More than two hundred members had indicated a wish to speak, and those few who had the opportunity to do so spoke well - from their set positions. When a number of people speak well from set positions on a topic as emotive as this, it usually means the debate is a dialogue of the deaf. General Synod has a predisposition to speak from set positions. Its members are not noticeably keen, or able, to listen to other viewpoints with the openness to be challenged or persuaded, or even encouraged, by the expression of opinions different from their own. They carry their set positions in knapsacks which protect their backs and which they simultaneously use as weapons of close-quarter combat to promote the closedness of their minds.
Writing while the debate was still in progress, I realised that, whichever way the vote went, SoFists in the Church of England would be increasingly on its margins.
If the vote was "No" there would be rampant triumphalism on the part of those opposed to the ordination of women as priests - and renewed determination on the part of its supporters to get the issues passed next time it came before Synod. If the vote was "Yes", supporters would want to push on to the ordination of women as bishops, while at the same time needing to demonstrate that they are not 'way out', feminist, earth-mother, druid etc., so as not to alienate support for their next campaign. For both groups, a "Yes" vote would have the effect of causing them to 'tread carefully' as they try to pave a new walkway of traditional, historical, theological thought.
In the event, General Synod voted to proceed with the legislation. To all that has already appeared in the secular and church press I only want to add that I strongly support the ordination of women as priests and bishops as a matter of justice.
A very important link-word with justice is reconciliation - and that is now a primary consideration on the agenda of the bishops.
I am lcd to ponder, however, on what degree of justice and reconciliation is shown towards those members not only of the Church of England but of all the churches and religious societies who find themselves on the margins of these institutions.
I suggest there will be a lot of 'treading carefully' by those on both sides of the debate. I do not want to suggest that SoFists should adopt any sort of similar style. But we should perhaps take note (at least if we arc in the Church of England) that a general desire - a subconscious need - for bonding by the two factions will induce them to use as scapegoats other minorities in relation to which they can take a common attitude, and against whom they can make common cause.
Any forward thinking will have to be done outside - or, at best, on the margins of - formal Christian organisations.
There will be little to be found in bodies like General Synod, or among those influenced by General Synod thinking.
Stephen Warnes is a parish priest in Kent and formerly lectured in African studies at the University of Natal. He is currently chair of the SoF steering committee.