The Primus thanks members of synod for this meeting, retiring conveners and ecumenical friends who have come to the synod. Thanks chairs and the Indaba design group. Thanks his assessor, Paul Romano. Kennedy and David Fraser for IT, me for twittering, Cursillo for doing the tea and coffee and the Church Officers here at Palmerston place.

Thanks are expressed to John Stuart and the members of the Synod Staff whom the Primus describes as Brand Leaders in the Loaves and Fishes business.

He confirms the Acts of Synod, a hymn is sung and Synod ends for another year.

There will be a phased reintroduction of Building Grants.

3% increase in quota is proposed and expectation is that deficit will be eliminated.

Michael Lugton: previously it has been reported that the board should consider Banking on Bloodshed. A member of the Board has been to a conference on Banking on Justice. The Board has in March this year considered this matter. The fundamental question is the extent that the church wishes to look at relationship between finance and discipleship. Should consideration be given to placing funds away from mainstream banks? There is a good deal of interest across the church. Brechin Diocese is considering this. Some pratical difficulties in relying on banks without an extensive banking network. Also charity trustees have a responsibility to seek best returns.

A prior question is how the core values of our church can be defined in order to make a distinction betwen what is ethical and what is not. Board has not felt able to make any specific recommendation but believes there is a case to consider this further and the Board has resolved to ask the Mission and Ministry Board to ask that Church in Society Committee might be invited to consider this further. This committee has agreed to consider this in the coming year.

John Armes: deacons are part of the three historic orders. In our system, a deacon remains a deacon but most become priests. Our system of recruitment is not disposed to discerning the vocations of those who feel called to a vocational diaconate.

Working group has come to the view that this matters.

SEC is part of Porvoo which has a committment to work to a common understanding of diaconia. Working group was set up to respond to Oslo Consultation.

Bishop Mark speaks of the vocations day in his diocese at which 120 people turned up. 40 came to next and then it was down to 25. Series of days were spent looking at diaconate. Currently there are still people exploring this.

John Armes – this dialogue is a response to ecumenical partners and people approaching bishops who have diaconal vocations.

Darren McFarland: The new Service of the Word is now being licensed for experimental use with comments due back by Decemeber 2012. General Synod 2013 will consider what is hoped to be a final text.

This will be tested out in a focused way by two churches in each diocese chosen by the bishops.These congregations will get some extended support from the Liturgy Committee. Others can use it too.

The text will be used at clergy conferences, Glenalmond, training events etc.

Work on new Eucharistic Rite has not progressed so far. There has been some engagement with liturgical scholars. Liturgy Committee have reservations about an entirely new Eucharistic Rite. Now they are looking at a revision of the 1982 service – addition Eucharistic Texts and new material are probably needed rather than an entirely new rite. There is a love and affection for the 1982 liturgy and it seems people want to keep using it.

Have there been sizable shifts in liturgy and theology in last 25 or 30 years – this needs to be thought about before making new major revisions.

Next Anglican Liturgy Conference will be in Canterbury and will be considering rites relating to marriage and death.

motion is put and carried with 2 abstentions. We are now in communion with the Church of Denmark.

EMU has been reviewing its way of working. Do they need a more pro-active way of responding to events. Church leaders to meet once a year? Another implimentation group to meet more often? More will be discussed this year.

Scottish Churches House, Dunblane – we have tried to find a way forward in a way which would allow all voices to be heard.

+David speaks of complicated history of Scottish Churches House. There had been a process of transferring management to a new management body. It became clear that was not going to happen and it became clear that it was not economically viable.

Trustees then presented a series of proposals to the members. (+David is the person who votes for us). +David voted against proposal to sell and so it did not go through. The lease was then put open to tender. The more we thought about it the less we were happy about it – not much gain to the ecumenical movement to tie up house for 25 years or more.

Next Wedneday there is a meeting of members and trustees facilitated by Cecilia Clegg to look at all the options for the future next Wedneday.

Was planned to be in central America but it ended up being in Dublin.
What holds the communion together is very flimsy – the Instruments of Communion
+++Coggan in 1978 invited the Primates together in 1978 for leisurely thought, prayer and conversation.

Secretary General says number of those who did not attend over principle was 7 or 8. The majority did come and had a rich and intense 6 day meeting.

Facilitated by a team led by Cecilia Clegg – now on staff at University of Edinburgh

Important issue was governance. Primates’ Meeting had moved in a direction of taking decisions – exercising authority that it once did not have. There is a huge resistance to that.

Primates concluded that they need to journey together in honest conversation to further the reign of God.

Primates cannot sign up to things that they cannot deliver at home. Our Primus cannot act without regard for collegiality. Primates who were present regard themselves as people who must and do act collegially. Some have more authority than our Primus – others less. They are people who do not make independent decisions.

Some of those who absented themselves may have been people who did not see collegiality as a key understanding of their leadership.

There is a clash of cultures of leadership.

Primus: my task is to be the person who helps SEC to relate to central bodies of the Anglican Communion. Task is to set out the context in which the SEC looks at the Covenant. Does not think in itself that it is unreasonable to have a document setting out what our commnunion is.

As a missional community, Anglicanism has been successful. Bonds of affection are perhaps not enough to hold us together. Covenant arises from Windsor report which followed the appointment of Gene Robinson.

In many of our churches there are 2 pics. Baptism in Stonehaven Gael and Consecration of Seabury. Latter was a great moment in Anglican Communion. We were at heart of move to create independent provinces in commuion.

We are deeply involved in communion life – we will remain so even if we say no to covenant. Formal levels and informal. Lambeth Conference, ACC and also diocesan links.

Intention of covenant is to lead us into deeper communion.

Question is whether we need an institution of structure to hold communion in place. But is it the case that covenant may push away what it is intended to safeguard?

Legacy of colonialism is significant part of communion life.

What matters is whether we who are heirs to those who consecrated Seabury can be part of a new starting point of communion life or does covenant make this less likely?