Always Hope

So, the deed is finally done, less than 2 years after the embarrassing collapse of the original proposal, the Church of England's General Synod has voted to open the ranks of the episcopate to women for the first time. Years of anxious wrangling appear to be coming to an end, as the new rules will surely be speedily approved by Parliament and then nodded through the final stages by the same Synod, before its term of office expires next year. I'm in favour of this, I always have been, and though for the most part I respect and value those who hold a different view, I'm sure this was the right decision. I don't have anything to add to the many comments already made on the rightness of it, only a few reflections on what we might learn by observing what happened on Monday: We learned that General Synod hasn't improved since 2012.  Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. We wouldn't be talking about this if the Synod had not failed, in 2012, to pass a ...

Yesterday's vote in General Synod, which kicks the possibility of women becoming bishops into the long grass again, was the wrong decision. Not because it is right to have women at all levels in the church (although I personally believe that it is). But because the final decision does not reflect the intention of the church. As Tim Hind wrote in the run-up (I think in a national newspaper), the people of the churches are expecting to have women as bishops and expecting that soon. That expectation was based on a long and careful process that has clearly demonstrated that the Church of England is ready for this. What we saw yesterday was a failure on the part of General Synod, a catastrophic failure of process and of the body itself. Synod is not, as many commentators are saying, the Church of England. (As in "Church of England rejects women bishops"). The Church of England is where I was last night, with a group of baffled women and men who worship in their local churche...

Today's C of E - related spat relates to the Telegraph's provocative Ageing Church of England will be dead in 20 years . This is a write-up of what would otherwise have been a footnote to one of the most uncontroversial General Synod meetings for some years.  I'm not sure which debate this took place in, probably the one on Mission Action Planning, but the Revd. Patrick Richmond assured the Synod that unless things change, "some extrapolations" show that the church "will not be functionally extant" by 2030.  Despite the obvious fact that "some extrapolations" translates as "my personal opinion", this is worth considering, as bloggers will.  Stuart at eChurch Blog takes it as a statement of the bleeding obvious.  Meanwhile, my blogging friend David at The Vernacular Curate is on good table-thumping form as he castigates Mr Richmond for his whingeing pessimism. So, we're all doomed, or just a bit of old-fashioned doom and gloom?...

The recent post about the failings of synodical process has generated an unprecedented amount of traffic to these pages, even to a rare mention from the Church Mouse , and spun off all kinds of surprising conversations elsewhere in the online universe. Pleasant as it is to have the attention, it has made me re-examine what I said in the light of the knowledge that people are actually reading it, and I feel a few more thoughts are in order: Always Hope has never pretended to be offering fully thought through opinions. It's more in the line of "thinking aloud", and I do welcome people's feedback, because the conversation is interesting, and it helps me form the thoughts more carefully. It may even be that I sometmes deliberately overstate the point. This is not because I court controversy - it's just what I call humour. Regular readers may get used to this and perhaps forgive me for it. You might be interested to know that though I personally am in favour of women i...

This seems appropriate after all the heat of yesterday: O God, the author of peace and lover of concord, to know you is eternal life, to serve you is perfect freedom: defend us your servants from all assaults of our enemies, that we may trust in your defence and not fear the power of any adversaries; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. This was this morning's collect, a prayer that dates from Cranmer's Prayer Book. Of course this prayer would have felt very different in the violent context of 16 th century England, but still the prayer for peace at a time of religious controversy seems apposite. Is God the lover of concord? That is an interesting question, because the peace of God is not "peace at any price". But I think this prayer captures what it is to be at rest under the sovereignty of God, understanding that it is better to leave the battles to him than to fight them ourselves. In the light of the previous post, it's good to be reminded that it isn't ...

Thanks to Lesley for drawing attention to this on Damian Thompson's blog. Opponents of the proposed scheme for women bishops are apparently rubbing their hands at the prospect of blocking any further progress once the legislation returns to Synod. They believe that the recent election to General Synod has delivered them enough votes to prevent the two-thirds majority needed (why two-thirds, by the way?) for final approval. I have no problem with this in principle. This is supposed to be a democratic process, and if we are silly enough to set up a situation where a one-third minority can block a motion, then so be it. But the way in which this is being touted is thoroughly distasteful. Incidentally, the source for this may not be entirely reliable. I have no idea what the provenance of the "Christian News Release Service" is, but apart from mistrusting any organisation that is capable of such egregious capitalisation, it seems hard to believe that everybody's voting ...

There's low-level excitement in the Church of England as it's time for the five-yearly elections to General Synod, the Church's "parliament". Those of us who get a vote have received the names of our candidates and their "election addresses": in my case, the six hopeful clergy who have put themselves forward in this Diocese. There's a lot of debate right now about what makes a good candidate or a good address (see Revd Lesley for her own take on this, also Alan Wilson for an irreverent take on the electoral system). But what I haven't seen much of is any discussion of whether Synod really works, as a governing instrument of the C of E. Synod is important because it has the power to make the rules (although major pieces of legislation still have to go before Parliament). So I suppose that if it didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent it. But would it look the same? I can think of some good things about synod: 1. Making decisions at na...