"Synod members may be leaning towards reinstatement, sources say"
Actually, the Press quotes only one source.
However I am not going to dispute that the way the pre Synod conversations and information sharing is going, the case for reinstatement as an affordable option is building.
Bishop Victoria Matthews herself wrote to the Diocese last Wednesday these words, cited in the Press article:
"I do not have any sense of how Synod will vote about the Cathedral nor am I worried. Every option has certain things to recommend it and I would be able to support any of the three options. Some of you will know this is due largely to the increased gift from the Government and CCC which eliminates the need for fundraising by the Diocese."
However I think Synod will be hearing from its members arguments for each of the three options before us: reinstatement, new build, giving the building and land away.
(We will also consider whether to admit as a late motion or not a proposal from one of our clerical members which would be a fourth option, a mix of reinstatement and new build for the east end.)
I think we are all wary of making a prediction about what the outcome will be. Not least because synods have the power to take a submitted motion and amend it etc. Amendments can be painful but incredibly useful in allowing Synod to edge its way towards a united decision.
Incidentally, the Press article is wrong on one matter. It talks about how synods vote:
"The synod is chaired by the bishop and members normally vote in three houses with a yea or nay verbal vote. The bishop has one vote, the clergy have one vote and lay members have one vote. A decision is passed if it has the support of two or more of the three votes."
This is not so. Only when a voice or show of hands vote is taken does a simple majority prevail. When we vote by houses each house has to vote for a motion for it to pass. It does not pass if only 2/3 houses vote for it.
The Press is correct when it goes on to say that Synod will consider a different way of voting, at least in respect of a preliminary vote for one preferred option. However this proposal has to be agreed by the Synod and I am expecting a debate on whether we should or should not vote in this particular way.
I will attempt to keep you posted through this week, until Friday morning. Likely I will not post about the debate (Friday) until the vote (Saturday) has been taken.
Right, I need to get on to some powerpoints to show when I introduce the discussion at Synod about same-sex blessings ...
Peter, regarding your indication that you, personally, will be introducing the debate on 'You-Know-What', Will there be any room for debate from non-members on the floor of Synod? And when will this item come up on the agenda?
By the way, I thought Charlie Gates' heading for his article in today's Press was a little misleading. After all, one source hardly indicates a trend. One swallow does not indicate a summer. However, the press can have an undie influence in shaping opinions. I think it was unfortunate.
I think it is Friday evening. (Obviously subject to how A Certain Other Debate goes re time consumption!!
I assume the usual rules of Synod will apply, i.e. those with speaking rights can speak :)
That is eloquent Kiwiese for "don't count your chickens ...!"
Post a Comment