Well, the meetings came and went, and today I am relaxing at home. Meetings of one kind or another dominated my life last week, meaning that I didn't get a complete homily written for Sunday. The Bishop was taking the 10:30 AM service, so anything I prepared was only for the 8:15 said Eucharist. I feel a little embarrassed to think that I put less effort into preparation when I am not preaching at the main service, but that is often the reality.

Our Synod was "interesting," in the Chinese sense. (Ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.) Several motions were presented from the Essentials side of the diocese, at least two of which were clearly aimed at the debate over same-sex unions which is scheduled to come up at General Synod next June. The Bishop ruled that voting on these motions would be by secret ballot and by orders. The two motions in question both failed, receiving majority votes in the laity, and TIE votes in the clergy.

As might be suspected, some lay people went away very angry because the clergy had thwarted their will. It has happened before, and it will happen again, but that's the way we make decisions.

The question I am left with is this: should we still be making important decisions in a adversarial framework? Winners and losers have no place in the church -- only Christ loses whenever we draw lines in the sand. However, if not this system, then what? And to that I have no answer.

Our parish vestry functions largely by consensus. Motions follow discussion, once we seem to be agreed on course of action. We have not had a dissenting vote at vestry for years. But in a Synod, where there are many motions and little time, there is no opportunity to build consensus within the framework of the meeting.

We need -- for Christ's sake -- to find a better way.