Comments: General Synod - Covenant Vote

Could someone please enlighten me as to how many voting bishops there are in Synod exactly? Your table shows 40 - is that all there are, or were some absent?

I looked at the Church of England's General Synod webpages, which states that all the diocesans plus a number of suffragans plus several others are members of the House of Bishops, but it does not give a list of their names or job titles, nor indeed of the names of the members of the other houses of synod. Am I the only one to find it rather odd that one cannot see a list in the public domain of the members who vote on behalf of the whole C of E? Or maybe I've just missed it somewhere obvious?

Posted by Fr Mark at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 2:32pm GMT

That sets up James Jones to have an alternative policy for his elevation should this Archbishop fail.

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 3:55pm GMT

As you can see from here
there are potentially 52 members of the House of Bishops, but at present there are a few vacancies. Three to be exact.

So several were absent from the vote.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 5:36pm GMT

To save the rest of you the time, here is a list of the bishops who had no recorded vote. I know that two of them, at least, were absent entirely from the group of sessions. And I believe that neither Conway nor Chessun, although listed by Peter, are yet entitled to vote in respect of their new sees.

Rowell - absent abroad
Broadbent - absent by agreement

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 5:53pm GMT

... and please note that John Saxbee is Lincoln, not Lichfield.

Posted by RPNewark at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 6:58pm GMT

Simon is correct to write that Conway and Chessun were not members of General Synod in November.

Conway's election as bishop of Ely was due to be confirmed today (6 December), and Chessun's as bishop of Southwark will be confirmed on 17 January. These are the dates on which they legally become the bishop of the diocese and take up their membership of General Synod.

And I've corrected John Saxbee's diocese.

Posted by Peter Owen at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 8:00pm GMT

Jones is certainly an interesting fellow. Maybe also a good one and a reformed one. Better than many, anyway.

Posted by john at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 8:44pm GMT

Thanks for the clarifications.

Posted by Fr Mark at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 8:47pm GMT

Given the obvious scepticism of many of the speakers, the overwhelming vote in favour comes as something of a surprise. After an emotional eleventh hour plea from the ABC, it is clear that personal affection and loyalty will have had some bearing on the outcome.

The worry is that there was scarcely any enthusiasm during the debate for something which claims - in its preamble - to be rooted in Scripture and Tradition and appropriates the word Covenant. And THIS is the document that is supposed to bind us together as Anglicans?

In fact, there is such a theological leap from the preamble to the verbal contortions and procedural entanglements of Section 4, you could just as easily propose a section instead on building bonds of affection with the minority religious communities of Anglicans in all the churches of the Communion, which happen to be the subject of the tortuous Windsor Process, yet whose input is strangely missing throughout. This community has appropriated a symbol of the biblical Covenant - the rainbow flag.

It has been acknowledged that we share the same Scriptures and are an identifiable body of Christians. This is an improvement on the tone of Windsor where we are spoken of as an 'issue' which has 'presented' itself and causes 'controversy' amongst other Christians and has tainted the Body of Christ in some way.

Windsor has a practical outcome in the Covenant; the Listening Process resulted in a book timed for the last Lambeth Conference and now gathering dust on a shelf. This is unjust, in my view.

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 10:13pm GMT


Was your post meant to be complementary to +Liverpool or was it meant to be cynical? Whatever the answer: why?

Posted by Lister Tonge at Monday, 6 December 2010 at 11:53pm GMT

Hurrah for James Jones - putting his vote where his heart is! Fear of offending on account of recrimination must be a dreadful thing.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 7 December 2010 at 9:05am GMT

It was probably meant to be complimentary

Posted by Jeremy Pemberton at Tuesday, 7 December 2010 at 9:50am GMT

I've encountered =Liverpool at one of the Dio of VA's annual retreats. Our diocese has had a longstanding relationship with him and his diocese, as Liverpool was a major player in the Triangular Trade, as was our city of Richmond. I was very well impressed by him.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Tuesday, 7 December 2010 at 12:55pm GMT

I do wonder what was the point of abstaining. Either the Covenant was to be sent to the Dioceses or it wasn't. What does an abstention mean?

Posted by Richard Ashby at Tuesday, 7 December 2010 at 5:59pm GMT

Some people tell me they abstained because they do not think the Covenant a good idea but also wanted to support ++Rowan.

The list of abstainers and voters against contains many who are not exactly radical, inclusive church types or troublemakers. If the mild mannered middle ground is not enthusiastic, it is in trouble!

Posted by frozenchristian at Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 11:58am 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.