Ebbsfleet on Synod

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet's Pastoral Letter – August 2010

The General Synod at York

IT IS now 40 years since the Church of England General Synod came into being. It was an exciting new development, replacing an even more cumbersome system of dual control by Convocations of Clergy and the Church Assembly. The laity at last had a full and effective voice in the government of the Church of England. There were some safeguards in place. Certain matters had to be passed by two thirds’ majority and there could be a call for a vote by Houses, even when one was not strictly required. That meant that there needed to be majorities in each of the three Houses, Bishops, Clergy, and Laity.

It was this last safeguard which torpedoed the attempt of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to introduce an amendment to safeguard the ministry of traditionalist bishops. (As far as the democratic process is concerned, the archbishops are simply two members of the Synod). The amendment was voted down by five votes in the House of Clergy. This followed an earlier vote, where only 34% of the Synod supported new dioceses. Finally the whole draft Measure was approved, the only safeguard for traditionalists being the promise of a Code of Practice. The matter now moves from the General Synod, whose quinquennium has now ended, to the dioceses. It will return from there to the new General Synod. In 18 months’ time, November 2012, the hope of supporters of women bishops is that the Measure will be finally passed by the necessary two-thirds majority in each House, the hurdle which the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood Measure cleared on November 1992. Thereafter it must pass muster in Parliament, receive the Royal Assent, and be promulged as a canon. Last time, all of that took another 15 months, which would take us to February 2014, with the first consecrations of women bishops soon thereafter.

Traditionalists have been beaten four-square. When (though, strictly, it is still ‘If’) the Measure comes into force, there will be no more Resolution A and B, no more ‘petitioning parishes’. There will be no more ‘flying bishops’, no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough. There will be again the assurance of good behaviour: no one will be over-faced by women priests and bishops ministering where they are not wanted. But there will be no guarantees (and, increasingly, no likelihood) that male bishops and priests ministering to us will share those convictions, or derive their orders from an unbroken apostolic succession of bishops in the Catholic line. Avoiding women ministers will become not a conviction about Catholic Order, shared throughout the ages, but a matter of sexual discrimination, abhorrent to all of us. In a very short time, it will have become unacceptable to invoke a sexist Code of Practice.

It is important for us all to understand how momentous all this is and what the implications are for our life together. I was never very hopeful of the Archbishops’ amendment, though it was good that it was debated. It would not have brought a clear and certain place for the Catholic understanding of Faith and Order. But it would have allowed a new generation of Provincial Episcopal Visitors – flying bishops – to try to work out, with the Archbishops, some sort of corporate life for our priests, people, and parishes. It is fair to say that both Archbishops wanted that. Moreover 60% of the bishops in Synod (though not two thirds) were prepared, more or less enthusiastically, to support the Archbishops and accept their spiritual lead.

Come the final judgment when, as the Prayer Book says in the Marriage Service, ‘the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed’, some will have to account for the broken promises of the early 1990s. Traditionalists were then assured of a permanent and honoured place. Great store was set by the doctrine of reception (whereby no change in Holy Order would finally thought to be ‘received’ until it was accepted by the ancient churches of East and West). It was on the basis of these promises - both now very hollow - that Provincial Episcopal Visitors were appointed, ordinands and their families exchanged comfortable life styles for theological college, curacies, and what promised to be a lifetime of ministry, and parishes set to work energetically with the task of evangelism and catechesis. However honourably these promises were made, there were liberal pressure groups intent on destroying them. These liberal pressure groups are not full of bad people: the women and men concerned were always exasperated that the Church made such high-sounding, but undeliverable, promises. In their view –the view that has prevailed – we all simply needed to get used to the new ‘inclusive’ way of doing things. In their view, twenty years is quite long enough for that to have happened. But there have been broken promises indeed and some supporters of the women bishops’ project recognise that and seek forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation.

For Ebbsfleet, the critical vote came when nearly two thirds of the General Synod rejected the creation of new dioceses. The only sense we have been able to make of the whole Ebbsfleet project these last sixteen years (of which I have been bishop for nearly ten), is that the See of Ebbsfleet is an ‘Apostolic District’. That is, it is an area of the vineyard which seeks to grow into, and become, a ‘local Church’, a ‘diocese’. To that end, we have had our Stational Masses of Initiation, our Ordinations, and our Chrism Masses. We have had our Area Deans and Deaneries, our Council of Priests, our Lay Council, and our Lay Congress. We have also had parish evangelism weekends and research into resources for catechesis and formation. We have had clergy retreats, festivals of faith, and the annual Children and Young People’s Eucharistic Festival. Our churches have been as well-attended as most, with, if anything, more than our share of men, children, young families, and other endangered categories of church-goer. Here was a new kind of diocese, not without its problems, but with promising signs. ‘In house’ there has been very little discussion of ‘church issues’ and that in itself has made us vulnerable. We have never been attacked by anyone who got to know us and experienced our corporate life. It has always been fear of who we might be, what we might represent, rather than what we actually are.

For now, the prescription is for some serious summer rest and to get some praying and thinking done. I shall be addressing these issues further in the September Pastoral letter, at a Sacred Synod for clergy, and at the Ebbsfleet Lay Conference, but, for now, at least we know where we are. It is time to stop trying to make bricks without straw.

May God bless you as you seek to discern, obey, and trust his will.

+ Andrew Ebbsfleet

© The Bishop of Ebbsfleet AD2010

Synod ends

General Synod Report 12 July 2010

Report on business from the General Synod at York University, Monday 12 July 2010 Women Bishops Debate resumed on the various clauses of the draft legislation to consecrate women as Bishops. However, first there were statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Chairman of the Steering Committee. The Archbishop spoke about what had happened on Saturday and about the Code of Practice now to be produced. He clearly thought it would now be possible to beef up the Code to appease those opposed. He also seemed to be saying that there might yet be other options, although this seems a bit unlikely. The first item for debate was Clause 2. This is the first Clause making provision for those unable in conscience to accept the ministry of a woman bishop. There have always been those who wanted legislation simply to permit women bishops and for everything else to be confined to a code of practice. There were several people who spoke against Clause 2 but indicated that they would reluctantly vote in favour. The Clause was eventually passed by 373 votes to 14. An amendment to require PCCs to consult everyone on the electoral roll lapsed due to lack of support. Gerry O’Brien moved an amendment which would require consideration of the issue by all PCCs every 5 years. This was defeated after debate on the basis that the norm would be women bishops and the legislation only concerns those unable to accept this. Another amendment to do with appointments also lapsed due to lack of support. Peter Hobson moved an amendment to remove the requirement that 2/3rds of the PCC to be present when a vote was being taken about requesting the ministry of another bishop. It was noted that this was an extraordinary provision and that it allowed 1/3rd of a PCC to block the resolution simply by not turning up. This resolution was defeated by 239 votes to 128 but its intent was then picked up in the following motion from Clive Scowen which still creates a special rule for this one situation, but less draconian. Clive’s amendment appeared to be accepted unanimously. The next amendment, put by Gerry O’Brien and Paul Benfield, would have removed the requirement that an Incumbent or Priest-in-Charge must agreed to a Letter of Request for the ministry of a different Bishop. It was argued, with some justification, that it would be difficult for the Incumbent and PCC to disagree on this matter. However, there is no other case where such a blanket veto exists. It could lead to a situation where the whole PCC wants the Letter but the incumbent, who may perhaps have changed their mind, does not. Since it is possible in law for a Bishop to impose a Priest-in-Charge it opens the possibility of an unscrupulous Bishop, imposing someone during a vacancy and thus undermining the stance of the parish. It was also pointed out that if an incumbent is sick or absent for other reasons the resolution could not be passed. However, the Synod voted, in all three houses, to reject the amendment. An amendment to ensure that a better record of the results of the voting was kept was passed. Clause 3 was then debated and agreed as were the following clauses up to Clause 7. The new cobbled together Equality Act put through in the dying throes of the last government is still being assessed. However, the lawyers of the Church and Government were of the view that this new Measure should explicitly state that it is exempted from parts of that Act. Robert Key MP opposed this Clause but got short thrift from some on the Synod and in the end the vote in favour of Clause 7 appeared to be unanimous. After lunch an amendment consequential on a previous amendment was passed as were Clauses 8-10. Paul Benfield proposed that any future changes to this legislation should require a 2/3rd majority of each of the three houses of Synod. There is a fear that without this all the hard work in producing the present legislation could be undone by a simply majority of the synod. There was some opposition to this proposals but eventually it was passed by 287 votes to 78. Paul Benfield then proposed that whilst the main legislation is being considered by Dioceses a Measure be brought which makes financial provision for those who suffer hardship because they feel in conscience that they must leave. Following the earlier legislation to ordain as women as presbyters around 500 clergy left and the cost, when it is finally dealt with, will be around £30million. This provision would be only for cases of hardship and there had already been discussion about a code possibly allowing for such cases – though it is questionable whether there is any legal framework to permit it. The debate was perhaps the sharpest so far because after the rejection of adequate provision it is clear that some will leave. The motion, not surprisingly, was defeated. The final action regarding this business was an attempt to recommit the legislation to the Revision Committee on the basis that the Synod had voted by a majority for the Archbishops amendment but this had been lost in the vote by houses. It would be possible for the Revision Committee to consider further options but given that no solution had been found yet it seemed highly unlikely. After half an hour of discussion on this point it was lost by 293 votes to 102. There followed a vote on the Amending Canon which accompanies the draft legislation and at 4.30pm it was complete. The legislation will now be referred to the Dioceses and it is expected that it will return to General Synod in around 2 years when it will need the approval of 2/3rds of each of the houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. As it stands the legislation makes no realistic provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. The Synod then returned to the details of the new Faith and Order Advisory Commission and a Diocesan Synod Motion on job sharing. However, after the marathon debates on women bishops there was a noticeable trickle of people leaving. The business for the evening session is Final Approval for Additional Weekday Lectionary ad amendments to the Lectionary, Calendar and Collects. This will be followed by a Private Members’ Motion calling for some central body to make available resources for fresh expressions. A Statement from Forward in Faith Jul 12, 2010 The draft Measure to permit the ordination women as bishops, approved today by the General Synod and sent for discussion and approval by Diocesan Synods, contains nothing which can satisfy the legitimate needs of members of Forward in Faith. Now, though, is not the time for precipitate action. There will be ample opportunity for priests to take counsel together at the Sacred Synods called by the Catholic Bishops in each province in September, and for Forward in Faith to take stock at the National Assembly in October. Statement from Catholic Group Jul 14, 2010 The Catholic Group in General Synod is encouraged by the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is still ‘unfinished business’ and that ‘the Church is only part of the way through the process’ of determining the way forward for women bishops legislation. The Group was, however, disappointed that there was a lack of support for provisions for alleviating financial hardship where clergy feel by conscience that they need to resign from the Church of England. The onus now is on the Church of England to provide for its clergy to remain within the Church for which we have always fought as loyal Anglicans. We remain committed to both the process and our Church, and would wish to play a major part in helping the Church in its ongoing journey in a spirit of unity that is Christ’s way. A Statement from the Chairman of Forward in Faith Jul 15, 2010 Like you, I was very disappointed at the outcome of last weekend’s debate at General Synod in York and appalled at the intransigence of some feminist clergy and their supporters. What kind of a church is it that is willing to ignore the leadership of its Archbishops and to renege on a solemn promise given to Parliament about an honoured and permanent place for us? We now face a most serious situation, made all the worse by the refusal of the Synod to pass the Archbishops’ amendment. Resolutions A & B - which provide the basis in law on which the ordination of women can be opposed - are to be removed. This means that any opposition which might be tolerated will be based on the recognition of supposed prejudice rather than the respect of theological principle. Further, the abolition of the PEVs is proposed, which will leave our constituency in an intolerable position. All we would be allowed under the draft Measure as it now stands is access to a male bishop, whose own beliefs need not coincide with ours. That is sexism writ large. Despite the dreadful result in York, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Group in General Synod, along with all those who supported them in the debate. In the coming weeks, a new Synod is to be elected and it is vital we all do all we can to ensure the return of as many orthodox candidates as possible, in order that a Catholic presence on the Synod can be there to continue to represent the interests of Catholic Anglicans throughout this divisive and unnecessary process. That these are very difficult times for all of us goes without saying; we need, above all, to take time to pray, to consult together and to support one another, as we try to discern our respective ways forward – not just in faith, but also of course in hope and in love. Every blessing, XJohn Fulham

Synod continues

Saturday, 10 July 2010

General Synod - Women bishops debates

After morning worship and the presidential address from the archbishop of York, Synod started its mammoth series of debates on the Women in the Episcopate legislation this morning.

Saturday morning

This started with a “take-note” debate on the report of the revision committee.

The Chair of the Revision Committee (the Ven Clive Mansell (Archdeacon of Tonbridge)) moved:
501 ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report.’

This was a general debate. Voting in favour did not necessarily imply supporting the report, but the take-note motion had to be passed before any further progress on the legislation was allowed.

11.47 am Synod voted to close the debate. Archdeacon Mansell the responded to the debate.
11.52 am Synod voted in favour of item 501 on a show of hands.

12.00 noon Synod started the revision stage.
Canon Simon Killwick proposed the creation of new, parallel dioceses by moving amendment 512a in Appendix 1 of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. In these circumstances standing orders require more than 40 members to stand for the debate to proceed. Many more than 40 stood.
12.52 pm Synod voted to close the debate on amendment 512a. Enough members (standing orders require at least 25) then stood to require a division of the whole synod, ie an electronic count. There were 134 votes in favour, 258 against and 8 recorded abstentions, so the amendment was defeated.
12.58 pm Synod broke for lunch.

Saturday afternoon

2.00 pm Synod resumed the revision stage
The Revd Rod Thomas proposed complementary bishops and compulsory transfer of functions from the diocesan bishop by moving amendment 513a in Appendix II of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
3.26 pm Votes to close the debate on the amendment and move to the vote. Sufficient members stood to require a vote by houses. The motion was defeated in all three houses.

Voting figures	for	against	abstentions
bishops	10	28	2
clergy	52	124	3
laity	73	118	4

The combined figures (135 for, 270 against and 9 abstentions) were almost identical to the vote on the previous amendment.

Synod then took a ten minute break.

Clause 2

3.45 pm Synod resumed.
The archbishop of York then moved the amendment 514, which (with 531) would set up co-ordinate jurisdiction, proposed by him and the archbishop of Canterbury.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
5.07 pm Synod voted to close the debate and proceed to a vote. A call for a vote by houses was successful.
The amendment was defeated, because it was lost in one house (House of Clergy).

Voting figures	for	against	abstentions
bishops	25	15	0
clergy	85	90	5
laity	106	86	4

In the light of the result, there was a motion to adjourn the debate until Monday. This was defeated on a show of hands.

5.25 pm Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe, proposed his amendment 515 to restrict the delegation of functions to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.

5.37 pm Kevin Carey proposed amendment 516. The steering committee resisted the amendment. Very members stood so the amendment lapsed.

5.41 pm Tom Sutcliffe proposed his amendment 517 to set up a Review Commission.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.

5.52 pm The next item on the agenda was the motion to include clause 2 in the measure. The chair adjourned the debate until Monday as he judged there was insufficient time to complete this before the scheduled closure time of 6.15 pm.

FiF reacts to General Synod debate Jul 10, 2010

Forward in Faith notes that the amendment to the draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops standing in the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to gain approval today by just five votes in the House of Clergy, despite the fact that a significant majority of the members of Synod voted in its favour.

We naturally share the Archbishops' disappointment at this turn of events and will now take counsel together, as we await the resumption of the debate on Monday.

Catholic Group in Synod reacts to today's debate Jul 10, 2010

We deeply regret that the General Synod has decided to ignore the leadership of the chief pastors of the Church of England Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

The voting was by the three Houses of Synod separately, with support from the Bishops and Laity but not from the Clergy. In total, 216 people voted in favour and 191 against with 9 abstentions - so there was support for the Archbishops' amendments.

By rejecting the opportunity for unity that the Amendments they proposed would have achieved, it has made it very difficult for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry for women priests and bishops.

The process in General Synod is not over and we would wish to be involved in the ongoing discussions as to a way forward that includes all loyal members of the Church of England.

Synod in York

Church of England General Synod

July 9th, 2010 Posted in Church of England, General Synod |

General Synod starts today [Friday] in York at 3:45 pm and continues until 1 pm on Tuesday 13th July. (Hat Tip: Pageantmaster at Titusonenine for the links)

The Agenda is here

General information and links to other resources including the live audio links and other materials [top right] are here

More materials including hopefully audio podcasts should be posted once sessions start on this page. The programme for today may also be found on this page.

Women Bishops: This debate starts on Saturday after a Presidential Address by the ABY [host] and is in two parts:

1. a 'take note' debate on the report of the revision committee. This only permits an up or down debate on whether or not to accept it. No debate on amending it or more general issues to do with women bishops are permitted.

2. a line by line debate on the legislation in the Measure and amending Canon. This is quite complicated and there are a great many amendments, including those by the ABC and ABY to provide for 'Coordinate Bishops' which seem to be flying bishops, but at the discretion of the diocesan who still remains as a woman bishop, or one who has ordained women.

The materials relating to this debate are:

1. The Measure and Amending Canon – Draft Bishops and Priests [Consecration and Ordination of Women] Measure and Draft amending Canon

2. Notice Paper 5 containing the proposed amendments to the above

3. Revision Committee Report including illustrative Code of Practice [142 pages and includes the draft measure and amending canon]

In addition the background to this with a detailed examination of the historical role of bishops and the arguments over extending the episcopacy to women was contained in the Rochester Report chaired by +Michael Nazir-Ali [302 pages]

The Church Times also has an explanation of the grouping of amendments

Archbishops' Amendments

Archbishops issue Statement on Draft Legislation Jun 21, 2010

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have today issued a Statement indicating that they will be proposing an amendment to the Draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops, which will be debated by General Synod in July.

FiF reacts to Archbishops' Statement Jun 21, 2010

Forward in Faith warmly welcomes today’s Statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and now looks forward with great interest to seeing the precise texts of the amendments to the Draft Measure which they will propose to the General Synod next month

The Saint Barnabas’ Blog

the vague ramblings of the Revd. Fr. Edward Tomlinson SSC……

It is no secret that many bishops are in a bit of a panic about this summer’s debate over women bishops and fear the loss of many traditionalists. According to reports in the Daily Mail both the Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury now plan to intervene in the forthcoming debate over women bishops by demanding greater provision for opponents whose needs will not be met if the conclusions of the revision committee come into force. Quite what the Archbishops will propose is not made clear and nor is there any guarantee that synod will listen to their plea but at least it shows that they understand the plight of those being forced into the fringes of ecclesial life.

What is the English Anglo-Catholic to make of this latest twist in a very long saga? Most importantly what will the impact of this public support be on the emerging Ordinariate? The answer depends on which of three camps an individual occupies at present. Perhaps it helps us to name them:

• The Anglo-Papalist stance: those occupying this position will embrace the Ordinariate regardless of what synod may or may not offer Anglo-Catholics in the future. This group yearns for communion with Peter above all else and the erection of a bridge across the Tiber places a spiritual obligation on them to move. The declaration from Canterbury and York might impress them but it will not move them.

• The Congregational Catholic stance: these Anglo-Catholics yearn for synod to find a solution that keeps them within the Church of England and will likely rejoice in the latest news but with a degree of sceptiscism- this does little to temper synod’s mood and promises in the past have frequently been broken. Nevertheless, should York and Canterbury succeed then they will have what they truly desire- a means of being part of a Catholic tradition as opposed to part of the Catholic faith. This is the group most affected by this news as they are the group who are open to the Ordinariate but not enthusiastic about it. we might define this group as those who would join an Ordinariate but only as a last resort.

• The High-church Protestant stance: those occupying this group might enjoy lace, incense and High Mass on a Sunday but they have no desire at all to enter into the Roman Catholic fold. A deeply protestant group they will be remaining out of Communion with Peter regardless of what unfolds in the General Synod. This group will delight in the latest news and we should be pleased that it will help them remain faithful to the Church they clearly belong to.

Having identified these three positions we can begin to assess the impact of July’s synod on the Ordinariate. Those of us in the first group will not be swayed regardless of what transpires and nor will those in the last group. It is the many who sit in the middle group whose vote is ‘up for grabs’. The question I want to pose for debate is quite simple then.

How should the supporters of the Ordinariate view July’s synodical debate? Should they pray that it goes well for traditionalists in order that those entering into communion with Rome are clearly seen to be doing it for all the right reasons? Or should they pray that Synod goes badly in order to convince as many as possible to join even if they do so reluctantly? I am increasingly favouring the first scenario and would prefer a smaller but purer Ordinariate group….but what about you?

What expectation should we have about those entering the Roman Catholic fold through the Ordinariate? And what expectations should be made for those opting to remain behind? Does this decision change the doctrine, liturgy, identity and practice of such people? I think it must and it will….

Nothing like a dame

Preferred: the women bishops' group photo at the Lambeth Conference in July 2008 LAMBETH CONFERENCE

THEY were warned that the issue of women bishops would dominate their forthcoming meeting in York; but General Synod members might not have realised the extent to which they would be eating, sleep ing, and drinking the subject at the beginning of July.

The timetable of the York sessions was published this week. Between 3.45 p.m. on Friday 9 July and 1 p.m. on Tuesday 13 July (and not counting the separate meetings of the Houses of Clergy and of Laity), the Synod members could spend 17 hours in debate on the subject.

The heaviest days will be Saturday and Monday, on each of which the Synod will begin debating the issue at 9.30 a.m. and finish at 6.15 p.m. The last morning is also given over completely to the subject.

The reason for the amount of time given is that the issue has reached the revision stage. The draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure can be amended clause by clause by the whole Synod, and amendments are expected which would reintroduce all the permutations that have been considered (and rejected) in previous debates (News, 14 May).

For light relief, there is an address by the Archbishop of Estonia on Friday, and a report of the Standing Orders committee on Saturday.

Sunday (the day of the World Cup final) is traditionally a day for tackling non-contentious subjects. This time, these include legislative business that must be finished before the Synod is prorogued, including maternity leave, pension changes, and fees. There is also a report on relations with the Church of Scotland.

On Monday evening, the Synod will be asked for final approval for the weekday lectionary and the calendar, and will debate a motion on Fresh Expressions.

Bishop demurs. The Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, has said he would prefer to delay a decision on women bishops, in contrast to the House of Bishops’ statement last week.

In a diocesan address on Friday, he said: “Like many bishops who are in principle committed to the ordination of women to the episco pate, I do not think I have yet seen the scheme which would enable us to proceed as one body, without further and deepening division, without straining one another’s consciences. . .

“I hope and pray we will be able to square that circle, and I would rather get the right answer in two or three years’ time than the wrong one tomorrow. I really do believe that ordaining women is the right thing to do; but St Paul’s insistence on how adiaphora [‘things that don’t make a difference’] works prohibits me from forcing it on those who in conscience are not ready for it. And the answer here, I believe, is a proper theological argument, which we have not yet had.”

Background. The legal office at Church House, Westminster, has issued a legal briefing paper, explaining the functions of each clause in the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure. It can be found at:www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/gspapers/gs1708ax.pdf.

The Other Election

More than one national election is taking place this year. A campaign is launched today to encourage "people with a very big heart" to stand for election to the General Synod of the Church of England. Containing 378 lay and clergy members, and passing Measures that have the same effect as those of Parliament, the General Synod continues to play an essential role in the life of the country as well as the Church. It will be dissolved at the end of the July 2010 group of sessions in York, and a new Synod elected for a five-year term in September/October, and inaugurated in November.

Under the slogan 'Be Part of the Big Picture', new resources include a five-minute DVD filmed at General Synod in February 2010, featuring contributions from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Business Committee chair Preb Kay Garlick, outgoing members of the Houses of Laity and Clergy, and national journalists. Copies are being sent to dioceses to be available for viewings in all 718 Church of England deaneries.

A new website full of vital information for those considering standing has been uploaded atwww.generalsynodelections2010.org. It includes an online videocast of the DVD and a free downloadable poster and leaflet, so that parishes can join in the campaign to encourage full representation from across the Church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, says on the DVD: “Any healthy and mature Church is a Church where everyone feels they have a voice. Synod needs your voice because we need all the voices together to discover the truth that God wants us to know for our generation, society, sanctification, our own hope and our own health.”

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, adds: “We want people whom I call all-weather Christians - people who are all-rounders really that can actually play the different jobs, because there are people sitting on committees, different boards and councils. So what we want are people who have a very big heart, who want to come here and bring friendship, bring love, bring vitality, and we want all ages.”

On the new website Synod members guide visitors through the requirements and election procedures of the Houses of Laity and House of Clergy respectively.

To stand for the House of Laity you need to be:

18 or over

An ‘actual Communicant’ in the Church of England

On the electoral roll of a parish or the community roll of a cathedral

To stand for the House of Clergy you need to be:

Ordained priest or deacon, be beneficed or licensed or have permission to officiate in the diocese or hold office in the cathedral

David Williams, Clerk to Synod, said: “The next few months will be a challenging yet rewarding time of circulating the information and then electing members reflecting the diversity of the Church for the new quinquennium. Nominations are particularly welcome from people of minority ethnic backgrounds as we move forwards into our Ninth General Synod.”

Closing date for nominations is 3rd September 2010; elections take place September/October 2010; the Ninth General Synod is inaugurated at Church House in London on 22nd-24th November 2010.

To find out more about the work of General Synod, visitwww.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod.

F in F Consultation

Today

We gather at Holy Trinity, Micklegate, York at 12 noon for Mass and Consultation with Bishop of Beverley and Fr Simon Kilwick (Chairman of Catholic Group on General Synod). When planned it was anticipated that February General Synod would have received draft legislation on Women Bishops but as this has been postponed until the July Sessions today's agenda may have changed. We shall see.

Report

Bishop Martyn presided at a Mass of Our Lady (12-1). Fr Gareth, our Area Dean, preached from John 2.5 "Do whatever he tells you" - Mary's word to us as well as to the apostles at Cana. He said that a word he was hearing in the present confusing situation in the Church of England was "Stay and continue the catholic witness within the C of E". He felt, that for him, the Roman option was a final option.

After a picnic lunch the Consultation Meeting was held (1.45-3). The Area Dean was in the chair; Bishop Martyn and Fr Simon each spoke for 15 minutes and 45 minutes of questions and discussion followed. The Bishop addressed 'principles' and Father 'politics.

Bishop Martyn explained that there were only 3 traditional catholics on the Synod legislation committee so they couldn't defeat, only persuade, the 'code of practise' majority. Their work is due to be published in May in time for the Bishops to consider it before it is presented to the July Synod. It is settled that there will be 'no separate jurisdiction' offered to those of our integrity. He believed that when published the legislation must be judged on 3 unmet fundamental catholic principles;

1. there will be no opportunity for 'canonical obedience with integrity'.

2. there will be 'inadequate sacramental assurance' guaranteeing valid sacraments.

3. there will be 'no secure authenticity' i.e. no lawful existence as for the majority integrity. At present we have 'equal treatment allowing the integrities to live together in creative tension'.

Fr Simon started by pointing out that church politics has always been 'a messy business' and we shouldn't expect it be any different in this situation. The present proposals mean that the legislation will transfer from the committee back to synod in July when further revision in synod will take place, the outcome will then go to the dioceses before returning to synod in 2012/2013 for final approval when a two thirds majority will be required in each house of the synod. This may not be possible unless better arrangements are included for us and conservative evangelicals.

Traditional Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals are worked on a common strategy for the synod. The phrase 'blood bath' in relation to synod proceedings has been used which could work in our favour if it persuaded the bishops the legislation stood no chance of gaining the two third majorities required at final approval and they would have the further option of saving the church from the unnecessary fight by 'kicking the legislation into the long grass'. If it ever returned the whole process would have to begin again. The archbishops who are both in favour of proper provision for us would recommend 'pulling the plug on the process for now'.

What can we do? - Everyone should be willing to stand or to work for the election of the new synod which will be called upon to give 'final approval' - 'you have to be in it to win it'. We have to strengthen the Synod Catholic Group. We need to be careful not to divide our constituency at this time - the Roman offer is, at present, to other parts of Anglicanism than the Church of England.

Question time had the visiting speakers describing the Roman offer as ' a red herring for now' and 'not our first option'. It was acknowledged that there were some tensions in National Forward in Faith on this point, We need to learn from the mistakes of our integrity during the consideration of the North and South India schemes. The Sex Discrimination Act and the Methodist Covenant were affecting the thinking of some synod members. Jurisdiction for Westminster Abbey, the Armed Forces, and Religious Communities were all relevant as suggesting ways of proceeding for our integrity if it were possible to get synodical agreement.

In conclusion, I personally found it an enlightening and encouraging day.

Methodist President at Synod

The President of the Methodist Conference, David Gamble, has said that seeking the Kingdom of God is more important than the continued existence of individual Churches.

(Theologian Walter Wink has explained God's kingdom, a sought-for domain of love, justice and peace that is central to Jesus' teaching and practice, as "God's domination-free order'.)

Gamble was addressing the Church of England General Synod today (11 February) about relationships between the two denominations.

He said that the Methodist Church in Britain was “prepared to go out of existence, not because we are declining or failing in mission, but for the sake of mission. In other words we are prepared to be changed and even to cease having a separate existence as a Church if that will serve the needs of the Kingdom.”

Along with the Methodists’ Vice-President, Richard Vautrey, he told the Synod that the Methodist Church was committed to its “covenant relationship” with Anglicans, before answering questions from Synod members.

“We are in a covenant with each other,” insisted Gamble, “For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, but always for the Gospel”.

He spoke of the need to recognise that Britain is a society of different faiths, cultures and history.

Richard Vautrey emphasised the practical dimension of the relationship, speaking of how the Churches have united to take action on climate change and to support the Citizens for Sanctuary campaign.

He said, “We can and do work together on issues of social justice, on issues that we both know God calls on us to challenge our society and our world”.

But he warned, “There is more that we could and should be doing together”, before focussing on the conflicts in Palestine and Israel as an area on which the two denominations could work more together.

Many members of both the Methodist and Anglican Churches are supportive of stronger links, or even eventual merger, between the two denominations. However, some say that the process is moving too slowly.

Writing in the Church Times last week (5 February), the former Bishop of Woolwich, Colin Buchanan, said that the Anglican-Methodist Covenant seemed to require no firm commitment. He insisted that it is time either to “address a truly historic union” or to “end the pretence with the merciful expiry of this gutless enterprise”.

The Methodist leaders’ words today may be seen as an attempt to move things on more quickly. Gamble insisted that the Covenant is a “serious, deeply committed relationship” and not an “irrelevant extra”.

The President's comments tirggered a debate on the Twitter networking site almost instantly, with some Methodists appearing to think that he had gone too far.

However, the Methodist blogger Pete Philipps said that he had said nothing to which the Church was not already committed. "In the end every church will have to cease to exist because they are only human constructs compared to the Great Church which Jesus prays for" he added.

Canterbury to Synod

Extract from Archbishop's Presidential Address

"Something of that 'tragic' awareness is hard to avoid when we look at the decisions that face us in our Church. Most hold that the ordination of women as bishops is a good, something that will enhance our faithfulness to Christ and our integrity in mission. But that good is at the moment jeopardised in two ways – by the potential loss of those who in conscience cannot see it as a good, and by the equally conscience-driven concern that there are ways of securing the desired good that will corrupt it or compromise it fatally (and so would rather not see it at all than see it happening under such circumstances). And for both many women in the debate and most if not all traditionalists, there is a strong feeling that the Church overall is not listening to how they are defining for themselves the position they occupy, the standards to which they hold themselves accountable. What they hear is the rest of the Church saying, 'Of course we want you – but exclusively on our terms, not yours'; which translates in the ears of many as 'We don't actually want you at all'.

Manchester to Synod

The Church of England is to go ahead with the plan to create women bishops without giving in to demands from traditionalists for a separate structure of bishops and archbishops untainted by the hands of a woman.

Traditionalists oppose women bishops because they argue that Jesus had no women disciples and that the apostolic succession of bishops, passed down by the laying of hands at ordination, should therefore be male.

Traditionalists warned last night that the decision, to be announced at the General Synod today, will trigger an exodus from the Church of England of many thousands of priests and lay people.

The Bishop of Manchester, the Right Rev Nigel McCulloch, will tell the synod at Church House, Westminster, London, that the revision process he is leading is not finished yet, and as a result the debate that was hoped for this month is delayed until July, when the synod meets in York.

But he will also say that attempts to find a way of creating a safe space for traditionalists have failed. These would have provided a church within a church, or what have been dubbed “super flying bishops” to replace the flying bishops that are in place at present to look after opponents of women priests.

The existing three flying bishop posts are to be abolished and not replaced. Instead, any women consecrated bishops will be asked to “delegate” authority to another bishop, such as a suffragan, to carry out confirmations and other episcopal duties in parishes that refuse to accept her ministry.

The historic decision, to be ratified by the synod in July, paves the way for women bishops to be consecrated as soon as 2012, once all parliamentary hurdles have been cleared. Canon Jane Hedges at Westminster Abbey and Canon Lucy Winkett at St Paul’s are among the favourites to be ordained as the first women bishops in the Church of England.

Supporters of women voiced relief at the decision because it means that even where opponents opt for the ministry of the bishop delegated to look after them, there will be no alternative hierarchical structure of oversight that could make it appear as though the mother church of the Anglican Communion was being half-hearted about women bishops, or in any way doubting the integrity of their orders.

It will bring England in line with Canada, New Zealand and the US. Even Scotland and Ireland have voted to have women bishops already and although a woman was shortlisted in Scotland last month, none has yet been consecrated.

Opponents immediately spoke out against the decision. One effect will be to increase the numbers of Anglicans taking up Pope Benedict XVI’s offer to join the new Anglican Ordinariate. Catholics have criticised the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, for saying in an interview last week that those Anglicans who respond to Pope Benedict’s invitation to join the Catholic Church under the provisions of the new Apostolic Constitution, would not be “proper Catholics”.

The Synod’s Catholic Group said it was “deeply disappointed and dismayed” by the Bishop of Manchester’s statement, which it was sent in advance yesterday.

Spokesman Martin Dales, of the York diocese, said: “We believe that the vast majority of ordinary members of the Church of England would not want to see the consecration of women to the episcopate as the trigger for the exclusion from the church of a large number of faithful Anglicans.”

He warned that this is what will now happen. “If the committee refuses to provide an alternative source of episcopal oversight for those who cannot accept the jurisdiction and sacramental ministry of a woman bishop, and General Synod follows the same course, then those who hold to the traditional teaching of the Church must either leave or sacrifice their consciences. We cannot believe that is just or right — not only with respect to those who have reservations about the ordination of women, but for the sake of the mission and unity of the whole of the Church of England.”

He said that Anglican Catholics on the synod would fight the legislation when it comes back to synod in July. “Across the country there are thousands of people who could leave over this, a lot of them irregular worshippers, particularly in rural areas, who just feel they have not been listened to.” He predicted that hundreds of priests would leave.

The Church has been trying to do the impossible and square a circle over the issue, by going ahead with women bishops while creating some form of statutory provision for traditionalists. The revision committee was forced to postpone its plans to address the issue at this week’s meeting after more than 100 submissions were received by the group drafting the legislation.

The General Synod voted two years ago to go ahead with women bishops in a simple measure but leaders of the Church of England have since been struggling to find a way forward that would keep the traditionalist wing on board. Today’s announcement shows their attempts have failed.

Christina Rees of Watch, which supports women bishops, said: “The measure will have aspects of delegation and I welcome that. They have broken through the sound barrier of trying to find something that would work for everyone. they have looked at a huge array of different options. Now they are back on the track that synod asked them to go down last year which is fairly simple legislation which will allow women bishops and which will have certain arrangements for those who are opposed.

“We have gone as far as we can go without making a nonsense of the substantive issue, which is that we have said yes to women bishops. But I would be sorry to see anyone leave the church over women’s ordination. Being able to open the episcopate to women is a call for rejoicing.”

The synod will also debate a motion criticising the BBC for cutting back on religious programming. A contentious debate will be around a motion to recognise the new conservative evangelical Anglican Church in North America, created by traditionalists who have been deposed or broken away in the dispute over gay ordination in the US.

Recognition by the Synod would be no more than symbolic but it would add weight to any formal request from the new church to become an extra province within the structure of the Anglican Communion.

Agenda for February Synod

Agenda for meeting in London 8-12th February

Children and young people

Synod will debate the report Going for Growth, on the Board of Education’s new strategy for children and young people. This offers both a theological framework and practical proposals, and is a sequel to the debate at the July 2009 Synod on the major inquiry into childhood commissioned by The Children’s Society, A Good Childhood.

Mission

The report and motion from the Mission and Public Affairs Council will follow up the 2004 Synod debate on ‘Mission-shaped Church’ and will encourage action in training and deployment; the making of Bishops’ Mission Orders, and research on the growth of the ‘mixed-economy Church.’ Bishop Graham Cray (Archbishops’ Missioner and Fresh Expressions Team Leader) will give a presentation on the current programme and future plans for Fresh Expressions.

TV coverage of religion and ethics

A Private Member’s Motion from Mr. Nigel Holmes (Carlisle) invites the Synod to ask the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British television marginalises TV coverage of religious and ethical issues.

Legislation

Synod will be asked to complete several items of legislative business – chiefly the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure, which will put in place a new framework for the making of orders for parochial fees. Synod will also be asked to approve two codes of practice issued by the Archbishops’ Council, which set out the capability and grievance procedures that will apply to the clergy under the new common tenure arrangements.

Clergy pensions

An Archbishops’ Council report sets out the reasons for the proposed changes to the Clergy Pensions Scheme. These include increasing the pension age for future service to 68 and increasing the accrual period for future service to 43 years. There is a separate report on changes being proposed in relation to ill-health retirement.

There is also a Private Member’s Motion from the Revd Mark Bratton (Coventry) which asks the Archbishops’ Council and the Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the pension scheme’s rules, to provide pension benefits for surviving civil partners.

Science and religious belief

Synod will debate a Diocesan Synod Motion from Manchester, expressing concern at the perceived need to choose between the claims of science and belief in God; and urging the House of Bishops to promote a better public understanding of the compatibility of science and Christian belief.

Church buildings

The Cathedrals and Church Buildings Division will give a short presentation on what the Division has achieved since the publication five years ago of Building Faith in our Future, and the challenges that cathedrals and church buildings face today. This will preface a debate on the Ripon and Leeds Diocesan Synod Motion, which seeks to increase substantially the amount of money available for the repair of listed church buildings.

Relations with the Anglican Church in North America

A Private Member’s Motion from Mrs. Lorna Ashworth (Chichester) asks the Synod to express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America (which includes churches which have separated from The Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Anglican Church of Canada).

Other Private Members Motions and Diocesan Synod Motions

There will be a debate on a Private Members’ Motion from Mr. Tom Benyon (Oxford) which expresses concern about the potentially desensitising and damaging effects on children and young people of computer games containing violent and sexual content; and seeks changes to the classification system for video games and a review of the regulatory system for advertising video games.

There are two other Diocesan Synod Motions. One from Chelmsford asks Synod to request dioceses, deaneries and parishes to adopt some symbol of the Church’s confidence in the Bible for the nation, bearing in mind that 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version of the Bible. The other is from Coventry diocese, which asks for the case for legislation conferring incorporated status on deanery synods to be considered.

Women bishops

The Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate has reluctantly concluded that it still has too much to undertake in order to conclude its work in time for the February Synod. The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd. Nigel McCulloch, as Chair of the Steering Committee, will make a statement.

Other business

Synod will be addressed by the President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference (the Reverend David Gamble, and Dr. Richard Vautrey) as an expression of the Covenant relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. There will be an opportunity for questions and contributions from the floor.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will give a Presidential Address. There will also be a presentation on the role of armed forces chaplains in the current military operations overseas.

There is also one item of liturgical business: the Revision Stage of the Additional Weekday Lectionary; and some business relating to Synod’s Standing Orders, and the forthcoming Synod elections.

Cutting Costs

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent (Times)

The archbishops of Canterbury and York were today delivered a resounding snub to their plans to centralise power in the Church of England.

The General Synod, being held in York, overwhelmingly rejected the proposals which would have made Dr Rowan Williams one of the most powerful Archbishops of Canterbury since the Reformation.

Church bodies responsible for education, mission and finance were to have been abolished with the powers of the Church’s main boards and councils instead passing to Canterbury and York.

But tonight the laity, clergy and even some bishops threw the plans out in a rebellion that will keep the balance of power within the democratically elected Synod.

The rebels had warned that the centralising changes would turn the established Church into a medieval style of government more akin to a “Muslim-style theocracy”.

The rejection came despite the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, delivering a stark warning to synod members that they were in danger of forgetting their priorities.

Preaching at York Minster at the Eucharist this morning he had said: "The big priority for all of us is an unceasing renewal of commitment to Christ. Sometimes in the complexity of the activities of the Church we are so busy with committees, synods, administration and making the wheels go round that we are in danger of forgetting that none of these things matters, if it is carried out by people who have not been with Christ before they have been with others."

He added: "The idols of earthly wealth and power, the blessings people make for themselves, which are widely worshipped and highly exalted, degrade their devotees."

The radical plans had been drawn up as part of a series of measures designed to create a leaner Church better fitted to cope with falling attendances, a pensions black hole and plummeting asset values.

There is a £352 million shortfall in clergy pensions and after the Church Commissioners, who manage the Church of England’s investments, announced that the value of its portfolio shrank to £4.4 billion during 2008 compared with £5.7 billion the year before.

The rejection of the centralisation plans also casts doubt on another motion before the Synod proposing that the number of bishops be cut so the number of top-level clerics reflects the fall in full-time stipendiary clergy. There are now about 8,000 stipendiary clergy, a fall of about a quarter over two decades.

There are currently about 110 episcopal posts including the 44 diocesan bishops in the Church of England. The rest are suffragan or assistant bishops.

Other senior clergy posts include between 100 and 110 archdeacons and 42 cathedral deans as well as cathedral canons.

A briefing note prepared by the Bradford Diocesan Synod said the Church Commissioners spent £7.3 million in maintaining diocesan bishops' houses in 2008 and £14.5 million in grants for bishops' support staff, office and working costs.

Together with deans and canons of cathedrals and archdeacons they make up a body of senior staff that has remained largely unchanged in number for 50 years.

However, in the same period the number of junior clergy has plummeted, with parishes merged throughout the country and some clergy ministering to half a dozen or more country churches, racing between churches on Sunday mornings to pack in as many Eucharists and morning prayer services as possible.

By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent (Telegraph)

Despite dwindling congregations, worsening finances and a fall in the number of vicars, speakers told the gathering of the General Synod in York that radical plans to cut senior clergy posts were misguided.

They argued that bishops have far more work to do than in years gone by, and that greater expectations are placed upon them.

Prof Glynn Harrison, from Bristol diocese, said: "There may indeed be a case for increasing rather than decreasing senior oversight appointments."

He said he did not know how diocesan bishops tolerate the growing weight of expectations placed upon them.

The Church's 467-strong "parliament" had been asked to consider cutting the number of bishops and clergy posts such as cathedral deans and archdeacons to reflect its current position.

The number of paid clergy has fallen from 14,380 to 8,304 over the past 50 years as congregations have declined, churches have locked their doors and parishes merged. Yet over the same period, 1959 to 2007, the number of senior clergy has only dropped from 377 to 347.

There are 44 diocesan bishops including the two archbishops of York and Canterbury, and 69 more junior bishops known as suffragans.

It cost £7.3million to maintain diocesan bishops' homes last year and a further £14.5m to pay for bishops' staff and offices.

Meanwhile the Church is facing a £352m deficit in its pension fund that could see priests forced to remain in the pulpit until they are 68, and the Church Commissioners, which manages property and investments, has seen its funds fall from £5.7billion to £4.4bn over the past year as a result of the global financial crisis.

The Rev John Hartley, proposing a Private Members' Motion on behalf of his Bradford diocese, said: "It cannot be right simply to maintain the structures of any organisation if the staff are cut substantially, and that applies in the church as much as anywhere else.

"We do feel that there is a resistance to change in the hierarchical structures and staffing of the Church of England, and this lack of vision is a barrier to renewal of the church in ministry and mission, and it needs challenging."

Others pointed out that the boundaries and numbers of dioceses were not laid down in the Bible and so there was no need to keep them.

But the majority of speakers in the debate argued that cutting the number of bishops would damage the Church.

They pointed out that prelates now have far more to do than they used to, as they have been given added responsibility for everything from child protection to health and safety in recent years. They are meant to provide support to junior clergy but Synod heard that they rarely have time to visit parishes.

The Rev Alastair Cutting, from Chichester, asked the delegates: "When was the last time you saw your bishop?

"This is not what we need – we need more of them and we need more locally."

The Very Rev Archimandrite Ephrem Lash, an ecumenical member of Synod representing Orthodox churches, received the loudest applause of the day when he said: "What you need is more bishops, not less."

The original proposal to draw up plans that would reduce episcopal and senior clergy posts was amended significantly.

The revised motion, carried overwhelmingly, will see a report produced by November 2010 on possible changes to the "present pattern of dioceses and episcopal deployment". The Archbishops' Council will later this year "begin consideration of future policy on the number of bishops and dioceses", but this does not guarantee cuts.

Earlier a proposal that would have scrapped a number of Church boards and committees was rejected, amid fears it would have reduced the Synod to "rubber-stamping" plans devised by bishops