There were a number of questions asked relating to the two recently announced House of Bishops working groups dealing with sexuality issues. None of these questions were reached during the session, so here are the written answers that would have been given.
Judith Maltby asked
Q. Given the inclusion of a man who is not a bishop in the group to advise the House of Bishops on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality, are there any plans to include some women members in order to achieve at least a partial gender balance on this currently all-male group addressing the complex issue of human sexuality?
The Archbishop of York to reply:
A. The Archbishop of Canterbury and I made the appointments to this group, after consultation with Standing Committee of the House. It was, like the parallel group on civil partnerships, established as a small episcopal group. We concluded, however, that there was advantage in inviting a distinguished and independent outsider to chair and facilitate the process.
We do not intend to enlarge the membership of the group but it will be open to the group to consider how others can help it in its work, including, if it so decides, through inviting individuals to serve as consultants or assessors.
Giles Goddard asked:
Q. In the interests of transparency and of gaining the confidence of the Church of England in their reports, how are the terms of reference for the House of Bishops’ working groups on human sexuality and civil partnerships to be agreed and when will they be published?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. The 1 July statement from the House of Bishops constitutes the terms of reference for both groups.
Stephen Coles asked
Q. What provisions are being made to ensure that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Anglicans are consulted by both the group reviewing the Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships and that advising the House on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality.
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. Before Christmas I wrote on behalf of the civil partnership group to a number of groups inviting them to submit representations and have now received replies from them all and some submissions from others. These include a detailed submission from the LGBT Coalition and some of its associated bodies. I understand that the group on human sexuality is to have its first meeting shortly and will be considering then how it is going to go about its task.
Stephen Coles asked:
Q. To what extent were the provisions of the Equality Act taken into account by the House of Bishops when they declared a moratorium on the appointment of clergy in civil partnerships to the episcopate?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. On this as on other matters where legal issues are at stake, the House had the benefit of support from its Legal Adviser who had been involved both in the preparation of the relevant papers and was present at the discussion which took the decisions set out in the 1 July statement.
April Alexander asked:
Q. Recent press statements (5 January 2012 and 1 July 2011) on human sexuality and on civil partnerships indicate that the appointed working groups undertake to “draw together material from the listening process”. Can further information be provided about this process, including such matters as who has listened to whom (in broad terms), when they listened, what they heard and how they overcame the difficulty that homosexual priests do not feel free to declare themselves in order to participate?
The Bishop of Gloucester to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. The House of Bishops’ mandate for drawing together material from the listening process was set out in its statement of 1 July and given to the group of which I am now a member. We have a more extended timescale than the group reviewing the 2005 statement on civil partnerships and are just about to have our first meeting. So I can’t say much today about how we shall be setting about our task. But I can give an assurance that we shall certainly want, among other things, to assemble and reflect on the very considerable range of material and experience that has emerged from the listening process around dioceses since 1998.
There is a change to the agenda for Wednesday morning. See GS 1861 which contains a background briefing note by the Bishop of Durham, Justin Welby.
1 CommentRecent violence in Nigeria
In view of the recent serious violence in Nigeria the Bishop of Durham travelled to the country at short notice on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury to meet members of the Anglican Church in Nigeria and others caught up in the deteriorating situation there.Following the Bishop’s return we have decided, in the exercise of our powers under Standing Order 4 (b) in relation to urgent or other especially important business, to direct the addition to the agenda for the February Group of sessions of a short debate. This will enable the Synod to hear from the Bishop of Durham, to reflect on the attached briefing note and, if it agrees, to pass a short motion that the Bishop will move on our behalf in the following terms:
“That this Synod, gravely concerned at the desperate plight of Christian communities in parts of Nigeria as described in GS 1861, request the British Government to do all it can to support those in Nigeria seeking to protect religious minorities of all faiths and enable them to practise their religion without fear.”
+ Rowan Cantuar: + Sentamu Ebor:
3 February 2012
The LGB&T Anglican Coalition will hold an Act of Witness at General Synod on Thursday 9 February. The poster advertising this event can be downloaded here.
1 CommentOn Wednesday General Synod will be holding a debate on two diocesan synod motions relating to women bishops. The details of this have already been explained here.
There were several other dioceses that passed resolutions in support of the Archbishops’ Amendment, although many more dioceses rejected such an amendment. However, it turns out that all those who did will get some preferential treatment in the debate, as revealed by this Question and Answer from tonight’s Questions session. As this was the very last question on the list, it was not reached during the session, which is why I am reporting it now.
The Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) to ask the Clerk to the Synod:
Q. As it is normal practice, where more than one diocese has submitted a DSM in identical or similar terms, for the diocese(s) concerned to be invited to nominate someone who could speak on behalf of their diocesan synod in the General Synod debate on the DSM and then to draw this to the attention of the person chairing the debate, is it also normal practice to invite the diocese(s) whose synods had rejected a motion in identical or similar terms to those of the DSM to nominate someon who could speak on behalf of their diocesan synod in the debate on the DSM and then to draw this to the attention of the person chairing the debate?
Dr Colin Podmore to reply as Clerk to the Synod:
2 CommentsA. The reason for the practice to which the question refers is that a motion moved at the instance of a diocesan synod can only be moved once in the same, or a substantially similar, form, yet it would be discourteous to a diocesan synod that submitted a motion listed in Special Agenda IV if it (or a motion in a substantially similar form) were debated without a representative being called to speak.
That consideration does not apply in the case of motions that diocesan synods have rejected, or have passed without submitting them for inclusion in Special Agenda IV. However, individual members may of course seek to speak in the debate.
In any event, the overriding duty of the Chair in all debates is to ensure that there is a balance of speakers for and against the motion and any amendments.
There have been several recent reports of an interview in The Times given by the Bishop of Salisbury, Nick Holtam. The original newspaper articles remain behind a paywall. The bishop also spoke on the BBC radio programme Sunday yesterday.
The BBC programme can be found here (available on iPlayer or as podcast).
The Diocese of Salisbury has these reports:
Briefing note following the interview published in The Times on Friday 3 February
Bishop urges open debate – Bishop Nicholas said on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Sunday’ programme this week that there are more views on civil partnerships in the church than have been expressed officially.
Changing Attitude has The Bishop of Salisbury first to make public his support for gay marriage and Pete Broadbent predicts Synod will be talking about gay marriage in the tea room this week
37 CommentsUpdated 11 Feb to add Gloucester voting figures
On Saturday both Derby and Gloucester dioceses voted decisively to reject the proposed Anglican Covenant. Canterbury voted strongly in favour.
In Derby the voting was:
Bishops: 0 for, 1 against
Clergy: 1 for, 21 against, 2 abstentions
Laity: 2 for, 24 against, 2 abstentions
In Gloucester the voting was:
Bishops 1 for, 0 against, 1 abstention
Clergy: 16 for, 28 against, 1 abstention
Laity: 14 for, 28 against, 6 abstentions
Update: from the comments below, we now have figures for Canterbury:
Bishops: 1 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions
Clergy: 26 for, 14 against, 0 abstentions
Laity: 39 for, 13 against, 0 abstentions
Recently, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition announced the appointment of Oxford University Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, DD, as a Patron of the Coalition. The full press release is here (PDF).
…“Anglicanism was born in the Reformation’s rejection of an unwarranted and unhistorical over-centralization of ecclesiastical authority,” according to Professor MacCulloch. “This pernicious proposal of a Covenant (an unhappy choice of name if you know anything about our Church’s history) ignores the Anglican Communion’s
past, and seeks to gridlock the Anglican present at the cost of a truly Anglican future…
Also a paper written by Peter Doll, Canon Librarian of Norwich Cathedral, in support of the Covenant, was comprehensively critiqued by Jonathan Clatworthy and also by Lionel Deimel.
24 CommentsThis petition has been organised by Changing Attitude:
We support the growing number of Church of England clergy who wish to bless civil partnerships in their churches.
Many lesbian and gay Christians wish to have their civil partnerships registered in their parish church by their parish priest in the presence of their community. They wish to affirm their love and commitment in the presence of God in their spiritual home.
Since December it has been legally possible to bless civil partnerships on religious premises. It is time for the Church of England to openly affirm the love, ministry and fidelity of all LGBT people, supporting them in their journey in faith.
We ask the General Synod of the Church of England to allow churches wishing to register civil partnerships the freedom to do so under the new legislation.
We ask the House of Bishops to give clergy the freedom to register civil partnerships in church followed by a service of prayer and dedication.
For more background on this, see Changing Attitude launches petition to allow priests to bless civil partnerships in church and also this earlier article: London clergy challenge Civil Partnership ban.
11 CommentsScot Petersen has written at OpenDemocracy about the bishops in the House of Lords. See Lords Spiritual: a problem of transparency and legitimacy.
…For purposes of the upcoming synod debate, however, the following question by Baroness Young of Hornsey merits attention:
If someone says, in relation to the appointment of Bishops, that the Bishops come from a relatively narrow spectrum of society and that they have separate rules of appointment, separate discipline and no women, does not all that undermine the notion of legitimation either through democratic election or through a rigorous independent appointments procedure? (p. 14)
The archbishop’s response was a restatement of the passage quoted above. But recent events have shown that the episcopal appointments procedure is neither legitimate, rigorous nor independent. In fact, the appointments procedure, which is conducted in secret by the Crown Nominations Commission, is not fit for purpose. A single case study will illustrate the point…
The synod debate in question is discussed in this earlier TA article.
2 CommentsAn Early Day Motion has been filed in the House of Commons by Frank Field, MP.
That this House welcomes the moves by the General Synod of the Church of England to pass legislation permitting women to be bishops; notes that the Synod has now concluded its consultation with the dioceses on the Women in the Episcopate: draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure; further welcomes the result of those consultations, with 42 out of 44 dioceses voting in favour; is encouraged by the overwhelming support shown by 85 per cent. of bishops, 76 per cent. of clergy and 77 per cent. of the laity voting in favour; encourages the House of Bishops to commend the Measure for final approval as currently drafted; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to work with the governing authorities of the Church of England including the Archbishops’ Council, the House of Bishops and the General Synod to ensure that the express wishes of the overwhelming majority of those consulted across the Provinces of Canterbury and York are met by expeditiously tabling the Measure in Parliament for its approval.
A press release from Frank Field gives background information:
4 CommentsPress Release from the LGB&T Anglican Coalition
‘Embrace Civil Partnerships’ – Bishops told.
2nd February 2012 – for immediate use
The time has come for a change in stance on Civil Partnerships is the message from pro-gay groups in the LGB&T Anglican Coalition.
In its submission to the House of Bishops review group on Civil Partnerships, (made public today) the Coalition calls on the Church of England to allow churches to register Civil Partnerships, authorise services of Thanksgiving and Dedication, and end the ban on Bishops in Civil Partnerships.
With over 47,000 Civil partnerships had been registered by the end of 2010, the submission notes that “As social attitudes towards those in same-sex relationships have become increasingly open and accepting, the Church of England is becoming increasingly isolated. This is in turn damaging both our mission and our ability to provide pastoral care to those in our parishes, congregations, and clergy.”
On offering Civil Partnerships in Parish Churches, the Coalition has already identified 95 churches who want to press ahead but General Synod would need to approve the application. Although negative statements have been made by the Church of England’s Press Office,
“the fact that there has been no possibility of discussion within the Church about whether individual churches should be allowed to register their for Civil Partnerships is in itself a retrograde position for the Church of England to be in.”
On services of Thanksgiving and Dedication, the Coalition has called for an experimental liturgy to be introduced in the same way that such services were permitted following marriage after divorce in the 1990’s.
“The present situation where services of blessing are proscribed and the creation of public liturgies deemed to be wrong, is creating pastoral tensions, ecclesiastical ambiguity, and a culture of double standards… As a minimum step, therefore, the Church should permit services of thanksgiving and dedication to take place in pastoral response to the large number of civil partnerships. To refuse to respond in such a way would confirm fears that the present ban is motivated by prejudice rather than theology or religious belief. “
On the current ban on appointments of openly gay clergy to be Bishops the Coalition calls for an immediate end to the moratorium:
“One of the most pressing needs is to see an end to the moratorium on appointment of bishops in civil partnerships even if celibate. There is no justification for the current moratorium and it should be repealed immediately.”
The submission also warns against putting up barriers to such appointments:
“Furthermore, any attempt to deter or exclude such candidates by singling them out for intrusive questions is not only unjust and hurtful to the individuals concerned but also damaging to mission and ministry.”
In response to the submission, the House of Bishops review group has invited members of the Coalition to meet with them to discuss the issues further.
The Coalition is also organising an Act of Witness at General Synod drawing attention to the many hundreds of LGB&T clergy who minister in the Church of England despite the discrimination and suspicion which they often suffer. The Act of Witness will take place on Thursday 9th February, 8:30-10am in Deans Yard, Westminster.
The full text of the submission is available as a PDF file from here.
9 CommentsThere is a news report in the Church Times of reactions to the Archbishop of York’s interview by Madeleine Davies headlined Sentamu’s words on gay marriage backed by MPs.
Benny Hazlehurst, who is quoted in that news story, has published God, Marriage and the State giving more background on how marriage has changed.
For more on the demonstration outside York Minster, see local press reports here, and here.
The Church Times has a leader: In the end, it comes down to a word.
…It is good that the C of E is examining its earlier reservations about civil partnerships. Experience has proved them to be serious affairs, with many qualities — dedication, nurture, love, faithfulness — that look like marriage. Libby Purves has quoted the saying: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… it probably is a duck… People who want to marry and treat one another properly should not be made second-class.” If Dr Sentamu and others wish to argue differently, they need to make a stronger case for discriminating against same-sex couples than merely appealing to “tradition and history”.
The Spectator has splashed out with a cover story headlined Sentamu for Canterbury!
7 CommentsFrom the Diocese of Southwark: Two new Area Bishops for Southwark Diocese.
6 CommentsDowning Street has announced this morning that the Rev Jonathan Clark has been appointed the 10th Bishop of Croydon and the Venerable Dr Michael Ipgrave OBE has been appointed the 12th Bishop of Woolwich. The Revd Jonathan Clark succeeds the Rt Rev Nick Baines who is now the 10th Bishop of Bradford and the Venerable Dr Michael Ipgrave OBE succeeds the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun who is now the 10th Bishop of Southwark. They will be consecrated in Southwark Cathedral on 21 March 2012…
The Archbishop of York has published this transcript of his interview with Martin Beckford of the Daily Telegraph.
0 CommentsUpdated again Friday morning
A group of clergy in the Diocese of London have signed a letter calling for the Church of England to reverse its ban on civil partnership ceremonies being held in churches.
This is reported fully today in The Times but that material is all behind a paywall. Here are some other reports:
BBC Church of England clergy challenge civil partnership stance
AFP Church of England clergy rebel on gay ceremonies
Mail Online Nearly 100 clergy revolt over Church ban on ‘gay weddings’
Text of letter to The Times:
We, the undersigned, believe that on the issue of holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches incumbents / priests in charge should be accorded the same rights as they enjoy at present in the matter of officiating at the marriage of divorced couples in church. Namely, that this should be a matter for the individual conscience of the incumbent / priest in charge.
We would respectfully request that our views in this regard are fully represented in Synod.
Updates
Changing Attitude has now published the full list of signatures to the letter, along with a covering letter sent to the clergy members of General Synod from the London diocese. See Signatories on the letter to The Times and clergy proctors of London Diocese.
The Bishop of London has issued this: Clergy letter about civil partnerships in our churches
I am of course aware of the letter that a number of clergy in this Diocese has signed regarding civil partnerships in our churches. Their request to General Synod is based on very proper pastoral concern and it is right that this matter continues to be discussed openly…
The Church Times has a report: London clergy seek right to choose together with the full list of signatories.
…The letter challenging this ban originated at St Luke’s, Chelsea, where the Rector is Prebendary Brian Leathard. On Wednesday, he said that his motivation had been pastoral: “More and more people are coming to us, and feel that we are turning them away without being able to hear their story. They have a genuine desire for the Church’s fullest ministry, for us to bless their loving relationships.”
His request is for “something akin to the remarriage of divorcees when, under guidelines and in consultation with the bishop, priests act in accordance with their consciences”. The letter asks for permissive legislation: “There will be priests who do not want to do this, and I would respect their desire not to.”
He disagreed with the view that the present system spared the clergy from the responsibility of rejecting individual couples. “For those of us at the front line, there is no sense of hiding behind a blanket ban: we are still turning people away.”
St Luke’s has not approached all the London clergy; none the less, Prebendary Leathard said: “This is a substantial proportion. We should like our General Synod representatives to hear this groundswell, and represent those views in the Synod.”
Guardian Riazat Butt Bishop of London dismisses calls for civil partnerships in churches
24 CommentsThe following article is reproduced here by kind permission of the Editor of The Tablet where it appeared in last week’s issue. thetablet.co.uk
4 CommentsBritish Religion in Numbers reports on the survey behind the claim made by the Sun that
‘Six out of ten Brits think bishops should be booted out of the House of Lords after defeating plans to cap benefits at £26,000 a year.’
As BRIN explains, in Lords Spiritual:
The survey was undertaken online on 24 January 2012, among a sample of 749 adults aged 18 and over, and in the wake of the amendment to the Bill passed by the House of Lords the previous night, which had the effect of excluding child benefit from the £26,000 cap being proposed by the Government. Data tables have been posted at: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pbzn4ckvyb/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-BishopsHouseLords-260112.pdf
Read the full article for reference to an earlier (2010) survey on the same topic, and look in the comments for a further link to yet another recent survey, this one for the Sunday Times.
All this has some relevance to the forthcoming General Synod debate on a Private Member’s Motion on House of Lords Reform.
The briefing papers are here:
Tony Berry and April Alexander
Background Note by the Secretary General
WATCH has published a paper explaining The Case against the Archbishops’ Amendment. This is reproduced in full below the fold.
The reason for doing this now is that next week the General Synod will debate a Diocesan Synod Motion from the Diocese of Manchester. The motion reads:
That this Synod call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure”.
The briefing papers relating to this can be found here:
Diocese of Manchester
Diocese of Southwark (this diametrically opposed DSM will be moved as an amendment to the Manchester one)
Secretary General’s Background Note
The full voting records from the July 2010 debate, when this was previously considered, can be found here.
6 CommentsUpdated again Tuesday evening
Libby Purves wrote an article for The Times titled Retreat from your battle against gay marriage. Only Times subscribers can read it, but if you are such a person, it is well worth reading. Here is the link.
A small fragment is reproduced here.
Andrew Brown wrote at Cif belief that John Sentamu’s argument against gay marriage is already lost.
The archbishop of York, John Sentamu, hopes that people will pay attention to other things in his most recent interview than his attack on gay marriage. Fat chance. When he said that the government will be acting as dictators have done if it introduces gay marriage, he put himself squarely in the wrong on a matter that people care about.
Nor does he give what I think are likely to be his real, animating reasons: that he believes gay marriage is bad because it makes being gay look normal and even admirable, and because gay people should not have sex with each other. Around most of the world, and certainly in most of the Anglican Communion, these would be perfectly respectable and uncontroversial things to say. But in modern Britain they are a minority view, and certainly not a respectable one. They are not going to win a political argument – and that’s what he’s fighting here…
Archbishop Cranmer published Sentamu pitches for Canterbury.
Terry Sanderson of the NSS wrote at Huffington Post that Sentamu’s Shot at Gay Marriage Is Only the First Salvo in a Bitter Battle to Come.
John Smeaton of SPUC wrote British government is afraid of the homosexual lobby.
Megan Moore wrote at Conservative Home that The Archbishop of York doesn’t deserve to be called a “bigot” by Twitter’s intolerants.
YorkVision reports YUSU slam Archbishop over marriage remarks. And see also Archbishop of York criticised for “outdated and homophobic rhetoric”.
Peter Tatchell wrote Archbishop Sentamu is “intolerant and out of touch” and also Archbishop Sentamu Has No Right to Block Gay Civil Marriages.
The Uganda Humanist Association writes Sentamu, your words will travel.
JP Floru Director of Programmes at the Adam Smith Institute, wrote in the Telegraph Gay marriage won’t make the world stop turning
27 Comments…It is interesting to see that in the most recent debate on the issue of gay marriage, the bigots are falling out of the closet left, right and centre. They speak in code. Instead of shouting that “allowing gays to marry will demean Marriage”, they argue that “any marriage other than one between a male and female would change the meaning of marriage”. In other words: We Believe that Your Union is of Lesser Value than Ours – and the Law should Reflect This! Talk of totalitarianism.
Another argument is the “most people don’t want this” one. Well, there probably was a time when most people believed slavery was quite a useful little custom. A democratic majority does not legitimise trampling over the right of individuals to be treated as equal humans. Democracy can only be accepted by all if the power of the state to trample upon individuals is made impossible…
Updated Sunday evening
Martin Beckford of the Telegraph has spent the week in Jamaica with the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu.
In Saturday’s Telegraph he has two articles:
Dr John Sentamu: Church must avoid being ‘too middle class’
…While the focus has often been on the introduction of homosexual and female clergy, Dr Sentamu is aware that the Church must do more to avoid its leadership being solely white and middle class.
“I used to chair the committee for minority ethnic Anglican concerns, and we seemed to be making some progress but that now seems to be going backwards. Where we have lost out is black people who had been realised Anglicans, who are now joining Pentecostal churches. That’s a huge drain.”
He said white working-class parishioners were also poorly represented in the Church’s leadership, often being relegated to making tea after services, and highlighted support groups for single mothers and replacing theological books with audio versions as ways to help disadvantaged groups.
“The Church should be a sign of the kingdom of heaven and should be telling us what it will look like. Heaven is not going to be full of just black people, just working-class people, just middle-class people, it’s going to be, in the words of Desmond Tutu, a rainbow people of God in all its diversity.”
Don’t legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron
NB This article now also includes a video interview. Watching it is recommended.
…But the Archbishop says it is not the role of the state to redefine marriage, threatening a new row between the Church and state just days after bishops in the House of Lords led a successful rebellion over plans to cap benefits.
“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.
“We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.
“It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You’re completely changing tradition.”
Earlier this week, Lynne Featherstone (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Equalities Office) answered this question in parliament on the subject:
(1) what recent discussions she has had with (a) the Church of England and (b) other church groups on same sex marriages in church;
(2) what representations she has received from the Church of England on same sex marriages in church.
Answer:
The Government will publish a formal consultation on equal civil marriage in March 2012. I have met with a wide range of organisations ahead of this consultation including with representatives from the following church organisations: Church of England, Catholic Church, the Evangelical Alliance, Christian Institute, Quakers and Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. Discussions have been held and are ongoing with other organisations including those representing other faith groups, non-religious groups and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.This consultation will not propose any changes to religious marriage. Same-sex couples will not be able, under these proposals, to have a marriage through a religious ceremony on religious premises.
Update
Rosalind English has written this at UK Human Rights Blog: Archbishop on warpath.
54 CommentsDr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, has thrown a firecracker into the consultation on gay marriage, which is about to begin in March. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph he declared that he did not agree that it was the role of the state to define what marriage is. ”It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are”.
Last week’s Church Times carried a detailed report which is now available to non-subscribers: Synod given chance to signal its wishes on women bishops by Margaret Duggan and Ed Thornton.
THE subject of women bishops will dominate the General Synod’s meeting in Church House, Westminster, next month.
Dr Colin Podmore, the new Clerk to the Synod, said at a press briefing a week ago that there were four separate items about it on the agenda, with ten documents to back them. It would be the first time that the membership of the current Synod, elected a year-and-a-half ago, has tackled the subject, and so it would be of great interest to see which way they might go.
The secretary-general, William Fittall, refused to speculate on any outcome. He said that it would be a very significant chapter in a debate that had already gone on for more than a decade. It would be a chance for the Synod to reflect on the draft legislation, and on the Illustrative Draft Code of Practice.
Members would be invited to make suggestions and recommendations, but not to make amendments; only the House of Bishops could amend the legislation when it met in May. Should any of those amendments be substantial, the legislation would have to be referred to the diocese again; otherwise, the final vote could be next July…
Scroll down the same page for a second article: Illustrative code by Glyn Paflin.
THE Code of Practice on women bishops cannot be settled until the Measure itself has been passed, but the Synod will debate an Illustrative Draft Code of Practice on the Tuesday of its next meeting.
Drafted by a House of Bishops working party, chaired by the Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, it supersedes the illustrative draft produced by another group in 2008, owing The House of Bishops debated the new draft code in December, and the Archbishops’ foreword to the report says that the House “does not wish to see any outcome that would entrench radical division or given any impression of a ‘two-tier’ episcopate”. But it is committed to “the most adequate and sustainable provision for theological dissent over the ordination of women”, and seeks “a balanced provision” that will enable all members of the Church of England to “flourish”.
The House has committed itself to three principles: (1) ensuring that bishops do not discriminate when selecting candidates for ordination on grounds of their theological convictions about the admission of women to holy orders; (2) paying heed, when new bishops are chosen to provide episcopal ministry under diocesan schemes, to the theological convictions on women’s ordination of those who issued the Letter of Request for their ministry; and (3) maintaining a supply of bishops who can minister to those unable to accept women bishops…
Earlier this week Andrew Brown wrote for the Guardian that The Church of England’s fudge on female bishops is breathtaking.
The Church of England’s House of Bishops – for which, read the archbishops of Canterbury and York – has explained how they hope to mollify the opponents of female clergy. The proposals are breathtaking.
The archbishops envisage that the Church of England, once it has female bishops, will continue ordaining men who do not accept these women, finding them jobs they will deign to accept, and promoting some of them to be bishops who will work to ensure the continued supply of male priests who refuse to accept female clergy. In fact, the church will pay three bishops (the formerly “flying” sees of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, and Beverley) to work full time against their female colleagues, and to nourish the resistance.
The General Synod, last summer, rejected the archbishops’ plan to fix a reservation in law where the opponents could live as if nothing had changed. Now they have brought back the same proposals, but call them “a code of practice” instead. In theory, this gives both sides what they want. In reality neither will find it easy to accept.
Obviously this will be unacceptable to most supporters of women’s ordination. But the cream of the joke is that it will probably be unacceptable to their principled opponents as well. The unscrupulous ones will, of course, be very happy with the deal.
Despite all these concessions, there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don’t want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women’s authority wherever it appears.
This is apparently Rowan Williams’s idea of justice…
To read in full what the archbishops wrote in their Foreword to the Report of the Working Group on an Illustrative Draft Code of Practice, see the first couple of pages of GS Misc 1007, available as a PDF here.
12 Comments