The General Synod of the Church of England is apt to take itself a bit too seriously, and sometimes gets its comeuppance. There was a famous moment a few years ago when one speaker regaled the synod: “Don’t forget, the world is watching what we say and do here today.” At that very moment the television foodlighting went out.

The world has been watching events here in York over the past few days: from Canada to Venezuela, Malaysia to New Zealand, Brazil to China, news organizations, mostly without much comment, are reporting how the Church of England has passed a key hurdle towards making women bishops.

Ahead of final approval there will be General Synod elections. It emerged during debate over the last few days that this present synod has little more than 100 members, out of 467, who oppose the measure. Whether that proportion will rise or shrink even further will be one of the issues at stake in these elections. What was painfully obvious was that in the heat of debate the anti cause had no effective champions among the bishops.

Over the next few months the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have an opportunity to provide leadership, and this too will be monitored well beyond the borders of England.

There are three initiatives they could take during the next few months.

First, those who carried the day in York will be looking to the archbishops for a clear and unequivocal statement that they affirm the validity of women bishops. This likewise would be a message that will be picked up internationally, particularly in provinces of the Anglican Communion which still waver over the ordination of women.

As the Times leader comments this morning, the synod’s decision is “right and historic” and synod showed integrity in rejecting the archbishops’ amendment that would have created a special class of bishop in an endeavor to make space for parishes who can’t accept women. Synod’s rejection of their intervention has implications for their standing, but this need not be a permanent problem.

Second, the archbishops can ensure that the code of practice accompanying legislation to make women bishops signals there is a place for people who disagree. Synod insiders were saying that the package of approved legislation has a lot of loose ends. Scrutiny by diocesan synods will help. Likewise, hard work on a code of practice by the House of Bishops under the leadership of Archbishops Williams and Sentamu will be decisive.

The benefit of having this matter dealt with by a code rather than a legal measure means that it can be adjusted and improved from time to time. More important still, it means operation of the code need not be dominated by the letter of the law.

Third, as the synod debate made manifest, there is a huge theological gap between opponents and the majority in favor. Ecclesiology was not to the fore during the debate in York. As Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham has urged, there needs to be much more exploration of mono-episcopate, headship, and sacramental assurance.

The archbishops are in a difficult place. It is their responsibility to be a focus of unity. Anglicanism has always depended on an element of compromise in the interest of the health of the wider communion. Compromise is weakened when there is even a hint that this is at the expense of principles and good theology.

Complexities abound. On the face of it, the ecclesiology of those on different sides in the debate seems to be irreconcilable. Moreover, there is the question of eventual reunion with the Church of Rome — and again the circles appear impossible to square.

The complementary gifts of the archbishops, the subtlety of mind that is Rowan Williams and gift for direct speaking that is John Sentamu, have an opportunity to come to the fore in the months ahead. It will be important, too, as Communion-wide debate over the Covenant continues.

John Martin, in York