Simon Says ...

Synod began, more or less, in silence as we remembered the 21 Coptic Christians martyred in Libya for their Christian faith on the anniversary of their death.   An important moment.   There was little silence thereafter, as we moved into the normal pattern of debates and presentations.   February was a relatively short Synod, across three days.   It was the first meeting of the newly elected Synod other than the short gathering for its inauguration last November.   This means that there were lots of maiden speeches, lots of new voices to listen to. It means that we the newly elected Prolocutors of Canterbury and York (the chairs of the House of Clergy) and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the House of Laity were presented to us.   It feels like the new Synod is still being run in. Business started with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address .   This was mostly about the Primate’s meeting, and was clear and helpful.   He spoke of...

From General Synod Reports of Proceedings, July 2013, p. 168: Revd Canon Dr Simon Taylor (Derby):  I realize that this makes all too apparent divisions within the diocese of Derby and I trust that those relations can stand this – and, Peter, I will buy you a drink later! – but I wish to oppose my colleague’s amendment, and I do so as a new member of this Synod, elected after the debacle of last November. I wish to oppose because relying on this old legislation does not speak of what many have described as a new start, a new way of taking this proposal forward. The 1993 Act of Synod is not the basis of anything new. It carries far too much of the baggage that the Archbishop of Canterbury in his presidential address urged us to ditch, and I urge Synod to reject it.

Below is my speech from General Synod this morning.  It relates to Clause 2 of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination ofWomen) Measure (GS1925A) . At the end of my speech I withdrew my amendment , as it would have created legal problems that were probably insuperable. It is reproduced below for the record and for the sake of transparency. Thank you chair. First of all may I say that I am wholeheartedly in support of the ordination of people of all genders to the episcopate. However, I am troubled by the second clause of the draft Measure before us that offers a blanket removal of bishops from the terms of the Equalities Act 2010.  There is some irony in the fact that in order to bring greater equality to the Church of England, we need to find an exemption from the Equalities Act.  That irony should at least give us pause. However, I am troubled by clause 2.  It troubles me that this is not the best way to proceed.  It also tro...

I want you to imagine for a moment that the Dean of Derby preached this morning, a sermon of erudite and orthodox Anglican theology.  Then this evening, along comes the reforming Canon Chancellor and purports to correct, nay to refute the Dean’s teaching, accusing him of popish heresy and of ignoring the Scriptures.  And that this is a pattern that overall continues for several years.  This is, of course, not what is happening here tonight.  I do not stand here to refute the Dean’s heresies.  Rather I stand here to speak of a man for whom this experience of sermon and counter-sermon was a regular occurrence.  The man is Richard Hooker, and he has come to be seen as the greatest apologist for Anglicanism, and even by some as the inventor of Anglicanism! To understand how this came about, we must look a little at what had happened to the Church of England in his lifetime.  Richard Hooker was born in Heavitree near Exeter ...

A sermon for the Chrism Eucharist,  Diocese of Derby, Maundy Thursday 2013. 1 Samuel 17.31-33, 37-40 ; John 19.1-5 It had been a hard Lent.  The APCM, the annual church meeting, had not been able to ask a question about the flag we flew in the churchyard without it feeling to me like it had been asked using a baseball bat.  Then, on Low Sunday, I was speaking with a friend of a friend, a retired priest who knew something of what had happened.  “You need to cultivate the skin of a rhinoceros”, he told me.  I think it was possibly the worst piece of advice I was ever given as a parish priest. Our first reading this morning tells us of David being unable to function in the armour of King Saul.   ‘I cannot walk with these’, David complains, ‘for I am not used to them’.   Saul’s armour was good armour.   It protected the king, it identified him as king and conveyed his importance.   Saul’s armour was of no use to Da...