This is the link for those of you (like yours truly) who like to follow this sort of thing.
This is the link for those of you (like yours truly) who like to follow this sort of thing.
Synod voted this morning to ‘take note’ of the Business Committee report on the response of the dioceses to the women bishops measure consultation [positive, but with 25% asking for the provision for traditionalists to be revisited in the drafting of the measure].
Ruth Gledhill has provided a video of the ABC’s contribution here. It remains to be seen whether with his discussion of delegation as opposed to derivation, the ABC has managed to shoot himself and the Manchester Motion this afternoon in the foot again as some are suggesting.
Many of the pro-women bishops speeches this morning were suggesting that Synod was bound by what they assume was the mandate of the diocesan synods. This has gone down like a lead balloon with Synod members who do not appreciate being told that they have no right to make their own decision in this debate.
The Manchester Motion for enhanced provision will be debated in about half an hour. Predictably TEC-in-a-bag lady, Christina Rees says that if they can’t get it all their own way the WATCH women don’t want to be bishops at all. WAAAAAAAH!
ABY speech here.
Now coming up to votes. Having heard the arguments on the Manchester motion, chair has decided to deal with the Southwark cross-motion and a Spiers amendment to the Southwark amendment. +Willesden is speaking in favour of the Southwark amendment. Strange to deal with Southwark before the Manchester main motion!
+Chelmsford is putting forward the Spiers Southwark amendment as a ‘middle way’.
The motion and amendment wordings are as follows – thanks to Thinking Anglicans:
[blockquote]The Ven Cherry Vann, Archdeacon of Rochdale (Manchester) to move on behalf of the Manchester Diocesan Synod:
13 That this Synod call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure.
The Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett (Southwark) to move as an amendment on behalf of the Southwark Diocesan Synod
35 Leave out all the words after “That this Synod†and insert –
“(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops not to exercise its power under Standing Order 60(b) to amend the draft Measure.â€.
The Revd Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool) to move (with the permission of the Chair) as an amendment to item 35:
36 Leave out all the words after “request the House of Bishops†and insert –
“in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.†[/blockquote]
The Spiers amendment has passed in all three houses. Comment from proposer of the Manchester motion being asked to comment on the Southward/Spiers amendment. Strange.
Vote on Spiers amendment:
Bishops – for 40; against 5; abstain 1
Clergy – for 122; against 70; abstain 1
Laity – for 107; against 85; abstain 4
Looks like the Southwark attempt to amend the Manchester motion will be voted on first, so may be no up down vote on the Manchester motion as submitted if Southwark/Spiers amendment succeeds.
Southwark/Spiers amendment passed – results by houses:
Bishops – for 26; against 16; abstain 5
Clergy – for 128; against 70; abstain 0
Laity – for 111; against 64; abstain 1
So, the Manchester Motion has in effect been neutered through the use of process.
It remains open to the House of Bishops to amend the motion, but with this motion as amended they have been asked not to amend it ‘substantially’ – whatever that means.
Thanks +Pete Broadbent – not.
Just to clarify, the Manchester Motion, as neutered by the Southwark/Spiers amendment passed, FWIW.
Looking at the voting figures on the amendment, it is not clear that the final measure will pass the 2/3 majority in all three houses; but that is at least 6 months away. We don’t know what the final results for the main motion were, as it was not broken down by houses, but I think on a show of hands.
This tweet seems to encapsulate the view of both press and listeners on Twitter:
“Well it seems #Synod has managed to create such a miasmic mass of words that most people haven’t got a clue what is happening!”
Just about sums it up
Very few people have a clue what has happened:
http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/#synod
Not satisfactory.
The Bishops pretty much scuppered the Manchester motion, for what it is worth – but then they got the Synod into this mess to start with. No one on any side is happy with the use of process today.
Here is the final version of the motion passed:
[blockquote]That this Synod,
(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially[/blockquote]
I suppose that this exercise in brinkmanship does, as the amended motion asks, put the future vote on this having to achieve a 2/3 majority in all three houses without the amendment which would have given it the chance for improved likelyhood of being passed which the Manchester Motion originally would have provided. Have noses been amputated to spite faces today? We will have to see. Not a good day for the two Archbishops and some of our senior bishops who spoke today.
Well — a 2/3 majority of votes for the measure would be approximately as follows:
Bishops – 32 [this appears highly likely]
Clergy – 129 [this appears highly likely — clergy would only need to gain another 10 or so votes to achieve it based on today’s vote]
Laity – 131 [slightly less likely — laity will have to shift by more than a score of votes]
My bet is that the measure eventually passes by the 2/3 majority in all three houses. If it doesn’t, the laity will be the ones holding it back. Conservatives will have to work hard on the laity and the clergy houses to hold the measure back.
I think one has to question the propriety of allowing the Southwark highjacking of the Manchester Motion, by proposing an amendment which deletes the entirety of the motion, with the exception of these words:
“That this Synod”
I see that Thinking Anglicans have now deleted the text of the original Manchester Motion from their report of today’s business.
If the entirety of the Diocese of Southwark was towed off to Holland would the Church of England be hindered or enabled in its mission?
Here is the text and a more official video of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s intervention today and here is the official report and podcasts of this afternoon’s debate.
The report from this morning and the debate on Nigeria is here
Thinking about it – breathtaking manipulation of process by Southwark, and weak chairing allowing debate in advance of the main motion of amendments which had not been moved.
#16 have you no compassion for the Dutch?
I have been looking back through the blogs and the records.
While there is considerable confusion on twitter, in the press and generally about what happened today, what happened is consistent with one or two other events on controversial matters over the last few years. In this case the Diocese of Manchester Motion was undercut by an ‘amendment’ by the Diocese of Southwark, which instead of putting its own motion, instead expressed itself as an ‘amendment’ although it bore no relationship to the Manchester Motion. As I mentioned above, the ‘amendment took the form of deleting all words of the Manchester Motion other than:
“That this Synodâ€
The last time this happened was in the ACNA debate in February 2010 when the Bishop of Bristol tabled an “amendment” to Lorna Ashworth’s motion which deleted all words other than:
“That this Synod”.
I commented on it in this thread.
In each case a new motion was substituted for the existing motion, under the guise of an ‘amendment’. The purpose of this is cynically to ensure that even if there has been debate, that Synod is denied the opportunity to vote upon the the substance of the original motion.
In each case, a weak chair has been taken advantage of to substitute in place of the motion an unrelated motion, which if considered on its own merits and wording is unrelated to the motion it seeks to eject, like a cuckoo in the nest.
The truth is that there was no confusion today – Synod and Manchester Diocese’s Motion was subject to deliberate and cynical wrecking by Rosemarie Mallet and others from Southwark.
It does perhaps tell you something about the determination and ruthlessness of some of those seeking to bring in women bishops, and perhaps some of those who might become the first women bishops.
It is a pity the Synod authorities and the inexperienced chair today were not more on the ball and more decisive in dealing with what looking back is so obvious and so unprincipled coming out of Southwark.
I will have to check back, but my recollection is that something similar happened in one of the earlier women bishops debates, though in that case as far as I remember it may have been Bishop Tom Butler who was involved in it.
What we saw today from Rosemarie Mallett and the manipulaters of Southwark was deliberate, premeditated, manipulative, Machiavellian and Un-Christian, but typical of the Godless hierachy of that diocese.
Pageantmaster, thank you for making it as clear as it can be made. I grieve for your church which is being led wrongly. It seems to me that the dishonest and manipulative manner in which this issue is being pushed should make people think twice and thrice about the issue itself and whether it can possibly be God’s will.
Pageantmaster, thank you and thank you again for the work that you have put in to bringing some clarity to this process for us foreigners (and it sounds like clarity for many of your own people also)!
And your quips were great too:
[blockquote] The Manchester Motion for enhanced provision will be debated in about half an hour. Predictably TEC-in-a-bag lady, Christina Rees says that if they can’t get it all their own way the WATCH women don’t want to be bishops at all. WAAAAAAAH! [/blockquote]
[blockquote] If the entirety of the Diocese of Southwark was towed off to Holland would the Church of England be hindered or enabled in its mission? [/blockquote]
[blockquote] “Looking at the voting figures on the amendment, it is not clear that the final measure will pass the 2/3 majority in all three houses; but that is at least 6 months away.” [/blockquote]
I expect you are right. The issues being considered today were not the same as the houses will consider in the summer.
I do agree that the Archbishops’ amendment would have increased the chance of the whole motion getting through. So this may be a blessing in disguise for the conservatives.
In the meantime, other groups are no doubt watching and preparing…
Its interesting trawling around Brit blogs that quite a few seem to think the amendment as passed is not what many members understood it to be. Even if that is correct, its not easy to work out what are the implications of it.
The stakes are high for all sides – see: “Bishop of Bath and Wells says church will have ‘substantial period of shock’ if it rejects moves to let women become bishops” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/06/church-of-england-female-bishops)
PageantMaster,
Isn’t there a standing order that says something along the lines of “An amendment cannot alter the main point of a motion”, ie an amendment tweaks a motion rather than completely turns it on its head? When I used to attend a diocesan synod in Australia, I can remember a couple of amendments being ruled out of order because they changed the whole point of the actual motion. If you wanted to to do that, you had to vote it down and/or move your own motion.
Andrew Reid
Reading the press reports today, the spirit of confusion continues – it is as though each is reporting an entirely different event:
Guardian: ‘Fratricidal tensions at the Church of England Synod‘
BBC: ‘General Synod rejects women bishops compromise bid‘
Guardian: ‘Church of England reaches compromise on women bishops‘
Christian Today: ‘Church of England nears consensus on women bishops‘
The best summary of what may have gone on from one of the few who understood it was this
#21 Katharine
[blockquote]It seems to me that the dishonest and manipulative manner in which this issue is being pushed should make people think twice and thrice about the issue itself and whether it can possibly be God’s will.[/blockquote]
Listening to what went on yesterday – I was put in mind of the events of the Jamaica ACC meeting and the Mephistophelean machinations there. A quarter of dioceses asked Synod to debate this matter; time was made for it – quite a bit of time, and the organisers allowed what can only be described as “parliamentary” tactics to frustrate Synod having the opportunity to give its view. I didn’t see any leadership at all yesterday – only panic on the hoof decision-making leaving Synod members and the rest of us confused as to what they were being asked to vote on and what the impact of doing so would be on the main motion.
#24 MichaelA
[blockquote]Its interesting trawling around Brit blogs that quite a few seem to think the amendment as passed is not what many members understood it to be. Even if that is correct, its not easy to work out what are the implications of it.[/blockquote]
People are still trying to get their head around what happened – people in Synod that is! You can only understand what the implications are, if you understand what has happened, and people don’t.
#25 Andrew Reid
[blockquote]Isn’t there a standing order that says something along the lines of “An amendment cannot alter the main point of a motionâ€, ie an amendment tweaks a motion rather than completely turns it on its head?[/blockquote]
Very probably, but someone familiar with the actual Synod standing orders would have to answer that question.
Looking at the way that things were dealt with, it looks as if with the active or negligent complicity of the chair and officers, the Manchester Motion was set up to fail given the order in which it and what was a separate Southwark motion masquerading as an amendment were presented and the order in which business was taken. By the end of the afternoon, no one, including the chair was clear what was happening, but of course, that was the intention – we have seen it all before.
Pageantmaster:[blockquote]Listening to what went on yesterday – I was put in mind of the events of the Jamaica ACC meeting and the Mephistophelean machinations there.[/blockquote]That’s exactly what it reminded me of. In both cases sincere concerns and honest debate were ignored and eliminated by highly questionable parliamentary moves.
The fourth and final session of this Synod took place this morning. The report and audio is here. This was a debate on the Steering Committee report on the Women Bishops Measure and was concerned with points of drafting on the measure as it was brought to Synod. The voting on the ‘take note’ debate on the Steering Committee Report was instructive:
Bishops – 28 for; 0 against; 2abstentions
Clergy – 149 for; 14 against; 8 abstentions
Laity – 132 for; 37 against; 10 abstentions
Over at Thinking Anglicans it is being suggested that “It is likely that those who voted against were voting against the general principle of the legislation rather than against the final drafting” and moreover that this shows that the Measure would pass at the final vote. This shows a failure to listen to the debate properly. In fact a number of people who opposed the measure stated that they would on this occassion vote positively to enable matters to go forward to the next stage, so many of those who voted to take note are not happy with the current provision but charitably decided not to interfere with what is a drafting matter rather than a substantive vote.
Bearing that in mind and in particular the figures given by Sarah above of a majority of 131 necessary to achieve a 2/3 majority in the laity, then it can be seen that based on this Synod’s figures and factoring those who might vote against the measure, then it looks like things remain on a knife-edge as to whether the Measure will pass in the Summer at all.
The matter now returns to the House of Bishops for consideration in May.
I would commend listening to the audio of the debate. One important piece of information came from Canon Sugden who informed Synod that the debate on expressing support for Nigeria and Christians there and calling on the British Government to support them was listened to over the internet by members of the church in Nigeria in tears. It is good to know that this Synod has achieved something solid to support the church in Nigeria, and for that we can be grateful.
Thanks, Pageantmaster. Very helpful, timely work.
As for the blatant manipulation of the whole process, and the resulting confusion among many participants, this strange affair strongly reminds me of the even more blatant manipulation of the process at the infamous ACC meeting in Kingston, Jamaica when the Covenant was under consideration. I chalk it all up to the bizarre blindness that results when activists are convinced that their holy cause is so important that “the end justifies the means.” They’d never say it that way, or perhaps even admit it to themselves, but that’s the way they act. It’s so tragically ironic when the supposed advocates of what they call “social justice” are prepared to engage in all sorts of unjust behavior to achieve that supposed advancement of “social justice.”
Alas, I think +John Hind of Chichester was simply being realistic, not pessimistic, in acknowledging that it’s only a matter of time before the CoE gets women bishops, with nothing like adequate protection for those who are conscientiously and tenaciously opposed to it. Sad, but true. And I say all that as someone who in principle firmly supports WO, and who yet finds this whole fatally-flawed process to be a sheer disaster that is certain to harm the CoE, and to accelerate its decline and its polarization and ever-shrinking comprehensiveness. There are none so illiberal as Liberals who think their holy cause is not subject to compromise and who think that their time has come at last.
David Handy+
I’m afraid Pageantmaster has read the runes entirely wrongly. There wasn’t enough support in Synod for the Manchester motion to succeed. To ensure that the Southwark motion (which would have allowed no changes at all by the House of Bishops) didn’t go through naked, Synod passed the Spiers amendment (which gives the Bishops an opportunity to address provision). It was a pragmatic way to ensure that the traditionalists’ concerns can be addressed. Most of those opposed to women bishops understood this. I’m sorry that Pageantmaster didn’t.
#30 I thank Bishop Pete for his candid response and note the rationale given for Spiers in what otherwise appeared to be a complete dog’s breakfast of a debate on Wednesday afternoon. I will also take on trust that insubstantial amendment to the measure will do the job for traditionalists.
I still don’t understand why a diametrically opposed motion from Southwark was permitted as a wrecking amendment to the Manchester Motion which at least had the merit of having been brought on behalf of the responses of a number of dioceses in the diocesan consultation and having an afternoon of Synod’s precious time devoted to it.
From what I listened to in the Steering Committee debate today it would appear that the House of Bishops have a wide discretion of their own volition or in response to requests from members of Synod to make amendments to the Measure in any event.
I am glad to see that Bishop Pete is free and thank him for commenting here.
Let me try to explain. Diocesan Synod motions get to the agenda of Synod. They’re held till it’s appropriate to debate them.
Manchester was one among several wanting the “Archbishops’ amendment”, and was put up as the substantive. Southwark was one among several saying “proceed with the legislation as it stands”. Southwark was moved (slightly oddly) as an amendment to Manchester (actually, as several have noted, a negating amendment). If Southwark had passed unamended, we’d have been stuck with no possibility of changing the legislation at all. But there weren’t the numbers for Manchester to pass, so the only game in town was to amend Southwark to give the Bishops space to tweak it. We got the traditionalists to vote for the amendment to Southwark, and it passed. So the legislation now goes off to the Bishops with a chance to amend it to solve (or fudge) the issue of delegation. Watch what comes back to Synod in July. I’m sorry it’s complex; Synod watching is difficult in the nuanced and subtle English culture!
#32 I see Bishop Pete. It does all sound very complicated – prayers for the bishops as they tweak or fudge as appropriate.
[blockquote]I’m sorry it’s complex; Synod watching is difficult in the nuanced and subtle English culture![/blockquote]
Yes it must be – thank you for explaining.
Thanks PM for the link to Revd Fletcher’s blog. At least one anonymous delegate could see the wood for the trees:
[blockquote] “A speaker notes that it is growing churches (evangelical) which will have most problem with women Bishops.” [/blockquote]
Indeed. The startling this is that it appears many delegates to General Synod don’t think this matters to them. It will.
[blockquote] “Sister Rosemary (CHN) asks us not to go for Manchester – it would require us not to be together.” [/blockquote]
Many people still don’t get it – women bishops will ensure that CofE will NOT be together in the senses that matter.
I join Pageantmaster in thanking +Boradbent for taking the time and trouble to comment here. Very helpful. All I’ll add is that if even a Brit and veteran CoE observer like PM has trouble reading the runes rightly, how are poor Americans supposed to do it?
David Handy+