After the February General Synod I presented quite a lengthy voting analysis. This offers a shorter reflection on what we can see from the now published voting sheets from November. What is obvious simply from comparing the votes on the final motions is that the vote was even closer and the Synod is now even more divided in all 3 Houses:
| House | Feb Vote | Nov Vote | Feb Maj | Nov Maj |
| Bishops | 36-4-2 (90% to 10%) | 23-10-4 (69.7% to 30.3%) | 32 | 13 |
| Clergy | 111-85-3 (56.6% to 43.4%) | 100-93-1 (51.8% to 48.2%) | 26 | 7 |
| Laity | 103-92-5 (52.8% to 47.2%) | 104-100-0 (51% to 49%) | 11 | 4 |
| Total | 250-181-10(58% to 42%) | 227-203-5(52.8% to 47.2%) | 69 | 24 |
But what about else can we say in the light of Synod’s voting?
Voting on Amendments
The following are some of the noteworthy features of the voting on various amendments:
The Bishop of Durham proposed that rather than referring to “progress made” by the bishops the motion should speak simply of “work and consultation undertaken”. This was defeated because the bishops rejected it (11-23-2) but it was passed by both clergy (95-94-2) and laity (101-90-6). Without a vote by Houses this would have been a tie (207-207). This might be seen as the bishops marking their own homework (or even a candidate vetoing the negative judgment of their two examiners) or, as one Ugandan bishop commented on being told of this way of voting and its outcome, “That is like allowing a monkey to judge the banana competition.” These figures showed early in the debate how divided the Synod was, the gap between the bishops and the other two houses, and how, although the bishops were strongly backing the motion, there was now a much larger group than in February (13 here, all conservative) not supporting the House’s proposals. Of the 207 who supported the failed amendment, 20 (8 clergy and 12 laity) nevertheless supported the final motion.
The next vote (a proposal by Neil Patterson, Co-Chair of the General Synod Gender and Sexuality Group, to remove reference to GS2328) showed that a similar number of bishops were unhappy from a revisionist perspective (13 supporting this and 1 abstaining). It also signalled the number strongly unhappy from that perspective among the clergy (83 with 99 against and 6 abstaining) and laity (86 with 106 against and 5 abstaining) although only 8 (4 clergy and 4 laity) who supported the amendment then opposed the final motion.
The Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham’s attempt to bring together the prayers and the whole guidance showed again 12 bishops supporting (25 against and 2 abstaining) and the vote was particularly close among the laity (lost 92-93) with the support of similar number of clergy (80, with 97 against and 1 abstention) as supported Patterson but here from a conservative perspective suggesting there is a similar sized strong core on each side of the “too far” and “not far enough” divide among clergy. Only 4 members (all laity) who supported this amendment then supported the final motion.
A proposal from Vaughan Roberts not to commend until structural provision was agreed had very similar levels of support as the vote on the pastoral guidance among bishops (13-26-1) and clergy (81-103-4) but more opponents among laity (90-102-1). Only 2 supporters of the amendment supported the final motion.
The only amendment to pass by a recorded vote in Synod was that of the Bishop of Oxford seeking to reintroduce “standalone services”. Unsurprisingly, given this was reversing the House’s decision on October 9th (reportedly by 19 votes to 16 following encouragement by the Archbishop of Canterbury not to go with the vote in the College reportedly 68-28 but instead to go straight to B2), this was a tighter vote with the largest minority of bishops in any vote: 16 against and 25 (including both Archbishops and the Bishop of London) for. One of the new Co-Chairs of the Steering Group voted for (Newcastle) and one against (Leicester). Among the clergy it was supported by 101 to 94 with 1 abstention (a pointer to the final clergy vote on the motion which was 100-93-1) and among the laity it was as close as possible (99-98-2). Interestingly, 2 of those for this amendment (Salisbury clergy and Lichfield Laity) then voted against the final motion (one of whom had voted against in February) and 1 for the amendment (the Archbishop of Canterbury) abstained in the final vote. On the other side, 3 who voted against the amendment (another Salisbury clergy and laity from Derby and Eds&Ips, all supporters of Feb motion) then supported the final motion with 4 opponents finally abstaining (3 bishops and 1 clergy). The two lay members who abstained (Canterbury and Non-Diocesan) both voted for the final motion and their voting pattern was not conservative-leaning on other amendments.
Another bishop (Guildford) then sought to bring the prayers forward under B2 rather than by commendation. This again confirmed a solid body of about 1/3 of the bishops sharing this perspective (13-27-1) and more support than for other conservative amendments among the clergy albeit a clear minority (90-103) as in the laity (93-104-3). Only 1 of the 196 members supporting this amendment then supported the final motion (a Leicester lay person).
A proposal from Sam Margrave that the bishops “encourage transparency and openness” was unsurprisingly rejected by the bishops (6-24-7 though with both Archbishops abstaining) and also by the clergy (81-99-7) but supported narrowly by the laity (97-94-8).
The final amendment came again from the Bishop of Durham and called for “firm provision that provides a clear way of distinguishing different views and seeks to ensure that all God’s people are able to recognise those with whom they disagree (as well as those with whom they agree) as God’s gift to one another within the family of God”. Many thought this might be accepted by the Bishop of London but she resisted it, apparently concerned that if it passed then revisionists might join conservatives in voting down the final motion. This had the tightest vote among the bishops (14-19-2) with both Archbishops abstaining, both the new co-Chairs supporting it, and 8 bishops voting at other times during the Synod absent from the vote. It was also the narrowest defeat of an amendment among clergy (88-90-9) but one of the biggest defeats among the laity (86-105-10). 8 supporters of the amendment proceeded to vote for the final motion despite its defeat (the Bishop of Newcastle, 4 clergy and 3 laity) while 10 opponents of the amendment (9 lay, mainly conservative probably objecting to the language of recognising others as “God’s gift…within the family of God”) voted against the final motion. Comparing this with the different but similar defeated Roberts amendment about provision shows:
| Bishops | Clergy | Laity | |
| For both | 17 | 96 | 101 |
| For Roberts, Against Durham | 7 | ||
| For Durham, Against Roberts | 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Against both | 27 | 107 | 115 |
The Final Vote
The final vote, as noted, was significantly closer in all 3 Houses than it was in February. It is interesting to look at individual votes, the effect of new members, and the vote by Houses in each Diocese and to compare that to the voting in February.
Shifting Stances?
Looking at individuals who voted in both February and November there has been limited change apart from among the bishops.
Among the bishops voting For in February, in November 3 of them abstained (Canterbury, Chester and Leicester) and 4 voted against (Durham, Chichester, Rochester and Sheffield) with 6 not voting (Hereford, Leeds, Lichfield, St Albans, Truro/Winchester and Warrington, likely fairly evenly divided between supporters and opponents given their voting record overall and at least two of these were absent due to an audience with the King). There were 20 bishops who voted for both motions and 4 who voted against both (Guildford, Islington, Lancaster, Southwell & Nottingham).
The clergy vote held pretty constant – 10 voting for in February did not vote this time, 1 from the Channel Islands abstained and 1 (from Salisbury) voted against but 93 voted for in February and again in November. There was also one February opponent (from Rochester) who supported the proposals in November and 2 who didn’t vote, leaving 77 opposing on both votes. All three clergy who abstained in February (Hereford, Leeds and Southwark) are now opposed.
The shift among the laity was slightly larger with 5 February supporters moving to vote against (2 from Salisbury and 1 each in Derby, Leicester and Eds&Ips), 2 not voting and 95 remaining supportive. There was only 1 move from opposition to support (Leicester) and 1 non-vote but 86 opposed in both sessions. As with clergy, the “middle ground” shifted against with 3 February abstentions (Guildford, London and Southwark) becoming opponents and only 1 (Oxford) moving to support.
New Members
There were 29 new members of Synod in November who were not members in February – 3 bishops, 14 clergy and 12 laity – although only 23 of these voted.
Among the bishops, Joanne Grenfell and Julie Conalty who filled vacant suffragan places from February, both voted for both the Oxford amendment and the final motion while Stephen Race who replaced Philip North as an elected suffragan opposed both, Philip North having abstained in February on the final vote. Three more conservative bishops who voted For (Carlisle and Woolwich) or Abstained (Coventry) in February are no longer members of the House and have not been replaced.
Among the new clergy, one (from Europe) did not vote while 8 were against both Oxford and the final motion (their predecessors being 4 for and 3 against the Feb motion) and 5 were for both (their predecessors being split 2-2 in February). This means that the 8-5 vote against in November among new clergy was a significant shift from the 6-5 vote for the motion in February among their predecessors. 3 new members voting against replaced members voting for (Oxford, Southwark, Truro) with 2 new voting for while their predecessor was against (Europe, Truro).
Only 7 of the new laity voted in November (5 of the 6 new non-diocesan members didn’t vote) and they were 4-3 in favour of the final motion (though 4-3 against Oxford’s amendment). Interestingly this represents an opposite shift from that among the clergy towards supporting the bishops’ plans as their predecessors had voted 3 against and 1 for (with 1 abstention and 1 non-vote) on the February motion. Two representatives (from Exeter and Southwell & Nottingham) voted for having replaced someone who voted against.
Diocesan (and 2 non-Diocesan) Groups
As set out more fully in an Appendix, if one looks at the 42 diocesan clergy and lay groups (and the group of those not elected by the dioceses and the group representing the Channel Islands) the differences between and within dioceses becomes clear as does the increased opposition to the proposals.
There are now 21 dioceses where clergy support the bishops and 16 which are opposed (compared to 24 and 10 last time). Not surprisingly, the laity are even more divided with 19 dioceses having a majority of lay representative for and 19 having a majority against (again this reflects a move towards rejection as the figures were 19 for and 16 against in February).
If the vote in each diocese is compared for both Houses then 10 dioceses had both supporting the motion with 9 showing both against and 22 (24 including the non-diocesan groups) having different outcomes in each House. Combining the votes to see the majority among all Synod representatives reveals 16 dioceses voting against, 20 (plus also 2 non-diocesan groups) for and 6 tied.
There are also some dioceses where a bishop is prominently and strongly of one view but the Synod reps clearly of the other including London (with its Synod members 8-3 against in both Houses), Oxford and York.
Read it all at Psephizo
