women bishops debate
UPDATE
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 CommentsGeneral Synod presidential address
Rowan 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 Commentsynod question about ACC finances
FINANCE 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.
synod questions on women bishops
HOUSE OF BISHOPS
The Bishop of Peterborough to reply on behalf of the Chairman
The Revd Jonathan Baker (Oxford) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q14 What attempts has the House of Bishops so far made to seek the views of other episcopal churches about the proposal to admit women to the historic episcopate?
Mr Martin Dales (York) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q15 Have all our ecumenical friends been consulted and given sufficient time for their theological reflection on the report Women Bishops in the Church of England, only published last autumn?
Mrs Margaret Tilley (Canterbury) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q16 Why has the House of Bishops thought it appropriate to invite the Synod to take a decision of principle whether or not to ordain women as bishops before receiving any responses from our ecumenical partners?
Mr James Cheeseman (Rochester) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q17 What attempts has the House of Bishops so far made to seek the views of other episcopally led churches about the possibility of ordaining women to the historic episcopate?
Mrs Mary Nagel (Chichester) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q18 Has there been any correspondence on behalf of the House with the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity on the possible inclusion of women in the episcopate since the publication of the Rochester Report?
Mrs Maryon Jägers (Europe) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q19 Given that the Rochester Working Party recommended that the Anglican Communion be invited to make responses to its report, what steps have been taken to elicit those responses and with what results?
Answer:
With permission, Madam Chairman, I should like to answer the questions from the Revd Jonathan Baker, Mr Dales, Mrs Tilley, Mr Cheeseman, Mrs Nagel, and Mrs Jägers together.
The House of Bishops proposed in February that the Synod should have the opportunity at this group of sessions to decide whether it wished to start down the legislative road to enable women to become bishops. In making that proposal, which the Synod accepted, the House had been mindful of the diocesan synod motions already passed on the subject. What decisions if any to take now will of course be for the Synod itself to determine on Monday.
As to ecumenical views, a Methodist and a Roman Catholic served on the Rochester Working Party. Our ecumenical partners and other Provinces of the Anglican Communion were indeed sent copies of the report Women Bishops in the Church of England? [GS1557] on its publication last year and were invited to submit a response. Some ecumenical partner churches have now done so (and copies are available for inspection at the Information Desk); other responses are awaited.
4 Commentssynod questions: another sexuality one
HOUSE OF BISHOPS
The Bishop of Chelmsford to reply as Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Ministry
Mrs Jane Pitts (Liverpool) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q10 In view of the harm the Church of England has inflicted on itself in its polarized arguments over the understanding of sexuality as a whole, would the House of Bishops consider not asking clerical candidates for any posts personal questions about their sexual orientation or attitudes to the same, with a view to respecting the individual’s conscience before God in this deeply felt issue?
Answer:
As is clear from the Ordinal under discussion at this Group of Sessions, clergy make public undertakings to ‘fashion their life according to the way of Christ’. They also make an Oath of Canonical Obedience to their bishop. Bishops have a duty, in confidence, to explore with a priest all matters which are affected by the oaths and declarations which they make. All such conversations should be conducted with great sensitivity and respect.
The House of Bishops’ teaching as set out in Issues in Human Sexuality represents the position of the House. There is a proper expectation that clergy should hold to its discipline.
14 Commentssynod questions about Civil Partnerships
HOUSE OF BISHOPS
The Bishop of Peterborough to reply as a member of the House’s Civil Partnerships sub-group
The Revd Paul Collier (Southwark) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q11 Will the proposed Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships address the question of how a bishop should act if clergy such as myself exercise our right to enter a Civil Partnership, alongside a joyful celebration of a relationship of love, fidelity and commitment, and at the same time refuse to answer any questions about our private life, including whether the relationship is a sexual one or not?
The Revd Stephen Coles (London) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q12 Synod was told in February that a report was being prepared in good time for the first registration of civil partnerships this December. Can Synod be given an update on the progress of this Pastoral Statement as there have already been some suggestive reports in the media about its contents?
The Revd Canon Paul Brett (Chelmsford) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q13 Is it true, as reported in the Church Times on 3 June that, if Church of England clergy wish to register civil partnerships under the new legislation, they will be required to assure their bishops that their relationships are ‘not sexual’ and, if so, how will a bishop ascertain whether such a relationship is sexual or not?
Answer:
With permission, Madam Chairman, I should like to answer the questions from the Revd Paul Collier, the Revd Stephen Coles and Canon Paul Brett together. The Bishop of Norwich, who chairs the House of Bishops’ sub-group of which I am a member, has been taking a funeral this afternoon and is sorry not to be here.
The House has now had two discussions of the implications of the new legislation that will come into force on 5 December. It has agreed to issue a Pastoral Statement and that is likely to be ready for issue within the next few weeks.
I do not intend to answer questions now based on press reporting of what the statement may or may not be going to say. Let me instead simply urge Synod to study the document calmly and prayerfully when it appears.
0 CommentsGeneral Synod Questions
Questions to be answered at this weekend’s General Synod are now online. The answers will be given tonight starting at 8.30pm.
0 CommentsGeneral Synod papers
A few more Synod papers have appeared since my earlier lists here and here.
GS 1582 Archbishops’ Council’s Annual Report 2004
Report of Proceedings – February 2005
And there’s now a zipped version of one file which reduces its size from 20 to 2.6 MB.
GS 1577 Presence and Engagement
0 CommentsThe motion on women bishops
To put into context the letter recently published arguing for further delay in the process of deciding about women bishops in the Church of England, the full wording of the motion to be debated is published below the fold.
The motion does not, as was the expectation earlier, ask synod to decide anything about the specific options for proceeding (see here for what the Rochester report said about options.)
It only asks for a decision yes/no about proceeding further at all.
If a yes decision is made, it asks that a further report be published before the February 2006 synod meeting and that options should be debated at that time. (No action on this topic is proposed for the November 2005 meeting.) A committee of the House of Bishops chaired by Christopher Hill is already working on this report.
2 CommentsGeneral Synod papers
As well as the remaining papers for debate at next month’s meeting of General Synod (already listed by me here) the following papers have now been sent to members.
None of the papers below appears to be online.
Getting the Message: A resource pack for communicating the General Synod
GS Misc 780 Bodies Answerable to Synod
GS Misc 781 Children in the Midst
GS Misc 783 Membership of the Archbishops’ Council, its Committees, Boards and Councils and details of their meetings in 2004
GS Misc 786 Clergy Discipline Commission: Annual Report for 2004
GS Misc 787 Review of Marriage Law update
GS Misc 790 Activities of the Archbishops’ Council
GS Misc 792 Implementation of the Church of England’s Strategy for Children
and a covering note from the Bishops of Liverpool and Portsmouth
GS Misc 793 Parish Mission Fund
GS Misc 794 Review of Senior Church Appointments [see below for the text of this paper]
HB(05)2 Summary of decisions of the most recent meeting of the House of Bishops (25-26 May 2005)
GS Misc 794
REVIEW OF SENIOR CHURCH APPOINTMENTS
1. As members will recall, at the last Group of Sessions the Synod passed a resolution requesting the Archbishops’ Council:
‘to commission a working party (to be chaired by a person independent of the Council and the Synod) to review and make recommendations (without limitation) as to the law and practice regarding appointments to the offices of suffragan bishop, dean, archdeacon and residentiary canon’
2. A review group has now been appointed. It will be chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling, who is due to retire as Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office this autumn. The other members of the group are:
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell)
Canon Professor Michael Clarke (Worcester)
Mr Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London)
The Rt Revd Jack Nicholls, Bishop of Sheffield
The Revd Rod Thomas (Exeter)
The Very Revd Robert Willis, Dean of Canterbury
The Revd Canon Lucy Winkett
3. David Williams (Clerk to the Synod) will serve as an Assessor to the Group and Dr Colin Podmore will be its Secretary. The Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments, Caroline Boddington, will be available to support the Group throughout its work. The Group will also be able to call on legal and theological advice from relevant Church House staff, and others, as required.
4. The Group will be meeting immediately before the July Group of Sessions and it is expected that invitations to submit evidence will be issued later in July. A further notice about this will be circulated in due course.
2 CommentsJuly General Synod – papers
The main bulk of the papers for next months meeting of General Synod arrived in the post this morning, and are listed below. I’ve also included papers due to be circulated next week (marked with an asterisk).
I’ll add links to online copies as they become available.
GS 1571 Agenda
Friday 8 July Saturday 9 July Sunday 10 July Monday 11 July Tuesday 12 July
GS 1572 Report of the Business Committee
GS 1574 Formation for Ministry within a Learning Church: Reviewing Progress
GS 1575 Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: Report by the Mission and Public Affairs Council *
GS 1576 Children and Holy Communion *
Annex 1
Annex 2
GS 1577 Presence and Engagement [This is a 20 MB (sic) document.]
GS Misc 788 Covering Note from the Mission and Public Affairs Council
GS 1578 Thirty-Ninth Report of the Standing Orders Committee
First Notice Paper (listing proposed amendments to standing orders)
GS 1579 Church Urban Fund: A New Future
GS Misc 789 Covering Note from the Mission and Public Affairs Council
GS 1580 Strategic Spending Review
GS 1580A Accountability and Transparency
GS 1580B Resourcing Mission
Annex A Annex B Annex C Annex D Annex E
GS Misc 782 Review of Administrative Costs *
GS 1583 Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council’s Audit Committee
GS 1582 Archbishops’ Council’s Annual Report *
In the Spirit of the Covenant: Report of the Joint Implementation Commission
GS Misc 784 Covering Note by the CCU
Listing continues below the fold.
0 CommentsAnglican-Methodist Covenant
The interim Report of the Joint Implementation Commission under the covenant between the Methodist Church and the Church of England – In the Spirit of the Covenant – has just been published. It is online here. It’s quite substantial – 112 A5 pages plus appendices.
The report will be debated at the Methodist Conference later this month and at General Synod In July.
The Methodist Church website carries a news item on the report here.
0 CommentsResourcing Mission Group
Hidden away at the bottom of the Church of England’s papers webpage is this item.
Resourcing Mission Group
The Resourcing Mission Group was one of the groups created by the Archbishops in 2004 following the adjournment by General Synod of the consultation document GS1529: “Future use of the Church Commissioners Funds”. This is the Group’s interim report, on which the Church’s views are being invited. Its final report will be prepared in the autumn after the consultation process has finished.
Main report 179kb
Annex A 26kb
Annex B 72kb
Annex C 27kb
Annex D 36kb (Excel document)
Additional Annex 49kb
The terms of reference of the group were “to identify achievable ways in which the financial and other resources of the Church of England might be best deployed (a) to secure their equitable distribution across the Church and (b) to facilitate local mission objectives and plans”.
Nothing about the consultation process has appeared on the CofE news page or on the rather obscure Church Commissioners’ own news page so it is unclear where comments should be sent. I suggest “Resourcing Mission Group Secretariat” at Church House Westminster.
0 CommentsGeneral Synod: July 2005 Timetable
General Synod members have been sent a timetable for July’s meeting. It does not appear to be available online, so I have reproduced it below.
GENERAL SYNOD: JULY 2005 GROUP OF SESSIONS
Timetable
The times of sessions are as follows (unless otherwise indicated):
9.15 am to 1 pm; 2.30 — 6.15 pm; 8.30 pm — 10 pm
Friday, 8 July
3.00 pm
Prayers, introductions, welcome to and reply on behalf of the ecumenical guests
Report by the Business Committee
Ordinal: Second Revision Stage
Evening
Questions
Saturday, 9 July
Morning
Group work
Legislative Business
i. Further Miscellaneous Provisions Measure: Final Drafting and Final Approval
ii. Clergy Discipline Measure Code of Practice
iii. Clergy Discipline Measure Rules
iv. Fees Orders
v. Approval of petition renaming the See of Southwell
Afternoon
Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill: Report by the Mission and Public Affairs Council
Communion before Confirmation: Report by the Board of Education
Evening
Formation for Ministry in a Learning Church: Follow-up to the Hind Report
Sunday, 10 July
Afternoon
Inter-Faith Relations: Report by the Mission and Public Affairs Council
Parochial Fees: Oxford Diocesan Synod Motion
Standing Orders Committee Report
Evening
Church Urban Fund: Report by the Archbishops’ Council
Monday, 11 July
Morning
Prayers
Presidential Address
Strategic Financial Review: Progress Report
Budget
Afternoon
Women in the Episcopate
Evening
Ordinal: Final Approval
Audit Committee Report
Archbishops’ Council Annual Report
Tuesday, 12 July
Morning
Prayers
Anglican Methodist Covenant: Interim Report from the Joint Implementation Commission
Holy Communion and closing ceremonies
Dissolution
General Synod Elections 2005
There will be a general election for the Church of England’s General Synod in September. Church House Westminster held a consultation for returning officers on Tuesday of this week. In connection with this a lot of guidance material has been placed online. Although intended primarily for the returning officers much of it will be of more general interest.
The provisional timetable is:
1 Notification to electors of the election timetable to be followed in the diocese and issue of nomination papers:
Not later than Tuesday 19th July2 Notification of the validity of any nomination:
As soon as any nomination is received3 Closing date for nominations:
Friday 2nd September4 Issue of voting papers:
Friday 9th September5 Closing date for return of voting papers:
Friday 30th September6 Day of the Count:
Monday 3rd, Tuesday 4th, Wednesday 5th, or Thursday 6th October
The final timetable may differ slightly from diocese to diocese.
There have been a number of changes since 2000. Some of the more significant are:
1 Synod has been reduced in size by 105 members.
2 There will no longer be a representative archdeacon from each diocese. Instead the archdeacons will be eligible to stand for election in their diocesan proctorial election although at most one can be elected in any diocese or electoral area.
3 Clergy with permission to officiate are now eligible to be candidates. Only those who are also a member of a deanery synod are electors.
4 Candidates will only have to provide one copy of their election address. Dioceses will be responsible for making copies and sending them to all electors.
Full details of who are eligible to be candidates, who the electors are, the number of clergy and laity to be elected by each diocese and a full set of rules are included in the online material.
6 CommentsGeneral Synod – July 2005 – preliminary agenda
Synod meets in York from Friday 8 July to Tuesday 12 July. There is now a (very) preliminary agenda on the CofE website. It’s an rtf file, so for convenience I have reproduced its contents below.
General
Business Committee report (¾ hours)
Presidential Address (½ hour)
Eucharist and closing ceremonies (1¼ hours)
[Group work (1¼ hours)]
Legislation
Further Miscellaneous Provisions Measure: Final Drafting and Final Approval (25 minutes)
?Amending Canon No 24 (Clergy Discipline): Promulgation (5 minutes)
Fees Orders (½ hour)
Clergy Discipline Measure Rules
?Clergy Discipline Appeal Rules
Clergy Discipline Measure Code of Practice
(1 hour for the three)
Approval of petition renaming Diocese of Southwell (?deemed approval – allow ½ hour)
Liturgy
Ordinal: Second Revision Stage (2 hours) and Final Approval (1 hour)
Reports
Women in the Episcopate (2¾ hours)
Strategic Financial Review: progress report (2 hours)
2006 budget (1 hour)
Church Urban Fund (1½ hours)
Anglican/Methodist Covenant: interim report from Joint Implementation Commission (2 hours)
Standing Orders Committee report (¾ hours)
Constitutions report: Liturgical Commission and other Commissions (½ hour)
?Review of Diocesan Practice on Communion before Confirmation (1½ hours)
Hind follow-up (2¼ hours)
Inter-faith relations: MPA report (2 hours)
Trade Justice: presentation and questions (1 hour)
Archbishops’ Council annual report (deemed approval – allow ½ hour)
?Audit Committee: annual report (¾ hours)
??Euthanasia: MPA report (1½ hours)
Diocesan Synod Motion
Parochial Fees (Oxford) (1¼ hours)
[See below the fold for the text]
Private Member’s Motion
None
Contingency Business
Human Genome (Guildford DSM)
General Synod: Brian Lewis speech
This is the prepared text for the maiden speech given by Brian Lewis in the General Synod debate on the Windsor Report last Thursday. Brian is Rector of St Michael & All Angels, Little Ilford (Manor Park)in the Diocese of Chelmsford.
I felt very disappointed when I read the House of Bishops report on the Windsor Report. In his Advent Pastoral letter the Archbishop had written that one of the deepest challenges of the Windsor Report is about repentance. And in the Church we can never call on others to repent without ourselves acknowledging that we too in all sorts of ways are sinners in need of grace. We all need to be involved in this repentance, and it seems to me that this recognition that we all need to repent is missing from the Bishops’ report.
The current crisis in the Anglican Communion and the need for the Windsor report is apparently because of the different ways that different parts of the Communion approach the subject of homosexuality. For nearly thirty years now, successive Lambeth Conferences have addressed the question of homosexuality and called on us as the Anglican Communion to engage in a process of dialogue, study and listening. For nearly thirty years we have largely ignored that call, and we have totally ignored the way that other parts of the communion, specifically those parts of the Communion who have had most difficulty coming to terms with what has happened in New Hampshire, have refused to engage in that process. We do need to be repentant of how we have handled that. We have failed the wider communion when we have not used opportunities to share the dialogues we have been able to have in this country simply because it is legal to have those dialogues. You may have heard about a radio station in Nigeria broadcasting a programme which had three gay Nigerians talking about their lives. That programme was against the law. The radio station was fined for simply allowing gay people, in a secular context, to talk about their lives. We need to take account of how difficult it is for people to share their experiences in other parts of the communion and we might have done much more to help.
Working in East London odd opportunities arise. One Sunday morning, unannounced, five Kenyan priests arrived in church for the Sunday Eucharist – they were travelling through on the way back from a conference. It was just before the Archbishop’s enthronement, they had heard that he had ordained a gay man, so we talked about what that meant in our culture. About the place of gay people in our society, about what it means to be gay in our culture. I talked about my pastoral experience, about a bereavement visit where the widow quite naturally introduced her son and his partner as her second son. My visitors were astounded, it was a revelation to them that such a thing could happen. As I talked about the place gay people have in our culture, they talked about Kenyan society, about marriage and what it is to be unmarried in Kenyan culture. They learnt from me, and I learnt from them, we learnt from each other. An isolated story – but it needn’t have been, how often might we have learnt from each other if we had used, for example, link diocesan visits and exchanges to really learn what each others cultures are about and what it is to minister in them. Perhaps we need to repent of being too frightened, or just not caring enough, to talk about the difficult issues, the things we would disagree about.
You may have heard about a retired bishop in Uganda who has tried to begin the process of dialogue and pastoral support for gay Ugandan Christians. He faced tremendous opposition from his church. He was forbidden to preach and officiate, and even told at one point he would be refused a Christian burial. Perhaps we should have more visibly offered support and encouragement, after all he is doing what successive Lambeth conferences have been asking for. When he was suspended by the Ugandan church perhaps we should have been more overt and public in our support of him and our bishops might have intervened on his behalf. Calling one another to account is part of what the Archbishop was talking about in his pastoral letter when he spoke of living in the full interdependence of love.
The Bishop of Durham has spoken to us being in a desperate state of emergency, but that ignores the fact things are still happening, our communion is still functioning – things may not be as dire as he would have us believe. On the feast of Epiphany in the Diocese of Kajo Keji in the Sudan, there was a great occasion, an ordination of thirty-four deacons and three priests. Bishop Paul Marshall of ECUSA had been due to visit the diocese but in the light of the Windsor Report had offered to cancel his visit not wanting his presence to be a cause for embarrassment. But with the support of his Primate the Diocesan Bishop not only renewed his invitation, he rescheduled the ordinations so that Bishop Marshall could ordain the thirty-four deacons and with him the three priests. It also seems to me that we are too ready to hear the stories of broken relationships and not where the communion is strong.
And a story from me, I was born in New Zealand and ordained priest there twenty five years ago, and even longer ago than that I remember a debate in my diocesan synod on the subject of homosexuality. The synod resolved not to discriminate in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation. The debate was certainly about clergy and presumably that included bishops. The sky did not fall in, no African prelates imploded. It may have been because we were all concerned about something that seemed much more controversial – rugby. Should the Allblacks play the Springboks? We were engaged with supporting the Church in South Africa’s battle with apartheid. Throughout New Zealand society and the churches were deeply divided about the sporting boycott of South Africa. Rugby is what threatened to split the church not homosexuality. How have we come to this point today?
If the Anglican Communion falls apart in the next few months, might – just might – it not be because of something that happened in New Hampshire but because for twenty five years we have ignored the call of three Lambeth conferences to talk, to listen, to study, to learn.
4 CommentsMore Answers to Questions
Three more answers, this group relating to discrimination on grounds of gender.
Q5 The Revd Canon Penny Driver (Ripon & Leeds) to ask the Secretary General:
In the House of Bishops’ paper HB(05)M1 (“Summary of Decisions”), item no.14 refers to the House giving its approval in principle to a way of amending the law to address a legal difficulty which would otherwise arise when a new EU directive comes into force in October. Please could we know what this amendment is, how it will be done and why?
Answer by the Secretary General [William Fittall]
0 CommentsIn the next few weeks the Department for Trade and Industry will be publishing draft regulations to bring UK law into line with the amended Equal Treatment Directive adopted by the EC in 2002. One amendment to Westminster legislation would involve a consequential amendment to the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 in relation to the law on discrimination. As a result the DTI has, under the normal constitutional convention, consulted the Church. The House of Bishops and Archbishops’ Council have both given their approval to the Government’s proposed approach, which will enable the Church to maintain its present arrangements in a way consistent with European law.
I shall circulate a more detailed explanation to Synod members once the Government’s consultation document has been published.
General Synod debate : the rerun
The BBC Parliament channel will be rebroadcasting its coverage of the General Synod debate held last Thursday morning about the Windsor Report.
The retransmission starts at 3.00 p.m. GMT on Sunday, and lasts 195 minutes. Details here.
0 CommentsSynod day four
Updated
to include business done on Thursday afternoon.
Press reports of Thursday morning’s debate:
BBC Synod backs regret at gay bishop
Press Association Homosexuality Row Leaves Church in ‘Agony’ – Archbishop
Associated Press Archbishop sees ‘no cost-free outcome’ to split over gay bishop
Reuters Anglican Church Deeply Wounded in Gay Row -Williams
Evening Standard Church acts to end split over gay clergy
Agence France-Presse Gay clergy row has damaged Anglican church, archbishop admits
Guardian Stephen Bates Gay clergy debate will hurt us, says archbishop
The Guardian has this editorial: Not of this world
The Times Ruth Gledhill Williams tells liberals they risk damaging the Church
Telegraph Jonathan Petre Archbishop pledges to take tough action in Church gay row
Yorkshire Post Michael Brown Archbishop’s agony as the threat of schism over gay row haunts Synod
Windsor Report debate
Text of Bishop Tom Wright’s opening speech (note this is text as prepared, not a transcript as delivered)
Text of Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech (transcript)
The official report of business done on Thursday morning is here as an RTF file and the section relating to the Windsor Report is copied here below the fold. Details of the amendments proposed (none of which were approved) appear below that. They are taken from the Order Paper for the morning’s business here as an RTF file.
Thursday afternoon
Press coverage:
Telegraph Jonathan Petre Let us bless this recycling bin
Ekklesia Synod sings ‘halle-loo-jah’
Press Association Bishop Flushed with Success over Water Saving Scheme
The official report of business done on Thursday afternoon is here as an RTF file
The Order Paper for the afternoon’s business is here as an RTF file
In summary:
The synod debated the motion concerning Senior Church Appointments
700 The motion (as amended by Items 710 and 711)
‘That this Synod:
(i) consider that the Church should adopt an integrated and consistent method for the making of appointments to senior ecclesiastical office (other than diocesan bishops) to ensure that all appointments are transparent and encourage the confidence of the Church in the procedures that support the final selection; and
(ii) request the Archbishops’ Council to commission a working party (to be chaired by a person independent of the Council and the Synod) to review and make recommendations (without limitation) as to the law and practice regarding appointments to the offices of suffragan bishop, dean, archdeacon and residentiary canon, including:
(A) the role and practice adopted by diocesan bishops in the making of nominations to suffragan sees; and
(B) the role of the Crown in the making of appointments to the other senior Church offices referred to above and how it is discharged, and for the Archbishops’ Council to report back to the Synod within eighteen months of the date of this debate.’
was carried.
The synod then debated SHARING GOD’S PLANET: Report by the Mission and Public Affairs Council (PDF format)
The motion originally proposed was amended in various ways, and the final result was that:
The motion (as amended by Items 38, 39, 46 and 48)
‘That this Synod
(a) commend Sharing God’s Planet as a contribution to Christian thinking and action on environmental issues;
(b) challenge itself and all members of the Church of England to make care for creation, and repentance for its exploitation, fundamental to their faith, practice, and mission;
© lead by example by promoting study on the scale and nature of lifestyle change necessary to achieve sustainability, and initiatives encouraging immediate action towards attaining it;
(d) encourage parishes, diocesan and national Church organizations to carry out environmental audits and adopt specific and targeted measures to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources and ask the Mission and Public Affairs Council to report on outcomes achieved to the July 2008 group of sessions;
(e) welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s prioritising of climate change in its chairing of the G8 and its forthcoming presidency of the European Union;
(f) urge Her Majesty’s Government to provide sustained and adequate funding for research into, and development of, environmentally friendly sources of energy; and
(g) in order to promote responsible use of God’s created resources and to reduce and stabilise global warming, commend to
(i) the consumers of material and energy, the approach of ‘contraction and convergence’; and to
(ii) the producers of material and energy systems, safe, secure and sustainable products and processes based on near-zero-carbon-emitting sources.’
was carried.
0 Comments