"It was recognised in those conversations (of the new working group) that a different mode of discourse was now needed, to avoid the mistake of expecting Synodical processes to be able to carry all the weight. "
It is quite clear that whatever legislation is placed before Synod will be unsatisfactory either to traditionalists opposed to women bishops or to those in favour and so will be in danger of not being voted in. Perhaps the Church will say, "We have to have women bishops. These are the three proposals on the table. One is more suited to traditionalists, one more suited to those campaigning for women bishops, one is a middle way. You can vote for which you prefer, or you can abstain. The way with the most votes wins. Period."
Such a solution would, of course, have its own serious pitfalls, not least the danger of split votes, very close votes and of something voted in that the majority in the church had not agreed to. Really a simpler option might to change the way Synod works and not require a two-thirds majority and I wonder if this is what is being considered? One thing is sure and that is that creative and genuinely new ways forward need to be found if there is not to be a repeat of November's fiasco.