We always knew that the composition of this Synod would be crucial, so it is hardly surprising that we are seeing anxiety and speculation. I remember that the different sides were recruiting supporters in July. I had to explain to one or two people that a. my job does not allow me to have the time off that is required and b. I was present at Synod as an exhibitor, but I am not currently an official member of the Church of England, not being on any electoral roll.
Now the reports have been published and there are claims of a recruitment of evangelicals to the new synod ensuring that 66% of the clergy, and almost 36% of the laity would vote against legislation if all that was offered was a code of practice. ( if you remember, the legislation in favour of greater provisions for those opposed to women bishops was only narrowly defeated in the House of Clergy in July.) However, this press statement from WATCH seems to suggest that the situation is not so clear cut, although how far this may be wishful thinking is yet unclear.
Damian Thompson suggests that the Bishop of Fulham's departure for Rome may be premature; I think not as I suspect that some opposed are leaving for the Ordinariate because they cannot accept women bishops at any price.
Meanwhile, Rod Thomas of Reform, has released this document describing the "increasingly uncertain" future of those opposed to women's ministry. He seems to give further credence to the likelihood that there will be an evangelical equivalent to the Anglo Catholic society St Wilfred and St Hilda, obviously for those opposed to women bishops on the grounds of male headship rather than sacramental assurance. Julian Mann (Cranmer's Curate) writes of the society having as its basis a group of about twenty Gafcon-supporting churches and saying this could be set up before 2012. Mann also says that they would bring in some missionary bishops to show that the new society means business. It looks like they are going to attempt that manly thrust after all!
Finally, my attention was particularly caught by this sentence in the Reform document,
"We must encourage people to keep offering themselves for the ordained ministry for as long as it is possible."
Presumably by "people" Reform actually means "men"? I am assuming they do and that this was an error, as otherwise the implication would be that Reform do not consider women to be "people"?
I hope they are not going to go back to the days of debate about whether women have souls...