Running Wild at Synod - Monday

First day of Synod and we begin with the report by the business committee – every Synod the Committee writes a report that supposedly explains how the items on the Agenda came to be there and also gives a clue about upcoming issues. As a member of business committee its always interesting to see what’s contentious and even more to hear what people would have liked to have been on the Agenda – or how an item should have been dealt with. One thing is certain as far as Synod is concerned its ahrd for the Business Committee to get it right! One Synod there is dismay because there are very few Diocesan Synod motions and they aren’t being discussed and now there are too many and perhaps we are wasting our time on them. The Diocesan Synod motions include debates on Justice and Asylum Seekers, Climate Change and Church property as well as more inward looking motions on the voice of the Church in Public life and the future of retreat houses. All of them, however, represent issued that have been of sufficient concern to ordinary parishioners to speed them on their way through Deanery and Diocese and it seems good to me to have grass roots concerns about the real world represented.
Today, an issue that had clearly been contentious on Archbishops Council had been included on the Agenda as a presentation rather than a debate ‘on the nod’. For those of us who had not seen the papers nor been privy to the conversations at Archbishops Council this kind of thing can feel embarrassing!!
A good debate on ARCIC followed with a great introduction by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. The warmth of personal relationships between Roman and Anglican catholics that I both witnessed and heard described in this debate was encouraging and distressing in equal measure. Encouraging because it seems absolutely right to be reminded of Pope John Paul II’s words to Robert Runcie
“affective collegiality will lead to effective collegiality, just s affective communion will lead to effective communion”. Distressing because this seems an apt approach to adopt in relation to the ordination of women to the episcopate … and yet there seems to be an underlying current to the debate implying that all this will be lost if women become Bishops – maybe I’m just paranoid!!
The day ends with worship but not before we have run the gauntlet of Question Time – 42 Questions and we finish all of them – I think this is the first time since I joined Synod in 2001 that I have heard every question answered!! And some good questions too – some highlighting Synod business that isn’t being discussed this time – distressingly in one instance as it seems the Church cannot manage to produce the Eucharistic prayers for Children asked for a year ago until 2011. This may be quick (!!) in Synod terms – but 10 year olds will be 12 then and how many missed opportunities does this represent?
And so to fringe meetings and in my case to hear Bishop Martyn Jarrett, one of the PEV’s (flying bishop in common parlance) talk about his ministry and his approach to the question of Women Bishops. It seems that unless some kind of separate jurisdiction is allowed then there is no discussion. I can hear the hurt when Bishop Martyn says you listen and then insist on voting for something that doesn’t do what I need to stay in the Church. I admire him for saying it, I admire his dedicated ministry and I deeply regret what seems to be his treatment at the hands of some Dioceses. BUT (and I’m afraid there is a but) how can we erect those barriers which will give him the protection he needs without creating no go areas for women and putting them in a position that undermines their ministry. This is how I come to the position that nothing but a code of practice applied by all with generosity can be a just solution to this ‘problem’.