The electronic voting results from this month’s General Synod are now available online and are linked below, with links to the order papers containing the relevant texts.
Electronic voting results
Inquiry into Allegations of Abuse within the Soul Survivor Network (Order Paper IV)
Living in Loving and Faith (Order Paper VII)
Kudos to Bishop Helen-Ann and Bishop Julie Conalty for voting against the Bishop of Stepney’s amendment (Item 60) and for supporting the original Motion of Robert Thompson (Item 19) over his call for an Inquiry into allegations of abuse within the Soul Survivor network.
Robert’s excellent speech, opposing the amendment by the Bishop of Stepney, can be found on the recording of the session at 2:31:25. It is one of the most moving speeches I have ever heard in General Synod. Bishop Julie also opposed her fellow bishop’s amendment, expressing concerns about the Church setting the ‘terms of reference’. She can be heard at 2:51:50. Judith Maltby also spoke very well indeed and can be heard at 3:13:05. She says: “Trust in safeguarding at the centre is broken. It was only a year ago in this chamber that we watched the dismantlement of the… Read more »
Not only that, whether you view the unfolding ISB safeguarding saga last year as the result of the ‘mess up’ theory of events or the law of unintended consequences, the Archbishop’s council all colluded over their ‘inaccurate’ statement to synod and the Archbishop of York carried on the cover up this year by pretending his statement contained one minor honest mistake …. It all spins on and on to the detriment of the survivors as the AC tries to hide where the bodies are buried They should not have any control over Safeguarding as they abuse their positions to shield… Read more »
Reading some of the comments, I am reminded of the line about the Marines’ Code of “Unit Core God Country” from the movie A Few Good Men.
https://youtu.be/EE5FFQiyqhY?si=JrLTheGQ1CwIvgFj
When it comes to voting one can wonder what the hierarchy of some Synod voters might be. More profitably perhaps, the church ought to have its own “code” which would guide how delegates ought to vote. Perhaps God, Neighbours, Church? And doctrine should come under Church, not under God. My personal observation is that “Neighbours” frequently gets too little weight, and I suggest that the teaching of Jesus supports that proposition.
‘And doctrine should come under Church, not under God’ – which is why that will never happen. I can totally see the argument, in that doctrine is the product of people, and people meeting together are the Church, but where do those people think they’re getting their ideas and opinions from? I’m not suggesting that they are receiving them from God, but good luck separating out those that do so think, or making doctrine anything other than an argument about what God thinks/wants (even though it isn’t really). And by the time you’ve got a code on ‘how delegates ought… Read more »
But doctrines are man-made, aren’t they? They aren’t handed down from heaven on a slab of stone, but conceived by human minds. Surely, the ‘clear, obvious voice of Scripture’ is framed in the standards God, through Jesus, Paul and the written words laid out in the Bible? “Thou shalt have no gods before me” includes the reputation of the CofE. God’s standard is to care for the humble and meek, protect the defenceless and live lives which seek, however imperfectly, to honour what we know to be the divine will. What we’re currently seeing is doing none of those things… Read more »
I approve of the blunt northerner mode, but then I am a blunt northerner myself. I think it’s the sort of foundational issue that the new Theological Advisor to the House of Bishops ought to address. It would give a framework for considering issues
A little bit of blunt truth would go a long way, whether in York, Canterbury , Lambeth , Oxford…. Add in other dioceses of your choice
Whatever side of the argument you occupy, the following facts should interest you in regard to Item 24 – surely a “watershed moment” for the Church of England. 8 women bishops voted for the motion. No women bishops voted against it. 50 women clergy voted for the motion. 9 women clergy voted against it. 55 women laity voted for the motion. 37 women laity voted against it. The proportion of women in Synod is such that their emphatic voting in the direction of the motion was the decisive factor – and by a margin that exceeds the “margin of error”… Read more »
Peter, thank you, your last sentence, ‘the women of Synod have changed the character of the Church of England’ is music to my ears.
It’s a neutral statement of fact. That is all
Hi Peter, like Pilgrim I find it music to my ears if you think that Women have changed the character of the C of E… but to argue against myself , I am rather confused about how you’ve reached your conclusion… Are you implying that all those whose first names you have counted and through that presumed to be female are voting in a particular way because they are female – or to put it another way, not male? So if they were all still at home and if all the delegates in Synod were male , all those with… Read more »
If only those people with the Christian names of men had voted the motion would have been defeated.
It’s not complicated
But are you not concerned that it may be over simplistic to assume that amount of gender bias in the way the delegates voted?
I am not assuming anything at all.
The vast majority of people with the christian names of men are – men. If only the men at Synod had voted, the motion would have been defeated. It is just a fact. I really cannot understand why you want to insist I am building my own assumptions into it.
If you are wanting to claim that actually lots of the people at synod with the christian names of men might actually be women, I am afraid I am not following you into that world of make-believe.
Oh dear…. So your ‘neutral fact’ is based on the calculation that if women just disappeared the motion would not have carried- I think I now understand where you are coming from …. So you are assuming that a smaller synod of all men would have voted differently which is a fair conclusion even if a very narrow one. The interesting issue is the proportion of representatives in each house who voted in a particular way … the bishops ( where women are very under represented) had a small (2) majority in favour of the motion In the house of… Read more »
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have noted an observable fact.
Facts are neutral. I have placed no interpretation on the fact at all. You have no idea of my view on it
Isn’t it likely that women are more likely to see inclusion as a positive thing given the contested status of female ministry in the Church of England?
“The women of Synod have changed the character of the Church of England.”
To borrow from the hymn Give Me That Old-Time Religion, if it was good enough for Moses, David, or Jesus, it ought to be good enough for us, eh?
“We’ve always done it this way” is a lousy reason for anything unless a strong cogent argument is made for continuing to always do it that way.
In this thread some have wondered about what goes on in the mind of Synod members as they vote. For clarity I can only truly have understanding of my own drivers and wouldn’t call into question what others are basing their decisions on. But if it helps for me the main 2 factors are: What does God have to say about the issue in the bible (probably our best primary resource) and in the light of this how would Jesus have dealt with the issue before us? How might Jesus, if he had ever spoken directly to anyone from the… Read more »