First, here are two press reports on yesterday’s release of the General Synod voting lists.
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Almost half the lay members who voted against female bishops were women
John Bingham in the Telegraph Half of women bishops opponents in Synod were women
And then there are several comment articles.
Bruce Kaye for ABC Religion and Ethics The triumph of the radicals: Women bishops and the Church of England
Savi Hensman for Ekklesia Women bishops: how to move forward?
John Coles, director of New Wine Synod Vote: Women Bishops
Paul Roberts A possible way out of the Women Bishops bind
Colin Coward of Changing Attitude The deeper (mis)understandings which divide us
Alice Udale-Smith for Varsity Female bishops and me: a defence of the General Synod
And finally, WATCH has issued a press release “Pressure for simple legislation mounts as first analysis of voting patterns shows General Synod House of Laity dramatically out of step with lay members of diocesan synods” which is copied in full below the fold.
WATCH (Women and the Church)
Press Release 27th November 2012
For immediate release
Pressure for simple legislation mounts as first analysis of voting patterns shows General Synod House of Laity dramatically out of step with lay members of diocesan synods
A week after the disastrous vote in General Synod and after a period of intense scrutiny from both houses of Parliament, pressure continues to grow on Church authorities to find a way to break the impasse on legislating for women bishops.
Given the failure of all attempts at a compromise enshrined in statute, there is increasing support for the adoption of the simplest possible legislation with provision for those opposed being made outside the legislation itself.
On Monday 26th November, the voting records were published. This shows how individual members of the House of Laity of the General Synod voted and also enables comparisons with the votes previously cast by the lay representatives in the diocesan synods.
As expected, there was a considerable discrepancy between the local and national voting patterns.
When the legislation was debated at diocesan level, it achieved more than a two-thirds majority among lay people in 37 of the 44 dioceses. In Guildford, for instance, 70% of lay members voted in favour at diocesan level, but three of the four General Synod members voted against. Had the General Synod members representing six dioceses chosen to reflect the views expressed by their diocesan synods, the measure would have passed.
Full details of the House of Laity voting figures can be found via Thinking Anglicans.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said
“It is clear that the lay members of General Synod have not reflected the wishes of ordinary parishioners in their dioceses. If the House of Laity of General Synod had followed the pattern of the diocesan synods, this legislation would have passed comfortably last week”
Bishop John Gladwin, the recently retired Bishop of Chelmsford, and Hon Vice President of WATCH said
“The public humiliation and deep wound inflicted on the Church of England by the vote in Synod on November 20th has changed the whole landscape of this and many other issues. What a small minority has done is blow up the bridge to any compromise solution. The consecration of women into the episcopate has been moved from certainty to inevitability. There is now only one route which must be travelled to that outcome. That is the route which removes all discriminatory provisions from the life and ministry of the Church”
Paul Roberts’ article – suggesting that the assenting dioceses meet to petition for dissolution of the current General Synod, sparking a new election sounds pretty good; but would it actually work?
Paul’s idea may have merit but perhaps it is the House of Laity that needs an election – don’t know if that is possible – or even desirable. I understand thare may be some discussion in the GS House of Laity about what to do.
But then I am GS clergy, voted in favour, and don’t want to fight another election just yet!
To quote Colin Coward: “So long as the Church of England goes on trying to accommodate these people, so long will we get nowhere, mission and evangelism in the Church will be fatally constricted, the majority in the country will turn its back on the Church (they already have) and it will continue to shrink and become ever more irrelevant to the country and unable to reveal God’s infinite love in creation. That is the real scandal of our age.” The real scandal is that “these people” might just be right and the demise of the Church in England be… Read more »
One thing that everyone seems to have forgotten when comparing the voting last week with the voting by the dioceses is that the Measure was amended twice in the intervening period.
Synod did not vote on the same wording that was considered by the dioceses.
I’d just like to put that on record.
I am quite astounded – we talk about the due process of the Synod but because we don’t like a decision made in one of the Houses we call for another election for that House so it can change its mind. It is unbelievable. There was no call for a new election when in 1992 the legislation for women bishops passed and no call for new elections in the house of clergy when the Archbishops’ amendments failed by 5 clergy votes. Sadly this just shows how desperate the proponents for women bishops are to see the opponents removed.
There is some evidence that churches with gender mixed leadership are growing. Large evangelical churches lose people out of the back door as quickly as they get people in the front door – usually because after a while people get disenchanted by the hard-line stances e.g. re. women. Some of these women end up as ordinands 10 years later – I know because I’ve taught lots of them and they go on to minister in ways that draw people to Christ.
Picking up Ian M’s comment – I remember 20+ years ago talking to a Flemish bishop whose church was experiencing a surge in membership. He feared that it was not conversion, nor re-awakening spirituality, but an expression of Flemish nationalism. If you’re acquainted with the concept of the ’emigrés a l’interieur’ in mid-late C19 France, you can see a huge upsurge in ultra-traditional practices of faith as a reaction against (eg) what was happening in the papal states. Scrupulous religious practice and ultra-conformity to the minutiae of Vatican I were de rigueur. But it didn’t last. It’s possible to see… Read more »
In the light of the above comments by Jonathan Edwards II respect should have been shewn to the 44 dioceses by allowing them to vote again on the significantly amended amendment; for – as he so perceptively points out – this was not what they discussed and voted upon.
Whatever plot the Archbishops’ Council is hatching and whatever form of words they come up with must surely – after discussion at the July meeting of the General Synod – be passed down again to the 44 dioceses for further discussion and a due voting process carried out.
At Diocesan Synods (I am a member of one) my recollection is that we voted on a Measure which was almost identical to the Measure before General Synod. Some Dioceses passed following motions asking the House of Bishops to look again at the provision for those opposed, which they did, producing initially the amendment which was rejected in July this year, and then producing an amended amendment – suggested by a woman priest – which was in the Measure just voted down, and which slightly strengthened the expectations placed on a Diocesan bishop in providing alternative episcopal oversight for petitioning… Read more »
Surely, Anne, all 44 dioceses voted on the Measure prior to it being watered down and before the “respect” amendment was added? An amendment to the amendment which many hailed as the salvation of the Measure. Alas, salvation came there none and we are left to salvage something from the wreckage(who knows what) of this mega-omnishambles of the Church’s own making!
Ian Montgomery, thanks for reading my blog and commenting above. You wrote: “The real scandal is that “these people” might just be right and the demise of the Church in England be due to the others who feel suitably enlightened. In fact it is worth asking which churches are growing and why.” You believe the real scandal is that “these people” are right and people like me who “feel suitable enlightened” (subjectively in your opinion, I suspect) are wrong. There are many forms of growth, numerical, spiritual, personal, leading to growth in maturity, wisdom, compassion and a passion for justice.… Read more »
Anne is quite right to point out the substantial discussions which took place in the dioceses and their expectations of the House of Bishops.
I just wonder whether the Synod voting would have been any different had the bishops not amended clauses 5 & 8, and subsequently if such weight had not been placed on the word ‘respect’.
In any case these thoughts are now just reflections.
Further to my reflections above a letter in the Times by a number of lay voters says:
‘They say they were prepared to vote for the July 2010 version of the Measure with a clause referring to “theological convictions” of those requiring alternative oversight, had the Bishops not lost their nerve and decided under pressure from “senior women” to reconsider their proposed “helpful” clause.’
It is quite clear that the amendments made between diocese voting and Synod voting significantly affected the outcome.
The original measure, however, Fr David, on which the Dioceses voted so clearly, seems to have felt less “generous” to those opposed than the one we voted on in the end. That was why the HoB amended it. Yet the original measure still passed resoundingly in the Dioceses. Personally, though, I don’t regard the place we are now in as an “omni-shambles”. While it is painful, I think it has simply revealed the reality of the situation. There is no way to square the circle in this issue. No clever wording in the legislation can make it workable for women… Read more »
At least that is honest.
Yes, I understand your position. Methodist ministers too might feel the same way about their orders cast into question do you think?
And I understand that one as well. And, being honest like you, Anglo-Catholics trying to preserve historic order within the Church catholic find themselves in the ironical situation of having their orders regarded as null and void by Romans etc. etc. You know you are a priest I’m sure…and so do Anglo-Catholics…regardless of what others may think. That is what matters, whatever others may say.
The difference is that Methodist ministers don’t find their orders cast into question by other members of the Methodist church, and Anglo-Catholic priests are entirely recognised as priests by other Anglicans. It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest that the Roman Catholic church would not recognise my orders, (any more than they would recognise the orders of a male C of E priest,) but it does matter, personally and professionally, that my orders should be recognised as valid across the board within my own Church. Canon A4 was written for a reason – it is unworkable in the long… Read more »
Thanks Colin Coward for responding to my comment. Two more observations on my part. Having grown up in English Anglican Evangelical circles, I still value my roots and see so much good there. I do not regard them as insular nor separated from the mainstreams of life. However I do believe that the mainstream of English life has moved considerably. On my now rare visits I find a secular society that is aggressively anti religion. Sadly too I find in many cases a church that has accommodated itself comfortably with first modernism and then increasingly post-modernism. Meanwhile the more evangelical… Read more »
Anne – Thanks for this. I think you are entirely right in your analysis that there is a danger of pickyness leading to splits and more splits etc. Neither side is going to abandon the CofE and will have to live together (co-exist) in the future. So let’s pray that there will be a spirit of generosity on both sides so that this may be possible.
Ian wrote “of they will be forced out as TEC did with the comparable groups in the USA.” No one was forced out of TEC USA. Huge efforts were made to accommodate a big tent. When it was clear that nothing short of institutionalized misogyny and homophobia would be acceptable, our people started voting their conscience and the chips fell. Several years later, we can report growth in 33 of our 100 dioceses and a significant robustness, especially an energetic return to mission. My diocese and parish are growing, we are liberal with awesome female priests and we do same… Read more »
Cynthia,
Having spent over thirty years in TEC I have the experience to differ. The Tent of TEC has become progressively smaller and the attitude narrower and intolerant of firstly doctrinal disagreement and latterly for any kind of dissent. The canons have been flagrantly misused or abused in the cause of an inclusivity that is in fact not inclusive but rigidly exclusive. Hundreds of clergy have paid the price and thousands of communicants now communicate elsewhere. I too am now part of a diaspora that need not have happened – though God is putting it to good uses.
Ian M, if you grew up in English Anglican Evangelical circles, then it is not surprising that you did not find TEC congenial. The CofE has been a very broad church; TEC is less so, and is a more liberal church, with a greater emphasis on using reason in interpreting scripture. It is unfortunate that some in the TEC wanted to blackball people who wanted to be ordained. Some wanted to put a sign over TEC seminaries saying “straight men only.” Naturally the TEC majority had no truck with this. No one was forced out. But some authoritarians have trouble… Read more »
I must object to the comparison by Jeremy that to be an Anglican Evangelical may be akin to membership in the KKK. It is bad enough when people blithely throw out the words bigot, misogynist and more. Where is the civil discourse?
Beside Jeremy knows nothing about me. I protest.