The final papers for next month’s meeting of General Synod are now online and linked in my earlier posting here.
Also circulated to Synod members and now online is a summary of the decisions of the most recent meeting (4/5 October) of the House of Bishops.
0 CommentsThe figures for diocesan voting turnout published by the Church Times last week have been analysed.
In summary, less than 61% of the eligible clergy, and less than 49% of the eligible laity bothered to vote at all. There is a wide variation between dioceses but there is no significant correlation between the clergy turnout and the lay turnout in the same diocese.
The highest clergy turnout was in Derby (77.2%), and the lowest was in Oxford (48.4%).
The highest laity turnout was in Rochester (63.9%) and the lowest was in Worcester (37.4%).
These figures exclude results not made available to the Church Times, namely Europe, Guildford, and Winchester. Also the Bath & Wells laity election was declared void and will be rerun, and the Clergy election in Sodor & Man was uncontested.
The total number of eligible voters included in this analysis was: Clergy 12,264; Laity 25,333.
The full table of figures is now available here.
0 CommentsThe newly elected General Synod will meet in London on Tuesday 15 and Wednesday 16 November. Papers for this meeting, listed below, are now appearing online. GS 1593 and 1595 are scheduled for dispatch to members on Friday this week.
Agenda
Tuesday
Wednesday
Legislative Business
GS 1592 Report by the Business Committee
GS 1593 Review of Clergy Terms of Service: Property Issues and Progress Report
GS 1595 Facing the Challenge of Terrorism
Papers for Legislative Business
GS 1348B Amending Canon No 24
GS 1594 Payments to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2005
GS 1594X Report and Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1596 Admission of Baptised Children to Holy Communion Regulations
GS 1596X Report and Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1597 Draft Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure [large file: 5 MB]
GS 1598 Draft Amending Canon No 27
GS 1599 Draft Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation
GS 1597-9X Report and Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1600 Clergy Discipline Appeals Rules
GS 1600X Explanatory Memorandum
The following statistics were supplied at the press briefing for the November 2005 meeting of the General Synod, held on 21 October.
New General Synod. Figures as at October 2005
Age profile of elected diocesan representatives
|
20s
|
30s
|
40s
|
50s
|
60s
|
70s
|
Average
|
Average in 2000
|
||
| Laity |
189
|
9
|
14
|
22
|
62
|
70
|
12
|
56
|
53
|
|
Clergy
|
182
|
2
|
8
|
74
|
79
|
19
|
0
|
50
|
51
|
Clergy average age reflects the clergy population as a whole.
Gender balance by Houses
|
Female
|
Male
|
Total | |||
| Laity |
84
|
41%
|
120
|
59%
|
204
|
| Clergy |
46
|
23%
|
154
|
77%
|
200
|
| Bishops |
0
|
0%
|
53
|
100%
|
53
|
| Total |
130
|
28%
|
327
|
72%
|
457
|
These figures exclude 9 voting places not currently filled – 6 Bath and Wells laity, 1 religious community laity, Third Estates Commissioner and one appointed Archbishops’ Council place occupied by a diocesan bishop. They also exclude the 10 places available, but rarely filled, for co-opted voting members, and the 13 observer places for deaf, ecumenical and youth representatives.
Gender balance by Houses January 2001
|
Female
|
Male
|
Total | |||
| Laity |
117
|
45%
|
145
|
55%
|
262
|
| Clergy |
27
|
11%
|
227
|
89%
|
254
|
| Bishops |
0
|
0%
|
54
|
100%
|
54
|
| Total |
144
|
25%
|
426
|
75%
|
570
|
(These figures exclude 1 voting place not filled – one appointed Archbishops’ Council place occupied by a diocesan bishop. They also exclude 10 places available, but rarely filled, for co-opted voting members and 8 observer places for ecumenical representatives.)
3 CommentsThe Church Times has published today the dates of birth of newly elected members of General Synod. From these data I have calculated some statistics for the elected diocesan representatives of the clergy and laity.
| ages |
clergy
|
laity
|
| mean age |
50
|
56
|
| standard deviation |
7
|
11
|
| oldest |
68
|
78
|
| youngest |
27
|
21
|
For comparison the mean ages in 2000 were 51 (clergy) and 53 (laity).
I have put a histogram of the age distributions here.
[Note: The laity figures exclude Bath & Wells (election postponed), Winchester (figures not available) and two members of unknown age.]
3 CommentsA new General Synod is elected every five years and meets two or three times a year. It comprises three Houses: Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The number of members given below is for the 2005-2010 Synod.
Members vote according to their own conscience; nobody can instruct them how to vote.
Members vote as individuals; there is no voting by diocese as in the USA. The results of votes are decided by counting the numbers of members voting for and against a motion. In most cases the count is of the whole Synod and a simple majority is required for a motion to be passed. Sometimes each House votes separately (and then each House must vote in favour) and in some of these cases a two-thirds majority is required in each House.
A simplified account of how Synod is elected follows below the fold.
1 CommentI’ve now collected most of the Synod election results. The missing results are
Armed Services
Bath and Wells (clergy)
Carlisle
Chester (Chester archdeaconry laity)
Exeter
Gloucester
Newcastle
Norwich
Ripon and Leeds (laity)
Salisbury (laity)
Sodor & Man
Truro
Winchester (laity)
Channel Islands
London University
Other Universities (Southern)
Other Universities (Northern)
If you have any of the missing results please email them to me here.
People will be trying to analyze the new Synod. Here is an attempt by Church Society to do this for the diocesan bishops and an analysis by their general secretary David Phillips.
19 CommentsSo far I have about 40% of the General Synod election results; you can see them here. If you have any of the missing results please email them to me here.
0 CommentsThe counts of the elections to General Synod will be taking place over the next few days and I shall be listing the names of successful candidates here.
If anyone can help me by supplying these names for the laity or clergy of any diocese or for any of the special constituencies please let me know by emailing me here.
I’ll post updates as the results come in.
3 CommentsAt York in 1997, General Synod debated a motion on Issues in Human Sexuality put forward as a Private Member’s Motion by the Archdeacon of Wandsworth, David Gerrard:
That this Synod
(a) commend for discussion in dioceses the House of Bishops’ report “Issues in Human Sexuality” and acknowledge it is not the last word on the subject;
(b) in particular, urge deanery Synods, clergy chapters and congregations to find time for prayerful study and reflection on the issues addressed by the report.
This motion was eventually passed, unamended. The voting was:
HOUSE AYES NOES
Bishops 44 0
Clergy 187 38
Laity 150 88
Before that, three amendments were due to be considered. None was passed, and this outcome was ensured by the 44 members of the House of Bishops present voting unanimously against all amendments.
The details of the amendments and voting thereon is below the fold.
1 CommentI wrote a report of the July 2005 General Synod for Anglicans Online a little while ago; you can read it here. I have done one of these for every Synod meeting for the last quinquennium; they are all linked from here (near the bottom of the page). There are also a few earlier ones here.
0 CommentsThe quinquennial synod election season is upon us. This article provides links to national (not local diocesan) sites that contain information relevant to these elections. Provision of a link here does not imply endorsement of any campaigning group by Thinking Anglicans. If we have omitted a group that you think should be included, write a Comment.
Church of England: General Synod Election 2005
Note: deadline dates vary from diocese to diocese. Check your local diocesan website for details.
Open Synod Group
Affirming Catholicism
InclusiveChurch
Reform
Forward in Faith
The Church of England website now includes the answers to questions and transcripts of some of the debates from last month’s meeting of General Synod.
Links to the transcripts can be found here.
0 CommentsAs this information is not yet available online elsewhere, the textual amendments contained in GS 1535C are reproduced below the fold.
UPDATE (26 July 2005)
This paper (which includes an explanation of the bishops’ actions) is now available on the CofE website.
Church Times
Women bishops clear first hurdle in Synod
Women bishops: law to be tackled
Admitting children to communion is ‘gaining ground’
Euthanasia rejected as ‘bad medicine’
Southwell name
Ordinal passed after last-minute changes
presidential address
Synod hears of impatience for unity
‘Learn from good interfaith experience’ Synod told
Fund launched to fight poverty gets Synod backing
Code for clergy discipline agreed
standing orders
‘In God we trust – but everybody else we audit’
synod revue
Hind follow-up
parochial fees
2006 budget
Farewells
Church of England Newspaper reports are below the fold.
0 CommentsThe official record of the business done at this month’s General Synod is now online here.
0 CommentsOn Saturday evening, the General Synod considered the subject of euthanasia, in the context of legislation recently before the UK Parliament. Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans opened the debate with this speech.
The synod briefing document is Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia (RTF format)
A press release from the Diocese of St Albans is here
Press coverage:
Daily Mail Synod prays after rejecting bill
Press Association
Synod prays after rejecting bill
Euthanasia ‘motivated by cost’
The Archbishop of Canterbury said he fears moves towards legalising voluntary euthanasia were being motivated by the need for cost-cutting in healthcare.
Dr Rowan Williams reaffirmed his opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide at a meeting of the the General Synod of the Church of England, in York.
The archbishop said: “This is not simply a debate about medical ethics, it’s also about economic ethics.
“In a climate where the pressure is all towards a functionalised, reduced style of healthcare provision, this (assisted dying) must be a very, very tempting option to save money and resources.
“We have to be honest about this but we have to recognise that this is also an economic question and therefore a question about power.”
Speaker after speaker at The Synod spoke against the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill which was introduced by Lord Joffe in the House of Lords last year and is likely to return to parliament later this year.
Many members gave moving personal accounts of the deaths of terminally ill relatives before The Synod voted resoundingly to continue The Church’s opposition.
In September last year, Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops issued a joint statement opposing Lord Joffe’s Bill which concluded: “It is deeply misguided to propose a law by which it would be legal for terminally ill people to be killed or assisted in suicide by those caring for them.”
The Synod voted by 293 votes to just one to support that stance.
Liverpool Daily Post Church leaders’ attack on voluntary euthanasia Bill
19 CommentsUPDATE
The voting on the motion (as amended) was as follows:
Bishops: 41 in favour, 6 against
Clergy: 167 in favour, 46 against
Laity: 159 in favour, 75 against
The motion was therefore CARRIED.
The final text of the motion was:
That this Synod
(a) consider that the process for removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate should now be set in train;
(b) invite the House of Bishops, in consultation with the Archbishops’ Council, to complete by January 2006, and report to the Synod, the assessment which it is making of the various options for achieving the removal of the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate, and ask that it give specific attention to the issues of canonical obedience and the universal validity of orders throughout the Church of England as it would affect clergy and laity who cannot accept the ordination of women to the episcopate on theological grounds; and
(c) instruct the Business Committee to make sufficient time available in the February 2006 group of sessions for the Synod to debate the report, and in the light of the outcome to determine on what basis it wants the necessary legislation prepared and establish the necessary drafting group.’
————
Four amendments have been put down for debate. The text of these will be published here below the fold, in the order in which they are going to be considered. The original motion is here.
The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe formally moved his amendment. Voting FOR the amendment was effectively to vote AGAINST the original motion.
It was very clearly lost on a show of hands. There was more support for it, though, than I had expected.
The Archdeacon of Norwich’s amendment, similarly but very quickly, also lost.
It is now clear that the concept of delay has been rejected decisively by the synod.
The last two amendments were then debated.
The Archdeacon of Berkshire moved his amendment. After debate, it was PASSED by 233 votes to 216.
The fourth amendment by Dr Bridger was not resisted by the Bishop of Southwark and quickly passed on a show of hands.
The debate subsequently completed, and a vote by houses is taking place. It seems very likely now that this motion will pass.
41 CommentsRowan Williams delivered his presidential address to the General Synod meeting at York. The full text of this is already available on his own website.
A substantial portion of it was devoted to the recent Anglican Consultative Council meeting.
1 CommentFINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr Michael Chamberlain to reply as Chairman of the Finance Committee
Dr Susan Cooper (London) to ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee:
Q52 What are the financial implications for the Church of England of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdrawing from the meetings and committees of the Anglican Consultative Council for the period up to the next Lambeth Conference?
Answer:
Financial implications would arise for the Church of England only if the Anglican Consultative Council were to approach us for an increase in our contribution. We have received no such approach. The budget which the Synod will be asked to approve on Monday incorporates a 3% increase in our contribution on 2006, the same as the increase between 2004 and 2005.