The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have jointly issued the statement below, outlining amendments that they will propose to the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.
General Synod Draft Legislation: Women in the Episcopate
Monday 21 June 2010
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have signalled their intention to propose jointly in due course an amendment to the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England due to be debated at General Synod in July. This note explains their reasoning.
DRAFT LEGISLATION ON WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE
AMENDMENTS TO BE PROPOSED BY THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK
1. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Revision Committee for their dedicated and painstaking work. We wish, however – after much consideration, and after discussion in the House of Bishops – to offer legislative amendments to the Draft Measure which we believe might provide a way forward for the Church of England. We want as many people as possible to feel that there is good news for them in this process, and we hope that what we are suggesting may help secure the broadest degree of support for the legislation without further delaying the process of scrutiny and decision.
2. Successive General Synod debates have produced clear majorities in favour of admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England. At the same time, a number of motions have also shown a widespread desire to proceed in a way that will maintain the highest possible degree of communion within the Church of England between those who differ on the substantive point, reflecting the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution that ‘those who dissent from as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the Priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans’.
3 The issue that has proved most difficult to resolve in securing these two objectives has been that of ‘jurisdiction’. Once women become bishops, it will be possible to maintain something like the present ‘mixed economy’ in the Church of England only if there is provision for someone other than the diocesan bishop to provide episcopal oversight for those who are unable to accept the new situation. The need for such provision is widely accepted. But what is still much debated is what should be the basis in law for the authority exercised by a bishop in this kind of ministry.
4. The various approaches so far explored have all taken for granted that there is a simple choice between either deriving this authority from the diocesan by way of delegation or removing some part of the diocesan’s jurisdiction so as to confer it on a bishop who then exercises authority (‘ordinary jurisdiction’) in his own right.
5. The amendments we intend to propose involve neither delegation nor depriving a diocesan of any part of his or her jurisdiction. Instead we seek to give effect to the idea of a ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction.
6. What this would mean is that:
the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop – whether male or female – remains intact; he or she would remain the bishop of the whole area of the diocese and would be legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese;
7. The amendments needed to achieve all this will be brief and will not involve a radical rewriting of the draft legislation. They are likely to be confined to Clauses 2 and 5 of the Draft Measure and are consistent with its overall structure. They would not require a further Revision Committee stage.
8. Thus if they were passed – and subject to decisions reached by General Synod on amendments tabled by other members – the way would still be clear to refer the legislation to diocesan synods if the Revision Stage is successfully completed in July. As the recent statement from the House of Bishops makes clear, the Archbishops and most of the House are persuaded that delay would not be wise or helpful.
9. Since the amendments would not divest the diocesan bishop of any jurisdiction, they would involve no change in the Church of England’s understanding of the episcopate. But for those seeking ministry under this provision from a nominated male bishop, there would no longer be the difficulty that this authority was derived in law from an act of delegation by an individual diocesan.
10. An arrangement whereby two people have jurisdiction in relation to the same subject matter would not be unique. For example, the High Court and the Charity Commission each has jurisdiction to make schemes for the reorganisation of charities. Many courts and other bodies have overlapping jurisdictions.
11. Such situations are often described as ‘concurrent’ jurisdiction – though this should not be understood in the sense of two different courts acting at the same time in relation to the same things, simply as meaning two authorities possessing jurisdictions that exist side by side. We prefer the term ‘co-ordinate’ as less likely to give rise to confusion.
12. Where there are cases of concurrent jurisdiction in the law, procedural rules and rules of practice have had to be developed to avoid two authorities acting at the same time on the same matters. Similarly, our amendments will require the Code of Practice to give guidance on arrangements for co-ordinating the exercise of ministry as between the diocesan bishop and the nominated bishop under the diocesan scheme. The diocesan retains the freedom to amend the diocesan scheme from time to time after consultation with the diocesan synod.
13. Since 1994, the Church of England has managed to operate a practical polity that reflects continuing differences over the question of the priestly ministry of women. This has been possible not only because of the framework created by General Synod through the 1993 Measure and the Act of Synod but also because a great many people on all sides have wanted to make it work.
14. We are convinced that the small but significant changes we are proposing will make it easier for the statutory framework and Code of Practice emerging from the legislative process to create a climate in which mutual trust and common flourishing across the Church of England can be nourished, in a situation where for the first time, all orders of ordained ministry are open to women and men alike.
15. We believe that the amendments secure two crucial things:
1. that women ordained to the episcopate will enjoy exactly the same legal rights as men within the structures of the Church of England and that there will be no derogation of the rights of any diocesan bishop, male or female; and
2. that those who request oversight from a nominated bishop under a diocesan scheme will be able to recognise in them an episcopal authority received from the whole Church rather than through delegation or transfer from an individual diocesan.
16. It will be for General Synod to reach a view on these proposals, as on each of the many amendments offered by Synod members. We commend our suggestions to you for prayer and reflection, in the hope that we may emerge from the July Group of Sessions with a sense that the full diversity of voices in the Church of England has been duly heard and attended to.
+Rowan Cantuar: +Sentamu Ebor:
20 June 2010
Strikes me as ingenious !
A significant question, since the purpose of this amendment is purportedly to keep the greatest possible communion:
Will this remove the theology of taint which has grown since the Act of Synod?
another significant question:
will any woman be prepared to be ordained a bishop if the theology of taint remains through this legislation?
This amendment feels like the Act of Synod itself which created the two tier priesthood in the church and again came from senior bishops panicking in 1993.
Dear old Solomon in all his glory could not split the proverbial baby in two any better than this.
Of course all you have is a divided baby but then it is easier to maintain the pretense of unity, even when certain folks refuse to be ministered to or receive communion from certain other folks who apparently have “the same legal rights” if not the same standing as God’s ministers.
Falderal.
The Archbishops say:
“Since the amendments would not divest the diocesan bishop of any jurisdiction, they would involve no change in the Church of England’s understanding of the episcopate.”
True?
What provision is there for those who cannot accept the ministry of male bishops? Come on – fair’s fair.
As someone noted years ago, this is totally equitable: the rich are as prohibited from sleeping under bridges as are the poor. Will a parish in a male-led diocese be allowed to request episcopal function from a female bishop?
“women ordained to the episcopate will enjoy exactly the same legal rights as men within the structures of the Church of England and that there will be no derogation of the rights of any diocesan bishop, male or female;” Not quite. Male bishops will not be subject to co-ordinate jurisdiction within their dioceses, only female bishops. Unless there is also provision in the Measure for parishes to request the ministrations of a female bishop where their diocesan is male. On first reading, this proposal, on top of the various resolutions available to parishes to avoid contamination by female priests, is… Read more »
This will receive some careful scrutiny over the next few days, I am sure. Here are a couple of subtleties which must not go unremarked: Point 6, second bullet point, “but the identity of such a bishop and the scope of his functions would be defined by the scheme made by the diocesan for his or her diocese” This brings back nominated bishops in dioceses where the diocesan bishop is a man. The second point is where judgment is to be exercised in the arrangements for establishing this ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction – eg in multi-parish benefices where the parishes express different… Read more »
“Since the amendments would not divest the diocesan bishop of any jurisdiction.” Written with a straight face? Words fail. What planet ….?
And a parish that WANTS a female bishop? Or dislikes its bishop’s opinions on the cause of flooding?
“the small but significant changes” “mutual trust” This really is not a good time to be re-reading the Lord of the Rings; I am painfully reminded of that ‘small token’ of friendship that Sauron sought, the “trifle” as ‘earnest of your goodwill’ which was, in reality, the means to absolute power. I should be sad to leave the Church of England, not least because of the clergy where I worship, but, as the weeks of this crisis have gone by, it seems to have had less and less to do with the gospel of Christ and more and more to… Read more »
My favourite bit is:
“We prefer the term ‘co-ordinate’ as less likely to give rise to confusion.”
Written with a straight face. Unbelievable.
The Archbishop’s got no clothes on, the Archbishop’s got no clothes on.
What provision is there for those who cannot accept the ministry of male bishops? Come on – fair’s fair.
Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Monday, 21 June 2010 at 2:08pm BST
I was wondering about that -after all fair’s fair. I might not want to be faced by such Neanderthal theologising — no insult intended to the historic Neanderthals mind you ! (They ere an advance — in their time !).
‘Not quite. Male bishops will not be subject to co-ordinate jurisdiction within their dioceses, only female bishops. Unless there is also provision in the Measure for parishes to request the ministrations of a female bishop where their diocesan is male.’ Yes, this is essential. I should want to opt for a woman bishop on principle, until the time when true, full and equal equality finally breaks out. All this, the ‘Act of Synod’ and all the anti-gay hullaballoo has put me right off Communion anyway -except as an exceptional occasional thing. I certainly don’t want to take or ‘celebrate’ it… Read more »
“where a parish had requested arrangements, by issuing a Letter of Request, the diocesan would in practice refrain from exercising certain of his or her functions in such a parishand would leave the nominated bishop to exercise those functions in the parish in question;”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Ed Tomlinson or someone else from FiF explain on this forum not so long ago that they could not accept anyone standing in for a female bishop because the difficulty is accepting the validity of the jurisdiction of the female bishop in the first place?
And what about a parish in … say Chichester which would like a bishop favorable to women clergy, whether the bishop of choice were male or female? Do they also get a bishop of their own persuasion too? Come on guys, even you can see that this isn’t even-stephen.
Two weeks before Synod and they come up with this? It reeks of desperation and doesn’t look like equality to me!
Pantycelyn wrote, “Strikes me as ingenious !” Are you sure? It sounds to me suicidal. First and foremost, it undermines the ancient understanding of the integrity of the diocese, and of the diocese as the basic (but not self-sufficient) unit of the Church. Others have raised the question of a congregation requesting a coordinate bishop who is a woman, and whether the man who is diocesan, and who presumably opposes ordination of women (or else why make the request), will choose to agree. Also, will congregations that believe women cannot be ordained be satisfied with any measure that “would not… Read more »
This reads like Rowan Williams’s theology – on the one hand, on the other, both, in the detail. It looks ingenious until the big picture is confirmed that it is not clear and clean, not actually ethical, and creates all sorts of practical problems. Like his theology, it’s a sort of postmodern literary approach that appears to be realist, and tries to be realist, except in this case it deals in the very real religious politics of the bureaucracy and it will, in reality, leave people at the very least scratching their heads. Rather like reading Rowan Williams’s theology.
I suggest that ‘co-ordinate’ bishops carry their mitres under their arms, and single bishops can put them on their heads.
Would the “nominated” bishops be counted as suffragan or diocesan? If they are counted as diocesan, then it seems to me that this will ensure that the number of male bishops remains constant, since for each female diocesan bishop, an additional male “nominated” bishop will need to be consecrated, thus preventing the possibility of a majority of women in the House of Bishops.
Just a query?
Very odd timing, in light of Sunday’s RCL Epistle reading… Gal 3:28: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. I remember back in the mid 1980s when the parish where my dad was rector was the first place that women were ordained to the priesthood in the Diocese of Ontario (4 women were priested in a glorious ordination service). My dad made a practical compromise for those who objected to the ordination of women; the two female… Read more »
Granted, I am just a Yank who doesn’t pretend to comprehend the mysteries of General Synod, but is not the document above the rationale for an, as yet unpublished, amendment to the draft legislation to come before the synod next month? Isn’t the proof going to be in the amendment itself rather than in this pudding published in the ether today? Does anyone think this will be the only amendment proposed during the debate on this draft legislation? Is it better that these proposers announce their intentions before the synod is called to order than to announce them once debate… Read more »
It would seem to be an attempt to allow the opponents of women bishops to have a Father in God and a Mother in Law
Hmm, RW is doing it all, beautifully, again … tilting his bully pulpit to sustain leeway for those who continue to preach horrid, flat earth things about women as essential to gospel and revelation, while simply presuming without evidence that such leeway will really exist as a mutual Anglican space. Clearly, this cannot be. Common sense advises all of us that you cannot simultaneously pledge a solar system where the sun circles the earth, and make good plans for your next space shuttle flights, let alone mars missions. If women have the cooties that the anti-women folks preach, we are… Read more »
Paragraph 15 makes no sense. According to it, the “whole Church” would put in place a system whereby the actual and operational authority of women diocesan bishops would be limited, but there would and could be no such limitaton on the actual and operationl authority of men diocesan bishops? It is simply inaccurate to say that “women ordained to the episcopate will enjoy exactly the same legal rights as men within the structures of the Church of England and that there will be no derogation of the rights of any diocesan bishop, male or female”—and they certainly wouldn’t be expected… Read more »
“The draft legislation continues to make provision for those who in conscience cannot receive the ministry of women as bishops, by providing for certain functions to be undertaken by a male bishop under a diocesan scheme made in accordance with a national code of practice.” Whatever (if any) accommodation is made for the structured accommodation of the anti-women-bishop confraternity, this would not avoid the implication that, in the opinion of the Church of England, there is a place for those who consider the episcopal leadership of women in the Church is heretical – and against the doctrine of the Church… Read more »
Another Ignorant Yank (TM) here—but this strikes me as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic!
[Re “with a sense that the full diversity of voices in the Church of England has been duly heard and attended to”: wait a sec. Didn’t Canon Kearon tell us TECers that *diversity* was a PROBLEM (to be solved—apparently, by making us stand in the corner, outside/beneath the Ecumenical Higher Seat), NOT a legitimate situation (gift?) to be “duly heard and attended to”? O_o]
CoE stuff has lately taken a distinctive, deepening turn for an Alice Down A Rabbit Hole worse. RW is falling headlong into the dark, and that right fully in public view. TEC – mainly encapsulated as queer folks plus allies – must be distanced, and thus become suddenly eligible for a dedicated sort of interfaith listening and respect to which TEC is otherwise not, not ever, due as a founding member of the global Anglican Communion. Women are fully human and fully beloved of God, except that they may on episcopal occasions bear awful stains of something ungodly and abominable… Read more »
“15. We believe that the amendments secure two crucial things: 1…….(as stated in the amendment)…and – 2. that those who request oversight from a nominated bishop under a diocesan scheme will be able to recognise in them an episcopal authority received from the whole Church rather than through delegation or transfer from an individual diocesan.” “..An episcopal authority received from the whole Church” ? And not from the Diocesan Bishop??? Where is the logic in this sort of casuistry? If this is the sort of Mickey Mouse deal that is going to be put into place in the Church of… Read more »