No #2 – Miranda Threlfall-Holmes

They keep on coming. After Simon Tillotson’s great explanation of his “No” vote, Miranda Threlfall-Holmes has responded to my request and has provided the following paragraph:

My vote certainly was not meant to be a vote against the uniqueness of Christ! I voted no to Paul Eddy’s motion because it seemed to me from the debate that as a Synod and as a Church we were in no doubt as to the uniqueness of Christ and about how to share that sensitively and appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts in the UK, and that therefore it was a waste of time and money commissioning a report on those things.

Once again, please comment below. I’ve invited Miranda to join in the thread if appropriate and I hope there’ll be the same kind of positive interaction with her as on Simon’s thread.

7 Comments on “No #2 – Miranda Threlfall-Holmes

  1. Miranda’s reply is especially helpful in showing observers not to pigeon hole General Synod members by how they vote. There are often very diverse motivations behind how Synod members vote.
    Why don’t you start a blog about the Women Bishops one? I am strongly, indeed passionately,  in favour of Women Bishops but voted against it going forward this time because I think the only option that could be workable is separate Dioceses, sad as this is.
    Really glad to have discovered your blog

    • Given the number of people who voted no on Women Bishops, the exercise we’re currently engaged in would be infeasible. That said, you do raise an interesting point, that there are plenty in Synod who are in favour of consecrating women, but only if adequate provision is made for traditionalists. I also know of a number of members who, though opposed to women’s consecration have abstained in the votes. Given that the “Yes” vote is currently hovering around the 68% mark and that a two thirds majority is likely to be needed to get the women bishop’s motions eventually passed, they may still fail.

        • I can’t see how Women Bishops will make the Agenda in July. The deadline for submissions to the Revision Committee is some time in March, and they then have to meet as often as necessary to deal with all the submissions – and there will be scores – all of which can be presented by the people who have submitted them. Then they have to agree on a report and amended Measure to put before Synod. I doubt we will see it again before next February.

          We are certainly in an odd situation regarding Women Bishops. Peter is right to say that there are those who are in favour but are only prepared to vote ‘yes’ if adequate provision is made. There are others who are in favour but who might well vote ‘no’ if they feel that the legislation creates a ‘second class’ of bishops – and for two separate reasons: equality, but also a Catholic understanding of what a bishop is. If you look at +Beverley’s speech about why only separate structures will do, you realise that his arguments cut both ways.

          Actually, strike ‘odd situation’ and substitute ‘complete mess’…

          • Thanks Justin
            As a newcomer to Synod (I was voted in  when a vacancy arose fifteen months ago) I think we would have been better to have spent longer on the whole matter this year than we have. All the best !   Simon

  2. Getting back to the theme of this post and Miranda’s ‘no’ vote – I think her explanation is fantastic! Sadly, as with many large not-for-profit organisations, there’s a danger for the Church to waste money on all kinds of stuff, not least on commissioning reports about issues that are clear cut according to both the Bible and the creeds/articles/etc that underpin the church. One could even take Miranda’s explanation a little further and say “thank goodness we’ve not got to fuss over yet another waffley church report”!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.