The Women in the Episcopate draft Measure has been published.
In the official press release the chair of the legislative drafting group, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, Bishop of Manchester, is quoted as saying:
The General Synod mandated us to draft a Measure including special arrangements, within existing structures, for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops and to do that in a national code of practice. We believe we have achieved that by providing for male complementary bishops, as we suggested in our earlier report, and now hand our work to the Synod to discuss the drafts in detail.
The draft measure and associated papers are available for download.
GS 1707 – Women in the Episcopate – Further Report from the Legislative Drafting Group
GS 1708 – Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709 – Amending Canon Number 30
GS 1710 – Illustrative Code of Practice
GS 1708-10X – Explanatory Memorandum
Answers to written Questions have been posted on the Church of England website.
See press release Synod members put questions to church bodies.
The original PDF file is here.
TA has provided an html copy of the file here.
Here are some particularly interesting questions and answers. In addition the answers to questions 19 and 24-26 have interesting information on the contributions of the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners to the cost of the Lambeth Conference.
Mr Justin Brett (Oxford) to ask the Secretary General:
Q2. What research has been undertaken to establish the effect of the Church of England’s participation in an Anglican Communion Covenant upon the relationship between the Church of England and the Crown, given the Queen’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the consequent tension between her prerogative and the potential demands of a disciplinary process within the proposed Covenant?
Mr William Fittall to reply as Secretary General:
A. The Church of England response of 19 December 2007 to the initial draft Covenant noted on page 13 that ‘it would be unlawful for the General Synod to delegate its decision making powers to the primates, and that this therefore means that it could not sign up to a Covenant which purported to give the primates of the Communion the ability to give ‘direction’ about the course of action that the Church of England should take.’ The same would be true in relation to delegation to any other body of the Anglican Communion. Since as a matter of law the Church of England could not submit itself to any such external power of direction, any separate possible difficulties in relation to the Royal Prerogative could not in practice arise.
Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough) to ask the Chairman of the Clergy Discipline Commission:
Q12. What are the current best estimates of the total costs incurred in carrying out each of the tribunal hearings that have taken place so far under the Clergy Discipline Measure?
His Honour Judge John Bullimore to reply as Deputy Chairman of the Clergy Discipline Commission:
A. Seven cases so far have had full tribunal hearings. The current best estimate of the total costs for those cases from referral to the tribunal to final determination is approximately £194,000. Within that total, costs vary from case to case depending on a number of different factors. The lowest cost total for a tribunal case is estimated to be £8,300, and the highest cost total was £66,087. There has been one appeal; the total additional cost for that appeal is estimated to be £11,400.
The Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q27. Will the House of Bishops assure the General Synod that neither it nor the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group is seeking to go back on any part of the motion passed in the General Synod in July 2008 and that they are not questioning the manner of the debate, the use of electronic voting, the results of the votes on each of the amendments and the final motion, or the competence of General Synod to decide upon having women as bishops?
The Bishop of Manchester to reply as Chairman of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group:
A. The Group has met a number of times since the Synod debate in July. The motion required consultation with the House: it considered material from the Group in October and will do so again in December. The Group will complete its work later that month. The draft Measure, amending canon and code of practice will therefore be available for Synod to debate in February and to commit to a Revision Committee. Both the Group and the House will continue to work consistently with the mandate given by Synod.
14 CommentsThe report to General Synod (GS 1685A) from the House of Bishops on the legislation for women bishops was clear. A majority of that house wished to avoid the creation of any new structures, and considered that a national code of practice was both necessary and sufficient to protect the consciences of those unable to accept the ministry of women as bishops.
We knew before the 11 July debate that “a significant minority within the House” was opposed to the approach embodied in the draft resolution submitted. But we did not know the size and composition of the majority or the minority. Now we do. The results of the electronic voting in the House of Bishops are available, either here, or over here.
The final outcome saw 68% of the bishops present, and 72% of the House of Clergy voting in favour of a motion that had been amended only slightly from the text the House of Bishops had originally put forward. The laity were less enthusiastic with a majority of only 61%. (Overall, exactly a two-thirds majority.) So the Synod accepted the view of the episcopal majority, and rejected all attempts to adopt any of the other options that the Manchester Report had proposed.
Episcopal opposition turned out to be almost entirely limited to a core group of only twelve bishops. These included five who later signed the 15 August letter (see below) and who also have votes in Synod, i.e. the Bishops of Blackburn, Chichester, Europe, Burnley and Beverley. There were also seven others: the Bishops of Birmingham, Exeter, London, Rochester, Winchester, Dover and, significantly, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
At the end of the debate, the Archbishop abstained, and the other eleven all voted against the substantive motion. The only other bishop who voted “No” was the Bishop of Durham, whose earlier motion to adjourn the debate had support from only 46% of the synod. He had consistently opposed every amendment throughout the debate.
The group of twelve also supported several amendments that would have moved the outcome in a conservative direction.
First, all twelve voted in favour of an amendment proposed by the Bishop of Winchester. Only two other bishops joined in this action: Bradford and Southwell & Nottingham. This amendment sought to do two things:
Next, a small wording change, proposed by Prebendary David Houlding, to change “wish” to “wish of the majority” [for women to be admitted to the episcopate] was narrowly approved, by 62% of Bishops and 51% of Laity but by only by a single vote in the House of Clergy. Curiously, the Bishop of Rochester voted against this.
Ten of the twelve then voted in favour of Fr Simon Killwick’s amendment that sought to allow new dioceses to be considered. London opposed this and Canterbury abstained. No other bishop voted for it. The amendment was defeated by 71%, 68.5%, and 61% margins in the three houses.
Eleven then voted for the Bishop of Exeter’s amendment, which aimed to allow a structural solution based on existing rather than new dioceses. Again London voted against, but two others (Bradford and St Edmundsbury) added support. It also was defeated by margins of 64%, 64% and 59%.
Finally, ten of them voted for the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds’s amendment to keep open the possibility of “statutory transfer of specified responsibilities”. Altogether 21 bishops supported this, but amazingly both Chichester and Birmingham opposed it, leading to a 21-21 tie in that House. (The chair of the drafting group, the Bishop of Manchester, abstained on many though not all votes.)
The amendment did obtain a 53% majority in the House of Laity, but failed in the House of Clergy where it obtained only 47% support. Had the vote not been by houses, the amendment would have passed by the slim margin of 203-200, with 3 abstentions.
For completeness, I should also note that two other amendments were both voted down by huge margins. The Reverend Steven Trott’s amendment, to keep open all the options of the Manchester report, was voted down by huge margins in all houses: 89% of bishops, 82% of clergy, and 78% of laity. Among all the bishops, only Chichester, Rochester and Beverley voted “yes”.
To match this, the Reverend Miranda Threlfall-Holmes’ amendment to adopt the “simplest statutory approach”, and exclude even a national code of practice, was also voted down by large margins, though smaller than in the previous case. The figures against were 82%, 59%, and 62%. Seven bishops were in favour of this, namely Southwark, Bristol, Liverpool, Bath & Wells, Hereford, Derby and Portsmouth. The Bishop of Ripon & Leeds abstained.
The net effect of all this is that the view of the overwhelming majority of the House of Bishops was accepted by the whole synod. The recent letter from fourteen traditionalist Anglo-Catholic bishops, only five of whom have votes in General Synod, highlighted that the House of Laity vote was below the two-thirds level that will be needed for final approval of the women bishops legislation. It also pointed to close voting on the amendment offered by the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds as another indicator of less than overwhelming support for legislation without “new structures”.
However, the final approval vote will not occur in the life of this Synod, but only after new elections have been held in 2010. This issue may well dominate those elections. The House of Bishops, to whom the letter writers are explicitly appealing, does not meet again until October. By that time, the Legislative Drafting Group should be halfway through its task of preparing a draft for the General Synod to consider in February. General Synod has clearly instructed the group to do so only on the basis of a statutory code of practice. The strength of support for that in the House of Bishops is now clearly on the record.
Note: Sheffield and Truro were vacant sees at the time of the vote, and there were six bishops who were either not present or who never voted at all (Coventry, Chester, Sodor & Man, Ely, Salisbury and Leicester).
22 CommentsThe detailed reports in the Church Times of the recent Church of England General Synod are now available to non-subscribers.
The reports on the women bishops debates
Women bishops: debate: ‘I know people say that bishops can’t be trusted, but I think I can’ – reports of the Bishop of Manchester’s preentation on the Friday evening and the take note debate on the Saturday.
Women bishops: the vote – the main debate on Monday 7 July
Below the fold are details of clergy votes in the debate on women bishops on Monday 7 July similar to my earlier details for bishops. So far only three of the votes (the Packer amendment, the vote on the adjournment and the final vote) are included.
I have matched my list of members and the voting lists by synod number. My list is based on the June 2008 list of members, which may not be totally up-to-date.
13 CommentsVoting lists for the electronic votes at the recent sessions of the Church of England’s General Synod are now online. I have summarised the bishops’ votes in the debate on women bishops held on Monday 7 July, both in a table below the fold and online as a pdf file.
The table records whether each bishop voted for or against each motion or amendment, or recorded an abstention. Some of the 45 bishops present missed some of the votes altogether and this is indicated by a dash.
Bishops are listed alphabetically by surname, and their synod number is given in the first column.
I have already given the text of each amendment and of the substantive motion, and the overall voting figures here. The table includes my very brief summary of the purpose of each amendment.
Note: Not included in the table are the bishops of Sheffield and Truro (sees vacant) and the bishops of Coventry, Chester, Ely, Leicester, Salisbury and Sodor & Man, none of whom took part in any of the votes. The bishop of Coventry was only consecrated on 3 July, the bishop of Leicester was on duty at the House of Lords and the bishop of Salisbury was ill. I don’t know why the others were absent.
25 CommentsThe official report of business conducted today is found at General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 8th July 2008.
0 CommentsUpdated to add link to article by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes
Reports
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church vote opens door to female bishops
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England set to split over women bishops
Jennifer Gold in Christian Today Church of England votes to ordain women bishops
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church risks split as Synod votes to ordain women bishops
Steve Doughty in the Mail Church of England faces clergy revolt after paving way for first woman bishop by 2014
The Press Association Church turmoil over women bishops
Ekklesia Church of England makes historic decision for women bishops
John F Burns in the International Herald Tribune As schism lurks, the Church of England endorses women as bishops
The Age [Melbourne] Anglicans vote in favour of women bishops
Stephanie Kennedy in ABC News [Australia] Anglican Synod votes to allow female bishops
Comments
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes in The Guardian There will be women bishops
Andrew Brown in The Guardian Super-bishops fly in
Damian Thompson in the Telegraph The Church of England is Protestant again
53 CommentsFor the final form of the motion before Synod and the voting figures see the end of this article
Synod began its main debate on women bishops at 2.30 pm today.
The Order Paper is here
I have copied this below, but have amended it to include the votes in synod as they took place.
Note: Where a vote is taken by houses, the motion must be carried in all three houses to be carried.
The Bishop of Gloucester moved:
20. ‘That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’
The Bishop of Winchester moved as an amendment:
66. After “That this Synod” leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England, and noting the Manchester Group’s assertion in paragraph 22 of GS 1685 that “far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses”,
(i) affirm the assurances included in paragraphs 67-69 of GS 1685;
(ii) reaffirm (GS 1685 paragraph 74) Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”;
In paragraph (b) leave out “within the existing structures of the Church of England”; and
In paragraph (c) after “in” insert “legislation and in”.
Amendment 66 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
14
|
31
|
0
|
| clergy |
62
|
120
|
0
|
| laity |
78
|
114
|
0
|
The Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London) moved as an amendment:
67. Leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate”.
Amendment 67 was carried after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
28
|
17
|
0
|
| clergy |
90
|
89
|
4
|
| laity |
97
|
85
|
7
|
The Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) moved as an amendment:
68. Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and in paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.
Amendment 68 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
3
|
40
|
2
|
| clergy |
28
|
149
|
4
|
| laity |
36
|
147
|
5
|
The Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Universities, York) moved as an amendment:
69. In paragraph (b) leave out all the words after “affirm its view that” and insert “this should be done with the simplest possible statutory approach, with local diocesan arrangements for pastoral provision and sacramental care;”;
Leave out paragraph (c); and
In paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.
Amendment 69 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
7
|
37
|
1
|
| clergy |
66
|
107
|
9
|
| laity |
68
|
118
|
4
|
The Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) moved as an amendment:
70. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,” and insert “by preparing a draft Measure and associated code of practice providing new dioceses for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests,” and after the words “so that” insert the words “, if possible,”.
Amendment 70 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
10
|
32
|
3
|
| clergy |
53
|
124
|
4
|
| laity |
71
|
116
|
2
|
The Bishop of Exeter moved as an amendment:
71. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “accordingly” and insert “by preparing drafts of possible legislation in accordance with paragraph (c), to include further draft Measures, together with associated codes of practice, based on diocesan structures for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests, so that, if possible, the Business Committee can include consideration of these options in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”.
Amendment 71 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
14
|
29
|
2
|
| clergy |
65
|
116
|
1
|
| laity |
77
|
112
|
0
|
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds moved as an amendment:
72. In paragraph (c) after the words “affirm that these should be” insert “either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “complete” and insert “develop” and leave out the words “first consideration of the draft legislation” and insert “further consideration of both alternatives envisaged in paragraph (c) ”.
Amendment 72 was lost after a vote by houses (since it was defeated in one house).
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
21
|
21
|
1
|
| clergy |
84
|
92
|
2
|
| laity |
98
|
87
|
0
|
At this point (6.30 pm) Synod broke for its dinner break. The session will resume at 8.00 pm
[Miss Emma Forward (Exeter) did not move her amendment so it was not considered:
73. In paragraph (b) leave out “special”.]
The Revd Gillian Henwood (York) moved an amendment:
74. Insert after paragraph (b):
“(..) affirm its view that special arrangements should be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction wish to exercise or receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests in episcopal areas where the bishop has stated that he is not able to ordain women;”.
Amendment 74 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
5
|
31
|
3
|
| clergy |
68
|
85
|
20
|
| laity |
82
|
90
|
7
|
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham) moved as an amendment:
75. After paragraph (c) insert as a new paragraph:
“(..) require that the Measure enabling women to be admitted to the episcopate should require:
(i) that the Measure should only come into force once the code has been agreed;
(ii) that in order for the code of practice to come into effect, it must receive the approval of the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House; and
(iii) that any future changes to the code can only be made by the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House;”.
Amendment 75 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
15
|
19
|
5
|
| clergy |
86
|
78
|
8
|
| laity |
81
|
88
|
10
|
Ms Jacqueline Humphreys (Bristol) moved as an amendment:
76. In paragraph (c) insert “statutory” before the words “national code of practice”.
Amendment 76 was carried on a show of hands.
the Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) moved as an amendment:
77. Insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (c):
“(..) agree that the code of practice should relate only to the exercise of episcopal functions and describe a commitment to mutual support and cooperation between members of the House of Bishops to help with pastoral provision and sacramental care when situations arise affecting those with conscientious difficulties relating to ordination to the priesthood and the episcopate; and”.
Amendment 77 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
1
|
35
|
4
|
| clergy |
38
|
129
|
5
|
| laity |
44
|
129
|
7
|
His Honour Thomas Coningsby QC (ex officio) moved as an amendment:
78. In paragraph (c) leave out all the words after “national code of practice” and insert “which all concerned would be required to follow”.
Amendment 78 was lost on a show of hands.
The Bishop of Durham moved that the debate be adjourned. This motion was lost with 180 votes in favour, 203 against and 9 abstentions.
Final form of the substantive motion
As a result of the two successful amendments (67 and 76) the final form of the substantive motion became:
That this Synod:
(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.
After a vote by houses the substantive motion was carried.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
28
|
12
|
1
|
| clergy |
124
|
44
|
4
|
| laity |
111
|
68
|
2
|
Here is the official report of Sunday’s business at General Synod.
General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Monday 7th July 2008
It is being updated during the day and will include links to audio of each session.
0 CommentsGeneral Synod will be debating Women Bishops later today. The debate was orginally scheduled for this afternoon, but because of the large number of proposed amendments it will now continue into the evening.
The order paper for this debate is online here and copied below the fold.
0 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury preached at the 10 am Eucharist at York Minster yesterday. The service was attended by most members of General Synod as well as by the regular minster congregation. The text of the Archbishop’s sermon is now online here.
3 Commentsupdated at lunchtime
A mixture of articles looking forward to the debate on women bishops later today and back to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sermon yesterday.
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church of England to consider introducing ‘super-bishops’ to avert crisis over women
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Anglican Church may create ‘super bishops’ to avoid splitting and
Church of England to debate women bishops
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Day of reckoning for Anglicans amid split over women bishops
Steve Doughty at the Mail Church of England plans male ‘superbishops’ for rebel clergy who refuse to be led by women
Alastair Beach in The Independent Anglican rebels ‘in Vatican meeting’
BBC Jesus ‘would feel Anglican pain’
BBC Synod set for women bishops vote
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Dr Rowan Williams stands tall in the Church
0 CommentsHere is the official report of Sunday’s business at General Synod.
General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Sunday 6th July 2008
It is being updated during the day and will include links to audio of each session.
1 CommentThe Church Times is publishing its usual daily reports from General Synod.
Alastair Cutting and Justin Brett, both synod members, are blogging from the floor of the synod.
0 CommentsRiazat Butt in The Observer Archbishop hits back at the evangelical rebels
The Archbishop of York condemned leaders of a breakaway global church yesterday for their ‘ungenerous and unwarranted’ scapegoating of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones at the Telegraph Anglican bishops in secret Vatican summit
Senior Church of England bishops have held secret talks with Vatican officials to discuss the crisis in the Anglican communion over gays and women bishops.
Mail on Sunday Church of England must go ahead with plans to create women bishops, says senior clergyman
A senior bishop urged the Church of England yesterday to ignore warnings that allowing women to become bishops would ‘shatter the unity of the Church’ – and to plough ahead with the historic reform.
Emily Dugan in The Independent on Sunday Church schism widens over women bishops
6 CommentsDivisions appeared to widen yesterday between senior Church of England clergy on opposite sides of the debate over the consecration of women bishops, as the issue dominated the agenda at the General Synod.
Here is the official report of Saturday’s business at General Synod.
General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Saturday 5th July 2008
It is being updated during the day and will include links to audio of each session.
0 CommentsSynod debated the report of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group this morning. The debate was on a “take-note” motion (which was passed). There will be debate on what to do next on Monday afternoon.
Here are the early press reports.
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Church of England faces ruin over women bishops
Tom Chivers and agencies in the Telegraph Introduce women bishops, Synod told
4 CommentsThe Archbishop of York gave his presidential address to synod this afternoon. He spoke about the building blocks of the mission and ministry of Jesus. The press release from the Archbishop’s office concentrated on two points mad during the address: knife crime and support for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Archbishop Calls For Church To Reach Out on Knife Crime
The text of the press release is copied below the fold.
When the Archbishop said “It has grieved me deeply to hear reports of the ungracious personalisation of the issues through the criticism and scapegoating of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.” synod members burst out in spontaneous applause.
0 CommentsHere is the official report of Friday’s business at General Synod.
General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Friday 4th July 2008 PM
It includes links to audio of each session.
0 Comments