Everything was going smoothly until the meeting of the House of Laity! And then confirmation of the Chair of the Business Committee didn‘t exactly go according to plan. So what‘s going on?

This is a new Synod. With 40% of the membership still finding their way about, this was not a planned, co-ordinated campaign of stroppiness. One might expect a new Synod to do as it is told, but not so. I heard it described as "flicking ink pellets at the prefects" but that raises more questions than it answers – why is the establishment seen as prefects, or why are the members of Synod likened to naughty children?

Something else I noticed – of the 10 motions on the original Agenda, 9 were proposed by bishops. Well, why not? They are the chairs of the committees doing the work so they are the obvious people to do it. But might there be a perception that proposals are put by bishops and the Synod is expected to agree?

Chairs are powerful people. In committees they can steer debate, marginalise unhelpful contributions, promote particular views, as well as having significant influence over the content of agendas and the presentation of minutes. But do all the committees have to be chaired by bishops? (This is not anti-chairs – I‘ve been very impressed by the chairing of the sessions so far.)

The governance of the CofE is an interesting mix of benevolent dictatorship (episcopally led) and democracy (synodically governed) and there is an inevitable and continual tension between the two. What we saw at the February Synod was a working out of this tension and I suspect there is more to come. Let‘s make sure the tussles are careful, honest and loving.

David Kemp, Canterbury