November's Synod

So, the General Synod is meeting for an additional session on the 19, 20, 21 November 2012.


Papers for the session are available here. - It's not all about women bishops.

Archbishop Rowan Williams has a number of contributed videos under the title Enough Waiting on the Archbishop of Canterbury's site. Both Archbishop Rowan, and Bishop Justin Welby (Archbishop designate) have spoken of strongly supporting the current measure as the best way forward to support women bishops, whilst giving the strongest level of support for those who cannot in all conscience accept women bishops.

There is a video entitled Not Enough Waiting representing a traditionalist view featuring Bishop Lindsay Urwin, from Walsingham.

A pro-women bishops lobbying site has been set up under the banner Yes 2 Women Bishops.

The A Fair Measure For All site collects a number of traditionalist/conservative articles and links; as does Together Forward.

The main debate on women bishops takes place on Tues 20 November.

Please pray for all listening and participating in Synod's debates; and for those who will be most dissapointed - whatever the result of the voting is.

Alastair Cutting (Chichester 96)

Penny Allen's synod July 2012 diary

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

Alastair Cutting (Chichester 96)

So, what happened at Synod?

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

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

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...

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...

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

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

Opening of Synod, and where are the Women Bishops?

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

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

Reflecting on Women Bishops, and being ‘in communion’

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

Women Bishops - what happens next?

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

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

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)

Big Issues in the Anglican Communion

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

'The Big Issue - Again' photo © Gavin Ross

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

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

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

 

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

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

(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.

The Women Bishops Debate... as it happened!

(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

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

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