Comments: General Synod - convocations and laity meetings

If "many members" voted not because they are in favour but in order to enable synodical debate, this legislation is in trouble because it will not need many laity who voted in favour today to vote against at final approval for it to fall.

Posted by rose at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 4:16pm BST

Sorry, Simon (and everyone), but is this a vote on whether to adjourn and send the legislation back to the HoB? Or can that still happen on Monday (I need to read my synod papers more carefully!).

Posted by Scot Peterson at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 4:42pm BST

In response to Scot's question, it is not a vote about sending it back to the HoB, but simply to confirm the go ahead for the Final Approval debate. It is during that debate that a motion for adjournment will surface. God forbid, however, that this be carried, as WATCH and GRAS would wish, since it will lead to yet more internal wrangling, division and squabbles, and will probably end in the legislation being voted down anyway, given the arithmetic of previous debates on the unamended Measure. The Church needs to move on, and WATCH and GRAS are simply prolonging the agony with their unseemly tactics and behaviour. They will have only themselves to blame in the end for yet more strife in the Church.

Posted by Benedict at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 6:13pm BST


This was the vote on whether to approve that the Measure come before Synod. It needed to gain simple majorities in the House of Laity and each Convocation, so will now come before Synod on Monday for finall approval. It is then that Synod can either vote for or against the legislation, or vote in favour of an adjournment to refer it back to the House of Bishops.

Posted by Hannah at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 8:43pm BST

What Benedict says about WATCH and GRAS can equally well be said about the HoB which has adopted 'unseemly tactics' in the extreme and risks bringing the House into disrepute. 'They will have only themselves to blame in the end for yet more strife in the Church', as Benedict would say.

Is his 'truth' more incontrovertible than that of WATCH and GRAS?

Posted by abbey mouse at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 10:59pm BST


This site is called *Thinking* Anglicans. Scot asked a point of information. One of the characteristics of thoughtful courteous debate is that we can answer one another's questions, and generally inform the debate without using every opportunity to score points off one another. That shuts down the debate, and feeds into the very strife you are maintaining you would like to avoid.

Posted by Hannah at Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 10:04am BST

I'm not sure what Benedict means by "moving on"?

Posted by Perry Butler at Sunday, 8 July 2012 at 8:37am BST
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.