We already linked to the full text of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks at the beginning of Monday’s debate.
This was the second of three interventions. The first was in the course of Saturday’s debate and is reproduced immediately below.
The third was at the end of Monday, and is reproduced below the fold, i.e. after the Saturday text.
There is a comprehensive set of links to these texts and others on the Lambeth Palace website here.
Saturday:
12 CommentsThank you Chairman. Archbishop of Canterbury, 001.
As I indicated this morning, the moving of this amendment doesn’t betoken any lack of appreciation for the labours of the revision committee. We wish to test Synod’s mind on whether the kind of provision already outlined in the draft legislation can be adjusted so as to give it just enough extra credibility with those for whom it’s intended, to help us towards an outcome which we can all find constructive.
Feelings have run quite high in recent weeks and the Archbishops’ amendment has been presented by some in very negative – not to say sinister – terms. It may help to make just one or two points in response:
First, we know it is unusual for archbishops to move amendments. But we should both be very disappointed if this was seen as some kind of covert loyalty test. Synod must scrutinize our suggestion in the way it would scrutinize any other. Because, of course, Synod’s task is scrutiny, including the scrutiny of draft legislation. It’s odd to claim that this piece of draft legislation – whatever its virtues – should be exempt from that kind of scrutiny and the possibility of an amendment. Now, the archbishops have a responsibility for trying to find ways of preserving the highest degree of communion possible, and it’s with those responsibilities in mind that they are asking whether this would help. When the revision committee’s report was published we tried (both of us) to give ourselves time to reflect on what it did and didn’t say on the history of the discussion, which references have already been made to, and to digest the possibilities and explore them. During that time, naturally, we had conversation with a range of people. But again I need to say no group saw these amendments before publication; they’re not the result of ‘horse-trading’. They’re neither a long-framed plot nor a hasty response.
Second, it’s essential to stress what’s already been stressed by the Archbishop of York and by the Bishop of Coventry, that the idea of a coordinate jurisdiction does not take away any liberty or any prerogative from a diocesan bishop in law. Nor does it carve out any community from a diocese. What it does is this: it allows a dissenting parish or congregation the ministry of a bishop whose right to exercise that episcopal ministry is agreed by the diocesan and, so to speak, guaranteed by the decision of the bishops, clergy and laity of the Church of England in Synod – that’s us.
And I would want to echo what’s been said earlier today in debate about the seductions of a view of episcopal jurisdiction that sees it as completely territorial and exclusive. Even a seamless robe may be a coat of many colours, you might say. And we’ve already had allusion to those models of interweaving and cooperative jurisdiction which the history of religious orders – not to mention of course the example of service chaplaincies in our dioceses – already provide.
And third, with a nod in Christina’s [Rees] direction if I may: Many of the points of unease raised today and elsewhere are already recognized in the existing report as unfinished business. The revision committee explicitly does not rule out (for example) the formation of a society or societies that will give more solidity to minority groups. There’s a recognition that a code will have to deal with this. The amendment introduces no distinction between male and female bishops. It preserves the principle that every diocese must draw up a scheme, not those presided solely over women. Such schemes must be worked through in the light of a national code of practice, they are subject to scrutiny, once again, and are appropriate to revision and reworking. The legislation does not seek to answer every possible question here and if there are issues between a diocesan bishop and a nominated bishop – issues which could occur anyway in the present draft – there is the possibility of discussion, consultation and adjustment in the scheme. And I might just add here in parentheses that I didn’t feel able to support the previous amendments partly because I was wary to attempt to do too much on the face of the legislation, and to produce something too detailed.
There are other questions which I think could arise on the existing draft which I don’t think our amendment in any sense makes any more complex – the business has to be done.
In short, this amendment doesn’t introduce any complexities not already present in the proposals. What it does is to put, we believe, one crucial element on the table that we hope might allow significantly more people in the Church of England to own the legislative outcome. It does not sanction prejudice or discrimination. It does not envisage any automatic obligation that disadvantages women bishops as distinct from men. It attempts to be faithful to the visions set out in paragraph 459 of the report if you want to look at that.
The Archbishops have been seeking a solution that goes with the grain of Synod’s wishes to preserve a church in which dissidents from the majority view may still live with – and I’m sorry about the word but I can’t think of any other – integrity. But they do not wish to pursue that at the expense of the integrity of their commitment – and I want you to be in no doubt about the commitment of both archbishops to seeing women ordained to the episcopate – at the expense of the integrity of their commitment and Synod’s commitment to the ordination of women as bishops.
Some of the debate today, I think, has illustrated a real risk that in excluding or marginalising the theological position of certain persons in the Church, division is actually made more serious, not less. We’re trying to give some ground for showing those who are in a minority that their views are taken with a degree of seriousness.
And so the question I want to leave you with is quite simply: Who loses if this amendment is passed? The Archbishop of York and I have offered it in the hope and the prayer that the answer just might be: no-one.
Statement from Catholic Group
Jul 14, 2010
4 CommentsThe Catholic Group in General Synod is encouraged by the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is still ‘unfinished business’ and that ‘the Church is only part of the way through the process’ of determining the way forward for women bishops legislation.
The Group was, however, disappointed that there was a lack of support for financial hardship where clergy feel by conscience that they need to resign from the Church of England. The onus now is on the Church of England to provide for its clergy to remain within the Church for which we have always fought as loyal Anglicans.
We remain committed to both the process and our Church, and would wish to play a major part in helping the Church in its ongoing journey in a spirit of unity that is Christ’s way.
General Synod – What actually happened?
6 CommentsDear Friends,
Most of us get information about what is happening in the rest of the church beyond our own patch from the mass media. Understandably in a fierce ratings war and in the struggle to get religious news of any kind reported there is tendency to hype and dramatise and to give undue prominence to extreme voices.
Almost every week we are told that that the Church of England faces “the greatest crisis since the reformation” and “that a split is imminent”.
Actually the weather at the 2010 General Synod in York was much more temperate than in July 2009. I was very proud of the way in which your representatives from the London Diocese, speaking from different viewpoints, made a constructive contribution to many of the debates. The Bishop of Willesden in particular with his characteristic candour shone a bright light on the complex business before us.
The outcome is that the measure to permit women to be consecrated to the episcopate has been remitted for consideration in the Dioceses. This process will take about eighteen months before the matter returns to the General Synod.
There is no doubt that a substantial majority in the Synod and in the Church is strongly in favour of this change and for many, the Synod’s decision will be a cause for heartfelt rejoicing. It was also significant that only a very few of those opposed to this measure sought to delay the process. There is a general feeling that it is urgent to conclude a debate which can appear somewhat introverted when our real focus must be on our unity in mission and in service to a country facing turbulent times.
In consequence much of the discussion was about how to secure an honoured place for those who cannot accept such a decision as one authorised by scripture and tradition and who believe that it will erect new obstacles in our relations with other parts of the “one, holy catholic and apostolic church” to which we claim to belong.
It is emphatically not true to say that the measure as it stands contains no provisions for those who hold such a view. Attempts during the two days of debate to amend the draft measure to remove any arrangements to assist those who adhere to the present practice of the Church were decisively rebuffed.
The draft as it stands offers a “statutory code of practice” to protect the position of those opposed to this development. The question which occupied much of our time was – “Is it enough?”
There was clearly an anxiety in some parts of the Synod that given the sense among a number of supporters of the proposal to ordain women as bishops that this was a gospel and justice matter, “a code of practice” would not be strong enough to ensure respect for the minority who on theological and biblical grounds continued to resist the change.
It is a complex question particularly given the fact that the contents of such a code have not been worked out. At the same time a number of words which have been used in the debate thus far, such as “delegation” and “transfer” have become freighted with negative connotations.
The Archbishops attempted to clear a way through the impasse by introducing the concept of “co-ordinate jurisdiction”. The contents of such a “co-ordinariate” would also have to be settled by reference to the, as yet undrafted, code of practice. Although I voted for the amendment, it is unsurprising that there was a good deal of confusion about what such a concept might mean in practice. The Archbishops’ proposal failed to secure a majority in the House of Clergy although it passed the Bishops and the Laity.
The important point is that valiant attempts are being made to open the way for women to be consecrated bishops without excluding from the church those who adhere to the present position and who share the faith which inspires our mission.
We now have an opportunity to consider the draft legislation in the Diocese and I shall be setting out the process for doing this in due course. At the same time the House of Bishops is charged with working on the vital question of the Code of Practice. The Bishop of Willesden and I will be fully involved in these discussions.
There will be a special meeting of the Diocesan Synod to ponder and vote on the advice which London will be sending back to the General Synod. I do hope that anyone questioning their place in the Church of England on the basis of media reports or premature judgements about the final shape of the legislation will get in touch with me or with their respective Area Bishop before making any personal decisions or public statements.
I returned from York clear both that the majority will is to ordain women bishops while at the same time preserving, as far as possible, the unity of the church in her mission and service to our country.
With thanks for our partnership in the Gospel
The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Richard Chartres KCVO DD FSA
The Bishop of Ebbsfleet’s Pastoral Letter – August 2010
24 CommentsThe General Synod at York
IT IS now 40 years since the Church of England General Synod came into being. It was an exciting new development, replacing an even more cumbersome system of dual control by Convocations of Clergy and the Church Assembly. The laity at last had a full and effective voice in the government of the Church of England. There were some safeguards in place. Certain matters had to be passed by two thirds’ majority and there could be a call for a vote by Houses, even when one was not strictly required. That meant that there needed to be majorities in each of the three Houses, Bishops, Clergy, and Laity.
It was this last safeguard which torpedoed the attempt of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to introduce an amendment to safeguard the ministry of traditionalist bishops. (As far as the democratic process is concerned, the archbishops are simply two members of the Synod). The amendment was voted down by five votes in the House of Clergy. This followed an earlier vote, where only 34% of the Synod supported new dioceses. Finally the whole draft Measure was approved, the only safeguard for traditionalists being the promise of a Code of Practice. The matter now moves from the General Synod, whose quinquennium has now ended, to the dioceses. It will return from there to the new General Synod. In 18 months’ time, November 2012, the hope of supporters of women bishops is that the Measure will be finally passed by the necessary two-thirds majority in each House, the hurdle which the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood Measure cleared on November 1992. Thereafter it must pass muster in Parliament, receive the Royal Assent, and be promulged as a canon. Last time, all of that took another 15 months, which would take us to February 2014, with the first consecrations of women bishops soon thereafter.
13th July 2010 Reform statement on women bishops draft legislation
13 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury said to Synod yesterday that “we still have not cracked it”, and we agree.
There are two main problems with this measure as it stands.
First the provisions made for those who cannot in conscience accept the oversight of a female bishop are inadequate. This measure does not provide a secure future for our ministry within the Church of England.
Second we think that given the voting patterns we saw this time, unless the Dioceses recommend some significant changes, we will very likely see this voted down at the 2012 General Synod.
The positive response to the Archbishops’ own amendment shows that there are still options available which have not yet been fully explored and which could give Reform members and others adequate provision. We want to see these explored and will seek discussions to ensure they are.
Reform was established in 1993 and is a network of churches and individuals within the Church of England. Current individual membership is around 1,700, in addition to 35 member churches. More than 350 ordained clergy are Reform members.
Here s the official summary of the final session of this month’s meeting of General Synod.
Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 13th July 2010
0 CommentsUpdated again Tuesday morning
BBC Women bishops should be allowed, Church of England rules
Press Association Women bishops bid passes key hurdle
Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones Hundreds of traditionalist clergy poised to leave Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury urges General Synod not to stall women bishops plan
Mail Jonathan Petre Humiliation for Archbishop as Church rejects his last ditch compromise on women bishops and Jack Doyle Archbishop’s unity plea as Church gets closer to ordination of women bishops
Independent Jerome Taylor ‘Desperately difficult’ to keep Church together over women bishops
Cif belief Sally Barnes High time for women bishops
Guardian Riazat Butt Anglican traditionalists left to consider options after vote on women bishops and Archbishop warns against delay over women bishops
Episcopal News Service Church of England advances plans for women bishops
This includes some information about women bishops in other countries.
An extract from the report in The Times by Ruth Gledhill appears over here.
42 CommentsA Statement from Forward in Faith Jul 12, 2010
69 CommentsThe draft Measure to permit the ordination women as bishops, approved today by the General Synod and sent for discussion and approval by Diocesan Synods, contains nothing which can satisfy the legitimate needs of members of Forward in Faith.
Now, though, is not the time for precipitate action. There will be ample opportunity for priests to take counsel together at the Sacred Synods called by the Catholic Bishops in each province in September, and for Forward in Faith to take stock at the National Assembly in October.
WATCH Press Statement 5.45pm 12th July 2010
3 CommentsBoth Sides Compromise as Draft Legislation Goes Forward for Discussion in the
DiocesesToday the General Synod overwhelmingly endorsed the draft legislation prepared
by the Revision Committee with only a couple of minor amendments. After
rejecting the ways of accommodating those opposed, that were debated on
Saturday, Synod accepted the proposals suggested by the Revision Committee in
clause 2 of the draft legislation.After a moving debate, the motion was passed with an overwhelming majority; 373
in favour; 14 against with 17 abstentions.Several powerful speeches made it clear the sacrifice that had been made by the
majority who welcomed women’s ordained ministry in voting for this compromise.
“This is good news for the whole Church and we are delighted” says the Revd
Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH. “Synod’s decision gives the Church a powerful
mandate to move forward enthusiastically; welcoming the ministry of women at all
levels within the Church whilst making space for those who are opposed to stay
within our body”.
The full text of what the Archbishop of Canterbury said at the start of Monday’s continued debate on Women in the Episcopate is copied below the fold.
11 CommentsHere are the official summaries of Monday’s business at General Synod.
[link to afternoon and evening summary to follow when available now added]
Summary of business conducted on Monday 12th July 2010 AM
Summary of business conducted on Monday 12th July 2010 PM
The archbishop of York’s presidential address to General Synod, delivered on Saturday, is now online.
Presidential Address to the General Synod
Theme: The way to come closer to God is to be generous and honest towards everyone.
Amended late Monday afternoon to correct the Clause 11 items
This follows on from our report on Saturday’s debates.
This page will be updated during the debates.
These are the relevant papers.
GS 1708-09Y Report of the revision committee.
GS 1708A Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709A Draft Amending Canon 30
Notice Paper 5 Amendments before Synod
We will update the following two web pages during the debates to show what happens to the amendments and how those amendments that are passed change the text of the draft measure.
Draft measure as amended by Synod
Annotated copy of Notice Paper 5 showing what happened to amendments
Monday morning
After BCP Morning Prayer, and statements from the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Manchester, Synod resumed its consideration of the draft measure.
Clause 2
This is the clause that requires diocesan bishops to make arrangements for delegation of functions to a male bishop for parishes who request the ministry of such a male bishop.
9.57 am Geoffrey Tattersall, on behalf of the Steering Committee, moved item 518 “that Clause 2 stand part of the Measure”.
10.55 Synod votes in favour of closure of debate on item 518. Sufficient members stood to require a division of the whole synod. Item 518 was carried by 373 votes in favour, with 14 against and 17 recorded abstentions.
Clause 3
This sets how parishes can issue a letter of request asking for the ministry of a male bishop.
11.01 am Anthony Berry moved his amendment 519 to require PCCs to consult with electoral rolls before making such a request. The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
11.10 am Gerald O’Brien moved amendment 520 to require PCCs to consider making, or not making, a request every five years. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the amendment was debated.
11.26 am Synod voted against item 520 by a show of hands.
11.27 am Hugh Lee moved amendment 521 to require those involved in appointing incumbents or priests in charge to take into account whether or not a parish has issued a letter of request. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but fewer than 40 members stood and the amendment lapsed.
Several amendments (522 – 527) then followed changing the rules for votes at PCC meetings when considering making a request.
11.33 am Peter Hobson moved amendment 522 to remove the need for a two-thirds quorum at PCC meetings considering making a request. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood, so the debate continued.
11.53 am Synod agreed to proceed to a vote. This was a division of the whole synod. The amendment was defeated with 128 votes in favour, 239 votes against and 5 recorded abstentions.
11.56 am Clive Scowen moved amendment 523 to stop a minority being able to frustrate a majority by simply staying away from a meeting.
The steering committee were in favour of the amendment.
Synod voted in favour of the amendment on a show of hands.
Gerald O’Brien moved amendment 525 to remove a clerical veto. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate continued.
12.20 pm Synod voted to proceed to the vote. Sufficient members stood to require a division by houses. The amendment was defeated in all three houses with the following votes.
| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 2 | 34 | 3 |
| clergy | 35 | 136 | 8 |
| laity | 83 | 104 | 7 |
Brian Walker moved amendment 527. The steering committee was in favour of this technical amendment. Synod voted in favour on a show of hands.
Synod then moved onto the debate on item 528 “That clause 3 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”. The motion was carried.
Clause 4
12.37 pm Synod voted in favour of 529 “That clause 4 stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 5
12.38 pm Synod voted in favour of 532 “That clause 5 stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 6
12.39 pm Synod voted in favour of 533 “That clause 6 stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 7
12.40 pm Synod debated 534 “That clause 7 stand part of the Measure”.
1.00 pm Synod voted in favour of item 534 on a show of hands.
Monday afternoon
2.30 pm Debate resumed
Clause 8
Amendment 536 was carried, as consequential on item 523.
Synod voted in favour of 537 “That clause 8 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 9
Synod voted in favour of 538 “That clause 9 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 10
Synod voted in favour of 539 “That clause 10 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”.
After clause10
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes did not move her amendment 540a
2.35 pm Paul Benfield moved amendment 541a, to generally approve a new clause that would require two-thirds majorities for future amendment of the legislation. The steering committee resisted the amendment. More than 40 members stood so the debate continued.
Sufficient members stood to support a division of the whole synod.
3.00 pm The amendment was passed with 287 votes in favour, 78 against and 20 recorded abstentions.
Synod then passed 541b “That the clause be inserted in the Measure”.
Clause 11
3.02 pm Paul Benfield moved his amendment 542 to amend clause 11 to require a provision for the relief of hardship to be made available before the measure comes into effect. The steering committee resisted the amendment. More than 40 members stood, so the debate continued.
3.47 pm Synod voted to close the debate.
Synod then defeated the amendment on a show of hands.
Synod then passed 543 “That clause 11 stand part of the Measure.”
Schedules and Long Title
Finally Synod voted in favour of all the following.
544 That Schedule 1 stand part of the Measure.
545 That Schedule 2 stand part of the Measure.
546 That Schedule 3 stand part of the Measure.
547 That Schedule 4 stand part of the Measure.
548 That the Long Title stand part of the Measure.
Further Revision
3.54 pm Simon Killwick then proposed that “That the Measure entitled Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure be committed for further revision in
committee.”
4.19 pm Synod voted to close the debate and move to a vote.
Sufficient members stood to require a division of the whole synod.
The motion was defeated with 102 votes in favour, 293 votes against and 12 recorded abstentions.
Amending Canon
Synod then voted in favour of 549 “That paragraphs 1-9 stand part of the Canon.”
4.25 pm That completed the revision stage of the Measure and Canon.
The measure will now be referred to dioceses.
4 CommentsGuardian Riazat Butt General Synod urged to unite as issue of women bishops divides Church of England
Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones A divided church faces its darkest hour
Independent Jerome Taylor Church on brink of schism as synod votes for women bishops
Daily Mail Behave like Christians on issue of women bishops, Archbishop Sentamu tells warring CofE
The Times Ruth Gledhill article Embattled Archbishop urges synod to behave like children of Christ is behind paywall, but copy is over here.
Press Association Women bishops bid to pass key stage
Editorial opinion
Telegraph Dr Rowan Williams weakened by debate on women bishops
Independent Schism might be a better option
Cartoon:
Guardian Martin Rowson on the row over gender and sexuality in the Church of England
4 CommentsMeanwhile, out in the real world…
There will be a synod fringe event at lunchtime on Monday about the Church in Zimbabwe. Today, Brian Castle, Bishop of Tonbridge, writes at Cif belief ‘Don’t forget us,’ say Zimbabwean Christians.
3 CommentsThe Observer has an editorial, The church should always put humanity before unity. Sexual equality, rather than schism, should be the Archbishop of Canterbury’s foremost concern.
This article also deals with the Southwark episcopal appointment.
Cif belief has an article by Una Kroll Women bishops: what God would want.
3 CommentsCatholic Group in Synod reacts to today’s debate
13 CommentsJul 10, 2010
We deeply regret that the General Synod has decided to ignore the leadership of the chief pastors of the Church of England Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
The voting was by the three Houses of Synod separately, with support from the Bishops and Laity but not from the Clergy. In total, 216 people voted in favour and 191 against with 9 abstentions – so there was support for the Archbishops’ amendments.
By rejecting the opportunity for unity that the Amendments they proposed would have achieved, it has made it very difficult for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry for women priests and bishops.
The process in General Synod is not over and we would wish to be involved in the ongoing discussions as to a way forward that includes all loyal members of the Church of England.
FiF reacts to General Synod debate
0 CommentsJul 10, 2010
Forward in Faith notes that the amendment to the draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops standing in the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to gain approval today by just five votes in the House of Clergy, despite the fact that a significant majority of the members of Synod voted in its favour.
We naturally share the Archbishops’ disappointment at this turn of events and will now take counsel together, as we await the resumption of the debate on Monday.
Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the failure of the Archbishops’ amendment
8 CommentsJuly 10th, 2010
The debate in synod is not about gender equality. It is about the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. Most have accepted that there will be women bishops in the Church of England.
The problem the Archbishops were trying to address was trying to address was the problem of monoepiscopacy, the belief that only one bishop can have jurisdiction in one geographical area. Synod had two objectives:
i) To affirm that all bishops would be of equal status and
ii) To enable those who, on grounds of scripture and theology, cannot accept women as bishops, to continue to flourish within the Church of England without diminishing the status of women bishops.So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place.
Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden
WATCH (Women and the Church) Press Release Sunday 11th July 7.30pm
2 CommentsVote on Archbishops’ Amendment is Standard Practice.
WATCH is disappointed that some opponents of women bishops are seeking to discredit the standard practices of General Synod after the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment yesterday. The procedure of votes being taken “by houses” is standard practice for many issues. It must be requested from the floor and supported by 25 members of synod. Once this decision is taken, the votes of each House of Synod (Bishops, Clergy and Lay) are added separately. A majority is required in all three houses for the motion to be carried. This ensures that all three groups are prepared to support a proposal and the Church can move forward together.
Ironically the same procedure was used in 1978 when Synod first fully considered ordaining women as deacons, priests and bishops. Although it obtained a majority overall, the motion failed to achieve a majority in the House of Clergy and therefore fell.
“It is important that we all continue to honour the processes of Synod and move forward in the light of the decisions they have made,” said the Revd Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH. “ We hope and trust that the graciousness and attentive listening that characterised Saturday’s debate continues on Monday when Synod completes its consideration of the draft legislation.
Supporting the draft legislation represents a significant compromise for WATCH and others who support women’s ordained ministry: a compromise made in a spirit of generosity to make space for those opposed.”
WATCH looks forward to these proposals going forward to the wider church for further consultation.