There has been a press release by the Catholic group FIF, and by Anglican Mainstream on behalf of Anglo Catholics and evangelicals which suggests a desire to overturn yesterday's decision. The basis of their objections will be that the vote would not have carried if the vote had not been by house, it was overturned in the house of clergy by only five votes, and this is an issue of such significance. WATCH has already issued a statement saying it is disappointed that these groups are aiming to overturn the due process of Synod.
One of my commenters asked if the Archbishops' authority has been damaged by Synod choosing to vote against them. I do not think so. Rowan Williams made it clear that voting for or against these proposals was not a loyalty test, many spoke of the reluctance with which they took that decision, but most of all it is the role of Synod to scrutinise legislation and act impartially.
I do think that Rowan Williams in particular is harrowed by the divisions in the Church of England and by the criticisms directed at his leadership. I think we saw this in John Sentamu's remarks against his detractors in his address yesterday. Williams genuinely has a heart for everyone in the Church, and nobody wants to be the person in charge if and when the Church breaks apart. I suppose he will take small comfort from the fact that the Church really is attempting the impossible in trying to keep everyone happy, or even on board, in the debates over women bishops and sexuality.
As I said in my last post, there IS provision for those opposed to women's ministry ; it may be a compromise, but it is far from being nothing. The provision is not ungenerous, but, as has been said by others, it does rely on trust and faith in each other - the simple fact is that there is not enough of that around.
Headaches and heartaches continue...