Friday 9th July

 

This Synod is the one that everyone didn’t want. The elephant in the room for all of Friday was the impending legislative debate on Women Bishops. Even the Agenda Debate, where we expected sparks to flare over the recent press speculation around the appointments in Southwark failed to ignite. It is difficult for Synod to focus when there is only one major issue to be resolved.

In February we had agreed the general shape of the changes to the Pension Scheme for Clergy but it still had to go out to final consultation. That revealed unease about one of the proposals which required the accrual period to extend from 40 years to 43. The result was that the proposal came back as a compromise to 41½ years. In addition in February we had agreed to some changes to ill-health early retirements and the equalisation of benefits for civil partners (i.e. going beyond the legal requirement). Some synod members (I don’t know their motives) decided that this was an opportunity to overthrow synod’s previous decision regarding civil partners. There was also some attempt to suggest that we shouldn’t change the benefit structure at all. In the end the proposals were accepted.

We had a very informative address from representatives of the church in Estonia. A liturgical anomaly was ironed out in the weekday lectionaries. About 2/3rds of the questions were asked and answered in the Questions session.

Saturday 10th July

Today was the start of a marathon whereby we first take note of the Revision Committee’s report on the admission of women to the episcopate followed by the debate of each clause of the measure.

The take note debate was a little duller than I was expecting but that must have been because people were keeping their powder dry, so to speak.

There were going to be 6 outcomes from the legislation. These are as follows:-

1. No change – everyone throws their toys out of the pram

2. Single Clause – the Catholics and the Evangelicals throw their toys out of the pram

3. Additional Dioceses – to allow for sacramental assurance for the Catholics

4. One of 3 flavours of Diocesan scheme which provided for Episcopal oversight from a Male Bishop

a. along the same lines as current resolution A,B or C parishes

b. with delegated authority from the Diocesan Bishop

c. with implied authority through the measure by the Diocesan graciously stepping aside.

In the take note debate it was clear that option 1 was not uppermost in synod members’ minds. Even the opponents of women holding higher office admitted that what we were doing was to try and find a way for women to become bishops whilst making provision for those who objected.

The Revision Committee’s report is unusual in that it gives an account of the journey that has taken place to get to the point where they started to frame the legislation. Normally the report would look at the clauses of the draft legislation and then debate submissions made that are relevant to the clause in question. As a result there is a marvellous exposition of the key starting points of the differing groups on Synod.

It is easy to trivialise the differing viewpoints when trying to encapsulate them and I need some shorthand to describe the positions taken.

Broadly, the Traditional Catholic view is opposed to women bishops from an apostolic succession stance. They will only be satisfied with provision of a Male Bishop who has been ordained by a Male and who hasn’t ordained a Female Priest. This has led to people talking of priests with the right “pedigree”.

The Conservative Evangelical view is opposed to Women Bishops on the grounds of headship. This is the same argument as was used in the 1992 debates on women priests – totally consistent. So long as the Bishop is Male then they will be comfortable. I don’t know but assume that this is akin to the Article 26 idea that a women could validly ordain a male priest as the sacrament is unimpaired – coming from God.

The majority who sit outside these two groupings would be entirely happy with the view that there should be legislation for women to become bishops but feel restrained not to vote for a single clause because of the need to maintain the maximum degree of unity within our church.

The Revision Committee’s proposal aligns with option 4b. The purpose of the debate that started after the take note debate was to take a series of amendments that would test the mind of Synod for an alternative from one of the options being put forward. There were 3 substantive amendments to Clause 2 of the measure which aligned with options 3, 4a and 4c above.

First up was option 3 above which would allow for 3 separate dioceses to be created (York Province (1); Canterbury Province (2)) with parallel structures to the existing dioceses and where parishes who declared themselves wishing to remain in the traditional church would align themselves. The Bishops of the Dioceses would be male and there would be exclusions so that no woman could exercise her ministry (priestly or episcopal). This amendment was lost.

Second, we debated option 4a which recommended that there was statutory transfer of episcopal authority to a male bishop who would be chosen by the diocesan bishop to exercise oversight for the parish concerned. This institutionalised discrimination within each diocese in a much more pervasive way than the previous motion. Although the bishop was chosen, following consultation, the authority came by statute rather than delegation and is therefore capable of being accepted by both the Conservative Evangelicals (for whom it was primarily designed) and the Traditional Catholics. This amendment was lost.

Finally, we debated the Archbishops’ amendment which had been proposed after the Revision Committee had produced their report. This is option 4c above. The essence of the amendment is that it is consistent with the Revision Committee’s proposal but removes the idea of delegation. This was an attempt to square an almost unsquareable circle by allowing for the idea that a Male Bishop à la 4b model would derive their authority by virtue of the diocesan bishop exercising a self-denying ordinance with regard to the parish concerned. The Bishop would be a “co-ordinary”.

This 3rd amendment was considered to be the last ditch hope for the Catholics. They had preferred the 1st; would have acquiesced in the 2nd and been prepared to go with this 3rd option. The fact that it was lost was a tragedy for them. The nature of the defeat makes it all the more poignant.

When we vote we can vote as a whole synod or by a division of houses. This latter device is used for the really important changes to legislation to ensure that the church isn’t railroaded into doing something which one House disagrees with. For example, once we have finally arrived at the legislation for women bishops following consultation with dioceses, deaneries and parishes, that legislation will require a 2/3rds majority in each of the three houses. However, it is also used by people who wish to stop legislation where the legislation would be passed by a simple show of hands but where there is only a small majority. In this instance there is the possibility that it would fail in one of the houses and passed in the other two and so would fail.

In this final amendment the voting of the whole synod would have revealed an overall majority of 25 in favour. However, this hid the fact that in the House of Clergy there was a majority against of 5 – with 5 abstentions. Being lost in the one house the overall motion failed. Needless to say there is considerable disquiet in the loss of a “passed” motion but that is the consequence of agreeing a set of processes to follow. We didn’t have to have a vote by houses unless it is requested by sufficient members of synod. This request was valid and we found ourselves at the end of the day with the original set of proposals from the Revision Committee.

The next few days will now be a little more tense than we had previously expected. At this stage we have only firmly committed to Clause 1 of the measure and have debated changes to Clause 2 but have yet to confirm that it is part of the measure. There are 11 clauses altogether and so we still have a long way to go.

As a break from the intensity of this debate, which continues on Monday, Synod took time to debate the 2011 Budget and the formation of a Faith and Order Commission.

The debates had started following morning worship and a presidential address from Sentamu, Archbishop of York. After 12½ hours in the chamber (with breaks for lunch and supper) Synod members that still had some stamina relaxed to watch the quinquennial revue which allows Talent of enormous quality to break out. From a Mozart aria to a couple of Harry Potter sketches, Transport impressions and the Bishop of Dibley, not to mention a glittering guest appearance from Ruth Gledhill and her husband Alan, we had the complete gamut of entertainment. I was privileged to compère the show, in the style of Sir Thomas Beecham courtesy of a script written by Sue Latimer who is one of our Lay Readers. Given that I had started at 8 am with an Open Synod Group Committee meeting I was beginning to wilt slightly as the audience drifted off at midnight.

Sunday 11th July

The morning after and the day seems very peaceful. For the first time in 15 years I woke up feeling that I needed a morning off. As typically the best thing about the Minster is the performance of Psalm 150 I didn’t feel guilty. I spent the time writing up yesterday’s notes above and preparing for the somewhat dull agenda that fills a normal Sunday in York. we debated a number of legislative matters which are of little consequence to most people.

The only exciting bit (which was not particularly riveting) was the debate on Deanery Synods. In this there was an attempt to make it possible for Deaneries to operate as an enterprise where it spans the whole deanery in respect of missionary activity.

Last night we had a number of Harry Potter sketches to enliven us. Tonight in the Church Commissioners debate the presenter was so lacklustre that it made some members think of dementors.

Monday 12th July

So what was Monday going to produce? At the start of the day it was unclear but steadily it emerged that the opponents to women bishops were not going to oppose the legislation. We started with a really crucial debate on Clause 2. The legislation hung on whether there was a “single clause” measure or a “single clause measure with safeguards”. After a considerable debate, where many talked of wanting to get rid of Clause 2 but would be prepared to vote in favour as an act of generosity to the opponents to the ordination of women to the episcopate, and where very few of the opponents voiced opposition to the inclusion of Clause 2, the Clause was voted in to the measure by 373 votes to 14. Thereafter the votes on the other amendments went quite quickly and we found ourselves at a point around teatime where having weathered some procedural motions with a set of clauses that could go to the dioceses for consideration.

Bizarrely, the legislation is now in a form where the proponents have declared that the extra clauses are an enormous act of generosity and the opponents, despite not voting them out, suggest that they are insufficient provision. There is still a mountain to climb if we are able to square the circle and preserve the Church of England as a place for traditional anglo-catholics. I won’t at this stage second guess what will happen but I believe that the lobby is sufficiently well organised nationally to be able to coordinate something to happen in each diocese during the consultative period now started to ensure that a following motion can be presented back (maybe to reconsider the Society model?).

The debate on women bishops having finished early the contingency business kicked in and after a good debate the motion requesting that legislation was prepared to allow for clergy job-sharing was passed. I believe that this was probably the speediest of Diocesan Synod Motions, having been voted on in March in the Diocese of Bath & Wells and passed in General Synod in July. During the debate the Archdeacon of Bath, the Chair of the Bath & Wells House of Clergy and the Bishop of Bath & Wells all spoke eloquently. I had the privilege of launching the debate and was ably assisted by Fay Wilson-Rudd and Diana Taylor. The only serious opposition came from Chairman of DRACS, +John Packer, who thought it was really hard to do and who was supported by the Archbishop of York.

In the evening we debated some changes to the weekday lectionaries and the opportunity for an online library of resources for Fresh Expressions.

Tuesday 13th July

The last day of Synod could have been fraught with worries if we hadn’t completed the Women Bishops legislation. Instead it was a slightly muted affair starting with Morning Service but finishing with an uplifting Eucharist.

In a bizarre contrast to the previous day’s motion from Bath & Wells, the Chair of DRACS in his capacity as Bishop of Ripon & Leeds proposed a motion asking the Church to change the Marriage Legislation to change the rules regarding permissions to marry in any church within a Benefice where a person is allowed to marry by virtue of a qualifying connection in a particular parish. He didn’t mention in his speech how hard it might be!

This was followed by farewells to several Bishops (Durham, Salisbury, Bradford), to members of Archbishops’ Council (Christina Baxter, Norman Russell, Kay Garlick) and a number of Lay people who had been on Synod (or Church Assembly) since the time of Noah (Philip Lovegrove, Alan Cooper, John Bullimore, John Clark) and to Colin Menzies who had run the Church House Corporation for many years.

So one of the more momentous Synods came to an end and many of us will be considering the forthcoming elections as we think over the events of recent days. My hope is for an open and honest election with no electoral hitches within the Diocese of Bath & Wells.

Tim Hind
Bath & Wells