In the British Parliament’s House of Commons opponents facing each other in debate may not encroach beyond a thick yellow line marked on the floor of the chamber. The space is calculated as a sword’s length on both sides.

Amid worries that its General Synod mimicked too much the adversarial ways of the Parliament that meets just a few hundred yards from the Synod Chamber at Church House Westminster, in the 1980s the Church of England came up with the idea of holding a summer residential session in York.

A body that meets as many as three times a year has one set of sessions at a different pace. As well as conducting their usual debates, synod members mingle in ways not possible in London, meet in small groups for Bible Study, watch the antics of ducks on the lake just outside the University Central Hall venue, and converse late into the evening over a pint or two of local beer.

This weekend synod members are bracing themselves for its most momentous debates since the vote to ordain women as priests 16 years ago: legislation making way for women bishops. The debate is scheduled to run for a grueling 17 hours.

The Order Paper, with a plethora of proposed amendments, runs to a massive 37 pages. The momentous nature of the debate and the strongly held convictions of those opposed, will be a test of members’ stamina and good will, as well as of synodical government itself.

Media chatter ahead of the synod has not been about the women bishops debate. The fuss centered on the appointment of the next Bishop of Southwark, to a diocese taking in much of London to the south of the River Thames.

Last weekend the London Telegraph, based on leaked information, reported that the Rev. Dr. Jeffrey John, a gay cleric, had been shortlisted for appointment. Then midweek, again based on a leaked source, the same reporter claimed that a furious Archbishop of Canterbury had moved to veto John as a nominee.

John, now Dean of St. Albans, was appointed seven years ago as Suffragan Bishop of Reading in the Diocese of Oxford. It triggered a strong reaction by conservative evangelicals, and in the face of their opposition Archbishop Rowan Williams pressed John to withdraw.

This time round evangelical reaction has been harder to read. Some quietly reminded the archbishop that the appointment of an openly gay candidate would jeopardize his hopes of steering through the Anglican Covenant. At least some on evangelicalism’s more conservative wing seemed to echo the hope that John would be appointed because it would bring the matter of gay leadership in the Church of England “to a head.”

John, regarded as an outstanding preacher pastor, worked in Southwark ahead of moving to St. Albans. He retains a strong support base in a diocese where a liberal-Catholic constituency is in the ascendancy and forms a significant base of support for gay, lesbian and transgender people in the Church of England.

Putting aside questions about the provenance of the Telegraph’s reporting on John, there will be a knock-on effect on synod proceedings. The Rev. Colin Coward from the Changing Attitude campaigning group predicted there will be less appetite to compromise on demands by opponents.

Even so, press coverage got an airing during the agenda debate at the start of proceedings. For the Rev. Dr. Tony Thisleton, a former member of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), the leak raised questions about “confidence in the confidentiality” of proceedings. The CNC, he reminded synod, is protected in law under the government’s Official Secrets Act.

“It’s not a matter of fun and games, it’s a matter of shame,” he declared.

This is the last session of synod ahead of elections to be held next year. Kay Garlick, chair of the business subcommittee, said there might normally be an end-of-term mood, “gentle coasting down the road to the finishing line.” Instead, she said, we “have an enormous mountain to climb together.”

Those who object fall into two broad categories: Anglo-Catholics who essentially claim that women cannot be ordained because it runs counter to tradition and lacks an ecumenical mandate that includes the Catholic Church; and conservative evangelicals who on the basis of bible texts argue that women should not exercise “headship” in church life. Most of the arguments have been well rehearsed over several decades.

There is in synod, however, a broad consensus of Affirming Catholics, evangelicals and the Open Synod Group with the numbers to come close to carrying the day. Christina Rees of WATCH said the Southwark affair has “created confusion,” but may galvanize support of consecrating women to the episcopate.

The other factor was the recent intervention on the two archbishops. All other amendments have been scrutinized by the revision committee in charge of the legislation. WATCH fears the suggestions of the archbishops received no such scrutiny and cut across normal process. Christina Rees thinks the intervention may create a “two-tier episcopate,” something unacceptable to many supporters of women bishops.

Rees said that it’s not yet entirely clear what the archbishops have offered. More will emerge as the debate unfolds.

“I would not want a situation where on the one hand the Church of England says ‘yes’ to women bishops and in the next breath validates in law those who say women cannot be bishops,” she said.

Since the archbishops are both held in high esteem, going against them would create a lot of mixed emotions, she added.

Other voices were forthright in supporting a straightforward outcome with no special provisions for opponents.

“The debate will be tense,” said Tim Plant, chair of the Open Synod Group. “A lot a lot of people believe there is schism already. The question is, will we have the courage to acknowledge it?”

John Martin, in York