Monday 6th
The long wait was worth it although I still feel irritated that we got ourselves into such a tangle. The major casualty of the Elections was Ann Clarke who failed to get re-elected – she was 8th in the running at the end of the process having been edged out by two newcomers. Only one of these, Richard Moon, joined the ranks.

There has been an enormous amount of pre-Synod email discussion about the move to have Women Bishops and clearly that is the dominant topic for the week. Actually there are a lot of other important things going on but with 3 separate opportunities to discuss Women’s Episcopacy there is a danger that they will be crowded out.

The afternoon started with separate meetings of the Convocations and the House of Laity to debate whether the regulations, for the Admission to Holy Communion of those who are not confirmed, should go ahead. This brought out the worst in the House of Laity who still tried to debate the underlying principles rather than the regulations. The principles have been agreed ages ago but people still try to fight rearguard actions.

Once Synod proper got under way there was an enormous cheer for the Bath & Wells contingent.
The traditional debate on the agenda contained many of the speeches that you would expect. Some felt that the events of the past week on the Religious Hatred Bill and the Danish Islamic Cartoons should warrant a debate. Most of the comments were about the fact that Questions had been relegated to Thursday afternoon. We may not have our priority chip finely tuned.
The first of the set pieces on Women’s Episcopacy took the form of a presentation from our Ecumenical colleagues on their response to the Rochester Report. This was quite interesting but there was a sense that the opponents wanted to hijack the opportunity to listen to others to their own purposes. The presentation revealed what we already know – Methodists and URC are in favour whilst the Roman Catholics are less enthusiastic.

We had a presentation on the Pension Crisis which highlighted the key drivers for the agenda for Pensions over the next year. Increasing longevity, decreasing returns on investment, above budget increases in stipends, the introduction of a Risk Based Pension Levy under the Pension Protection Fund and the change to the way in which funding levels will be calculated all lead to the need to look carefully at the Pension Scheme. The cost of the scheme has already doubled in the last 7 years.

Finally we had a debate on Ethical Investment which was dominated by the Caterpillar issue. This is where Caterpillar has sold their equipment to the Israeli Government who have subsequently modified the equipment and then used it to destroy Palestinian dwellings. The dilemma is whether to disinvest in the company (who may have sold the goods in good faith) or whether to retain investment and be able to continue having a dialogue. Also mentioned was the ethical nature of the way the Church has dealt with the sale of the Octavia Hill Estate.

Tuesday 7th
The morning was spent on the second bite of the Women Bishops issue. Preceded by a magnificent Holy Communion Service in which a real sense of peace pervaded the chamber, the debate was kicked off by the Bishop mof Guildford who had been invited to chair a small working party to look into the way in which we could move forward.

The debate dismissed early the possibility of a 3rd province – no-one seriously contested the suggestion that the option should be dropped. The Bishop spoke of the least worst option that they had derived, viz. that of Transferred Episcopal Authority or TEA.
He outlined some of the unanswered questions – what does the proposal mean for Diocesan Structures; Archbishops; Area Bishops; collegiality; clergy ordained by a woman. He described how it was seen as a justice issue, but it was also a compassion issue for opponents.

During the debate a number of people spoke on various aspects. Many spoke of the fact that a 3rd Province would create schism and anyway might not get through Parliament. Many spoke of the need to find a way which preserved the “maximum communion”; the need to ensure that a solution didn’t unchurch people and the need to work with our ecumenical partners (although this probably was a selective group of our ecumenical partners depending on which side of the overall argument that you fell).
A number spoke about the need to ensure that Women who became Bishops should not be discriminated against on the grounds of their gender; they had to be seen clearly as Bishops.

The next phase of the process had to be exploratory, seeking out ways in which discernment can take place. However, there were those who don’t believe that we were mature enough to be able to discern. If we went too quickly down a quick fix root we would become unstuck at the next dividing issue (presumably this referred to the Gay issue).

The sense that this is a fork in the road was palpable. We either have or have not Women Bishops. There is no halfway house. Issues relating to canonical obedience and universal (catholic?) validity of orders needed addressing. Opponents of Women’s Episcopacy were “happy” to pursue TEA as a possibility.

There were a handful that were fighting a rearguard action against Women Priests but I don’t think that anyone takes them seriously any more. That debate is long gone and it was clear that many felt that the period of reception is now over.
Some folk raised some useful tricky situations that will help to inform the future debates - parishes being removed from Episcopal jurisdiction; clergy ordained by women who subsequently change their minds; cathedrals etc.
The Archbishop of Canterbury weighed in with a final comment that the whole thing was about finding a measure of Godly concord – of deciding where authority lies.

The afternoon was taken up with three very important debates on Rural Issues (Seeds in Holy Ground), our discussions with the Baptists and the ways of working with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

In the first of these both Diana Taylor and the Bishop of Bath & Wells spoke eloquently. The debate called upon government to support the rural church more (a message which was echoed in the Building debate on Thursday). The bishop of Lincoln urged us to not go to the Government cap in hand but to reveal to them the richness of what we offer as a church to the rural economy.

In the Baptist debate there was a lot of discussion of those things that historically separate our churches. Typically this centred on the difference in baptismal practices and whether it was legitimate to re-baptise.

In the HEI debate we were presented with the very worst report that Synod has produced for a long time. This was sad as the Seeds in Holy Ground report had just been commended for its clarity.

I haven’t reported these last three in the detail that I have afforded to the Women’s Episcopacy debate because I feel that the former needed more coverage and frankly (after that enormous debate) it took real effort to concentrate on the afternoon’s offerings. During the afternoon the tea rooms were fuller than I have seen them for a long time.

Wednesday 8th
Today was clearly planned as a calm day before the storm. We started off with a debate on the Admission of baptised children to Holy Communion. This was a rerun of the House of Laity debate on Monday but with everyone involved. Although this was final approval and everything has been signed in triplicate it still gave members a chance to trot out the reasons for why they are against the principles.

In response to the disquiet on questions the Business Sub-Committee introduced a number of questions relating to the Octavia Hill sell off which had clearly been exercising a number of people over the previous two days. It was a hot topic and well aired.
The next debate was designed to reaffirm Reader ministry. The points were well made that in several debates on ministry the distinctive nature of this ministry had not been recognised and it was considered that there should be a look at how this ministry could be developed. Many Readers feel that, with new types of ministry springing up, their specific roles were being undermined or ignored.
After lunch we debated whether it should be allowed to patent the Human Genome. This was a fairly erudite debate concentrating on the meaning of “patent”. Was it a right to use the patented object for commercial purposes or was it a device to prevent the diffusion of knowledge. It was agreed that it was too big a topic (it had been introduced as a Diocesan Synod motion) and so it has been referred to the Mission & Public Affairs Council for a more substantial bit of preparation to be done for a further debate this time next year.
The other major debate in the afternoon was about the way in which we (as a church and as a nation) are to mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. The most practical action that came out of this was the affiliation of the church to the “Stop the Traffik” Coalition. This is a one year campaign – similar to the “Make Poverty History” initiative of 2005 which will concentrate on stopping human trafficking and protecting the victims.

We had a very positive debate about the strategic agenda for Synod for the next 5 years.
Finally we discussed the way in which Hospital Chaplains are supported and funded, requesting Her Majesty’s Government and others to continue to support them adequately. Colin Randall had the opportunity for his maiden speech which went down very well. It had the right level of serious content and humour.

Thursday 9th
This was the day that everyone had been looking forward to. Two massive debates relating to the way we are as Church. On the one hand there was the debate on Women Bishops and on the other the Heritage that is our buildings.
The Archbishop of Canterbury started the debate on Women’s Episcopacy by stating that we were already in a difficult place. He recognised that not everyone believed that we had decided to consecrate women in the July debate. He recognised that there were issues relating to canonical obedience and the universal validity of orders and that we had a desire to ensure the maximum possible unity within the communion. He left Synod with no doubt that he felt that all the thought so far meant “no 3rd Province”, “no reversal” but “TEA (Transferred Episcopal Authority) required further examination.

The normal practice seems to be that two heavyweight speakers for and against are then invited to speak before the chair restricts speeches to 5, 3 or 2 minutes as the debate progresses.

No one was more surprised than me to be invited to be first on after the Archbishop.
I had put in to speak because I had been worried that many of the speeches may be hiding behind what I call the “ologies”. What I had wanted Synod to realise was that if you strip away the “ologies” you end up with a human story of the way in which my brother, +Chichester, and I end up if the whole thing goes pear-shaped. Talking with the chair afterwards he felt that my contribution would help to set the tone of the debate. Only time will tell.

Many of the other speakers told of ways in which TEA could work or not work. They spoke of their fears for those who have faithfully served a church that is different to that which is emerging, or about a church which has hurt them by excluding them because of their gender. Some men spoke in favour of Women’s Episcopacy while some women spoke against. Above all though there was a genuine sense that we wanted to come to the best of compromises.

As one speaker put it if Christopher Columbus had been an Anglican he would only have got half way across the Atlantic.
We voted, almost without exception, to go forward to the next stage. The Times the following day only afforded a column inch to the whole of Thursday’s proceedings. At least they normally publish something about the Gay issue regardless of whether we have discussed it or not.

The rest of the day was taken up with a composite debate based on a main motion; a diocesan motion and a private members motion. The 3 were all timely reminders that the Government doesn’t fund churches comparably to the benefit society receives from them. This was followed by a number of questions which frankly become more bizarre each session.

Synod was prorogued after a farewell to Gordon Kurht who had been secretary for DRACS for a number of years.
It was great to be back and it was heartening to hear a lot of people saying how they had missed the Bath & Wells contingent.

Tim Hind
Chair Open Synod Group