THE P RTAL
September 2016 Page 11
Facilitated Anglican conversations News or shared conversations
The Revd Paul Benfield gives us an eyewitness account of the CofE General Synod
When the first attempt at legislating for women bishops failed at final approval in November 2012 it was followed by a series of facilitated conversations which brought together those with differing views on the subject . These led to the relatively speedy passing of the second attempt at legislation to permit women bishops . This success led the powers that be to think that facilitated conversations ( or ‘ shared conversations ’ as they came to be called ) might assist the Church of England in its discussion about same sex relationships .
The difference between the two subjects , however , is great . Whereas most people could see that in the position that the Church of England had got to in 2013 , having had women priests for twenty years , a way had to be found to allow women bishops , but also to make adequate provision for those who could not for theological or ecclesiological reasons accept them . There is no such consensus regarding same sex relationships and no general view that a way must be found to allow the blessing of civil partnerships or the marriage of same sex couples .
Nevertheless , it was decided that shared conversations were to be held from Sunday lunchtime until Tuesday lunchtime in York in July , in time which would normally have been used for Synodical business . We were told that the conversations were not to decide how to proceed but that they would inform how we would behave when discussing the matter in the future . This led to fears expressed in some quarters that in fact this was all a ‘ softening up ’ process so that the passage of some liberal changes would be facilitated . This was not helped by the secrecy surrounding the planning of the conversations . The fact that we were to end with a plenary session increased the suspicion that there was to be some sort of conclusion reached . These fears proved unjustified .
Journalists and most of the synod staff were sent away from the campus and no fringe meetings were allowed during the conversations . This led to initial difficulties for those groups who like to meet for prayer during Synod as their requests to book rooms were initially declined . So the Catholic Group was told that it could not book a room at 10.00pm each night when we have traditionally met to say compline . Eventually sense prevailed and rooms were allocated .
We had input in plenary sessions from theologians and various gay people , but like most group activities , the usefulness of the activity depended on who was in the group and who the facilitator was . My group had no-one who expressed offensive or militant views one way or the other ( though some clearly held strong views ) and we were dogged by a rather dithering facilitator . I felt we would probably have got on better without him . Some people found the time spent useful , and clearly learned new things on different approaches to scripture . But I came away feeling that my time might have been better spent in two days ’ reading .
The College of Bishops will meet in September to consider the matter and the House of Bishops will decide in December what ( if anything ) to bring to the February Synod .
So , despite all the anxiety of many Synod members , and the hype in the press , nothing has changed as a result of the Shared Conversations .
ASSOCIATION OF CATHOLIC WOMEN
A BRIDGETTINE DAY to mark the canonisation of Mother Elisabeth Hessleblad
Bridgettine Guest House , Fulmer Common Road , Iver , Bucks . SL0 0NR www . bridgettineguesthouse . co . uk
Monday September 12th , 2016 Mass 12.45pm followed by lunch : please bring a contribution to a shared lunch . Freshly brewed coffee provided .
2.30pm St Birgitta and the Bridgettines : Fr Nicholas Schofield , followed by Rosary at the garden shrine
4pm Mother Elisabeth and the Bridgettine Revival : Mrs Joanna Bogle Benediction , Tea
No charge - donations welcome . Info : pattifordyce @ hotmail . com
How to get there : Tube : UXBRIDGE , then taxi ( 4 ¼ miles ) Rail : SLOUGH , then taxi ( 4½ miles )
AND : Save the date – ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING Saturday , October 8th 2016 - LONDON
THE
P RTAL
September 2016
Page 11
Anglican
Facilitated
conversations News
or shared conversations
The Revd Paul Benfield gives us an eyewitness account
of the CofE General Synod
When the
first attempt at legislating for women bishops failed at final approval in November 2012 it
was followed by a series of facilitated conversations which brought together those with differing views
on the subject. These led to the relatively speedy passing of the second attempt at legislation to permit women
bishops. This success led the powers that be to think that facilitated conversations (or ‘shared conversations’
as they came to be called) might assist the Church of England in its discussion about same sex relationships.
The difference between the two subjects, however,
is great. Whereas most people could see that in the
position that the Church of England had got to in
2013, having had women priests for twenty years,
a way had to be found to allow women bishops, but
also to make adequate provision for those who could
not for theological or ecclesiological reasons accept
them. There is no such consensus regarding same sex
relationships and no general view that a way must be
found to allow the blessing of civil partnerships or the
marriage of same sex couples.
Nevertheless, it was decided that shared conversations
were to be held from Sunday lunchtime until Tuesday
lunchtime in York in July, in time which would
normally have been used for Synodical business. We
were told that the conversations were not to decide
how to proceed but that they would inform how we
would behave when discussing the matter in the future.
This led to fears expressed in some quarters that in fact
this was all a ‘softening up’ process so that the passage
of some liberal changes would be facilitated. This was
not helped by the secrecy surrounding the planning of
the conversations. The fact that we were to end with a
plenary session increased the suspicion that there was
to be some sort of conclusion reached. These fears
proved unjustified.
Journalists and most of the synod staff were sent away
from the campus and no fringe meetings were allowed
during the conversations. This led to initial difficulties
for those groups who like to meet for prayer during
Synod as their requests to book rooms were initially
declined. So the Catholic Group was told that it could
not book a room at 10.00pm each night when we have
traditionally met to say compline. Eventually sense
prevailed and rooms were allocated.
We had input in plenary sessions from theologians
and various gay people, but like most group activities,
the usefulness of the activity depended on who was
in the group and who the facilitator was. My group
had no-one who expressed offensive or militant views
one way or the other (though some clearly held strong
views) and we were dogged by a rather dithering
facilitator. I felt we would probably have got on better
without him. Some people found the time spent useful,
and clearly learned new things on different approaches
to scripture. But I came away feeling that my time
might have been better spent in two days’ reading.
The College of Bishops will meet in September to
consider the matter and the House of Bishops will
decide in December what (if anything) to bring to the
February Synod.
So, despite all the anxiety of many Synod members,
and the hype in the press, nothing has changed as a
result of the Shared Conversations.
ASSOCIATION OF CATHOLIC WOMEN
A BRIDGETTINE DAY to mark the canonisation
of Mother Elisabeth Hessleblad
Bridgettine Guest House, Fulmer Common Road, Iver, Bucks. SL0 0NR
www.bridgettineguesthouse.co.uk
Monday September 12th, 2016
Mass 12.45pm followed by lunch: please bring a contribution to a shared lunch.
Freshly brewed coffee provided.
2.30pm 7B&�&v�GF�BF�R'&�FvWGF��W3�g"�6���266��f�V�B��f����vVB'�&�6'�BF�Rv&FV�6�&��P�G���F�W"VƗ6&WF��BF�R'&�FvWGF��R&Wf�fâ�'2����&�v�P�&V�VF�7F����FV���6�&vR�F��F���2vV�6��R���f�GF�f�&G�6T��F����6�Ф��rF�vWBF�W&S�GV&S�U�%$�DtR�F�V�F���B+�֖�W2��&�â4��Tt��F�V�F���L+�֖�W2���C�6fRF�RFFR( 2��T�tT�U$��TUD��p�6GW&F���7F�&W"�F�#b����D�ࠠ�