Updated again Friday evening
Forward in Faith has published this statement:
Members of Forward in Faith can take some comfort from the House of Bishops’ recent decision to resist calls to delete clause 5(1)(c) of the Women Bishops’ draft Measure, added by the House in May. The revised clause, with the welcome language of ‘respect’ at its heart, indicates that the theological convictions held by traditional catholics and orthodox evangelicals on this disputed question continue to occupy an authentic and honourable place in Anglican teaching and practice.
Should this draft legislation receive Final Approval in November, the proposed Code of Practice will assume huge significance in setting out the manner in which the new clause 5(1)(c) will be interpreted and implemented. There is, therefore, a good deal more work to be done on the legislative package as a whole before its full implications for traditionalists can be properly assessed.
In the meantime, attention returns to the text of the draft Measure as a whole, in advance of the debate on Final Approval. The question for members of General Synod remains the same: is this legislation fit for purpose in meeting the needs of all members of the Church of England, both those who welcome, and those unable to receive, the development of ordaining women as bishops?
WATCH has also issued a statement:
Today the House of Bishops announced that it had voted by a large majority to substitute a new set of wording in place of the controversial Clause 5(1)c.
WATCH is pleased that the House of Bishops listened to the anxieties voiced concerning their amendment to the legislation in May, and is encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recognition of the enrichment that the ordained ministry of women has brought to the Church of England and her mission.
WATCH is, however, disappointed that the House of Bishops did not feel able to withdraw Clause 5(1)c completely.
It will take time to explore the implications of the new wording fully and WATCH will now begin a process of consultation with members and others before issuing any further comment.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said
“The House of Bishops has today confirmed its commitment to having women as bishops and has attempted to find a new way forward that will ensure the draft legislation is passed by General Synod in November. Time will tell whether the new Clause 5(1)c will produce the desired outcome.”
Update REFORM has now made a further comment which you can see here.
No new statement has yet appeared from REFORM but a spokesman is quoted in this report from the BBC Women bishops: Anglicans still unsure over new wording.
…The Reverend Paul Dawson, spokesman for the conservative evangelical group Reform, said the new clause was “not going to win any more votes from our constituency.”
Of the previous House of Bishops amendment, he said: “Although we weren’t entirely happy with that, there was a sense in which we could probably have lived with it.”
Reform is holding a conference later this month which he said would discuss “Assuming this goes through as it is, what do we do then?”
Already young men from evangelical parishes who were considering entering the clergy were unsure whether there would be a welcome for them in the Church, said Mr Dawson…
A letter has been sent to the House of Bishops by a group of senior women clergy. The full text is published below the fold.
The Church Times reports in an article Amended women-bishops clause speaks of ‘respect’ what the Catholic Group in the General Synod said:
…On Monday, the Catholic Group in the General Synod said that it was grateful to the House of Bishops for “retaining the lifebelts in Clause 5(1)(c)” but “concerned that they have let some of the air out of them by reducing ‘is consistent with’ to ‘respects’”. The Group “continues to have grave doubts about the seaworthiness of this ship [the Measure] and the reduction in the effectiveness of the lifebelts gives it less confidence in the proposed voyage”.
Church Society reports that:
41 Comments…This month, the Society’s council will be writing to the House of Bishops expressing our guarded support for the suggested rewording of clause 5(1)c. We shall express that while finding a form of words we can agree on is important, ultimately our primary concern is protecting the place of biblical ministry consistent with 2,000 years of Christian tradition.
Updated Thursday morning
The final text of the controversial clause 5(1)(c) to be presented to General Synod in November has been agreed by the House of Bishops; it is given towards the end of the press release reproduced below.
NEWS from the Church of England
12/9/12 – For immediate release
Women Bishops: Draft Legislation
The House of Bishops has today by an overwhelming majority settled the text of the legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.
The House of Bishops made clear its desire for the draft legislation to be passed into law when it goes forward for final approval to the Church of England’s General Synod in November.
Speaking on behalf of the House at the conclusion of their meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams said:
“Before turning to the matters we have been discussing, I want to say, on behalf of the Bishops, that our thoughts and prayers are very much with the people of Liverpool and all affected by the Hillsborough tragedy on this day when the report is released. The Bishop of Liverpool has done a great service in steering this work to a conclusion and helping us as a nation to confront this deeply traumatic memory.”
Dr. Williams continued:
“Since women were first made priests in the Church of England in 1994, their ministry has hugely enriched both church and society. It has become increasingly clear to most of us that barring women from becoming bishops is an anomaly that should be removed, for the good of the Church’s mission and service.
“In July this year, the General Synod asked the House of Bishops to reconsider an alteration it had made to the proposed legislation on this subject. The Bishops have taken very seriously the anxieties expressed about the possible implications of their amendment and there has been widespread consultation since then. We are very grateful for all the points and suggestions offered by synod members and others.
“In light of this consultation, the Bishops have discussed the measure again and are now bringing forward a new text that expresses both our conviction of the need to see this legislation passed and our desire to honour the conscience and contribution of those in the Church of England whose reservations remain.
“It is particularly significant and welcome that the new text emerged not from the House of Bishops itself but rather from a serving woman priest.
“I hope all members of Synod will now reflect carefully on what the Bishops have decided and will continue to give thought and prayer to how they will vote in November.”
“I am convinced that the time has come for the Church of England to be blessed by the ministry of women as bishops and it is my deep hope that the legislation will pass in November.”
At its meeting in July the General Synod asked the House of Bishops to reconsider a provision in the legislation – Clause 5(1)(c) of the draft measure.
The new amendment submitted by the Rev. Janet Appleby during the consultation process received overwhelming support from the House of Bishops in both their discussions and in the final vote.
In discussion the Bishops welcomed the simplicity of the new text, its emphasis on respect and the process of dialogue with parishes that it will promote.
The final text proposed by the House of Bishops is:
Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c): “the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3”
The House also agreed to establish a group to develop the illustrative draft Code of Practice published in January to give effect to the new provision.
Update
The Archbishop of Canterbury has recorded a podcast about the new text proposed by the House of Bishops. It can be downloaded from the beginning of Archbishop speaks about women bishops draft legislation. A transcript is also available.
REFORM has replied to GS Misc 1033 with the following letter:
Rod Thomas wrote to William Fittall, General Secretary of General Synod
RESPONSE BY REFORM TO SECRETARY GENERAL ON GS MISC 1033
Dear William,
In GS Misc 1033, you sought views on Clause 5(1)c of the draft Women Bishops Measure prior to the formulation of proposals for the September meeting of the House of Bishops. My purpose in writing is to let you know how members of the Reform network have responded to your request and to the situation in which the General Synod now finds itself.
As you will know, conservative evangelicals have always been assured that their theological outlook relating to male headship in both church and family life will have a respected position. We have argued that to achieve this, any legislation for women bishops should introduce appropriate safeguards – and these should be mainly on the face of the Measure, rather than in a Code of Practice. The latter should be seen as elucidating the basic provision of legislation.
To this end, we have sought over the years to put the case for legislative provision which would achieve four safeguards:
10 CommentsUpdated Wednesday night
The Church of England has this morning issued this report from the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops: Women in the Episcopate: The Next Steps.
Women in the Episcopate: The Next Steps
05 September 2012The Standing Committee of the House of Bishops has set out the next steps in the Church of England’s debate on Women Bishops.
Following the decision of the General Synod on 9th July 2012 to refer the matter back to the House of Bishops for further consideration, the Standing Committee has met to consider the options available when the House meets in Oxford on September 12.
At its meeting yesterday the committee considered all the submissions received in response to a request for members of General Synod and interested groups to suggest possible ways forward, in addition to taking account of comments from the Steering Committee responsible for taking the draft legislation through the General Synod.
In total 120 submissions were received: 17 were from bishops, 33 from clergy members of the General Synod, 48 from lay members of the Synod, 7 from groups and 15 from other individuals who do not sit as members of Synod.
Of the seven options presented in the paper the two which received the greatest level of support are options 1 and 2: retaining Clause 5(1)(c) in its present form or deleting it without replacement. 35 correspondents expressed a preference for retaining the provision (option 1) and 41 for deleting it (option 2). Option 3 attracted relatively little support whilst options 4 to 7 attracted some support and also some criticisms. In addition a few new options were suggested by respondents.
In terms of groups representing particular opinions on this issue the submissions from WATCH – advocating women in the episcopate – firmly supported Option 2 whilst Reform and the Catholic Group – opposing women in the episcopate – firmly favoured option 1.
Having considered and discussed the submissions received, the Standing Committee resolved to invite the House of Bishops to consider the Committee’s assessment of the seven options in GS Misc 1033 and of the additional suggestions received during the consultation process. Members of the House have the right to table amendments before 5pm on Tuesday September 11th.
The amendments will be voted upon at the meeting of the House of Bishops by simple majority. If no amendment were passed the draft Measure would return to the General Synod unchanged (option 1 from GS Misc 1033).
The amendments that the Standing Committee has suggested for discussion in the light of the consultation are as follows:
- (Option 2 from GS Misc 1033) Delete clause 5(1)(c)
- (Option 4 from GS Misc 1033) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection, after consultation with parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male bishops and male priests to exercise ministry in the parishes of those councils,”
- (New option suggested by a Synod member) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3,”.
- (Option 5 from GS Misc 1033) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection, following consultation with parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male bishops and male priests, the exercise of ministry by whom appears to the persons making the selection to be appropriate for the parishes concerned,”.
- (Option 6 from GS Misc 1033) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection of male bishops and male priests the exercise of ministry by whom respects the position, in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service and the provision of pastoral care, of the parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3,”.The General Synod will vote on the draft Measure at its meeting in London on 19-21 November.
We linked to GS Misc 1033 here.
Update The press release includes this summary of GS Misc 1033.
6 CommentsThe discussion document GS Misc 1033 was issued on 25 July and set out 7 options making clear that these were not an exhaustive list:
Option 1- Retention of Clause 5(1)(c) in its current form.
Option 2 – Deletion of Clause 5(1)(c).
Option 3 – Replacement of “consistent with” by “respect” or “take account of”.
Option 4 – Focus on broad subject area and perhaps process.
Option 5 – Focus on suitability/appropriateness.
Option 6 – Revised formulation of what parishes need (inserting references to the position of PCCs in relation to the celebration of the sacraments etc).
Option 7 – Option 6 plus some process.
The verbatim record of the July meeting of the Church of England General Synod is now available for download: Report of Proceedings: July 2012.
There is also a Summary for parish magazines (two A4 pages) prepared by the Communications Office.
0 CommentsUpdated Thursday evening to include additional link
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 28th August 2012
WATCH continues to call for complete withdrawal of Clause 5(1)c
WATCH (Women and the Church) has considered the consultation paper GS Misc 1033 sent out to members of Synod near the end of July and considers that complete withdrawal of amended Clause 5(1)c remains the wisest course of action for the House of Bishops at their meeting in September.
Opinions are divided amongst supporters of ordained women as to the best way forward. Though every effort has been made to engage fully with the brief consultation process, no one proposal for a new wording for 5(1)c has achieved very wide support.
WATCH has made a formal response to the consultation (attached and also here as a web page). Amongst the key points in our thinking are:
We conclude that withdrawing 5(1)c is the safest path to the successful passage of this Measure and the only way to keep faith with the diocesan consultation process.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said
“The House of Bishops will have a very difficult judgment call at their meeting in September. It is vital that whatever decision they make does not further undermine the ministry of ordained women.”
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes has published her response to GS Misc 1033 on her own blog and you can read it in full here. She makes her own alternative proposal for replacement wording:
‘To promote the flourishing of, and foster co-operation between, parishes whose PCCs have, and have not, signed Letters of Request under clause 3 of this Measure’.
But you will need to read her full response in order to understand why she makes this proposal.
WATCH has issued the following statement:
Petition to remove Clause 5(1)(c) from the Women Bishops Measure
You may be aware that legislation to allow women to be bishops in the Church of England has been going through General Synod and the Diocesan Synods for several years. Final approval was to have been in General Synod in July this year. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury was concerned that it did not do enough for those people who are opposed to women priests and, in May this year, the House of Bishops decided to insert an amendment that fundamentally changed the draft legislation.
In the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own words, this amendment to the legislation that had been agreed by 42 of the 44 dioceses “de-stabilised” the steady progress towards final approval.
The draft legislation already allowed parishes effectively to “opt out” by requesting a male priest or bishop. However, the clause that the House of Bishops inserted into it [Clause 5(1)(c)] would have further allowed them, in effect, to choose their own bishop and to insist that the male bishop selected for them had never ordained a woman or been ordained by a woman. This angered so many people that WATCH started a petition to enable their voices to be heard.
An initial avalanche of signatures – 5,000 in just one week – showed the strength of feeling on this issue, and when General Synod met in July it decided to adjourn the final approval debate as it had become clear that it was unlikely that the amended version of the Measure would have enough support to be passed.
Since then the number of people signing has fallen away, probably because people feel that the battle has been won. However, the amendment has not yet been withdrawn, and when the House of Bishops meets in September it could still decide to keep the same amendment, or – more likely – try to come up with another version of it. WATCH believes that it is time to stop tinkering with the legislation and allow General Synod finally to vote on the Measure as it was agreed by the dioceses.
If you have not already signed WATCH’s petition please do so, in time for the meeting on 10 September and, even if you have, please try to encourage everyone you know who wishes to see women made bishops on the same basis as men to sign. There is a link to the petition on the WATCH website: www.womenandthechurch.org
You can still make a difference, and help to ensure that when General Synod meets again in November it is able to vote to approve the legislation that has carried the support of 95% of the Dioceses of the Church of England.
Here is a link to the petition.
1 CommentMadeleine Davies reports in today’s Church Times Women bishops: a lot of ground for the Synod to make up.
…Today is the deadline for responses to a consultation document about the options, which was circulated to Synod members by the secretary-general, William Fittall.
By Wednesday, only about one member in ten had responded. The General Synod Office reported “more than 50” submissions, the “great majority” from Synod members, but also some “from individuals and others from groups”. There are 477 Synod members.
Such a low response will make it difficult for the House of Bishops to ascertain the mind of the Synod when it meets to discuss the Measure on 12 September, although several dioceses are planning their own consultations later.
This week, Synod members expressed preferences for four of the seven options…
The press release from GRAS referred to in this news report is copied below the fold.
3 CommentsResponses to GS Misc 1033 Women in the Episcopate – the Final Legislative Lap were requested from synod members (though not from the general public) by Friday 25 August (see paras 94 and 95).
Our original introduction to this document can be found here.
One such response that has been submitted is from April Alexander, a lay General Synod member from Southwark Diocese, and she has agreed to its publication here in full. It is available as a web page or as a PDF file. The response is in 12 numbered sections.
Section 1 argues that option 1 (retain the bishops’ amendment) is not a satisfactory outcome. In discussing the difficulties of qualifying “maleness” she notes that:
The Archbishop’s argument that qualifying maleness would allow charges of misogyny to be avoided is excruciatingly insulting (para 33). It is an idea which the traditionalists have developed in the recent past in the context of women bishops; (“we are rejecting male as well as female bishops and therefore we cannot be accused of discrimination”). Women and their supporters are already accommodating misogyny and have been doing so with astonishing generosity for years. The responses to the unamended Measure from the Dioceses indicated that there was very wide acceptance of this.
To say that the phrase “male bishop” is “insufficient [and] does not go to the root of [the problem]” is incorrect. The position of the traditionalists and of the conservatives depends totally on a theology of gender and pandering to the notion of “pedigree” on the face of the legislation does nothing to alter this.
And she goes on to quote a statement from senior women clergy issued way back in 2008.
Section 2 deals with Option 2 (delete the amendment) which is the course of action April Alexander supports. She notes that:
…If the Archbishops were to throw their weight behind the unamended draft Measure on the basis that it contains all the provision necessary for extremists at either end to continue to practice as they have been doing up to now by statute and by grace and trust, then the very few changes of heart which are required among the House of Laity could be achieved.
… If Simon Killwick’s estimate that the traditionalists and conservatives form 35% of the House of Laity, then the numbers who need to change their vote in order to achieve 66.6% in favour in that House would only be four. Changing hearts and minds is the life’s work of bishops and archbishops and it would be strange indeed if , between them, they could not effect a change of heart in this small number if they put their weight behind the unamended Measure…
Other sections discuss a range of issues:
the identification in the Diocesan Scheme both of the bishop or bishops who will exercise episcopal ministry by delegation to parishes who issue a letter of request and the circumstances under which alternative provision might be made in a particular case (adapted from draft CoP para 40)
8 Comments‘At the root of some of the options set out is the view, apparently held by some, that “Bishops who had associated themselves with the ordination of women” would no longer be “valid ministers of the sacraments”. I find this an extraordinary attitude. The scholastic doctrine, that the “unworthiness of the minister hindereth not the effect of the sacrament” is enshrined in Article 26. It is also traditional catholic theology that unorthodoxy does not invalidate the sacraments. The opposite view seems to me to introduce uncatholic heresy. How could we allow a situation where individual church members or groups decide who are real bishops and who are not? To reject the bishop is to reject the Church that he represents. I do not believe that it is possible to be an Anglican and not be in communion with your bishop and – I say this with deference and due humility – with the See of Canterbury.’
The elections for the central members of the Crown Nominations Commission (to serve for five years from 1 September 2012) have just been held, and the results are now available.
The House of Laity elected
April Alexander (Southwark)
Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London)
Jane Patterson (Sheffield).
The House of Clergy elected
John Dunnett (Chelmsford)
Judith Maltby (Oxford University)
Andrew Nunn (Southwark).
The current elected members will continue on the CNC to select the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The newly elected members will first take part in the choice of the next Bishop of Blackburn, with CNC meetings scheduled for 10 January and 30/31 January 2013.
The elections were by STV (single transferable vote) and the detailed voting sheets are available for download.
3 CommentsCNC Elections – House of Clergy
CNC Elections – House of Laity
This article is concerned with what GS Misc 1033 calls “Option 5”. To encourage a constructive discussion of this option, I have brought together below the specific sections of the document which deal with this. This option is titled Focus on suitability/appropriateness and it builds in a specific reference to the ‘suitability’ or ‘appropriateness’ of the person selected for the particular context in which he was to exercise ministry.
Paragraph 59 contains the suggested possible rewording of sub-clause (c)
(c) the selection, following consultation with parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male bishops and male priests, the exercise of ministry by whom appears to the persons making the selection to be [suitable][appropriate] for the parishes concerned.
The full text of the relevant section of the paper, paras 58 to 67 is copied below the fold.
The paper also comments on what wording in the Code of Practice would be appropriate in conjunction with option 5. Reference is made to the most recent draft code, contained in GS Misc 1007 and a few extracts from that are included as an annex at the end of GS Misc 1033.
Here is what it says:
88. In the case of option five, an alternative version would be preferable. There would also need to be a revised version of paragraph 97 (which could incorporate some of the elements from paragraph 91 below), with consequential amendments to paragraphs 126 and 127. The text to go in after paragraph 40 might be along the lines of the following:
A diocesan scheme should provide that the arrangements for selecting bishops who will exercise their ministry by delegation will enable parishes to receive ministry that is [suitable] [appropriate] to their circumstances given the basis on which the Letter of Request was issued.
This does not mean that the arrangements should allow a parish to choose its own bishop or insist that the person selected should be of its own churchmanship. But they should provide for the diocesan bishop, through consultation with the PCC, to seek to establish the nature of the conviction that underlies the Letter of Request, and, in the light of that, to select someone whose ministry can be effective in that context.”
Paragraph 91 which is mentioned above, as being partially relevant to option 5, reads as follows:
12 Comments91. Paragraph 97 [of the draft code] would then be replaced (and there would be corresponding amendments to paragraphs 126 and 127 in relation to priestly ministry) by the following:
Before sending the PCC the written notice setting out the arrangements to give effect to the Letter of Request, the diocesan bishop should inform him – or herself, by consulting the PCC of the parish (either personally or through a representative), of its position in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service and the provision of pastoral care.
The Measure does not allow parishes to ask that their bishop should hold a particular set of beliefs, or subscribe to any statement of faith beyond what all bishops have to affirm when making the Declaration of Assent. Nor does it allow parishes to choose their own bishop or insist that the male bishop selected for them reflects their own churchmanship.
In determining what arrangements to set out in the written notice the diocesan bishop should seek to accommodate the parish’s concerns relating to holy orders and the exercise of ordained ministry of women so far as those matters are relevant to the parish’s position in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service and the provision of pastoral care. But the diocesan should not take into account other, unrelated matters. In practice, the needs of conservative evangelical parishes, and traditional catholic parishes, in this respect are unlikely to be identical.
Updated
A discussion document (GS Misc 1033) has been issued to all members of the General Synod today. It explores possible ways of resolving the issue which led to the adjournment of the final approval debate of the women bishops’ legislation in York a fortnight ago.
Here is a link to GS Misc 1033: Women in the Episcopate – the Final Legislative Lap in PDF format.
And here is a copy of the document as a web page.
The document is in the name of the Secretary General and has been issued with the agreement of the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops (Canterbury, York, London, Coventry, Dover, Gloucester, Norwich and Rochester).
It also reflects input from the Steering Committee for the legislation (Bishop of Manchester, Bishop of Dover, Viv Faull, Paula Gooder, Ian Jagger, Margaret Swinson and Geoffrey Tattersall), and from the three bishops (St Edmundsbury, Chichester and Coventry) who were previously members of the Code of Practice Working Group.
No recommendations are made at this stage. Instead the document sets out the decision making process which now has to be followed, explains how the disputed issue concerning clause 5(1)(c) relates to the rest of the legislation (which cannot now be amended) and discusses seven possible options.
Two of these are to retain or remove clause 5(1)(c). The other five are ways in which the present wording might be replaced by a new provision. These five alternative drafting approaches are not intended to be exhaustive. As the document says at paragraph 11: ‘The hope is that these possibilities will stimulate further suggestions.’
The consultation period ends on 24 August so that the results can be assessed and reported to the House for its meeting on 12 September. On that occasion – which will also be attended by the Steering Committee – the House will need to decide how to respond to the Synod’s request to reconsider clause 5(1)(c). In the light of the decision taken then Synod members will have just over two months to reflect on how they will vote when the Final Approval debate is resumed at the group of sessions called for 19-21 November.
On 12 September the House will also consider the need for supplementing the illustrative draft Code of Practice which was circulated to Synod in January (GS Misc 1007). A final decision will not be needed then because drafting the Code does not at this stage form part of the formal legislative process.
6 CommentsTo start our discussion of how the House of Bishops (HoB) might respond to the action of General Synod in referring the legislation back to them, let’s first look at the range of options that is legally possible.
The first point to note is that under the terms of the referral, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the General Synod, the HoB cannot make changes to any other part of the draft Measure. The only part of the Measure they are now permitted to alter is that which comes between sub-clauses (b) and (d) of Clause 5 (1).
The wording is shown in context below the fold.
There is however nothing to prevent them introducing some additional separate documentation, outside the text of the Measure, including but not limited to some proposed wording for the Code of Practice.
The second point is that the HoB could decide not to make any further change at all, and simply return the existing text to the Synod. Again this might be accompanied by some separate documentation. Those who wish to argue in favour of this course of action need to explain why they think that, despite the clear majority vote for referral, this is what the HoB should do.
The third point is that the HoB could simply withdraw the existing sub-clause altogether, thus restoring this part of the Measure to the wording that existed previously. Again, those who wish to argue for this option, need to explain why they think that, despite a clear lack of a two-thirds majority for referral in the House of Laity, this is what the HoB should now do.
The final point is that the HoB could propose some modifications to the existing wording of sub-clause (c). This would involve the additions of new words or even sentences, or the deletion of existing words or phrases. They might also split the sub-clause even further, for example to make a distinction between what it says about bishops and what it says about priests. They might add words to clarify the meaning of the term “theological convictions”. In all these cases, and any others, it may be helpful if the bishops issue some additional separate documentation, as mentioned above.
Before the General Synod considers any further change, the “Group of Six” has to determine that it is not now so substantial a change from the original draft Measure that it requires further review by all the diocesan synods.
But the purpose of any change now must be to increase the level of support that the Measure will receive in the Synod in November, and subsequently in Parliament. The question we are discussing here is what more can be said in the Measure that will allow those opposed to the underlying principle of it to feel less exposed, whilst still allowing those in favour of the underlying principle to feel able to support the Measure.
12 CommentsIan Ellis, editor of the Church of Ireland Gazette, interviewed the bishop of Dover, and two of the editors of Thinking Anglicans, following the General Synod vote to adjourn the debate on final approval of the women bishops legislation. You can listen to, or download, both interviews here.
The Gazette also has an editorial about the Synod meeting which you can read here.
1 CommentThe official summary of the business transacted at the July Synod (including the texts of the motions carried) is now available for download: Business Done.
All the electronic voting results lists for the group of sessions are now available to download here.
0 CommentsThis article, which appeared in The Tablet last week, is reproduced here by kind permission of the Editor.
‘Nowhere is it written that a parish may excommunicate its bishop’
The Church of England has reached an impasse over the issue of women bishops. As conservatives blame the liberals and liberals blame the conservatives – and both blame the bishops – might a candid friend suggest that they would be more honest if they blamed themselves?
On 11 November 1992, the General Synod gave the required two-thirds majority to the decision to ordain women as priests. There were three hostages to fortune given that day. The first was to suppose a theological issue could be settled by such a majority as that. Not long before, the issue of unity with the Methodists had required a 75 per cent majority, which it failed to get. Two-thirds was chosen simply because the pro-women-priests side felt it could be achieved.
Secondly, the assumption was made that the issue of the consecration (i.e. ordination) of women bishops could be postponed to another day. Anything that might have alarmed the waverers was removed. Indeed, even this minimalist proposal was only secured by a margin of two votes, and there were more than that number of abstentions. But in the apostolic tradition, the priesthood is a unity. Priests exercise their ministry with their bishop; bishops with their priests. Theologically, one follows from the other. It is the attempt to separate them that is now coming unstuck, for the theological unity of the ordained ministry is deeply embedded in the Church of England’s structure, where it has survived since before the Reformation.
Thirdly, the two-thirds requirement guaranteed that up to a third of the Church would withhold its assent. The solution was to give the minority what was, in effect, their own Church-within-a-Church, with its own bishops who would not themselves ordain women (dubbed flying bishops because in effect they flew in when episcopal ministry was needed, and then flew out again).
This had two consequences. It meant abandoning any attempt to achieve a better consensus, to bring the Church to one mind on the matter. The Church proper and the Church-within-a-Church were henceforth destined to be rival and mutually incompatible versions of Anglican orthodoxy. It also implied that there was, in conservative eyes at least, a fundamental flaw in the episcopal credentials of any bishop who had ordained women, a “taint”.
By voting for the flying-bishop proposal as part of the minimalist package, furthermore, the liberal majority had colluded in this theology of taint, whether they meant to or not.
But it is not a doctrine known to the Catholic and apostolic tradition, to which the Church of England has pledged to be faithful. Nor is it biblical. It is a toxic novelty. Nowhere in the tradition is it written that a parish may excommunicate its own bishop and opt for another one, which is what the flying bishops idea amounts to. If a parish decided to reject the ministry of the local bishop if that bishop was female, it could arguably question her orders. But to reject it because a (male) bishop had, at least once, ordained a woman priest is contrary to the necessary (and Catholic) principle of ex opere operato – that the validity of a sacramental ministry is independent of the worthiness of the office-holder.
So the pro-women-priests majority may have set up this untenable situation by their eagerness to scrape up a two-thirds majority. But the anti-women-priests minority then made a grievous error by embracing the theology of episcopal taint that the flying bishops solution implied, contrary to the Catholic tradition. Henceforth they were sitting on a time bomb. If the Church decided to follow the logic of 11 November 1992 and ordain women as bishops, the minority’s position would become hopeless. Bishops often participate in each other’s consecrations: “taint” would become a sort of theological virus, transmitted by the laying on of hands. Sooner or later, none would be untainted.
The measure to ordain women bishops was adjourned by the General Synod this week because it entitled parishes by law to choose a bishop of the pure kind if their local diocesan bishop is tainted (or even more so, if the local bishop is female). The objection was made that this is deeply insulting to women priests and to any woman subsequently chosen as a bishop. So it may be, but this is an issue that is better dealt with by rigorous theological analysis than by indignant rhetoric.
Theological chickens have a habit of coming home to roost. The next step forward therefore needs to be a step back, to examine afresh what happened on 11 November 1992. And to be honest about – wherever that may lead.
——
Clifford Longley is an Editorial Consultant to The Tablet. He is a journalist who has been a religious affairs specialist since 1972, for The Times for 20 years and then until 2000 for the Daily Telegraph.
Updated Monday evening to add a webpage version of the spreadsheet.
The detailed electronic voting results for the vote on the motion
That the debate be now adjourned to enable the new clause 5(1)(c) inserted by the House of Bishops into the draft Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” to be reconsidered by the House of Bishops.
at General Synod last Monday are now available for download.
As already announced at the time of the vote the result was 288 votes in favour and 144 against with 15 recorded abstentions.
From the detailed electronic voting results I have calculated how the votes went in each house.
| for | against | abstain | |
| Bishops | 36 | 10 | 4 |
| Clergy | 136 | 54 | 6 |
| Laity | 116 | 80 | 5 |
| total | 288 | 144 | 15 |
From these figures it can be seen that there was a comfortable two-thirds majority in the houses of bishops and clergy. But the majority was only 59% in the house of laity. These figures may or may not be relevant to the vote on final approval in November when a two-thirds majority will be required in each house for the measure to be approved.
I have split the voting lists into houses in this spreadsheet, also available as a webpage. I have also added the names of those members who did not record a vote or abstention. They are marked as absent for convenience but at least one (the Archbishop of York, who was in the chair) was present.
14 CommentsHere is the official summary of Monday afternoon’s business at General Synod, which concluded this group of sessions: General Synod – Summary of business conducted on Monday 9th July PM.
The Press Association carried this report of one of the debates: Schools ‘must keep spiritual core’.
0 CommentsUpdated Monday evening
John Bingham writes in the Telegraph Women bishops row is a ‘train crash’.
Stephen Lynas (a synod member) blogs Monday: delayed but not denied.
Avril Ormsby writes for Reuters Church of England delays women bishops vote.
A Statement from Forward in Faith
Forward in Faith is disappointed that the General Synod today resolved to adjourn the debate on final approval of the draft Measure to permit women to be ordained as bishops in order to give the House of Bishops an opportunity to rethink its recent amendments to the Measure. We call upon the House of Bishops to stand firm in the face of this unwarranted pressure and to return the draft Measure to the Synod in a form which will provide for the future of traditional Catholics and conservative Evangelicals in line with the clearly expressed mind of the Synod throughout this morning’s debate.
Reform comment on Women Bishops adjournment
Following today’s adjournment of the debate on women bishops, Rev’d Rod Thomas, chairman of Reform, said: “We stand ready to co-operate to find a solution if there is a genuine desire to see a permanent place secured within the Church of England for those who on theological grounds cannot accept women as bishops.”
Giles Fraser writes in The Guardian Women bishops amendment has been rightly thrown out.
George Pitcher writes for the Mail Online If some parts of the Church of England want women bishops, they must also satisfy those who don’t.
Updates
Jerome Taylor writes in The Independent Months of frantic lobbying expected as women bishops debate is temporarily stayed by Church of England .
Lizzy Davies writes in The Guardian that Church of England must reassure female clergy.
46 CommentsBBC Women bishops: Church’s General Synod delays vote
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church backs away from women bishops debate
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Church of England postpones vote on female bishops
Ed Thornton, Gavin Drake and Madeleine Davies in the Church Times Synod postpones final decision on women bishops
In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contribution to this morning’s debate is now online, both as an audio recording and a transcript.
10 Comments