Voting for a change

This morning the Bradford Diocesan Synod – in a secret ballot – voted 90-4 in favour of the Dioceses Commission scheme to create a single new diocese for West Yorkshire and the Dales. We had an excellent debate in which people were visionary, responsible, realistic and prophetic: it was inspiring to listen to. The negatives were aired alongside the positives, but courageous vision is how I would describe the vote.

Ripon & Leeds voted in favour. Wakefield voted against. Now it goes to the Archbishop of York for a decision as to whether the wider needs of the Church of England should demand that the changes be put to the General Synod anyway. They should.

Here is the text of my (so-called) Presidential Address to the Synod this morning:

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

One of the Old Testament pithy sayings I often quote is the line from Proverbs 29: “Without a vision the people perish”. The truth of the saying is not in doubt. Any group of people that has no vision toward which they live and work – and for which they might sacrifice much – will not survive for long. It is the common purpose – the commonly held sense of direction – that holds them faithful while all around them changes and threatens and wobbles.

No wonder, then, that a common vision is hard to hold on to and sometimes hard to identify in the first place. After all, a ‘vision’ can be made up of lots of fine-sounding words; but then more words have to be found – and agreed upon – that establish the strategy – the ‘how will we get there?’ stuff – for making the vision a reality. And there lies the real challenge. For any vision that can only be realized in the long term lies open to being thwarted by immediate or short-term realities that can easily distract from the agreed goal.

So, although we might all agree with the fine-sounding line from Proverbs, we then find ourselves in some difficulty trying to formulate precisely which vision and strategy should be adopted. In one sense, we need to be grasped by a vision – having our imagination and will captivated by it – rather than us simply trying to dredge one up.

This is pertinent when we look at the matters before us on our agenda today. What sometimes looks obvious and clear from a distance becomes more complex and demanding the closer we get to actually making a decision. But, let’s put the more ‘domestic’ matters in perspective before getting into the substance of the options before us.

A month ago I travelled to Sudan for my first visit to our link dioceses there. Linda and I spent just over a week meeting people and being introduced to the place, the people, the church, the history and the politics of the country. I posted eight blogs from Sudan while we were there, but tried to be careful about what I wrote and how I wrote it. As I learned from my decade-long links with Zimbabwe, it is all too easy to salve my western conscience by ‘speaking out’ about what is going on there, whilst thereby only making life even more difficult for those people who pay the price for my ‘prophetic’ utterances. Since returning, I have been clear that any response from me and us must be guided by those who will live with the consequences. Accordingly, I am in contact with Ezekiel, Bishop of Khartoum, about the daily realities, checking our perceptions with him, and being guided about what to do at this end. (And there was a debate in the House of Lords on Wednesday this week, sponsored by Baroness Cox, into which our experience and analysis was fed via the Bishop of Exeter.)

What is increasingly apparent is that President Bashir’s government is engaged in ethnic cleansing of Africans. It is further clear that they want a single nation (Sudan) of a single race (Arabs) with a single language (Arabic) caught up in a single religion (Islam). Although complex, the direction – the ‘vision’, if you like – is clear; and it is not good for Africans – Muslim or Christian. We need to bear this in mind daily as we pray for our brothers and sisters in Sudan, as we interpret the news we hear, as we consider how to respond, and as we continue to give of our wealth to house and feed those who have nothing.

Such support also comes form strange sources. I was speaking at an ecumenical conference in Hannover, Germany, a couple of weeks ago and agreed to stay on and preach at an international service on the Sunday morning. The organisers pressed me about where to direct the offering, which normally amounts to around €150 and in the end I suggested our Kadugli Appeal, which so far has raised around £100,000. The offering came to just short of €600 and will arrive in our accounts soon.

I tell you this partly to assure you that when I am on business away from Bradford, I am also working for Bradford and telling our story beyond our borders. The conference in Hannover was established by both Roman Catholics and Protestants in the Hannover-Hildesheim region and attracted 1300 delegates to look seriously at how the church in Germany must change if it is to grow and reach a new generation. Fresh Expressions is something they have latched on to and they are keen to learn from the Church of England about our successes, our failures and our vision. Of course, listening through German ears compels me to examine the perspectives I have in England and in Bradford – which is never entirely comfortable, but does inform priorities and action.

(I will be in Germany again in May, along with some clergy and lay people form the Diocese of Bradford. The Kirchentag attracts around 120,000 ‘full-timers’ and a total of around 300,000 people over the four days. I will be doing various things, but my principle responsibility will be to preach at the outdoor closing service to a congregation of between 100-120,000 people. This will also be televised nationally on German TV. This is a privilege for an Englishman, great for the Church of England, and a shameless propagation of Bradford in Europe. Pray for me… and for those who have to decipher my German.)

I have been accompanying and observing the German Church’s reform process since 2007 when I was invited to the launch of the process in Wittenberg, birthplace of the Reformation in 1517. Although the cultures are different in many respects, watching the management of change in the EKD has been informative at a time when we are looking at significant change in the Church of England. I will refer here to two matters.

First, the matter of admitting women bishops to the episcopate. I don’t intend to rehearse here the events of July or November in the General Synod. Suffice it to say that anyone who comes up with a simple rationale for the failure of the legislation in the House of Laity has almost certainly got it wrong. The reasons for the failure are many and they are complicated – especially when you realize that it failed (in terms of votes) because enough people who want women bishops didn’t want them in the manner prescribed by that form of legislation. Vision and means again.

Since November facilitated conversations have been going on between different parties and the House of Bishops discussed these developments at our meeting in early February. Several options emerged and these will be worked on to see if there might be sufficient support for a form of legislation to be recommended by the House of Bishops in May for initial debate at the General Synod in York in July.

It is less clear to me than it is to others that this will happen. The current mantra is ‘simplicity with security’, which, it seems to me, ignores the fact that the search for ‘security’ militates against ‘simplicity’ – which is how we got to where we were in November in the first place. Anyway, an enormous amount of work is going on in order to see if a way forward can be found informally that will subsequently bear the weight of any legislation that might follow. Watch this space.

But, if agreeing on how to have women bishops is tough, we in West Yorkshire and the Dales face a challenge much closer to home. I hope to speak to this in the debate later, but will only do so if the points I wish to make have not already been made by others.

The challenge before us looks simple: we all agree we need to change, but what that change should look like – and how it should be brought about – is not obvious to everyone. The Dioceses Commission did not dream up their proposals because they had nothing better to do with their time or imagination. Look at the numbers for the three dioceses and, whatever the rhetoric from some quarters, they are, broadly speaking, heading south. If the proposals for a single diocese with an area system do not offer better mission and growth potential, then it should be obvious that current arrangements do not offer an alternative. One way or another there has to be change in the way we organize, ‘do church’ and reach out in this part of the world.

The problem comes, of course, when we ask what that change should look like. That will be the matter debated later. The Bishop’s Council has agreed that we vote in a secret ballot in order to ensure that everyone is free to make their own mind up. The method for doing so will be outlined immediately prior to the debate. Please note that our vote today is in principle – and although a considerable amount of coordinated work has gone on within and between the three dioceses already in order to flesh out realities and potentials, costs and benefits, making any changed arrangement a reality will depend solely on the will, determination, imagination and vision of those involved.

So, if you vote for this scheme, you commit to taking responsibility for making change work; if, however, you vote against, you need to ask yourself what you are, in fact, now voting for. No structure, old or new, will of itself deliver anything. Today is a challenge to our vision for the good news of Jesus Christ in West Yorkshire and the Dales, our courage in facing change, our faith in God and one another, and our realism about the challenge before us.

The writer of the proverb I cited earlier got it right: without a vision the people perish. (Although ‘perishing’ can take many forms…) But, to confound Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, not ‘any dream will do’. Our vision must be faithful and bold, realistic and achievable, godly and honourable. However we vote – and you do not need to be reminded here of my support for the scheme, especially as I am probably one of the few to have worked an effective area scheme (Southwark/Croydon) – we need to do so prayerfully, with confidence and with a clear recognition that the status quo is not an option, that we will direct change or it will drive us.

As Joshua heard before entering new and unknown territory: “Be bold, be strong, for the Lord your God is with you.”

 

Women coming

The latest moves by the Church of England in the long-running drive to open the episcopate to women as well as men will, I hope, be encouraging. The process is vital and cannot be rushed; but, this is being progressed as swiftly as possible.

The statement following yesterday's meeting of the House of Bishops as Lambeth Palace is here.

The consultation document published today is here.

 

Posted with Blogsy

 

One week on…

One week on from the General Synod's vote on women bishops and the story has fallen off the radar of most of the media. The sound and fury has moved on – for the time being, at least – to the next batch of 'stories'.

Here in Vienna I have been asked by people from all faiths and from all over the globe about what happened. I have been rather surprised by the sympathy offered! It has also offered an opportunity to try to explain how the Church of England works – not easy in any language. But, even here it was a matter of curiosity rather than concern or passion. (Although two people from two different countries asked what credibility our politicians have when they couldn't manage to reform the House of Lords – i.e. themselves – and have questionable electoral democratic legitimacy… which I thought was interesting.)

The big story occupying the media mind now is the publication of the Leveson report on Thursday. As with the announcement of the name of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and with the General Synod's vote on women bishops, we can't imply wait for a fact to be revealed; no, we fill our time and energy with speculation, pre-judgement and attempts to head off outcomes that might just make us feel a bit wobbly. Patience is not a virtue valued by a 24 hour media monster hungry for any sort of feeding.

Well, I couldn't find any mention (in my cursory digital search of the UK media) of the good news that last night saw leading Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus from across the globe sitting together at the launch of a new International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna. Religion is frequently portrayed as the source of a host of problems in the world; images of genuinely warm relations between religious leaders clearly isn't news. It doesn't fit the 'conflict narrative'.

Yet, last night was genuinely remarkable – even to veterans of the international interfaith circus. At the Hofburg we listened to sharp speeches by (among others) the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Spain and Austria; the Chief Rabbi of Moscow, the head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican, the President of the Muslim World League, the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the Secretary General of the United Nations. They didn't duck the challenges and they mostly said something worth listening to.

It is easy to take for granted a warm handshake between a Saudi minister, a Chief Rabbi and a Cardinal, but just a few years ago such an image would have been unthinkable.

Now it isn't even worthy of a mention in the news.

I am not moaning about this – just pointing it out as a phenomenon. If anything, I guess I think we just ought to be a little more media literate – just as some of us wish the media were a little more religion literate. So, when Leveson reports on Thursday we should be a little cautious about the special pleading of the press when they find their integrity questioned and their trustworthiness doubted. The preemptive strikes are almost embarrassing – best satirised in Roy Greenslade's Guardian column today.

An intelligent debate about press freedom (and associated matters) would be really welcome. But, I am not holding my breath. Too much self-interest, too much self-protection, too much special pleading – not unique to the press, but powerful factors nonetheless.

Oh well. I'll just get back to good news stories about religious harmony and cooperation. This morning I had breakfast with a Jewish academic, a Muslim statesman and a Shinto priest. How weird is that?

Back to Blighty tomorrow.

 

Posted with Blogsy

 

Get real

I only did a brief and rather disconnected speech in the debate on women bishops at the Church of England's General Synod last Tuesday. In it I reminded Synod that when we think of the ecumenical impact of our decision we needed to consider not only the Roman Catholic Church, but also the other churches (particularly) in Europe. I didn't have time to expand, but would like to have done.

However, I did ask the Synod to get real when making silly statements about the Church of England “not having the authority” to do what we were doing. (a) If the Synod and Church has no authority, what are they doing sitting on the Synod in the first place? (b) if I really believed this, I couldn't be an Anglican in the first place. Despite all the fantasy special pleading, our orders are not recognised by Rome and our 'church' is a mere 'ecclesial community'. That's the inescapable bottom line. (c) If those who say they truly believe in 'headship' actually do so, then why didn't they do what the male heads of the Church were leading them to do?

OK, not exactly knock-down arguments for the consecration of women as bishops, but they open up arguments that were not properly aired during the debate itself. Sometimes we are just too polite.

This morning, having spent yesterday doing what the Church of England does every day – in parishes, in local communities, in meetings that don't lose focus on what we are here for – I returned to a quick scan of the media.

Naturally, politicians are shouting loudly about how to sort the Church of England out. Apparently, we shouldn't be listened to any longer on moral issues because of this. And we should be disestablished.

Well, there are good arguments to be had about both those matters, but the sheer illogicality of some of the stuff would, in any other context, be screamingly funny. For a start, we have politicians elected (in some cases) by a fraction of the electorate indignantly telling the Church off for only managing to muster 90%+ of the bishops, nearly 80% of the clergy, 64% of the laity, and 42 out of 44 dioceses behind the cause of women bishops.

How about, before we listen to another politician, we couple – in any political discussion – potential disestablishment of the Church of England with a demand that every MP can only sit in Parliament if positively elected by 50% (I am feeling generous) of the electorate in his other constituency. Electoral legitimacy in a democracy also needs attention paid to it.

The point is basically this: the Church of England has not rejected women bishops – the House of Laity of the General Synod has. The Church of England has massively and overwhelmingly approved not only the principle, but the process. The only question now is how to find the right wording to make law that makes this a reality.

We failed this time, but I hope those who are bitterly disappointed and disillusioned will (a) aim at the right target, (b) turn disappointment (and, in some cases, exhaustion) into determination, and (c) be clear and boringly repetitive, especially with other politicians and journalists/commentators, that the Church has not rejected women bishops.

After all, it isn't just the Church that needs to get real.

(On the good news front, the General Synod looks positively coherent in comparison with Chelsea FC who yesterday hired a Liverpool reject as their latest messiah. Ahem…)

Posted with Blogsy

 

Synodical fall-out

Well, yesterday's General Synod debate on women bishops ended with the Measure failing in the House of Laity. It all came down to six votes. The Bishops and Clergy voted strongly for it and so did 62% of the House of Laity. Three quarters of the Synod voted in the same direction as the diocesan synods. Those who – for whatever reason – voted against will now have to account for this back in their diocese. The mind of the Church of England has not been reflected by the General Synod. Shock and outrage are being expressed widely.

During the debate we heard a lot about the need to talk – as if no talking had been done during the last twelve years. 'Not being agreed with' got translated into 'not been listened to'. There was fantasy about some simple magic bullet just awaiting us around the next corner. The reality is a shambles in which a small minority swung a key decision away from the majority view of the Synod and the wider church.

What this means, I guess, is that generous compromise will be harder to achieve when this comes back – as it surely will. And, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said in his statement to the Synod this morning, this whole business has raised questions about synodical processes as well as posing enormous challenges to the church in trying to explain what we have just done and why we did it.

Similar questions would apply even if the vote had gone the other way.

But, let's get real. This is not the end of the world and we need to confidently (!) get on with what the church does in its 16,000 parishes while not being debilitated by the vote yesterday. The story continues…

Posted with Blogsy

 

The end of the world

Here is my script from this morning’s Chris Evans Show on BBC Radio 2. I met Michael Buble in the studio – which was nice – and then did my stuff as follows. But, I had to drop the second line of the song quote, so will add it at the end!

I’ve been on the road recently and you know what it’s like when you spend hours on trains – you can only read so much and then your mind begins to wander. Randomly sometimes. Well, I was coming back from Germany last Sunday and was reading a pile of stuff, all of which sort of suggested that the world was about to end. And then, somewhere in the murky depths of my memory, the line of a song poked up:

The world won’t end in darkness, it’ll end in family fun…*

It was the Beautiful South some years ago in a snarly little song called ‘One God’. But, you can understand the sentiment – the world’s turned plastic!

At some point every generation thinks it might be the last. Relatively minor issues take on ultimate importance and we can’t conceive of life continuing differently. Well, maybe it’s time for a bit of perspective. For example, when I was younger, and getting very excited about some issues, I learned to ask myself this question: in the context of the entire history of the entire universe, does this matter? Clearly, not everything did. When I was a vicar in Leicestershire I used to baptise in a Norman font – which had been used for a thousand years – and we would drink Communion wine from a chalice that had been used for nearly 500 years. Through wars and Reformation and disasters and all the stuff of the world and so on.

And guess what? Life carried on.

I am in London because the General Synod votes today on whether or not to allow women to be bishops. Some are saying that it will be a disaster if we do… and a disaster if we don’t. But, whichever way it goes, it won’t be the end of the world – whatever people say as they raise the emotional stakes. Wednesday will surely come; the sun will rise; we will still be here; life will carry on; and, hopefully, one day, the Beautiful South will cheer up and re-form to prove it.

[*"The world won't end in darkness, it'll end in family fun / with Coca Cola clouds behind a Big Mac sun."]

Posted with Blogsy

 

Women bishops

On a flight back from Frankfurt on Sunday evening I picked up a copy of the Financial Times – not a paper I usually read. In it there was a short article about 'the art of leadership' by Peter Aspden.

He begins as follows:

For the last couple of weeks, most of the world has been debating a common theme: what combination of human qualities makes for an inspired leader?

He is referring to the re-election of Obama as POTUS. Basically, he argues that when looking to identify inspiring leaders we ignore the world of the arts. He then goes on, having explained himself, to say that “the current generation of arts leaders, in Britain at least, is outstanding,” and goes on to identify five qualities demanded by any high-profile leadership position:

1. Boldness

2. Suppleness

3. Democracy

4. A sense of mission

5. Imagination

Sitting in the General Synod for the debate on women bishops (not if we should have them – that was agreed a long time ago – but how we should make it happen, given that some disagree strongly), it is interesting to see how these qualities of leadership might be seen here.

Boldness is not the same as shouting or being dramatic. Boldness has to do with courage and determination – a willingness to take hard decisions and to keep focused on the real issues. There is plenty of boldness here in Synod, but the structures we live with can militate against achieving the end most people want to reach.

Suppleness is not a term easily applicable to the synodical structures and processes of the Church of England.

Democracy is good. It allows the General Synod to be constituted in a way that does not reflect the Church of England itself. It also means that bishops, clergy and lay people are all involved in decision making in and for the Church of England. Which means that it comes with the downsides of democracy, too: viz, that decisions have to be negotiated through the structures we have and not those we might like.

A sense of mission should not be a problem for the Church of England. But, it is all too easy for us to get distracted by stuff that takes our eye off the ball. The essential mission of the church is not to build up the church for the sake of itself, but for the sake of the world for which God has poured himself out is grace and love and mercy and generosity and so on. Anything else is self-indulgent and misses the point.

Imagination is something the church should have in bucket loads. The prophetic call has always been (see Isaiah for starters) to imagine a different world, a different way of being, and to live now accordingly. We should be able – whatever our preferences or prejudices – to imagine how we and the world might look if we were to live differently. Having done the imaginative thing, we might choose to vote according to our preferences or prejudices, but we cannot duck the obligation to imagine.

So, where does this leave us today as we debate women bishops? I shall vote for the imperfect legislation and trust that the Church of England might be bold, supple, imaginative and missionary by getting sufficient votes to move forward. We have heard all the arguments and I doubt if we shall hear anything new in today's debate. But, for what they are worth, these are my reflections at this point.

Enough words. We shall see.

Posted with Blogsy

 

Bishops and women

I know I am a bit late, but, for the sake of completeness, here is the full statement issued by the Church of England after the House of Bishops decided on the final version of the legislation to come before the General Synod in November. Now it will need a two thirds majority in each of the three Houses of Synod (Bishops, Clergy and Laity) for it to go through. Being pragmatic, this probably means that we will need all supporters of women bishops to vote for the Measure and as many opponents as possible to abstain rather than vote against. We shall see.

Anyway, here it is (with a preliminary statement about the Hillsborough report):

PR99.12 –

12/9/12 – For immediate release

Women Bishops: Draft Legislation

The House of Bishops has today by an overwhelming majority settled the text of the legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.

The House of Bishops made clear its desire for the draft legislation to be passed into law when it goes forward for final approval to the Church of England’s General Synod in November.

Speaking on behalf of the House at the conclusion of their meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams said:

“Before turning to the matters we have been discussing, I want to say, on behalf of the Bishops, that our thoughts and prayers are very much with the people of Liverpool and all affected by the Hillsborough tragedy on this day when the report is released. The Bishop of Liverpool has done a great service in steering this work to a conclusion and helping us as a nation to confront this deeply traumatic memory.”

Dr. Williams continued:

“Since women were first made priests in the Church of England in 1994, their ministry has hugely enriched both church and society. It has become increasingly clear to most of us that barring women from becoming bishops is an anomaly that should be removed, for the good of the Church’s mission and service.

“In July this year, the General Synod asked the House of Bishops to reconsider an alteration it had made to the proposed legislation on this subject. The Bishops have taken very seriously the anxieties expressed about the possible implications of their amendment and there has been widespread consultation since then. We are very grateful for all the points and suggestions offered by synod members and others.

“In light of this consultation, the Bishops have discussed the measure again and are now bringing forward a new text that expresses both our conviction of the need to see this legislation passed and our desire to honour the conscience and contribution of those in the Church of England whose reservations remain.

“It is particularly significant and welcome that the new text emerged not from the House of Bishops itself but rather from a serving woman priest.

“I hope all members of Synod will now reflect carefully on what the Bishops have decided and will continue to give thought and prayer to how they will vote in November.”

“I am convinced that the time has come for the Church of England to be blessed by the ministry of women as bishops and it is my deep hope that the legislation will pass in November.”

At its meeting in July the General Synod asked the House of Bishops to reconsider a provision in the legislation – Clause 5(1)(c) of the draft measure1.

The new amendment submitted by the Rev. Janet Appleby during the consultation process received overwhelming support from the House of Bishops in both their discussions and in the final vote.

In discussion the Bishops welcomed the simplicity of the new text, its emphasis on respect and the process of dialogue with parishes that it will promote.

The final text proposed by the House of Bishops is:

Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):” the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3″

The House also agreed to establish a group to develop the illustrative draft Code of Practice published in January to give effect to the new provision.

Posted with Blogsy

 

Collegiality and stuff

I am in Oxford for the annual College of Bishops of the Church of England. Not exactly a pleasure, but a necessity. I like the people, but the issues don't get any easier. (A bit like life, really.)

The conundrum we face has to do with how to get the General Synod to agree on the admission of women to the episcopate (enable them to become bishops). As I have said before, we are being asked to square a circle and no outcome is guaranteed to succeed. In fact, every option before us might either work or not.

What is clear to me, however, is that if women are to be admitted to the episcopate, they must be fully bishops on the same basis as male bishops. A bishop is a bishop is a bishop. How to get there is the problem. At least, how to get there while providing opponents with security within the church.

The arguments have been well rehearsed, so I am not going to go into them again here. However, the bishops are wrestling with this with integrity and great seriousness. In the end, we will have to come to a conclusion and then put it to the General Synod in November and see what happens. At least we will have a decision. In the meantime, let no one cast aspersions on the seriousness with which the bishops are trying to address these issues for the sake of the church… which is there for the sake not of the church, but of the world.

This business can easily tend to dominate one's mental horizons. It is vital, therefore, to keep this stuff in perspective. Tomorrow is 9/11 – 11th September in English terms. The world is fraught with conflicts and tensions – and not all revolving around religion. The Church is called to model reconciliation to the wider world – evidence of who and how God is – and our debates need to recognise this. Bishops of any type will get us nowhere if the world we are called to serve is left to go to hell in a handcart because of our internal conflicts.

It seems to me that we have a rubicon to cross. Once crossed, the world might look a little different. We'll have to see whether it is crossable this time.

(And if recent silence seems suspicious or curious, it is simply because a burglary saw me without a computer, the replacement caused problems, then our IT system had serious 'issues'. Now I am away, I seem to be able to get back on track. More anon…)

Posted with Blogsy

 

Ahead of the debate…

Last week I agreed to provide the Times with a statement in response to questions about the future of the Church of England in the face of its current debates (plural). The intention was to offer a wider perspective from which to view where we have got to. It was intended for publication before the ‘women bishops’ debate, but was posted on Ruth Gledhill’s blog today. As agreed, she published it in full – and I am grateful. Had I written it today, I might have done it differently – in the light of what actually happened – so I will follow the quoted statement with further observations. Here is the statement:

The church does not need to be saved – other than in a theological sense. The current debates are happening because, rather than being indifferent, Anglicans take theology and church order seriously. Contrary to some opinions, this is not an unhealthy thing to do openly.

It is clear that the Church wants to be able to appoint women bishops. It is the duty of all bishops to seek the unity of the church and it is this attempt that is proving difficult. If the circle proves itself incapable of being squared, then the church will have to make painful decisions. However, it will then do so in the light of having explored every option – which is what pastoral leadership is all about.

The Church of England is unique in being reformed and catholic, and it is this ‘stretch’ that both gives it its unique breadth and greatest challenge. In a culture of fragmentation and selfishness, it also offers the possibility of modelling how, despite the real tensions, a community of difference can hold together. After all, Jesus called his disciples and didn’t give them a veto over who else could join them: their witness was in how they followed Jesus together, and not in their forced unanimity. Nothing has changed.

In this, as in other contentious matters, we will argue our cases, make our decisions and then move on. This generation is not unique in facing difficult judgements, so we should not get current debates out of proportion: no ‘crisis’ is ultimate. As with other issues, we engage with the realities of people’s lives and society’s challenges and changes; but the role of the church is not simply to ‘go with the flow’ of the wider world, but to question and challenge and, sometimes, appear stubborn. That will not change either – in relation to political issues, economic praxis or priorities, social movement or moral norms.

Fundamentally, the Church of England is rooted in a theology of resurrection. Endings are never the end. It is Christ’s church and we are called to remember this whenever we think it all depends on us. However, if things get even tougher, we will still wake up in the morning, take a breath and get on with the business from where we then find ourselves. This is not novel, but neither is it boring.

The confident leadership the church has had thus far – and will continue to need in the future – will  be rooted in a perspective such as that cited above. Such leadership needs to know when to speak and when to be silent, when to act and when to remain still… but always to pray. There is no reason why the church should not grow in confidence in the years to come, but this makes sense because of my final point…

Look at (a) any General Synod agenda and (b) what ordinary Christians are doing in and through their parish churches and institutions and it becomes clear that the issues that dominate the media do not dominate every waking moment of ordinary Anglicans. On the contrary, links with parishes and dioceses abroad, social action at local and regional level, deep commitment to children and young people in education, imaginative and creative outreach and evangelism – all these things go on every day, with the most vulnerable people in our society cared for, spoken for and supported… without being trumpeted. Only two contentious issues hit the media headlines while 99% of our service, concern and activity does not. Life will carry on.

Where we are now is this. The House of Bishops, which had been asked to be clear about the status of women in the episcopate whilst making proper provision for those opposed, had attempted to do so – and ended up pleasing no one (apparently). However, their role in amending the Measure was what the church requires of its bishops – who were trying in good faith to square a circle that no one else has managed to square thus far. The response was anticipated by some, but not by most. The response itself demanded further attention be given to the matter. Adjourning the debate was clearly the best outcome, but it still leaves the original question unanswered: how are we to satisfy two conflicting demands in a single legal clause? Simply dropping the offending amendment will not of itself resolve the issue as it is highly likely that the unamended Measure would still be defeated in the House of Laity on the grounds that inadequate protection was being offered to those opposed to women bishops. (And it is worth noting that ten or a dozen dioceses that voted for the draft legislation also passed following motions to this effect.)

We need to draw breath, look at it again, receive advice on how others might see the circle being squared, then return to it in November as a synod. But, we should be cuatious about responses such as that in the Guardian which stated that the Synod had ‘thrown out the bishops’ amendment’. It hadn’t. And returning with the same amendment is one of several options if no better way can be found to resolve the matter. It is to be hoped, of course, that a better way (or wording) might be found in the coming weeks or months.

However, behind all this it is important to remember that painful as all this is – to everyone – its outcome does not change the resurrection or the vocation of the church to live in the light of the resurrection every day. And in that light I, personally, pray we will open the way for women in the episcopate as soon as possible.