by Francis Bridger
Text of the Fulcrum Letter sent to supporters on 17 July 2005
Dear Fulcrum Friend,
So there it is: Synod stands prorogued after its final group of sessions before the General Election in September. And what a group of sessions it proved to be. In the sweltering Central Hall of York University, the assembled members for five days dealt with issues small and large, from parochial fees to the ordination of women to the episcopate, with the review of the Hind report on theological training and the new ordinal falling somewhere in between. It was a packed agenda.
To the watching world and to most Synod members, it was the issue of women bishops that overshadowed all else. From the first day, it was clear that although most people expected Synod to vote in favour of beginning the process of dismantling the legal obstacles, nobody could be quite sure how tightly the numbers would stack up in the end. The publication a week earlier of a letter signed by a number of bishops calling for postponement of a vote pending further theological discussion in the Church at large had an unsettling effect on supporters and opponents alike. By the time we reached the actual debate on the fourth day, the atmosphere was tense, even febrile.
In the event, the debate went as expected: all three houses voted strongly in favour of a motion from the House of Bishops calling for three things: (a) that the process of dismantling the legal obstacles should begin immediately; (b) that a working group set up by the bishops should report in January on which of the Rochester options for legislation it wished to recommend; and (c) that Synod return in February to discuss this recommendation with a view to sending it down to the dioceses for substantive discussion leading, in the end, to a final debate in Synod on the actual legislation, probably in 2007.
An unprecedented amount of time (almost four hours) was set aside for the debate. In chairing it, the Bishop of Dover offered a model of scrupulously fair, firm and gracious chairmanship which other chairmen and women would do well to emulate. At the close, he received a well deserved round of applause. From the beginning, he made it clear that he would give priority to speakers who had not spoken in the February debate and that he would call only a limited number of bishops (a not entirely popular move among the latter, most of whom wanted to have their voice heard and had abandoned their shorts and open necked shirts in favour of purple just in case the cameras should catch them). The effect was to open the discussion to a wide range of contributors, many of whom were laypeople. After several debates in which clerical voices had predominated, this was a welcome move.
What struck me, however, was the clear sense that the time had now arrived for historic change. Even those opposed to women bishops seemed to recognize that their best hope was to argue for a final settlement that would enable them to remain within the Church of England rather than to denounce the move as an irretrievable disaster. And although some could be found using apocalyptic language to the TV cameras outside, in the chamber, by and large, their rhetoric was moderated. It was members of Synod, after all, who would decide their future rather than the media.
So it will be up to the next Synod to decide finally whether to proceed with legislation to make women bishops. Although the outgoing Synod has voted to begin the process, as with all political processes no decision can be said to be final until it is irrevocable. And given the 18 month period of discussion that is now to follow, we certainly cannot be said to have arrived at such a point. It could still prove possible that the dioceses will reject the legislative proposals proposed by Synod after next February. It could equally be the case that the General Election will produce a Synod that has second thoughts. In the end, the legislation will have to pass all three houses with a two-thirds majority in each and if the figures in last week?s debate were to be repeated, it is doubtful whether this would be achieved in the House of Laity.
The process thus continues with everything to play for. In the week before Synod, the Fulcrum Leadership Team openly called for women to be ordained to the episcopate and for a thorough theological debate to take place at all levels of the Church. Given the complex currents that continue to flow, it is to be earnestly hoped that this will be the case. There is much work still to be done and we cannot afford to get it wrong.
Francis Bridger
These posts are by guest authors for Fulcrum