Thinking Anglicans

General Synod – Wednesday's business

Update Thursday night I have corrected the voting figures on item 35; the number of bishops voting against was 16 (and not 15).

This page will be updated during the day as business proceeds.

The day started with a service of Holy Communion.

Synod then moved onto this motion on Recent Violence in Nigeria proposed by the Bishop of Durham

That this Synod, gravely concerned at the desperate plight of Christian communities in parts of Nigeria, as described in GS 1861, request the British Government to do all it can to support those in Nigeria seeking to protect religious minorities of all faiths and enable them to practise their religion without fear.

There is a brief background paper (GS 1861).

The Archbishop of Canterbury made this contribution to the debate.

The motion was carried with 344 votes in favour, none against and one recorded abstention.

Synod them moved onto the first of two items of business on the legislation to allow women to be bishops. This was the report (GS 1847) of the Business Committee on the reference of this legislation to the diocese. A couple of items were omitted from the report, and are listed in Notice Paper 10.

The motion before Synod was ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report’. Motions of this type allow a general debate on the report. Synod duly took note of the report and then adjourned for lunch.

Here is the official summary of the morning’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 8th February 2012 AM

Synod resumed at 2.30 pm.

The Diocesan Synod Motions on this topic, taken after lunch, are below the fold.

Initially the motion from Manchester was moved. The proposers of the other two motions have spoken, but will move their motions later. This procedure allows a general debate to be held on all three, before Synod moves onto debating and voting on each one specifically in turn (in the order 36, 35, 13).

4.50 pm All motions and amendments have now been moved. Voting will take place shortly.
5.05 pm Pete Spiers’ amendment (item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below.

  For Against Abstentions
Bishops 40 5 1
Clergy 122 70 1
Laity 107 85 4

Following this amendment, the text of item 35 (a proposed amendment to item 13), became:

35 (as amended by item 36) Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert
“(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”.

5.25 pm Item 35 (as amended by item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below

  For Against Abstentions
Bishops 26 16 5
Clergy 128 64 0
Laity 111 85 1

5.30 pm Item 13 (as amended by item 35) was then carried on a show of hands. Here is the final text of the motion as passed by Synod.

13 (as amended by item 35)

That this Synod,
(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.

Synod then took a ten minute break before moving onto a debate on its standing orders. There was then a delay as too many members had taken the opportunity to have a cup of tea, and some had to be called back to make up a quorum.

The only item requiring debate was a proposed change to standing orders to make the Chair of Synod’s Business Committee an elected position, rather than a position appointed by the Archbishops’ Council and subject to confirmation by Synod.

The Bishop of Willesden proposed an amendment to restrict the position to members of the houses of clergy and laity (ie not a bishop). This was defeated with 99 votes in favour and 103 against, with 9 recorded abstentions.

The original proposal was then carried on a show of hands.

There was not time to take a following motion, so this concluded the day’s business.

Here is the official summary of the afternoon’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 8th February 2012 PM

Motions before Synod in the afternoon

The Ven Cherry Vann, Archdeacon of Rochdale (Manchester) to move on behalf of the Manchester Diocesan Synod:

13 That this Synod call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure.

The Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett (Southwark) to move as an amendment on behalf of the Southwark Diocesan Synod

35 Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert
“(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops not to exercise its power under Standing Order 60(b) to amend the draft Measure.”.

The Revd Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool) to move (with the permission of the Chair) as an amendment to item 35:

36 Leave out all the words after “request the House of Bishops” and insert
“in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”

15
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
15 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Father Ron Smithc.r.seitzCliveDominic BarringtonJeremy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Jean Mayland
Guest
Jean Mayland

The BBC and the Irish Times et al do not seem to have realised that the current legislation before General Synod IS a compromise.What is being proposed today by Manchester Diocese and the Archbishops is NOT a compromise. It is a step beyond and a step too far What the Bishop of Bath and Wells wants is the legislation and NOT the step too far

john
Guest
john

Totally opaque to me what is really going on. Nevertheless, it seems that this really is a decisive moment: the moment when the C of E has to decide whether or not to ‘cut slack’ to those who, otherwise emotionally and religiously committed to the C of E (which the great majority of them are), either reject or are unsure about WO, especially women bishops. I would remind readers that at our recent requiem mass for much loved gay parishioner women priests and FiF lay people worked together in the altar space. That remains my C of E. It is… Read more »

Tobias Haller
Guest
Tobias Haller

If I am understanding this correctly, motion 13, as amended is exactly the opposite of motion 13 as proposed? Depending on what “substantially” means?

Father Ron Smith
Guest

Jean’s comment here is an important reminder that the Draft Measure already approved by the last General Synod Meeting, and substantially approved by the subsequent Diocesan Synods; is already a compromise: allowing the opponents of Women Bishops and Clergy to access non-diocesan episcopal ministry at the discretion of the female Diocesan Bishop. Any further compromising of the Diocesan Bishop’s authority – such as is being advocated by the Archbishops’ amendment (and Manchester’s support of the amendment) must surely be a step too far. The resultant 2-tier episcopate would not lead to ‘Unity’ within the Church of England. Nor would it… Read more »

Robert ian Williams
Guest
Robert ian Williams

With those voting figures.. I think the measure will not receive a two thirds majority in July.

Jean Mary Mayland
Guest
Jean Mary Mayland

Robert- never despair until the last minute.We have been here before

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

RIW, on final drafting it just did.

Dominic Barrington
Guest
Dominic Barrington

I am indebted to the editors of TA – most of the time. I’m not a Synod best, but am passionately concerned about the women bishops legislation. I am abroad, and relying on TA to find out what’s going on this week- and, in truth, I don’t really understand what has actually happened. I wish someone would explain in lay terms… Has Manchester been kicked out of touch- I wish I knew! Didn’t realise how dumb I was!

Clive
Guest
Clive

Also indebted to TA for the coverage, making it easy to follow from Canada. As an outside observer, I do find it remarkable how the Church of England manages to continue to find “wiggle room” within ever narrower and narrower spaces, such that when we thought we really had got down to one way or the other, yet a third way was again pulled like the proverbial rabbit from the hat. Will it be enough for Anglo-Catholics to stay with integrity? Time will tell, but I doubt it will mean any further concessions to them. Experience in the other provinces… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest

“The signpost labelled “integrity” points to the Ordinariate” – Clive, on Friday –

That, then, must be called the ‘Third Integrity’.
The Church of England, sadly, has already enshrined 2 of them. Let’s hope an undiluted Code of Practice that allows Women Bishops to be fully Bishops in the Church, will reduce the integrities in the Church of England to just one – based on Truth & Justice.

c.r.seitz
Guest
c.r.seitz

Is ‘Truth and Justice’ what classic Christian thought has labelled ‘Law’?

Is it ‘righteousness’?

Or is it a Lockian idea/abstraction, pointing to power and its allocations?

Father Ron Smith
Guest

You mean, Christopher, like the “Anglican Communion Institute” – another Lockian abstraction ?

c.r.seitz
Guest
c.r.seitz

What a puerile comment. I apologise if my point was too obscure for you to track, but it was not delivered in jest. My hunch is that when Christian theologians speak about the character of ‘law’ — how it works ‘all the way down’ in the case of the ‘second use’ or ‘theological use’ of the law — they are getting at something meant now by your appeal to ‘Truth and Justice.’ But of course when Luther spoke of Law in this way, he meant that it exposed all of us. One could not be ‘on the side’ of Law.… Read more »

c.r.seitz
Guest
c.r.seitz

Appears my comment was trashed.

ED NOTE: Retrieved and published.

Father Ron Smith
Guest

One man’s trash is another person’s gold.

Sorrow, Christopher, If I’ve offended you. I can only embrace you – as one sinner does another.

Pace!