NO ONE knew the power of stories better than our Lord. He often
employed them instead of giving a direct answer to a pointed
question ("'Who is my neighbour?' And Jesus answering said, 'A
certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. . .'"). The
General Synod's resolve to improve the Church's record on
safeguarding was strengthened immeasurably by its listening to the
stories of victims. No longer is it possible to hold children and
adults responsible in some way for making themselves vulnerable, or
to dismiss the life-threatening harm that abuse can cause.
On the issue of women bishops, we hope that much of the time
that Synod members spent in their small groups on Saturday was
devoted to telling stories, so that all could understand the
grounds upon which those on the other side of the debate had built
their position. We were not able to attend the group meetings to
find out, but we did hear the two stories told by the Archbishop of
Canterbury in his presidential address on the Friday. He recounted
the story of the director of ordinands who said he would have
blocked a candidate's progress had he known his traditionalist
views; and referred to "horrendous accounts" of the treatment of
women priests. Stories humanise what might otherwise be abstract
issues. They can also expose illogicalities and absurdities in a
non-confrontational way.
If we were to devise an indication that the small groups had had
an effect, beyond an unquantifiable lightening of the discourse, it
would have looked something like what we saw in Monday's debate. At
this stage, when nothing stands or falls by the votes, there was an
increase in support for moves that shore up the traditionalist
position. We should not expect to see any evidence of an equivalent
softening among the traditionalists: the starting point of this
debate was far from what they have been asking for, as was its end
point. The demands on their charity might well come later in the
process. For this reason, it would be premature to make any
assumption about the final vote based on this week's record. The
solid support for the Bishop of Dover's successful amendment,
introducing a mandatory grievance procedure, was, none the less,
instructive. Against what standard will grievances be judged? And
how big a gap is there in the Synod's mind between "mandatory" and
"legislative"?
For the present, however, the commitment to further facilitated
conversations is to be welcomed. It would be good, at some point,
to take as read the competing tales of hurts received, however
severe, and move on to the stories that exist - we believe in
greater number - of mutual respect, humility, patience, and a
commitment to work together to reduce differences.