would it be to inflammatory? Or would it be moved on - or wrecked - before the dabate got going? In the event, a positive debate was had. Even our very own Justin Brett, confessing himself to be the wooliest of liberals, contributed, reminding that even (especially??) liberals also need guidance! It was great too see in the public gallery at least one (guessing from their dress) Muslim observer. There was a moving anonymous speech from a someone who's life had been threatened because they had converted from Islam to Christianity. Many contributors spoke of sharing the good news of the Gospel, sharing stories of Jesus. Amendments seeking significant change in the motion were lost, and with a small addition, the motion significantly passed. Good to see that the General Synod still sees the centrality and uniqueness of Christ as important...

The later debate was on the Human Trafficking. Interesting that two dioceses had come up with similar motions on this issue, and they made a joint presentation before the debate on the motion got going. Bishop Pete Broadbent encouraged synod to be informed through the StopTheTraffik organisation:

This wasn't simply a motherhood and applepie debate that none could vote against, but a cry from the heart. It was unanimously passed.

The twin strands of Mission and Social justice, both coming up from the grass-roots, is one of the good things about Synod.

Peter Ould has much more fine detail on his blog, as does Ruth Gledhill on hers.

Alastair Cutting GS101

Join in the chorus... (Minister)

2009-02-11T14:41:00.008Z

Martin Dales, in the 'Church Water bills' debate just led the assembled Synod in singing:

"The rains came down and the tax went up...
and the charities in the land fell flat."
(Ruth Gledhill was the first to get the choir online...!)

There are serious problems for churches and other chartities who have surface water run-off being charged at commercial rates.

They are singing again, in the hope that the 'House' across the road hears...

Update...
I have commented before on how there is often an expert within synod on virtually any debate. Today, it was the turn of a churchwarden from Southwark diocese, who in his work-life happens to be chair of OFWAT, Philip Fletcher. He accepts Synod will probably vote through this motion, but had some useful observations, especially encouraging synod not to pass the amendment.

I also ought to add the link to the important background information in the Don't Drain Us site.

Alastair Cutting GS101

Women Bishops - what happens next?

2009-02-11T12:29:00.008Z

Today's debate is asking that the draft measure, and the amending canon, in relation to women bishops go forward to the next stage: the revision committee. That is where the various pro- or anti- arguments may be put (again...).

There are to be no amendments to the simple motion being debated; so I am unable to acquiesce to petitions I have received asking me to vote for or against various parts (for example the Code of Practice).

There were not many new suggestions within the debate; although I think I want to hear a little more of what the bishop of Dover was beginning to suggest.

It has often been said that the Church of England is one church, with two 'integrities' in regard to ordained women's ministry. However, if on the one hand some cannot accept the ministry of women priests or the authority of women bishops legally and properly ordained; and on the other hand some seek women's ministry at every level; it would appear we have no longer one, but two - or probably more - 'Churches' of England.

This has been the case before (with a few variations of 'continuing CofE' churches), and may possibly happen again. Or some will perhaps feel they can no longer call this church home, and seek shelter elsewhere completely. Let's pray that does not happen; or at least not soon. First let us see what the revision committee brings back to Synod, in the hope that it is the gentlest and most inclusive, yet real, way forward possible.

Revision starts soon, with a large hall having been booked for those meetings, to allow observers to be present...

Alastair Cutting GS 101

Women Bishops: Blogging It Live

2009-02-11T08:37:00.017Z

Useful links: You might want to look at any or either of the Order Paper, the Report from the Drafting Group, the Draft Measure, the Draft Amending Canon, the Illustrative Code of Practice or the Explanatory Memorandum.

The fact that we don't have a whole series of amendments means that there is unlikely to be very much concrete to report in real time. I plan (if I can find a place in the Chamber with a power supply and wifi signal) to update this blog entry with whatever I find subjectively interesting as the debate goes on - as well as a report on any major upsets! So, refreshing this page regularly should give you an idea of the progress of the debate.

I also plan to use Twitter to send very brief notes of anything interesting that is said, although that too depends upon circumstances. I don't want to have to do it from my mobile as I am the world's slowest texter...

So, it begins with +Manchester speaking for up to 15 minutes to introduce the motion. There will follow two 7 minute speeches from the different perspectives. Then we move to the normal time limits.

The Chairman has said that more than 80 people put in to speak, so it's going to mean disappointment for several...

Highlights of +Manchester's speech.
1. Note that this is a new stage in the process. The fact that amendments were defeated in July is not an obstacle to proposing them again. "It's open season once again and everything is renewable."

The aim is to have a Revision in full Synod next Feb. - it will take that long for the Revision Committee to get through the submissions they will receive.

The two long introductory speeches from Christina Rees (Chair of WATCH) and +Beverley - one of the PEVs

Christina described the draft measure as a 'jigsaw put together with a hammer - pieces don't quite fit properly'. She is particularly concerned about the specially nominated suffragan sees and how their holders might relate to the House of Bishops as a whole.
She is also worried about what conclusion to draw from the aspects of the provisions that in her view perpetuate an idea of women as in some way a 'flawed creation'.

+Beverley thinks that the legislation does not do the job. It doesn't enable people to stay if conscientiously opposed. Jurisdiction remains the problem - his theology demands that he remains in full communion with the diocesan bishop - that he is able to regard him as father in God. On a Code of Practice - he was convinced that it will be chipped away once Act of Synod is rescinded. He urged those sympathetic to him to support him in rejecting the legislation at this point.

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks we want to vote for something manifestly good news for all of us. Are the proposals now good news for anyone? Is the Revision process going to give us the space to work out continued problems? If it isn't good news for everyone in the end, there is something missing. He is guardedly optimistic, but reminded people that he abstained in July because he was not convinced that the motion then was good news for all of us.

Very good speech from +Norwich. He doesn't like it - he thinks the legislation will create a damaged episcopate and he can't see what could be done in revision to make it better. It all seems to be about avoiding ministry. He will vote against the measure because he doesn't sense the leap of joy and feeling of anticipation that good news should bring. God will show us a better way in time.

Some other brief notes. +Bath and Wells very wisely suggests that we really ought to be thinking more about wider issues of gender - in particular whether we still need to be thinking simply in terms of issues of power. Edward Keen, one of the Synod Youth Reps wants us to reject the legislation now as it doesn't make enough provision. Rod Thomas - an evangelical opponent - suggests that we should vote against for three reasons. The first so that proponents too can experience defeat, secondly to send a message to the Revision Committee, and thirdly to show those who think the way he does that the rest of us still care...

A random thought. It is looking quite balanced at the moment - voices in favour and against as always - but I would very much like to know how many of those 80+ requests to speak were in favour of the motion and how many against. It's not just the usual suspects standing up, and even though we are hearing some of the same stuff as ever, there is a different feeling this time around. Can't put my finger on it exactly, but I am not entirely convinced just now that this is going to go through.

+Dover. Three points: 1. Code of Practice represents the majority deciding what they think should satisfy the concerns of a minority. 2. The Code of Practice is not liked by anybody. 3. Current legislation demands that at the start of a bishop's ministry he or she has to delegate some of their powers. He would like to see a 'Fresh Expression of Bishop..."

Archbishop of York endorses comments about Revision Committee being able to do anything. But he also doesn't like the Code of Practice. I think what he's asking us to do is pass it this time, and then try to get the Statutory provisions back afterwards - not that he said it directly.

The summary so far is something like this. Nobody likes what is currently on the table. Some people don't like it so they want to kick it out now. Some people don't like it but they think they might be able to live with it. Some people think that we can use the Revision Committee to do it all over again so that we come up with something else. This is all a bit mad.

+Manchester now summing up.

Moment of truth. For:281 Against:114 Abstained:13

So that's the Draft Measure through - we now have formally to dispatch the Amending Canon in the same way. It's interesting that there was such a majority - we are at 2/3 of the whole Synod, which I hadn't expected. It's also interesting that we did not have a vote by Houses.

Short debate now on the Amending Canon - ssdm really (same stuff, different motion) except for one glimmer of relief fron John Freeman, suggesting that perhaps if episcopal oversight was exercised by the whole House of Bishops corporately then it might solve our problems...

So now the vote on the Amending Canon. For:309 Against:79 Abstentions:14

Justin
(GS 373)

Women Bishops: Introduction to the Debate

2009-02-11T08:30:00.001Z

Here we are then. Another Synod, another Women Bishops Debate. First question - how does this one differ from the last few? The big difference this time is that we are now talking specifically about legislation - about how we change the rules. The previous debate - in York last July - was all about first whether we wanted to be presented with draft legislation, and if we did then what form we wanted that legislation to take. Now we have a first look at the draft legislation and a chance to discuss it.

Second question - what are the possible outcomes of this debate? Let's start with what won't happen. If we pass this motion then we will not have decided that there will be women bishops in the C. of E.; we will simply have gone one step further towards that point. Secondly, we can't change the draft that we are discussing. We are deciding whether or not we want to send it for revision in Committee. Actual revision will be done by the Revision Committee (yet to be appointed) and in Synod at a later stage. The only outcomes possible is a yes or no decision about going on to the next stage.

So what is the point of the debate, and what might we learn from it? First, it's another check to see if we want to go ahead. The motion could be lost, and if it is then there will be no more progress on women bishops for at least the remaining two years of this Synod. Secondly, it is a chance for everyone to see what the current state of opinion is about the proposed legislation. Various people will no doubt stand up and say the same thing all over again, but others will show that their opinions have changed, or offer suggestions as to how the legislation can be revised. There will also be a certain amount of straightforward politics - many members of Synod would probably like to be on the Revision Committee, and what people say in this debate and how they say it may well make a difference as to who is eventually chosen.

There is a final thing we might learn, too. Although there will probably be procedural motions of one kind or another, the only real vote will be the one at then end of the debate. Always at the back of the mind is the fact that when it comes to final approval - if the process gets that far - a majority of 2/3 in each House of Synod will be required. The vote today will be electronically recorded, and almost certainly by Houses. Thanks to electronic voting that means not only will we know how close each House to a 2/3 majority, but also exactly who is voting which way.

Justin
(GS 373)

Anatomy of a Debate: Part 2

2009-02-10T17:09:00.013Z

So, at 2.30pm the afternoon session begins. On our chairs we find Order Paper III, which explains (unsurprisingly) the order in which items will be voted upon. It is therefore our first indication of how the debate will progress. You can read the whole thing by following the link, but the bit that is relevant for our debate is reproduced below:

Ms Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark) to move:
11. 'That this Synod, noting that in 2004 the Association of Chief Police Officers adopted a policy whereby:
"no member of the Police Service, whether police officer or police staff, may be a member of an organization whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the general duty to promote race equality" and "this specifically includes the British National Party",
request the House of Bishops to formulate and implement a comparable policy for the Church of England, to apply to clergy, ordinands, and such employed lay persons as have duties that require them to represent or speak on behalf of the Church.'

Mr Justin Brett (Oxford) to move as an amendment:
28. Leave out all the words after "That this Synod" and insert "affirm that membership of any organisation whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the promotion of race equality is incompatible with the Apostolic Christian faith.".

If item 28. is lost:
The Ven Norman Russell (Archdeacon of Berkshire) (Oxford) to move as an amendment:
29. For the words "noting that in 2004" to 'British National Party" substitute "recognising that every human being is made in the image of God".
Leave out "comparable"; and
At the end insert ", which makes clear that racism has no place in the life of the Church.".

If item 28. is lost and whether or not item 29. is carried:
Mr Tim Hind (Bath & Wells) to move as an amendment:
30. Leave out "clergy, ordinands, and such employed lay persons as have duties that" and insert "persons whose duties".

So, despite the fact that mine was submitted last, it will be the first amendment to be voted upon. If it is passed, then the other two amendments become irrelevant. If it is not passed then the next to be voted on will be Norman Russell's. Whether or not that one is passed, Tim Hind's will then be put to the vote next, and after that we go back to the main motion, in whatever form it now stands. Before we continue, one point is worth making at this stage. You may or may not have noticed, but in this whole amendment process, at no point do we see anything other than the changed text in an amendment. In Norman's this is particularly important - if you look at the previous blog post you will see that it makes some very particular changes to the look and feel of the motion that are not easily seen from the Order Paper text.

Now we have the Order paper, and the Archbishop has given his Presidential Address, so it is time for the Bishop of Gloucester to take the chair. This is the point at which we get our second indication of how the debate is going to progress. I said above that the order paper determines the order of voting (although this can be changed by the Chairman of the debate) but it does not determine the order of debate. That is determined by the Chairman, and in this case the Chairman's first act is to lay out the following programme. The motion will be introduced, and moved, by its proposer. She will have up to 10 minutes. There will then follow a debate on the substantive motion. After some speeches, each person who has proposed an amendment will be asked to speak to his amendment but not to move it. There will then be further speeches focused upon the amendments, after which the amendments will be formally moved and voted upon. There will then be a further debate on the main motion - as amended or not - before it is put to the vote.

I suspect I might need to put my debaters anorak on for a moment. To speak to a motion or amendment means just that - to make a speech about it. To move something in debate has a very specific meaning - it opens the clause, motion, amendment or whatever up to debate, but it also means that discussion may only be about that particular item until it has been voted upon. Moreover, when an amendment to a motion is moved, the proposer of the original motion has an immediate right of reply before there is any other debate. So, the Chairman's ordering of business this afternoon effectively separates the proposer's speech for each amendment from the response to it, and also from the specific debate about it. It was at this point that I realised all three of us proposing amendments were going to be stitched up.

This was always going to be a frustrating debate - after all, you're not going to get anyone standing up and saying that they support the BNP in the middle of Synod, which means that it would focus upon what we do about the fact that we all think racism is wrong. Inevitably that is pickier and more messy. What actually happened was a procession of speeches mostly saying exactly the same thing - Something Must Be Done - with variations on the something. None of the amendment speeches was received with particular enthusiasm, and the speeches from the floor that followed were not really that engaged with the amendments. When it came to the process of formal movement and debate, mine fell after it was effectively killed of by the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of Canterbury managed a similar hatchet-job on Norman's amendment, despite a last minute attempt to rescue it from the Vice-Chairman of the House of Laity.

I need to put the anorak back on for a minute, don't I. It is entirely at the Chairman's discretion who gets to speak in a debate. People fill in 'request to speak' forms, which sometimes help the Chairman decide who to call, but essentially it is his business how he balances the debate and whom he calls. However, there are some people whom he ignores at his peril... If either of the Archbishops, either of the Prolocutors (Chairs of the Houses of Clergy for Canterbury and York) or the Chair or Vice-Chair of the House of Laity stand to speak, it is expected that they will be called. Obviously, this can put them in a very good position to influence a debate. Philip Giddings, Lay Vice-Chair, is a particular master of this technique - popping up occasionally like the proverbial demon king. Sadly, it did not work this time.

Tim Hind's amendment was dispatched with slightly more debate, but it too fell - by one vote as it turned out - and we were back to the main motion. A few speeches later and it was all over. The motion was, of course, passed overwhelmingly, but it wasn't passed nem. con. I will put the actual figures in later - probably tomorrow - but 20 or so abstained and a dozen or so voted against. And now we move on to the next thing...

I might post a little more about this particular issue in due course, but I hope that this rather long pair of posts will have served a useful purpose. What I hope it will do is first reveal a little of the hidden mechanisms behind a debate. It also may well be interesting to compare what account I have left here with whatever appears in the media over the next day or so.

Justin
(GS 373)

Anatomy of a Debate: Part 1

2009-02-10T09:15:00.006Z

This afternoon, the following Motion is appearing before Synod:

PRIVATE MEMBER’S MOTION:
MEMBERSHIP OF ORGANIZATIONS WHICH CONTRADICT THE
DUTY TO PROMOTE RACE EQUALITY (GS Misc 903A and B)

Ms Vasantha Gnanadoss (Southwark) to move:

11. ‘That this Synod, noting that in 2004 the Association of Chief Police Officers
adopted a policy whereby

“no member of the Police Service, whether police officer or police
staff, may be a member of an organization whose constitution, aims,
objectives or pronouncements contradict the general duty to promote
race equality” and “this specifically includes the British National
Party”,

request the House of Bishops to formulate and implement a comparable policy
for the Church of England, to apply to clergy, ordinands, and such employed
lay persons as have duties that require them to represent or speak on behalf of
the Church.’

As part of the process of preparation for Synod, members received two briefing papers. One was from Ms Gnanandos explaining the background to the motion and its purpose, the other was from the Secretary General outlining some responses to the motion. It is interesting, first of all, to put the two of them next to each other and do a little reading between the lines - especially with the second paper. William Fittall is a bit of a Sir Humphrey, and there is very little of what he says that is not in some form of code.

What happens next does so along two different paths. The first of these is outside Synod - the court of public opinion, if you like. In a case such as this there is usually some media interest. Some of it is actively sought by Synod Members - it is interesting how the same people seem to appear so regularly on the radio at this time of year, for example - some of it comes from the media themselves looking for a story. In this case it is almost certainly a bit of both. The fact that Sir Ian Blair is so publically involved suggests that some of the media attention has been specifically sought through press releases, and the usual suspects have been out and about on the airwaves this morning. It is also the case, though, that racism is always of interest to the Media, so no doubt some of the coverage is also generated by them. Obviously, the Synod does not exist in a bubble apart from the outside world (even if we behave that way sometimes) so this sort of media attention will feed back into the debate.

The second path for further developments is an internal one. What can you do with a motion before Synod? Well, obviously you can pass it or not, but the other thing you can do with it is amend it - or try to. Why might you want to amend a motion? A variety of reasons, I suppose. There are plenty of technical amendments - indeed these are a vital part of what Synod does. If you spot a mistake, or an unintended consequence in a piece of legislation then it needs amending. But what do you do if you really don't like a motion as it stands but you don't want to have to vote against it? Answer - you try to amend it so that it says something you can agree with. At the moment we have three amendments proposed to themotion above. This is what they look like.

First is Tim Hind's. Tim is an old hand on Synod, and his amendment is a very light touch change to the last part of the motion. Under his amendment the last paragraph of the motion would read " request the House of Bishops to formulate and implement a comparable policy for the Church of England, to apply to PERSONS WHOSE DUTIES require them to represent or speak on behalf of the Church." The effect of this seems to be to point out just how general any proposed code of conduct would have to be, and consequently how unlikely it would be to succeed in doing so.

Second is Ven. Norman Russell's. Norman is another experienced member of Synod. He is Chairman of the House of Clergy for Canterbury (or Prolocutor in Synod terms) and a member of Archbishops Council. Norman's amendment is rather more extensive. The effect of it would be a motion which read as follows:

'That this Synod, recognising that every human being is made in the image of God, request the House of Bishops to formulate and implement a policy
for the Church of England, to apply to clergy, ordinands, and such employed
lay persons as have duties that require them to represent or speak on behalf of
the Church which makes it clear that racism has no place in the life of the Church.’

As you can see, this is a very different animal to Ms Gnanadoss' original. There is no mention of the Met., and the bishops are given a very definite steer as to what their policy is supposed to show. It remains within the scope of the initial motion, but it has very different potential effects.

Thirdly, there is mine. This removes the wording of the original motion entirely and replaces it as follows: 'That this Synod affirm that membership of any organisation whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the promotion of race equality is incompatible with the Apostolic Christian faith.' Of the three it is the most radical in terms of changes to the original motion - although Norman's is perhaps more forthright in terms of language. I have put it forward for two reasons. The first is that the original motion does not actually say anywhere explicitly that racism is wrong. The second is that I have understood Mr Fittall's carefully coded briefing to be saying that rules as proposed in the motion would be pretty much impossible to apply to Church members or enforce in any meaningful fashion. They will sound good, but have no useful function. And that, really, is my concern. Either racism is a grievous affront to the loving God who created all of us in his own image, or it isn't. If it is such a thing, then what are the guidelines from the House of Bishops for? I fear that the answer to this is so that we can avoid our own responsibilities in this matter and hide behind the rules. Racism is sinful, and those who promote it promote evil. As individual Christians and as a Church we need to shout this from the rooftops, not put it in a policy.

So - there you are. What I will try to do later today is describe how the debate itself goes. I realise that this has been rather a long post, but hopefully it gives you some insight into what actually happes behind the scenes before a debate - and also a glimpse of potentially how much difference a few members of synod acting in concert can make to a debate. Don't forget, we are your representatives. We will always act according to our own consciences (or try to, at least) but we are here to act on your behalf too!

Justin
(GS 373)

So what do you actually do at Synod, then?

2009-02-09T17:57:00.009Z

I get asked this quite a lot. I usually reply that Synod is sort of like the Church of England Parliament, so I am a sort of Church of England MP. It occurs to me that this afternoon I might have been behaving according to type...

Having arrived at Church House at about lunch time, I got taken out to lunch by a friendly journalist. (Actually, it was Giles Fraser who is also a member of Synod and Vicar of Putney as well as a columnist for The Guardian and The Church Times, and a regular on Thought For The Day.) After that there was just time for a cup of tea before Synod opened. We welcomed new members, then we had what is called the 'Progress of Statutory Instruments'. Lovely title. What it means is that the Archbishop of Canterbury tells us what synodical actions have become Law since the last session.

Then we had the report of the Business Committee about the Agenda. This is a chance for any member to stand up and say what they do or don't like about the Agenda, but they are not allowed to comment on the actual substance of any of the motions. The result of this is that speeches on the Agenda tend to fall into two groups. The majority are pretty technical - why has X been included but not Y, or shouldn't we have done Z first, or doesn't rule 73 a) iv) say we should have done it the other way round. That kind of thing. However, every now and then you get someone with an axe to grind... At this point, the skill of the Chairman comes to the fore. It was the Bishop of Dover this afternoon, a formidable gentleman, but he almost met his match. Most of the time debate in Synod is very gentle and extremely polite - not at all like the House of Commons, very much more like the House of Lords - but this afternoon we had direct confrontation. The Bishop came out on top, but there was a definite battle of wills going on, and we don't often see that at Synod - at least not so plainly.

Nevertheless, the Report was duly noted, and we moved on to welcome the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. It might be the first time that the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in this country has addressed general Synod - hopefully one or other of our readers might know the truth of this. The Cardinal spoke very movingly about his experience of ecumenical initiatives and about how the Catholic Church and the Church of England were working together. His speech was followed by a debate on the ARCIC II report 'Church as Communion.' At this point I adjourned to the Tea Room to plot and scheme.

The result of the plotting and scheming is an amendment to tomorrow's motion on BNP membership, of which more in a different post, but it did mean that I will have to leave Alastair to comment further on the ARCIC II debate. This is one of the slight frustrations about Synod - especially in London when we are only together for the times when Synod is in session rather than 24/7 as we are at York - that if one is to do anything other than simply listen to debates, it requires making choices about when you are in the Chamber and when you are out in the tea room or wherever, trying to find out what other people think and what they are doing. Still, this is my Parliament parallel. If you look at the televised debates from Westminster, you will see that the Chamber is very seldom full, yet most MPs are in Westminster most of the time. As much gets done in the corridors and around the tables in the tea room as gets done in the Chamber. Synod, essentially, is very similar. No doubt tomorrow afternoon will reveal whether or not this afternoon has been wisely spent...

Justin
(GS 373)

Open Synod

2009-02-09T09:13:00.002Z

Justin has pointed out already below where you can get details of the Synod agenda.

This is just to add that one further way that you can enjoy Synod is of course to come and see it in action in person. Synod sessions are open to the public, who are welcome to sit in the gallery (as space allows - and it is rarely packed to capacity, though often well attended).

I, and I am sure Justin, or other Synod members that you know, would most likely be happy to meet you and sit with you there.

If you would like to contact me once Synod has started, the best method is by SMS text to 07736 676106.

Alastair Cutting GS101

February Agenda and methods to enhance your Synodical Enjoyment.

2009-02-07T14:36:00.005Z

It's that time again! All over the country, hardy Anglicans are digging out their snow shoes and getting ready to brave the blizzards as they prepare to set out for London on Monday for the start of General Synod. You can see an outline agenda here and you can find the full agenda and links to all the documents here.

If you want to enhance your enjoyment even further, there are several ways you can experience the joy of Synod in almost real time. Premier Radio are providing a live audio feed of debates here. You will need a broadband connection and Windows Media Player or something similar to listen in.

Also, in addition to as much on-the-spot blogging as we can manage, I, and possibly Alastair, will also be tweeting. No, I'm no more cuckoo than usual (sorry) - I'm talking about T witte r. If you want a brief explanation of what Twitter is, then try Bishop Alan's Blo g. Incidentally, if you haven't come across Bishop Alan Wilson's blog before, you're missing a treat! My username on Twitter is justinbrett and Alastair's is AlCutting - and when you get bored of us you can always follow the exploits of Stephen Fry, Jonathan Ross, and Eddie Izzard to name but a few.

And finally... There may be some difficult patches ahead for this Synod - several potentially divisive motions, for example, and no little uncertainty about how we progress on a number of fronts. All of us about to head for London would very much value your prayers over the coming week.

Justin (GS 373)

Big Issues in the Anglican Communion

2008-08-11T09:33:00.013Z

This blog is usually seasonal, and tied to the dates & times of General Synod.

However, as the Lambeth Conference draws to a close, hot on the heels of the General Synod in July, and GAFCon in June, it has been a summer for hot debates - even if the British Summer has yet to get going - allowing for some additional inter-synodical posting.

Lambeth had many ‘Big Issue’ debates, or ‘indabas’ as apparently we now call them (though reputedly some debates were not properly had) - covering a number of Communion-splitting issues. They have been well covered elsewhere (for example here, and here and their subsequent links).

At least one of the reasons given by some not attending the Lambeth conference was because ‘the fabric [of the Anglican Communion] had been torn’ by the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2004. This got me thinking about some of the Big Issue debates that the church has had throughout it’s history.

What have some of the church-tearing issues of the past been? Well, before the writings New Testament were even complete, there was the questions about food offered to idols - still a current issue in some parts of the world, such as India, where I grew up as a child; or whether to become a Christian one had to first become a Jew - leading to what became known as the most un-fun sounding ‘Circumcision Party’.

Later, the even more significant church-ripping events were the filioque creedal clause that created the separation of the Eastern church from the West; or the Reformation that caused the separation of Protestant from Roman Catholic denominations, and the later sub-divisions based on infant or adult baptism (the CofE supports both); or even the abolition of slavery debates that John Newton and William Wilberforce were involved in

It is traditional, of course, for any remaining group to belittle the ‘reasons’ that a secessionist group had for splintering, (which is what Anglicans generally do with Methodists, and is one reason why the CofE still has to put up with Henry VIII wives jokes from RC comedians, even though there are Orthodox jokes at the expense of the RCs as well... ). It is easier to jest, rather than trying to understand the often well established thought processes and theological arguments that are the fundamental causes for the divisions, whichever group the secessionists may be:

Lambeth Report video on the Colbert Report

So what might some of the next (God forbid...) Big Communion-Tearing Issues be? Well, I suspect:

Lay Presidency
the Centrality or Uniqueness of Christ;

and perhaps

‘is the CofE/Anglican Communion “Catholic and Reformed” or “Protestant”?’

It is possible the last of those, Catholic & Reformed or Protestant, has already been answered for us in recent comments by Cardinal Bertone (for the Roman Catholic church) and the Orthodox church, comments summed up by ‘you can never really be one with us if you have women bishops’ - like we had ever even got close before, when we had women priests, or women deacons, or married male priests - or in fact any priests/bishops at all that were not and are not recognised by them, which the CofE never has been. But frankly, even if the Anglican church is not Protestant, it still clearly Reformed, because it saw a need for Reformation from where it had previously been allied; so that distance should not have come as a sudden surprise to Orthodox or Roman Catholics, even if it apparently has this time to Anglo-catholics shocked at Synod’s decision...

Eucharistic Presidency - presiding at Holy Communion is normally a rôle reserved exclusively to priests and bishops. The discussion of whether others not ordained priest could preside at communion services, ie Lay Presidency, was dismissed by the CofE house of bishops back in 1997; however, it is an area that as been raised by the Diocese of Sydney, and has also been spoken of in other CofE circles in the past. For the more catholic elements of both the CofE and the Anglican communion at large however, lay presidency is an anathema.

A contrasting anathema for evangelicals is the idea that the Centrality/Uniqueness of Christ to the Christian faith could be watered down. That was perhaps partly what was behind Paul Eddy’s mysteriously evaporating and controversial (as apparently a majority of bishops were against it) Private Members Motion* that was first on, and then off the agenda for last July’s Synod. Some commentators saw it as a short-sighted and potentially damaging motion that would be detrimental to interfaith relations in the UK and abroad. Others see it as a vital drawing of a line in the sand to make sure that orthodox Christianity is not lost. It is understood that the motion will return to the Synod's agenda in future.

* The original text of Paul Eddy's Motion:

That this Synod request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain's multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.

Alastair Cutting GS101

Post Script
This blog normally fluctuates in it's appearing according to Synod dates, and consequently so do it's viewing figures. However this July, with assistance from other posters, and especially Justin's magnificent tour-de-force on the Women Bishop's debate (where I am reliably informed, vote results were going up within 35 seconds of being announced - the fastest on the net!) there was a huge surge in interest. For those interested, the graph below comes courtesy of SiteMeter's tracking:

John Hartley's take on Women Bishops Debate

2008-07-11T14:35:00.000Z

With his permission, I am adding John Hartley's commentary on the women bishops debate, first posted on a list at www.coin.org.uk:

___________________________

Here's my take on what happened in the debate on women bishops.

The debate got off to a bad start when the bishop proposing the motion explained that the wording was agreed by the House of Bishops, but the question of who would propose it was harder, and eventually he had been dumped on. Therefore during the debate he would merely try to clarify what the various amendments said rather than speak against them. I immediately wondered why there wasn't a bishop who was prepared to stand up, say that the House had definitely made the right choice, and persuade us all to follow its leadership?

Fortunately we were rescued from floundering by the chairman's wise decision, on each of the amendments, to invite two people to speak in favour and two against, rather than simply calling people and taking pot luck about which way they would speak. If he hadn't done this it would have been terrible, with there being no clear lead from the platform.

The motion said the Synod agrees with women bishops, and that we should have a code of practice which everyone should "have regard to", to make provision for those who can't accept women bishops. It asked the Drafting Group to prepare the legislation and code, so Synod could consider them in detail, consult the dioceses, and finally approve them.

The dissenters had already said they would not be satisfied with a mere code of practice: for in saying that a woman bishop should/must delegate powers, it would implicitly admit that a woman bishop has powers to delegate and therefore that she is a bishop. And 900 women priests had already said they
would rather not have women bishops than have anything more than a code of practice. So both sides had already declared there would be no compromise. Which there wasn't.

In successive amendments, we then voted:
- not to abandon the statement that we are in favour of women bishops,
- but to modify it so as to say "a majority of us are in favour" instead of "this synod is in favour",
- not to ask for all options in the Manchester Report to be kept open,
- not to ditch the code and rely on local provision only,
- not to allow separate dioceses,
- not to allow any other form of separate arrangements in the law, and
- not to explore Transferred Episcopal Arrangements in parallel with the draft law and code.

This last amendment was the closest vote: by a simple majority it would have passed by 3 votes, but because it was only passed in one house (the clergy) and lost in the other two, it was lost overall. But I voted against it, because it basically just postpones the pain.

Then we broke for dinner, and afterwards the hurt emerged. A proposal to create "flying women bishops by the back door" was defeated. A "rescue package" for the objectors, to bolster the code with legal provisions so that it couldn't be changed except by a two-thirds majority, was defeated.
A proposal to reduce the content of the code was defeated. A proposal to make the code statutory was accepted. And a proposal to make the code mandatory (instead of just the "have regard to" line) was defeated.

And the result was a proposal to make women bishops with a statutory code of practice for dealing with those who dissent. It won't satisfy those who dissent. It probably won't satisfy the 900 women priests either, since the code is now to be written into the law and will have the same kind of weight
as the resolutions A and B and the Act of Synod did.

So finally, there was a move to adjourn the whole debate, which would give time for reflection - and I was in favour of that. But it was defeated, and we voted for the main motion. It passed in the House of Bishops, but not clearly enough to show that two-thirds of them will vote for it at final approval. It passed in the laity but by definitely less than the two-thirds figure. The only house it passed comfortably in was the clergy - where I voted against.

I'm a supporter of women bishops, and I basically agree with the 900 women clergy. So why did I vote against? For two reasons: first, I don't want the code to be statutory, because I don't want the discrimination enshrined in law the way the present anti-women-priests regulations are. And second,
I have no gift of prophecy, but I think these proposals are doomed to an unhappy end.

Here's what I think might happen: the proposals will come back as draft law plus code in February, where they may fail to be accepted. But if they are accepted, then they'll then go through the revision committee stage, and out to the dioceses. In the mean time the 2010 General Election will turn into a single-issue matter. Unless the make-up of the Houses of Bishops and Laity changes significantly by 2011, the law and code will fail to get its two-thirds majority and will be lost. And then we won't be able to restart the process until 2016. And if that's the choice, then I'd rather lose the whole thing now and have a chance of restarting it all again in 2011.

To me it is very sad that the debate had little in it about trying to persuade thinking people that they might have got their theology wrong. As an evangelical I have still not given up hope of helping my evangelical opponents to see that 1 Tim 2:12 does not say "I do not permit a woman to teach a man", but rather that it says "I do not permit a woman to teach at all". Because all evangelicals agree that some women nowadays do have teaching ministries - and therefore none of us live by the stricture of what it actually says - that women should keep silent. Instead the verse is a statement of one particular person's take ("I do not permit" - not "It should never be permitted") in a particular place - which that same person did not take in other places (e.g. 1 Cor 11:5 which permits a woman to prophesy). That same person had already admitted that there is a difference between his advice and the Lord's word (1 Cor 7:10 & 12). I don't understand the Anglo-Catholic people so well, but presumably others have not yet given up hope of persuading them that their ecclesiology is wrong?

Anyhow, that's my take on what happened. I'm sorry it's taken me a little while to get my thoughts onto paper, and I'd welcome readers taking the trouble to explain the way of God to me more adequately (Acts 18:26).

Yours in Christ - JOHN HARTLEY. GS76 posted by Alastair Cutting, GS101

On Being A Loyal Anglican, a post by Kevin Carey - 9July2008

2008-07-09T22:14:00.005Z

Kevin Carey GS297

Not long ago - and perhaps we should be warned - people counted the number of times Gordon Brown used the word "prudent" in his budget speeches; we might look back with equal wonder to the use of the term "loyal Anglican" during the debate on the terms under which women will be Consecrated to the Episcopate.

"Loyal", in this context, means the ability to do as you please, regardless of authority. The Act of Synod institutionalised this genteel anarchism by allowing congregations led by conservative clergy to shun women priests and the bishops who ordained them. That same supposed "right" was re-asserted in the context of women bishops. In fairness, many women clergy said they would oppose any legislation which enshrined division in the form of special dioceses; the conservative 'loyal' response was that they would split the church to protect themselves from women and, if they did not get their way, they would leave it.

Bishop John Hind and I agree that the Church should not be Synodically governed. I would be content to leave theology in the hands of the Bishops, subject to an obligation on their part to consult widely; but this does not mean that we can leave it in the hands of conservatives nor brand it is illegitimate. If the Holy Spirit can be supposed to have worked through King Henry VIII in establishing our Church, she can surely work through a Synod of dedicated and well meaning, elected volunteers. My objection to this form of government is that it politicises people and forces them into factions. It also turns issues into problems and so the Consecration of women has been seen as a problem to be solved rather than a gift to be celebrated. All power structures reward bad behaviour and ignore good behaviour and this issue has been no exception; we have been fixated by supposed grievance instead of honouring sacrifice.

At York Synod followed the maxim that our Church is episcopally led and symbolically governed: Synod passed the motion agreed by a majority of the House of Bishops only making two minor amendments. The first redundantly acknowledges that the proceeding has not been unanimous; the second makes a code of practice statutory which is a distinction without a difference. Both these minor changes were slightly in favour of conservatives. Nonetheless, as the final vote approached we, being 'good' (if not "loyal") Anglicans, were not allowed even to smile. The Bishop of Dover said we should be ashamed for following the House of Bishops; the Bishop of Durham said we should not have discussed the issue before Lambeth as our affirmation would be divisive; and throughout the debate there was an under current of discontent from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York; but if they were unable to persuade their own fellow bishops, what were we supposed to do? We were surely not supposed to heed the protests of those in the gallery, ordained only last week, who wanted us to reverse all our decisions on women bishops going back to 1975 and even women priests. They were ordained knowing full well all the decisions already taken and the likelihood of further progress which shows you how really 'loyal' they are.

Which leads me to the second part of the concept, being "Anglican". Now I have to confess I'm not an Anglican. Having left the Roman Catholic church I have an inexpressible love for our Church of England founded on the principle of Elizabeth I that it does not do to look into the souls of others. Having detached itself from Rome and resisted Geneva, it must also resist Lagos, Sydney and the Jerusalem Declaration. In countries where it is either a minority Christian church or where Christianity is itself a minority religion, Anglicanism might take many forms but in England our commitment is that the Church is particularly for those who are not its members. I am prepared to live in peace and tolerance with those who think women should not be priests and to be patient with those who differ with me on the causes, nature and meaning of homosexuality but many of them, it seems, being "orthodox Anglicans" are not prepared to live with me. They want to destroy the Elizabethan settlement and turn us into a sect. In a typically generous contribution to the debate, Archbishop Rowan said that conservative Catholics and Evangelicals were a welcome presence because they sharpen up his theology; he clearly didn't go through the traumas of the Labour Party of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Just as Labour stopped existing to win power, we are being invited to stop existing to win souls. The women of the world - and even England - who struggle to hold fractured families and societies together in the face of male fecklessness, violence and despair in the slums of London and Lima are not likely to be converted by men who tell them about the immutability of male headship and the unsuitability of women to preside at the Lord's table.

Conservatives of both sorts face a difficult choice between mission and sectarian ecclesiology but the difference lies in this: whereas the Catholic conservatives are, by and large, so bound up in their sacramental pedigree that they have very little time for the mission to the unchurched, Evangelicals have a deep commitment to them which is being horribly impeded by their failure to see that whatever the Bible says about male headship, this is surely less important than what Jesus said about brining the Good News to the poor.

As for me, I shall go on being my own, strange kind of loyal Anglican: I will respect the authority of my Bishops, even if they cannot accept the decision of Synod; I will share the solidarity of the Eucharist with anyone who affirms the Creeds and the Dominical Sacraments; I will let my "yea be yea" and my "nay be nay", refusing to grandstand or blackmail; and, finally, I will always rank the teachings of Jesus above all other teachings whether in the Bible or in the changing theologies of the Church.

posted on behalf of Kevin Carey, GS297, by Alastair Cutting, GS101

General (Synod) Reflections... from Katie - (a) 9July2008

2008-07-09T14:24:00.003Z

from enchanting engravings

Katie's latest post:

The alarm goes off on this Wednesday morning - the morning after the morning after the day before. It is too early, but needs must...

I am almost recovered physically from the gruelling experience of Monday (I have slept enough, eaten enough, drunk enough) and my body is nearly ready for the work in the diary.

I sit on the edge of the bed staring into the mirror (not a good place to have a mirror it occurs to me - must move it...). And now I cry for the emotional and spiritual recovery that has not caught up since Monday. We were called to be the Body of Christ, one Body with many parts working together for the glory of God (see Paul's letter to the church in Corinth), but it felt more like the very thing Paul warned them to avoid - that is, the eye saying to the hand, "I don't need you", one part saying to the other, "I don't value you". What we became was the Body of Christ, but broken. And so I wept the tears today that I held back (just) at the end of Monday's 8 hours... I was back in the debating chamber, looking around at 400 people all exhausted but for different reasons - the broken Body of Christ, wounded and scarred. Each group huddled together, separate from neighbour, some anticipating the 'adventure' of events, some frightened by the uncertainty. Where was God in all of this? What had happened to His beautiful Body, the Church?

I glance again at the mirror, and my eye drifts upwards.

I have a simple wooden cross hanging on the corner - and now I am somewhere else. I am standing in Palestine on Good Friday, looking at the body of Jesus Christ, broken, wounded and scarred... the disciples are huddled together in broken groups, no longer a band of male and females, broken and healed, faithful and questioning. But fearful and wounded themselves by events. They had no concept that Jesus' body had to be broken and go through the events of Good Friday in order for Easter Sunday to have the impact that it would.

So now I sit experiencing Holy Saturday, knowing what happened was right, but wishing it didn't hurt so much...the tears are drying on my face, and I wait in stillness for the gentle whisper of hope.

He asks, 'what happened on that Easter Sunday?'.

I think hard, trying to concentrate on what I have been asked. I re-read the end of John's Gospel in my mind's eye. A small group came to the place of endings. They found hope and life and a complete turnaround in their expectations and fears. They were sent to be messengers of that discovery. They were called to bring together those disparate, desperate, scattered people into a place of promise and healing. The Body of Christ transformed!

Jesus - your Kingdom come, your will be done here on earth exactly as you do things in heaven.

(on behalf of Katie...) Alastair Cutting, GS101

More from Katie in the General Synod House - (b) 8July2008

2008-07-08T21:33:00.003Z

Katie has updated her notes on her Facebook page -

With her permission, I have add her latest General Synod House Diary Room commentary, and completed all of the posts under the previous entry:

Day 4 in the GS House - 2.15pm

all of the housemates are in the living room.

the majority of the housemates suggest that all of them had a right to be in charge of the others, and that they would write the rules of the household in chalk on the blackboard...

some of the housemates feel that only those who had been part of the household since the start could fully understand the workings of the house and therefore have the necessary qualifications to be in charge...

other housemates are concerned that the rules could just be rubbed out and re-written by anybody, and could they not be written in permanent marker on the walls 10ft above the floor, making them more tamper proof...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 4 - 10.15pm

after nearly 8 hours in the living room (and 1 hour scattered for dinner) the house mates have voted 3:1 for the original suggestion...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 5 in the GS House -

and all of the housemates have gone home, leaving behind an empty living room and some evidence of tear-stained tissues, party hats and streamers stuffed under the coffee table, and tumbleweed behind the sofa...

(on behalf of Katie...) Alastair Cutting, GS101

Anglican Governance (and Grumblings...) 8th July 2008

2008-07-08T10:38:00.004Z

On behalf of Guidford Diocesan Synod, Canon Robert Cotton has just successfully moved a motion to ask the House of Bishops for an account of exactly how the various institutions of the Church of England in particular and the Anglican Communion as a whole relate to each other. I wish them luck - not least because some of the various Bishops' contributions made it quite clear that they were not exactly of one mind. ++York, for example, was very keen to impress upon us the Synod was not a parliament, and that it did not govern, although it did legislate. I don't know if it's what he intended, but the impression he gave me, at least, was that we really ought to do what we were told by our bishops without making so much fuss. In this, he was echoing +Durham, who in a speech of great oratorical style, made it quite plain to us that he thought we were in a mess right now, and that we needed strong guidance from the Bishops in order for us to get out of it.

Now, I'm enough of a Catholic to be entirely happy with a Church structure that presupposes obedience to my Bishop, and through him my Metropolitan, but the Church of England as it stands is not quite like that. The very existence of some of its institutions implies that in the Church of England the word of the Bishops in Synod is not law. What is more, in implying that this is - or should be - the situation, the bishops are being more than a little inconsistent. There was a definite undercurrent to this morning's debate that reflected on the position we found ourselves in last night, and +Durham in particular was clear in his view that the Synod as a whole had caused a difficult situation to become worse by behaving like a Parliament. The clear implication was that if we had been guided firmly by the bishops it would have been far better. I would have far more sympathy with this view if it were not for the fact that we actually did follow the bishops' lead - the motion we passed was substantially the motion they put in front of us.

No doubt there will be much more chewing over all of this in due course - both on this blog and elsewhere - and I am sure that as we all head off home I will not be the only one wondering exactly how we ought to be relating to our fellow members of the Church of England, and the Communion as a whole.

Any episcopal volunteers to blog from Lambeth?

Justin GS373

Reflecting on the Women Bishops debate - (a) 8July2008

2008-07-08T09:25:00.004Z

(Updated* with electronic voting data)

So, the vote was finally taken at well after 10pm on Monday night, after more than 6 hours solid debate, and within a hair's breadth of being adjourned, moments before the final vote, finally, substantially the original motion presented by the House of Bishops was passed. The final and amended motion was:

‘That this Synod:
(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

The voting was:

Bishops: 28 for 12 against 1 abs
Clergy: 124 for 44 against 4 abs
Laity: 111 for 68 against 2 abs

meaning that there was a simple majority in each house (allowing it to pass), but the house of laity vote was only 61%, not the 66% that a final legislation vote that would require.

It was a very difficult debate, and apart from Justin's masterful and swift postings on this blog (some results of votes online within 35 seconds some readers later observed!), Peter Owen and particularly Ruth Gledhill were also putting votes, and some background to the speeches. You can listen for yourselves from the podcasts (actually .wax files) already online - each of these is about 2 hours long: Afternoon session 1, Afternoon session 2, Evening session & final vote.

It was moving - many speeches seeking to make the progress needed towards having women bishops that the Manchester Report unanimously recommends; many speeches seeking to allow particularly the conservative catholic wing to feel that they are not being excluded.

I will probably further blog on the benefits and pitfalls of voting by houses, as I think that was one of the issues that muddied the waters, obfuscating some of the key principles of the debate.

For me, one of the most powerful things was the emotion within the debate. Both for and against the principle of ordaining women as bishops. Ruth Gledhill noted that a bishop was in tears - I suspect more than one, having heard impassioned interventions from both the bishops of Dover and Burnley, but I suspect others, too. But tears also from those seeking not to have women bishops overruled again as well. And tears from those seeking a way to balance both.

At the end of the debate, the Archbishop of York, conscious that the (conservative) Bishop of Beverley was due to be celebrating the Holy Communion on Tuesday morning, and here would be an opportunity for Synod to gather in communion around the Lord's Table. The morning communion service is at the eyewatering time of 7.30am, and usually has 100-120 members at it. Tuesday mornings service had the significantly enlarged numbers of about 200.

Whatever the next stages may be, I trust we will still be at, and in, communion.

Alastair Cutting, GS101

* Updated by Alastair 16 July 2008
The electronic voting data has now been published online, and Peter Owen has put up a grid of how the bishops voted at Thinking Anglicans.

Katie is in the General Synod House - (f) 7July2008

2008-07-07T19:58:00.002Z

Katie has been keeping notes on her Facebook page - which are receiving acclaim.

With her permission, I add her General Synod House Diary Room comments, in my best Geordie accent:

[and updated 8July2008 with her latest posts...]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 1 in the GS House -

& this house mate is usin her mobile to connect wiv the outside world via Facebook! We hav been given our next task - to discuss Women Bishops and play nicely. We r not allowed 2discuss evictin anybody... Either way, rumours abound of some housemates plannin on jumpin over the fence... Kt is stayin in the Diary Room 4safety ;-0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 2 in the GS House -

The housemates spent the mornin in the chamber discussin Women Bishops... Some housemates r threatenin 2leave the GS house unless they r allocated their own room in the house and the right 2restrict entry...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 3 in the GS House -

Most of the housemates have been in the lounge discussing legislation, auditors, and the importance of tourism in the life of the national and local church.

Two of the housemates have been in the luxury bedroom (drapes, candelabras and a copy of Debrets on every bed). They have been discussing the possibility of their eviction...

Four housemates have been in the kitchen, discussing the possibility that there might be a lock fitted on the inside of the luxury bedroom door...

Big Father is watching with interest, and is hoping the housemates are ready for the task set for tomorrow...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 4 in the GS House -

...and the housemates are part way through deciding the future of the house (stopping for food before continuing...).

The debate so far - By majority votes, they will not allow an extension on the side of the house with a connecting door; they will not allow a parallel house in the garden; and they will not insist that only the tall people may use the higher cupboards where the food is kept but transfer down some of the food for dinner each day...

Most of the housemates are in the dining room where the atmosphere is generally lively...

some of the housemates have gone into the garden and are sat staring into the pool forlornly, as they now feel like climbing over the wall, and can barely stand the sounds of happy conversation from the dining room...

others of the housemates are scattered around the site, (one is currently in the diary room) knowing that although this is the right direction, it is still painful....

the living room is currently empty, and awaits the return of the housemates for the remainder of the debate...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 4 in the GS House - 2.15pm

all of the housemates are in the living room.

the majority of the housemates suggest that all of them had a right to be in charge of the others, and that they would write the rules of the household in chalk on the blackboard...

some of the housemates feel that only those who had been part of the household since the start could fully understand the workings of the house and therefore have the necessary qualifications to be in charge...

other housemates are concerned that the rules could just be rubbed out and re-written by anybody, and could they not be written in permanent marker on the walls 10ft above the floor, making them more tamper proof...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 4 - 10.15pm

after nearly 8 hours in the living room (and 1 hour scattered for dinner) the house mates have voted 3:1 for the original suggestion...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Day 5 in the GS House -

and all of the housemates have gone home, leaving behind an empty living room and some evidence of tear-stained tissues, party hats and streamers stuffed under the coffee table, and tumbleweed behind the sofa...

(on behalf of Katie GS110...) Alastair Cutting, GS101

The Women Bishops Debate... as it happened!

2008-07-07T14:37:00.039Z

(Updated* with information on electronic voting data)

So - it begins. We are about to vote on the first of the amendments - figures here when they are announced!

My friend Adrian has been doing a voting analysis here. It's quite interesting - nobody really likes radical options, but the Bishops hate them!

Item 66
Motion Lost

Bishops for: 14
Bishops Against: 31
Bishops Abstained: 0

Clergy For: 62
Clergy Against: 120
Clergy Abstained: 0

Laity For: 78
Laity Against: 114
Laity Abstained: 0

Item 67
Motion Carried

Bishops for: 28
Bishops Against: 17
Bishops Abstained:

Clergy For: 90
Clergy Against: 89
Clergy Abstained: 4

Laity For: 97
Laity Against: 85
Laity Abstained: 7

Interesting votes so far. The first one suggests that so far, at least, people are not interested in ruling out the 'Code of Practice' option. The second one will make it easier for traditionalists to vote in favour of whatever motion we end up with, but it does water down the level of enthusiasm in the motion a little.

Item 68
Motion Lost

Bishops For: 3
Bishops Against: 40
Bishops Abstained: 2

Clergy For: 28
Clergy Against: 149
Clergy Abstained: 4

Laity For: 36
Laity Against: 147
Laity Abstained: 5

This is surprising - I had expected this one to have a bit more support. Stephen Trott's amendment was essentially an opportunity for Synod not to have to make up its mind yet. The fact that it was defeated so clearly suggests that almost everyone does want a more concrete answer than that. (And the Manchester Group probably just breathed a collective sigh of relief.)

The next motion - the simplest possible legislation option - will almost certainly fall, but it will be interesting to compare the figures with the vote above.

Item 69
Motion Defeated

Bishops For: 7
Bishops Against: 37
Bishops Abstained: 1

Clergy For: 66
Clergy Against: 107
Clergy Abstained: 9

Laity For: 68
Laity Against: 118
Laity Abstained: 4

And so we go on...

Not surprising that this one fell, but it gives some indication of those who are - shall we say - unequivocably in favour.

We are now on to the 'New Structures' bit. The Chairman has asked for a general debate on Items 70 and 71 together, so the next two results should come quite closely together.

Item 70
Motion Defeated

Bishops For: 10
Bishops Against: 32
Bishops Abstained: 3

Clergy For: 53
Clergy Against: 124
Clergy Abstained: 4

Laity For: 71
Laity Against: 116
Laity Abstained: 2

It's looking clearer. +Exeter's amendment follows now and will almost certainly fall too. It is essentially the same, but it does not force the creation of new dioceses in the way that Item 70 did.

Looking at the figures it is clear now that we are going to end up with some sort of variation on Manchester's option 2 - in other words a Code of Practice.

Item 71
Motion Defeated

Bishops For: 14
Bishops Against: 29
Bishops Abstained: 2

Clergy For: 65
Clergy Against: 116
Clergy Abstained: 1

Laity For: 77
Laity Against: 112
Laity Abstained: 0

No surprise there, then. The Chairman has just got consent to extend this sitting to 6.30pm so that we can deal with +Ripon's amendment.

Someone has just said to me, 'So the Establishment is winning, then.' In some ways he might be right, but that's possibly rather too cynical a way of looking at it. OK, the bishops' view probably can be taken to be the establishment view, but it also seems to reflect what looks at the moment to be the majority view - namely some sort of Code of Practice.

Interesting. ++York has just got up to support the Ripon amendment. This is the first of the amendments that provides a real compromise view - the result of it would be a choice in February between a fully worked up Code of Practice, and a fully worked-up set of transferred episcopal authority arrangements. The second of those is as about as far as you can go along the road of special provisions without creating new dioceses. ++Sentamu is a very good speaker, and he might just get his way.

Item 72
Motion Defeated (but passed in the House of Laity...)

Bishops For: 21
Bishops Against: 21
Bishops Abstained: 1

Clergy For: 84
Clergy Against: 92
Clergy Abstained: 2

Laity For: 98
Laity Against: 87
Laity Abstained: 0

That was close...

My guess is that none of the rest of the major amendments - i.e. 74, 75 or 77 - will be passed. However, I would guess that 76 and 78 almost certainly will go through.

As to 73 - anybody's guess!

Well. Back from dinner, and we begin with Emma Forward withdrawing Item 73. We're now on 74, therefore, and +Gloucester has suggested that we might not need a vote by houses this time. That might be wishful thinking on his part...

Item 74
Motion Defeated

Bishops For: 5
Bishops Against: 31
Bishops Abstained: 3

Clergy For: 68
Clergy Against: 85
Clergy Abstained: 20

Laity For: 82
Laity Against: 90
Laity Abstained: 7

No surprise there, then - it really is looking as though there is no appetite for anything in any way hard line, and although it might not have been intended in that spirit, the last amendment did sound rather militant.

So now we're on to 75. We've just had to have an electronic vote to see whether we want to vote on the amendment yet. Democracy, don't you love it! And what do you know - the vote to have a vote was lost, so we carry on...

We've hit a real sticking point, it seems. People for the first time are starting to talk about giving ground or not - Mark Russell has just made a tub-thumper of a speech about showing generosity of spirit.

Item 75
Motion Defeated

Bishops For: 15
Bishops Against: 19
Bishops Abstained: 5

Clergy For: 86
Clergy Against: 78
Clergy Abstained: 8

Laity For: 81
Laity Against: 88
Laity Abstained: 10

So - defeated but only just. On balance that may well be right - the rules issues about what does or does not require whatever sort of majority should probably not be decided by an emotional synod after a long session.

Still, I can't help wonder what sort of effect this will have upon Jacquie Humphreys' amendment. +Gloucester likes this one and thinks we ought to pass it - we'll have to see if people agree.

Item 76: Carried by show of hands.

This is a really encouraging development - not so much that it passed but that it passed without debate and clearly by show of hands.

Item 77
Motion Lost

Bishops For: 1
Bishops Against: 35
Bishops Abstained: 4

Clergy For: 38
Clergy Against: 129
Clergy Abstained: 5

Laity For: 44
Laity Against: 129
Laity Abstained: 7

Well. Home stretch. People didn't really like that last amendment - it was seen as closing down the options for a Code of Practice, and kicked out accordingly.

Given that 76 passed overwhelmingly, I reckon 78 will too, but +Gloucester's reply will make a great deal of difference.

++York and +Gloucester have both asked for it to be rejected, and it has been clearly lost by show of hands.

Item 78 - Motion Lost by show of hands.

Ooh. It's got interesting again. Tom Wright (+Durham) has just got up and tried to adjourn the debate, and +Gloucester has declined to give a steer.

Now +Ripon is extolling the virtues of such motions, saying that he was now glad that the same thing had happened to him over Parochial Fees in February, and +Southwark is about to speak against.

Lost 180 to 203. And that's it. +Liverpool is speaking to the main motion once again, and then +Gloucester sums up and it ends.

The vote will happen in a minute. Clive Mansell has just been given a huge round of applause for his chairing. +Gloucester needs a round of applause too for the way he has handled the amendments with great objectivity. He has also just acknowledged that +Ripon's motion got a majority of the whole synod, and has said that the drafting group must take account of that - although he doesn't yet know how.

Item 20
Motion Carried

Bishops For: 28
Bishops Against: 12
Bishops Abstained: 1

Clergy For: 124
Clergy Against: 44
Clergy Abstained: 4

Laity For: 111
Laity Against: 68
Laity Abstained: 2

++Sentamu has just told the media to make sure they report this properly. We have passed a motion about asking for legislation, we have not kicked out the traditionalists...

So, the motion passed was as follows:

20.‘That this Synod:
(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c)affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d)instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

And that's goodnight from me.

Justin GS373

* Updated 16 July 2008
The electronic voting data has now been published online, and Peter Owen has put up a grid of how the bishops voted at Thinking Anglicans.
Alastair Cutting GS101

Synod Churchwarden?

2008-07-07T14:30:00.002Z

You know about churchwardens. Lots of people reading this probably are churchwardens. Churchwardens are the people supposed to keep order in church. We had traditional Evensong (or at least an edited version of it) as our form of worship after this afternoon's session, and it turned out that we needed a traditional churchwarden too, in order to evict a particularly noisy typist from the press gallery - the clicking of her fingernails on the keys was distracting the people singing the psalm...

On the 'One' Church of England - (e) 7July2008

2008-07-07T11:48:00.004Z

t-shirt from Aquinas and More *

One, holy, catholic, and apostolic... is what the Nicene Creed† says of the church, and - just as an one passing example - preached on here by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The CofE declared in 1975 that there were 'no theological objection to women being ordained priest', and then voted in 1992 for the to be ordained, and in 1994 the first women were ordained priest. Within this quinquennium of Synod there has been agreement that the CofE should move towards having women bishops, and in the Manchester Report, the diverse group who produced it unanimously agreed that the church should proceed towards consecrating women bishops - as long as there are 'safeguards' for those opposed.

The church has often been described since 1994 as 'One church, with two integrities' - that is to say it is perfectly possible for either position in regard to the ordination of women to be held with integrity.

I suspect that some thought that perhaps interest in keeping a church where women were not able to minister would wane. As time has gone on, that is clearly not the case, and indeed some churches from both the conservative catholic as well as the conservative evangelical wings of the church claim to be growing, with young people coming forward as leaders in just such a continuing church.

In the Anglican Communion as a whole, there are a variety of individual Provinces - some would say churches. The do not all share the same orders, or policies, but are still linked together under the umbrella of the Anglican Communion.

Some are wondering if what we have already in the CofE is not one, but actually two churches. Personally, I do not believe that - I think it is closer to 3 or 4... Let's stay with discussing two churches though. Some are horrified that the CofE might be split into more than one church - even though womens ministry has clearly vastly altered the way church is, from where it was, and it looks o most people as though that is what we currently have.

Some senior figures are talking about 'light touch' alternative dioceses. I think that is because it is perhaps being acknowledged that this is what the situation really is.

Will alternative dioceses be one of the ways in which the church could remain closer to being still 'One'?

* 'This t-shirt features a quote from 1 Timothy 3:15 "the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth." and the words "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic" on the front. The back features the quote from St. Francis "Preach the Gospel at all times... When necessary, use words."
T-shirt comes in Cardinal Red'

† The original post mistakenly mentioned Apostles' rather than Nicene Creed, though the roots of even the 'holy catholic church' are there too.

Alastair Cutting, GS101

Bargain Clergy - (d) 7July2008

2008-07-07T11:13:00.002Z

Just checking updates on the blog I noticed a fascinating advertisment on the page...

This could clearly solve a number of the CofE's financial problems, whilst at the same time apparently 'feeding your passion'.

Perhaps you may be able to get a 'bogof' whilst you are at it - though sometimes I am aware that is what visitors to our churches feel that is what might have been said to them as they arrive...

And with that, I'll blog-off...

Alastair Cutting, GS101

Meet the Press - (c) 7July2008

2008-07-07T10:15:00.002Z

From the Church Times

I was talking over the supper table last night with some of the journalists from the press. Not all Synod members feel that what goes on in the chamber, and what gets reported, quite match. But even the Archbishop of Canterbury in his sermon in York Minster on Sunday reminded us that Jesus would also be with the (even!) members of the press gallery. No wonder one journalist felt Rowan might have just saved the church!

Here is a puzzle for Synod speech-makers though... Which media to aim at? The soundbite beloved of the broadcast media, or the written press? The chamber likes to hear speeches that lighten the debate with jokes and anecdotes. There are many eloquent and humorous members of synod, and that is one of the delights of sitting listening in the chamber - even hour after hour. Some of these also make it on to the radio or even tv.

But the printed press find that jokes and anecdotes just don't work on paper. So here is the synod conundrum: to speak with the sort of substance and gravitas that gets quoted in the papers; or wow the crowd with a lighthearted and engaging speech.

Of course the truth is, that what is needed is both. And fortunately, many speakers manage to achieve this in their speeches.

Come and sit in the visitors gallery for Synod at some time, to hear for yourself. Synod meets at Church House Westminster from 9-13 February 2009, and future dates can be seen here.

Alastair Cutting, GS101

Women Bishops Debate (7th July 2008) - Motion and list of proposed amendments

2008-07-07T10:07:00.002Z

Hot off the press - as it were - here are the amendments that have been proposed for this afternoon.

Monday 7th July 2007
2.30 p.m. to 6.15 p.m.
8.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.

ORDER PAPER VI

WOMEN BISHOPS:
REPORT OF THE WOMEN BISHOPS LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING GROUP (GS 1685)
REPORT FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS (GS 1685A)
The Bishop of Gloucester to move:
20.‘That this Synod:
(a)reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b)affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c)affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d)instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

PART I – AMENDMENTS AFFECTING PARAGRAPH (a)
The Bishop of Winchester to move as an amendment:
66. After “That this Synod” leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England, and noting the Manchester Group’s assertion in paragraph 22 of GS 1685 that “far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses”,
i)affirm the assurances included in paragraphs 67-69 of GS 1685;
ii)reaffirm (GS 1685 paragraph 74) Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”;
In paragraph (b) leave out “within the existing structures of the Church of England”; and
In paragraph (c) after “in” insert “legislation and in”.

If item 66 is lost the Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London) to move as an amendment:
67. Leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate”.

PART II – ALL ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTIONS KEPT OPEN
If item 66 is lost the Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) to move as an amendment:
68. Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and in paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.

PART III – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 1 (SIMPLEST STATUTORY APPROACH)
If items 66 and 68 are lost the Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Universities, York) to move as an amendment:
69. In paragraph (b) leave out all the words after “affirm its view that” and insert “this should be done with the simplest possible statutory approach, with local diocesan arrangements for pastoral provision and sacramental care;”;
Leave out paragraph (c); and
In paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.

PART IV – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 3 (NEW STRUCTURES)
If items 66, 68 and 69 are lost the Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) to move as an amendment:
70. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,” and insert “by preparing a draft Measure and associated code of practice providing new dioceses for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests,” and after the words “so that” insert the words “, if possible,”.

If items 66, 68, 69 and 70 are lost the Bishop of Exeter to move as an amendment:
71. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “accordingly” and insert “by preparing drafts of possible legislation in accordance with paragraph (c), to include further draft Measures, together with associated codes of practice, based on diocesan structures for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests, so that, if possible, the Business Committee can include consideration of these options in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”.

PART V – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 2 (ARRANGEMENTS WITHIN EXISTING STRUCTURES)
If items 66, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are lost the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds to move as an amendment:
72. In paragraph (c) after the words “affirm that these should be” insert “either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “complete” and insert “develop” and leave out the words “first consideration of the draft legislation” and insert “further consideration of both alternatives envisaged in paragraph (c)”.

If items 68 and 69 are lost Miss Emma Forward (Exeter) to move as an amendment:
73. In paragraph (b) leave out “special”.

The Revd Gillian Henwood (York) to move as an amendment:
74. Insert after paragraph (b):
“(..) affirm its view that special arrangements should be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction wish to exercise or receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests in episcopal areas where the bishop has stated that he is not able to ordain women;”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 are lost Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham) to move as an amendment:
75. After paragraph (c) insert as a new paragraph:
“(..) require that the Measure enabling women to be admitted to the episcopate should require:
i)that the Measure should only come into force once the code has been agreed;
ii)that in order for the code of practice to come into effect, it must receive the approval of the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House; and
iii)that any future changes to the code can only be made by the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House;”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 75 are lost Ms Jacqueline Humphreys (Bristol) to move as an amendment:
76. In paragraph (c) insert “statutory” before the words “national code of practice”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 are lost the Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) to move as an amendment:
77. Insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (c):
“(..) agree that the code of practice should relate only to the exercise of episcopal functions and describe a commitment to mutual support and cooperation between members of the House of Bishops to help with pastoral provision and sacramental care when situations arise affecting those with conscientious difficulties relating to ordination to the priesthood and the episcopate; and”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are lost His Honour Thomas Coningsby QC (ex officio) to move as an amendment:
78. In paragraph (c) leave out all the words after “national code of practice” and insert “which all concerned would be required to follow”.

Note: The headings to the Parts of this Order Paper are included solely for ease of reference.

If you are one of the many praying about this, pray too for this afternoon's Chairman, Clive Mansell, the Archdeacon of Tonbridge, who has to try and find a way through all of this.

Numbers on voting for Women Bishops - (b) 7July2008

2008-07-07T09:15:00.001Z

I have noticed an interesting phenomenon around synod. It is the "I'm in favour of Women Bishops, but..." syndrome.

This is a good and bad thing.

It is good, as clearly synod members are talking with one another, hearing and feeling each others' pain, not wanting to quickly put forward their own personal agenda[s] at the expense of others.

For example, in the background material within the Manchester Report, it is interesting to see the voting figures mentioned on pps 35-37. These demonstrate that on all the key votes in this current quinqenium of Synod, the house of Laity has not had a 2/3 majority - though as in these votes only a simple majority was required, and achieved.

The house of bishops also met before Synod at Market Bosworth, and although they came up with a formula for Synod, rumour has it that again only a simple majority and not a 2/3 majority was achieved in bringing forward Monday's propsal.

What is so important with the 2/3 majority. Because final votes on this legislation will need a majority of 2/3 in each House of Synod before it can be passed. Currently it does not seem to have it. That is why it is said that final approval will have to await the next Synod, due to be elected in 2010.

Why is it though, that so many are saying "I'm in favour of Women Bishops, but..." then? Yes, they want protection for collegues who cannot accept it. But the whole point of this process is that there should be protection for those both seeking, and those unable to accept women as bishops. If such protection is afforded, should they not by now be saying yes??

Alastair Cutting, GS101

Muddling along on Monday Morning

2008-07-07T09:10:00.003Z

Everyone is a bit on edge at the moment - not really surprising - so the odd little bits of 'normal' Synod Life seem curiously encouraging. Synod is in some ways a bit like any other big residential conference - it has the same sort of superficial look - people wander around with badges and bulging bags of papers, the bars are full of intense conversation, people eat large breakfasts that they wouldn't dream of cooking for themselves, and so on. I was coming out of the dining room after my breakfast (large, but I probably would have cooked it for myself), walked past the inevitable pile of bags, briefcases, umbrellas and raincoats, and had to smile as I saw an alb and a green stole dumped casually on the top of the pile. Then, when I made it over to the hall I was confronted by one of the youngest members of the Synod - certainly the youngest clergy member - wearing a cardboard box over his shoulders like a placard, urging people to sign his Private Members Motion.

Life goes on here in York. At the moment - as I type this, sitting up in the gallery - we are debating the Anglican/Methodist Covenant, and doing a pretty good job of carrying on as normal. Whatever normal is in this singular institution!

Justin GS373