Thinking Anglicans

Explaining the archbishops' amendments

on Friday, 2 July 2010 at 10.40 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England, General Synod

This is an attempt to explain in plainer English what the amendments, that the two archbishops are proposing to make to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, are trying to do.

First, they remove from the wording of the measure the explicit reference to “delegation”.

for the exercise by way of delegation to a male bishop

This is because the concept of “delegation” has proved to be a stumbling block for some of those who are opposed to women bishops. See for example the discussion in this earlier TA thread from last October, when for a brief while it appeared that the Revision Committee was going down a path towards “statutory transfer” which is exactly what this amendment now seeks to restore. See also the earlier (2006) proposals which were for Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (shortened to TEA) and from the debate in July 2008, look at Amendment 72, which is reported on here, and which sought to insert the words:

“either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”;

The vote on that amendment was relatively close, compared to the others, but it failed in the House of Clergy.

This point is summarised in the press release from the archbishops as follows:

• the legal authority of the nominated bishop to minister in this way would derive from the Measure itself – and would not, therefore, be conferred by way of delegation; but the identity of such a bishop and the scope of his functions would be defined by the scheme made by the diocesan for his or her diocese, in the light of the provisions contained in the national statutory Code of Practice drawn up by the House of Bishops and agreed by General Synod;

Second, they make an assertion that this change:

shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions.

From the press release:

• thus both the diocesan and the nominated bishop would possess ‘ordinary jurisdiction’; the diocesan would retain the complete jurisdiction of a diocesan in law, and the nominated bishop would have jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure to the extent provided for in the diocesan scheme – in effect holding jurisdiction by the decision of the Church as a whole, as expressed in the Measure;

• in respect of the aspects of episcopal ministry for which the diocesan scheme made provision, the diocesan and the nominated bishop would be ‘co-ordinaries’, and to that extent, their jurisdiction could be described as co-ordinate – that is to say, each would have an ordinary jurisdiction in relation to those matters; and

Third, they insert into the section about the Code of Practice, an explicit requirement that the code must include guidance about the

arrangements for co-ordinating the exercise of episcopal ministry under section 2(1), (3) and (5) by the bishop of the diocese and any other bishop who exercises episcopal ministry in accordance with those subsections.

This is intended to ensure that the Code of Practice does cover the topics mentioned in those subsections.

From the press release:

• the Code of Practice would contain guidelines for effective co-ordination of episcopal functions so as to avoid duplication or conflict in the exercise of episcopal ministry.

So, to summarise, the amendments do exactly, but no more than, what the press release from the archbishops said they would do. They are a reversion to the principle of “statutory transfer” which was voted down by synod in 2008, and abandoned by the revision committee last November.