This page will be updated during the debates.
*Debate continued on Monday, and our report is here.*
After morning worship and the presidential address from the archbishop of York, Synod started its mammoth series of debates on the Women in the Episcopate legislation this morning.
These are the relevant papers.
GS 1708-09Y Report of the revision committee.
GS 1708A Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709A Draft Amending Canon 30
Notice Paper 5 Amendments before Synod
We will update the following two web pages during the debates to show what happens to the amendments and how those amendments that are passed change the text of the draft measure.
Draft measure as amended by Synod
Annotated copy of Notice Paper 5 showing what happened to amendments
Saturday morning
This started with a “take-note” debate on the report of the revision committee.
The Chair of the Revision Committee (the Ven Clive Mansell (Archdeacon of Tonbridge)) moved:
501 ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report.’
This was a general debate. Voting in favour did not necessarily imply supporting the report, but the take-note motion had to be passed before any further progress on the legislation was allowed.
11.47 am Synod voted to close the debate. Archdeacon Mansell the responded to the debate.
11.52 am Synod voted in favour of item 501 on a show of hands.
12.00 noon Synod started the revision stage.
Canon Simon Killwick proposed the creation of new, parallel dioceses by moving amendment 512a in Appendix 1 of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. In these circumstances standing orders require more than 40 members to stand for the debate to proceed. Many more than 40 stood.
12.52 pm Synod voted to close the debate on amendment 512a. Enough members (standing orders require at least 25) then stood to require a division of the whole synod, ie an electronic count. There were 134 votes in favour, 258 against and 8 recorded abstentions, so the amendment was defeated.
12.58 pm Synod broke for lunch.
Saturday afternoon
2.00 pm Synod resumed the revision stage
The Revd Rod Thomas proposed complementary bishops and compulsory transfer of functions from the diocesan bishop by moving amendment 513a in Appendix II of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
3.26 pm Votes to close the debate on the amendment and move to the vote. Sufficient members stood to require a vote by houses. The motion was defeated in all three houses.
| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 10 | 28 | 2 |
| clergy | 52 | 124 | 3 |
| laity | 73 | 118 | 4 |
The combined figures (135 for, 270 against and 9 abstentions) were almost identical to the vote on the previous amendment.
Synod then took a ten minute break.
Clause 2
3.45 pm Synod resumed.
The archbishop of York then moved the amendment 514, which (with 531) would set up co-ordinate jurisdiction, proposed by him and the archbishop of Canterbury.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
5.07 pm Synod voted to close the debate and proceed to a vote. A call for a vote by houses was successful.
The amendment was defeated, because it was lost in one house (House of Clergy).
| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 25 | 15 | 0 |
| clergy | 85 | 90 | 5 |
| laity | 106 | 86 | 4 |
In the light of the result, there was a motion to adjourn the debate until Monday. This was defeated on a show of hands.
5.25 pm Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe, proposed his amendment 515 to restrict the delegation of functions to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.37 pm Kevin Carey proposed amendment 516. The steering committee resisted the amendment. Very members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.41 pm Tom Sutcliffe proposed his amendment 517 to set up a Review Commission.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.52 pm The next item on the agenda was the motion to include clause 2 in the measure. The chair adjourned the debate until Monday as he judged there was insufficient time to complete this before the scheduled closure time of 6.15 pm.
*Debate continued on Monday, and our report is here.*
They re working so hard. And in this heat.
Having lost by five votes in one house, the Archbishops now would doubtless like to engage in some delay, some horse-trading, and some arm-twisting in order to get what they want.
They’ll come up with some face-saving compromise.
Or if they are allowed to, they’ll change the rules in the middle of the game.
Whatever transpires at this Synod, these figures clearly show that FiF people who want to remain Anglicans should stay and continue their fight, and, equally, that those supporters of women bishops who have not wished hitherto to concede anything more than a ‘code of practice’ should think again and make a generous gesture.
the pace of events tends to overtake news coverage, but for those interested in reporting on women bishops in England from a Canadian perspective, go to the link below. For one thing, there is a great photograph of Women bishops–alas no mitres.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/news-items/article/england-general-synod-set-for-lengthy-debate-on-women-bishops-legislation-9288.html
The fact is: there is no consensus. There is no particular reason why there should be. People are different. What we all, as Christians, have in common is: Christ. I don’t really mind if different people express their faith differently to me. May God bless them. As Christians we are all in union with Christ, and in this primary and eternal way, in communion with one another (in all our diversity). Let us therefore, in response to this amazing grace, love one another, encourage one another, acknowledge one another, and serve one another – and those we meet. There is… Read more »
My guess is, the people supporting the consecration of women as bishops have decided they do not need a compromise to get the majority they need to pass the basic set of recommendations.
I hope very much they will not try the tactics of “spin” having so roundly heard them condemned yesterday by the Archbishop of York. They lost. End of.
And Synod has not taken well recently to efforts to have its arm twisted.
Firstly, I must say thank you to all at Thinking Anglicans for the hard work you are putting in to inform us. Perhaps if the ABs had considered talking to people instead of dictating to people this Synod would have been less fraught. I think it’s not unreasonable to consider that the attempt to adjourn the debate until Monday directly after the ABs amendment failed was, as Jeremy puts it, so that the ABs could engage in some delay, some horse-trading, and some arm-twisting in order to get what they want. As things stand at the moment the Synod has… Read more »
Thanks for helpful summary. Could you explain what the bit of business that wasn’t done means ie to include Clause 2 in the measure? Not an expert on these things.
Susannah,
That is a great posting and one which – I truly believe – will find a most sympathetic response from those who – from an immediate, superficial, point of view – are at the opposite end of the spectrum.
John.
“The amendment was defeated, because it was lost in one house (House of Clergy).”
God bless the CofE clergy! [The House wot has women-with-calls: funny how that vote went… ;-/]
ABs C&Y: get with GOD-GIVEN EQUALITY of orders, or get out!
It is worth remembering that the Revision Committee’s proposals already require a significant compromise on the part of many of those committed to the opening up of all forms of ministry to women. The archbishops’ failed amendment was widely seen as going so far that it would have undermined women bishops and led to a significant change in the understanding of episcopacy.
“Perhaps if the ABs had considered talking to people instead of dictating to people this Synod would have been less fraught”
Even better: listening to people.
It seems, from the outcome, the the Church of England General Synod cannot be bludgeoned into providing ‘alternative arrangements’ for minority dissenters, that would compromise the authority and jurisdiction of a female diocesan bishop. This is as it should be. If the Church decides that there is no barrier to ordaining women who are called by God into the ministry of the Church, then no amount of fudging or compromise can, with integrity, be used to thwart that calling – not even for the sake of ‘Unity’. For what sort of ‘unity’ would that exemplify? If a male priest or… Read more »
I agree with Susannah. Well, put. We’re all different.
Yesterday evening, I commented on Susannah’s comment. Perhaps I forgot to press some button. Perhaps I’d had too wine (it happens). Anyway, I’d like to reiterate my unequivocal support for those sentiments, which I am ever more convinced -find heart-felt echoes in the bosoms of many, many traditionalists who dearly wish to remain Anglicans. Let’s help them.
Would everyone please remember that the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee IS a compromise already. It is not a single clause measure which most supporters of women bishops would like, including myself. What is on the table, and has years of consultation and work behind it, allows PCCs to issue a Letter of Request to a woman bishops to supply a male priest or bishop. I don’t like that, but I am willing to live with it because church life, like most things, involve compromise. Painting the ‘pro-party’ as uncompromising simply isn’t fair or honest.
Meanwhile in Leicester, a Roman catholic bishop spoke to about 70 Anglicans about the ordinariate!
FIF have well and truly had their bluff called.
It would be useful to have a list of who voted which way on 513a and 514, when the voting roll is published. Please, Simon!
Lets see how many actually do “cross the Tiber”. Surely at some point members of FIF and others must declare their hand…or the whole Ordinariate thing is going to look pretty daft.