It’s fair to say that there was an appetite for compromise, or comprehensiveness. You can see that in the very different voting figures for the amendments that would have given the opponents of women all they wanted: the one to preserve a system of parallel flying bishops failed by majorities of over two thirds in the clergy and bishops and nearly that figure among the laity. It’s interesting that it was those who would have been most concerned in these arrangements who rejected them most decisively.
But though the synod clearly didn’t want to give opponents all they had asked for, it was more reluctant to give them nothing at all. What the difference would have been in practice between the two sets of arrangements is quite unclear to me. Even under the new system, where there will be a code of practice, rather than legislation, to cater for the sensibilities of those who oppose women, it will be perfectly possibly for parishes and priests opposed to continue as if nothing much has happened. But it will be very obviously “as if”. The opponents will have what women bishops allow them and no more.
“there will be a code of practice, rather than legislation, to cater for the sensibilities of those who oppose women”
..ah, that has a familiar ring…
[blockquote]”The Bible says women should shut up and do what they’re told” is not a line that many people would seriously defend as a vital part of the Christian message. But that is the position to which Reform is committed. It won’t have done either Archbishop much good that they attempted to cloak it in obscurity and respectability.
Anyway. I have been watching this story, more or less, for nearly 25 years now[/blockquote]If after 25 years of observation this is the closest Andrew Brown can come to a fair summary of Reform’s position, then… well… what on earth is this man doing in journalism?