The remainder of the detailed Synod reports from the Church Times are now available to non-subscribers. We linked to the first batch here.
Anglican Church of North America: Synod affirms ACNA desire to be in the fold
Legislation: Two jobs completed
Bibel Anniversary: ‘What looks dead and dusty can give you a shock’
Military Chaplains: ‘Support us; respect our work’
Violent Games: Members speak out against ‘inferno’ of computer games
Science and God: The scriptures ‘are not a scientific textbook’
Children and Youth: ‘Connected’ youth strategy welcomed
Farewell: The Bishop of Southwark
Civil Partners: Synod agrees to backdate pension rights
Mission Initiatives: Support, money, training needed for fresh expressions
Church Buildings: Help us care for listed buildings, State is urged
Lectionary: Long tussle over the first lesson
Methodism: Methodists urge more joint work and worship
The detailed results of the electronic voting at this month’s General Synod are now available. These include the votes of each member who took part.
Here are the details for the two controversial items.
Anglican Church in North America
This is the final version of the motion (Item 14 as amended by Items 55 and 59):
That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada:
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
It was carried by these votes:
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions309 69 17
Here are the electronic voting results for this item.
Parity of pension provision for surviving civil partners
This is the motion (Item 22):
That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.
It was carried by the following votes after a Division by Houses.
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentionsBishops 12 2 3 Clergy 97 23 10 Laity 78 59 9
Here are the electronic voting results for the above motion.
There was an amendment (Item 64) moved to the above motion:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“recognise that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses.”
This was lost by the following votes.
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions110 154 15
Here are the electronic voting results for the amendment.
Other electronic votes
The other electronic votes are linked here.
Audio recording of the whole debate
Text of lay Synod member Lorna Ashworth’s speech proposing her motion
anglican.tv video coverage:
Press conference held on Tuesday
Lorna Ashworth’s opening speech
Text of speech by Archdeacon Norman Russell
Text of speech by the Bishop of Winchester
Transcript of the Tuesday lunchtime presentations to synod members (press were not admitted to this event)
Reflections on Synod vote for C of E to be in Communion with the ACNA by Bishop Henry Scriven (written before the debate)
An article by A. S. Haley criticising the paper that I edited about ACNA: A Vestry Member Returns the Favor
A criticism written by Marc Robertson (no relation) of the paper by Canon Chuck Robertson.
Colin Coward The Future of the Anglican Communion - a Big Question and After a week of Big Questions – the Communion still survives
The first batch of detailed Synod reports from the Church Times are now available to non-subscribers.
Women Bishops: Women: the direction of travel
Terms of Service: Synod approves code for ‘hard cases’
The Archbishop of Canterbury’ Presidential Address
Religious Broadcasting: Speakers channel their TV concerns
Clergy Pensions: Retire later for full pension, clergy told
The remaining reports will be available next week.
Updated yet again Tuesday evening
See earlier list of pro-ACNA items.
The Church Times headline is Synod holds off from ACNA.
THE General Synod declined on Wednesday afternoon to express a desire to be in communion with the Anglican Church in North Amerca (ACNA).
But, “aware of the distress caused by recent divisions” in the Anglican Churches of the US and Canada, it recognised and affirmed the desire of those who had formed ACNA to be part of the Anglican family, and “acknowledged that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further”.
Earlier in the week, Matt Davies of ENS had reported Church of England says no to full communion with breakaway entity.
Church Mouse For the avoidance of doubt - the CofE did not ‘recognise’ the ACNA yesterday
Simple Massing Priest “Just a flesh wound”
Lionel Deimel Declaring Victory and Moving On
Scott Gunn Parsing Synod — what have they done?
Jim’s Thoughts resolution
Colin Coward Lorna Ashworth’s motion about the Anglican Church in North America
ask the priest Synod, ACNA and the FCE - A narrowly-avoided theological misstep
Updates
More from Simple Massing Priest
SOMEBODY on the Anglican Right is lying
and
Another lie from the Anglican Right
Justin Brett ACNA-Related Ramblings
Stand Firm has discovered another document, Copy of TEC Memo Circulated at CoE Synod.
The text of the speeches by Giles Goddard and by Simon Baynes are both published below the fold.
Colin Coward has commented about the debate: General Synod approves pension parity for Civil Partnerships.
Andrew Brown commented about it at Cif:belief in Recoiling from nastiness.
According to Christian Today in its news story
One Synod member, who asked to remain anonymous, said conservative Synod members had deliberately withheld from taking to the floor to speak against the motion for fear of reprisals.
“They didn’t dare to. There would have been screams of homophobia if anyone had dared oppose it,” he said.
Anglican Mainstream has already issued two memoranda:
AM comments on private member motion on pensions for civil partners
and a few hours later: Clergy Pension Scheme – what was and wasn’t decided at General Synod
And AM has also published “A briefing paper by Clive Scowen prepared for the Synod debate”, dated 18 January: Should civil partners be treated like spouses?
Speech to the C of E’s General Synod 11th Feb - Giles Goddard, Chair, Inclusive Church and member of General Synod
I support this motion. But to explain why, I would like to talk first about the wider context in which we find ourselves. Coming to the end of my first Synod I’ve been honoured and humbled to be part of such a wide range of debates. But it does, nevertheless, seem to me that there’s a sort of cancer affecting the Church of England, something which is running through our life and debilitating all that we try to do. It’s not the presence of lesbian and gay people in loving relationships throughout the church, nor is it the opposition to that - no, it’s the argument around all this. It’s been going on for thirty years now, and it comes out in all sorts of different and unhelpful ways. It comes out, for instance, in the agitation in the House of Lords about the Equalities Bill. Whatever the bishops may have intended , and I acknowledge the very real concerns about religious freedom, the result of their activities was to reconfirm in the public mind the connection between Christianity and homophobia – not surprisingly, because the churches do have a history in this area. It comes out in tensions within the Anglican Communion. It was clearly the elephant in the room in our debate yesterday about ACNA, and we might have had a more realistic debate if we’d been able to acknowledge that. It comes out again and again in the lives of those of us trying to do good work in local parishes – I’m based just across the river in Waterloo, and we struggle to engage with institutions like the National Theatre and the South Bank Centre largely because of the church’s attitudes to human sexuality.
We are forfeiting our right to speak on any moral question or question of justice, as anything we say is undermined by the public perception of the church’s attitude on these matters. To be clear- the perception of homophobia in the church is deeply impeding our mission.
This motion gives us a chance to make a fresh start; to act with generosity, and to begin to undo the damage which has been done. We’re all getting tired of this discussion, and I honour the Archbishop’s words on Tuesday. But it’s not going to go away until we find a way of making progress. At the moment we’re locked in an uneasy stalemate, for which we must all bear some responsibility. So we need to find a new way – a way based on much deeper respect for one another’s views, for acknowledgement of their Biblical and faithful roots and the sincerity and deeply known Christianity across the spectrum.
We certainly need, now, leadership from the House of Bishops, reflecting the various views which I know are there but which we hear very little. Above all, we need to rediscover, in this area, the notion that Anglicanism is a community of civilised disagreement.
It’s a question, in the end, of mission. About the face we present to the world. There’s nothing clever or countercultural about resisting the love of God – and that’s how it comes across.
So, now, turning to the motion - I know that there are people in this room for whom civil partnerships are an anathema. There are others whose lives have been transformed by the ceremony, and who are deeply regretful that the church does not yet offer a way to celebrate that before God. This motion isn’t about approval or disapproval of civil partnerships - it’s about justice, generosity and care. If we pass it, we won’t be giving approval to these relationships, but we’ll be reflecting and celebrating the Anglican way for the sake of mission.
On so many other issues – the remarriage of divorced people, for example, or the admission of children to communion, or worship, or the wording of the Lord’s Prayer – over and over again we’ve learnt how to live alongside each other, as I hope we will over women bishops. It’s the parable of the wheat and the tares – both grow until we know the truth. We in Inclusive Church, of which I’m chair, are deeply committed to making that happen. One of my delights is speaking to some- distressingly few but some - evangelical and conservative brothers and sisters, and acknowledging the depth of our mutual attachment within the same church.
And so I will vote for the motion. First, because it’s right. There is no justification for our treating the permanent, stable and faithful partners of clergy any differently to how we treat their spouses, and it’s important to acknowledge that.
And, second, because this gives us an opportunity to be generous, and to send a message to those we serve. We are, as I say, undermining our mission at the moment – we need to demonstrate that we do want to live and work alongside one another for the Reign of God and in the name of justice and love. We’re not talking about very much money; and the symbolism of this would far outweigh the monetary value. So I urge you to support the motion.
General Synod: 11th February 2009: Civil Partners Pensions Debate SpeechSimon Baynes, 394, St Albans
Mr Chairman,
I am the new boy on the Pensions Board. I was elected at the tail end of last year and look forward to my first meeting later this month. After this week’s debates I can see that I shall be very busy! I’m deeply grateful to those who voted for me… and humbled by the size of the vote that came my way.
And, what I say in this speech is a personal view that I shall be taking to the Board when we meet. A personal view of someone who works as an Independent Pensions Trustee.
We all know there are two issues which are certain to fill the press gallery here at Church House. One is the issue of Women Bishops and the other is anything to do with Gay Clergy.
I am sorry to disappoint the ladies and gentlemen up there - there is no debate on Women Bishops in this group of sessions and there is no debate on Gay Clergy either. This is not a debate about Gay Clergy. It is a debate about pensions and the unfairness that we have allowed to be built into our system.
I have been struck by the case of Jeffrey John, who is Dean of the Cathedral where I regularly worship. On realising how he and his partner are treated under the present rules, compared to married clergy, my wife and I were simply appalled.
If Jeffrey died, then his partner for over 30 years would receive £3,370 per annum.
But… if instead of being in partnership for 30 years, had Jeffrey been married for just a few days before he died then his widow would receive £7,550 per annum. That’s more than double!
I commend Mark Bratton for his motion. If there was ever a case of treating one group of clergy unfairly compared to another, this is it.
Mr Chairman, let’s cast our minds forward 38 years. This debate would not be necessary because 43 years would have passed from the Civil Partnership Act becoming law. The discrimination that clergy in civil partnerships face today would have gone away, simply because the clock has ticked forward. We have already accepted the principle of equality. It exists today, except we’re saying it can’t happen fully for 38 years.
Put another way…. How would we feel if slavery had been abolished but existing slaves had to carry on being slaves for another 38 years? The analogy is exactly the same…. and remember, some Christians were against the abolition of slavery even when it happened.
To continue as we are, is tantamount to saying the Church of England will pay “as little as it can get away with”, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong. Employers who pay as little as they can get away with are, in my experience, some of the nastiest employers around and the Church should not be amongst them.
And, we’re not talking about much money in the greater scheme of things. This is not a debate about whether we can afford it. It is a debate about fairness and whether we wish to be in the pursuit of justice.
To vote this motion down would make the Church look, at best very mean, and at worst a laughing stock – We really must avoid this. When I raised this issue with the Policy Director of the National Association of Pension Funds he wrote to me to say “We are in favour of common sense”.
Mr Chairman, I hope that Synod will vote to show that we are all in favour of common sense. I support the motion unamended.
The following article was written by Brian Lewis for the Preludium blog of Mark Harris.
“We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language” (Oscar Wilde, The Canterville Ghost 1887).
I was alarmed but (bearing in mind Oscar’s witticism) should not have been surprised to hear that some in TEC and ACoC might misunderstand the full significance of the Church of England’s General Synod’s decision to reject the call to “express a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”.
But let us be clear it did just that, not once, but twice or perhaps even three times.
To follow through the sequence of events.
The original motion was:
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
In a background paper circulated in advance of the debate the mover (Lorna Ashworth) made a number of allegations about TEC and the ACoC. This clearly established that though the motion was ostensibly only about ACNA it was intended to invite the CoE to condemn the behaviour of TEC and ACoC.
In response to that briefing paper I circulated to all members of synod two papers.
All synod members including the Archbishops were sent these papers (I believe they are now online at Thinking Anglicans). Members of TEC and ACoC are indebted to Simon; I know how hard he worked on the production of theses papers. I also know how grateful many members of synod were to receive them.
Mrs Ashworth duly presented her motion to Synod, the further allegations made in her opening address confirmed that this was indeed a motion inviting synod to condemn the actions of TEC and ACoC.
In response to the original motion the Bishop of Bristol put forward an amendment (with the support of the House of Bishops) entirely replacing it.
The amendment reads
That this synod
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
There are two key and essential things to recognise about this amendment (certainly recognised by everyone in the synod and why it was resisted by those supporting ACNA):
(Other finer questions about “affirm” and “remain” were not key to the understanding of this amendment and to my recollection not brought into the debate, indeed an amendment to leave out “affirm” was withdrawn; we could equally say that by saying the leadership had “formed” ACNA the Bishop was saying ACNA is a new church, but that was also not part of the debate nor probably part of the Bishop’s intention. )
The force of this amendment is in replacing OUR desire to be in COMMUNION with THEIR desire to remain part of the Anglican FAMILY.
Synod accepted this amendment.
Synod declined to express “a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”. That matters. Questions not asked are one thing but when a question is asked and the answer is politely No Thank You that changes where you are.
The No Thank You was polite, of course it was, but it was real. The amendment also asked our Archbishops for a report on the situation, and helpfully recognised the reality of the issues any future possible recognition would raise for the relevant authorities.
I find it difficult to see how ACNA could welcome any of this.
Further In case it was just possible that this was not a rejection of synod “expressing a desire to be in Communion with ACNA” the supporters of ACNA put forward again, as an amendment to the Bishop’s amendment, the original request “that this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”. Asking the Synod to say both things at once. A very Anglican fudge that would have been!
The Bishop of Winchester and other ACNA supporters spoke for this, needless to say I spoke against it.
This was the critical moment of the debate - you might just possibly maintain we had in the Bishop’s amendment acknowledged proper procedure - the role of the “relevant authorities” the role of the Archbishops etc, now we could add in the support of our persecuted brothers and sisters (as they were presented to us), and say we desired to be in Communion with them.
The synod carefully considered this and voted No.
That is the second time.
Then we were asked to add an amendment that expressed “our desire that in the interim, the orders of ACNA clergy be recognised and accepted by the Archbishops subject to their satisfaction as to such clergy being of good standing, enabling them to exercise their ordained ministry in this country, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967.”
We said No. Recognising orders is a key part of being in Communion.
I’m afraid I consider that is No a third time.
It was hardly surprising however that nobody objected to the final amendment, an acknowledgement of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada - indeed I had referred to it myself when calling on synod members to support those who had remained faithful to their church.
I know the very existence of this debate raises questions about one part of the Anglican Communion interfering with another - and those questions were raised - but before we answer them, what of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential address expressing “repugnance” of the “infamous” proposed legislation in Uganda, and the efforts he and other CofE bishops have made communicating directly with the Anglican Church in Uganda. It is also not improper for a synod to offer its view of who it hopes we will be in Communion with. But I recognise there are big issues at stake for the Communion generally - I would just reiterate, I see little cause for concern for TEC or ACoC in the outcome of this particular debate, and to be frank it is beyond disingenuous or bizarre for anybody connected with ACNA to pretend this is in anyway an affirmation of ACNA.
Brian Lewis
updated Friday evening
Synod discussed the compatibility of science and Christian belief this morning.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian General Synod says religion and science not mutually exclusive
BBC Synod emphasises compatibility of religion and science
Press Association Religion compatible with science, synod told
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Science and religion are compatible, says Church of England
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says
A summary of Friday’s business at General Synod is online.
General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Friday 12th February 2010 AM
Summaries of Thursday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 11th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 11th February 2010 PM
updated Friday morning
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Methodists declare ‘we’re ready to merge’ with CofE
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Methodist Church ‘prepared to go out of existence’ for mission
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Methodists likely to merge with Church of England
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Leader signals end of Methodism
Steve Doughty in the Mail Methodist church ‘prepared to go out of existence’
Note The above items refer to an address by the President and the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference to the General Synod on Thursday morning. The Methodist Church of Great Britain have released this press release.
President and Vice-President address General Synod
The text of the address is available here.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Church of England General Synod extends pension rights for gay partners
The BBC has Synod votes to give gay clergy equal pension rights
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Church grants full pension rights to gay clergy
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Partners of gay clergy win same pensions as spouses
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church of England backs equal pension rights for gay clergy partners
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Anglican church calls for tighter regulation of violent computer games
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church expresses ‘concern’ about effects of computer games on children
This afternoon General Synod voted in favour of providing pensions to the surviving civil partners of clergy on the same basis as they are paid to surviving spouses. At present, and in accordance with the minimum requirements of the law, service before 5 December 2005 does not count towards the level of pension for surviving civil partners.
The private member’s motion, text below, was proposed by the Revd Mark Bratton, and was passed without amendment.
That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.
The vote was taken by houses and all three houses voted in favour; here are the detailed voting figures.
| for | against | abstentions | |
| bishops | 12 |
2 |
3 |
| clergy | 97 |
23 |
10 |
| laity | 78 |
59 |
9 |
There were two unsuccessful proposed amendments. One, from the bishop of Ripon and Leeds, would have reworded the motion to:
That this Synod recognise that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses.
This amendment was defeated with 110 votes in favour, 154 against and 15 recorded abstentions.
A second amendment, proposed by Dr Philip Giddings, would have added a long list of dependent relatives, as well as civil partners, to those entitled to pensions; this was defeated on a show of hands.
Background papers
GS 1770A paper prepared by Mark Bratton
GS 1770B paper by the Rt Reverend John Packer, Chair of DRACSC (The Archbishops’ Council Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee)
Reports of Wednesday’s broadcasting debate are linked here and of the ACNA debate here.
On other matters there is this.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England warned against thoughtless criticism of Armed Forces by senior padre
Updated Thursday morning to include more details of the motion and amendments and further press reports
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Church of England keeps distance from breakaway US conservative Episcopalians
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church sidesteps gay issue at Synod debate
Avril Ormsby at Reuters UK Church stops short of communion with U.S. conservatives
For the record, the original motion proposed by Lorna Ashworth was
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
Synod amended this to
That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
The amended motion was largely the proposal of the bishop of Bristol, on behalf of the House of Bishops, but paragraph (a) was added on a proposal from the Revd Andrew Gow (diocese of Gloucester).
The amended motion was carried by 309 votes in favour to 69 against, with 17 recorded abstentions.
There was an attempt to amend the motion to read:
That this Synod
(a) express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge these aspirations, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raise issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
This was defeated by 166 votes in favour to 223 against with 2 recorded abstentions.
During the debate there were two procedural motions, one to move to next business and one to adjourn the debate, but both were defeated. If carried either would have brought the debate to an immediate end without a vote.
Summaries of Wednesday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 10th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 10th February 2010 PM
The second of these will not be complete until after the close of business at 7.00 pm.
Synod debated this private member’s motion on religious broadcasting, proposed by Nigel Holmes, this (Wednesday) morning:
That this Synod call upon the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British television, which was once exemplary in its coverage of religious and ethical issues, now marginalizes the few such programmes which remain and completely ignored the Christian significance of Good Friday 2009.
An amendment was moved by the Bishop of Manchester, and carried by Synod, which reworded the motion to read:
That this Synod
(a) express its appreciation of the vital role played by those engaged in communicating religious belief and practice through the media, at a time of changes within the industry; and
(b) express its deep concern about the overall reduction in religious broadcasting across British television in recent years, and call upon mainstream broadcasters to nurture and develop the expertise to create and commission high quality religious content across the full range of their output, particularly material that imaginatively marks major festivals and portrays acts of worship.
The amended motion was carried by 267 votes in favour with 4 against and 2 recorded abstentions.
Here are some press reports.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Synod rejects motion attacking broadcasters over lack of religious programmes
Martha Linden of the Press Association in the Independent Church concern over religious broadcast hours
Avril Ormsby of Reuters UK Church of England laments drop in religious TV programmes
The BBC has Church of England concerned by ‘religious TV cuts’
updated Wednesday lunchtime
We covered most of these last night, but here are a couple looking forward to some of today’s business.
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Anglican Church in North America ‘should be in communion with C of E’
The BBC has BBC accused over a lack of religious broadcasts
The Guardian has BBC religious coverage to come under fire at Church of England debate
updated Thursday morning
We link to the text of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s presidential address here. Here are some early press reports of what he said.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury appeals for unity over gay clergy and women bishops
update The Guardian has issued a correction to the above article. The online version appears to be correct.
A story reported Rowan Williams’s appeal for Anglicans to show mutual tolerance over issues of gay equality and female bishops. The story also noted a statement put out by the head of the church in Uganda, Henry Orombi, supporting his country’s proposed anti-gay legislation. Contrary to our headline – Archbishop’s plea for tolerance undermined by attack on gay people at General Synod, 10 February, page 4 – the Orombi statement was issued in Kampala. The statement also insisted: “The church is a safe place for individuals to seek help and healing.” This was changed in editing to “Williams’s church”, when the Ugandan archbishop was referring to his own.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Relaxing assisted suicide laws a ‘moral mistake’ - Archbishop of Canterbury
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Rowan Williams issues ‘profound apology’ to gay Christians
Steve Doughty in the Mail Archbishop of Canterbury says changes to assisted dying laws will ‘cross a moral boundary’
Avril Ormsby at Reuters UK Archbishop warns over restricting religious freedoms
updated Tuesday evening
Summaries of Tuesday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 9th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 9th February 2010 PM
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his presidential address to General Synod this afternoon. A press release is online, followed by the text of the speech.
Archbishop’s Presidential Address
In addition there is Word document of the speech linked from here.
The Archbishop delivering his address.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian New split in Church of England over women bishops
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church of England exodus feared unless women bishops plans changed
Andrew Hough in the Telegraph General Synod: Church of England suffering from ‘testosterone deficit’
George Pitcher in the Telegraph The Church is full of women – so obviously what we don’t need is women bishops
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Church of England is ‘living in the past’, says BBC’s head of religion
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Dr Rowan Williams to challenge infighting over gays and women bishops
Steve Doughty in the Mail Where have all the men gone? asks the Church of England
Jerome Taylor in the Independent Evangelicals in warning over women bishops
Many of these articles refer to this press release from Reform Reform highlights ‘huge practical problems’ with women bishops and an attached letter sent to Synod members.
A summary of Monday’s business at General Synod is online.
General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Monday 8th February 2010 PM
There are links to audio of the proceedings.
The questions to be asked at General Synod next week are now online.
General Synod February 2010 Questions
The answers will be given in the last item of business on Monday 8 February.
The American Anglican Council has published this press release: Rebutting Simon Sarmiento and TEC’s Factual Inaccuracies.
The article lists only five points.
Anglican Essentials Canada has published this article: ACoC priest, Alan Perry, questions the ACNA briefing paper.
The article lists only one point.
Readers may recall this General Synod motion, which is being debated next Wednesday. And there is this amendment.
A paper rebutting the claims made about the Episcopal Church, compiled by me, has been issued to General Synod members.
That paper can now be read in full here.
Readers may recall this General Synod motion, which is being debated next Wednesday. And there is this amendment.
A paper rebutting the claims made about the Anglican Church of Canada, written by Alan Perry has been issued to General Synod members.
That paper can now be read in full here.
The text of the House of Bishops amendment to the ACNA motion is now available:
Item 14 Anglican Church in North America (GS 1764A and 1764B)
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) to move as an amendment:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.
The Church Times reports on the agenda for February, Margaret Duggan writes Synod’s ‘full agenda’ to include pensions, Fresh Expressions, and religion on TV.
And, in a separate article, Pat Ashworth writes Synod to debate the ACNA. More details of that motion with full copies of the two background papers (and our main discussion of it) can be found here.
The BBC reported Anglican dissidents put back decision on Vatican offer.
In connection with the preceding item, the Church TImes also has an article by Bill Bowder on a meeting earlier this week at Westminster Abbey: Rome not ‘escape hatch’ Abbey conference hears.
And the Carlisle-based News and Star reports Retired Cumbrian producer attacks BBC over religious coverage.
WATCH (Women and the Church) issued this statement this evening.
WATCH PRESS STATEMENT
Tuesday, 19th January 2010 – for immediate release
FURTHER DELAY FOR WOMEN BISHOPS
Following the publication this week of General Synod’s February agenda, WATCH notes with deep regret that there will be no debate on the draft legislation for women bishops. The Revision Committee set up to prepare the legislation which will open the Episcopate to women has failed to complete its task in time for February’s synod, as requested in a synod motion one year ago. Although not explicitly asked to do so, the Revision Committee considered a range of options for the legislation, including models already rejected by General Synod.
Despite this disappointing setback, WATCH would like to thank those members of the Revision Committee who have worked hard and with dedication in their attempt to achieve the aims of the General Synod to create something that offers a moment of transformation of historic proportions in the life of the Church.
“At least no one can say that any stone has been left unturned” said Christina Rees, chair of WATCH. “We now expect the very best legislation to be presented well in advance of the July meeting of General Synod. We hope to see a clear, workable and straightforward set of proposals, which are closely aligned to what Synod requested in July 2008, namely legislation making it possible for women to be bishops within the existing structures of the Church. Perhaps all the extra time this is taking will help the Revision Committee to reach the simplicity that lies beyond complexity.”
WATCH is pleased to see that the Bishop of Manchester, as Chair of the Steering Committee, is to give February’s Synod a report on the process so far and hopes that he will provide a full explanation of the reasons for the delay. WATCH also hopes that he would agree that it would be unthinkable if their report is not brought to the July 2010 meeting of General Synod. This matter is of such ecclesial and public importance that should the Church fail to honour its decisions to allow women to be bishops, especially as women account for nearly 40% of the Church’s active clergy, it risks becoming an object of ridicule. WATCH therefore hopes that the Bishop of Manchester will provide assurances that the report will indeed be brought to the July 2010 meeting of General Synod without suffering further prevarication and delay.
Further, WATCH believes it is now incumbent upon the Revision Committee to produce a comprehensive report that will obviate the need for past models and options to be considered yet again in July 2010. Along with doubtless many members of General Synod, WATCH would also expect the Revision Committee’s report to be available well in advance of the July meeting, so that proper consideration and consultation may take place.
WATCH also hopes that the Business Committee will make every effort to ensure sufficient time and flexibility is scheduled at the July Synod to complete all the stages necessary for the draft legislation to be sent to the dioceses.
CONTACTS:
Christina Rees
(Chair)
01763–848-822
Revd Hugh Lee
(General Synod member)
01865-316-245
Revd Rachel Weir
(Vice-Chair)
07815-729-565
Revd Dr Charles Read
(Vice-Chair)
07910-128-265
Next month’s meeting of General Synod will be debating this private member’s motion, proposed by The Revd Mark Bratton, on Thursday 11 February:
“That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.‟.
Here are the papers for this debate.
GS 1770A Background paper by Mark Bratton available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
GS 1770B Background note from the Rt Reverend John Packer available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
Next month’s meeting of General Synod will be debating this private member’s motion, proposed by Lorna Ashworth, on Wednesday 10 February:
“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with
the Anglican Church in North America”.
Here are the papers for this debate.
GS 1764A Background paper by Lorna Ashworth available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
GS 1764B Background note from the Secretary General available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
Some early reports on next month’s Synod business.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph BBC’s ‘marginalisation’ of religion to be criticised by Church of England’s governing body
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Religion on TV either marginalised or freak show, clergy complain
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Church to vote on greater rights for partners of gay clergy
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Delay hits ordination of women bishops
Martha Linden (Press Association) in the Independent Key debate on women bishops delayed
The General Synod of the Church of England will meet in London from 8 to 12 February 2010. The following press release was issued a short time ago.
See our adjoining item for links to online Synod papers.
Full agenda published for February’s General Synod
18 January 2010
Debates on children and young people, mission, TV coverage of religion, science and religious belief, church buildings, relations with the Anglican Church in North America, clergy pensions and legislation feature in sessions of the Church of England’s ‘parliament,’ the General Synod, to be held in London from February 8th to 12th.
Children and young people
Synod will debate the report Going for Growth, on the Board of Education’s new strategy for children and young people. This offers both a theological framework and practical proposals, and is a sequel to the debate at the July 2009 Synod on the major inquiry into childhood commissioned by The Children’s Society, A Good Childhood.
Mission
The report and motion from the Mission and Public Affairs Council will follow up the 2004 Synod debate on ‘Mission-shaped Church’ and will encourage action in training and deployment; the making of Bishops’ Mission Orders, and research on the growth of the ‘mixed-economy Church.’ Bishop Graham Cray (Archbishops’ Missioner and Fresh Expressions Team Leader) will give a presentation on the current programme and future plans for Fresh Expressions.
TV coverage of religion and ethics
A Private Member’s Motion from Mr. Nigel Holmes (Carlisle) invites the Synod to ask the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British television marginalises TV coverage of religious and ethical issues.
Legislation
Synod will be asked to complete several items of legislative business – chiefly the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure, which will put in place a new framework for the making of orders for parochial fees. Synod will also be asked to approve two codes of practice issued by the Archbishops’ Council, which set out the capability and grievance procedures that will apply to the clergy under the new common tenure arrangements.
Clergy pensions
An Archbishops’ Council report sets out the reasons for the proposed changes to the Clergy Pensions Scheme. These include increasing the pension age for future service to 68 and increasing the accrual period for future service to 43 years. There is a separate report on changes being proposed in relation to ill-health retirement.
There is also a Private Member’s Motion from the Revd Mark Bratton (Coventry) which asks the Archbishops’ Council and the Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the pension scheme’s rules, to provide pension benefits for surviving civil partners.
Science and religious belief
Synod will debate a Diocesan Synod Motion from Manchester, expressing concern at the perceived need to choose between the claims of science and belief in God; and urging the House of Bishops to promote a better public understanding of the compatibility of science and Christian belief.
Church buildings
The Cathedrals and Church Buildings Division will give a short presentation on what the Division has achieved since the publication five years ago of Building Faith in our Future, and the challenges that cathedrals and church buildings face today. This will preface a debate on the Ripon and Leeds Diocesan Synod Motion, which seeks to increase substantially the amount of money available for the repair of listed church buildings.
Relations with the Anglican Church in North America
A Private Member’s Motion from Mrs. Lorna Ashworth (Chichester) asks the Synod to express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America (which includes churches which have separated from The Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Anglican Church of Canada).
Other Private Members Motions and Diocesan Synod Motions
There will be a debate on a Private Members’ Motion from Mr. Tom Benyon (Oxford) which expresses concern about the potentially desensitising and damaging effects on children and young people of computer games containing violent and sexual content; and seeks changes to the classification system for video games and a review of the regulatory system for advertising video games.
There are two other Diocesan Synod Motions. One from Chelmsford asks Synod to request dioceses, deaneries and parishes to adopt some symbol of the Church’s confidence in the Bible for the nation, bearing in mind that 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version of the Bible. The other is from Coventry diocese, which asks for the case for legislation conferring incorporated status on deanery synods to be considered.
Women bishops
The Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate has reluctantly concluded that it still has too much to undertake in order to conclude its work in time for the February Synod. The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd. Nigel McCulloch, as Chair of the Steering Committee, will make a statement.
Other business
Synod will be addressed by the President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference (the Reverend David Gamble, and Dr. Richard Vautrey) as an expression of the Covenant relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. There will be an opportunity for questions and contributions from the floor.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will give a Presidential Address. There will also be a presentation on the role of armed forces chaplains in the current military operations overseas.
There is also one item of liturgical business: the Revision Stage of the Additional Weekday Lectionary; and some business relating to Synod’s Standing Orders, and the forthcoming Synod elections.
Communicating Synod
Parishioners can keep in touch with the General Synod while it meets. Background papers and other information will be posted on the Church of England website ahead of the General Synod sessions. A live feed will be available courtesy of Premier Radio (accessible from front page of www.cofe.anglican.org), and audio files of debates, along with updates on the days’ proceedings will be posted during the sessions.
Many papers for next month’s meeting of General Synod are now online. The list below will be updated as the remainder become available. Papers are also listed when they are known to exist but are not yet online.
Updated 20, 25, 26, 29 January
Agenda
GS 1756 Full Agenda
Outline Agenda
Papers for Debate
The scheduled day for debate is appended.
GS 1639B Draft Amending Canon No 29 [Tuesday]
GS 1639C Petition to the Crown
GS 1639Z Report of the Steering Committee
GS 1715B Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure [Tuesday]
GS 1715Z Report of the Steering Committee
GS 1724A Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects [Wednesday]
GS 1724Y Report of the Revision Committee
GS 1727A Care of Cathedrals Measure [Tuesday and Thursday]
GS 1740A Mission and Pastoral Measure [Tuesday and Thursday]
GS 1740Y Revision Committee Report
GS 1757 Report by the Business Committee [Monday]
GS 1758 Clergy Pensions: Task Group Report [Tuesday]
GS 1759 Clergy Pensions: Ill-health retirement [Tuesday]
GS 1760 General Synod Elections 2010 [Tuesday]
GS 1761 Mission Shaped Church: Follow-up [Tuesday]
GS 1763 44th Report of the Standing Orders Committee [Wednesday]
GS 1766 Fresh Expressions [Thursday]
GS 1767 Realising the missionary potential of Church buildings [Thursday]
GS 1769 Going for Growth (covering note only) [Thursday]
Going for Growth report
GS 1774 and GS 1775 Codes of Practice under Section 8 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009 [Tuesday]
GS 1774-5X Explanatory Memorandum
Private Member’s Motions
GS 1762A and GS 1762B (Mr Nigel Holmes): TV Coverage of Religious and Ethical Issues [Wednesday]
GS 1764A and GS 1764B (Mrs Lorna Ashworth): Anglican Church in North America [Wednesday]
GS 1770A and GS 1770B (The Revd Mark Bratton): Parity of pension provision for surviving civil partners [Thursday]
GS 1771A and GS 1771B (Mr Thomas Benyon): Violent computer games [Thursday]
Diocesan Synod Motions
GS 1765A and GS 1765B (Chelmsford): Confidence in the Bible [Wednesday]
GS 1768 (Ripon and Leeds): Repair of Church buildings [Thursday]
GS 1772A and GS 1772B (Manchester): Compatibility of Science and Christian Belief [Friday]
GS 1773A and GS 1773B (Coventry): Deanery Synods [Friday]
The outline agenda for next month’s meeting of General Synod is now available online and is copied below.
Note: In the agenda DSM stands for Diocesan Synod Motion, and PMM for Private Member’s Motion. The texts of the private members’ motions are online.
GENERAL SYNOD: FEBRUARY 2010Outline Agenda
Monday 8 February
Afternoon
[ 2-4pm: Meetings of the House of Clergy and House of Laity ]
Tuesday 9 February
Morning
Afternoon
Wednesday 10 February
Morning
Afternoon
Thursday 11 February
Morning
Afternoon
Friday 12 February
Morning
To put the recent press release from the revision committee into context, it may help to review what actually happened on 7 July 2008.
The order paper is here, listing the full text of all the amendments. The pertinent amendment is number 72 in the name of the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.
Peter Owen’s report of the voting is here.
Here is the rollcall of the bishops votes.
And the rollcall of the clergy votes.
And subsequently, I wrote an analysis, Bishops give a clear lead. I wrote about amendment 72:
Finally, ten of them [i.e. conservative bishops listed earlier] voted for the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds’s amendment to keep open the possibility of “statutory transfer of specified responsibilities”. Altogether 21 bishops supported this, but amazingly both Chichester and Birmingham opposed it, leading to a 21-21 tie in that House. (The chair of the drafting group, the Bishop of Manchester, abstained on many though not all votes.)
The amendment did obtain a 53% majority in the House of Laity, but failed in the House of Clergy where it obtained only 47% support. Had the vote not been by houses, the amendment would have passed by the slim margin of 203-200, with 3 abstentions.
The Church of England issued the press release below this evening. The essential part is this extract from the fourth paragraph.
The Committee has … voted to amend the draft Measure to provide for certain functions to be vested in bishops by statute rather than by delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory code of practice.
Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate
8 October 2009
The Revision Committee established by the General Synod to consider the draft legislation on enabling women to become bishops in the Church of England today completed the first phase of its work. The Committee has further meetings planned between now and December and is aiming to complete its task by Christmas so that its report can be debated in full Synod in February and the draft legislation begin its Revision Stage in full Synod.
The Committee received nearly 300 submissions, including more than 100 from members of General Synod. Many of these offered alternatives to the proposal in the draft legislation to make provision by way of statutory code of practice for those unable on grounds of theological conviction to receive the episcopal and/or priestly ministry of women.
In the seven meetings that it has held so far, the Committee has considered each of these alternatives: additional dioceses; the vesting by statute of certain functions in bishops with a special responsibility for those with conscientious difficulties; the creation of a recognised society for those with conscientious difficulties; and the adoption of the simplest possible legislation without a statutory code of practice.
Of these, the Committee has, after receiving oral evidence and having lengthy discussions, voted to amend the draft Measure to provide for certain functions to be vested in bishops by statute rather than by delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory code of practice. The Committee will now be working through the consequential details flowing from this decision.
The work of the Revision Committee, whose task is to scrutinise the draft legislation line by line and consider submissions for amendment, is one stage in a process that still has a number of years to run. It will be open to the full Synod to revisit matters considered by the Revision Committee and to amend the draft legislation as it sees fit.
Thereafter it will have to be considered by all diocesan synods and a majority of them will need to vote for the legislation before it can come to the Synod for final approval. At that stage a two-thirds majority would be required in each of the three houses of Synod (bishops, clergy and laity) before the legislation could go to Parliament and eventually for Royal Assent. On any basis it is unlikely that the first female bishop will be consecrated before 2014.
The membership of the Revision Committee was announced in March 2009.
A transcript of the questions asked at last month’s General Synod and the answers is now online.
The detailed reports of this month’s General Synod published in last week’s Church Times are now generally available online.
Senior clergy: Synod rejects numbers game on bishops
Legislation
ARCIC
Synod agenda
Stewardship: ‘Let’s talk about wallets, not willies’
Church Commissioners
Spending priorities: Spend on children and local ministry, members urge
Draft budget
Clergy discipline: will bishops wear a mitre or a judge’s wig?
Terms of service
Anglican Communion: Dr Williams regrets US move
Representation rules
Weekday lectionary: Popular readings queried
Pension rules
Farewells: Tributes to bishops ‘who aren’t retiring’
Archbishops’ Council
Boards and councils: Revolt against central streamlining
Urban life: Committed to uncomfortable Britain
Clergy pensions
Learning disabilities: ‘If they’re missing, the whole Church is disabled’
Good childhood: Motion tells children God is the answer
Church fees: Waiving with impunity
Appointments
ENS Matthew Davies Archbishop addresses synod on Anglican Communion issues. This is the most detailed report yet of this agenda item.
ENS Trevor Grundy Synod rejects cuts for ‘top heavy’ church
Also, there are several posts on the General Synod Blog from Justin Brett and Alastair Cutting.
Justin also blogs here. And has an additional guest posting here.
BBC Robert Pigott Faith Diary: ‘Open your wallet’
Updated - now 8 bishops
The Private Members Motion which has been tabled at the General Synod reads as follows.
Anglican Church in North America
Mrs Lorna Ashworth (Chichester) to move:‘That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.’
This has signatures from over 100 synod members including these bishops:
Blackburn
Winchester
Europe
Rochester
Beverley
Burnley
Also:
Ely
Willesden
For an explanation of the PMM process, see here.
Meanwhile, the Bishop of Sherborne has written about FCA at Cif belief. Read The Queen, the church and the Fellowship.
George Pitcher wrote at the Telegraph Sack the bishops and make them earn their livings.
Riazat Butt wrote in the Guardian Vote on gay bishops threatens archbishop with another schism.
And at Cif belief General synod: the tightrope walk continues.
Here’s the official report: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Monday 13th July 2009
It includes, as usual, complete audio recordings of each session.
On Monday afternoon Synod debated a diocesan synod motion about some perceived shortcomings in the Clergy Discipline Measure.
The Revd Prebendary David Houlding moved on behalf of the London Diocesan Synod:
That this Synod whilst recognizing the need for discipline in the exercise of ordained ministry nonetheless note with grave concern and regret the pastoral implications of the new Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and request the Archbishops’ Council at the earliest possible opportunity to review its practical outworkings and with reference in particular to the attached Code of Practice.
His Honour Judge John Bullimore (Wakefield) moved as an amendment:
Leave out all the words after “exercise of ordained ministry” and insert:
“(a) note the concerns that exist about aspects of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (especially as regards the perceived pastoral implications of the Code of Practice made under it);
(b) welcome the response by the Clergy Discipline Commission to its consultation on aspects of the Measure (circulated as GS 1747B); and
(c) invite the Archbishops’ Council to seek a report from the Commission before the end of the quinquennium on whether there is a case for bringing forward, early in the lifetime of the next Synod, draft legislation to amend the Measure or amendments to the Code of Practice.”.
Synod voted in favour of Judge Bullimore’s amendment.
As a result the substantive motion became:
That this Synod whilst recognizing the need for discipline in the exercise of ordained ministry
(a) note the concerns that exist about aspects of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (especially as regards the perceived pastoral implications of the Code of Practice made under it);
(b) welcome the response by the Clergy Discipline Commission to its consultation on aspects of the Measure (circulated as GS 1747B); and
(c) invite the Archbishops’ Council to seek a report from the Commission before the end of the quinquennium on whether there is a case for bringing forward, early in the lifetime of the next Synod, draft legislation to amend the Measure or amendments to the Code of Practice.
The amended motion was carried on a show of hands.
Background paper
A note from the Clergy Discipline Commission (GS 1747B)
This morning Synod debated some changes to the Church Representation Rules. One of these turned out to be controversial. This was to repeal the provision that dioceses should provide candidates in elections to General Synod with a list of e-mail addresses of electors (where available). The reasons for this were set out in an Explanatory Memorandum from which the following is the relevant extract.
13. Paragraph 6 gives effect to recommendation (g) of the report, to the effect that the requirement contained in Rule 39(5)(b) CRR and Rule 20(3)(b) Clergy Representation Rules to supply candidates in elections to the General Synod with e-mail addresses should be repealed.
14. In the elections to General Synod in 2005 a number of dioceses had noted with concern the impact of the Data Protection Act in relation to the new requirement to communicate electors’ e-mail addresses to candidates where electors had authorised the use of such an address. Those implications arose in terms of (a) the need for the explicit consent of individual electors to be obtained to allow their e-mail addresses to be circulated to candidates and (b) the need to protect electors from subsequent over disclosure of their e-mail addresses by candidates. The Group took the view that the requirement to supply e-mail addresses placed a disproportionate cost on dioceses in relation to the theoretical benefit that might be gained if a candidate asked for the list, as the sparsity of email addresses made it ineffective as a resource for electioneering purposes. Additionally, while everyone had a postal address of some kind, there were still people who did not have e-mail addresses, and so it would be impossible to require either electors or candidates to provide them.
Synod members argued that this was a backward move and did not agree that the practical problems were good enough reason to stop making e-mail addresses available. The proposal was thrown out.
Note: In elections to General Synod candidates can send a two-page election address to each elector at the expense of the diocese. Candidates are also entitled to a list of names and addresses of electors so that they can send out further election material at their own expense. The number of electors in each constituency is typically several hundred.
Updated Monday afternoon
ENS reports that Deputies support fully inclusive ordination process, ongoing commitment to communion.
The House of Deputies by more than a 2-1 margin adopted a resolution July 12 that declares the ordination process of the Episcopal Church open to all individuals while expressing its ongoing commitment to the Anglican Communion.
The vote was 77-31 in the lay order and 74-25 in the clergy order. It now goes to the House of Bishops, where it must be passed to be enacted.
Resolution D025 was created as a response to resolution B033, which was adopted in the waning hours of the 2006 General Convention and urged restraint concerning the election of bishops whose “manner of life” would cause offense to the wider Anglican Communion. That was widely believed specifically to refer to gays and lesbians in committed same-sex relationships.
Ruth Gledhill has a comprehensive report on what the Archbishop of Canterbury said during the first item of business on Monday.
Archbishop of Canterbury ‘regrets’ TEC move to gay ordination.
Responding to a question by Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream, Dr Williams said: ‘As for General Convention it remains to be seen I think whether the vote of the House of Deputies will be endorsed by the House of Bishops. If the House of Bishops chooses to block then the moratorium remains. I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America but I can’t say more about that as I have no details.’ Dr Williams also responded to concerns about the funding for the ‘listening process’ saying that he had been personally involved in securing that funding and had been completely unaware of any ‘agenda’ attached to the funding.
The Church Times blog has a good report on the story from General Convention, see House of Deputies affirms ministry of gay and lesbian persons.
Updates Monday afternoon
The Times Ruth Gledhill Schism closer as US Anglicans vote to overturn ban on gay ordinations
Guardian Riazat Butt Archbishop of Canterbury ‘regrets’ move to ordain gay bishops
Press Association Martha Linden Archbishop’s ‘regret’ over US decision over gay bishops
Mrs Joanna Monckton (Lichfield) asked the Chairman of the Council for Christian Unity:
Q. Has the Council considered the implications from the point of view of the Porvoo Agreement of the announcement by the Church of Sweden that it is going to change its marriage service to take a gender neutral form so that the same form of service can be offered to same-sex couples as to heterosexual couples?
The Bishop of Guildford, Christopher Hill, replied:
A. The Church of Sweden has not yet taken a decision in response to recent state legislation providing for gender neutral marriage. The Synod meets in September and again in October and there is a proposal before it that the marriage liturgy should not be gender-specific. In the light of a letter from the Archbishop of Uppsala advising the Porvoo churches of likely developments in the legislature and the Swedish Synod, the Faith and Order Advisory Group considered the issues raised by this proposal at its last meeting and the Chairs of the CCU and FOAG have published an open letter to the Archbishop reflecting FOAG’s concerns about the implications of any revision of its marriage liturgy by the Church of Sweden. This letter is now on the Church of England website and I have arranged for a copy to be placed on the notice board.
PDF version of the letter mentioned above
Mrs Joanna Monckton (Lichfield) asked the Chairman of the Council of Christian Unity:
Q. In the light of the considerable difficulties experienced in the Anglican Communion following the consecration of a practicing homosexual as a bishop, has the Council considered the implications of the recent decision by the Church of Sweden to appoint a practising lesbian as a bishop?
The Bishop of Guildford replied:
A. The Council for Christian Unity has not had the opportunity to reflect on this recent development. When it does so it will need to consider the similarities and differences between the Anglican Communion and the communion of Porvoo Churches. However, in both contexts, the interchangeability of ordained ministries is subject to the discipline of the churches involved, which in the case of the Church of England is the discipline set out in the Revd Tony Higton’s 1988 General Synod motion and in the 1991 report Issues in Human Sexuality. The CCU has proposed that there should be a consultation next year in which the Porvoo churches share the work they have done in human sexuality and the doctrine of marriage, in order to see where there is common ground and where there are genuine differences between them.
The Times Ruth Gledhill
Church of England Synod rejects bishops’ call to cut its councils
Archbishops snubbed over power-grab plans
Church of England faces calls for cuts in the number of bishops
Guardian Riazat Butt More bishops needed, says General Synod
Telegraph Martin Beckford Church of England needs more bishops, not fewer, General Synod hears
Independent Lewis Smith Grassroot unrest prompts review of bishops’ role
BBC Church considers bishop cuts
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Church of England dismisses grass root clergy’s call to axe bishops amid cash crisis
Official report of the day is at General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Sunday 12th July 2009.
As its last item of business on Sunday afternoon Synod considered a diocesan synod motion from Bradford.
The Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford) moved on behalf of the Bradford Diocesan Synod:
That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council to formulate proposals for reductions in the numbers of episcopal and senior clergy posts, taking into account reductions for the number of stipendiary clergy since 1979; and submit a report with recommendations to the General Synod within three years.
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell & Nottingham) moved as an amendment:
Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert
“, welcoming
(a) the recent establishment of the new Dioceses Commission;
(b) the decision of the House of Bishops to decouple, from January 2011, national support for episcopal ministry from actual episcopal numbers; and
(c) the intention of the Archbishops’ Council later this year to begin consideration of future policy on the number of bishops and dioceses,
invite the Archbishops’ Council to prepare for the new Synod in November 2010 a progress report on the delivery of changes to the present pattern of dioceses and of episcopal deployment.”.
Dr Baxter’s amendment was carried on a show of hands.
The Revd Jonathan Clark (London) moved as an amendment:
At the end insert “and request the Faith and Order Advisory Group (or its successor body) to present to this Synod early in the next quinquennium a report:
(i) bringing together existing material in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion relating to the exercise of senior leadership in the Church; and
(ii) setting out biblical and theological perspectives to inform the Church’s developing patterns of senior leadership.”.
Mr Clark’s amendment was carried on a show of hands.
Following the two amendments the substantive motion became.
That this Synod, welcoming
(a) the recent establishment of the new Dioceses Commission;
(b) the decision of the House of Bishops to decouple, from January 2011, national support for episcopal ministry from actual episcopal numbers; and
(c) the intention of the Archbishops’ Council later this year to begin consideration of future policy on the number of bishops and dioceses,
invite the Archbishops’ Council to prepare for the new Synod in November 2010 a progress report on the delivery of changes to the present pattern of dioceses and of episcopal deployment and request the Faith and Order Advisory Group (or its successor body) to present to this Synod early in the next quinquennium a report:
(i) bringing together existing material in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion relating to the exercise of senior leadership in the Church; and
(ii) setting out biblical and theological perspectives to inform the Church’s developing patterns of senior leadership.”.
The amended substantive motion was carried on a show of hands.
Background papers
Note from the Diocese of Bradford (GS 1733A)
Note from the Dioceses Commission (GS 1733B)
On Sunday afternoon Synod debated a report Review of Constitutions (GS 1737) that proposed replacing most Church of England central boards and committees by a lead person supported by a small reference group.
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham), who chaired the group that produced the report, moved:
‘That this Synod
(a) welcome the further report of the Constitutions Review Group (GS 1737);
(b) endorse the recommendations set out in Annex 1 of the report; and
(c) invite the Archbishops’ Council and the Standing Orders Committee to take the steps necessary to give effect to those recommendations.’
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford) moved as an amendment:
Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert
“(a) decline to endorse the proposals set out in GS 1737; and
(b) request the Archbishops’ Council, after consultation with the boards and councils concerned, to produce revised proposals which:
(i) provide for the participation of elected Synod members in deliberation and policy-formation as well as in scrutiny and accountability; and
(ii) reflect the individual remits and sets of stake-holders of each area of activity.”
Dr Giddings’ amendment was carried on a show of hands.
As a result the substantive motion became:
That this Synod
(a) decline to endorse the proposals set out in GS 1737; and
(b) request the Archbishops’ Council, after consultation with the boards and councils concerned, to produce revised proposals which:
(i) provide for the participation of elected Synod members in deliberation and policy-formation as well as in scrutiny and accountability; and
(ii) reflect the individual remits and sets of stake-holders of each area of activity.
The amended motion was then carried on a show of hands.
Note: The report GS 1737 is not available online.
Updated Sunday afternoon
Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Church accuses Government of favouring Muslims
Archbishop of Canterbury in bid to prevent church split over homosexuality
BBC Church to consider fewer bishops
Press Association via Independent Synod to debate calls to sack bishops
Press Association Clergy retirement age may increase
There is also an excellent piece about the Synod on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme, link via this page.
Afternoon Update
Not strictly a report from General Synod, but very interesting:
Mail on Sunday Jonathan Petre Bishops ‘will lose right to vote’ in Labour’s reform of Lords
The Times Ruth Gledhill Dr John Sentamu warns of dangers of power as Church seeks cetralisation
Telegraph Martin Beckford Archbishop of York compares teen murder victims to John the Baptist
Living Church George Conger Motion in English Synod to Recognize ACNA
Mr Clive Scowen (London) asked the Secretary General:
Q. Have any representations been made to HM Government, or briefings given to members of Parliament and peers, concerning the Equality Bill currently before Parliament, in particular relating to the likely impact of its provisions on Christian employers wishing to recruit committed disciples of Christ wishing to fashion their lives according to biblical precepts and, if so, what in outline was the substance of those submissions and briefings?
Mr William Fittall replied:
A. There is a copy on the Church of England website of the substantial submission produced by the Archbishops’ Council in response to the Government’s earlier consultation exercise. We produced a briefing document for MPs for the Second reading of the Bill and I gave oral evidence to the Bill Committee on 9 June at which, with representatives of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and Board of Deputies I argued strongly against the narrowing of the provisions for religious organisation in relation to employment. Our lobbying, in partnership with others, continues both publicly and privately.
Two supplementaries were asked:
The materials mentioned by Mr Fittall can be found:
Submission to the earlier consultation (A Framework for Fairness)
The official report of Saturday’s proceedings is here: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Saturday 11th July 2009. This includes links to audio recordings of each session. No doubt this page will be further updated at the end of the evening.)
The Times Ruth Gledhill wrote yesterday about the forthcoming debate on re-organising many of the General Synod committees. Her news report was headlined Reform to hand Archbishop of Canterbury huge power. On her blog she added more information, including the whole text of a note by Philip Giddings. See General Synod: Laity asked to pay for loss of power.
Riazat Butt at the Guardian previews some other items, Church of England could cut number of bishops amid funding crisis.
Martin Beckford reports on yesterday for the Telegraph Church of England General Synod should talk more about wallets than people’s anatomy’ and Church of England bishops fear for ‘fragile unity’ of Anglicanism over new gay marriage moves.
Steve Doughty has two reports in the Daily Mail Church of England asks its flock for £1,000 a year and Church of England under pressure to accept gay marriage.
The letter about the Church of Sweden to which Steve and Martin refer can be found here.
There is a BBC report Synod to discuss boosting income.
Official report of the day’s proceedings, together with audio recordings of them, is at
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Friday 10th July 2009 PM.
For some indications of what the Questions covered, see my Twitter entries from that session.
I will post more information about the Questions and Answers during the day tomorrow.
The Church of England has published a press release Update published on Clergy Pensions Scheme.
The Church of England has today published a second and more detailed report on the impact of the credit crunch and recession on the financial position of the Funded Clergy Pension Scheme. The report puts forward various options relating to the future of the scheme.
The last actuarial valuation of the scheme, carried out as at 31 December 2006, revealed a deficit of £141m. This is currently being eliminated by way of extra contributions paid by the ‘employers’ participating in the scheme, in addition to the contributions required to pay for future benefits. Some modifications were also made to the scheme in 2007 to help contain costs…
…The conclusion reached is that further changes to the scheme will be necessary to return it to affordability, and the report sets out a number of proposals for achieving this which include limiting the annual increase in the pensionable stipend, moving for future service the accrual period for a full pension from 40 to 43 years, changing the pension age from 65 to 68 and contracting back into the Second State Pension. The report also sets out options for the future structure of the scheme including retaining the existing defined benefit arrangement, moving onto a defined contribution basis and introducing a hybrid arrangement…
The 23-page detailed report is published as a .doc file.
There will be a presentation about this report at the July General Synod, but not a formal debate. The press release explains:
The report has been issued to all the organisations participating in the scheme, including the 44 diocesan boards of finance, and responses are due by the end of October. The Task Group will then make its final recommendations to the Archbishops’ Council which will decide what proposals should be put to the General Synod which must ultimately approve any changes to the scheme rules.
The 2 page Summary section of the report is reproduced below the fold.
CLERGY PENSIONS CONSULTATION PAPER FROM THE ARCHBISHOPS’ TASK GROUP
Summary
1. The Church of England now faces difficult choices over the future of its clergy pension scheme. The Pensions Board has already had to increase from the beginning of 2010 the contributions that dioceses and others have to make to fund the scheme. Unless action is taken, far larger increases look unavoidable from 2011 even if the financial markets recover somewhat before the next formal valuation of the pension fund at the end of 2009.
2. All the indications from the dioceses are that the sorts of increases that will be required are unaffordable. The Task Group is clear, therefore, that some significant changes to the present pension scheme will be needed. The objective must be to continue to make adequate provision for our clergy in retirement in a manner that is sustainable in the long term.
3. There is no simple solution. It has already been suggested by some that the Church Commissioners should be called on to clear the deficit in the pension fund. This would, in the view of the Task Group be a mistake.
4. The historic assets of the Commissioners are already being used to pay for pension benefits earned before the funded scheme was introduced in 1998. To disperse even more of these assets would be to meet today’s liabilities at the expense of future generations. It would also reduce immediately the Commissioners’ ability to make money available for distribution, especially to the less well resourced dioceses.
5. The Task Group’s judgement, therefore, is that a solution needs to be found that is consistent with the proportion of their budgets that dioceses are already devoting to pension costs. Currently dioceses have to pay the Pensions Board a contribution of £7,797 for every clergy member of the scheme for whom they are responsible. That represents 39.7% of the national minimum stipend (‘the contribution rate’). From January 2010, that will increase to 45% (an annual rate of £8,838) and on present estimates could rise to around 57% (£ 11,195 on current stipend rates) from 2011.
6. On the basis of what it has already heard from dioceses the Task Group has concluded that the target contribution rate for any solution should be around 42%, which is itself nearly double what the rate was when the funded scheme was introduced in 1998.
7. Much less than this would have an unacceptable impact on the income prospects for clergy in retirement. Much more is unlikely to be affordable without disproportionate damage to other aspects of the Church’s mission and ministry.
8. At this stage the Task Group has not identified a recommended option. Instead it has worked up three possible models. All other things being equal, all would produce, in total, the same level of retirement income but they differ in terms of where the risk lies that things will turn out differently.
9. One option would preserve a modified version of the present defined benefit scheme and would leave most of the future funding risk with those who fund the contributions. One would move all clergy to a defined contribution arrangement for future service where the pension earned largely depends on the size of the pension pot accumulated and they would bear the risk that this will turn out to be less than expected. The third would move them to a hybrid scheme for future service - that is where part of the pension received would be on a defined benefit basis and part would be based on a defined contribution arrangement. Under this option the risk is shared between the clergy and those paying the pension contributions.
10. Since each of the three possible approaches needs to cost around 42% they have certain common features. Each would involve :-
These common factors are explained in paragraphs 69 to 91.
11. None of the possible changes would affect pensions already in payment, nor would they affect pension rights already earned by those still in service. They could, however, potentially affect the amount of pension that existing clergy would receive at the moment of retirement depending on when the person concerned takes retirement and the other market factors explained later in this report.
12. The Task Group is seeking comments (sent to the address below) on these possible approaches by the end of October. It will then decide what recommendation to make in November to the Archbishops’ Council, which in turn will have to bring a proposal to the General Synod for approval in February 2010.
13. After that there will need to be a statutory consultation with all members of the pension scheme with a view to Synod approving any necessary rule changes if possible in July 2010 before the Pensions Board has to set the contribution rate from 2011.
Please submit your response to : ‘pensionstaskgroup@c-of-e.org.uk’ .
Clergy Pensions Task Group
June 2009
Updated Monday 22 June, Tuesday 23 June, Thursday 2 July, Wednesday 22 July, Monday 27 July, Friday 31 July
Many papers for next month’s meeting of General Synod are now online. The list below will be updated as the remainder become available. Papers are also listed when they are known to exist but are not yet online.
Agenda
Papers for debate
The scheduled day for debate or presentation is appended.
GS 1642D Draft Amending Canon No 28 [Saturday]
GS 1692B Draft Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure [Saturday]
GS 1693B Draft Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure [Saturday]
GS 1692-3Z report by the Steering Committee
GS 1715A Draft Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure [Saturday]
GS 1715Y report from the Revision Committee
GS 1723 Christian Stewardship: Report from the National Stewardship Committee [Friday]
GS 1724 Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects [Saturday]
GS 1725 Opening the Doors: Report from the Committee for Ministry of and among Deaf and Disabled people, and the Mission and Public Affairs Division [Sunday]
GS 1726 The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 [Monday]
GS 1726X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1727 Draft Care of Cathedrals Measure
GS 1727X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1729 Business Committee Report [Friday]
GS 1730 Archbishops’ Council’s Draft Budget and Proposals for Apportionment for 2010 [Saturday]
GS 1731 Archbishops’ Council’s Spending Priorities 2010-2015 [Saturday]
GS 1732 Archbishops’ Council’s Annual Report [Saturday]
GS 1733A Episcopal and Senior Church Posts: A note from the Diocese of Bradford [Sunday]
GS 1733B note from the Dioceses Commission [Sunday]
GS 1734 Appointments to the Archbishops’ Council [Friday]
GS 1735 Chair of the Archbishops’ Council Audit Committee [Friday]
GS 1736 ARCIC Report Life in Christ: note from the Faith and Order Advisory Group [Friday]
GS 1736-01 ARCIC Report Life in Christ: note from the Archbishop of Canterbury
GS 1736-02 ARCIC Report Life in Christ: note from Mgr Andrew Faley and John Sherrington
GS 1737 Archbishops’ Council Review of Constitutions [Sunday]
GS 1738 The Church Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution 2009 [Monday]
GS 1739 The Clergy Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution 2009 [Monday]
GS 1738-9X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1740 Draft Pastoral and Mission Measure [Monday]
GS 1740X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1741 Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2009 [Monday]
GS 1742 Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2009 [Monday]
GS 1741-2X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1743 Parochial Fees Order 2009 [Monday]
GS 1743X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1744 Being Adult about Childhood: A Consideration of the Good Childhood Inquiry [Sunday]
accompanying pamphlet: Children’s Evidence
GS 1745 The Urban Church: Three Years on from Faithful Cities [Saturday]
GS 1746 Clergy Pensions [Saturday]
GS 1747A Diocesan Synod Motion: Clergy Discipline Measure [Monday]
GS 1747B Clergy Discipline Measure: A note from the Clergy Discipline Commission
GS 1748A Diocesan Synod Motion: Confidence in the Bible [contingency business]
GS 1748B The view of Scripture taken by the Church of England and the Anglican Communion
GS 1749 The Church of England Funded pensions Scheme (Additional Lump Sum) (Amendment Rules 2009 [Monday]
GS 1750 The Church of England Pensions (Lump Sum pensions) (Amendment) Rules 2009 [Monday]
GS 1751 The Church of England Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2009 [Monday]
GS 1749-51X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1753 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Revaluation) (Amendment) Rules 2009 [Monday]
GS 1753X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1754 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Exclusion of Ineligible persons) (Amendment) Rules 2009 [Monday]
GS 1754X Explanatory Memorandum
Background Papers
GS Misc 918 Human Genome
GS Misc 919 Retirement housing review: second report
GS Misc 921 Engaging with Europe
GS Misc 922 Illustrative Material in Support of the Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations
GS Misc 924 Clergy Discipline Committee Annual Report for 2008
GS Misc 925 Archbishops’ Council:Report on its activities since the February Group of Sessions
The General Synod of the Church of England will meet in York from 10 to 13 July 2009. The following press release was issued a short time ago.
NEWS from the Church of England
PR65/09
22/6/09
For immediate use
July Synod Briefing - Debates on Church finance, legislation, governance, and the Church’s ministry in the community
The Agenda for the July Synod, meeting at York University from Friday 10 July to Monday 13 July, will be primarily concerned with financial issues, legislation and other governance issues. There will also be opportunity for discussion of The Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Inquiry, urban life and faith, and ministry with people with learning disabilities.
There will also be one item of liturgical business (the Additional Weekday Lectionary), an update by the Archbishop of Canterbury on Anglican Communion matters (following the recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica), and consideration of the Archbishops’ Council and Church Commissioners annual reports.
Finance
The credit crisis and the accompanying recession provide a new and challenging context and opportunity for a debate on Christian Stewardship. The debate is resourced by a report from the National Stewardship Committee and an accompanying parish guide, which the Synod is invited to commend to dioceses, deaneries and parishes for discussion and action. The Synod will have the opportunity to consider the current target of Church members giving 5% of their income to their local church.
The Synod will also receive a presentation from the Clergy Pensions Task Group on the main findings of the Group’s work and the options for the future of the Clergy Pensions Scheme. The Task Group’s report, which looks at the funding of the scheme and the impact of the current financial recession, will start a consultation process with bodies which sponsor the scheme, with a prospect of a Synod decision in February 2010 on the way forward.
The Archbishops’ Council established a review group under the chairmanship of Andrew Britton (Chair of Finance Committee) to undertake a strategic financial assessment of the Council’s spending priorities for the period 2010-2015. The report will be the subject of a take note debate in the Synod before the Council gives more detailed consideration to the outworking of the report’s conclusions, in the context of the 2011 and subsequent budget rounds. The Synod will also be asked to approve the Council’s budget for 2010.
Legislation
The principal two items of legislative business are the revision stage for the draft Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure, which received first consideration at the February Synod, and approval of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations, which will set out the detailed terms of ‘Common Tenure’, following on from the Measure which will introduce new terms of service for the clergy having received the Royal Assent.
There will also be the final approval of two draft Measures, revised in February, which deal with issues relating to Crown appointments, a number of changes to the Rules of the Funded Pensions Scheme and the Past Service Scheme, and some detailed changes to the Church Representation Rules and the Clergy Representation Rules (which give effect to the recommendations of the Synod’s Elections Review Group).
Synod will give First Consideration to two draft measures which will consolidate various pieces of legislation on pastoral reorganisation and on the care of cathedrals.
Governance
The motion from the Bradford Diocesan Synod invites the General Synod to request the Archbishops’ Council to formulate proposals for reductions in the number of episcopal and senior clergy posts, taking into account the number of stipendiary clergy over the past 30 years, and to make recommendations to the Synod within three years. Amongst the resources for this debate is a paper from the Dioceses Commission, which sets out the work which it has been undertaking since its reconstitution last year.
Diocesan synod motions from London and Chelmsford express concerns about the pastoral implications of the Clergy Discipline Measure and ask for a review of the practical outworking of the Measure and the Code of Practice. The debate will take place on the London DSM. The Clergy Discipline Commission has itself undertaken a review of aspects of the Clergy Discipline Measure and the Code of Practice under it and this is one of the resources for the debate.
The Constitutions Review Group was set up by the Archbishops’ Council under the chairmanship of Dr Christina Baxter to conduct the quinquennial review of constitutions of bodies accountable to the Archbishops’ Council. The report of the review group was the subject of a presentation and questions at the February Synod. Since then there has been a consultation process. The Archbishops’ Council has considered the revised report of the review group and invites the Synod to endorse the Group’s recommendations, and to ask the Council and the Standing Orders Committee to take steps to implement them. Under these proposals, which aim to make present arrangements lighter and more flexible, the present Boards and Councils would be replaced from November 2010 by lead persons for each area of work, supported by small reference groups.
The Church’s ministry and the community
A Good Childhood was published just before the February Synod. It was a landmark report of the first major independent inquiry into childhood and was commissioned by The Children’s Society. The purpose of the Synod debate is to provide an opportunity for Synod members to respond to the findings of A Good Childhood, and to lay foundations for a debate in due course on the Board of Education’s children’s and youth strategies.
A presentation by Bishop Stephen Lowe will provide an opportunity for him to reflect on his three years’ work as Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, and there will be opportunity for Synod members to ask questions and offer brief reflections.
A report entitled Opening the Doors: Ministry with People with Learning Disabilities and People on the Autistic Spectrum has been produced by the Committee for Ministry of and among Deaf and Disabled People and the Mission and Public Affairs Division, and an accompanying DVD is also being circulated. The Synod is invited to commend the guidelines contained in Opening the Doors to dioceses and parishes.
There will also be a presentation and group work for Synod members on a report from the Council for Christian Unity and the Faith and Order Advisory Group, on the report from the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission on Life in Christ.
Communicating Synod
Anyone can keep in touch with the General Synod while it meets. Background papers and other information will be posted on the Church of England website ahead of the General Synod sessions. Audio files of debates along with updates on the days’ proceedings will be posted during the sessions, which will also be live streamed by Premier Radio.
To hear a new podcast with David Williams, Clerk to General Synod, click here.
ends
The Church of England General Synod meets from 10 to 13 July in York. An outline agenda has been published, and is copied below.
GENERAL SYNOD
July 2009 Group of Sessions
Timetable
Sitting hours: 9.15 am - 1.00 pm, 2.30 pm - 6.15 pm and 8.30 pm - 10.00 pm (except where otherwise stated)
Friday, 10 July
3.30 pm Prayers, introductions, welcomes, progress of legislation; greeting on behalf of the ecumenical guests
Business Committee Report
Appointments to Archbishops’ Council and of Chair of Audit Committee
Christian Stewardship: Report from the National Stewardship Committee
Introduction to group work: Paper from the Council for Christian Unity/Faith and Order Advisory Group on the ARCIC report Life in Christ
8.30 pm Questions
Saturday, 11 July
9.00 am Group work (including prayer)
10.15 am Faithful Cities: Urban Life and Faith: presentation
Legislative Business:
Amending Canon No 28
Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure
Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure
Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure
2.30 pm Clergy Pensions: presentation
Archbishops’ Council’s Spending Priorities 2010-2015
Archbishops’ Council’s Budget
Liturgical Business: Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects
8.30 pm Archbishops’ Council’s Annual Report
Church Commissioners’ Annual Report: presentation
Sunday, 12 July
2.30 pm Opening Doors: Ministry with People with Learning Disabilities: Report from the Committee for Ministry of and Among Deaf and Disabled People and Mission and Public Affairs Division
Review of Constitutions
Episcopal and Senior Church Appointments: Bradford Diocesan Synod Motion
8.30 pm Being Adult about Childhood: A Consideration of the Good Childhood Inquiry: Report by the Children’s Society and Mission and Public Affairs Division
Monday, 13 July
9.15 am Prayers
Anglican Communion: an update, by the Archbishop of Canterbury
Legislative Business:
Changes to the Rules of the Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme and the Past Service Scheme
Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations
Two Consolidation Measures (if debated)
Church Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution 2009 and Clergy Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution 2009
Usual Fees Orders (if debated)
2.30 pm Clergy Discipline: London Diocesan Synod Motion (and Chelmsford Diocesan Synod Motion)
Farewells
4.45 pm Prorogation
Contingency Business: Chelmsford DSM: Confidence in the Bible
The full texts of the questions asked at February’s Church of England General Synod, and their answers are now online. The file includes the supplementary questions and written answers.
The official, verbatim, transcripts of all the sessions are also available.
We published links to some of the Church Times detailed reports on this month’s General Synod last week. The remainder are now generally available.
UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST: Bishops asked for help in pressing Christian claims
DRAINAGE BILLS: Water charges are taxation, Synod told
YOUTH LITURGY: Request for teenage eucharistic prayers rejected
ANGLICAN COVENANT: Wide-ranging opinions on the St Andrew’s Draft
ASYLUM: Let asylum-seekers work, urges Synod
INTERFAITH WITNESS: Update given on bridge-building effort
RETREAT HOUSES: Fears for diocesan quiet places
CHURCH FEES: ‘Brown envelopes’ debated
FINANCIAL CRISIS: Members have an economics seminar
CHURCH’S VOICE: Faith is ‘not a private matter’
HUMAN TRAFFICKING: ‘The white van that slows down in my parish in the middle of the day . . .’
CRISIS RESPONSE: ‘We have been stealing from the next generation’
The Church Times publishes detailed reports on Synod debates. They are normally only available to subscribers for the first week. So far the ones below are generally available; there will be more next Friday.
WOMEN BISHOPS: Go extra mile, bishop pleads as Synod wrestles with women bishops
DR WILLIAMS’ ADDRESS: ‘Those who disagree won’t go away’
CONSTITUTION: New way of being Church House
BNP MEMBERSHIP: BNP support ‘incompatible’ with ordained ministry
CHURCH AS COMMUNION: Cardinal: ‘Division impoverishes us all’
For votes on women bishops, see previous item. Other votes in February are available as PDF files as follows:
Electronic voting results for Item 30 (Amendment to Item 11)
Electronic voting results for Item 11 (Membership of Organisations and Race Equality)
Electronic voting results for Item 14 (Church Water Bills)
Electronic voting results for Item 15 (Uniqueness of Christ) as amended by Item 45
Electronic voting results for Item 49 (Amendment to Item 18 (Human Trafficking))
Electronic voting results for Item 23 (Justice and Asylum Seekers) as amended by Items 54-57
Electronic voting results for Item 24 (Climate Change and the Church’s Property Transactions)
The detailed results of the voting on the women bishops legislation at General Synod last week are now available.
Electronic voting results for Item 507
‘That the Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” be considered for revision in committee.’
Electronic voting results for Item 508
‘That the Canon entitled “Amending Canon No 30” be considered for revision in committee.’
From these simple alphabetical lists I have worked out the voting figures in each house below. It will be seen that each house voted by more than a two-thirds majority in favour each motion. Of course, voting to send the legislation for revision is not the same as voting in favour of its content.
| item 507 (measure) |
item 508 (canon) |
|||||
| for | against | abst | for | against | abst | |
| bishops | 35 | 10 | 0 | 36 | 7 | 1 |
| clergy | 125 | 48 | 6 | 142 | 27 | 7 |
| laity | 121 | 56 | 7 | 131 | 45 | 6 |
| total | 281 | 114 | 13 | 309 | 79 | 14 |
I have also compiled tables of how each member of Synod voted (or abstained or was absent). These tables are available as a web page.
The BBC Parliament Channel will show recordings of last week’s General Synod sessions on Friday 20 February. A schedule is available here.
BBC Parliament is shown on UK digital terrestrial television (Freeview) channel 81, on digital cable and on satellite at channel 504, as well as on the broadband media player. More information here.
Updated Tuesday
The Church Times has two articles available without subscription. (There will be many more in the next two weeks as detailed reports become available to non-subscribers.)
Approval of women bishops clears its latest hurdle
Also, the Church Times blogger Dave Walker has some “behind the scenes” pictures.
Justin Brett now blogging as The Dodgy Liberal has written here about the debate on the Uniqueness of Christ last Wednesday.
Martin Beckford wrote at the Telegraph Synod: The temple of money and the altar of multi-faith dialogue.
George Pitcher at the Telegraph wrote Whittam Smith predicts Armageddon.
Tuesday updates
Justin Brett wrote a further article, see Synodical Ruminations Part 1 (Covenant) and see also the MCU document produced for this debate, at Briefing Paper for General Synod Members February 2009 (PDF).
And also another one on Synodical Ruminations Part 2 (BNP Etc.)
The official report of Friday morning’s business is at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Friday 13th February 2009 AM.
Press reports:
BBC Church call for asylum law change
Martin Beckford Telegraph Church of England General Synod calls asylum seeker amnesty
Ruth Gledhill General Synod Feb 09 Day Five
Nottingham Evening Post City priest’s call for asylum seeker rights
Alastair Cutting Asylum and Sanctuary
We will update this as more reports are published.
The final morning (Friday) of Synod was devoted to two diocesan synod motions.
The first, from Southwell & Nottingham, was about Justice and Asylum Seekers. The Revd Ruth Worsley moved the motion:
That this Synod, continuing to affirm scriptural teaching about care for the vulnerable, welcome for strangers and foreigners, and the Church’s calling to reach out to the marginalized and persecuted, call upon Her Majesty’s Government:(a) to ensure that the treatment of asylum seekers is just and compassionate, and to that end to consider:(i) conferring a right to work on all asylum seekers, and(b) to find a practical and humane remedy to the intolerable situation of destitute ‘refused’ asylum seekers who are unable to return to their country of origin because of personal safety, health or family reasons.
(ii) declaring an amnesty for so called ‘legacy cases’ that predate the Government’s New Asylum Model;
This was amended, by changing some of the wording, and adding (iii) and (c) so that the substantive motion became
That this Synod, continuing to affirm scriptural teaching about care for vulnerable people, welcome for strangers and foreigners, and the Church’s calling to reach out to the marginalized and persecuted, call upon Her Majesty’s Government:(a) to ensure that the treatment of asylum seekers is just and compassionate, and to that end to:(i) confer a right to work on all asylum seekers,(b) to find a practical and humane remedy to the intolerable situation of destitute ‘refused’ asylum seekers who are unable to return to their country of origin because of personal safety, health or family reasons;
(ii) declare an amnesty for so called ‘legacy cases’ that predate the Government’s New Asylum Model, and
(iii) bring to an end the practice of detaining children and families in Immigration Removal Centres;
(c) to investigate and report publicly on the quality of the legal services provided to asylum seekers.
The amended motion was then carried by 242 votes to one against (with one recorded abstention).
The second motion, from Worcester, was about Climate Change and the Church’s Property Transactions and was proposed by the Bishop of Dudley:
That this Synod call on the Archbishops’ Council to conduct an urgent review of the Endowments and Glebe Measure and other relevant Church legislation, with a view to bringing forward at the earliest possible opportunity any amendments needed to enable diocesan bodies and PCCs lawfully to dispose of land on terms which give proper weight to environmental considerations as well as financial ones, and so enable the Church to give a stronger moral lead in achieving Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives in cutting carbon emissions.
After debate this motion was defeated. 83 members voted for the motion and 98 against. There were 18 recorded abstentions.
The final business at Synod this (Thursday) afternoon was a diocesan synod motion on the future of Church of England retreat houses.
The Ven Richard Atkinson (Leicester) moved on behalf of the Leicester Diocesan Synod:
That this Synod
(a) celebrate the contribution of the Diocesan Retreat Houses to the Retreat Movement, and to the mission of the Church and the spiritual well-being of the nation;
(b )in the light of the closure of several Diocesan Retreat Houses, invite the Archbishops’ Council to review and to make recommendations for the future sustainability and development of the remaining Diocesan Retreat Houses; and
(c) encourage the Archbishops’ Council and the other National Church Institutions, Dioceses, regional training partnerships and parishes to make full use of the Diocesan Retreat Houses for retreat, prayer, study, conferences and creative thinking for the future.
Mr Brian Newey (Oxford) moved as an amendment:
Leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment was carried on a show of hands so that the substantive motion became
That this Synod
(a) celebrate the contribution of the Diocesan Retreat Houses to the Retreat Movement, and to the mission of the Church and the spiritual well-being of the nation; and
(b) encourage the Archbishops’ Council and the other National Church Institutions, Dioceses, regional training partnerships and parishes to make full use of the Diocesan Retreat Houses for retreat, prayer, study, conferences and creative thinking for the future.
At the end of the debate the amended motion was carried nem con on a show of hands.
Background papers
from the Diocese of Leicester and the Diocese of Peterborough (GS Misc 907A)
by the Secretary General (GS Misc 907B)
The Ven Richard Atkinson proposing the motion
Updated Friday morning
The official summary of the morning’s business is at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 12th February 2009 AM
And for the afternoon, there is General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 12th February 2009 PM
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Workers who lose jobs will escape ‘Crackberry culture’
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Bishop of London says that redundancy is good for the soul
Avril Ormsby at Reuters ‘We are all to blame for financial crisis’ - archbishop
BBC Church leaders focus on recession
Further updates
ENS In England, Anglican covenant debate reveals mixed expectations by Matthew Davies
Ekklesia Global economy hits poorest hardest, archbishop tells Synod
Ruth Gledhill General Synod Feb 09 Day Four
Justin Brett In Praise of the Tom Wright Sound-Bite
Alastair Cutting A jar, an empty cupboard, and kissing the hand of the Queen
The second item of business this afternoon (Thursday) was a debate on the report Inter Faith: Presence and Engagement (GS 1720)
The motion, proposed by the Bishop of Bradford, was “That the Synod do take note of this report”. The motion was passed on a show of hands.
The Bishop of Bradford introducing the debate
This afternoon (Thursday) Synod debated the report Implications of the financial crisis and the recession (GS 1719). Also relevant is the paper by Andreas Whittam Smith that we linked to here.
The Archbishop of York moved:
That the Synod do take note of this Report
The Archbishop’s speech is here.
The motion was carried.
The Archbishop of York speaking in the debate
The final item of business on Wednesday evening was a Diocesan Synod motion from Newcastle on Human Trafficking.
The Revd Canon Michael Webb (Newcastle) moved:
That this Synod, in celebrating the centenary of the death of Josephine Butler, who is remembered in the Calendar on May 30th:
(a) recognize and deplore the continuing evil of human trafficking, especially of children and young people;
(b) urge the Church of England to support the work of those who seek to end the traffic and rescue those trapped in it; and
(c) support the vigorous implementation of the UK Action Plan on Tackling Human Trafficking and, in particular, call on HM Government to ensure that effective measures are in place to prevent sex workers being trafficked into Britain during the 2012 Olympics.
The following amendment was moved by Canon Ann Turner (Europe) and carried on a show of hands.
At the end insert as a new paragraph:
(..) request the Archbishops’ Council to explore the possibility of affiliating to the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre in order to combat this traffic as an urgent priority.”.
This made the Substantive motion into:
That this Synod, in celebrating the centenary of the death of Josephine Butler, who is remembered in the Calendar on May 30th:
(a) recognize and deplore the continuing evil of human trafficking, especially of children and young people;
(b) urge the Church of England to support the work of those who seek to end the traffic and rescue those trapped in it;
(c) support the vigorous implementation of the UK Action Plan on Tackling Human Trafficking and, in particular, call on HM Government to ensure that effective measures are in place to prevent sex workers being trafficked into Britain during the 2012 Olympics; and
(d) request the Archbishops’ Council to explore the possibility of affiliating to the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre in order to combat this traffic as an urgent priority.
The motion was carried on a show of hands.
There was a second proposed amendment, moved by the Revd Mark Sowerby (Ripon & Leeds).
After paragraph (a) insert as a new paragraph:
“(b) recognize and deplore the male abuse of women, which is the root cause of this evil trade;”.
It was defeated by 95 votes to 114 with 12 recorded abstentions.
Background papers
by the Dioceses of Newcastle and Winchester, and the Diocese in Europe (GS Misc 906A)
from the Mission and Public Affairs Division (GS Misc 906B)
The second item of Wednesday afternoon was a private member’s motion on the uniqueness of Christ in multi-faith Britain.
Mr Paul Eddy (Winchester) moved:
That this Synod request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain’s multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.
The Revd Christopher Strain (Salisbury) moved as an amendment:
After “That this Synod” insert:
“warmly welcome Dr Martin Davie’s background paper ‘The witness of Scripture, the Fathers and the historic formularies to the uniqueness of Christ’ attached to GS Misc 905B and”.
This amendment was carried on a show of hands.
This made the substantive motion:
That this Synod warmly welcome Dr Martin Davie’s background paper ‘The witness of Scripture, the Fathers and the historic formularies to the uniqueness of Christ’ attached to GS Misc 905B and request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain’s multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.
The motion was carried by 283 votes to 8 with 10 recorded abstentions.
Background papers
background note from the Secretary General (GS Misc 905B) to which is attached a paper from Dr Martin Davie
A Church of England Approach to the Unique Significance of Jesus Christ A paper prepared by Dr Martin Davie for the Theological Group of the House of Bishops
During the debate the following two amendments were defeated.
The Revd Canon Simon Bessant (Sheffield) moved as an amendment:
Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert:
“remembering its resolution of 6 July 2002, affirm:
(a) the process started by Presence & Engagement (GS 1577); and
(b) that all Christians should seek to witness faithfully to Christ and His Gospel to all, whilst also building strong friendships and partnerships with other faith communities in seeking peace, justice and the common good throughout society;
and ask that Ministry Division and the Mission & Public Affairs Division report on progress on this matter.”.
The 2002 resolution is copied below the fold. This amendment was lost on a show of hands.
The Revd Canon Andrew Dow (Gloucester) moved as an amendment:
Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert:
“, recognising the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Saviour as a foundational tenet of the Apostolic Christian Faith, request the House of Bishops to commission a report for Synod giving details of current Church of England based evangelistic ministry among those of other faiths, providing guidelines for this particular outreach, and highlighting examples of good practice.”.
This amendment was lost on a show of hands.
Synod resolution of 6 July 2002
That this Synod, whilst valuing and affirming the importance of cultural and religious diversity, is convinced that the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ is for all and must be shared with all including people from other faiths or of no faith and that to do anything else would be to institutionalize discrimination; and that to this end, this Synod should:
(a) recommend parishes to approach the Partners for World Mission agencies to help make links with the World Church, especially with those people and places which might stimulate witness within a multifaith environment;
(b) encourage the Board of Mission and the Ministry Division through the theological colleges and courses to educate the Church concerning these issues; and
(c) urge all Christians to encourage sensitive and positive sharing of faith with people of all faiths and none whilst being willing to learn from and be enriched by people of other faiths.
The first item of business this afternoon (Wednesday) was a private member’s motion about Church Water Bills.
Martin Dales (York) moved:
That this Synod, concerned about the effect on many parishes of sudden, massive rises in water charges for churches, request HM Government to remind OFWAT of its obligations to ensure that the water companies adhere to the clear guidance given by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 2000, which states that “there are many non-household users who are not businesses … including places of worship … and it would be inappropriate to charge all non-household customers as if they were businesses”.
The motion was carried by votes 282 to nil with three recorded abstentions.
The amendment below was proposed by Timothy Cox (Blackburn) but was defeated on a show of hands.
Leave out all the words after “concerned about the” and insert:
“devastating impact of massive rises in the sewerage charges for places of worship, charities, not-for-profit clubs and voluntary organisations, request HM Government to issue new guidance to OFWAT and the water companies to:
(a) treat not-for-profit organisations, charities, places of worship, community halls etc differently from businesses and provide concessionary rates for surface and foul water drainage for these bodies; and
(b) spread the cost of highways drainage solely upon for-profit organisations.”.
Background papers
from Martin Dales (GS Misc 904A)
by the Secretary General (GS Misc 904B)
Updated Thursday at 13.00 GMT to include the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contribution to the debate
After a service of Holy Communion the Synod spent the rest of Wednesday morning debating the proposed legislation to permit the ordination of women as bishops.
The draft legislation was prepared on the basis of the motion passed at Synod in July 2008. (See the end of our July item here for the text of the motion.)
There were two motions before Synod, both proposed by the Bishop of Manchester (the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch):
That the Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” be considered for revision in committee.
This motion was carried by 281 votes to 114 with 13 recorded abstentions. A request for a vote by houses was unsuccessful as fewer than 25 members wanted this.
That the Amending Canon entitled “Amending Canon No 30” be considered for revision in committee.
This motion was also carried - by 309 votes to 79 with 14 recorded abstentions
Both votes were taken electronically and voting lists will be available later (and we will publish them).
Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech
These are the papers for the debates.
Women in the Episcopate (GS 1707)
Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708)
Draft Amending Canon No. 30 (GS 1709)
Illustrative Code of Practice (GS 1710)
Explanatory Memorandum (GS 1708-10X)
The Bishop of Manchester addressing the Synod
Revised Thursday 00.30 GMT and 12.55 GMT
The official summary of the morning’s business is at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 11th February 2009 PM.
The official summary of the afternoon’s business is at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 11th February 2009 AM.
Ruth Gledhill and Alastair Cutting (or Justin Brett) and Peter Ould have been blogging during the morning debate.
General Synod Feb 09: Day Three
and
Women Bishops: Blogging It Live
and
Live Blogging Synod
Guardian Riazat Butt Church of England will not see first female bishops until 2014
BBC Women bishops pass first hurdle
Religious Intelligence Toby Cohen General Synod vote sees women bishops take a step closer
Dave Walker has a cartoon about it, here. He also posted this.
Matthew Davies ENS Church of England inches closer to approving women bishops
Reuters Avril Ormsby Synod avoids cataclysm over women bishops
Water Bills
The same three bloggers are here, here, and here.
Martin Beckford Church ‘raintax’ is crippling parishes, admits head of Ofwat
Not actually a report from synod, but relevant is this Guardian report, Minister orders water companies to review huge ‘rainwater tax’ bills by Jenny Percival.
Waste water cartoon by Dave Walker
Ruth Gledhill The Times Churches face closure over water bills
Uniqueness of Christ
Peter Ould blogged here.
Ruth Gledhill The Times Anglicans called on to convert non-Christian believers
Martin Beckford Telegraph Christianity in decline because of political correctness
Later reports:
Guardian Riazat Butt Church throws open female bishops dispute and a sidebar, Women in the church
Church Times blog Dave Walker Video and news links from General Synod Day 4
Martin Beckford A new anti-atheist bus slogan coined at General Synod
Judith Maltby has written for Comment is free Women bishops now.
The Church of England cannot justify continued discrimination against its female members…
…A number of cross-party parliamentarians in both houses are making it clear that they will not vote into the law any measure from General Synod which discriminates against women. Imagine: lawmakers who do not want discrimination against women enshrined in the law of the land. Who do these people think that they are? Where is their sense of right and wrong?
A recent Church of England report suggested that the Labour government was had lost its moral compass. Might one suggest that the moral compass of these parliamentarians is working rather better than the Church of England’s? Could it be time to take the plank out of our own eye?
Religious Intelligence has Church of England’s treatment of women “shameful”, General Synod is told by Judy West.
..The Rev Dr Threlfall-Holmes, General Synod member for Durham and Newcastle Universities, said: “It is shameful that the Church of England still treats women as a problem to be solved.
“The draft legislation coming before Synod on Wednesday was always going to be a compromise between gender equality and the desire in the church to ‘protect’ those who disagree with the ordination of women. So in that sense what we have before us is about what was to be expected.
“But we will need to be very careful not to be misled into setting up a separate ‘church within a church’ in a misguided attempt to secure unity.”
The Northumberland Gazette has Church ‘tone’ on women bishops criticised.
…Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes criticised the “tone” of legislation on women bishops to be debated on Wednesday by the General Synod, the Church’s national assembly.
She said: “I think it is a shame that we continue to give more emphasis to the people who are a very vocal minority that disagree than to the huge majority who just want to get on with it.
“It is sending a very negative impression…
The last item of business this afternoon was a debate on a diocesan synod motion about the voice of the church in public life.
The Revd Canon David Felix (Chester) moved on behalf of the Chester Diocesan Synod:
That this Synod, mindful of the questions raised in public debate about the role of the Church in civic society, invite the Divisions of the Archbishops’ Council to report to the General Synod, before the end of the quinquennium, on their work:
(a) to foster clearer understanding of the Christian faith among the institutions and organisations of society; and
(b) to reinforce the claims of the Church to take its place in public life in Britain.
The Revd Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool) moved as an amendment:
Leave out everything after “civic society” and insert:
“and believing that the most effective way to communicate the role of Christian faith in public life is through the witness and service of Christian men and women in their daily lives:
(a) affirm the work of the House of Bishops and the divisions of the Archbishops’ Council in fostering the understanding of the Christian faith among institutions and organisations in society;
(b) request the Business Committee to consider how the issues raised in Moral, But No Compass might best be debated; and
(c) urge the members of this Synod actively to promote public engagement in their dioceses and parishes to reinforce the values of the Christian faith.”.
This amendment was carried on a show of hands.
The substantive motion therefore became:
That this Synod, mindful of the questions raised in public debate about the role of the Church in civic society and believing that the most effective way to communicate the role of Christian faith in public life is through the witness and service of Christian men and women in their daily lives:
(a) affirm the work of the House of Bishops and the divisions of the Archbishops’ Council in fostering the understanding of the Christian faith among institutions and organisations in society;
(b) request the Business Committee to consider how the issues raised in Moral, But No Compass might best be debated; and
(c) urge the members of this Synod actively to promote public engagement in their dioceses and parishes to reinforce the values of the Christian faith.
The motion was carried overwhelmingly on a show of hands.
Canon Felix (left) and Canon Spiers (right) speaking during the debate
We will update this page as new reports appear.
The official summary of the morning’s business is at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 10th February 2009 AM.
The official summary of the afternoon’s business is at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 10th February 2009 PM.
We have already linked to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s presidential address and referred to the debate on BNP membership.
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church of England votes to ban BNP clergy
BBC Synod votes in favour of BNP ban
Avril Ormsby at Reuters Church of England bans far-right party membership
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Credit crunch is ‘doomsday’ scenario says CoE finance chief
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England investment chief warns of financial crisis ‘doomsday machine’
Justin Brett Anatomy of a Debate: Part 1
Dave Walker General Synod Day 2
Ruth Gledhill General Synod Feb 09: Day Two and Britain heading for ‘doomsday’ says C of E finance chief
Colin Coward General Synod Day 2 - Archbishop of Canterbury Presidential Address
ENS Matthew Davies Archbishop of Canterbury spotlights challenges, priorities of ‘imperfect’ communion (includes link to video of the Presidential Address)
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Church of England votes to ban vicars from belonging to BNP
George Pitcher Church’s BNP ban is silly and pointless
Savi Hensman Choosing Christianity over racism
Updated Thursday to add the voting figures on one amendment.
This afternoon General Synod debated a private member’s motion about membership of organisations which contradict the duty to promote race equality. It was proposed by Ms Vasantha Gnanadoss of the diocese of Southwark. This is her motion:
That this Synod, noting that in 2004 the Association of Chief Police Officers adopted a policy whereby
“no member of the Police Service, whether police officer or police staff, may be a member of an organization whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the general duty to promote race equality” and “this specifically includes the British National Party”,
request the House of Bishops to formulate and implement a comparable policy for the Church of England, to apply to clergy, ordinands, and such employed lay persons as have duties that require them to represent or speak on behalf of the Church.
The motion was carried by 322 votes to 13 with 20 recorded abstentions.
Background Papers
GS Misc 903A from Vasantha Gnanadoss
GS Misc 903B from the Secretary General
Ms Gnanadoss addressing the Synod
During the debate three amendments were moved but all were defeated.
Mr Justin Brett (Oxford) moved:
Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert “affirm that membership of any organisation whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the promotion of race equality is incompatible with the Apostolic Christian faith.”.
The Ven Norman Russell (Archdeacon of Berkshire) moved:
For the words “noting that in 2004” to “British National Party” substitute “recognising that every human being is made in the image of God”.
Leave out “comparable”; and
At the end insert “, which makes clear that racism has no place in the life of the Church.”.
Mr Tim Hind (Bath & Wells) moved:
Leave out “clergy, ordinands, and such employed lay persons as have duties that” and insert “persons whose duties”.
The voting on Tim Hind’s amendment was 166 in favour, 177 against and 11 recorded abstentions. The other two amendments were each defeated on a show of hands.
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his Presidential Address to General Synod this afternoon. Read it online here.
The Archbishop addressing the Synod
Updated again Tuesday evening
The official summary is at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Monday 9th February 2009 PM.
This includes links to audio recordings of all the sessions. (When I tried, only one of them was working properly. Dave Walker had a similar problem with the live feed.)
There is also a link to the text of the speech by Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor. The press release from his office about this speech is here.
The Questions session is pretty difficult to understand on the audio, as the Questions, which are submitted in advance, and are available to everybody on the floor as a printed document, are not read out. It’s unclear why this document is not routinely made available beforehand on the web. The prepared Answers, which are read out, are not available in written form to those on the floor, but are available to the Press Gallery!
As the summary linked above says
46 written questions were submitted by members of the Synod. The text of these questions, alongside the written responses, will be available here within the next week.
For more colourful reporting of the afternoon, try some of these:
Ruth Gledhill General Synod Feb 2009: Day One and Times Online Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor: All churches “impoverished” by Anglican divisions
Martin Beckford Telegraph General Synod Day 1: Key Church of England meeting starts with debate on Catholic church and Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor calls on Anglicans to work with Roman Catholics against secular society.
Also George Pitcher Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor: United we stand and Damian Thompson Cardinal’s General Synod speech uses the loaded phrase ‘Ecclesial Community’ - meaning ‘not a Church’
BBC Cardinal ‘regrets’ CofE divisions
Justin Brett So what do you actually do at Synod, then?
Andrew Brown Is the Church of England together enough to split?
Tuesday updates
Comment is free Giles Fraser A week of terrible headlines
Unfortunately, during this synod, the Christian spirit is likely to be overshadowed by infighting and obscurantism…
Guardian Riazat Butt Calls for ecclesial unity amid homosexuality row (scroll down for this)
The Diocese of Lichfield has reports of two items in Questions, here, and here.
General Synod opened at 3 pm today. The following reports appeared over the weekend and earlier today.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Historic plans to introduce women bishops rejected by key traditionalist leaders
BBC Synod to discuss women bishops
Trevor Timpson at the BBC Waiting for the women bishops
Ruth Gledhill and Sean O’Neill in The Times Bishops resist moves to outlaw BNP membership
Ekklesia has Bishop backs ban on Church racism
Also at Ekklesia Church of England Synod to tackle key economic and social issues
George Pitcher in his Telegraph blog writes Will the General Synod ban golliwogs?
and Anglicans at their best when they’re boring
The Times also has Four decades of rule: How the General Synod works
Updated Tuesday morning
Thinking Anglicans is not the only place on the internet for learning what happens this week at General Synod.
The official GS website pages start here.
The unofficial General Synod Blog can be found here.
Premier Christian Radio will have a live audio feed of sessions.
The Church Times Blog is here.
We will add to this list any other sources that we learn about during the week.
Update Friday evening This cartoon by David Walker may assist those who are unfamiliar with the inner workings of Church House Westminster.
An interesting piece of business will start a process of consultation at General Synod on Tuesday of next week. This is a review of the constitutions of “bodies answerable to the Synod through the Archbishops’ Council”. These are
Board of Education
Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
Council for Christian Unity
Finance Committee
Committee for Ministry of and among Deaf and Disabled People
Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee
Ministry Council
Mission and Public Affairs Council
The proposals for consultation are in a paper (GS 1714 Review of Constitutions) available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page. In summary it is proposed to abolish the boards and replace them by a “lead person” and a “report and review” group elected by Synod and meeting once a year in July.
Glyn Paflin wrote about the proposals in the Church Times in a subscriber-only article last week. This is now generally available online: Newly ‘streamlined’ Council would shed old-style boards
The full procedure to be followed is described in the two paragraphs from the report of the business committee copied below the fold.
35. Under Standing Order 199, the constitution of bodies answerable to the Synod through
the Archbishops’ Council must be determined by the Council after consultation with the
General Synod, and at least once in every quinquennium the Council must review the
constitution of all these bodies and report to the Synod thereon. The Archbishops’
Council is now undertaking its quinquennial review, with a view to changes coming into
effect following the inauguration of the new Synod in November 2010.
36. The report of the review (GS 1714), which has been undertaken by a working
group appointed by the Council and chaired by Dr Christina Baxter, puts forward some
substantial proposals. The Council has agreed that these should form the basis for a
process of consultation, consisting of: a presentation to the February Synod (with an
opportunity for questions) and an opportunity for comments to be submitted by 30 April,
following which the group will conclude its work and submit its final recommendations
to the Archbishops’ Council. The Council will then report to the Synod and there will be
a Take Note debate in the July Synod, before the Council takes a final decision in the
autumn. Any consequential Standing Orders changes would come to the Synod for
approval in February 2010, so that new arrangements could come into operation at the
beginning of the next Synod, elected in autumn 2010.
Here is a follow-up to our first round-up of press reports on the agenda for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod.
First, two subscriber-only items by Bill Bowder in last week’s Church Times are now generally available.
Synod to discuss ban on BNP membership
Diocesan motion expresses concerns after Eweida case
Synod will be debating the Financial Crisis and the Recession on 12 February. A report on what effect the crisis might have on the Church itself was sent to synod members a few days ago. The Church’s own finances will be debated by the synod in July.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England calls for increased donations as recession hits finances
Bill Bowder in the Church Times Parishes hit for millions by crunch
The Church Times also has Leader: reasons to spend fatly in the lean years
The paper GS Misc 913 Financial Prospects for the Church of England is available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page.
One item on the synod agenda next month is a private member’s motion on church water bills. There have been several press reports on this topic recently.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Churches, Scout troops and sports clubs celebrate as water firm freezes ‘rain tax’
and ‘Rain tax’ means churches pay many times more than neighbouring businesses
Three items at the BBC
Churches fight drain on finances
Church begins ‘rain tax’ protest
Ministers fight church ‘rain tax’
The Church Times has published a detailed report by Margaret Duggan on next month’s General Synod Agenda Financial crisis and ARCIC report feature on Synod agenda
One item was picked up by the secular press.
The Guardian Church of England may ban clergy from joining BNP
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Vicars could be banned from membership of British National Party
And then there are two reports on an item that will not be debated this time because of a lack of interest from synod members:
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Fix date of Easter to prevent ‘confusion and disruption’ over holidays, says clergyman
Steve Doughty in the Mail Church of England clerics want Easter date fixed for every year
Updated Tuesday 27 January and Thursday 29 January
Most papers for next month’s meeting of General Synod are now online. Links will be added to the list below as the remainder become available.
Agenda
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Special Agenda I - Legislative Business
Papers for debates
The scheduled day for debate is appended.
GS 1642B Draft Amending Canon No. 28 [Tuesday]
GS 1642C Petition for Her Majesty’s Royal Assent and Licence [Tuesday]
GS 1642Z Report by the House of Bishops
GS 1683B Draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure [Tuesday]
GS 1683Z and Report by the Steering Committee
GS 1692A Draft Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure [Thursday]
GS 1693A Draft Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure [Thursday]
GS 1692-3Y Report by the Revision Committee
GS 1699 Revised Forty-Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee [Wednesday]
First Notice Paper
GS 1707 Women in the Episcopate [Wednesday]
GS 1708 Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Wednesday]
GS 1709 Draft Amending Canon No. 30 [Wednesday]
GS 1710 Illustrative Code of Practice
GS 1708-10X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1712 Report by the Business Committee [Monday]
GS 1713 Church as Communion [Monday]
GS 1714 Review of Constitutions [Tuesday]
GS 1715 Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure [Tuesday]
GS 1715X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1716 Anglican Covenant [Thursday]
GS 1717 Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Debt Apportionment) (Amendment) Rules 2008 [Thursday]
GS 1717X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1718 Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Exclusion of ineligible Persons) (Amendment) Rules 2008 [Thursday]
GS 1718X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1719 Implications of the Financial Crisis and the Recession [Thursday]
GS 1720 Inter Faith: Presence and Engagement [Thursday]
GS Misc 898 revised and GS Misc 898A Revised Diocesan Synod Motion: Voice of the Church in Public Life [Tuesday]
GS Misc 903A and GS Misc 903B Private Member’s Motion: Membership of Organisations which Contradict the Duty to Promote Race Equality [Tuesday]
GS Misc 904A and GS Misc 904B Private Member’s Motion: Church Water Bills [Wednesday]
GS Misc 905A and GS Misc 905B Uniqueness of Christ in Multi-Faith Britain [Wednesday]
GS Misc 906A and GS Misc 906B Diocesan Synod Motion: Human Trafficking [Wednesday]
GS Misc 907A and GS Misc 907B Diocesan Synod Motion: The Future of Church of England Retreat Houses [Thursday]
GS Misc 908A and GS Misc 908B Diocesan Synod Motion: Justice and Asylum Seekers [Friday]
GS Misc 909A and GS Misc 909B Diocesan Synod Motion: Climate Change and the Church’s property [Friday]
GS Misc 911A and GS Misc 911B Eucharistic Worship for Young People [contingency business]
Other papers circulated to members of the General Synod
GS Misc 900 The 36th Report of the Central Stipends Authority 2008
GS Misc 902 Update on Forecast Archbishops’ Council Expenditure 2008
GS Misc 910 The Governance of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion
GS Misc 912 Moral, But No Compass A Report to the C of E from the Von Hugel Institute Background paper from the Rt Revd Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith
GS Misc 913 Financial Prospects for the Church of England
GS Misc 914 Activities of the Archbishops’ Council
GS Misc 915 Reflections on how Decisions are Made
A Church of England Approach to the Unique Significance of Jesus Christ A paper prepared by Dr Martin Davie for the Theological Group of the House of Bishops
The General Synod of the Church of England will meet in London from 9 to 13 February 2009. The following press release was issued a short time ago.
NEWS from the Church of England
PR06.09
19/1/09
General Synod: February 2009
Key debates on the international financial crisis, women bishops, the Anglican Covenant, human trafficking, asylum, Anglican-Roman Catholic relations and inter faith relations
Major debates concerning the Church’s ministry and relations with other Churches, the financial crisis and the Church’s engagement with wider society will be on the agenda at the General Synod when it meets at Church House, Westminster from Monday to Friday, 9-13 February. The Synod will be debating a considerable amount of legislative business, including the first consideration stage of the draft women bishops legislation.
The International Financial Crisis
The Synod agenda provides opportunities for members to reflect on the international financial crisis and the recession. On the Tuesday afternoon, Andreas Whittam Smith (First Church Estates Commissioner) will facilitate presentations from and engage in dialogue with Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach and the Rt Revd Peter Selby. This will be an opportunity for the Synod to hear about and discuss with the two speakers the reasons for the crisis and its wider implications.
Brian Griffiths has been Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International since 1991 and a member of the Board since 2007. He was from 1984 to 1990 Head of Mrs Thatcher’s Policy Unit at No 10 Downing Street. He is the author of a number of books and. since 1997, has been Chairman of the Lambeth Fund. Peter Selby was, until 2007, Bishop of Worcester and a member of the Church Commissioners’ Assets Committee. He has been a member of the Doctrine Commission and has written on the subject of faith and economics.
On the Thursday afternoon there will be a debate, introduced by the Archbishop of York, examining the challenges and opportunities for the Church’s mission and ministry in communities that the international financial crisis and recession presents.
Women Bishops
Last July, the Synod agreed that draft legislation be prepared, including special arrangements for those who would not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops (or priests) in a statutory national code of practice. The Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group (chaired by the Bishop of Manchester) has completed its work on this basis and the Synod will be giving First Consideration to the draft legislation required to admit women to the episcopate.
It will not be possible to move amendments to the draft legislation at this Group of Sessions; the issue before the Synod will be whether to agree that the draft Measure and draft Amending Canon be referred for consideration by a Revision Committee. (See PR103/08 at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr10308.html.)
Anglican Covenant
The Churches of the Anglican Communion were asked in March 2008 if they were able, in principle, to commit to the Covenant process and to say if there were any elements which in their view would need extensive change in order to make viable the process of adoption by their Synods. The General Synod will consider a take note motion, moved by the Bishop of Rochester on behalf of the House of Bishops, on a report from the House, to which is attached a draft Church of England response to these questions. The draft response welcomes the direction of travel of the Covenant while flagging up a number of points which still require attention.
Anglican-Roman Catholic Relations
The Synod will be addressed on its first day by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster. His address, together with an introduction by the Archbishop of Canterbury, will provide an opportunity for the Synod to reflect on relations between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. This will lead to a debate, requested by the Synod, on the report by the Second Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission on Church as Communion.
Inter Faith Relations
The Synod will consider a Private Member’s Motion from Mr Paul Eddy, which asks the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in a multi-faith society and to offer examples of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.
The Synod will also be considering the inter faith and engagement programme which it launched in July 2005 when it also set up a task group, chaired by the Bishop of Bradford. This second debate provides the Synod with an opportunity to take note of what has been achieved so far and the work that is proposed for the next phase of the Presence and Engagement programme
The Church in Public Life
There are three Diocesan Synod Motions particularly concerned with the Church’s engagement in wider society. The first, from Chester, is wide ranging in its concern about the role of the Church in civic society and asks the divisions of the Archbishops’ Council to report to the Synod on their work to foster a clearer understanding of the Christian faith among the institutions and organizations of society, and to reinforce the claims of the Church to take its place in public life.
The second motion, which has been passed in identical terms by the Newcastle and Winchester Diocesan Synods, urges the Church of England to deplore the continuing evil of human trafficking, to support the work of those who seek to end human trafficking and to rescue those trapped in it, and also to support the implementation of the UK Action Plan on Tackling Human Trafficking, particularly in relation to the 2012 Olympics. The debate will be preceded by a presentation which will include an invited speaker from the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre.
The motion from the Southwell and Nottingham Diocesan Synod asks the Synod to call on the Government to ensure that the treatment of asylum seekers is just and compassionate. In particular, it calls for the conferring of a right to work on all asylum seekers, and the declaration of an amnesty for legacy cases that predate the Government’s New Asylum Model. It also asks the Government to find a practical and humane remedy to the situation of refused asylum seekers who are unable to return to their country of origin because of personal safety, health or family reasons.
A Private Member’s Motion from Ms Vasantha Gnanadoss asks the House of Bishops to formulate and implement a policy for the Church of England under which clergy, ordinands and such employed lay persons as have duties that require them to speak on behalf of the Church should not be a member of an organization whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the duty to promote race equality.
Property Issues for the Church
Three motions explore different aspects of the Church’s property and resources.
The Private Member’s Motion from Mr Martin Dales expresses concern about the effect on many parish churches of the sudden and very large rises in water charges for churches in some areas. It asks the Government to remind OFWAT of its obligations to ensure that the water companies adhere to the guidance given in 2000 by the Secretary of State for the Environment not to treat all non-household customers (including places of worship) as if they were businesses.
The Worcester Diocesan Synod Motion calls on the Archbishops’ Council to conduct an urgent review of the Endowments and Glebe Measure and other church legislation, with a view to enabling diocesan bodies and PCCs, in disposing of land, to give weight to environmental as well as financial considerations, particularly in relation to cutting carbon emissions.
A motion passed in the same terms by both the Leicester and Peterborough Diocesan Synods asks the Archbishops’ Council to review and make recommendations for the future sustainability of the Church of England retreat houses, and encourages church bodies to make full use of these resources.
Other Business
The Archbishop of Canterbury will give a Presidential Address, which will include a reflection on the recent Lambeth Conference.
A report from the Standing Orders Committee proposes some adjustments to the Synod’s procedures. There will also be a presentation on some proposed changes to the constitution of bodies answerable to the Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.
Communicating Synod
Parishioners can keep in touch with the General Synod while it meets. Background papers and other information will be posted on the Church of England website (www.cofe.anglican.org) ahead of the General Synod sessions. Audio files of debates, along with updates on the days’ proceedings will be posted during the sessions.
ends
The Church of England General Synod meets from 9 to 13 February in London and an outline agenda has been published, and is copied below.
One major item of business is the first consideration of the Women Bishops legislation. See our separate item on this and make your comments there please.
GENERAL SYNOD
February Group of Sessions 2009
Timetable
Sitting hours: 9.30 am to 1 pm and 2.30 pm to 7 pm, except where otherwise stated
Monday 9 February
3.00 pm Prayers, introductions, welcomes; progress of legislation etc
Business Committee report and dates for Synod in 2011 and 2012
Appointment of Chair of Appointments Committee
Address by Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission report on Church as Communion
Questions
Tuesday 10 February
9.30 am Prayers
Review of Constitutions: presentation, followed by questions
Legislative Business:
Amending Canon No 28: Final Approval
Miscellaneous Provisions Measure – Final Drafting & Final Approval
Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure – First Consideration
(if time allows, legislative business scheduled for Thursday will be taken)
2.30 pm Presidential Address
Private Members’ Motion: Vasantha Gnanadoss: Membership of Organisations which Contradict the Duty to Promote Race Equality
The International Financial Crisis and Recession: presentation
Diocesan Synod Motion: Diocese of Chester: Voice of the Church in Public Life
Wednesday 11 February
9.30 am Holy Communion
Women Bishops legislation: First Consideration
2.30 pm Private Members’ Motion: Martin Dales: Church Water Bills
Private Members’ Motion: Paul Eddy: The Uniqueness of Christ in Multi-Faith Britain
Standing Orders Committee report
Diocesan Synod Motion: Dioceses of Newcastle and Winchester: Human Trafficking (presentation followed by debate)
Thursday 12 February
9.30 am Prayers
Anglican Covenant
Legislative Business:
Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure: Revision Stage
Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure
Funded Pension Scheme Rules changes
2.30 pm The International Financial Crisis and Recession: debate
Inter faith/Presence and Engagement
Diocesan Synod Motion: Dioceses of Leicester and Peterborough: Future of Church of England Retreat Houses
Friday 13 February
9.30 am Prayers
Diocesan Synod Motion: Diocese of Southwell & Nottingham: Justice and Asylum Seekers
Diocesan Synod Motion: Diocese of Worcester: Climate Change and the Church’s Property Transactions
Farewells
1.00pm Prorogation
Contingency business:
Diocesan Synod Motion: Diocese of Peterborough: Eucharistic Worship for Young People
The Women in the Episcopate draft Measure has been published.
In the official press release the chair of the legislative drafting group, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, Bishop of Manchester, is quoted as saying:
The General Synod mandated us to draft a Measure including special arrangements, within existing structures, for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops and to do that in a national code of practice. We believe we have achieved that by providing for male complementary bishops, as we suggested in our earlier report, and now hand our work to the Synod to discuss the drafts in detail.
The draft measure and associated papers are available for download.
GS 1707 - Women in the Episcopate - Further Report from the Legislative Drafting Group
GS 1708 - Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709 - Amending Canon Number 30
GS 1710 - Illustrative Code of Practice
GS 1708-10X - Explanatory Memorandum
Answers to written Questions have been posted on the Church of England website.
See press release Synod members put questions to church bodies.
The original PDF file is here.
TA has provided an html copy of the file here.
Here are some particularly interesting questions and answers. In addition the answers to questions 19 and 24-26 have interesting information on the contributions of the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners to the cost of the Lambeth Conference.
Mr Justin Brett (Oxford) to ask the Secretary General:
Q2. What research has been undertaken to establish the effect of the Church of England’s participation in an Anglican Communion Covenant upon the relationship between the Church of England and the Crown, given the Queen’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the consequent tension between her prerogative and the potential demands of a disciplinary process within the proposed Covenant?
Mr William Fittall to reply as Secretary General:
A. The Church of England response of 19 December 2007 to the initial draft Covenant noted on page 13 that ‘it would be unlawful for the General Synod to delegate its decision making powers to the primates, and that this therefore means that it could not sign up to a Covenant which purported to give the primates of the Communion the ability to give ‘direction’ about the course of action that the Church of England should take.’ The same would be true in relation to delegation to any other body of the Anglican Communion. Since as a matter of law the Church of England could not submit itself to any such external power of direction, any separate possible difficulties in relation to the Royal Prerogative could not in practice arise.
Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough) to ask the Chairman of the Clergy Discipline Commission:
Q12. What are the current best estimates of the total costs incurred in carrying out each of the tribunal hearings that have taken place so far under the Clergy Discipline Measure?
His Honour Judge John Bullimore to reply as Deputy Chairman of the Clergy Discipline Commission:
A. Seven cases so far have had full tribunal hearings. The current best estimate of the total costs for those cases from referral to the tribunal to final determination is approximately £194,000. Within that total, costs vary from case to case depending on a number of different factors. The lowest cost total for a tribunal case is estimated to be £8,300, and the highest cost total was £66,087. There has been one appeal; the total additional cost for that appeal is estimated to be £11,400.
The Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q27. Will the House of Bishops assure the General Synod that neither it nor the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group is seeking to go back on any part of the motion passed in the General Synod in July 2008 and that they are not questioning the manner of the debate, the use of electronic voting, the results of the votes on each of the amendments and the final motion, or the competence of General Synod to decide upon having women as bishops?
The Bishop of Manchester to reply as Chairman of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group:
A. The Group has met a number of times since the Synod debate in July. The motion required consultation with the House: it considered material from the Group in October and will do so again in December. The Group will complete its work later that month. The draft Measure, amending canon and code of practice will therefore be available for Synod to debate in February and to commit to a Revision Committee. Both the Group and the House will continue to work consistently with the mandate given by Synod.
The report to General Synod (GS 1685A) from the House of Bishops on the legislation for women bishops was clear. A majority of that house wished to avoid the creation of any new structures, and considered that a national code of practice was both necessary and sufficient to protect the consciences of those unable to accept the ministry of women as bishops.
We knew before the 11 July debate that “a significant minority within the House” was opposed to the approach embodied in the draft resolution submitted. But we did not know the size and composition of the majority or the minority. Now we do. The results of the electronic voting in the House of Bishops are available, either here, or over here.
The final outcome saw 68% of the bishops present, and 72% of the House of Clergy voting in favour of a motion that had been amended only slightly from the text the House of Bishops had originally put forward. The laity were less enthusiastic with a majority of only 61%. (Overall, exactly a two-thirds majority.) So the Synod accepted the view of the episcopal majority, and rejected all attempts to adopt any of the other options that the Manchester Report had proposed.
Episcopal opposition turned out to be almost entirely limited to a core group of only twelve bishops. These included five who later signed the 15 August letter (see below) and who also have votes in Synod, i.e. the Bishops of Blackburn, Chichester, Europe, Burnley and Beverley. There were also seven others: the Bishops of Birmingham, Exeter, London, Rochester, Winchester, Dover and, significantly, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
At the end of the debate, the Archbishop abstained, and the other eleven all voted against the substantive motion. The only other bishop who voted “No” was the Bishop of Durham, whose earlier motion to adjourn the debate had support from only 46% of the synod. He had consistently opposed every amendment throughout the debate.
The group of twelve also supported several amendments that would have moved the outcome in a conservative direction.
First, all twelve voted in favour of an amendment proposed by the Bishop of Winchester. Only two other bishops joined in this action: Bradford and Southwell & Nottingham. This amendment sought to do two things:
Next, a small wording change, proposed by Prebendary David Houlding, to change “wish” to “wish of the majority” [for women to be admitted to the episcopate] was narrowly approved, by 62% of Bishops and 51% of Laity but by only by a single vote in the House of Clergy. Curiously, the Bishop of Rochester voted against this.
Ten of the twelve then voted in favour of Fr Simon Killwick’s amendment that sought to allow new dioceses to be considered. London opposed this and Canterbury abstained. No other bishop voted for it. The amendment was defeated by 71%, 68.5%, and 61% margins in the three houses.
Eleven then voted for the Bishop of Exeter’s amendment, which aimed to allow a structural solution based on existing rather than new dioceses. Again London voted against, but two others (Bradford and St Edmundsbury) added support. It also was defeated by margins of 64%, 64% and 59%.
Finally, ten of them voted for the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds’s amendment to keep open the possibility of “statutory transfer of specified responsibilities”. Altogether 21 bishops supported this, but amazingly both Chichester and Birmingham opposed it, leading to a 21-21 tie in that House. (The chair of the drafting group, the Bishop of Manchester, abstained on many though not all votes.)
The amendment did obtain a 53% majority in the House of Laity, but failed in the House of Clergy where it obtained only 47% support. Had the vote not been by houses, the amendment would have passed by the slim margin of 203-200, with 3 abstentions.
For completeness, I should also note that two other amendments were both voted down by huge margins. The Reverend Steven Trott’s amendment, to keep open all the options of the Manchester report, was voted down by huge margins in all houses: 89% of bishops, 82% of clergy, and 78% of laity. Among all the bishops, only Chichester, Rochester and Beverley voted “yes”.
To match this, the Reverend Miranda Threlfall-Holmes’ amendment to adopt the “simplest statutory approach”, and exclude even a national code of practice, was also voted down by large margins, though smaller than in the previous case. The figures against were 82%, 59%, and 62%. Seven bishops were in favour of this, namely Southwark, Bristol, Liverpool, Bath & Wells, Hereford, Derby and Portsmouth. The Bishop of Ripon & Leeds abstained.
The net effect of all this is that the view of the overwhelming majority of the House of Bishops was accepted by the whole synod. The recent letter from fourteen traditionalist Anglo-Catholic bishops, only five of whom have votes in General Synod, highlighted that the House of Laity vote was below the two-thirds level that will be needed for final approval of the women bishops legislation. It also pointed to close voting on the amendment offered by the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds as another indicator of less than overwhelming support for legislation without “new structures”.
However, the final approval vote will not occur in the life of this Synod, but only after new elections have been held in 2010. This issue may well dominate those elections. The House of Bishops, to whom the letter writers are explicitly appealing, does not meet again until October. By that time, the Legislative Drafting Group should be halfway through its task of preparing a draft for the General Synod to consider in February. General Synod has clearly instructed the group to do so only on the basis of a statutory code of practice. The strength of support for that in the House of Bishops is now clearly on the record.
Note: Sheffield and Truro were vacant sees at the time of the vote, and there were six bishops who were either not present or who never voted at all (Coventry, Chester, Sodor & Man, Ely, Salisbury and Leicester).
The detailed reports in the Church Times of the recent Church of England General Synod are now available to non-subscribers.
The reports on the women bishops debates
Women bishops: debate: ‘I know people say that bishops can’t be trusted, but I think I can’ - reports of the Bishop of Manchester’s preentation on the Friday evening and the take note debate on the Saturday.
Women bishops: the vote - the main debate on Monday 7 July
Below the fold are details of clergy votes in the debate on women bishops on Monday 7 July similar to my earlier details for bishops. So far only three of the votes (the Packer amendment, the vote on the adjournment and the final vote) are included.
I have matched my list of members and the voting lists by synod number. My list is based on the June 2008 list of members, which may not be totally up-to-date.
| Clergy Votes | 72 | adjourn | 20 | |
| 7 July 2008 | Packer | Wright | final | |
| consider statutory transfer or code |
wrong time to decide |
|||
| Diocese etc | number & name | |||
| Deans (Canterbury) | 54 Vivienne Faull | against | against | for |
| 55 Colin Slee | against | against | for | |
| 56 Robert Willis | for | for | for | |
| Deans (York) | 57 Rogers Govender | against | against | for |
| 58 Michael Sadgrove | against | against | for | |
| Chaplain General of Prisons | 59 William Noblett | |||
| Forces Synodical Council | 60 John Green | for | for | for |
| 61 Ray Pentland | ||||
| 62 Stephen Robbins | for | |||
| Bath & Wells | 64 Paul Langham | against | for | for |
| 65 Jonathan LLoyd | against | against | for | |
| 66 Stephen Lynas | against | against | for | |
| 67 Colin Randall | against | against | for | |
| Birmingham | 68 John Hughes | for | against | for |
| 69 Hayward Osborne | against | against | for | |
| 70 Peter French | against | abst | for | |
| Blackburn | 71 Peter Ballard | for | for | for |
| 72 Paul Benfield | for | for | against | |
| 73 John Hall | for | |||
| 74 James Garrard | against | against | for | |
| Bradford | 75 Paul Ayers | |||
| 76 John Hartley | against | for | for | |
| 77 Ruth Yeoman | against | against | for | |
| Bristol | 78 Alan Hawker | for | for | against |
| 79 Douglas Holt | ||||
| 80 Paul Roberts | against | against | for | |
| Canterbury | 81 Gill Calver | against | against | for |
| 82 Philip Down | for | against | for | |
| 83 Simon Tillotson | for | against | for | |
| 84 Mark Roberts | for | for | against | |
| Carlisle | 85 George Howe | for | against | for |
| 86 Ferial Etherington | against | against | for | |
| 87 Colin Randall | for | for | against | |
| Chelmsford | 88 Annette Cooper | against | against | for |
| 89 John Dunnett | for | against | ||
| 90 Brian Lewis | against | against | for | |
| 91 David Parrott | against | against | for | |
| 92 David Waller | for | for | against | |
| 93 Martin Webster | against | against | for | |
| Chester | 94 Donald Allister | for | for | against |
| 95 David Felix | against | for | for | |
| 96 Judy Hunt | against | against | for | |
| 97 Rob Munro | for | for | against | |
| 98 Marc Wolverson | against | against | for | |
| Chichester | 99 Hugh Atherstone | |||
| 100 Ian Chandler | for | for | against | |
| 101 Alastair Cutting | for | for | for | |
| 102 James Houghton | for | for | against | |
| 103 Douglas McKittrick | for | |||
| 104 Mark Payne | for | against | against | |
| Coventry | 105 Mark Bratton | against | against | for |
| 106 Mark Beach | against | against | for | |
| 107 Elizabeth Dyke | against | against | for | |
| Derby | 108 John Davies | |||
| 109 Ian Gooding | for | for | against | |
| 110 Katie Tupling | against | against | for | |
| Durham | 111 Sheila Bamber | for | for | against |
| 112 Graeme Buttery | for | |||
| 113 Meg Gilley | for | against | for | |
| 114 Ian Jagger | for | for | for | |
| Ely | 115 John Beer | |||
| 116 Alan Hargrave | against | against | for | |
| 117 Rhiannon Jones | against | against | for | |
| Europe | 118 Jonathan Boardman | against | against | for |
| 119 Debbie Flach | against | against | for | |
| Exeter | 120 vacant | |||
| 121 Sam Philpott | for | for | against | |
| 122 Roderick Thomas | ||||
| 123 Carl Turner | against | against | abst | |
| 124 Anthony Wilds | for | for | against | |
| Gloucester | 125 Andrew Dow | for | for | for |
| 126 David Primrose | for | against | for | |
| 127 Celia Thomson | against | against | for | |
| Guildford | 128 John Ashe | against | against | for |
| 129 Robert Cotton | against | against | for | |
| 130 Julian Henderson | for | against | against | |
| 131 Jolyon Trickey | for | for | against | |
| Hereford | 132 Malcolm Colmer | abst | for | for |
| 133 Kay Garlick | against | against | for | |
| 134 Brian Chave | against | against | for | |
| Leicester | 135 Richard Atkinson | against | against | for |
| 136 Peter Hobson | ||||
| 137 John Plant | against | against | for | |
| Lichfield | 138 Paul Farthing | for | abst | against |
| 139 Mark Thomas | for | against | for | |
| 140 John Hall | against | against | for | |
| 141 Maureen Hobbs | against | for | for | |
| 142 Mark Ireland | against | against | for | |
| 143 Richard Moy | against | for | for | |
| Lincoln | 144 Arthur Hawes | for | for | for |
| 145 Chris Lilley | for | against | for | |
| 146 John Patrick | for | for | for | |
| Liverpool | 147 Peter Bradley | |||
| 148 Cynthia Dowdle | against | against | for | |
| 149 Pete Spiers | against | against | for | |
| 150 Tim Stratford | for | for | for | |
| London | 151 Philippa Boardman | against | against | for |
| 152 John Brownsell | for | for | against | |
| 153 Philip Chester | against | for | for | |
| 154 Jonathan Clark | against | against | for | |
| 155 Stephen Coles | against | against | for | |
| 156 John Cook | for | for | against | |
| 157 David Houlding | for | for | against | |
| 158 Rose Hudson-Wilkin | against | against | for | |
| 159 Martin Warner | for | for | against | |
| 160 Andrew Watson | for | abst | for | |
| Manchester | 161 John Applegate | |||
| 162 William Raines | against | against | for | |
| 163 Nick Feist | for | |||
| 164 David Griffiths | for | for | for | |
| 165 Simon Killwick | for | for | against | |
| 166 Alma Servant | against | against | for | |
| 167 Cherry Vann | for | for | abst | |
| Newcastle | 168 Adrian Hughes | for | for | against |
| 169 Michael Webb | ||||
| 170 Dagmar Winter | against | for | for | |
| Norwich | 171 Stephen Betts | for | for | for |
| 172 Jeremy Haselock | for | for | against | |
| 173 David Hayden | for | for | against | |
| 174 Jan MacFarlane | abst | for | for | |
| Oxford | 175 Moira Astin | against | against | for |
| 176 Jonathan Baker | for | for | against | |
| 177 John Wynburne | against | against | for | |
| 178 Susan Booys | against | against | for | |
| 179 John Chorlton | for | for | for | |
| 180 Tim Dakin | for | for | against | |
| 181 Hugh Lee | against | for | for | |
| 182 Norman Russell | for | for | against | |
| 183 Chris Sugden | for | for | against | |
| Peterborough | 184 Christine Allsopp | against | against | for |
| 185 David Bird | for | for | abst | |
| 186 Stephen Trott | for | for | against | |
| Portsmouth | 187 Peter Hancock | for | for | for |
| 188 David Isaac | against | for | for | |
| 189 Bob White | against | for | for | |
| Ripon & Leeds | 190 Brunel James | |||
| 191 Kathryn Fitzsimmons | for | against | for | |
| 192 Mark Sowerby | for | for | against | |
| Rochester | 193 Nicholas Kerr | against | against | for |
| 194 Angus MacLeay | for | |||
| 195 Clive Mansell | ||||
| 196 Gordon Oliver | ||||
| St Albans | 197 Peter Ackroyd | for | for | against |
| 198 Jeremy Crocker | for | for | abst | |
| 199 Joan Crossley | ||||
| 200 Richard Hibbert | for | for | for | |
| 201 Trevor Jones | against | for | for | |
| 202 Stephen Lake | against | against | for | |
| St Edmundsbury & Ipswich | 203 Jonathan Alderton-Ford | for | for | against |
| 204 Geoffrey Arrand | for | for | against | |
| 205 Max Osborne | against | for | for | |
| Salisbury | 206 Maureen Allchin | against | against | for |
| 207 Mark Bonney | against | against | for | |
| 208 Nigel LLoyd | against | against | for | |
| 209 Alistair Magowan | for | for | for | |
| 210 Chris Strain | for | against | for | |
| Sheffield | 211 Geoffrey Harbord | for | for | against |
| 212 Matthew Porter | ||||
| 213 Simon Bessant | for | against | against | |
| 214 Lydia Wells | for | for | for | |
| Sodor & Man | 215 David Green | |||
| Southwark | 216 Simon Butler | against | against | for |
| 217 Paul Collier | against | against | for | |
| 218 Giles Fraser | against | against | for | |
| 219 Christine Hardman | against | against | for | |
| 220 Andrew Nunn | against | against | for | |
| 221 Paul Perkin | for | for | against | |
| 222 Anne Stevens | against | against | for | |
| Southwell & Nottingham | 223 Nigel Peyton | against | against | for |
| 224 Anthony Thiselton | ||||
| 225 Tony Walker | against | against | for | |
| 226 Ruth Worsley | against | against | for | |
| Truro | 227 Alan Bashforth | against | for | for |
| 228 Roger Bush | for | for | for | |
| 229 David Miller | for | for | ||
| Wakefield | 230 Ian Gaskell | against | ||
| 231 Jonathan Greener | against | against | for | |
| 232 Susan Penfold | against | against | for | |
| Winchester | 233 Sarah Chapman | against | against | for |
| 234 Adrian Harbidge | against | against | for | |
| 235 Michael Harley | for | for | for | |
| 236 Clive Hawkins | for | for | against | |
| Channel Islands | 237 Paul Mellor | for | for | against |
| Worcester | 238 Stuart Currie | for | for | for |
| 239 Jane Fraser | against | against | for | |
| 240 Joy Tetley | ||||
| York | 241 David Bailey | for | against | for |
| 242 Gill Henwood | against | against | for | |
| 243 Cathy Rowling | against | against | for | |
| 244 Richard Seed | for | for | against | |
| 245 Suzanne Sheriff | against | against | for | |
| 246 Glyn Webster | for | for | against | |
| Universities | 446 Marilyn McCord Adams | against | against | for |
| 447 Duncan Dormor | against | against | for | |
| 448 Prof Richard Burridge | against | against | for | |
| 449 Gavin Ashenden | for | for | against | |
| 450 Miranda Threlfall-Holmes | against | against | for | |
| 451 Kevin Ward | against | against | for | |
| Religious Communities | 452 Sister Rosemary | against | for | for |
| 455 Thomas Seville | for | for | against | |
| for | 84 | 78 | 124 | |
| against | 92 | 90 | 44 | |
| abst | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| total | 178 | 171 | 172 |
Voting lists for the electronic votes at the recent sessions of the Church of England’s General Synod are now online. I have summarised the bishops’ votes in the debate on women bishops held on Monday 7 July, both in a table below the fold and online as a pdf file.
The table records whether each bishop voted for or against each motion or amendment, or recorded an abstention. Some of the 45 bishops present missed some of the votes altogether and this is indicated by a dash.
Bishops are listed alphabetically by surname, and their synod number is given in the first column.
I have already given the text of each amendment and of the substantive motion, and the overall voting figures here. The table includes my very brief summary of the purpose of each amendment.
Note: Not included in the table are the bishops of Sheffield and Truro (sees vacant) and the bishops of Coventry, Chester, Ely, Leicester, Salisbury and Sodor & Man, none of whom took part in any of the votes. The bishop of Coventry was only consecrated on 3 July, the bishop of Leicester was on duty at the House of Lords and the bishop of Salisbury was ill. I don’t know why the others were absent.
| Bishops’ Votes | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 74 | 75 | 77 | adjourn | 20 | |||
| 07 July 2008 | Winchester | Houlding | Trott | Threlfall- Holmes |
Killwick | Langrish | Packer | Henwood | Baxter | Cotton | Wright | final | |||
| Bishop of … | Name | legislation and code |
only a majority in favour |
omit all references to code of practice |
simplest possible statutory approach |
new dioceses |
new diocesan structures |
consider statutory transfer or code |
provide ministry of women bishops |
require two- thirds majority for code |
code for episcopal functions only |
wrong time to decide |
|||
| 47 | Dorking | Ian | Brackley | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | for |
| 49 | Willesden | Pete | Broadbent | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | for | against | against | for |
| 40 | Southwark | Thomas | Butler | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | for | against | for | against | for |
| 41 | Southwell | George | Cassidy | for | for | against | against | against | for | for | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3 | London | Richard | Chartres | for | for | against | against | against | against | for | against | abst | against | for | against |
| 50 | Forces | David | Conner | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | – | – | – | – | – |
| 31 | Peterborough | Ian | Cundy | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | – | – | – | – | – |
| 11 | Carlisle | Graham | Dow | against | for | against | against | against | against | – | against | against | against | against | for |
| 12 | Chelmsford | John | Gladwin | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | against | for |
| 24 | Lichfield | Jonathan | Gledhill | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | abst | against | against | for |
| 53 | Burnley | John | Goddard | for | for | abst | against | for | for | for | against | against | against | for | against |
| 35 | St Albans | Christopher | Herbert | against | for | against | against | against | against | – | – | – | – | against | for |
| 21 | Guildford | Christopher | Hill | against | for | against | against | abst | abst | for | for | for | abst | for | for |
| 10 | Bristol | Michael | Hill | against | for | against | for | against | against | against | – | – | against | against | for |
| 14 | Chichester | John | Hind | for | for | for | against | for | for | against | against | against | against | for | against |
| 44 | Worcester | John | Inge | against | for | against | against | against | against | for | against | for | against | for | for |
| 9 | Bradford | David | James | for | for | against | against | against | for | for | against | for | against | for | for |
| 29 | Norwich | Graham | James | against | for | against | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | for | for |
| 51 | Beverley | Martyn | Jarrett | for | for | for | against | for | for | for | abst | abst | abst | for | against |
| 26 | Liverpool | James | Jones | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | for |
| 19 | Exeter | Michael | Langrish | for | for | against | against | for | for | for | against | against | against | for | against |
| 52 | Hulme | Stephen | Lowe | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | for |
| 27 | Manchester | Nigel | McCulloch | against | for | against | against | abst | abst | abst | abst | abst | abst | abst | for |
| 34 | Rochester | Michael | Nazir-Ali | for | against | for | against | for | for | for | against | for | against | for | against |
| 33 | Ripon & Leeds | John | Packer | against | for | against | abst | against | against | for | for | for | against | for | for |
| 20 | Gloucester | Michael | Perham | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | against | for |
| 43 | Wakefield | Stephen | Platten | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | for | for |
| 6 | Bath & Wells | Peter | Price | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | for |
| 22 | Hereford | Anthony | Priddis | against | for | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | for |
| 30 | Oxford | John | Pritchard | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | for | for |
| 8 | Blackburn | Nicholas | Reade | for | for | against | against | for | for | for | against | against | against | for | against |
| 16 | Derby | Alastair | Redfern | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | for |
| 18 | Europe | Geoffrey | Rowell | for | for | abst | against | for | for | for | against | for | against | for | against |
| 25 | Lincoln | John | Saxbee | against | for | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | against | for |
| 5 | Winchester | Michael | Scott-Joynt | for | for | against | against | for | for | for | against | against | against | for | against |
| 2 | York | John | Sentamu | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against | abst | against | against | for |
| 32 | Portsmouth | Kenneth | Stevenson | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | for | for | against | against | for |
| 36 | St Ed’bury & Ips | Nigel | Stock | against | for | against | against | against | for | for | abst | for | against | for | for |
| 7 | Birmingham | David | Urquhart | for | against | against | against | for | for | against | against | against | against | for | against |
| 45 | Dover | Stephen | Venner | for | for | against | against | for | for | for | against | for | against | for | against |
| 48 | Dudley | David | Walker | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | – | – | – | – | – |
| 28 | Newcastle | Martin | Wharton | against | for | against | against | against | against | for | against | against | against | against | for |
| 1 | Canterbury | Rowan | Williams | for | for | against | against | abst | for | for | against | against | against | for | abst |
| 46 | Basingstoke | Trevor | Willmott | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | abst | against | for |
| 4 | Durham | Tom | Wright | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | against | for | against |
| for | 14 | 28 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 14 | 21 | 5 | 15 | 1 | 22 | 28 | |||
| against | 31 | 17 | 40 | 37 | 32 | 29 | 21 | 31 | 19 | 35 | 18 | 12 | |||
| abst | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |||
| total | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 43 | 39 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 41 |
The official report of business conducted today is found at General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 8th July 2008.
Updated to add link to article by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes
Reports
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church vote opens door to female bishops
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England set to split over women bishops
Jennifer Gold in Christian Today Church of England votes to ordain women bishops
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church risks split as Synod votes to ordain women bishops
Steve Doughty in the Mail Church of England faces clergy revolt after paving way for first woman bishop by 2014
The Press Association Church turmoil over women bishops
Ekklesia Church of England makes historic decision for women bishops
John F Burns in the International Herald Tribune As schism lurks, the Church of England endorses women as bishops
The Age [Melbourne] Anglicans vote in favour of women bishops
Stephanie Kennedy in ABC News [Australia] Anglican Synod votes to allow female bishops
Comments
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes in The Guardian There will be women bishops
Andrew Brown in The Guardian Super-bishops fly in
Damian Thompson in the Telegraph The Church of England is Protestant again
For the final form of the motion before Synod and the voting figures see the end of this article
Synod began its main debate on women bishops at 2.30 pm today.
The Order Paper is here
I have copied this below, but have amended it to include the votes in synod as they took place.
Note: Where a vote is taken by houses, the motion must be carried in all three houses to be carried.
The Bishop of Gloucester moved:
20. ‘That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’
The Bishop of Winchester moved as an amendment:
66. After “That this Synod” leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England, and noting the Manchester Group’s assertion in paragraph 22 of GS 1685 that “far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses”,
(i) affirm the assurances included in paragraphs 67-69 of GS 1685;
(ii) reaffirm (GS 1685 paragraph 74) Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”;
In paragraph (b) leave out “within the existing structures of the Church of England”; and
In paragraph (c) after “in” insert “legislation and in”.
Amendment 66 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 14 |
31 |
0 |
| clergy | 62 |
120 |
0 |
| laity | 78 |
114 |
0 |
The Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London) moved as an amendment:
67. Leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate”.
Amendment 67 was carried after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 28 |
17 |
0 |
| clergy | 90 |
89 |
4 |
| laity | 97 |
85 |
7 |
The Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) moved as an amendment:
68. Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and in paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.
Amendment 68 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 3 |
40 |
2 |
| clergy | 28 |
149 |
4 |
| laity | 36 |
147 |
5 |
69. In paragraph (b) leave out all the words after “affirm its view that” and insert “this should be done with the simplest possible statutory approach, with local diocesan arrangements for pastoral provision and sacramental care;”;
Leave out paragraph (c); and
In paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.
Amendment 69 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 7 |
37 |
1 |
| clergy | 66 |
107 |
9 |
| laity | 68 |
118 |
4 |
The Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) moved as an amendment:
70. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,” and insert “by preparing a draft Measure and associated code of practice providing new dioceses for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests,” and after the words “so that” insert the words “, if possible,”.
Amendment 70 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 10 |
32 |
3 |
| clergy | 53 |
124 |
4 |
| laity | 71 |
116 |
2 |
The Bishop of Exeter moved as an amendment:
71. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “accordingly” and insert “by preparing drafts of possible legislation in accordance with paragraph (c), to include further draft Measures, together with associated codes of practice, based on diocesan structures for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests, so that, if possible, the Business Committee can include consideration of these options in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”.
Amendment 71 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 14 |
29 |
2 |
| clergy | 65 |
116 |
1 |
| laity | 77 |
112 |
0 |
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds moved as an amendment:
72. In paragraph (c) after the words “affirm that these should be” insert “either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “complete” and insert “develop” and leave out the words “first consideration of the draft legislation” and insert “further consideration of both alternatives envisaged in paragraph (c) ”.
Amendment 72 was lost after a vote by houses (since it was defeated in one house).
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 21 |
21 |
1 |
| clergy | 84 |
92 |
2 |
| laity | 98 |
87 |
0 |
At this point (6.30 pm) Synod broke for its dinner break. The session will resume at 8.00 pm
[Miss Emma Forward (Exeter) did not move her amendment so it was not considered:
73. In paragraph (b) leave out “special”.]
The Revd Gillian Henwood (York) moved an amendment:
74. Insert after paragraph (b):
“(..) affirm its view that special arrangements should be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction wish to exercise or receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests in episcopal areas where the bishop has stated that he is not able to ordain women;”.
Amendment 74 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
for |
against |
abstentions |
|
| bishops | 5 |
31 |
3 |
| clergy | 68 |
85 |
20 |
| laity | 82 |
90 |
7 |
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham) moved as an amendment:
75. After paragraph (c) insert as a new parag