Perhaps the saddest sight at the so-called "Sacred Synod" was seeing the Master General of SSC commending something which in his heart he knows is doomed.  Many have tried to point out how the "Society Model" of which he spoke is bound to fail.  Fr Hunwicke has recently dealt with the entire matter very succinctly, with his customary polished scalpel.   But none of the proponents of the "Society Model" was prepared to give the history of previous attempts at a similar solution.

It was left to WATCH (the group which I tend to think of as 'Women Against the Church') to remind us.  Here is what they said:

The “Society model” (which this proposal seems to embody), was discussed in depth by the Revision Committee when it looked at how best to provide for those who would not accept women as bishops. It was rejected because, ‘Crucially the majority of us came to believe that there was some risk of creating a society that was an even weightier body than a Diocese. This was because some of the representations made to us seemed to envisage that jurisdiction would in some way be conferred on the society itself and through it to its bishops… we therefore voted by 11 votes to 7 that we did not wish the draft Measure to be amended to give effect to a society model.’

(Report of the Revision Committee, page 22 paras 110, 115)

Of course,  they fail  to say that the Revision Committee itself was packed; but so it will be if  these proposals should come back — and General  Synod will inevitably throw them out again.  That will leave the 'Society Modellers' with only one choice: to submit to General Synod and accept women as bishops, or to act illegally.  Since its supporters are all establishment figures, there is little chance of such a necessary rebellion.  At best, the Society of SS Wilfrid and Hilda will do no more that delay the inevitable by a few months.

What WATCH goes on to say is just hilarious.

How sad that the example given by St Hilda in her obedience to a decision concerning the ordering of her church is ignored by those using her name, who are themselves unwilling to accept the decision made by the Revision Committee and endorsed by the General Synod.

WATCH are presuming to ally Hilda with their nefarious politicking — see how they speak, not of  THE Church, but of 'her church'.   They then go on to equate 'her church' with the doings of "the Revision Committee endorsed by General  Synod".  Come off it, WATCH: a tribal gathering of a tiny group of Christians in an offshore island is not and cannot be the Church as Hilda understood it.  What you are speaking of is just your churchlette (or maybe church-lite) defined not as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic but as "The Revision Committee endorsed by General  Synod".

Chichester, Tanner & Houlding

The one person who recognised this at the "Sacred Synod" was Dame Mary Tanner, doyenne of every ecumenical attempt over the past half-century.  She recalled how decisions to ordain women in the C of E or elsewhere in the Anglican Communion were provisional until 'Reception' had happened.  She must, though, be about the only person left who believes that the Church of England or TEC  would ever admit that they might have been wrong in ordaining women to the Priesthood or Episcopate.

A Footnote: many years ago  there was a great scandal in England: it concerned the leader of a political party and a woman known as a "Society Model".  She was Christine Keeler.  She comes to my mind's eye whenever anyone speaks of Society Models…  perhaps I should go to confession.

Related posts:

1. Reaction from Forward in Faith
2. More Reaction to the Revision Committee's Decision
3. No Alternative Oversight for Faithful Anglicans
4. "A Great Piece of Wickedness"
5. DEUS Synod