Thursday, 17 July 2008

Women Bishops: clergy votes

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.

Clergy Votes   72 adjourn 20
7 July 2008   Packer Wright final
    consider
statutory
transfer
or code
wrong
time to
decide
 
Diocese etc number & name      
Deans (Canterbury) 54 Vivienne Faull against against for
  55 Colin Slee against against for
  56 Robert Willis for for for
Deans (York) 57 Rogers Govender against against for
  58 Michael Sadgrove against against for
Chaplain General of Prisons 59 William Noblett      
Forces Synodical Council 60 John Green for for for
  61 Ray Pentland      
  62 Stephen Robbins for    
Bath & Wells 64 Paul Langham against for for
  65 Jonathan LLoyd against against for
  66 Stephen Lynas against against for
  67 Colin Randall against against for
Birmingham 68 John Hughes for against for
  69 Hayward Osborne against against for
  70 Peter French against abst for
Blackburn 71 Peter Ballard for for for
  72 Paul Benfield for for against
  73 John Hall for    
  74 James Garrard against against for
Bradford 75 Paul Ayers      
  76 John Hartley against for for
  77 Ruth Yeoman against against for
Bristol 78 Alan Hawker for for against
  79 Douglas Holt      
  80 Paul Roberts against against for
Canterbury 81 Gill Calver against against for
  82 Philip Down for against for
  83 Simon Tillotson for against for
  84 Mark Roberts for for against
Carlisle 85 George Howe for against for
  86 Ferial Etherington against against for
  87 Colin Randall for for against
Chelmsford 88 Annette Cooper against against for
  89 John Dunnett   for against
  90 Brian Lewis against against for
  91 David Parrott against against for
  92 David Waller for for against
  93 Martin Webster against against for
Chester 94 Donald Allister for for against
  95 David Felix against for for
  96 Judy Hunt against against for
  97 Rob Munro for for against
  98 Marc Wolverson against against for
Chichester 99 Hugh Atherstone      
  100 Ian Chandler for for against
  101 Alastair Cutting for for for
  102 James Houghton for for against
  103 Douglas McKittrick for    
  104 Mark Payne for against against
Coventry 105 Mark Bratton against against for
  106 Mark Beach against against for
  107 Elizabeth Dyke against against for
Derby 108 John Davies      
  109 Ian Gooding for for against
  110 Katie Tupling against against for
Durham 111 Sheila Bamber for for against
  112 Graeme Buttery for    
  113 Meg Gilley for against for
  114 Ian Jagger for for for
Ely 115 John Beer      
  116 Alan Hargrave against against for
  117 Rhiannon Jones against against for
Europe 118 Jonathan Boardman against against for
  119 Debbie Flach against against for
Exeter 120 vacant      
  121 Sam Philpott for for against
  122 Roderick Thomas      
  123 Carl Turner against against abst
  124 Anthony Wilds for for against
Gloucester 125 Andrew Dow for for for
  126 David Primrose for against for
  127 Celia Thomson against against for
Guildford 128 John Ashe against against for
  129 Robert Cotton against against for
  130 Julian Henderson for against against
  131 Jolyon Trickey for for against
Hereford 132 Malcolm Colmer abst for for
  133 Kay Garlick against against for
  134 Brian Chave against against for
Leicester 135 Richard Atkinson against against for
  136 Peter Hobson      
  137 John Plant against against for
Lichfield 138 Paul Farthing for abst against
  139 Mark Thomas for against for
  140 John Hall against against for
  141 Maureen Hobbs against for for
  142 Mark Ireland against against for
  143 Richard Moy against for for
Lincoln 144 Arthur Hawes for for for
  145 Chris Lilley for against for
  146 John Patrick for for for
Liverpool 147 Peter Bradley      
  148 Cynthia Dowdle against against for
  149 Pete Spiers against against for
  150 Tim Stratford for for for
London 151 Philippa Boardman against against for
  152 John Brownsell for for against
  153 Philip Chester against for for
  154 Jonathan Clark against against for
  155 Stephen Coles against against for
  156 John Cook for for against
  157 David Houlding for for against
  158 Rose Hudson-Wilkin against against for
  159 Martin Warner for for against
  160 Andrew Watson for abst for
Manchester 161 John Applegate      
  162 William Raines against against for
  163 Nick Feist for    
  164 David Griffiths for for for
  165 Simon Killwick for for against
  166 Alma Servant against against for
  167 Cherry Vann for for abst
Newcastle 168 Adrian Hughes for for against
  169 Michael Webb      
  170 Dagmar Winter against for for
Norwich 171 Stephen Betts for for for
  172 Jeremy Haselock for for against
  173 David Hayden for for against
  174 Jan MacFarlane abst for for
Oxford 175 Moira Astin against against for
  176 Jonathan Baker for for against
  177 John Wynburne against against for
  178 Susan Booys against against for
  179 John Chorlton for for for
  180 Tim Dakin for for against
  181 Hugh Lee against for for
  182 Norman Russell for for against
  183 Chris Sugden for for against
Peterborough 184 Christine Allsopp against against for
  185 David Bird for for abst
  186 Stephen Trott for for against
Portsmouth 187 Peter Hancock for for for
  188 David Isaac against for for
  189 Bob White against for for
Ripon & Leeds 190 Brunel James      
  191 Kathryn Fitzsimmons for against for
  192 Mark Sowerby for for against
Rochester 193 Nicholas Kerr against against for
  194 Angus MacLeay for    
  195 Clive Mansell      
  196 Gordon Oliver      
St Albans 197 Peter Ackroyd for for against
  198 Jeremy Crocker for for abst
  199 Joan Crossley      
  200 Richard Hibbert for for for
  201 Trevor Jones against for for
  202 Stephen Lake against against for
St Edmundsbury & Ipswich 203 Jonathan Alderton-Ford for for against
  204 Geoffrey Arrand for for against
  205 Max Osborne against for for
Salisbury 206 Maureen Allchin against against for
  207 Mark Bonney against against for
  208 Nigel LLoyd against against for
  209 Alistair Magowan for for for
  210 Chris Strain for against for
Sheffield 211 Geoffrey Harbord for for against
  212 Matthew Porter      
  213 Simon Bessant for against against
  214 Lydia Wells for for for
Sodor & Man 215 David Green      
Southwark 216 Simon Butler against against for
  217 Paul Collier against against for
  218 Giles Fraser against against for
  219 Christine Hardman against against for
  220 Andrew Nunn against against for
  221 Paul Perkin for for against
  222 Anne Stevens against against for
Southwell & Nottingham 223 Nigel Peyton against against for
  224 Anthony Thiselton      
  225 Tony Walker against against for
  226 Ruth Worsley against against for
Truro 227 Alan Bashforth against for for
  228 Roger Bush for for for
  229 David Miller for   for
Wakefield 230 Ian Gaskell against    
  231 Jonathan Greener against against for
  232 Susan Penfold against against for
Winchester 233 Sarah Chapman against against for
  234 Adrian Harbidge against against for
  235 Michael Harley for for for
  236 Clive Hawkins for for against
  Channel Islands 237 Paul Mellor for for against
Worcester 238 Stuart Currie for for for
  239 Jane Fraser against against for
  240 Joy Tetley      
York 241 David Bailey for against for
  242 Gill Henwood against against for
  243 Cathy Rowling against against for
  244 Richard Seed for for against
  245 Suzanne Sheriff against against for
  246 Glyn Webster for for against
Universities 446 Marilyn McCord Adams against against for
  447 Duncan Dormor against against for
  448 Prof Richard Burridge against against for
  449 Gavin Ashenden for for against
  450 Miranda Threlfall-Holmes against against for
  451 Kevin Ward against against for
Religious Communities 452 Sister Rosemary against for for
  455 Thomas Seville for for against
         
  for 84 78 124
  against 92 90 44
  abst 2 3 4
  total 178 171 172
Posted by Peter Owen on Thursday, 17 July 2008 at 5:43pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod
Comments

More difficult to read into these votes, since most of the clergy will be unknown to most of us.

In certain places the flavour of each diocese can be discerned: as expected the clergy of hardline liberal sees such as Bath and Wells, Southwark, or the Universities block allowed no room for the traditionalists.

Only in Anglo-Catholic bastions such as Oxford, London, and Chichester did the clergy vote in force against the motion and its lack of provision for the Catholics.

Posted by: John Omani on Thursday, 17 July 2008 at 6:07pm BST

Interesting to see so many open evangelicals, affirming Catholics and liberals voting the same way on this one - with the conservative Catholics and evos on the minority side.

Posted by: Merseymike on Thursday, 17 July 2008 at 6:12pm BST

One woman against the substantive motion. Interesting.

More interesting is the number of Archdeacons against the final motion. Not sure why.

Posted by: Wilf on Thursday, 17 July 2008 at 7:27pm BST

"its lack of provision for the Catholics"

For "the Catholics who don't agree", please. Anglo-catholics as a group are not united in this. Many of us are quite happy with the idea of ordained females.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 1:10pm BST

Many of us are quite happy with the idea of ordained females.

In North America this may well be true, but in England the majority of Anglo-Catholics are traditionalists. And they do have a point. In what way can one possibly claim to be catholic if i) one doesn't believe in the restoration of eucharistic unity with the churches of the first millenium, or ii) believes that the synod of the Church of England is unilaterally able to sweep away two millenia of church tradition, or iii) seeks to exclude those who are faithful to the patristic and conciliar heritage of the church? Lest it be forgot, the liberal and evangelical majority rejected a motion suggesting that those on both sides were loyal Anglicans (amend. 66)!

The traditionalist position is legitimate, even if we disagree with it, and provision should have been made for those holding such a position within the proposals. Alas no, the liberal bishops in Synod last week behaved like the Focas.

Posted by: John Omani on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 3:57pm BST

"its lack of provision for the Catholics"

->

"its lack of provision felt acceptable enough by the Catholics who don't agree"

Not only, as Ford notes, is this not all Catholics, but there provision is also intended to be made. The question is not whether provision should be made, but what provision should be made.

Posted by: Simon Kershaw on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 4:38pm BST

"there provision is also intended to be made."

There is a lack of adequate provision. The safeguards promised to the Anglo-Catholics in 1992 have been broken - the code of practice would result in the repeal of the 1992/3 provisions.

As the Bishop of Ebbsfleet suggests, codes of practice are shifting sands subject to the fashions and whims of the moment, and do not provide the legal safeguards necessary to protect the historic sacramental basis of the faith.

The fig-leaf of a code pretends to work on the basis of trust. But as +Ebbsfleet argues 'How could we trust a code of practice when those who are offering it include those who have done most to undermine and seek to revoke the code of practice in force for these last 14 years?'

Hopefully, from the general unease and outrage at the debacle last week, there is still chance for the Synod to put in place proper provisions as this process continues.

Without such provisions, I suspect that this debacle will be more damaging to the Church of England than the whole homosexuality crisis, since it marks the death knell for a whole wing of the Church: those who wish for the restoration of communion with the historic Catholic and Orthodox churches. Without this wing, the Church of England cannot lay claim to be a comprehensive and apostolic church, and should be disestablished quickly.

The Anglo-Catholics ought then to be allowed then to take their parishes and property with them, whether to an Anglican Rite under the Catholic church, or to the Western Rite under the Antiochan Orthodox Church. I see that movement in this direction is already underway:
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_428.shtml

Posted by: John Omani on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 7:15pm BST

"In what way can one possibly claim to be catholic if i) one doesn't believe in the restoration of eucharistic unity with the churches of the first millenium, or ii) believes that the synod of the Church of England is unilaterally able to sweep away two millenia of church tradition, or iii) seeks to exclude those who are faithful to the patristic and conciliar heritage of the church?"

Give me a break! In what way can one possibly claim to be *Anglican*, with such an (anti-Anglican) BIASED FRAMING of the disputes in question?

Tiber, Bosporus? That-a-way...

Posted by: JCF on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 8:49pm BST

So - Simon K. What provision would you suggest for those 'whose convictions do not enable them to accept that the consecration of women as bishops is authorised by scripture or tradition' (Bishop of London's words) and who face the removal of guarantees given over women priests?

First they cannot accept the sacramental ministry of women priests or bishops, and then it gets further complicated regarding any men a female bishop ordains as well (though the 'softer' Catholics I guess would regard the men as validly ordained if at least a male bishop in the apostolic line is present). Any thoughts?

Posted by: Neil on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 10:03pm BST

"who face the removal of guarantees given over women priests"

What do you think that a code of practice will say? I imagine that a code will allow a PCC to prevent a women from exercising a presbyteral ministry in its parish, to prevent a women suffragan or assistant bishop from exercising an episcopal ministry in the parish, and to request a woman diocesan bishop to make other provision for episcopal ministry to the parish.

So why do you think that in practice things will change for those parishes where the majority of the PCC do not accept the ministry of women priests and bishops?

Posted by: Simon Kershaw on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 11:08pm BST

"The Anglo-Catholics ought then to be allowed then to take their parishes and property with them"

I suspect that "the Anglo-Catholics" (Anti-Anglicans, more precisely) will be no more welcome to dismember and STEAL from the CofE, than are those attempting to do the same to TEC (probably, they'll be a lot LESS welcome, to steal from the Established Church!)

Posted by: JCF on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 11:20pm BST

Simon K - well apart from the complication of men ordained by women in the future there was in the past also a structural guarantee (required by parliament I might remind you). What seems missing from your analysis is the redefining (in some people's eyes...both within the CofE and amongst the majority of Christendom ie the RC and Orthodox) of the CofE as a purely protestant and liberal body in the future. This is what threatens to unchurch people - the cutting of catholic and apostolic roots. It didn't get the Methodists very far (though I admire them and good Methodist ministry just as I admire women's ministry within the CofE...actually they compare fairly well) and this will prove the problem for the likes of Giles Fraser who discover they are in what will effectively become a Methodist Church.
And there is a lot to be said for Methodism!

Posted by: Neil on Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 6:12pm BST

Neil -- there is not and never has been any 'structural guarantee' in the past. Nor has there been any 'requirement' from parliament for there to be one.

In 1992, the General Synod, guided by John Habgood, the then Abp of York, agreed to pass the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, which in essence allowed parishes to ask their diocesan bishop to exercise his episcopal ministry via another bishop, and provided upto three suffragan bishops to be available to provide such ministry where it is not otherwise easily available to the diocesan bishop.

There is no concept here of separate development, of PCCs voting to join a different non-contiguous diocese or parish, with a bishop more to their taste. 'Structural' is code for a scheme along these lines -- separate dioceses or even a separate province. In my opinion any such scheme would be disastrous.

I don't see why one should see any of this as changing the status of the Church of England as both Catholic and Reformed. The ordination of women as presbyters and the ordination or consecration of women as bishops should be seen as the culmination of a process, and development, not as an abrupt change.

As for changing the status of the Church of England -- why is this different from, say, 1660 or 1688? Or 1649 or 1538 for that matter? On the contrary, the Church of England continues as the catholic church in this land.

Posted by: Simon Kershaw on Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 7:02pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.