Comments: General Synod - Women Bishops legislation

Oh dear, only men in the photo, at least two of whom appear to be asleep, or at least very bored.

Please, I do not understand the implications of the two motions which passed. Does it mean that instead of moving forward, the July motion has been sent back to committee for revision? Or does the motion to go to committee for revision mean that all is well and is moving forward as planned? Sorry to be so dense.

Posted by Lois Keen at Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 1:25pm GMT

Sorry, I understand now, I think, after following a link from Episcopal Cafe to Justin Brett blogging live on General Synod Blog. Thanks for your patience, Simon.

Posted by Lois Keen at Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 1:37pm GMT

Lois,

You weren't the only one - and I'm British,

John.

Posted by john at Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 5:06pm GMT

Yes, Lois, the photograph speaks volums for the need for this very legislation.

Where are the women ?

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 9:20pm GMT

Is this good or bad for the women..are the trads hoping that it will go forward and at the final vote just be pipped at the post, by harnessing the conservative evangelical vote?

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 9:51pm GMT

The trads will now try to amend the legislation so it includes some form of separate dioceses / separate bishops - at present such things are in te Code not the legislation (so have little or no legal force, according to the trads).

Many of those in favour of women bishops will want the legislation left as it is, but will want to see the draft Code modified so as to remove the complemenary bishops option or else rearrange it in some way.

Some of those in favour seem quite happy to have the CB option ('let the trads have a generous provision - give them what they want') - the debate here turns on what provision for the trads might be seen as discriminatory agsainst women bishops.

I think this wranging over the actual Code will come at a later stage - what Synod has seen thus far is a draft code (an example of a Code).

Posted by Frozenchristian at Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 10:26am GMT

"Is this good or bad for the women..are the trads hoping that it will go forward and at the final vote just be pipped at the post,"

Well, it is all getting very complicated. Most of that who voted against were traditionalists who believed that the measure was so bad it could not be adequately improved in revision; they were joined by others, including some bishops, who believed it was proving too divisive to proceed.

Most of those in favour of women bishops and who will not accept the restrictions on WB provided for in the measure voted in favour but will not support the revised legislation unless it is radically different from the draft.

Others, including the 2 Archbishops, were in favour of comitting the draft for reviant to revision but believe stronger provision is needed for opponents.

So: is it good news for women?? Depends which women, whether they support WB, whether they believe in provision for opponents, whether they want to proceed quickly, whether they want to wait longer to get away with less provision......

Timescale?? I have a feeling yesterday may have slowed things down! If the legislation had fallen yesterday it could not be brought back in the lifetime of this synod, which has only another 11 months to run. If it falls early in life of the next synod, it may have to wait 5 years. On the basis of yesterday's debate & vote, I cannot see how any version could gain the necessary 2/3 majorities in each house of synod - we may be in for a very long haul!!

Posted by David Malloch at Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 11:58am GMT

And any extra delay ...will eventually be in the womens favour as their number grows and grows.I feel they should introduce a separate measure for the rcognition of the episcopal acts of overseas women bishops.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Friday, 13 February 2009 at 6:08am GMT

Wake me when this is all over.

Posted by Rob in the USA at Saturday, 14 February 2009 at 9:25pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.