Two snapshots from the Monday sum up my recollections of July.

Late in the evening, not only a bishop weeping, but an ordained woman chum sitting next to me, among others. Mixed messages from the House of Bishops, mixed feelings among members, even mixed emotions within individuals basically happy with the outcome. Next day, in conversation with a group of “antis”, I tried to make the point that people who wished the process to go forward were not hostile to realistic and logical arrangements for those of their point of view. At home that night, in the bath, I was sorry to hear one of them talking on the radio about feelings of rejection. As in post-Lambeth reflections – what did it all mean? What actually happened? While cogitating over my vote on the various amendments I had been asking myself “Could this work, given good will?” Sadly I think this hopeful, maybe naïve, spirit was generally lacking.

Our curate, the youngest in the diocese when he came to us four years ago, and about to move on, had expressed an interest in standing for GS one day, so I invited him to come and observe on Monday afternoon. I managed to introduce him to one of his new Archdeacons at lunch, narrowly missed his new Bishop, and was horrified to find that numbers in the queue for the public gallery already exceeded the number of seats available. Somehow the later-comers were rescued into sight of a TV and had a cheery visit from the Archbishop of York, and eventually admittance upstairs, so he had a bird’s eye view of most of the debate.

If he does return one day as a member, I wonder what the divisive issues will then be, whether Synod will find it any easier to make hard decisions, whether any groups will have actually pulled out, how many members of the House of Bishops will be female, will the membership be any younger or more widely-based, and what level of trust will be evident? I wish him well.

Janet Atkinson