As the Church House machinery grinds into action, mailing out a truckload of papers for November’s inauguration of the new General Synod, it is interesting to reflect on how this new Synod will respond to some of the issues it inherits from the old. At the centre of these is, of course, the draft legislation on women bishops. Canon Simon Kilwick, chairman of the Catholic Group cautions against any tacit assumption that this will go through in 2012, since there has been a ‘shift in the landscape’ of Synod. However, there is always a shift in the landscape of synod, as change occurs after every election: older members retire, some leave for many different reasons, and others are not re-elected. What this current ‘shift’ actually represents needs therefore to be carefully interpreted.
According to press releases, the ‘Evangelical and Catholic Groups’ were apparently the first to offer an interpretation. Apparently, swapping lists of candidates, they came out with an extraordinary claim, reported both by the BBC and the Church press. For them, the election spelled victory for the opponents of the measure on women bishops. Their analysis apparently showed that ‘in the House of Clergy, 66 Clergy would block the current legislation being sent down to the diocese, (32.10%) and 77 laity would block the current legislation being sent down to the diocese (35.46%)’. Noting gleefully that ‘only 34% is needed to block the legislation when it returns from the dioceses’ the conclusion seemed to them to be self-evident. The measure would fail to reach a two-thirds majority in the House of Laity, and if one more vote was cast against, in the House of Clergy also.
Other Synod observers are not nearly so sure. WATCH doubts the accuracy of the analysis and suspects these claims are exaggerated. Not all candidates declared their hand in relation to women bishops, and many who were opposed were not elected. They also note the fact that some vocal opponents to women bishops have lost their seats (eg. Canon Sugden in Oxford) and that a greater number of women clergy have been elected this time round. With muted optimism, they are still hoping for a groundswell of enthusiasm for women to be given full citizenship in the Church of England.
So who is right? I have to confess I share some of the scepticism about the figures we are offered. To start with, I’m not sure I can trust that the analysis is at all unbiased and disinterested. As one example - who are these ‘Evangelicals’ analysing the lists? Well they are not the official ‘Evangelical Group in General Synod’ (EGGS) because they have said nothing. John Dunnett of CPAS and secretary of EGGS, seems wisely to have adopted a more cautious approach to assessing the results. They are not Fulcrum, because we honestly don’t know yet what to make of the outcome. No, those speaking for ‘evangelicals’ turn out once again to be Reform, a group with a very much smaller representation on Synod and whose amendments were defeated in the last debate. It was the Chair of Reform who reiterated the ‘findings’ at their conference where he confidently announced again that unless changes were made to the draft legislation it would fall in at least the house of laity, and possibly the clergy also. When wishful thinking gets mixed in with analysis, the results must always be seen with caution.
But there is also the issue that we really don’t know what the newly elected members think. This must be especially true when the issue is a draft piece of legislation so complex as the measure on women bishops. Many of them have not had any chance to look at earlier proposals, to follow the debate through so far, to catch up on the work of the revision committee, or to know why the various amendments did not get through. There is a lot of homework to be done before new members can get inside the issues with any real authority. There is a lot of debate to be had, before anyone can confidently predict which way a vote will go in eighteen months time.
And therein lies the problem with the response of the so-called ‘traditionalist’ groups. There are still a large number of issues to be thought about and resolved. We still need a more thorough debate on theology, and indeed on Reform’s claims that the opposition is from scriptural grounds.(Other evangelicals strongly disagree.) But to decide so far ahead of time how you will vote on a measure which has not been presented in a final form, suggests an incapacity or unpreparedness to listen and debate. For if minds are already made up along party lines, even on issues we have not yet discussed, then what is the point of Synod? All we would need to do is to assemble the tribes and count the numbers.
In fact, in my own twenty–three years as a member of General Synod, this is not what happens. The real work goes on in the interaction of those who disagree, in the exposure of people to views and outlooks which are different from their own. It is in the readiness to hear the Bible through the presentations of others that understanding is developed. It is in the listening and weighing up of the argument where decisions are best made. It is in the openness with which we concede that none of us has the whole truth, for that belongs to God alone, that humility and generosity begin to flourish.
The irony for this present debate is that no-one on Synod knows yet what a Code of Practice might look like, because there has been little time to discuss it, or give any comprehensive outline of what it might contain. No-one has yet fully heard why many of us, who hold a high view of Scripture, feel compelled to open all the offices of the Church to the full participation of women, because we have not had chance to explain it. And no-one knows how the dioceses might respond, or what suggestions they might have to offer before it comes back for the definitive debate. So even those of us who fully support the Women Bishops’ Measure as it stands will need to wait and see before we can give final approval our wholehearted support. It is, indeed, the very least we can do. My prayer is that incoming members of Synod – even those with very firm views on the Catholic and Reformed edges – will do the same. I do hope we can all hold fire until we have carefully read the legislation then presented, and take part in the debate with prayerful and open hearts. That way, I believe we do stand some chance of hearing what God might have to say to the Church of England.
Elaine is a writer & broadcaster, lecturer and author. She was President of Tearfund from 1996 to 2014, has lectured in many continents, is a member of Newnham College, Cambridge and an Ambassador for Restored. She served on The General Synod of the C of E for 28 years, until 2015.. Her most recent book is “Scars Across Humanity: Understanding and Overcoming Violence Against Women”. elainestorkey.com