Jonathan Petre of the Mail Online is reporting today that sufficient signatures have been obtained to force a meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod to discuss a vote of no confidence in its chair, Dr Philip Giddings: Synod ‘may oust chairman’ after defeat of legislation to allow women bishops.
The standing orders of the House of Laity state that in these circumstances the chair of the house shall convene the House, and give at least 21 days’ notice. I cannot see anything to specify the longest he can wait before calling the meeting, but I have heard that the meeting will probably be in January.
Although the Mail calls the meeting “secret”, meetings of the House of Laity are open to the press and public on the same terms as meetings of the General Synod. The House can vote to exclude the public, or the press and public, whilst it is sitting, but I see nothing to allow such a decision to be made in advance.
41 CommentsUpdated Saturday evening
Here is the motion passed today by the Diocese of Bristol:
In the light of the recent failure of the General Synod to pass the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) measure at its sessions of November 2012, despite overwhelming support for this legislation by this and other diocesan synods of the Church of England, Bristol Diocesan Synod:
1. Reaffirms our strong conviction that it is God’s will that women be ordained as bishops in the Church of England.
2. Has no confidence in the General Synod’s ability to transact the clear will of the majority of the Church with the urgency required to further the mission and witness of the Church.
3. Calls on the House of Bishops to explore, as a matter of great urgency, every possible avenue to effect the will of the Church on this issue.
Read more about the synod meeting: Diocesan Synod tells Bishops to effect the will of the Church, and read Bishop Mike Hill’s address to the synod over here (PDF).
Update
This motion is by no means the strongest one that might have been passed. Paul Roberts has written about this in two blog articles:
…However, if other diocesan synods pass similar motions, where does that leave us? Essentially, the message given to Synod is, ‘we don’t think you lot are capable of passing satisfactory legislation and we’re upset about this.’ But, it doesn’t take any further action which would amend this situation. Essentially, this will not do anything other than register a protest.
The stronger, original version of the motion goes further – by expressing a total lack of confidence in the Synod to act as the present General Synod of the Church of England, it’s essentially saying it needs to go, and go as soon as possible. So why is this necessary? I think it’s so, for the following reasons…
And earlier in the week he had written: A possible way out of the Women Bishops bind.
30 CommentsFrank Cranmer at Law & Religion UK The House of Lords “doing God” – or, at any rate, debating religion
Simon Barrow for Ekklesia Disestablishment debate back in the spotlight
Doug Chaplin asks What would disestablishment mean?
James D Tabor writes for The Huffington Post about Christianity Before Paul.
David Pocklington at Law &Religion UK writes Of Vesture – I
Stephen Cherry compares Rowan and Justin.
7 CommentsThe detailed report on the reference to the dioceses of the now failed legislation is contained in GS 1847 available here in PDF format.
As has been widely reported, 42 of the 44 dioceses passed the legislation. The two dioceses where it failed were
Chichester: Bishops 0-2-0, Clergy 30-35-0, Laity 37-41-0 (failed in all three houses)
London: Bishops 2-1-0, Clergy 39-41-0, Laity 45-37-0 (failed only in the Clergy house)
Less widely reported are the aggregate voting figures for all dioceses:
Bishops: 75 for, 13 against, 4 abstentions
Clergy: 1503 for, 461 against, 50 abstentions
Laity: 1664 for, 489 against, 72 abstentions
Thus the proportions voting against the motion were: Bishops 15%, Clergy 23%, Laity 23%.
These contrast with General Synod proportions of 6%, 23%, and 36% respectively.
There were numerous following motions proposed and debated. GS 1847 summarised it thus:
Thus, in aggregate a total of 11 motions calling for some kind of amendment passed, and a total of 31 motions failed. GS 1847 contains much fuller information on all of them.
4 CommentsHere is an interesting perspective from Nigeria: Paul Obi for This Day Live Anglican Church Rejects Women Bishops amid Rancour
Alan Wilson Church & State: Another fine mess?
John Lloyd for Reuters A church divided against itself cannot stand
The Bishop of Liverpool spoke about women bishops in the House of Lords yesterday (during a debate about preventing violence against women).
Jody Stowell asks Are Women Really Human?
Ed Thornton has two articles in today’s Church Times that are available to non-subscribers.
C of E to set about resolving deadlock on women bishops
Campaigners seek to change the system
The Guardian had this news report in today’s newspaper: Lizzy Davies Church of England urged urgently to revive female bishops plan.
Affirming Catholicism has issued this Affirming Catholicism Press Statement the full text of which is reproduced below the fold.
0 CommentsJoint Press Statement From The Chairmen Of The Catholic Group And Reform in General Synod
also available here.
4 CommentsWomen Bishops – The Way Ahead
The Chairmen of the Catholic Group in General Synod and the conservative Evangelical group Reform, who called for talks to break the deadlock over legislation to enable the consecration of women as bishops, have received acknowledgement of their request from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Canon Simon Killwick (Catholic Group) and Prebendary Rod Thomas (Reform) have today further pledged themselves to do everything they can to ensure the speedy and safe passage of fresh legislation through the General Synod.
They said, “If agreement can be reached at round-table talks on fresh legislation which provides clearly and fairly for all members of the Church of England, there is no reason why fresh legislation should not be fast-tracked through the Synod before the next elections in 2015.”
The Synod’s Standing Orders only prevent the reconsideration of the same legislation during this period.
“It has never been our intention to prevent the consecration of women as bishops; our concern has always been for legislation which also made clear and fair provision for the substantial minority,” the Chairmen concluded.
The legislation which failed last week in the Synod would have had devastating consequences for the diversity and mission of the Church of England, had it been passed. We want the Church of England to continue to be a broad and comprehensive national Church.
Canon Simon Killwick
Prebendary Rod Thomas
(Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod) (Chairman of Reform)
Updated Friday afternoon
I last reported on the situation in Uganda a few weeks ago, in Uganda anti-gay bill requested by Christians. And before that in June Bishops support Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I have seen no more recent statement from the Anglican bishops in Uganda.
Meanwhile, the proposed legislation moves nearer to enactment. Here are a few recent comment articles:
Some news reports:
A detailed clause by clause analysis of the bill starts here, and ends here.
21 CommentsWe published earlier today details of a letter to The Times. It was signed by eight people who are supporters of women bishops, but voted against the Measure last week because they thought that the provisions for opponents were inadequate.
I have prepared a table of the recent relevant voting records of the signatories. This may give an indication of what they would find acceptable.
The main items are these three from July 2010 (the last meeting of the 2005/2010 Synod)
In each case a vote for the item was a vote in favour of adding the provision to the measure.
The links in the first column of the table are to our articles giving more details of the various votes.
25 CommentsA letter appears in The Times today signed by eight members of the House of Laity who voted against the Measure last week, and referring in the text to a larger group of twelve people of a similar mind. Times subscribers can read the letter in full here, and there is a report of the letter at Anglican Mainstream over here.
The following excerpts make clear, first their point of view, and second their specific proposal for the way forward.
First their point of view:
…Most of us who make up the dozen, whose votes against the Measure did not reflect any serious opposition to women bishops, had taken the trouble to state clearly in our election addresses in 2010 that we would vote against the Measure if it did not in our judgment make ample provision of oversight in the way that the minorities needed, or honour promises made to the same minorities only 20 years ago.
Many of us 12 were prepared to vote for the Measure as it stood in July with a clause referring to “theological convictions” of those requiring alternative oversight, had the Bishops not lost their nerve and decided under pressure from “senior women” to reconsider their proposed “helpful” clause…
Second their proposals for the way forward:
…But we now all believe there can be a simpler way forward. A new briefer Measure could incorporate the 1993 Act of Synod governing alternative oversight as we have it, with all the valuable experience it has provided of living together with fellow Anglicans who cannot accept women priests and bishops. The new Measure should provide for alternative oversight on a churchwide basis to those unable to recognise their woman diocesan bishop and also to those parishes that accept or have women clergy which are unsuitably served by a traditional orthodox male diocesan bishop in a predominantly conservative diocese. It will minimally amend but not repeal the 1993 Measure which has served us all well. The Church must be concerned for, and provide for, all its members…
The eight signatories are:
Tom Sutcliffe, Mary Judkins, Phillip Rice, John Davies, Anne Bloor, Priscilla Hungerford, Keith Malcouronne, Christopher Corbet
More information about their voting records will follow soon.
29 CommentsThe Archbishops’ Council issued this statement today.
Statement on the Conclusion of the Meeting of the Archbishops’ Council November 2012
28 November 2012
“The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England met on November 27-28th to consider a wide ranging agenda. A substantial amount of time was given over to the discussion of the recent vote by General Synod on Women in the Episcopate.
“As part of their reflections, many council members commented on the deep degree of sadness and shock that they had felt as a result of the vote and also of the need to affirm all women serving the church – both lay and ordained – in their ministries.
“In its discussions the Council decided that a process to admit women to the episcopate needed to be restarted at the next meeting of the General Synod in July 2013. There was agreement that the Church of England had to resolve this matter through its own processes as a matter of urgency. The Council therefore recommended that the House of Bishops, during its meeting in a fortnight’s time, put in place a clear process for discussions in the New Year with a view to bringing legislative proposals before the Synod in July.”
Notes
The Archbishops Council is a body of 19 members which acts as the standing committee of the General Synod and has a number of other responsibilities as a trustee body.
The members of the council include the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the chairs of the House of Clergy and the Chairs of the House of Laity. Full membership of the groups is available here.
47 CommentsFirst, here are two press reports on yesterday’s release of the General Synod voting lists.
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Almost half the lay members who voted against female bishops were women
John Bingham in the Telegraph Half of women bishops opponents in Synod were women
And then there are several comment articles.
Bruce Kaye for ABC Religion and Ethics The triumph of the radicals: Women bishops and the Church of England
Savi Hensman for Ekklesia Women bishops: how to move forward?
John Coles, director of New Wine Synod Vote: Women Bishops
Paul Roberts A possible way out of the Women Bishops bind
Colin Coward of Changing Attitude The deeper (mis)understandings which divide us
Alice Udale-Smith for Varsity Female bishops and me: a defence of the General Synod
And finally, WATCH has issued a press release “Pressure for simple legislation mounts as first analysis of voting patterns shows General Synod House of Laity dramatically out of step with lay members of diocesan synods” which is copied in full below the fold.
22 CommentsElectronic voting results for last week’s General Synod on the women bishops legislation have now been published. These take the form of a pdf file, arranged by house, by vote (for/against/abstain) and then alphabetically.
Arun Arora, the Church of England Director of Communications, in announcing the publication of these results has reminded us all that Matthew 5:43-48 applies.
For convenience I have put the results into a spreadsheet arranged by synod number (which brings members together by diocese) for each house and added absentees and vacancies.
For this purpose an “absentee” is someone who did not record an electronic vote (for/against/abstention). There are various reasons for being an absentee; examples known to me include illness and being on sabbatical in New Zealand. In addition some at least of the three ecclesiastical judges consider it inappropriate to vote on church legislation which they may later have to enforce.
Update I have now added a webpage version of my spreadsheet.
68 CommentsThere is an excellent article discussing this, on the Law and Religion UK blog, but written by Bob Morris of the UCL Constitution Unit.
He is the principal author of Church and State in 21st Century Britain: The Future of Church Establishment (Palgrave, March 2009).
Women as bishops: should Parliament intervene?
I urge all TA readers to study this article in full. His concluding paragraphs:
The key political and constitutional problem is that, although the Church of England now behaves largely as if it is a voluntary society, it remains nonetheless part of the state. The Queen as head of state is ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church, must be in communion with it, holds the title Fidei Defensor and – nominally – appoints its senior clergy. The Archbishop crowns and anoints the new sovereign, and the Church conducts important public ceremonies and rituals effectively in relation to the UK as a whole. The Church’s courts remain courts of the land, although they lost their public law jurisdictions in the 1850s. Twenty-six bishops continue to sit in the House of Lords – each nowadays actually appointed by a private, unaccountable committee of the Church itself.
These are high matters and could be addressed again by Parliament. However, whatever the degree of change made, none could procure the appointment of female bishops unless Parliament legislated directly to that end. In other words, disestablishment could not by itself resolve the particular question of female bishops. On the other hand, what disestablishment could do would be – a very different matter – to permit the state and Parliament to wash its hands of Church of England affairs altogether.
Since nothing so far suggests that Parliament contemplates such a rupture, it follows that the Church must be allowed to deal with the present crisis itself. Whether in doing so it strengthens the case for a radical review of remaining church/state ties is another question.
However, it appears from a story broken exclusively in The Times this morning by Ruth Gledhill that William Fittall has a somewhat different view. The original Times story is behind a paywall, but it starts this way:
The Church of England is facing a “major constitutional crisis” as a result of the fiasco last week over women bishops, according to an internal document written for the archbishops by one of their most senior staff. The Established Church must take steps in July next year to consecrate women bishops and vote them through by 2015, otherwise it risks the matter being taken out of its hands by Parliament, the secret memo says. It is to be debated behind closed doors this week by the Archbishops’ Council. The memo, a hard copy of which has been handed to The Times, is intended for the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the council members. Women in the Episcopate — Where Next? is a response to growing outrage in and beyond…
The Telegraph has published this version of the story: Failure to vote in women Bishops risks ‘constitutional crisis’ in Church.
And there is this Church ‘faces crisis’ over bishops.
And the Guardian now has Church needs radical new strategy over female bishops, says internal memo
And here are some further quotes from the memo:
“What is for sure and not for maybe is that urgent and radical new thinking is now needed if major shifts in position are to be secured.”
“Unless the Church of England can show very quickly that it’s capable of sorting itself out we shall be into a major constitutional crisis in Church State relations, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with confidence.”
47 Comments“We have to do so because time is not on our side. Parliament is impatient. In addition to the all-party savaging that the Church of England had yesterday [last Thursday] in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister’s reference to the need to give us a ‘sharp prod’, there was ferocious criticism from some members at the House of Lords at a lunchtime meeting at which the Bishop of Manchester spoke on Wednesday.
“There was a particularly telling sequence of devastating attacks from the formidable combination of Detta O’Cathain (normally a supporter), Elspeth Howe and Margaret Jay. Unless the Church of England can show very quickly that it’s capable of sorting itself out, we shall be into a major constitutional crisis in Church State relations, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with confidence.”
Updated Sunday afternoon and evening
The Tablet editorial Measure of compromise
ABC Religion and Ethics John Milbank Unrepresentative laity: The women bishops debacle demonstrates why bishops need more authority
Telegraph John Bingham Women bishops decision a ‘stab in the back’ to female clergy – Lord Carey
Adam Luser Reputation of Church damaged by decision on women bishops
Revising Reform Rachel Marszalek Women in Christian servant-leadership, with a look at Rev Angus Macleay’s summation speech from General Synod on Tuesday November 20th 2012
OurKingdom Charlotte Methuen Women bishops in the Church of England: No or not yet?
Guardian Catherine Bennett No to women bishops? It’s high time the Church of England was taught a lesson
Mail Online Marie-Elsa Bragg ‘I’m still proud of our history in the women’s ministry’: Melvyn Bragg’s curate daughter on how it feels to be stuck in the middle of the bishops debate
Lay Anglicana Rosemary Lain-Priestley A Very Significant Tipping Point
Modern Church Linda Woodhead It’s believing in the common good that’s got the Church of England into this mess over women bishops
Update
Anglican Ink Gerald Bray Evangelical supporters of women bishops are “liberals in disguise”
to which Peter Carrell has this response: Has Gerald Bray lost the plot?
Jody Stowell The Morning After
This morning’s Sunday programme on BBC Radio 4 included a major item on women bishops starting 20 minutes from the beginning.
Telegraph John Bingham Women bishops rejection has damaged Church, traditionalist bishop admits
Eureka Street Andrew McGowan Rejection of women bishops is not terminal
Ian Paul What does the decision on women bishops mean?
20 CommentsThere are a number of online petitions protesting in various ways against the decision by General Synod not to approve the legislation to allow women to be bishops. Here are the ones I am aware of.
No women Bishops, no automatic seats in the House of Lords
Responsible department: Cabinet Office
The Church of England on 20th Nov 2012 voted not to allow women to be Bishops. Though that is within its rights to do, this should worry the Government as Church of England Bishops are awarded legislative power through seats in the House of Lords.
The Church has chosen to be a sexist organisation by refusing women the right to hold highest leadership positions and therefore should not be allowed automatic seats in the House of Lords, as this clearly does not comply with the spirit of UK Equality law.
We call on the Govt to remove the right of the Church of England to have automatic seats in the House of Lords, in line with its commitments to equality and non-discrimination, set out in the Equality Act (2010) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)”
To: Church of England “Group of Six”
Please authorise another vote in this Synod in 2013, to allow the House of Laity to reconsider the results of their vote of 20 November 2012 in the light of clearly-expressed wishes of their electorate.
Why is this important?
42 out of 44 Dioceses have voted for women bishops; the House of Laity vote clearly did not reflect the democratic wishes of the membership they are supposed to represent. A year’s delay will enable Dioceses to reflect again, and make their views even clearer to their Synodical representatives.
Unconditionally ordain Women as Bishops in the Church of England
To: The General Synod of the Church of England
The Anglican Episcopacy should be open to women. Synod and the Dioceses of the CofE have agreed this. The vote at Novembers synod has been deeply hurtful to many women, and damaged the Church as a whole.
The next time this issue is voted on it should be as a single clause: The Church of England may ordain women as Bishops.
As well as a campaigning tool, this petition is a way of gathering together people, especially lay Anglicans, who can organize to elect new and representative Deanery, Diocesan and General synods that will effect this change.
No Confidence in General Synod: Calling for an Urgent Review
9 CommentsWe the undersigned therefore hereby lodge a vote of no confidence in General Synod until such time as it can bring its affairs into order by effecting a genuinely democratic voting system that gives a fair and proper representation to its members in place of the current inequitable system.
The Petition
We call upon the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops to conduct an urgent review into the rules of governance in Synod to correct this grossly unfair system; and if the matter is not resolved before his enthronement, we further call upon Archbishop Designate the Rt Revd Justin Welby to make addressing this inequitable situation one of his first priorities following his installation at Canterbury.
The Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) meets on two occasions per Vacancy in See to nominate candidates for diocesan bishoprics to the Crown. The dates for 2013 are now available and are listed below. They have been linked to particular vacancies, where these are known.
See of Blackburn
10 January
30/31 January
See of Manchester
11 March
19/20 April
See of Durham
8 May
6/7 June
See of Bath and Wells
18 July
5/6 September
Vacancy 5
2 October
29/30 October
Guardian Aida Edemariam and Lizzy Davies Pressure piles on church to vote again on female bishops
Aida Edemariam Maria Miller interview: ‘It’s very disappointing that the Church of England has taken this decision’
Telegraph John-Paul Ford Rojas Lord Carey calls for Church of England to push through introduction of women bishops
Liverpool Echo Alan Weston Frank Field MP tables parliamentary Bill over women bishops
Here is a press release from Frank Field and this is the bill’s entry on the UK Parliament website: Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill.
Stephen Croft, the Bishop of Sheffield, gave this presidential address to his diocesan synod this morning.
9 CommentsAll my choice of Opinion articles this week have been prompted by General Synod’s decision on women bishops, but they also have a wider relevance.
Simon Barrow Ekklesia Time to set church and state free
Zoe Williams Guardian Female bishops row: where could feminist Christians defect to?
Giles Fraser Guardian The puritans who scuppered female bishops revel in our criticism of them
6 CommentsMichael Perham, the Bishop of Gloucester, has questioned the Church’s equality law exemption in a statement issued yesterday. The full statement is available online and is copied below the fold. It is summarised in this press release from the diocese.
3 CommentsBishop questions Church’s equality law exemption
Friday 23 November 2012The Bishop of Gloucester is questioning the Church of England’s right to exemption from equality laws, following the recent voting against women bishops.
In a statement released today, the Rt Revd Michael Perham speaks of his huge disappointment and sadness at the outcome of this week’s voting. He said: “It has undermined the sense of value of our church’s more than 3,000 women priests. It has puzzled our society and brought ridicule upon the Church.
“There are questions that now have to be faced. Is the Church’s exemption from equality laws defensible? Does a system that requires 2/3rds majorities in three separate houses place the bar too high? Can it make sense for members of the Synod to be permitted to vote entirely contrary to the view of their diocesan synod?”
In the Diocese of Gloucester, more than 95 per cent of the diocesan synod voted in favour of the legislation. At General Synod 74 per cent voted for the legislation.
Bishop Michael continued: “It is really important to keep a welcome place in the Church for those who are unhappy with the idea of women bishops, but they must not hold the Church back, undermine its mission or make it a laughing stock in the mind of the nation.
“There will be women bishops in the Church of England. I have no doubt about that. Our response to the Holy Spirit and the effectiveness of our mission require it.”