Two more articles on this subject from Modern church by Jonathan Clatworthy.
Women bishops and valid sacraments
This article focuses on a central concern of opponents, the conditions for the validity of the sacraments, expressed for example in Simon Killwick’s article in the Church Times in July 2010. My aim is to undermine this concern by describing the historical origins and theological weaknesses of the idea.
This article aims to clarify the claims being made. What is the universal Church? In what sense does the Church of England belong to it? How, if at all, does the universal Church make or allow changes? What stops women priests and bishops being one of the changes?
The Downing Street website has this:
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Right Reverend Stephen David Conway, MA, Area Bishop of Ramsbury, for election as Bishop of Ely in succession to the Right Reverend Anthony John Russell, BA, DPhil, on his resignation on the 28th February 2010.
Read more here.
And from the diocesan website here.
This morning, the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 carried this:
Dr Tom Wright: ‘The long failure of the enlightenment project’
The retiring Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, has called for a renewed focus on social mobility in the light of “the long failure of the enlightenment project”.
Speaking to James Naughtie, he said that in an “increasingly religious age” we needed to find new ways of dealing with the way “human beings mess things up”.
Andrew Brown has written Bishop Tom vs the Enlightenment
Tom Wright says that the breakdown of the welfare state shows that the enlightenment project has failed. Is he right?
He starts this way:
Oh lord, I thank thee that I am not as other columnists are, for they will assuredly pick up from his Today show interview Tom Wright’s description of the newspaper columnists as the Pharisees of our age and his complaint that the media has ignored at least fifteen speeches that he made in the House of Lords without one mention of s-e-x in them.
It is a little more interesting, though, to look at what he thought about the wider world. You can pick a lot of holes in the detail of his argument, but there is a very important truth hidden in there…
This article was first published in The Tablet, the Catholic weekly. www.thetablet.co.uk
It is reproduced here with the editor’s permission.
David Stancliffe Not what you do, but how you do it.
An Anglican bishop who supports women’s ministry argues that the disagreement between Rome and the Church of England on the matter is connected with their different ways of thinking rather than the substance of what they believe.
The transcript of the questions (and supplementaries) asked at last month’s General Synod and the answers as given is now available.
Updated Friday evening
Last week’s Church Times contained many letters responding to the article about sacramental assurance by Canon Simon Killwick which was linked here earlier.
These letters are now available at RC disapproval undermines sacramental assurance.
The Irish Times recently carried a letter from Canon Dr Virginia Kennerley which was published under the title Women’s ordination.
…On reading the Synod reports it struck me that the demand for “sacramental assurance” – the guarantee that the priest celebrating the Eucharist has not been ordained by a woman bishop, or even by a bishop originally ordained by a woman – is a demonstration of “magical thinking” at its most primitive, akin to ritual rain-making ceremonies and tribal rituals designed to control the uncontrollable…
This letter refers to a sermon on the same theme by Canon Kennerley, delivered at Christ Church Dublin a few days earlier.
Update
The G2 section of the Guardian carried this feature article last Monday: Women bishops of the future?
As the Church of England moves ever closer to allowing the ordination of women bishops, three woman [sic] priests talk about what it would mean to them.
In The Bishop of Ebbsfleet’s Pastoral Letter - September 2010, Bishop Andrew Burnham writes about Electing a New General Synod.
The full text is copied below the fold.
In last week’s Church Times Simon Killwick wrote about Why sacramental assurance matters.
“Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! Oh, what a foretaste of glory is mine!” Anglicans, especially Catholic Anglicans, find “blessed assurance” and a “foretaste of glory” in the sacraments of the Church. After the General Synod debate on women bishops, Stephen Barney wrote asking for an explanation of the doctrine of sacramental assurance (Letters, 16 July). Others have questioned whether sacramental assurance is an Anglican doctrine.
I would like to try to explain it, and to show that it is an Anglican doctrine. The doctrine of the Church of England is to be found particularly in “the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal”, according to Canon A5; I will refer to these sources, among others…
Last week’s Church Times (30 July) also carried a large number of letters to the editor on the subject. See Women bishops, sacramental assurance, the mitre: debates continue.
Letters from the three previous weeks are available here (23 July) and over here (16 July) and here (9 July) .
Bishop of Ebbsfleet’s September letter
Electing a new General Synod
IN MY August Pastoral Letter, I said that I should continue to reflect on current issues in the September letter. Normally one looks for a different, and unrelated topic, but these are not normal times. We have seen the dissolution of the 2005–2010 General Synod and with it the dispersion of its ‘Catholic Group in General Synod’, one of the informal groupings in the Synod. New elections will take place shortly and the 2010–2015 General Synod will be inaugurated by the Queen in November. As happens every five years, there will be an inaugural meeting of the new ‘Catholic Group’ and people will be counting up how many are in the Group, bishops, clergy and laity, and what kind of line they will be taking. That much is predictable and the pattern for it long-established. The officers of the ‘Catholic Group’ will already be in place (provided they have managed themselves to be elected to the Synod) and the Chairman will already have a sense of the direction in which he will want to lead the Group.
Until the July 2010 vote, the second catastrophic vote for Anglo-catholics in three years, there was a division of opinion. One section wanted, on principle, to vote down the women bishops’ legislation completely, on the grounds that Catholic Faith and Order does not traditionally admit women to holy orders and the Church of England has no more competence to change the tradition than it has to change the bible, the creeds, or the sacraments. This section still sees its duty to witness to the Catholic Faith, as the Church of England has received it, and not to give up until the ‘final approval’ vote is lost in 2012 (if, indeed, it is lost). The ‘final approval’ vote on women bishops will need a two-thirds majority in each of the three houses of Synod and it is possible, of course, that it will not clear this hurdle in all three houses. (One projection is that it might fail in the house of laity).
The second section of opinion, broadly that of Forward in Faith, was that women bishops are inevitable sooner or later, because of the admission of women to the orders of deacon and priest, and that what is needed is a proper framework, proper provision, for those who maintain the historic and traditional view. The sooner the better. Forward in Faith favoured a free province, but three separate dioceses would amount to that, and that was firmly defeated in July. The archbishops’ amendment also might have permitted some sort of framework to be built on statutory transfer of jurisdiction. That was narrowly lost on a vote of houses. (It is hard to build a Catholic ecclesiology, incidentally, on a system which allows priests and deacons to vote down the attempts of archbishops and bishops in areas of Faith and Order. Are the procedures of General Synod in any sense ‘Catholic’?) What is apparently on offer, intended to meet the needs of this section of opinion, is a ‘code of practice’. Bishops and all who exercise patronage would agree to behave honourably and try to both respect people’s needs and their deeply-held beliefs.
Following the July 2010 vote, this second section of opinion has had to do some fresh thinking. Forward in Faith assemblies have chanted, as ‘the response to the psalm’, ‘A code of practice will not do’. Anglo-catholics are programmed then to reject a code of practice and it is important to understand why. For one thing, codes of practice are advisory and not mandatory. Discretion, discernment, goodwill, and good sense are all necessary for codes of practice to work. Catholic orders and sacraments cannot depend on discretion, discernment, goodwill, and good sense. Indeed a major characteristic of Catholic orders and sacraments is that they exist regardless of any of these things, even if some of these things are necessary for them to be of benefit to the faithful. Whatever it is, the Eucharist, celebrated by someone not in the historic succession, or not using the right elements or words, and not having the right intention, is not a Catholic sacrament. The same is true of Absolution, Confirmation, Ordination, and the Blessing of Oils. The argument here is not about the sex of the celebrant. Anglo-catholics (unlike many in the Church of England) have exactly the same problem with non-conformist ministers and lay presidents as they do with women clergy. What we need, we say, is ‘sacramental certainty’, a matter which the Chairman of the Catholic Group, Canon Simon Killwick, explained lucidly in the Church Times of 30 July 2010. That means that, in sacraments, God is doing something which does not depend on our response, though it invites our response. It happens, as they say, ex opera operato, just because it happens. To think otherwise is not what the Catholic Faith teaches. A code of practice won’t do!
That means that Anglo-catholics who are standing for election for the General Synod, or voting in General Synod elections, are standing, or voting, to defeat the women bishops’ legislation. It is hard to see how, in terms of process, any provision whatsoever could be made now – following the severe set-back in York in July – which allowed women bishops to be consecrated and, at the same time, traditional Anglo-catholics conscientiously to remain in the Church of England. But it ain’t over until it’s over. No-one in November 1992, when the final approval for women priests took place, could have guessed that a few months later the House of Bishops would cobble together the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, with its promise of a permanent and honoured place for those who could not accept the development.
Some of you will now be asking why I am picking at the carcase rather than just declaring it dead and moving on to embrace the offer of Pope Benedict XVI to Anglicans in Anglicanorum cœtibus. The Pope’s offer is not a bargain basement sale. It isn’t ‘clearance’ or ‘end of roll’ or ‘while stocks last’. Nor is it a rescue plan for shipwrecked Anglo-catholics. It is a way of pursuing the ecumenical journey to which we have been committed for a very long time and it must be considered in its own right. That I propose to do in a third Pastoral Letter in October, the third in a series of letters. Meanwhile I think we continue to pray, reflect, and rest, and, of course, ponder and reflect during the visit of the Pope to England later in September, what we should now do, each one of us. Most of all, as the Holy Father comes among us as the leader of the Christian family, we pray for the coming of the Kingdom and the triumph of the Gospel over the forces of evil and indifference.
May God bless you as you faithfully serve him and his Church.
Fifteen bishops of the Church of England have written a letter, addressed to those who signed the Open Letter of 2008 to the archbishops on the issue of women in the episcopate.
Another copy of the 2008 letter with the full list of signatories can be found as a PDF file here.
The full text of the new letter is below the fold.
‘God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you, but I will tell you the good and proper way.’ (1 Samuel 12:23)
These are grave times in the Church of England especially for those of us unable in good conscience to accept that any particular church has the authority to admit women to the episcopate. While we certainly accept the good faith of those who wish to make this change believing it to be God’s will, we cannot rejoice with them, not least because of the disastrous cost to Catholic unity.
Our concerns are not only about sacramental assurance though that is of profound importance. If the legislation now proposed passes, it will not provide room for our tradition to grow and flourish. We will be dependent on a Code of Practice yet to be written, and sadly our experience of the last almost twenty years must make us wonder whether even such an inadequate provision will be honoured in the long term.
Neither the Report of the Revision Committee nor the legislation itself show a proper understanding of our reservations, however carefully these have been presented through the consultation process and in the College and House of bishops. It remains a deep disappointment to us that the Church at large did not engage with the excellent Rochester Report and paid scant attention to the Consecrated Women report sponsored by Forward in Faith.
We must now accept that a majority of members of the Church of England believe it right to proceed with the ordination of women as bishops, and that a significant percentage of those in authority will not encourage or embrace with enthusiasm the traditional integrity or vocations within it. Nor is it their intention or desire to create a structure which genuinely allows the possibility of a flourishing mission beyond this generation.
However, the closeness of the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment for co ordinate jurisdiction, concerns though there are about its adequacy, suggest at least a measure of disquiet in the majority about proceeding without a provision acceptable to traditionalists. The catholic group fought valiantly on the floor of synod and we are grateful for that, and while many in the Church and press are speaking as if the legislation is now passed, final synodical approval is still some way off.
Whatever happens in the Synod, there are some Anglo Catholics, including in our own number, who are already looking at, indeed are resolved to join the Ordinariate as the place where they can find a home in which to live and proclaim their Christian faith, in communion with the Holy Father, yet retaining something of the blessings they have known and experienced in the Anglican tradition. Of course the Ordinariate is a new thing, and not all of us are trailblazers or can imagine what it might be like. Some will undoubtedly want to wait and see how that initiative develops before making a decision.
Yet others will make their individual submission and find their future as Roman Catholics.
Were the present proposals not to be substantially amended or defeated, many more of us will need to seriously consider these options.
A number will remain, perhaps even reluctantly because of personal circumstances, family loyalties, even financial necessity, but with a deep sense of unease about the long term future, an unease that is surely well founded. There are faithful Catholic clergy and lay people, though deeply opposed to the likely synodical decision, who cannot currently imagine themselves being anywhere else but the Church of England. They wonder how they can stay, yet cannot imagine leaving their much loved church and parish. They do not want to be forced out of the Church they love, and will persevere where they are, whatever the theological or ecclesiological ambiguities, and seek God’s blessing on all they do.
Those who are not actively seeking a home elsewhere must work to defeat the currently proposed legislation. It is essential that traditionalists engage in the debate and discussion in their diocese and are active in the election process for the next quinquennium on the General Synod when the two thirds majority in each House will be required if the legislation is to pass. Whatever our individual futures, and however disheartened we might feel, the Church of England needs strong catholic hearts and voices.
The text quoted at the beginning of this letter was the one used by John Keble in his famous Assize sermon, often regarded as the starting point of the Oxford Movement. It seems remarkably apposite, and gives a clue to an appropriate attitude of heart for this process: prayerful and gracious, but clear.
We are all bishops united in our belief that the Church of England is mistaken in its actions. However, we must be honest and say we are not united as to how we should respond to these developments.
Nevertheless we are clear that each of the possibilities we have outlined has its own integrity and is to be honoured. We are resolved to respect the decisions made by laity, bishops, priests and deacons of our integrity, and call on you to do the same. It would be a sad and destructive thing indeed if we allowed our unhappiness and wondering to drift into unguarded or uncharitable criticism of those who in good conscience take a different path from our own. We must assume the best motives in one another, and where there are partings let them be with tears and the best wishes of Godspeed.
You will we hope know of the clergy meetings in both provinces to take place in September when there will be opportunities for discussion and an exchange of views about the future. Be assured of our prayers as you reflect about how best to respond to the challenges which face us, and we ask your prayers for us too as we seek to be faithful to the Lord, and to the Faith once delivered.
Rt Revd John Hind, Bishop of Chichester
Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Europe
Rt Revd Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn
Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley
Rt Revd John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham
Rt Revd Peter Wheatley, Bishop of Edmonton
Rt Revd John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley
Rt Revd Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet
Rt Revd Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough
Rt Revd Tony Robinson, Bishop of Pontefract
Rt Revd John Ford, Bishop of Plymouth
Rt Revd Mark Sowerby, Bishop of Horsham
Rt Revd Martin Warner, Bishop of Whitby
Rt Revd Robert Ladds
Rt Revd Lindsay Urwin OGS
We have linked previously to articles by Paul Bagshaw of Modern Church.
See two recent items here.
Since then he has also written three articles Incompatible with the Covenant, and Incompatible with the Covenant 2 and Incompatible with the Covenant 3.
Modern Church has now issued a press release, the text of which is below the fold. The web publication mentioned in the press release is titled A very un-Anglican Covenant.
Media release: the case against the Anglican Covenant
‘The biggest change to the Church since the Reformation’ is how the proposed Anglican Covenant is described in Modern Church’s new web publication presenting the case against it.
Modern Church, formerly the Modern Churchpeople’s Union, has been arguing against the Covenant since it was first proposed by the Windsor Report in 2004.
‘We have lots of evidence of church leaders and clergy who don’t like it one bit but feel afraid to say so openly’, said Jonathan Clatworthy, the General Secretary.’ ‘We have produced the most extensive account yet of the case against it’.
The main objection is that it will turn the Church from an open one, where Anglicans are free to disagree with each other, into a confessional one where an international committee will lay down what Anglicans are expected to believe.
Arising out of the debate over gay bishops, the Covenant is designed to establish a formal method for declaring Anglican teaching. The immediate intention is to condemn the belief that same-sex partnerships are morally permissible; but the wording of the Covenant allows the same process to apply to any controversial new development.
The authors of Modern Church’s publication, Jonathan Clatworthy and Paul Bagshaw, argue that the intention of the Covenant is to draw a clear dividing line between those who accept the new ‘authoritarianism’ and those who do not. This, they say, has already been pre-empted by the Anglican Communion Office in its decision to exclude the USA from an ecumenical Anglican committee, IASCUFO. Although the USA cannot legally be expelled from the Anglican Communion, the wording of the Covenant implies that churches which refuse to sign it will no longer be treated as equally Anglican.
For the present, the argument runs, proponents are presenting the Covenant as a small matter, in order to persuade provinces to sign it. Once they have signed, the original authoritarian intention will be reasserted, and from then on there will be an international committee with power to suppress genuine disagreement by making official declarations of ‘what Anglicanism teaches’. Modern Church argues that the Church should retain its traditional openness and comprehensiveness and accept differences of opinion as normal.
The text is on www.modernchurch.org.uk/anglicancovenant.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner took questions in the House of Commons yesterday. The first two were about women bishops.
The verbatim Hansard reports are here and here.
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for Banbury , representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-
Women Bishops
6. Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): What recent representations he has received on proposals for the consecration of women as bishops. [11097]
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry): I have received numerous representations from people on all sides of the argument. I recently addressed the General Synod of the Church of England on this matter in York, and I have placed a copy of my statement in the Library.
Diana R. Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman take a guess as to when he thinks we will have the historic first woman bishop in the Church of England? When does he think that will be?
Tony Baldry: The legislation completed its Report stage at York. It now has to go to all the 44 dioceses of the Church of England. If a majority of them agree, it will go back to General Synod, probably in 2012. If two thirds of each of the General Synod’s houses agree to it, I would then expect it to come here to the Ecclesiastical Committee and this House in 2013, and if this House agrees, we could see the appointment of the first woman bishop in 2014.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): As someone who considered entering the ministry but realised I had too many vices and not enough virtues, may I commend the life and ministry of women in the Church, but also ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the first appointment of a female bishop, which will undoubtedly happen soon, must be on merit rather than political correctness?
Tony Baldry: I am sure that all appointments in the Church of England, including that of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, are made on merit.
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-
Women Bishops
8. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): When he expects the Church of England to consecrate its first woman bishop. [11099]
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.
Chris Bryant: As one who did go into the Church ministry and then discovered that I had plenty of vices, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little more impatient about the issue of women bishops? To be honest, it felt as if he was saying, “Nearer and nearer draws the time”, but will it be the time that will surely come when we have women bishops, and why on earth does this legislation have to come back to this House? Surely the Church of England should be freed from the shackles of bringing its legislation here, so that we can move forward on this issue rather faster.
Tony Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said to the General Synod, he will see that I made it clear that many of us want this legislation to come forward as speedily as possible, but we have to get it right. The reason it comes back here is that we have an established Church, and until such time as Parliament decides that we do not, we will continue to have an established Church.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): I hope my hon. Friend will ask the Synod to recognise that the House welcomed the decision it took to trust women bishops to do the right things, rather than trying to force them into being second-class bishops.
Tony Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I made it clear in York at the General Synod that I did not think I could get through this House any legislation in which there was a scintilla of a suggestion of women bishops in any way being second-class bishops.
There was also a question about Cathedral Restoration, copied here below the fold.
Cathedral Restoration
9. Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): What recent representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Government on public funding for the repair and restoration of cathedrals. [11100]
Tony Baldry: Church groups of all denominations are seeking to encourage and persuade the Government to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme, which enables a 100% refund of VAT on church buildings and repairs.
Hugh Bayley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Yorkshire Forward, the Yorkshire regional development agency, was forced to withdraw a grant of £1 million toward the cost of restoring the great east window of York minster? Will the Church Commissioners make representations to the Government that funds withdrawn from RDAs should be made available to other regional or local bodies, and that funding applications to these bodies from cathedrals should still be supported?
Tony Baldry: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. It is estimated that some £9 million is required to put York cathedral into good repair. Although funding has been coming forward-I understand that there is a grant application to the Heritage Lottery Fund, and the Wolfson Foundation has set up a fund for cathedral repairs-we will need to find money from all sorts of sources if we as a nation are to meet the responsibility of repairing these fantastic cathedrals, which are part of our national heritage.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Can my hon. Friend explain why two of the cathedrals in Scotland-Glasgow and Dunblane-are fully funded by the public purse, yet not a single cathedral in England is so funded?
Tony Baldry: The situation in Scotland is simply different from that here. As I said, we need to raise considerable sums of money-for Salisbury, Winchester and Lincoln cathedrals, and for York minster-but that will require a number of different sources of funding: part from the state, part from trusts and charities and part from private individuals.
The Partnership of the Dioceses of El Camino Real, Gloucester and Western Tanganyika
From the Diocese of Gloucester website:
Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury
Regarding the partnership of the dioceses of El Camino Real, Gloucester and Western Tanganyika
[in .doc format]
From the Diocese of El Camino Real website:
Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from our Partnership Bishops
This letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury was drafted by Bishops Mary Gray-Reeves of the Diocese of El Camino Real, Gerard Mpango of the Diocese of Western Tanganyika, and Michael Perham of the Diocese of Gloucester.
Please read it at http://www.edecr.org/sitefiles/file/newsdocs/NEWS-Ltr2ArchbpREpartnDio-20100622.pdf [in pdf format]
Three Questions on Communion issues were asked at the recent General Synod. All received written replies only.
Q75, The Revd Canon Giles Goddard (Southwark) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Given that Anglican membership of ecumenical bodies no longer represents the width of opinion currently held by loyal Anglicans, will the House of Bishops review the value of the Church of England’s continued participation in such bodies or the value of any agreements that might come from them.
The Bishop of Guildford to reply as Chairman of the Council for Christian Unity:
A. The agenda of the House of Bishops is set by its Standing Committee. I am not aware of any expressed intention on the part of the Standing Committee to put the Church of England’s participation in international bilateral dialogues between the Anglican Communion and other Christian world communions on the agenda of the House.
Q76, The Revd Canon Giles Goddard (Southwark) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Given the significance of the proposed Anglican Covenant, why has the House of Bishops not sought to impose a requirement of a two-thirds majority for its final approval?
The Archbishop of York to reply as Chairman of the House’s Standing Committee:
A. The adoption of the Anglican Communion Covenant will be Article 7 and 8 business, which means that it will require the approval of at least half of all diocesan synods, and that the Convocations and/or House of Laity can also claim a reference. It will also be open to 25 members to require that votes in General Synod are taken by Houses. Given these safeguards the House was not persuaded that there was a need to impose additional hurdles.
Q77, The Reverend Brian Lewis (Chelmsford) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Has the House of Bishops considered the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost message to the Anglican Communion, and the impact it has had and is likely to have on the work of those organizations of the Anglican Communion directly affected by it and to which the Church of England contributes members and support?
The Archbishop of York to reply as Chairman of the House’s Standing Committee:
A. The Archbishop of Canterbury briefed the House, at its May meeting, about developments in the Anglican Communion before the issue of his Pentecost letter later that month. He indicated the approach he intended to take in respect of upholding the Communion’s agreed moratoria and the consequences for those Churches in breach of them for participation at member level in Communion bodies in the ecumenical and faith & order fields.
Updated Monday morning
We reported the recent incident at Southwark Cathedral, and related matters, in several previous articles:
Presiding Bishop visits the UK
Presiding Bishop at Southwark Cathedral
more from Southwark Cathedral
mitres in Gloucester
Lambeth Palace explains the Southwark episode
Church Times reports on Southwark episode
At the recent General Synod in York, two Questions were asked about this. The full text of the Q and A is given below the fold. The questions were for written reply only, and in any event the block of questions in which they came was not reached before the end of the session, so there were no supplementary answers.
Readers will recall that the letter sent from Lambeth Palace referred to “The agreed approach of the English bishops…”
Incidentally, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is preaching tomorrow at St Paul’s Cathedral, at the 11.00 Choral Eucharist.
Update ENS has a full report of the service, with photos, and links to the sermon. See Presiding bishop preaches at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London.
Q 78, Miss Rachel Beck (Lincoln) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Has any advice been issued recently to members of the House of Bishops, relating to the procedures for giving permission under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 to overseas clergy who wish to make short-term visits to England, and if so what was the reason for doing so? Will this advice or any further advice that may be issued be made public?
The Archbishop of Canterbury to reply:
A. No general advice has been issued recently to the House of Bishops on the procedures for obtaining permission under the Measure. The provincial registrars and staff in the Archbishops’ offices offer advice on those procedures to diocesan bishops and others, as required. Active consideration is being given to whether it would be desirable to issue fuller - and publicly available - guidance on the procedures under the Measure and associated issues.
Q 79, Miss Rachel Beck (Lincoln) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Does the House of Bishops have an ‘agreed approach’ to ‘the issue of vesture’ for women bishops from other Anglican provinces when preaching or officiating in England, and if so will this be made public?
The Archbishop of Canterbury to reply:
A. The House of Bishops has not considered the issue of vesture of female bishops from other Anglican provinces who preach or officiate in England. But a female “overseas bishop” can only be given permission under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 to officiate in England as a priest. By virtue of s. 1 of the 1967 Measure, a female “overseas bishop” with an archbishop’s permission to officiate as a priest is subject to the same obligations as a priest of the Church of England - including in relation to matters of vesture (for which provision is made in Canon B 8). The 1967 Measure has not been understood as applying to those whose ministry in England will be confined to preaching.
The relationship between the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and the Equality Act 2010 was considered during the recent General Synod:
The Church Times reported that
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, said that it would be his task to steer the legislation through the House of Commons. In his constituency, many of the senior posts in the county were held by women. “I see no reason why, when there is a vacancy, the Bishop of Dorchester or the Bishop of Oxford should not be a woman. . . Let’s do it soon.” However, the Church of England was a broad Church.
The vote on the legislation on women bishops which would be presented to Parliament would be a free vote in which the views of individual MPs mattered. The equality agenda now played strongly across all parties, and there were now a record number of women MPs. The difficult task of steering through the legislation would be impossible “if there is a scintilla of a suggestion that women bishops are in some way second-class bishops”.
Robert Key, the former MP, spoke later, and opposed the inclusion of Clause 7 of the Measure.
The Church Times reported as follows:
Mr Tattersall warned that the consequences of not agreeing to Clause 7 (Equality Act exceptions), which had been introduced in order to comply with the Equality Act, would be that the Measure could be found to be in conflict with that legislation, and so would be “legally deficient”. The Equality Act had been drawn more narrowly than the Equality Bill had originally been drawn; so the new legislation was necessary to prevent any possible conflict with the Act, the committee had been advised.
Robert Key (Salisbury) had given notice that he wanted to speak against Clause 7. He said that the Bishop of Durham was, “of course, wholly wrong: the Church of England cannot act wholly in its own interest.” God spoke not just to the Synod, but also to Parliament. The evidence he had seen was that Clause 7 was not a proportionate and reasonable approach and his view was that it would fail in the courts. The law of the land would apply to everyone except Christians.
The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament had to ensure that the Church respected the constitutional rights of all the population.
Mr Key elaborated his position in this video interview with Ruth Gledhill: Should Church of England be exempt from Equality law?
I wrote a news article for the Church Times recently which gave some of the background on this, see Equality Law will affect church appointments.
I am going to write a further and more detailed explanation soon.
Here are the reports for everything else, except women bishops.
Church Commissioners: Where did the money go?
Clergy pensions: Pension age to be 68, and accrual period 41½ years
Presidential address: Sentamu: society needs work ethics
Faith and order: New commission is set up to replace three doctrine groups
Archbishop of Estonia’s address
Fresh Expressions: Council asked to seek visual resources
Last week’s Church Times detailed reports of synod debates are now available to all. Here are the links to the main topic of discussion. All other reports will be linked in a second article soon.
Women bishops: Amendments fall in marathon debate
Women bishops: Pictures from the debate
Letters on the topic last week are at Incomprehension all round? Reactions to the General Synod’s voting.
Other Church Times coverage was linked earlier, see over here.
Updated Friday morning
I linked to the raw voting lists from this month’s General Synod earlier today.
I have now compiled tables of how each member of Synod voted (or abstained or was absent) on the main votes on the legislation to allow women to become bishops. These tables are available as a web page.
At present only the bishops and clergy are included; the laity will be added later.
The tables are now complete.
Updated Friday
The detailed voting lists from the electronic votes at the July General Synod are now available.
We will be publishing analyses of some of these votes. [Now available here]
Women in the Episcopate legislation - major votes
item 512a - additional dioceses
item 513a - compulsory delegation
item 514 - archbishops’ amendment
item 518 - include clause 2 in the measure
Vote for recommittal - to the revision committee
Women in the Episcopate legislation - other votes
item 522 - remove the need for a two-thirds quorum at PCC meetings considering making a request
item 525 - remove a clerical veto
item 541a - require two-thirds majorities in each house for any subsequent amendment or repeal.
Other votes
item 27 - amend motion on clergy pensions
item 601 - final approval of Additional Weekday Lectionary
Pastoral Letter - 16th July 2010 from the Bishop of Richborough:
THE AFTERMATH OF THE GENERAL SYNOD
The members of the General Synod have returned home; no doubt some will be preparing their addresses for the forthcoming Synod election in the autumn. For many this Synod achieved exactly what was wanted as far as the ordination of women to the episcopate is concerned but for a sizable minority it has left them feeling despondent and unwanted. When the Bishop of Manchester commended the draft legislation for revision in February 2009 he emphasised that it would be possible to make significant changes during the revision process. Despite the valiant efforts of some members of the Revision Committee what came back to the Synod this July was even less helpful than the original draft. I was not surprised. It was inevitable once the bishops decided to put the process in the hands of the Synod rather than controlling it themselves, which they had been doing until May 2008 when they sent a motion to synod recommending a Code of Practice as the best way forward. We have consistently said since then that ‘a Code of Practice will not do’ and there is no reason we should change our minds. It simply will not do – not then and not now.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York made a brave attempt to amend the legislation and while I did not think it would have been able to achieve what some hoped it would achieve it was defeated in the House of Clergy. It is not often, if ever, that two Archbishops have proposed an amendment to such a contentious piece of legislation concerning the future unity of the Church of England; to have done so and not succeeded says a great deal about the problems of our synodical structures. The Draft Measure will now go to the dioceses for further scrutiny though it is highly unlikely that it will not gain the necessary support. It will return to the Synod in 2012 when it will need to gain the necessary two thirds majorities in all three Houses of Laity, Clergy and Bishops.
If the Measure is passed -if it isn’t the issue will not go away-the landscape in the Church of England for traditional Catholics and Evangelicals will be bleak. There will be no resolutions to be passed, no Episcopal Visitors to petition for, the Act of Synod will be abolished and the episcopal ministry of the Bishops of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough will not exist. The process of reception so ably explained by Dame Mary Tanner in New Directions a few months ago has been forgotten. All the promises which were made to us in the early 1990’s about having a permanent honoured place in our Church have been ignored. No doubt many of the supporters of women’s ordination will say there has been compromise on both sides. They will point out they preferred a simple piece of legislation without a statutory Code of Practice. However, from our point of view, this legislation offers us little hope. It addresses none of the issues which are of concern to us and about which we have argued for so long. The only provision will be that a parish can request a male incumbent or the sacramental and pastoral care of a male bishop when needed. It is simply not sufficient for those for whom it is supposed to apply. Far from providing for those who have serious theological objections to the ordination of women the legislation allows parishes to discriminate against women.
I cannot overemphasise how serious this situation is for us. No amount of promises from the Archbishop Canterbury and others that there is more to be done can produce anything which would address the issues of jurisdiction, ecclesiology and sacramental assurance which we require.
Many of our priests signed an open letter before the July Synod of 2008, which began the process which has led to the present draft legislation, in which we said.
It is with sadness that we conclude that, should the Church of England indeed go ahead with the ordination of women to the episcopate, without the same time making provision which offers us real ecclesial integrity and security, many of us will be thinking very hard about the way ahead. We will inevitably be asking whether we can, in conscience, continue to minister as bishops, priests and deacons in the Church of England which has been our home.
The time for such discernment on the part of priests and laity has drawn considerably nearer since last week end. We will all have difficult questions to consider and the answers may depend as much upon our particular circumstances as on our understanding of the Church. What is essential is that we should have a period of calm reflection and prayer before any important decisions are made. Priests and people will need to have serious conversations about the future; we cannot bury our heads in the sand and hope this will go away. The priests in the Richborough Area have been invited, with other clergy from the Province of Canterbury, to a Sacred Synod on the 24th September to take counsel together.
The visit of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to our country in September will give us a good opportunity to meditate on our Lord’s call to Christian unity. The high spot of the visit will be the Beatification of John Henry Newman who himself wrestled with similar issues in his day. This may be a moment when his thoughts and writings can help us to consider the way forward.
May God bless you as you discern his will for you,
+ Keith
Rod Thomas Chairman of Reform, writes:
The General Synod
At the General Synod’s meeting in York earlier this month, I moved an amendment to the proposed measure on women bishops which, had it passed, would have enabled parishes to opt for a ‘complementary bishop’ when it came to key issues like selecting ordinands for training, disciplining clergy and appointing incumbents. There was a good debate but the amendment was lost in the subsequent vote. The voting figures were:
For Against
Bishops 10 28
Clergy 52 124
Laity 73 118These figures are significant because they show that more than 1/3rd of the House of Laity felt the present draft Measure to be in need of major revision…
The BBC Radio 4 programme Profile featured the Bishop of Fulham last week. Here is the BBC blurb about the programme:
The Rt Rev John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham and chairman of Forward in Faith, the mainly Anglo-Catholic organisation opposed to the ordination of women. Traditionalists like Bishop Broadhurst were left more isolated this week after the Church of England’s ruling body the General Synod moved one step nearer to the concecration of women bishops. Those close to him say frequent accusations of misogyny have been wounding but are completely misplaced.
Listen to the 15 minute programme via this page.
The programme’s presenter, Mary Ann Sieghart wrote about it in her latest column for the Independent newspaper, Women on top? You’ve got to be joking:
…Even in the Church of England, which now has women priests and is close to accepting women as bishops, the hatred and vilification are shocking. At last weekend’s meeting of the General Synod, some women priests were spat at. And a male bishop who appeared on the radio programme I made complained that the Synod had now been “swamped” by part-time women clergy or – as he put it – “ladies with time on their hands”.
Hearing a word like “swamped”, you might expect the House of Clergy to have been taken over by women. In fact, they account for just 39 of 197 members. In other words, men still take up 80 per cent of the places. But if women are seen as threatening and monstrous – as in that priest’s painting – even their minority presence is hugely amplified.
This overestimation of the power and representation of women is commonplace. Research shows that when women speak in the classroom exactly 50 per cent of the time, both men and women think they spoke more. When I took part in an internet debate recently about whether Oxford University was sexist, James Kingston, president of the Oxford Union, said: “Most of the History tutors at Christ Church seem to be women.” In fact, there are six women and six men there…
Press Statement from WATCH (Women and the Church) 17 July
Generosity Offered to those Opposed as Draft Legislation Overwhelmingly Endorsed by Synod
General Synod overwhelmingly agreed last weekend to have women as bishops alongside provisions for those opposed. The decision to include provisions was passed by 373 votes to 14. This was urged on Synod by senior clergywomen who, despite the consistent demands on them to ‘be gracious’ towards opponents in the past 16 years, still want to offer those who disagree with them an honoured place.
Hilary Cotton, WATCH Campaign Coordinator commented, “This has been described as uncharitable by the opponents because it does not give them what they say they need. But generosity does not always mean giving people what they want: it means weighing up the issues and coming to a judgement about the best way forward for as many as possible. Women had made it clear in the debates that they could not accept appointment as bishops under the conditions of the Archbishops’ amendment. The provisions in the legislation ARE generous: no parish will have to have a female bishop or priest – meaning there will still be no-go areas for ordained women”.
Elections for General Synod take place in September. WATCH hopes that the new Synod will be truly representative of the majority of Church people who want women bishops and want to be generous to those opposed. This legislation has been given overwhelming endorsement as the will of this Synod. We trust that will be confirmed by the next Synod, and that women will be appointed bishops by 2014.
British Religion in Numbers has a report Gender and the Anglican Episcopate.
The Church of England has hit the media headlines again during the past week or so over its continuing internal divisions about the issues of women’s ministry and homosexual clergy. The general public’s reactions to all this have been explored by YouGov in an online survey of 2,227 adult Britons aged 18 and over on 11-12 July.
Details can be found at Support for female and gay Bishops on YouGov and in this PDF file.
The Church Mouse has also reported on this at Public perceptions of women bishops.
Today’s Church Times summarises the debate last weekend: Traditionalists face threadbare future as Measure is passed by Ed Beavan.
Scroll down for a very useful sidebar on What happens next.
There is a very full report of the debates in the paper edition, that will be online next Friday. Subscribers to the newspaper can find them via this link.
There is a Leader: Extra time, or game over?
Last week’s newspaper, published just before the debates, had a number of letters on the topic.
Giles Fraser’s column has some bearing on the issue, see It’s still time to stick together.
In addition to the above, unofficial copies of documents published on TA during the debate:
A Statement from the Chairman of Forward in Faith Jul 15, 2010
Like you, I was very disappointed at the outcome of last weekend’s debate at General Synod in York and appalled at the intransigence of some feminist clergy and their supporters. What kind of a church is it that is willing to ignore the leadership of its Archbishops and to renege on a solemn promise given to Parliament about an honoured and permanent place for us?
We now face a most serious situation, made all the worse by the refusal of the Synod to pass the Archbishops’ amendment. Resolutions A & B - which provide the basis in law on which the ordination of women can be opposed - are to be removed. This means that any opposition which might be tolerated will be based on the recognition of supposed prejudice rather than the respect of theological principle. Further, the abolition of the PEVs is proposed, which will leave our constituency in an intolerable position. All we would be allowed under the draft Measure as it now stands is access to a male bishop, whose own beliefs need not coincide with ours. That is sexism writ large.
Despite the dreadful result in York, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Group in General Synod, along with all those who supported them in the debate. In the coming weeks, a new Synod is to be elected and it is vital we all do all we can to ensure the return of as many orthodox candidates as possible, in order that a Catholic presence on the Synod can be there to continue to represent the interests of Catholic Anglicans throughout this divisive and unnecessary process.
That these are very difficult times for all of us goes without saying; we need, above all, to take time to pray, to consult together and to support one another, as we try to discern our respective ways forward – not just in faith, but also of course in hope and in love.
Every blessing,
XJohn Fulham
TA note: Bishop John Broadhurst is Bishop of Fulham, a Suffragan in the Diocese of London.
Here’s some more articles about General Synod from people who were actually there.
First, there is the GenSyn blog of Alastair Cutting and Justin Brett. Alastair has written this very helpful article Synod: updates on the blogs. And earlier he had written Lots of reasons to vote against the Archbishops amendment.
Justin’s own blog is The Dodgy Liberal and he wrote several commentaries on the women bishops debate: Women Bishops - Day 1, then …and the next day and finally Women Bishops Day 2.
Jeremy Fletcher has started his own blog. He wrote several “live blogging” articles and also On voting against, and then Women Bishops – Where now?
Colin Coward wrote on the Changing Attitude blog: General Synod and women bishops - is the Holy Spirit calling the church to adulthood?
Justin Brett appears yet again at the Church Mouse blog, with What the papers don’t say.
John Martin wrote several articles for the Living Church:
Synod Prepares for Grueling Debate
A Narrow Loss for the Archbishops
Understated Critiques Ensue at Synod
Synod Approves Plan for Women Bishops
Life After Synod
Rod Thomas wrote about it for Cif belief Opponents of women bishops are part of the church too
Over at Reuters Miranda Threlfall-Holmes wrote a guest piece, Pragmatism beats idealism in fight for women bishops.
Dear Brother/Sister in Christ
So, General Synod has voted to send the draft legislation on women bishops to the dioceses. Any debating chamber anywhere would have been proud of the consistently high level of debate over two long, hot days (and discussions that went on well into the night). I was bobbing up and down all one morning trying to get called to speak! Some of the votes were very close; some were very definite. For example, the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment was only lost in the House of Clergy, and that by just 5 votes, but the final vote on clause 2 which laid a duty on diocesan bishops to make arrangements for the care of those opposed to the legislation, was a decisive 373 to 13.
The outcome is that General Synod is now inviting the dioceses to join them in discerning God’s will for the consecration of women as bishops and the care of those who cannot accept their episcopal ministry. We are therefore another step along the way but the process goes on. To those who are delighted with this decision, I want to say: ‘I share your pleasure; the gifts of women to every order of the Church are a step closer to being recognised’. To those who are deeply disturbed by this development, I want to say: ‘Please don’t panic - there’s still a process going on and we still want you.’
For the record, I voted for the draft Measure and against the Archbishops’ amendment. +Rowan specifically said they did not want their amendment to be a test of loyalty (although I suspect that many people probably saw it that way). I voted against it for a variety of theological reasons: I believed it would entrench two sorts of bishop in the Church’s life; I saw it as creating an even stronger variety of ‘flying bishop’; it seemed to be ‘transfer of jurisdiction’ by any other name, ‘when is a bishop not a bishop?’ and so on. I also want to affirm in the strongest possible terms the quality of ministry that women priests are offering to the Church, particularly in this diocese. But I recognise that the vote at this point was ambiguous and that if the voting had not been by Houses, the amendment would have been passed. It’s clear therefore that many people were looking for a way through which both affirmed women in the episcopate but also made space for traditional catholics and conservative evangelicals which went beyond the Code of Practice. Given that voting, I have to think therefore in terms not just of what is desirable but also of what is possible. I want to be pragmatic as well as idealistic in what we do now.
Sue Booys used a vivid image. She said that the conscience of those in favour allowed them to get to a certain point, and the conscience of those opposed to the legislation enabled them to get to another point – and these lines are only ten yards apart, but the chasm between them is very deep and full of sharks. The task therefore is to see if we can yet close that gap. To develop the image, we might not attempt to leap over a ten yard gap, but we might be prepared to try three. Perhaps we should try to get behind the rhetoric and focus entirely on what makes up those ten yards and what might close that gap. It might be impossible; the gap may be too deep and the sharks too hungry, but it might just be achievable, and that’s why we need to look in a number of directions.
Firstly, we need to look to the Code of Practice which the House of Bishops has now to start drawing up. Although a Code can only be approved by General Synod after the Measure has been passed, it will still be important that the dioceses know what kind of opportunities and constraints the Code might contain in order to judge whether the whole package seems fair. The Code will need to be robust and imaginative and the House will get on with it in September.
Secondly, we need to trust the wisdom of the wider Church, speaking through deanery and diocesan synods. They will have before them the draft Measure from General Synod (together with headings for the Code of Practice), and they will simply be asked to vote on that legislation. However, dioceses can come up with ‘following motions’ to go through to General Synod and those might have some very helpful thinking in them.
Thirdly, it isn’t over until the fat lady sings, and the archbishops may yet do more work on their thinking. Their amendment had not been seen before Synod by either the Revision Committee or the House of Bishops and they might now want to develop it differently.
It’s inevitable that the coming elections for a new General Synod will have this important issue as a major backdrop. I very much hope, however, that they will not be ‘single issue’ elections. We need the most thoughtful, Christ-centred people standing for election in order to tackle the whole range of issues facing the Church in our time. Please consider standing if you are in a position to do so and feel you have something to contribute, and encourage others to do the same.
What I very much recognise, however, is that the Body of Christ is both rejoicing and hurting. It’s very important that women priests should not feel any blame over this. It was Synod that made this decision. In any case, women priests have borne their cross of ambivalence and prejudice very graciously for a long time. But other parts of the Body are hurting now and that has to be recognised with sorrow as well. Many in the Body are wounded. As Archbishop Rowan said, ‘It’s that kind of Body.’ He also asked us to see the way ahead as an opportunity to serve one another. Mutual recrimination is not a helpful way of being Christian. Supporting and serving one another as we examine that ten yard gap is a much better way. We need to remember that conscience matters deeply to people on both/all ‘sides’.
I and other members of the Bishop’s Staff are available at any time to discuss these things, so do keep in touch.
Brothers and sisters, pray on. And think.
With warm good wishes in Christ,
+John
Another milestone passed
Inclusive Church gives thanks that General Synod agreed the draft legislation for the consecration of women as bishops by an overwhelming majority. The process in Synod over the weekend was thoughtful, respectful and gracious.
“Another milestone has been passed” said Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church. “The Church of England is gradually reaching the point when all are able to live out their vocation as bishops, clergy or laity. As a church we can now move forward after forty years of discussion.”
“This is good news for the whole church and we are delighted,” said the Rev’d Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH and a member of IC’s Executive Committee. “Synod’s decision gives the church a powerful mandate to move forward enthusiastically; welcoming the ministry of women at all levels whilst making space for those who are opposed to stay within our body.”
The legislation will now be discussed in Dioceses before its final return to Synod in about 18 months time. The provision for those opposed represents a compromise for all sides. We hope that over the coming months and as the Code of Practice is agreed, many of those who have questioned the provision will find that it does in fact meet their needs.
We were alarmed however that the adversarial nature of the debate means that there seems to be very little trust between the two sides on this issue. There are strong partnerships on both sides, but there’s an urgent need to build friendship across boundaries. Inclusive Church is committed to trying to make this happen.
We hope that in the coming months the various groups and organisations involved can meet and talk, so that we can develop bonds of love in what is likely to continue to be a difficult process. Our prayer is that when final approval comes, it can be something the Church of England welcomes unequivocally.
NOTES FOR EDITORS
Inclusive Church is a network of organisations and individuals who come from differing traditions and locations but are united in one aim; to celebrate and maintain the traditional inclusivity of the Anglican Communion.
Our Partner Organisations are
- Accepting Evangelicals
- Affirming Catholicism
- Association of Black Clergy
- Changing Attitude
- Clergy Consultation
- Evangelical Fellowship of Lesbian and Gay Christians
- Group for the Rescinding of the Act of Synod
- Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) Anglican Matters
- Modern Churchpeople’s Union
- Society of Catholic Priests SCM
- Sibyls
- Women and the Church (WATCH)
Statement from Catholic Group
Jul 14, 2010
The Catholic Group in General Synod is encouraged by the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is still ‘unfinished business’ and that ‘the Church is only part of the way through the process’ of determining the way forward for women bishops legislation.
The Group was, however, disappointed that there was a lack of support for financial hardship where clergy feel by conscience that they need to resign from the Church of England. The onus now is on the Church of England to provide for its clergy to remain within the Church for which we have always fought as loyal Anglicans.
We remain committed to both the process and our Church, and would wish to play a major part in helping the Church in its ongoing journey in a spirit of unity that is Christ’s way.
General Synod – What actually happened?
Dear Friends,
Most of us get information about what is happening in the rest of the church beyond our own patch from the mass media. Understandably in a fierce ratings war and in the struggle to get religious news of any kind reported there is tendency to hype and dramatise and to give undue prominence to extreme voices.
Almost every week we are told that that the Church of England faces “the greatest crisis since the reformation” and “that a split is imminent”.
Actually the weather at the 2010 General Synod in York was much more temperate than in July 2009. I was very proud of the way in which your representatives from the London Diocese, speaking from different viewpoints, made a constructive contribution to many of the debates. The Bishop of Willesden in particular with his characteristic candour shone a bright light on the complex business before us.
The outcome is that the measure to permit women to be consecrated to the episcopate has been remitted for consideration in the Dioceses. This process will take about eighteen months before the matter returns to the General Synod.
There is no doubt that a substantial majority in the Synod and in the Church is strongly in favour of this change and for many, the Synod’s decision will be a cause for heartfelt rejoicing. It was also significant that only a very few of those opposed to this measure sought to delay the process. There is a general feeling that it is urgent to conclude a debate which can appear somewhat introverted when our real focus must be on our unity in mission and in service to a country facing turbulent times.
In consequence much of the discussion was about how to secure an honoured place for those who cannot accept such a decision as one authorised by scripture and tradition and who believe that it will erect new obstacles in our relations with other parts of the “one, holy catholic and apostolic church” to which we claim to belong.
It is emphatically not true to say that the measure as it stands contains no provisions for those who hold such a view. Attempts during the two days of debate to amend the draft measure to remove any arrangements to assist those who adhere to the present practice of the Church were decisively rebuffed.
The draft as it stands offers a “statutory code of practice” to protect the position of those opposed to this development. The question which occupied much of our time was – “Is it enough?”
There was clearly an anxiety in some parts of the Synod that given the sense among a number of supporters of the proposal to ordain women as bishops that this was a gospel and justice matter, “a code of practice” would not be strong enough to ensure respect for the minority who on theological and biblical grounds continued to resist the change.
It is a complex question particularly given the fact that the contents of such a code have not been worked out. At the same time a number of words which have been used in the debate thus far, such as “delegation” and “transfer” have become freighted with negative connotations.
The Archbishops attempted to clear a way through the impasse by introducing the concept of “co-ordinate jurisdiction”. The contents of such a “co-ordinariate” would also have to be settled by reference to the, as yet undrafted, code of practice. Although I voted for the amendment, it is unsurprising that there was a good deal of confusion about what such a concept might mean in practice. The Archbishops’ proposal failed to secure a majority in the House of Clergy although it passed the Bishops and the Laity.
The important point is that valiant attempts are being made to open the way for women to be consecrated bishops without excluding from the church those who adhere to the present position and who share the faith which inspires our mission.
We now have an opportunity to consider the draft legislation in the Diocese and I shall be setting out the process for doing this in due course. At the same time the House of Bishops is charged with working on the vital question of the Code of Practice. The Bishop of Willesden and I will be fully involved in these discussions.
There will be a special meeting of the Diocesan Synod to ponder and vote on the advice which London will be sending back to the General Synod. I do hope that anyone questioning their place in the Church of England on the basis of media reports or premature judgements about the final shape of the legislation will get in touch with me or with their respective Area Bishop before making any personal decisions or public statements.
I returned from York clear both that the majority will is to ordain women bishops while at the same time preserving, as far as possible, the unity of the church in her mission and service to our country.
With thanks for our partnership in the Gospel
The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Richard Chartres KCVO DD FSA
The Bishop of Ebbsfleet’s Pastoral Letter - August 2010
The General Synod at York
IT IS now 40 years since the Church of England General Synod came into being. It was an exciting new development, replacing an even more cumbersome system of dual control by Convocations of Clergy and the Church Assembly. The laity at last had a full and effective voice in the government of the Church of England. There were some safeguards in place. Certain matters had to be passed by two thirds’ majority and there could be a call for a vote by Houses, even when one was not strictly required. That meant that there needed to be majorities in each of the three Houses, Bishops, Clergy, and Laity.
It was this last safeguard which torpedoed the attempt of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to introduce an amendment to safeguard the ministry of traditionalist bishops. (As far as the democratic process is concerned, the archbishops are simply two members of the Synod). The amendment was voted down by five votes in the House of Clergy. This followed an earlier vote, where only 34% of the Synod supported new dioceses. Finally the whole draft Measure was approved, the only safeguard for traditionalists being the promise of a Code of Practice. The matter now moves from the General Synod, whose quinquennium has now ended, to the dioceses. It will return from there to the new General Synod. In 18 months’ time, November 2012, the hope of supporters of women bishops is that the Measure will be finally passed by the necessary two-thirds majority in each House, the hurdle which the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood Measure cleared on November 1992. Thereafter it must pass muster in Parliament, receive the Royal Assent, and be promulged as a canon. Last time, all of that took another 15 months, which would take us to February 2014, with the first consecrations of women bishops soon thereafter.
Traditionalists have been beaten four-square. When (though, strictly, it is still ‘If’) the Measure comes into force, there will be no more Resolution A and B, no more ‘petitioning parishes’. There will be no more ‘flying bishops’, no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough. There will be again the assurance of good behaviour: no one will be over-faced by women priests and bishops ministering where they are not wanted. But there will be no guarantees (and, increasingly, no likelihood) that male bishops and priests ministering to us will share those convictions, or derive their orders from an unbroken apostolic succession of bishops in the Catholic line. Avoiding women ministers will become not a conviction about Catholic Order, shared throughout the ages, but a matter of sexual discrimination, abhorrent to all of us. In a very short time, it will have become unacceptable to invoke a sexist Code of Practice.
It is important for us all to understand how momentous all this is and what the implications are for our life together. I was never very hopeful of the Archbishops’ amendment, though it was good that it was debated. It would not have brought a clear and certain place for the Catholic understanding of Faith and Order. But it would have allowed a new generation of Provincial Episcopal Visitors - flying bishops - to try to work out, with the Archbishops, some sort of corporate life for our priests, people, and parishes. It is fair to say that both Archbishops wanted that. Moreover 60% of the bishops in Synod (though not two thirds) were prepared, more or less enthusiastically, to support the Archbishops and accept their spiritual lead.
Come the final judgment when, as the Prayer Book says in the Marriage Service, ‘the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed’, some will have to account for the broken promises of the early 1990s. Traditionalists were then assured of a permanent and honoured place. Great store was set by the doctrine of reception (whereby no change in Holy Order would finally thought to be ‘received’ until it was accepted by the ancient churches of East and West). It was on the basis of these promises - both now very hollow - that Provincial Episcopal Visitors were appointed, ordinands and their families exchanged comfortable life styles for theological college, curacies, and what promised to be a lifetime of ministry, and parishes set to work energetically with the task of evangelism and catechesis. However honourably these promises were made, there were liberal pressure groups intent on destroying them. These liberal pressure groups are not full of bad people: the women and men concerned were always exasperated that the Church made such high-sounding, but undeliverable, promises. In their view -the view that has prevailed - we all simply needed to get used to the new ‘inclusive’ way of doing things. In their view, twenty years is quite long enough for that to have happened. But there have been broken promises indeed and some supporters of the women bishops’ project recognise that and seek forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation.
For Ebbsfleet, the critical vote came when nearly two thirds of the General Synod rejected the creation of new dioceses. The only sense we have been able to make of the whole Ebbsfleet project these last sixteen years (of which I have been bishop for nearly ten), is that the See of Ebbsfleet is an ‘Apostolic District’. That is, it is an area of the vineyard which seeks to grow into, and become, a ‘local Church’, a ‘diocese’. To that end, we have had our Stational Masses of Initiation, our Ordinations, and our Chrism Masses. We have had our Area Deans and Deaneries, our Council of Priests, our Lay Council, and our Lay Congress. We have also had parish evangelism weekends and research into resources for catechesis and formation. We have had clergy retreats, festivals of faith, and the annual Children and Young People’s Eucharistic Festival. Our churches have been as well-attended as most, with, if anything, more than our share of men, children, young families, and other endangered categories of church-goer. Here was a new kind of diocese, not without its problems, but with promising signs. ‘In house’ there has been very little discussion of ‘church issues’ and that in itself has made us vulnerable. We have never been attacked by anyone who got to know us and experienced our corporate life. It has always been fear of who we might be, what we might represent, rather than what we actually are.
For now, the prescription is for some serious summer rest and to get some praying and thinking done. I shall be addressing these issues further in the September Pastoral letter, at a Sacred Synod for clergy, and at the Ebbsfleet Lay Conference, but, for now, at least we know where we are. It is time to stop trying to make bricks without straw.
May God bless you as you seek to discern, obey, and trust his will.
+Andrew
13th July 2010 Reform statement on women bishops draft legislation
The Archbishop of Canterbury said to Synod yesterday that “we still have not cracked it”, and we agree.
There are two main problems with this measure as it stands.
First the provisions made for those who cannot in conscience accept the oversight of a female bishop are inadequate. This measure does not provide a secure future for our ministry within the Church of England.
Second we think that given the voting patterns we saw this time, unless the Dioceses recommend some significant changes, we will very likely see this voted down at the 2012 General Synod.
The positive response to the Archbishops’ own amendment shows that there are still options available which have not yet been fully explored and which could give Reform members and others adequate provision. We want to see these explored and will seek discussions to ensure they are.
Reform was established in 1993 and is a network of churches and individuals within the Church of England. Current individual membership is around 1,700, in addition to 35 member churches. More than 350 ordained clergy are Reform members.
Here s the official summary of the final session of this month’s meeting of General Synod.
Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 13th July 2010
Updated again Tuesday morning
BBC Women bishops should be allowed, Church of England rules
Press Association Women bishops bid passes key hurdle
Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones Hundreds of traditionalist clergy poised to leave Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury urges General Synod not to stall women bishops plan
Mail Jonathan Petre Humiliation for Archbishop as Church rejects his last ditch compromise on women bishops and Jack Doyle Archbishop’s unity plea as Church gets closer to ordination of women bishops
Independent Jerome Taylor ‘Desperately difficult’ to keep Church together over women bishops
Cif belief Sally Barnes High time for women bishops
Guardian Riazat Butt Anglican traditionalists left to consider options after vote on women bishops and Archbishop warns against delay over women bishops
Episcopal News Service Church of England advances plans for women bishops
This includes some information about women bishops in other countries.
An extract from the report in The Times by Ruth Gledhill appears over here.
A Statement from Forward in Faith Jul 12, 2010
The draft Measure to permit the ordination women as bishops, approved today by the General Synod and sent for discussion and approval by Diocesan Synods, contains nothing which can satisfy the legitimate needs of members of Forward in Faith.
Now, though, is not the time for precipitate action. There will be ample opportunity for priests to take counsel together at the Sacred Synods called by the Catholic Bishops in each province in September, and for Forward in Faith to take stock at the National Assembly in October.
WATCH Press Statement 5.45pm 12th July 2010
Both Sides Compromise as Draft Legislation Goes Forward for Discussion in the
Dioceses
Today the General Synod overwhelmingly endorsed the draft legislation prepared
by the Revision Committee with only a couple of minor amendments. After
rejecting the ways of accommodating those opposed, that were debated on
Saturday, Synod accepted the proposals suggested by the Revision Committee in
clause 2 of the draft legislation.After a moving debate, the motion was passed with an overwhelming majority; 373
in favour; 14 against with 17 abstentions.Several powerful speeches made it clear the sacrifice that had been made by the
majority who welcomed women’s ordained ministry in voting for this compromise.
“This is good news for the whole Church and we are delighted” says the Revd
Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH. “Synod’s decision gives the Church a powerful
mandate to move forward enthusiastically; welcoming the ministry of women at all
levels within the Church whilst making space for those who are opposed to stay
within our body”.
The full text of what the Archbishop of Canterbury said at the start of Monday’s continued debate on Women in the Episcopate is copied below the fold.
Thank you very much Chair.
Mention was made on Saturday during the debate of the possibility of some presidential reaction to where we are in the process. After conversation over the weekend with many people from different stances within the Synod, it seemed right to say something this morning. First I’d like to say that I would want encourage Synod to complete the business here before it in York. It’s very tempting at times of stress and difficulty, such as we’ve been through in the last couple of days, to think: “We’ll drop it in the ‘too difficult’ basket” - I don’t really think that’s an option.
Archbishop Sentamu and I explained when we moved our amendment on Saturday that we didn’t think a further referral to a revision committee would really help us at all at this stage and we remain of that view. We believe that we now need the dioceses to give their wisdom, their prayer and their thought to this process, and to move on.
The second thing I’d like to say is - and we’ve had a meeting of House of Bishops this morning - the House of Bishops will set in hand promptly the necessary work involved in producing a draft code of practice which will be available for debate in Synod, when legislation returns from the dioceses in about 18 months time. That, of course, is the moment at which we’ll enter the final phase of this long and complex process. That is when all the material will be finally on the table.
I’m well aware that proposing an amendment as we did on Saturday, without an illustrative code of practice to accompany it, was asking a great deal of the faith and charity of Synod, but time was not on our side there. Nonetheless, the House of Bishops now wishes to proceed with as much speed as humanly possible to get that work done. That work will include trying to see how a code of practice can enshrine the best possible provision in the light of what we’ve heard and what we’ve discussed, in the light of the votes taken on Saturday.
You’ll also be aware that the next phase of committal to the dioceses, it’s possible for the dioceses to shape following motions. So the point I’m making is quite simply there remains work to be done. The House of Bishops will attempt to do the work that they need to do as swiftly and effectively as possible, and we ask for your prayers and support in what will undoubtedly be a very demanding task.
And third and last: obviously Archbishop Sentamu and I would have like our amendment to pass, that’s what you do when you pose amendments, but we would want to encourage those disappointed by the outcome, and also the whole Synod as seeing that not as the end of the road. We are, in the Church of England, in the middle of both a legislative process and a process of discernment, and, I would dare to add, a process of service to one another.
The next phase of the work we try do together, I think has to be very, very closely focused on the service we seek to do one another. And that means of course, working in the interests of those who will be taking different decisions from our own, different paths from our own, so that all may grow up into Christ as best they can.
Here are the official summaries of Monday’s business at General Synod.
[link to afternoon and evening summary to follow when available now added]
Summary of business conducted on Monday 12th July 2010 AM
Summary of business conducted on Monday 12th July 2010 PM
The archbishop of York’s presidential address to General Synod, delivered on Saturday, is now online.
Presidential Address to the General Synod
Theme: The way to come closer to God is to be generous and honest towards everyone.
Amended late Monday afternoon to correct the Clause 11 items
This follows on from our report on Saturday’s debates.
This page will be updated during the debates.
These are the relevant papers.
GS 1708-09Y Report of the revision committee.
GS 1708A Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709A Draft Amending Canon 30
Notice Paper 5 Amendments before Synod
We will update the following two web pages during the debates to show what happens to the amendments and how those amendments that are passed change the text of the draft measure.
Draft measure as amended by Synod
Annotated copy of Notice Paper 5 showing what happened to amendments
Monday morning
After BCP Morning Prayer, and statements from the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Manchester, Synod resumed its consideration of the draft measure.
Clause 2
This is the clause that requires diocesan bishops to make arrangements for delegation of functions to a male bishop for parishes who request the ministry of such a male bishop.
9.57 am Geoffrey Tattersall, on behalf of the Steering Committee, moved item 518 “that Clause 2 stand part of the Measure”.
10.55 Synod votes in favour of closure of debate on item 518. Sufficient members stood to require a division of the whole synod. Item 518 was carried by 373 votes in favour, with 14 against and 17 recorded abstentions.
Clause 3
This sets how parishes can issue a letter of request asking for the ministry of a male bishop.
11.01 am Anthony Berry moved his amendment 519 to require PCCs to consult with electoral rolls before making such a request. The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
11.10 am Gerald O’Brien moved amendment 520 to require PCCs to consider making, or not making, a request every five years. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the amendment was debated.
11.26 am Synod voted against item 520 by a show of hands.
11.27 am Hugh Lee moved amendment 521 to require those involved in appointing incumbents or priests in charge to take into account whether or not a parish has issued a letter of request. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but fewer than 40 members stood and the amendment lapsed.
Several amendments (522 - 527) then followed changing the rules for votes at PCC meetings when considering making a request.
11.33 am Peter Hobson moved amendment 522 to remove the need for a two-thirds quorum at PCC meetings considering making a request. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood, so the debate continued.
11.53 am Synod agreed to proceed to a vote. This was a division of the whole synod. The amendment was defeated with 128 votes in favour, 239 votes against and 5 recorded abstentions.
11.56 am Clive Scowen moved amendment 523 to stop a minority being able to frustrate a majority by simply staying away from a meeting.
The steering committee were in favour of the amendment.
Synod voted in favour of the amendment on a show of hands.
Gerald O’Brien moved amendment 525 to remove a clerical veto. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate continued.
12.20 pm Synod voted to proceed to the vote. Sufficient members stood to require a division by houses. The amendment was defeated in all three houses with the following votes.
| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 2 | 34 | 3 |
| clergy | 35 | 136 | 8 |
| laity | 83 | 104 | 7 |
Brian Walker moved amendment 527. The steering committee was in favour of this technical amendment. Synod voted in favour on a show of hands.
Synod then moved onto the debate on item 528 “That clause 3 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”. The motion was carried.
Clause 4
12.37 pm Synod voted in favour of 529 “That clause 4 stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 5
12.38 pm Synod voted in favour of 532 “That clause 5 stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 6
12.39 pm Synod voted in favour of 533 “That clause 6 stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 7
12.40 pm Synod debated 534 “That clause 7 stand part of the Measure”.
1.00 pm Synod voted in favour of item 534 on a show of hands.
Monday afternoon
2.30 pm Debate resumed
Clause 8
Amendment 536 was carried, as consequential on item 523.
Synod voted in favour of 537 “That clause 8 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 9
Synod voted in favour of 538 “That clause 9 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”.
Clause 10
Synod voted in favour of 539 “That clause 10 (as amended) stand part of the Measure”.
After clause10
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes did not move her amendment 540a
2.35 pm Paul Benfield moved amendment 541a, to generally approve a new clause that would require two-thirds majorities for future amendment of the legislation. The steering committee resisted the amendment. More than 40 members stood so the debate continued.
Sufficient members stood to support a division of the whole synod.
3.00 pm The amendment was passed with 287 votes in favour, 78 against and 20 recorded abstentions.
Synod then passed 541b “That the clause be inserted in the Measure”.
Clause 11
3.02 pm Paul Benfield moved his amendment 542 to amend clause 11 to require a provision for the relief of hardship to be made available before the measure comes into effect. The steering committee resisted the amendment. More than 40 members stood, so the debate continued.
3.47 pm Synod voted to close the debate.
Synod then defeated the amendment on a show of hands.
Synod then passed 543 “That clause 11 stand part of the Measure.”
Schedules and Long Title
Finally Synod voted in favour of all the following.
544 That Schedule 1 stand part of the Measure.
545 That Schedule 2 stand part of the Measure.
546 That Schedule 3 stand part of the Measure.
547 That Schedule 4 stand part of the Measure.
548 That the Long Title stand part of the Measure.
Further Revision
3.54 pm Simon Killwick then proposed that “That the Measure entitled Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure be committed for further revision in
committee.”
4.19 pm Synod voted to close the debate and move to a vote.
Sufficient members stood to require a division of the whole synod.
The motion was defeated with 102 votes in favour, 293 votes against and 12 recorded abstentions.
Amending Canon
Synod then voted in favour of 549 “That paragraphs 1-9 stand part of the Canon.”
4.25 pm That completed the revision stage of the Measure and Canon.
The measure will now be referred to dioceses.
Guardian Riazat Butt General Synod urged to unite as issue of women bishops divides Church of England
Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones A divided church faces its darkest hour
Independent Jerome Taylor Church on brink of schism as synod votes for women bishops
Daily Mail Behave like Christians on issue of women bishops, Archbishop Sentamu tells warring CofE
The Times Ruth Gledhill article Embattled Archbishop urges synod to behave like children of Christ is behind paywall, but copy is over here.
Press Association Women bishops bid to pass key stage
Editorial opinion
Telegraph Dr Rowan Williams weakened by debate on women bishops
Independent Schism might be a better option
Cartoon:
Guardian Martin Rowson on the row over gender and sexuality in the Church of England
The Observer has an editorial, The church should always put humanity before unity. Sexual equality, rather than schism, should be the Archbishop of Canterbury’s foremost concern.
This article also deals with the Southwark episcopal appointment.
Cif belief has an article by Una Kroll Women bishops: what God would want.
Catholic Group in Synod reacts to today’s debate
Jul 10, 2010
We deeply regret that the General Synod has decided to ignore the leadership of the chief pastors of the Church of England Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
The voting was by the three Houses of Synod separately, with support from the Bishops and Laity but not from the Clergy. In total, 216 people voted in favour and 191 against with 9 abstentions - so there was support for the Archbishops’ amendments.
By rejecting the opportunity for unity that the Amendments they proposed would have achieved, it has made it very difficult for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry for women priests and bishops.
The process in General Synod is not over and we would wish to be involved in the ongoing discussions as to a way forward that includes all loyal members of the Church of England.
FiF reacts to General Synod debate
Jul 10, 2010
Forward in Faith notes that the amendment to the draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops standing in the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to gain approval today by just five votes in the House of Clergy, despite the fact that a significant majority of the members of Synod voted in its favour.
We naturally share the Archbishops’ disappointment at this turn of events and will now take counsel together, as we await the resumption of the debate on Monday.
Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the failure of the Archbishops’ amendment
July 10th, 2010
The debate in synod is not about gender equality. It is about the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. Most have accepted that there will be women bishops in the Church of England.
The problem the Archbishops were trying to address was trying to address was the problem of monoepiscopacy, the belief that only one bishop can have jurisdiction in one geographical area. Synod had two objectives:
i) To affirm that all bishops would be of equal status and
ii) To enable those who, on grounds of scripture and theology, cannot accept women as bishops, to continue to flourish within the Church of England without diminishing the status of women bishops.So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place.
Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden
WATCH (Women and the Church) Press Release Sunday 11th July 7.30pm
Vote on Archbishops’ Amendment is Standard Practice.
WATCH is disappointed that some opponents of women bishops are seeking to discredit the standard practices of General Synod after the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment yesterday. The procedure of votes being taken “by houses” is standard practice for many issues. It must be requested from the floor and supported by 25 members of synod. Once this decision is taken, the votes of each House of Synod (Bishops, Clergy and Lay) are added separately. A majority is required in all three houses for the motion to be carried. This ensures that all three groups are prepared to support a proposal and the Church can move forward together.
Ironically the same procedure was used in 1978 when Synod first fully considered ordaining women as deacons, priests and bishops. Although it obtained a majority overall, the motion failed to achieve a majority in the House of Clergy and therefore fell.
“It is important that we all continue to honour the processes of Synod and move forward in the light of the decisions they have made,” said the Revd Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH. “ We hope and trust that the graciousness and attentive listening that characterised Saturday’s debate continues on Monday when Synod completes its consideration of the draft legislation.
Supporting the draft legislation represents a significant compromise for WATCH and others who support women’s ordained ministry: a compromise made in a spirit of generosity to make space for those opposed.”
WATCH looks forward to these proposals going forward to the wider church for further consultation.
Here is the official summary of Sunday’s business at General Synod.
Summary of business conducted on Sunday 11th July 2010 PM
Andrew Brown writes in his blog about The triumph of Anglican women. As the strap line says “The General Synod’s rejection of compromise on women bishops is historic. There’s no return from here.” He concludes with:
Anyway. I have been watching this story, more or less, for nearly 25 years now, and in all that endless wrangling this is only the second time I can remember the synod making an unequivocal choice. From now on, things really will be different.
Anglican Mainstream Press Release
For Immediate Release
10 July 2010ANGLO- CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL GENERAL SYNOD MEMBERS SEEK ‘URGENT’ MEETING WITH ARCHBISHOPS FOLLOWING THIS AFTERNOON’S DEBATE ON WOMEN BISHOPS
ANGLO-CATHOLIC and Evangelical members of the Church of England’s General Synod, meeting in York this weekend, have asked for an “urgent” meeting following Synod’s defeat of the Archbishops’ amendment on the Measure which would allow Women to be Bishops in the Church of England.
The Archbishops’ put forward an unprecedented amendment to the Women Bishops Revision Committee’s recommendations , which they felt would help maintain unity within the church and be pastorally sensitive to those who, from theological and conscience issues, cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of women.
Despite a majority of synod voting FOR the Archbishops’’ amendment, it failed on a “procedural device” of requiring a two-thirds majority in all three houses: Bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Clergy, the vote was split 50/50.
The subsequent crisis in the CofE, and its Synodical and Episcopal leadership has led senior Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical leaders this evening to request and urgent meeting with both Archbishops to discuss the matter before Synod resumes its Women Bishop debates on the issue on Monday morning.
In the meantime, leaders of the two groups within the CofE are asking parishes to pray earnestly this weekend for grace and wisdom for the General Synod as they seek God’s will for His church.
BBC Women bishop row compromise plan fails in synod vote and Archbishop John Sentamu calls for end to ‘spin’
Telegraph Archbishop of York appeals for end of attacks on Archbishop of Canterbury and Split looms for Church over women bishops
Guardian Church of England faces crisis as Synod rejects concession on women bishops
Press Association Synod rejects compromise on bishops
AFP Sentamu urges end to ‘spin’ in Church of England
Ruth Gledhill’s blog is now behind a paywall, but her latest entry is copied in part below the fold.
Mitre versus Right: Clergy defeat Archbishops over women
Ms Ruth Gledhill
…So in the end it was neither laity nor bishops, but the clergy who defeated the bishops. This is a terrible blow to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Their personal and archiepiscopal authority is massively diminished.
Canon Celia Thomson of Gloucester gave one of the best speeches illustrating the problems with what the Archbishops proposed:
‘This is the source of such sadness, such dismay among the ordained women at all stages of their ministry. The effect would be to legislate for the automatic transfer of episcopal authority in law in a way that would not only damage the authority of a woman bishop but also undermine the whole nature of episcopacy in the Church of England.’ She said the nominated bishops were ‘flying bishops’ by another name and that concept had not worked, in particular for women. It could also open up demands for alternative episcopal oversight in other areas where people did not agree with the diocesan bishop.
But even worse, it would send out a ‘damaging message’ about the Church to the wider world.
‘If the Church is seen to discriminate against women by law, not only will it compromise the ministry of women bishops in future and by default of all its women priests, but more fatally, the mission of the Church in the 21st century. Many people will despair of the Church. Most people under 40 simply cannot understand it and so dismiss our beloved Church as irrelevant in our life and in attitudes towards the world.
‘One-third of all clergy are now women.
‘If and when women become bishops they must be allowed to be bishops. The Church cannot have two categories of bishop.’
She warned that women called to be bishops might not have wished to serve under such circumstances.
I had also been given to understand that Parliament might reject a measure as amended by the Archbishops, and that the women themselves might vote against it and defeat it in the end had the Archbishops been successful…
Press Release Saturday 10th July 2010
Women and the Church (WATCH)
Full Steam Ahead for Women Bishops
Church can Move Forward at LastWATCH is delighted that the Church has today affirmed its wish to appoint women as bishops on the same basis as men.
The General Synod, meeting in York, re-iterated its decision of July 2008 that when women are appointed bishops they will be in charge of their entire Diocese. Amendments suggesting that there should be separate dioceses for those opposed, or permanent flying bishops, or that parishes should automatically be transferred to another bishop, were all rejected by the Synod.
Hilary Cotton, Vice-Chair of WATCH, said, ‘We are absolutely delighted that Synod has stuck with its decision of two years ago and wants women to be bishops with full authority. This is good news for all women, not just women in the Church.’
Rachel Weir Chair of WATCH said, ”This has been an agonisingly slow journey and the Church has rightly wanted to do all it could for those who find this difficult, but we are delighted that Synod has made the right decision in the end”. Now at last the Church can move forward and accept the wonderful gifts of leadership that our women bring.”
On Monday the Synod will decide what minor amendments to make. It will also be given the opportunity to vote for the simplest possible legislation, in other words that ‘the Church will appoint male and female bishops’. Arrangements for those opposed would then be entrusted to individual bishops under a Code of Practice that will be drawn up in the near future.
This is not the end of the journey. The wider Church will now be invited to debate the proposals and if approved General Synod will have a final vote on them in about eighteen months time.
This page will be updated during the debates.
*Debate continued on Monday, and our report is here.*
After morning worship and the presidential address from the archbishop of York, Synod started its mammoth series of debates on the Women in the Episcopate legislation this morning.
These are the relevant papers.
GS 1708-09Y Report of the revision committee.
GS 1708A Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709A Draft Amending Canon 30
Notice Paper 5 Amendments before Synod
We will update the following two web pages during the debates to show what happens to the amendments and how those amendments that are passed change the text of the draft measure.
Draft measure as amended by Synod
Annotated copy of Notice Paper 5 showing what happened to amendments
Saturday morning
This started with a “take-note” debate on the report of the revision committee.
The Chair of the Revision Committee (the Ven Clive Mansell (Archdeacon of Tonbridge)) moved:
501 ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report.’
This was a general debate. Voting in favour did not necessarily imply supporting the report, but the take-note motion had to be passed before any further progress on the legislation was allowed.
11.47 am Synod voted to close the debate. Archdeacon Mansell the responded to the debate.
11.52 am Synod voted in favour of item 501 on a show of hands.
12.00 noon Synod started the revision stage.
Canon Simon Killwick proposed the creation of new, parallel dioceses by moving amendment 512a in Appendix 1 of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. In these circumstances standing orders require more than 40 members to stand for the debate to proceed. Many more than 40 stood.
12.52 pm Synod voted to close the debate on amendment 512a. Enough members (standing orders require at least 25) then stood to require a division of the whole synod, ie an electronic count. There were 134 votes in favour, 258 against and 8 recorded abstentions, so the amendment was defeated.
12.58 pm Synod broke for lunch.
Saturday afternoon
2.00 pm Synod resumed the revision stage| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 10 | 28 | 2 |
| clergy | 52 | 124 | 3 |
| laity | 73 | 118 | 4 |
The combined figures (135 for, 270 against and 9 abstentions) were almost identical to the vote on the previous amendment.
Synod then took a ten minute break.
Clause 2
3.45 pm Synod resumed.| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 25 | 15 | 0 |
| clergy | 85 | 90 | 5 |
| laity | 106 | 86 | 4 |
In the light of the result, there was a motion to adjourn the debate until Monday. This was defeated on a show of hands.
5.25 pm Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe, proposed his amendment 515 to restrict the delegation of functions to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.37 pm Kevin Carey proposed amendment 516. The steering committee resisted the amendment. Very members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.41 pm Tom Sutcliffe proposed his amendment 517 to set up a Review Commission.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.52 pm The next item on the agenda was the motion to include clause 2 in the measure. The chair adjourned the debate until Monday as he judged there was insufficient time to complete this before the scheduled closure time of 6.15 pm.
*Debate continued on Monday, and our report is here.*
Updated Sunday morning
Here are the official summaries of Saturday’s business at General Synod.
[We will add links to the afternoon and evening’s business in due course.]
These summaries are now complete.
Summary of business conducted on Saturday 10th July 2010 AM
Summary of business conducted on Saturday 10th July 2010 PM
Riazat Butt in The Guardian General Synod meets to discuss Catholic defection
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Archbishops face test of authority over women bishops at Synod
Ruth Gledhill in The Times and reproduced here, Bishops ready to sabotage Williams over consecrating women.
ENS Matthew Davies General Synod set for lengthy debate on women bishops legislation
Press Association Further debates over women bishops
BBC Views differ on women bishops compromise bid
Thinking Anglicans will do its best to provide up to date reports during the long debates today and Monday on Women in the Episcopate. We will report here on each amendment in turn as the debate progresses.
For Twitter coverage please follow all those contributing by using the #synod hashtag. That will include occasional contributions from @simonsarmiento.
You may find Peter Owen’s summary of the various amendments useful to read while you wait.
There is a live audio feed on Premier Radio.
Updated Saturday morning
Here are the official summaries of Friday’s business at General Synod.
[We will add a link to the evening’s business in due course.]
The page linked below now includes the evening business.]
Summary of business conducted on Friday 9th July 2010 PM
These entries also include links to audios of the sessions and to relevant papers.
Jim Naughton writes in The Guardian that Rowan destroys his own credibility. Rowan Williams cannot speak truth to power when he has so clearly capitulated to it himself.
… as the General Synod convenes once again, to discuss issues about which its members can actually be presumed to know something, I find myself walking right up to the precipice of that promise to say a few words about what it will mean if the synod embraces Rowan Williams’ poorly conceived ecclesiastical innovations.
LGBT Anglican Coalition Press Release 9 July 2010
Southwark failure damages Church of England
Both recent meetings of the Crown Nominations Commission to choose a new bishop for the Diocese of Southwark have been the subject of serious leaks to a newspaper. This has resulted in huge personal pain and distress for one candidate, Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, for the second time in seven years. It is particularly outrageous that some senior church officials have suggested the leaks were engineered by supporters of Dr John, rather than by those opposed to his nomination.
It has brought the Church of England into even further disrepute with the general public, who will regard it, rightly or wrongly, as another example of the blatant homophobia that exists in the Church.
Once again the Church has failed to act with courage. The whole Commission must be held responsible for this, regardless of whether the source of the leak was an elected member, an ex‐officio member, or one of the staff in attendance at what is supposed to be a totally confidential meeting.
It is essential that a thorough independent enquiry be held immediately to determine who was responsible. There should also be an urgent review of the process of appointing bishops, as the present arrangements are not fit for purpose, and an open and transparent procedure is clearly necessary.
Notes for Editors
1. The Anglican Coalition is here to provide UK‐based Christian LGBT organisations with opportunities to create resources for the Anglican community and to develop a shared voice for the full acceptance of LGBT people in the Anglican Communion.
2. The Coalition members are:
Accepting Evangelicals www.acceptingevangelicals.org
Changing Attitude www.changingattitude.org.uk
The Clergy Consultation www.clergyconsultation.org
Courage www.courage.org.uk
The Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians www.eflgc.org.uk
Inclusive Church www.inclusivechurch2.net
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement lgcm.org.uk
The Sibyls www.sibyls.co.uk
Nick Baines writes in The Guardian today to say that Jeffrey John was not the favourite. The stories about Jeffrey John’s nomination as bishop of Southwark are mischief-making based on ignorance.
He wrote on the same topic earlier in his blog: Media literacy: Lesson 1
Nick Baines is the suffragan bishop of Croydon in the diocese of Southwark.
Updated again Friday morning
The Guardian has three articles this evening all connected in some way with the choice of the next bishop of Southwark.
Riazat Butt How to become a bishop – secret ballots and royal approval
Andrew Brown Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history
Stephen Bates How the Church of England became the church of state
Stephen Bates also has this news item: Rowan Williams under siege over gay bishop veto
Stephen Bates also has this: Profile: Dr Jeffrey John
And in The Guardian Riazat Butt and Stephen Bates write Church divided over gay rights: new fears of schism and anguish for archbishop
And for good measure, there is an editorial in the Guardian The state and religion: The church risks looking absurd.
…This week a gay but celibate cleric, Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans and a man of the highest intellectual and moral standing, was rejected as a candidate for the diocese of Southwark because of his sexuality. No other private or state institution would have been allowed to do this. No institution, either, would be allowed to bar women from applying for the job, allowing them to be ordained but not promoted.
The internal agonies of a church caught between its Protestant and Catholic, and its liberal and conservative, tendencies cannot excuse this official institutionalisation of intolerance. It is true that disestablishing the church would require a huge amount of constitutional unpicking – much of it beneficial, such as the removal of anti-Catholic discrimination from the Act of Settlement. No government is likely to devote parliamentary time to the cause. It is true, too, that the established part of the church tends to be the more liberal, and that pulling back state involvement may do little to advance the cause of men such as Jeffrey John. Any mechanism that allows dialogue and change between the hard core of the committed and the penumbra of the vaguely supportive has something to be said for it. Religions that are entirely cut off from the surrounding culture neither die nor fade away, but turn crazy and dangerous. But formal disestablishment need not mean isolation, only the end of an unhealthy pretence that one church above all others can speak for a diverse nation.
David Hume once argued: “The union of the civil and ecclesiastical power … prevents those gross impostures and bigoted persecutions which in all false religions are the chief foundation of clerical authority.” The Church of England can obey his advice and accept the tolerant norms of modern society, as defined by the state. Or it can decide, privately, what it believes. Caught between the two, it risks becoming, as its archbishop feared, absurd
Damian Thompson writes in his Telegraph blog about The second humiliation of Jeffrey John: Rowan’s liberal credentials go up in smoke
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph has Archbishop of Canterbury accused of second ‘betrayal’ of gay cleric
Jonathan Wynne-Jones on his Telegraph blog writes The Church of England looks mad following the Jeffrey John snub
Updated Thursday morning
Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports on his blog for the Telegraph Dean Jeffrey John, leading gay cleric, rejected as next Bishop of Southwark.
I can reveal that Dr Jeffrey John, the openly gay but celibate Dean of St Albans, has been blocked from becoming a bishop once again. He has not been chosen as the next Bishop of Southwark. Liberals will be dismayed that the Church has lost its nerve – but there is no reason for evangelicals to celebrate, either…
…It is also bad news for Rowan Williams. Although he is only one of 14 members of the Commission, liberals will be perplexed as to why he allowed John’s name to be included on the shortlist if it was only to be rejected at the last minute. To be fair, he didn’t know that this fact would be leaked to me, and he is said to have been livid with the Commission that it was. But, given what happened in 2003 and his apparent distress at forcing his old friend to stand down from becoming Bishop of Reading, it will surprise many that he didn’t use his influence to try and sway the few undecided members who could have secured his selection.
The Archbishop has appeared increasingly resolute and self-assured over recent months, but liberals will be left wondering why he loses his backbone when it comes to fighting their corner. Even conservative evangelicals made clear that there was no reason to object to the dean’s appointment this time round, pointing to the fact that he has stressed that his homosexual relationship is celibate…
And the Telegraph newspaper report is now here: Gay cleric blocked from becoming Church of England bishop by Jonathan Wynne-Jones and Martin Beckford
…It is understood that discussions at the two-day meeting, held at a secret location in Stepney, were heated with members of the Commission arguing over whether they should select Dr John.
Dr Williams is said to have been furious at the pressure placed on him and the other members by a leak to The Sunday Telegraph, which revealed the dean was on the shortlist. He asked the rest of the Commission to swear an oath of secrecy about the talks.
Church insiders considered that his name would not have been included unless there were plans to make him a bishop, as Dr John was forced to stand down from becoming the Bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a homosexual, but celibate, relationship.
His supporters fear the development represents further embarrassment for the controversial dean and is another sign that the Archbishop is unwilling to advance the liberal cause…
Colin Coward at Changing Attitude reports also, see Jeffrey John will not be the next Bishop of Southwark
Jonathan Wynne-Jones has ‘revealed’ in the Telegraph that Jeffrey John is not to be nominated as the next Bishop of Southwark. Neither, so I am told, will Nick Holtham, Vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, be nominated.
This is painfully disappointing news for Jeffrey, who has lived through a week in which his identity and reputation have been pored over, analysed and attacked once again by conservative forces in the church in a way which I can only describe as poisonous. Those who claim the moral and ethical high ground in the church behave in ways which are scandalous and unchristian.
Anglican Mainstream deliberately left a link to the lecture that Dr Jeffrey John gave to the Post Lambeth 1998 Affirming Catholicism Conference entitled “The Church and Homosexuality : Post-Lambeth Reflections” at the top of their home page until this evening, when it suddenly disappeared, its work done.
How was Jonathan able to leak the news? Because someone on the Crown Nomination Commission for the Southwark appointment ignored the absolute confidentiality of the group and deliberately leaked information about yesterday’s meeting to a conservative hostile to Jeffrey and LGBT people in the church. That person, for a second time, passed the information to Jonathan Wynne-Jones - one of the non-voting members, perhaps?
Conservative Evangelicals are ruthless in their determination to win total control of the church, even if in the process, they destroy the Church of England’s ability to communicate the gospel to the nation, and destroy the unity of the Anglican Communion, by whatever unprincipled, destructive means possible.
Archbishop Rowan was apparently so furious about the first leak that he unilaterally vetoed Jeffrey’s name, betraying his friend for a second time and handing an apparent victory to the conservatives who seem to be successfully controlling him. Archbishop Rowan would have directed his anger in a more healthy direction if he had targetted the people inside and outside the Commission who have deliberately sabotaged its work…
The Press Association has Gay cleric ‘not selected for post’
Updates
AFP C of E ‘blocks’ gay cleric from becoming bishop
Guardian Riazat Butt Gay clergyman blocked from becoming bishop
Justin Brett a member of General Synod has written a splendid essay explaining what will happen. See A Lesson concerning the Debating of Women Bishops.
“Good morning class. Today’s lesson is all about how to work out what on Earth General Synod is doing in all these debates over the next few days. You are going to need the following set texts - the Report of the Revision Committee, the Draft Measure, and Notice Paper 5. If you have forgotten them, go and download them now. Yes, we’ll wait… OK. Everybody got the right bits of paper? Good. Now, the first thing you need to know is that there are actually only two debates about this happening at Synod. Yes, I know it looks from the Agenda as though there are going to be at least five, but it’s actually one short debate and one very long one, that will take about a day and a half to get through. Let’s deal with the short one first…
Support for a simple measure comes from an unlikely quarter, see Ed Tomlinson’s article at Cif belief This fudge on bishops must fail. An Anglican considering going to Rome says, keep your women bishops, and give us the money and buildings we need.
And Riazat Butt in the Guardian reports that women clergy could be driven out if too many concessions are made. See Female bishops decision in the balance.
The Guardian has an editorial, In praise of … Dr Jeffrey John
In the recent history of the Church of England, there can have been few more miserably resonant meetings than the one that took place on 5 July 2003 at Lambeth Palace between Archbishop Rowan Williams and his friend the then Canon of Southwark, Jeffrey John. It occurred because the nomination of Dr John, who is gay, as Bishop of Reading had set off a storm at home and overseas. Parishes had threatened to take their money and loyalty elsewhere, and senior clergy in Africa and the Caribbean had called for the nomination to be revoked. The meeting at Lambeth lasted six agonising hours. It ended with Dr John agreeing to sign a letter withdrawing his acceptance of the bishopric “in view of the damage my consecration might cause to the unity of the Church”. A few months later, Dr John moved to St Albans, where he has worked as dean with distinction ever since. Now, seven years almost to the day after the humiliation over Reading, he is a step away from becoming the next Bishop of Southwark. Dr John was shabbily treated over Reading. No damage that his consecration may have done compares to the damage done to the church and Dr Williams by its abandonment. Dr John has behaved with great dignity throughout. He has no presumptive right to the Southwark see. Yet surely neither he nor Dr Williams would have allowed things to get this far if they were not determined to see a different outcome this time. Right should be done. Dr John’s name should go forward.
The Associated Press has A gay bishop for the Church of England?
Christina Rees who is a member of General Synod has written a detailed press briefing entitled A Response to the Archbishops’ Amendments.
In addition to the web page version linked above, there is a PDF version here.
Andrew Goddard has made a detailed analysis of what the conservative evangelical objections are to women bishops, see at Fulcrum Evangelical opponents of women bishops: What is sought and required?
That radio interview has drawn attention from no less a person than Jon Snow of Channel 4 News. He wrote on his blog about it today, see Faith and hate.
As is my wont, I awakened to the tones of the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4. The day’s controversy centred on the news that Dr Jeffrey John – the gay Anglican Dean of St Albans, who lives in a civil partnership, was being considered to become the Bishop of Southwark.
The raised voices came in a debate between two Anglican priests, in which one, Canon Chris Sugden – Executive Secretary of something called Anglican Mainstream – raised his voice in protest against the proposed appointment.
He was enraged that a priest who had indulged in an “active gay relationship” with the man whom he now enjoyed a civil partnership, was now being considered to become a Bishop. The Canon dismissed the suggestion that Dr John was now celibate. I already sensed that the discussion had veered into the priestly private life further than felt comfortable at 7.10 in the morning. But the Canon ploughed on.
He described an active homosexual, who had now become celibate, as akin to “someone entering the Cabinet having once fiddled his expenses”. The climax to the Canon’s wrath was that his fellow Canon had “never apologised” for his journey from active homosexuality to celibacy…
Reform has issued one of their rare press statements, see Comment from Reform on Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans, being nominated for the post of bishop of Southwark:
“Dr John’s teaching regarding homosexual practice is contrary to both the Bible and to the current doctrine of the Church of England. To appoint him Bishop would send two very clear signals. First that the diocese of Southwark wants to walk in a different direction to the Church of England’s doctrine. Second that there is now little to stop the Church of England proceeding in the same divisive direction as the Episcopal Church in the USA . We would support churches in Southwark seeking alternative oversight should Dr John be appointed.”
Reform was established in 1993 and is a network of churches and individuals within the Church of England. Current individual membership is around 1,700, in addition to 35 member churches. More than 350 ordained clergy are Reform members.
Colin Coward has blogged about this topic, see Conservative evangelicals threaten to split church, defy bishops and withdraw financial support.
And yesterday, he wrote The new paradigm unfolds on Radio 4 between Chris Sugden and Giles Fraser!
Last Sunday’s Observer had a feature in the Magazine section written by Emma John and titled Should women ever be bishops?
It includes the following statistic:
Forward in Faith and Reform between them have a combined individual membership of 24,000; the Church of England has a regular worshipping community of 1.7 million (who attend at least once a month), the majority of whom – 65% – is female.
Monday’s Guardian had an article by Paul Handley titled Rowan turns rough.
Is Rowan Williams finally getting tough? And is he doing so with the right people?
So, here’s the scenario. Rowan Williams, just turned 60, eight years into the job at Canterbury, decides, at long last, to start throwing his weight around. People are always grumbling about the need for some strong leadership, so, right, he says, let’s give it a go…
…Next, women bishops. The General Synod decided in July 2008 to press ahead with women bishops without giving any cast-iron, legal safeguards to those who don’t accept them. There would be a code of practice, but nothing legally binding. Since then has come the Pope’s offer of sanctuary for traditionalists in the Roman Catholic Church.
In the light of this, New Rowan, joined by the Archbishop of York, a fortnight ago concocted their own cunning plan, introducing the idea of co- ordinate bishops for the traditionalists, so that each diocese has a sort of episcopal twin-set. Supporters of women bishops haven’t been overwhelmingly enthusiastic; but hey, says Rowan, I’m an Archbishop. So, there we have it: at long last, the bearded hippy finds his true voice, and it turns out to be a reactionary, authoritarian one…
But, read the whole article. This was a response to the week’s Cif belief question, which is Which way will synod jump?
(The latter article seems to assume that the synod will be considering the Covenant this weekend, which is not correct.)
press release from Affirming Catholicism 6th July 2010
Women and the Episcopate
Affirming Catholicism welcomed the Report of the Women Bishops Revision Committee published on 8th May 2010. We believe that the draft legislation proposed by the Revision Committee offers a good and balanced means by which the Church of England can legislate to allow women to take their full place within the Church of England’s ministry.
After much consideration, Affirming Catholicism does not recommend supporting the Archbishops’ amendments. Although these amendments claim to retain the authority of the diocesan bishop, they do not clarify what would happen if the diocesan and the coordinate bishop found themselves in disagreement. The Archbishops’ amendments therefore create – through the legislation itself – a situation in which authority is granted to the diocesan bishop in name, but potentially not in actuality if the diocesan bishop is a woman. This is precisely the situation which the Revision Committee sought to avoid. The archbishops have not resolved the tensions between the different views on women bishops, but have merely transferred them into the detail of the Code of Practice, which does not yet exist. The danger therefore remains that by passing these amendments, two ‘classes’ of bishops will be created, a development that would threaten the catholic nature of the Church of England. We share the concerns ably expressed by Fulcrum in their helpful commentary (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=545).
Many other amendments have been proposed. The two most significant and far-reaching ones attempt to re-write the entire Measure in order to reflect positions which the Revision Committee considered at length and eventually regarded as impracticable – and in the case of separate dioceses, undesirable. The passing of either of these amendments would in our view so compromise the catholic nature of the Church of England, and so hamper the ministry of women ordained as bishop under such arrangements, that they would have the effect of wrecking the primary purpose of the legislation.
The Report documents the Revision Committee’s consideration of a range of structural solutions to arrive at a proposal which will leave the authority vested in the Diocesan Bishop, whilst making pastoral provision for those who cannot recognise that authority in the case that the Bishop is a woman. As the Report notes, the legislation as proposed “will, for the first time, enable women to be admitted to all orders of ministry. By preserving intact the authority of the diocesan bishop it will avoid any changes in the historic understanding of that office and of the episcopate more generally. And by making statutory arrangements for those with theological difficulties it will endeavour to preserve that broad and comprehensive character of the Church of England that is one of its defining and most attractive features” (Report, § 459).
The proposed legislation, unlike suggestions for separate structures for those who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministry of women, will preserve the parochial structures of the Church of England, preventing the creation of parallel Church of England jurisdictions in the same place. Affirming Catholicism shares the basic assumptions upon which the Draft Measure is based and would therefore recommend that it be supported.
We do, however, have some concerns about certain aspects of the proposals put forward by the Revision Committee:
- We are cautious about the wisdom of allowing bishop’s declarations to be made on the basis of the views of others in the diocese (Draft Measure, § 2.4).
- We believe that the provisions for those in dioceses where the bishop has made a declaration that he will not ordain women to the priesthood are not strong enough (Draft Measure, § 2.5). In particular, they do not ensure that the voice of someone supportive of the ordination of women will be heard on the senior staff of such diocese; neither do they make provision for the pastoral care of laity who are supportive of the ordination of women.
- Whilst Affirming Catholicism respects the reasons why the Revision Committee deemed the Parochial Church Council the proper body to petition on behalf of a parish (Report §§ 236-240), we remain convinced that the legislation needs to include an explicitly stated duty of the PCC to consult widely when seeking to make parochial declarations (Draft Measure, § 3).
Affirming Catholicism supports the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee, whilst welcoming amendments relating to these three points.
Updated Tuesday afternoon to include comment on the effect of deleting certain clauses
Note: “clause” and “section” are used interchangeably.
The text of all the proposed amendments to the draft Women in the Episcopate legislation was published in a notice paper yesterday.
Here is a simplified explanation of what I think is the intended effect of the various amendments.
The first three make provision for transfer of episcopal functions by right and not by delegation from the diocesan bishop.
512 This set of amendments will create additional dioceses for parishes unable on grounds of conviction to accept the episcopal ministry of women. There will be no women bishops or priests operating in these dioceses. The additional dioceses will exist in parallel with the current geographical dioceses. A PCC will be able to vote for its parish to join or leave one of these additional dioceses.
513 This set of amendments will set up complementary (or transferred) episcopal arrangements (sometimes abbreviated to TEA). There will be suffragan bishops acceptable to those who cannot accept the episcopal ministry of women. Parishes will be able to require that the episcopal functions of their diocesan bishop be transferred to one of these complementary bishops.
514 and 531 These are the Archbishops’ amendments to set up Co-ordinate Jurisdiction.
The remaining amendments leave intact the principle of delegation from the diocesan bishop.
515 This will restrict delegation of episcopal functions to sacraments and other divine services by removing the reference to “the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners”.
516 This provides that schemes of delegation to a male bishop will also include support for parishes not seeking such delegation.
517 This will set up a Review Commission to regularly review the arrangements for male bishops.
519 This will require PCCs to consult with electoral roll members before requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop.
520 This will require every PCC to consider requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop every 5 years.
521 This will require those involved in appointing incumbents and priests in charge to take account the fact that a parish has not requested episcopal ministry from a male bishop as well as the fact that it has.
522 to 527 These will relax in various ways the voting requirements when PCCs vote on requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop.
530 This will give the House of Bishops complete discretion about what to include (or not include) in the Code of Practice.
531 See 514 above.
535 and 536 These relate to guild churches and are consequential on 523 and 524.
540 This will cause the provisions of the measure (except for allowing women bishops) to expire after 40 years.
541 This will require two-thirds majorities in each house of General Synod to subsequently amend or repeal this legislation.
542 This will require compensation to be made available to those who resign from ecclesiastical service before the measure comes into effect.
Synod procedures require a vote to be taken on the inclusion of each clause in the draft measure, and the relevant motions are also included in the notice paper. Notice has already been given that speeches will be made against the inclusion of clauses 2, 3, 4 and 7. The effect of deleting these clauses (in particular 2 and 3) would be to give the “simplest possible solution” with no provision for those opposed to women bishops and priests other than a code of practice.
There are no proposed amendments to the accompanying amending canon.
Updated Tuesday morning
Riazat Butt reported in the Guardian on the conservative opposition in Southwark, see Gay bishop for Southwark ‘will split Church of England’. Dr Jeffrey John nominated for Anglican diocese but parishes could seek leadership abroad, conservative clerics warn.
Andrew Brown has written at Cif belief Sex and the archbishop. Installing the openly gay Jeffrey John as bishop would be a decisive victory for Rowan Williams. But if he’s beaten, he’s finished.
Tuesday’s Guardian Diary column has this:
The issue of gay bishops has them marching as to war within the church and no mistake. How can we have Jeffrey John, an openly gay man, as bishop of Southwark, thundered traditionalist canon Chris Sugden on the Today programme yesterday? Yes, it’s muskets at dawn, and when the hostilities begin, look out for the Rev Paul Perkin, a member of the Church of England General Synod and vicar of the deeply evangelical St Mark’s in Battersea, part of the Southwark diocese in south London. He strongly opposes the proposed candidature of John, and the cut of his jib is such that his parish website programme page is decorated with cartoon graphics of military tanks. “Faith Under Fire,” reads the caption. Those who feel threatened will inevitably fire back.
Martin Beckford at the Telegraph has Traditionalist Church of England groups warn of defections if gay bishop is ordained
A notice paper listing all the proposed amendments to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708A) has been published.
It is 37 pages long.
The Church Times blog has a useful set of links to earlier events at The Telegraph reports that Jeffrey John is the ‘favoured candidate’ for Bishop of Southwark post
Colin Coward has his analysis at Changing Attitude in The new paradigm unfolds on Radio 4 between Chris Sugden and Giles Fraser!
Jim Naughton has an American view at the Episcopal Café in Not entirely baseless speculation about the Jeffrey John situation.
John Richardson wrote at The Ugley Vicar Be very careful before you object to Dr John.
Press Statement from WATCH (Women and the Church) 5th July 2010
WATCH Opposes Archbishops’ Amendment Regarding Women Bishops
The text of the Archbishops’ amendment on women bishops appears innocuously brief and simple. However, their proposed small alterations to the draft legislation hide some changes for the Church that WATCH sees as highly contentious.
In removing the reference to ‘delegation’ we are returned to the idea of ‘transfer’ of jurisdiction: a female bishop will have some of her job automatically removed as soon as she is appointed. This was rejected (as TEA) by the House of Bishops in 2006, and found unworkable in practice after detailed examination by the Revision Committee.
When it comes to having ‘coordinate jurisdiction’, the Archbishops appear to be seeking to create, in effect, two Diocesan bishops in each Diocese: one to minister to those who accept ordained women, and one to minister to those who don’t. This is a step further even than flying bishops. Such an innovation must not be accepted without serious examination of the consequences.
Senior clergywomen have written in the last week to the Archbishops asking them to withdraw their amendment. They say that the proposed amendment ‘brings dismay and despair amongst women priests, and many have voiced their reaction by saying how deeply undermining it is of their ministry as ordained women.’ WATCH remains opposed to the Archbishops’ amendment.
Updated again Monday afternoon
Anglican Mainstream has reproduced an extract from a blog entry by Ruth Gledhill under the (confusing) headline Scholastics v Orthodox: As Jeffrey John story breaks, we have Bishop Marshall’s ACC resignation letter. Ms Ruth Gledhill.
It includes the following:
It is of course possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury has had a dramatic Pauline conversion to the justice argument of gay rights campaigners in the Church of England. More likely is that he was boxed in and had little choice but to approve Southwark’s mandatory candidate. Nick Holtam from St Martin-in-the-Fields is likely to be the other name that goes forward to the Prime Minister. Under the new rules of the Crown Nominations Committee, David Cameron would normally expect just one name but I believe he has on this occasion asked for two.
The Times subscribers can find the whole article here.
Updates
The Australian has reproduced a news article from The Times headlined Gay bishop to divide Anglicans.
Anglican Mainstream has also published the following:
Anglican Mainstream – the full quote in the Times
Urgent Call for Prayer from Anglican Mainstream
Updated Monday lunchtime
The BBC Radio 4 Today programme carried an item earlier this morning, which you can listen to here.
‘No chance’ gay bishop will split CofE
Canon Chris Sugden and Dr Giles Fraser discuss if the appointment of Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Southwark would reopen the wounds of the debate over gay bishops in the Anglican Church.
The interview is 7 minutes long.
Update
The BBC now has a news report, based on the interview linked above, at Appointing gay bishop ‘risks splitting Church’.
Updated Sunday lunchtime
Tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph has an article by Jonathan Wynne-Jones headlined Gay cleric in line to become bishop in Church of England.
Update
A second article in the Sunday Telegraph by Jonathan Wynne-Jones has now appeared online, see Meeting on appointment of gay bishop will determine future of the Church.
The official document entitled BRIEFING FOR MEMBERS OF VACANCY IN SEE COMMITTEES (version dated November 2009) is available here as a PDF file.
The process of selecting a diocesan bishop is also described here.
The Southwark Diocesan Statement of Needs can be found here. (PDF)
Members of the Southwark Vacancy-in-See Committee are listed here (scroll down).
The national members of the Crown Nominations Commission are listed on this page.
The Southwark nominees to the Commission are listed in this press release.
The meeting “next week” is in fact on Monday and Tuesday 5/6 July.
The Church Times published a leader column yesterday, Have the Mexicans started a wave?
This argues the desirability of seeking a supermajority of votes in the CofE General Synod:
…The records of the recent House of Bishops meeting, released this week, show that the House agreed not to propose special majorities when it comes to the vote in the General Synod. The decision is surprising, given the impact that the Covenant might have on the Church of England. Although the text contains no mechanical means whereby one province can influence the deliberations of another, it will obviously change matters to know that a decision might result in some form of severance from the Communion mainstream. This might not be a bad thing — greater responsiveness to each other is, after all, the object of the Covenant — but it will be a different thing.
As matters now stand, the implications if a province decides not to endorse the Covenant are unknown. The Covenant Working Group concluded that, in such an eventuality, “there should be the flexibility for the Instruments of Communion to determine an appropriate response in the evolving situation.” In other words, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates’ Meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, if time drags on, the Lambeth Conference would have to make something up. The C of E is not any old province, however, and were it to reject the Covenant, it is hard to see the project surviving. At the very least, the Archbishop of Canterbury would find it hard to support the Covenant without the backing of his Church. As so much rests on the vote, a two-thirds majority in the Synod would provide a clearer endorsement.
Paul Bagshaw has published an article today, Why the Covenant won’t work.
The Covenant will work in all sorts of ways, of course, some intended some predictable if unintended.
What it won’t do and can’t do, is what it says on the tin. It cannot ‘prevent and manage’ disputes:
This Commission believes that the case for adoption of an Anglican Covenant is overwhelming:
* The Anglican Communion cannot again afford, in every sense, the crippling prospect of repeated worldwide inter-Anglican conflict such as that engendered by the current crisis. Given the imperfections of our communion and human nature, doubtless there will be more disagreements. It is our shared responsibility to have in place an agreed mechanism to enable and maintain life in communion, and to prevent and manage communion disputes. (Windsor Report §119)
The reason it cannot ‘prevent and manage’ disputes is simple. If the Covenant mechanisms can be applied retrospectively (which is effectively what is being attempted) then these mechanisms are applied as it were from the outside of the dispute. They step in like courts and police to adjudicate and enforce an outcome – in this case the expulsion (in whole or part) of the offending members of the Communion…
A few days ago, he also published Just what will the Covenant cost?
Fulcrum has published this Fulcrum Press Statement.
WOMEN BISHOPS AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Statement by the Fulcrum Leadership Team3 July 2010
(read the Commentary on this Statement here)The Bible supports ending restrictions on the ministry of women by making women bishops and the mission challenges of our times require it. It is vital that the General Synod debate later this month does not produce a stalemate. We need to move forward now toward women bishops in the life of the Church of England and we need them serving from 2014 and not 2018 or 2025.
We recognise that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are loyal Anglicans. Those who oppose this development need a space and a future in the Church of England. We believe this would be best served by appending a Code of Pastoral Practice to the Measure, not permanent legislation.
We believe the new legislation must not be framed to create what might be deemed to be a second class of bishops based on gender or a “Church within a Church”.
For these reasons we believe the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee provides the best framework for a practical way forward.
Comment on the relationship between the work of the Revision Committee and the alternatives suggested by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is posted on the Fulcrum Website.
Do read the full commentary.
The Church Times has a report headlined Slash spending on bishops’ houses, says task group.
EXPENDITURE on bishops’ houses is out of control, an official task group has concluded.
The funding for see houses is set every three years. The total spent in 2002-04 was £11 million. In 2008-10, it is forecast to be £21 million. The average maintenance cost of some bishops’ houses is now well over £50,000 a year.
The figures come in a document prepared by a task group on spending, chaired by the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Richard Chartres. Other members include the Bishop of Birmingham, the Rt Revd Andrew Urquhart, and the First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam Smith.
The group acknowledges that a number of the houses are Grade I and Grade II listed. It also accepts that much of the expenditure is a result of work on office space in many of the houses, which are used by diocesan staff as well as by the bishop. Such expenditure seldom adds to the value of the house.
It concludes, none the less, that the money allocated in 2011-13 should be capped at £15 million, with a view to bringing it down to no more than £10 million in 2014-16. “There is a compelling need to bring control over this area of expenditure,” the group says.
This all comes from GS Misc 946 Archbishops’ Task Group: Report on Spending Plans 2011-2013, a document with lots more interesting information, which is among the General Synod papers, but has not yet appeared on the CofE website. It might perhaps appear on this page when it does.
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 toa 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:
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:
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:
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.
Updated to include (below the fold) the text of the measure after amendment
Updated Thursday evening to correct extent of struck through text below the fold
The Archbishops have today released the text of their proposed amendments to the Women in the Episcopate legislation. We have copied this below.
We have put the text of the draft measure online here. There is also a pdf version available from the CofE website.
We linked to the Archbishops’ original announcement of their proposals here.
General Synod Draft Legislation: Women in the Episcopate amendments
Thursday 01 July 2010
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have submitted the following amendments to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, GS1708A, to be considered at the forthcoming July sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England.
DRAFT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS (CONSECRATION AND ORDINATION OF WOMEN) MEASURE
Draft amendments to omit reference to delegation
Co-ordinate Jurisdiction
Clause 2
1. In subsection (1) leave out the words “way of delegation to”.
2. After subsection (1) insert –
“(2) The episcopal ministry referred to in subsections (1), (3) and (5) shall be exercisable by virtue of this section and shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions.
Clause 5
In section 5(1)(b), at the end, insert the words “and, in particular, 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”.
+Rowan Cantuar +Sentamu Ebor
We show below the fold the effect of these amendments on the text of the measure.
Here are the relevant sections of the measure showing the effect of the archbishops’ amendments. Deleted text is struck through and added text is in bold
2 Duty of diocesan bishop to make arrangements
(1) The bishop of each diocese shall be under a duty to make and publish a scheme containing arrangements in his or her diocese for the exercise by way of delegation to a male bishop who is a member of the House of Bishops of the diocesan synod of that or another diocese of episcopal ministry which appears to the bishop of the diocese to relate to —
(a) the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service in parishes which request such arrangements in accordance with section 3, or
(b) the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners in those parishes.
(2) The episcopal ministry referred to in subsections (1), (3) and (5) shall be exercisable by virtue of this section and shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions.
…
(3) A scheme made under this section may include such additional arrangements for the exercise of episcopal ministry as the bishop of the diocese thinks fit.
…
(5) Where a scheme made under this section includes a statement by the bishop that he will not ordain women to the office of priest, the scheme shall make provision —
(a) for the ordination of female candidates for the office of priest, and
(b) for the support of the ministry of clergy who are women and their pastoral care.
…
5 Code of Practice
(1) The House of Bishops shall draw up, and promulgate, guidance in a Code of Practice as to —
(a) the making of schemes under section 2,
(b) the exercise of episcopal ministry in accordance with the arrangements contained in such schemes and, in particular, 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,
(c) the exercise, by those involved in the making of an appointment of an incumbent of and a priest in charge for a benefice, of their functions in that regard where a Letter of Request is issued under section 3(3),
(d) the matters referred to in section 2(5), and
(e) such other matters as the House of Bishops considers appropriate to give effect to this Measure.
Updated again Friday morning
Updated Thursday morning with Westminster Abbey press release
Here it is from the Parliament website: New Speaker’s Chaplain appointed.
The Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow is delighted to announce the appointment of Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin as the new Speaker’s Chaplain.
Rev Hudson-Wilkin is currently Vicar of the United Benefice of Holy Trinity with St Philip, Dalston, and All Saints, Haggerston, in the London diocese.
She will combine this role with the position of Speaker’s Chaplain and as a Priest Vicar at Westminster Abbey. Her appointment will begin in September following the retirement of the Rev Robert Wright after 12 years in the role…
There is no press release yet on any new appointments at the Westminster Abbey website
Update Thursday morning
Westminster Abbey press release: The Reverend Andrew Tremlett appointed Canon of Westminster
Includes the following:
…The Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend Dr John Hall, said: ‘We are delighted at the appointment of Andrew Tremlett as a Canon of Westminster and look forward to welcoming him and his family to the Abbey. The Dean & Chapter will appoint him Rector of St Margaret’s Church within the Abbey precincts. An announcement about the appointment of a new Sub Dean will be made in due course.’
Meanwhile The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon John Bercow MP, has appointed the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin as the new Speaker’s Chaplain.
Ms Hudson-Wilkin is currently Vicar of the United Benefice of Holy Trinity with St Philip, Dalston, and All Saints, Haggerston, in the London diocese. She will combine this role with the position of Speaker’s Chaplain. She is also an honorary Chaplain to HM The Queen. The post of Speaker’s Chaplain, which dates from 1660, has for most of its history been combined with another ministerial post away from Westminster. The Dean of Westminster will also appoint her as a Priest Vicar of the Abbey. Dr Hall said: ‘Rose Hudson-Wilkin will be very welcome as a member of the Abbey community and to worship in St Margaret’s Church and in the Abbey. Together the appointments of Andrew Tremlett and Rose Hudson-Wilkin will greatly enhance the Church’s ministry to the Palace of Westminster.’
The Chapel of St Mary Undercroft at the Palace of Westminster will remain under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Westminster as Ordinary.
Friday morning update
The Church Times reports, ‘No row’ over new Speaker’s Chaplain
…But, Dr Hall said, although the Abbey had advertised for someone to fill the combined position, historically this had not always been the case. “Technically, the appointment to the canonry of Westminster is by the Crown, while the appointment to Speaker’s Chaplain is the responsibility of the Speaker, and that’s been the outcome on this occasion. There was no row between us, and relations between the Abbey and the Palace of Westminster and the Speaker continue to be constructive and productive.
“Mrs Hudson-Wilkin will be a Priest-Vicar at Westminster Abbey, and these two appointments will enhance the Church of England’s ministry in the Palace of Westminster.”
Savi Hensman has written an article for Ekklesia Welcoming women’s ministry, which discusses the archbishops’ recently proposed amendment to the women bishops legislation.
…Not surprisingly, some have felt hurt and undermined, and if the Archbishops get their way, some women who might make excellent priests and indeed bishops, may be put off from pursuing the ordained ministry. There is evidence that already the Church of England’s image (along with that of some other churches) is driving sizeable numbers of lay women away and putting off potential members. In 2008, the sociologist Dr Kristin Aune, estimated that 50,000 women a year were leaving congregations because they felt the church was not relevant to their lives: “Young women tend to express egalitarian values and dislike the traditionalism and hierarchies they imagine are integral to the church.” Men and boys unwilling to be in spaces where women are unequal may also be put off.
The damage however may be even more far-reaching. Quite apart from the unfairness of treating women as inferior, to some Christians the problem touches on the very nature of the church and Christian faith. To treat some people as second-class is to dishonour a Creator who made all humankind in the divine image, a Redeemer whose self-giving love offers fullness of life to all and a Spirit who, like the wind, cannot be tamed, generously bestowing sometimes unexpected gifts.
And such unequal treatment undermines the whole church’s calling to care for the needy and challenge the world by witnessing to the possibility of a new way of life in which none are exploited or marginalised. To behave as if a cleaner struggling to get by on low pay and care for her children or elderly relatives is as important as a millionaire banker, or that a destitute survivor of domestic violence or a boy trying to break free of macho gang culture matters as much as a top politician – or wealthy potential donor – is hard. A clear stance on women’s acceptability in all forms of ministry can empower lay women, men and youth in our own vital ministry and mission…
GS 1782 (PDF) contains the detailed proposals for this. A webpage version of the entire document is now available here. As the press release about the forthcoming meeting of General Synod explains:
Synod will be asked to agree the setting up of the new Faith and Order Commission, in succession to three bodies: the Doctrine Commission, the Faith and Order Advisory Group and the House of Bishops’ Theological Group. This represents a streamlining and concentration of the Church of England’s theological resources at national level.
Here are the web pages of the Faith and Order Advisory Group.
The paper explains the current situation and proposed changes this way:
1. This paper sets out a proposal that the current theological resources of the Church of England at the national level should be brought together to form a new Faith and Order Commission of the General Synod (‘the Commission’). As well as consolidating the present arrangements, the proposal offers scope for a more focused and streamlined handling of work in this area in the future.
2. The proposal has been prepared in discussion with the chairs of the Council for Christian Unity, the Faith and Order Advisory Group (‘FOAG’) and the House of Bishops’ Theological Group. The idea has also been considered by FOAG, the House of Bishops Theological Group, the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops and the House itself, and has been supported, with minor amendment, at each stage. The Archbishops’ Council has been kept informed and we endorse the proposal.
3. Theological resourcing for the Church of England at the national level is currently provided by the Doctrine Commission, the House of Bishops’ Theological Group, and FOAG.
4. The Doctrine Commission has provided extensive theological resources in the past, normally in the form of major set piece reports, published every five years or so, but has been in abeyance for several years.
5. The Theological Group advises the House of Bishops and its Standing Committee on theological issues that arise within the work of the House or the College, offering reflection on all theological aspects of the House’s agenda. This provision would continue under the new arrangements.
6. FOAG provides theological resources and reflection for the House or College of Bishops and the Council for Christian Unity and through them for the Synod. Over the years, FOAG has produced a number of reports and other documents which have been adopted by the House of Bishops and made available to the wider Church. FOAG’s main strength is in ecclesiology and ecumenical theology, though it currently also contains expertise in biblical studies, liturgy and ethics, and this sort of expertise will be needed in the new Commission. FOAG normally has several bishops among its membership. It scrutinises draft ecumenical agreements and other ecumenical and ecclesiological texts involving the Church of England. The members and the episcopal chair of FOAG are appointed by the Archbishops. It receives commissions of work from either the House of Bishops or the CCU.
7. The current proposal is for the establishment of the Commission, which will incorporate FOAG, the House of Bishops’ Theological Group and the Doctrine Commission. The Commission will therefore have a special relationship to the House of Bishops and to the Council for Christian Unity (as FOAG has now)
Both the Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday carry stories about a row between the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Dean of Westminster.
Simon Walters and Jonathan Petre Mail on Sunday Speaker snubs Church to appoint first black Vicar of Westminster
The Queen was last night dragged into a bitter row over the appointment of a black woman as Chaplain to the House of Commons.
Commons Speaker John Bercow has refused to give the job to the candidate picked by the Dean of Westminster Abbey, the Very Rev Dr John Hall, who answers to the Queen.
He has chosen instead the Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, a Jamaican-born vicar in one of the poorest parts of East London. Sources say he objected to appointing ‘another predictable middle-aged white man’.
Mr Bercow was so determined to win the power struggle that he has cut the ties between Parliament and the Abbey, where state funerals, weddings and coronations take place – effectively splitting the Chaplain’s historic role in two.
The Abbey authorities have responded by refusing to give Mrs Hudson-Wilkin the palatial grace-and-favour apartment in the Abbey cloisters where the current Commons Chaplain lives.
The man snubbed by Mr Bercow, 46-year-old Andrew Tremlett, currently a Canon at Bristol Cathedral, is to be made a Canon at Westminster Abbey as a ‘consolation prize’ by the Queen.
But he will have to make do with half the salary of the Commons Chaplain…
Jonathan Wynne-Jones Sunday Telegraph Clash over historic promotion for female cleric
…A spokesman for the Speaker said: “We can’t make any comment until an announcement is made.”
A spokesman for the dean said: “It is absurd to suggest there’s any kind of rift between the Dean of Westminster and the Speaker of the House of Commons.
“Relations between them have been and will always remain cordial and constructive.”
The latest batch of General Synod papers includes HB(10)M1, the Summary of Decisions from the recent (17-18 May) meeting of the House of Bishops.
That document includes the following (paragraph 6):
On the Anglican Communion Covenant, the House agreed
(a) to commend it for adoption by the Church of England;
(b) to invite the Business Committee to schedule the beginning of the adoption process for the inaugural Synod in November 2010, with a view to final approval in February 2012;
(c) not to propose special majorities for its adoption; and
(d) to authorise the House’s Standing Committee to oversee the production of necessary material for the Synod.
Grace Cathedral Names Jane Alison Shaw as its Eighth Dean
On June 25, Grace Cathedral’s Board of Trustees by unanimous roll call vote enthusiastically approved the nomination of the Rev. Canon Dr. Jane Alison Shaw as the eighth dean of Grace Cathedral. She was nominated by the Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus after an extensive search process.
“Jane Shaw’s spiritual depth, commitment to the Gospel, theological vision and leadership skills make her uniquely qualified to help guide Grace Cathedral into its second century,” said the Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California.
Dr. Shaw joins Grace Cathedral from the University of Oxford in England where she has served as the Dean of Divinity and a Fellow of New College, Oxford. In addition, she has taught history and theology at the university.
Serving with distinction as a priest, academic theologian and historian, Dr. Shaw brings powerful preaching and deep expertise in liturgy, management and administration, program development, teaching, community building and fundraising.
Dr. Shaw is known internationally for her exceptional talents in the communication of Christianity in the public sphere. In Great Britain, she has been successful in bridging differences in governance and policies pertaining to inclusion, and has served as Theological Consultant to the Church of England House of Bishops. Dr. Shaw is Canon Theologian at Salisbury Cathedral and an honorary canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford…
Some other information is available at the Episcopal Café under New Dean named for Grace, San Francisco.
What was the cathedral looking for? Well, this link leads to detailed information about that.
Paul Handley reports on this in the Church Times today, see Archbishops propose last-ditch solution on women bishops. It contains this nugget of information:
The amendment has not yet been formally submitted; so it is not known precisely how the Archbishops propose to change the draft legislation. They are expected to table the amendment at the last possible moment, 5.30 p.m. next Wednesday (30 June), in order to prevent its being further amended.
And there is a leader, Archbishops’ plan: can it save the day?
LAWYER’S TRICK or work of theological insight? Probably the former. Cutting the Gordian knot, or teasing out enough of a thread for people to cling on to? Probably the latter. Whatever the verdict, it was a good sign that the Archbishops’ intervention in the women-bishops saga on Monday was met, in the main, by puzzled silence. The debate has been going on so long that all the players are adept at spotting hidden agendas, sometimes even when there isn’t one: yes, this sounds concessionary, but where’s the beef? Well, in this instance, the Archbishops claim to have served a generous portion to the traditionalists without taking anything off the plate of the women bishops. Is this true?
Two further articles remain behind the paywall for another week, one by David Houlding and one by Jane Shaw. Only subscribers can read them now. As the news story says:
Prebendary David Houlding, a prominent member of the Catholic group in Synod, writes in this week’s Church Times that the statement “seeks to achieve what is necessary to maintain our unity. . . All this seems to point us in the right direction,” he concludes.
In a contrasting article, the Revd Dr Jane Shaw argues that “enshrining opposition to women bishops — what many people would call misogyny — into legislation” operates against the forging of mutually trusting relationships. Such relationships, she says, need to be “at the heart of any way forward”.
Updated Friday afternoon
The Church Times reports a New twist in saga of ‘Mitregate’.
Pictures taken both at Southwark and at Gloucester cathedrals are printed side by side in the paper edition.
Some information new to TA readers is included:
Concerning Dr Jefferts Schori, the Dean of Southwark, the Very Revd Colin Slee, was told that “canon law does not recognise women bishops, and women bishops cannot officiate in this country in any episcopal act”. Many believe that presiding at the eucharist is a priestly, not an episcopal act; but mindful of sensitivities over the forthcoming Synod debate, he chose to be “hugely diplomatic and careful”.
A Lambeth Palace spoke[s]woman said on Wednesday: “This is not a ban. It was simply a recommendation that has been given in the past on legal advice in similar situations.”
A Church Times reader, the Revd Elizabeth Baxter, recalls a service in Ripon Cathedral in 1994 at which the then Bishop of Dunedin, the Rt Revd Penny Jamieson, was invited to preach. She was asked not to wear her mitre by the Bishop, the Rt Revd David Young. Ms Baxter writes: “In solidarity with Bishop Penny, the many bishops who took part in that service processed without their mitres.”
The Church Times went to press on Wednesday, before the publication at Episcopal Café of the letter from Canon Anthony Ball to a member of the public. That letter itself is however dated Monday.
Update
That letter is itself the subject of comment in today’s Guardian diary column with the strapline: Mitre-gate: it’s all very problematic. What’s worse, we’re to blame.
The following article appeared in the Church Times on 11 June 2010.
Equality Law will affect church appointments
by Simon Sarmiento
THE Equality Act 2010 will apply to all Crown appointments of clergy when it comes into effect later this year, probably in October.
Until now, anti-discrimination law has not covered clerical office-holders in the Church of England. But the definition of “public office” in the new Act will bring within its scope all posts to which appointment is made on the recommendation of a minister of the Crown.
Another category of posts defined in the Act is that of “personal office”-holders. But a Church House spokesman said last month that “That definition probably applies only to stipendiary curates. It does not apply to incumbents or priests-in-charge who are not ‘appointed to discharge a function personally under the direction of another person’.”
One consequence of this change is that legislation to allow women bishops in the C of E will need specific provisions to widen the existing exemptions. As the revision committee’s report explains: “essentially, the Equality Act provides . . . that a person can be excluded from consideration for appointment to a public office altogether on the grounds of sex,” but would not “allow a woman to be appointed a diocesan bishop but on the basis that . . . she would refrain from carrying out certain functions herself (because of her sex)”.
This is not the case under the current Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which contains an express exemption in wider terms for ministers of religion. Modifications made to this exemption in 2005 included the repeal of an earlier specific provision inserted in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993.
Clause 7 of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure contains an exemption from relevant clauses in the Equality Act that deal with the “terms on which an appointment is made”. The Government Equalities Office told Church House staff that “We have no doubt that Parliament will consider very carefully, and with good will, any measure that the Church of England as a whole ultimately feels is necessary to achieve this objective.”
The 1975 Act will be repealed at the same time as the new 2010 Act comes into effect, but the current exemptions in the former are carried forward in Schedule 9 of the new Act.
A Church House spokesman said on Friday, however: “In so far as anything in the 1993 Measure conflicts with Part 5 of the Equality Act it is rendered lawful by Schedule 9 paragraph 2 of the Act. But not all the arrangements contained in the 1993 Measure do conflict with Part 5 of the Act because Part 5 does not cover all the clergy.”
When asked whether it agreed that many clergy were not covered by the Equality Act, a government spokesman said on Monday: “The policy is to provide protection to those in employment and employment-related positions (meaning, roughly, where someone has sufficient direction and control over another such that discriminating against them could seriously impede their ability to obtain/engage in gainful work, thereby compromising their ability to provide for themselves), implementing our EU obligations and domestic policy. It is for the tribunals to decide whether any definition is satisfied on the facts of each case.”
PRESS STATEMENT
From the Catholic Group in General Synod
Responding to the statement of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York Re. forthcoming women bishops debates
The Catholic Group in General Synod is grateful to the Archbishops for their suggestion of a possible way forward for the Church of England, both to enable the consecration of women bishops and to provide for those who cannot in conscience accept the ministry of women bishops. We are particularly grateful for their recognition of the need for bishops with jurisdiction in their own right to minister to us, and to all those who share our convictions.
We look forward to studying the amendments in detail when they are published. We very much hope that they will provide ‘nominated bishops’ who will be real leaders in mission and ministry. It is also be vital that the amendments provide for us to continue to hold a principled theological position, looking to the faith and order of the undivided Church. We believe that the Church will be better served by the consistency of a national scheme of provision.
The Catholic Group is wholly committed to securing provision within the Church of England.
Canon Simon Killwick(Chairman of the Catholic Group)
As reported by Anglican Mainstream.
Episcopal Café reports, in Lambeth Palace on “the issue of vesture” AKA #mitregate, on an email reply sent from Lambeth Palace to an American Episcopalian who wrote to complain about the treatment of the Presiding Bishop when she recently presided and preached at Southwark Cathedral.
Follow the link above to read the comments of the Café on this reply, but here is the text of it.
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: [ID: 81888] AB Comment from an American EpiscopalianDear Mr _____,
Thank you for your e-mail to which I have been asked to respond as, I am sure you will understand, Archbishop Rowan is not able to reply personally to as much of the correspondence he receives as he would wish. It may help if I set out some of the background to the questions you raise.
The Dean of Southwark first issued an invitation to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori before the Lambeth Conference in 2008 – one in what I understand to be an ongoing programme of invitations to Primates of the Anglican Communion. She was not able to accept the invitation at that time and last Sunday’s date was subsequently agreed. Initially the invitation was to preach, however, earlier this month it became clear that the Presiding Bishop would be asked to preside at the Eucharist too. As the intention was for her to ‘officiate’ at a service the Archbishop’s permission was required under the provisions of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967. This is a matter of English law. The Archbishop’s permission under the Measure is the means of confirming a person’s eligibility to exercise their ministry in the Church of England and applies to any clergy ordained overseas. The application form (an example of which is at www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/faq/appform.rtf) asks the necessary questions - although in the Presiding Bishop’s case it was explicit that the ‘letters of orders’ were not required. The Archbishop’s permission was sought and granted, although the legal and canonical framework of the Church of England prevents the Archbishops granting permission for a woman priest to exercise a sacramental ministry other than as a priest. The agreed approach of the English bishops [not all*] is that women bishops celebrating under these provisions should do so without the insignia of episcopal office so as to avoid possible misunderstandings.
As you might imagine, I am not in a position to answer the questions about what permissions or evidence of orders the Episcopal Church require of clergy from other parts of the Anglican Communion.
Please be assured that the Archbishop, and those of us who support his ministry, had no intention to slight the Presiding Bishop. Indeed, by ensuring that the legal formalities were observed it was hoped that she, and the Dean of Southwark, might be spared the embarrassment that might have flowed from any challenge to her presiding and preaching at the cathedral. The media interest provoked over the issue of vesture has, of course, undermined that hope - as your letter makes clear.
Yours in Christ,
Anthony Ball
Sent by Jack Target on behalf of:
The Revd Canon Anthony Ball
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Chaplain
Lambeth Palace, London
* these words not in original email (see comments below)
An open letter to the Archbishops regarding their proposed amendments
Dear Archbishop Williams and Archbishop Sentamu,
It is with great dismay and disappointment that I read your proposed amendments to the Women Bishops draft legislation issued on Monday 21st June. I doubt there are many who will feel this offers good news. Far from being attentive to the full diversity of voices within the Church of England, these amendments suggest that you, our Archbishops, are primarily concerned with a particularly vocal minority. Neither do you seem to trust that the Legislative Drafting Committee have, in fact, been extremely attentive to the diversity of voices for the past year and have worked hard to come up with the current proposals. There is nothing to suggest, for example, that you are listening to the voices of those who signed petitions in 2008 requesting a single clause measure. Or those, like WATCH, who have made it clear that the proposed legislation already demands many concessions and compromises from the simple single clause measure they requested and which has been favoured by all other Anglican provinces who have chosen to open the episcopate to women.
There will be many who will be unable to support the proposed transfer arrangements and continual public undermining of women’s spiritual authority implicit in these amendments (paragraph 6), even if it means proceeding sooner rather than later.
The smoke and mirror strategy of giving jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure, rather than transfer or delegation in effect implies that the Church of England as a whole is ambiguous about the identity and authority of both Bishops who are female and male priests who accept their ministry. This is a dangerous precedent to set and leaves women in ministry vulnerable as they, along with every Christian, continue the battle against the principalities and powers of darkness but without the full support of the Church that recognised and authorised their divine calling to ordained ministry. It is a poor consolation prize to offer consecrated women fuller legal rights with one hand (para 15.1) while continuing to set up structures that call into question their spiritual authority (paragraph 13). The interpretation of the Lambeth Conference resolution (1998) which undergirds this proposal (para 2) fails to recognise that both those who assent to and those who dissent to the ordination of women to the priesthood are loyal Anglicans because what we hold in common; our love for Christ, our common identity as brothers and sisters in Christ, takes precedence over our disagreement over differing understandings of the Episcopal authority. Status as loyal Anglicans is not a carte blanche to demand special provisions.
I refute completely that the Church of England has managed to operate a practical polity (para 13). The practical polity is in fact extremely dysfunctional, cripples the ministry of women, in some diocese more than others, and has done nothing to bring about greater communion, but instead fosters division and discrimination and continues to damage the Church.
Many people on both sides of the debate have struggled with the Act of Synod because they are committed to making it work and will continue to wrestle with whatever General Synod manages to agree upon, because of their love for the communities this Church serves, often despite the toxic legacy of the Act. This is illustrated by the fact that Prayer Vigils will take place around the country, in Ripon, Guildford, Newcastle and Lichfield Cathedrals, during the General Synod debates, genuinely drawing together the diversity of voices to which you refer, but to whom you clearly have not listened.
Wherever the solution may lie to the question of how to bring about Women Bishops, I think it is unlikely to manifest itself in the creation of Church of England ghettos that will further isolate those who are opposed and fatally undermine the ministry of those who assent and have the unenviable task of making such convoluted proposals work.
Where are the proposals that will in fact ensure that we simply have Bishops? Consecrated because we have discerned God’s calling and gifting within them, regardless of those things that are declared unimportant in relation to our identity in Christ; race, gender, social status? Where are the proposals that will enable them to fulfil that role with joy, confidence and the minimum of hindrance?When will the Church of England accept that to set up structures that implicitly infer that some people are less a child of God than others is just poor theology and a stumbling block to our proclamation of the gospel?
I realise that the sound of our church in great pain as it labours to bring something into new birth is difficult for you both, as our Archbishops, and for many others to hear. But it would be good for you to recognise that the expression of pain is not necessarily an indication that something is fundamentally wrong. The Church of England, through Synod, declared many decades ago that there were, in fact, no theological objections to women’s ordained ministry. I would like to see it support its statements with clear and unambiguous actions.
Your sister in Christ,
Lindsay Southern
22nd June 2010
This letter is written by a national committee member of WATCH.
Ruth Gledhill has written about it at her blog (registration now required) under the heading Archbishops of Canterbury and York in hoc to ‘principalities and powers of darkness’ as they fail to understand ‘pain’ of giving birth Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the ‘principalities and powers of darkness’: the vehement disagreement of a woman curate..
First, Alan Wilson has commented on the Southwark Cathedral episode, see If you want to get ahead get a hat:
…This bizarre story indicates, as has been told, that unlike previous visiting female bishops from the US, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was banned from wearing a Mitre in Southwark Cathedral. Forrest Gump’s mum used to say, stoopid is as stoopid does, and the whole mentality of such a request, if it was ever made, is profoundly stoopid. The whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. It bears the fingerprints of blind officialdom rather than the Archbishop himself.
I’m an optimist, however, and can see positive learning from such loonery:
1. The C of E has a lot of getting real and growing up to do. Seeing the problem presented in a stark form presents a good opportunity to recognise it and resolve to do better in future.
2. All God’s promises are “yes” and “amen” in Jesus Christ, who taught his disciples to say yes or no. Anything else comes from the evil one. The Spirit has always called the church to a form of ministry that was real within the sociology of the world we serve. Therefore we respond to the Spirit’s call obediently, not half-heartedly. The Puritans used to talk about the “Devil’s Martyrs” — people who lost out all round, because they messed with Mr In-Between, depriving themselves of the advantages of being Puritans, or Libertines. Simply framing the Spirit’s call to ordain women in terms of the problems it raises is boring, weedy and faithless, as well as hypocritical…
Second, Maggi Dawn has commented on the archbishops’ intervention in the forthcoming General Synod debate on Women in the Episcopate. See The archbishops, evangelism and the status of women.
…Me? I’ve never been attracted to the bullying variety of evangelism, but neither have I ever been embarrassed to talk about the claims of Christianity, or to invite other people to check it out for themselves. I am not much of an evangelist by nature, if by that you mean someone who bangs on about Christianity in the belief that I have got all the answers. My sense of wonder, my intellectual curiosity and my genuine appreciation for the human race disallows me from wanting to think I already have all the answers: how appallingly boring that would be. But Christian theology, per se, is interesting and wide ranging if you take it seriously, and don’t allow yourself to be taken in by those who insist it has no intellectual credulity.
The more pressing problem for evangelism, it seems to me, is the ongoing debacle about women in the Church, this week of all weeks. Yesterday we learned that the Archbishops seem OK with proposing a compromise on women bishops that downgrades the status of all the women in the Church. It beats me how you can put that together with an upbeat view of evangelism. They might feel fine about evangelising people into a Church that continues to give women second class status. I do not. You don’t have to go back that many decades to find a church that disallowed people from becoming priests or bishops because of the colour of their skin, or because they had a disability. Those barriers have been broken down in the name of justice, and rightly so; no-one would dare uphold such an idea now, and even if they thought it privately they wouldn’t dare to say it out loud. It seems outrageous to me that we continue to believe that it’s OK to delay indefinitely the active acceptance of women at all levels in the Church. Its patently obvious that the world at large thinks so too, and this unacceptable injustice towards women is far more of a blight on evangelism than shyness.
The new Second Church Estates Commissioner took questions in the House of Commons yesterday. The first was about women bishops.
Here is the verbatim Hansard report.
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-
Women Bishops
2. Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): What progress the Church of England has made on proposals to enable women to be consecrated as bishops. [3388]
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry): Before I answer that question, may I pay tribute to my predecessor, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell)? He has been the longest serving Second Church Estates Commissioner ever, and he did an excellent job. The legislation to enable women to become bishops reaches the General Synod’s equivalent of Report early next month in York. Depending on what is decided there, the legislation will then go to the 44 diocesan synods, and I understand that the earliest date that the General Synod can take a final decision, and when the matter can eventually come before the House, is 2012.
Diana R. Johnson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role. Does he not agree that the intervention of the two archbishops, with their proposal on the legislation to enable women to become bishops, will create a two-tier system of bishops? Women will no doubt be on the lower tier, and does that not send out completely the wrong message from the established Church of this country about the role of women bishops?
Tony Baldry: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words at the beginning of her question. There are clear majorities in the General Synod in favour of women becoming bishops, but, as the proposals by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York yesterday demonstrated, there are still efforts to try to find ways to reconcile those who have deep-held opposition to the measure. Under legislation, it is important that the Church decides the way forward, and we should give it the space to do so. However, it is also very important that the Church hears the voices of this House about how we see those matters, because ultimately the issue will have to come back to this House.
Later there was a second question which referred to women bishops.
7. Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): When the responsibilities of the Second Church Estates Commissioner in respect of this House were last reviewed. [3393]
Tony Baldry: I am beginning to get to grips with the responsibilities of this post, which was established by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1850. I would say at this stage that I will try to have the same broad approach to answering questions on behalf of the Church as did my predecessor. I hope that I can be a helpful conduit between the Church and this House, and this House and the Church.
Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is admirably suited to following the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) in this post. Will he pass back to the Synod the fact that we look forward in this House to having bishops chosen on merit, recognising that sex is not merit and that the Synod can throw out proposals that it does not like?
Tony Baldry: As I said in response to an earlier question, it is very important that the General Synod and the Church should hear the voices of this House, and I am sure that they will have heard, and will hear, the voice of my hon. Friend.
WATCH (Women and the Church) Press Statement 22nd June 2010
All bishops are equal but some are more equal than others.
WATCH has studied the outline proposals of the Archbishops’ intervention in the progress of legislation for women bishops. Despite the assurances that all will be well we are not convinced that the issues raised regarding jurisdiction will be resolved equitably when the practical steps of implementation are worked out. Will an “unacceptable” Diocesan bishop be required to share jurisdiction and how? Or will it be at her or his discretion? If the former, we are in effect back to automatic transfer.
The timing of the Archbishops’ intervention is similarly to be questioned. The Revision Committee considered all proposals put to them in great and thoughtful detail. These new proposals could have been made in similar detail to the Revision Committee. This would have enabled their practical consequences to be thoroughly considered before they came to be debated by General Synod. It is important that the Church does not re-create the unforeseen consequences of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod in agreeing to proposals that have not been thoroughly explored and explained. We ask; In what way are ‘nominated bishops’ not actually flying bishops with extended jurisdiction? Are we not creating a two-tier episcopacy of ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ bishops with all that implies about how the Church continues to view women? Have the Archbishops sought the views of the senior women who must be counted amongst “the full diversity of voices in the Church of England”? Has their support been obtained for these proposals?
WATCH has received many messages that suggest that the Revision Committee has accurately judged the amount of compromise that people are prepared to make. While we would prefer the legislation to be simpler and more straightforward we are willing to support the Revision Committee proposals for the sake of the Church. Let us move forward on that basis.
Notes for Editors
WATCH (Women and the Church) is a voluntary organisation of women and men who are campaigning to see women take their place alongside men without discrimination and at every level in the Church of England. This requires the removal of current legal obstacles to the consecration of women as bishops. WATCH believes that the full equality of women and men in the Church is part of God’s will for all people, and reflects the inclusive heart of the Christian scripture and tradition.
In their announcement yesterday, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York made a serious proposal to amend the legislation before the General Synod to allow Women in the Episcopate.
Not everybody is finding it possible to take their proposal seriously.
As already linked below, Pluralist has written Two for Tea.
DRAFT LEGISLATION ON WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE
AMENDMENTS TO BE PROPOSED BY THE ARCHBISHOPS OF ANGLICANISM AND THE NORTH
1. Women are lovely aren’t they and the Revision Committee that has looked into them needs much gratitude. Thank you for your discoveries. However, as Archbishops we would like to overturn all that painstaking and already overturned work and impose our own point of view, and expect the Synod to understand that it is episcopally led. We do not want our ecumenical friend Benedict the 16th to get his way and attract out all the sanctimonious nutters from the Church in England in order to fulfil his ambitions when we need them to fulfil ours, such as passing the Anglican Covenant and introducing a stronger Catholic order of which they would approve. We want these people to think that there is good news for them in this Church…
And an American correspondent has sent this email:
Future News Stories:
June 21, 2011: Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, former officials of the Church of England which they destroyed through inept leadership, have been hired by Major League Baseball. The two have immediately unveiled a plan for a “co-ordinate Perfect Game Pitcher” - Teams that could not accept that their pitcher did not pitch a perfect game would get a photogenic male model dressed in a team jersey to stand in at a photography session holding a ball with a big red “0” boldly emblazoned on it. Barry Bonds commented “Hey, that’s cheating!”
June 21, 2012: Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, former officials of Major League Baseball, which they destroyed through inept leadership, have been hired by the US Republican National Committee. The two have immediately unveiled a plan for a “co-ordinate President” - States that could not accept Sarah Palin as the legitimate elected national leader would get a unemployed Hollywood actress to attend the opening of ball games and to give commencement speeches. Vermont immediately contracted Ellen DeGeneres leaving California to choose between Whoppi Goldberg and Lady Gaga.
June 21, 2013: Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, former officials of the US Republican National Committee, which they destroyed through inept leadership, have been hired by Apple Computer. They immediately unveiled a plan for a “co-ordinate iPhone” - people who cannot accept that the latest model does not have all the features they personally want would get a small white cardboard box on which they can draw anything they want. The two pre-ordered Binney and Smith’s entire annual production of Crayolas to ship with the new devices.
June 21, 2014: Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, former officials of Apple Computer, which they destroyed through inept leadership, have been hired to run the Winter Olympics. They immediately unveiled a plan for “co-ordinate Gold Medalists” - people who cannot accept that their country, no matter how tropical, cannot produce a champion curling team will be emailed a link to a You Tube video showing the medal presentation of the legit winners, out of focus and grainy as to prevent positive identification of players or uniforms (actually, a normal You Tube video), with their own national anthem dubbed in.
June 21 2015….
The Diocese of El Camino Real reports on the visit of its bishop, Mary Grey-Reeves to the Diocese of Gloucester in England.
Read From Bp. Mary and Bp. Michael, June 21, 2010
Dear Friends,
Some of you may have heard that on a recent visit to England, +Katharine Jefferts Schori was asked to verify her orders of ordination and asked not to wear her miter. As you know, I am here on a partnership visit in the Diocese of Gloucester. Attached is a greeting and explanation from Bishop Michael regarding our own correspondence with Lambeth Palace, hopefully clarifying a policy that has been in place but not enforced. The incident with +Katharine was of course exacerbated by +Rowan’s Pentecost letter and +Katharine’s response. I must say that I have not met anyone here that is happy with +Rowan’s letter and the actions that it announced; but are rather many are embarrassed and upset.
As you will see from an update that Celeste Ventura and Channing Smith will send shortly, we are having a wonderful time in Gloucester being treated very well and shown great hospitality. There are no major issues regarding the wearing of my miter or being a woman bishop, although of course there are those who do not approve of women’s ordination. It is a very live issue here and there are lots of feelings and emotions as the Church of England approaches another vote, hopefully towards women in the episcopate, in just a few weeks.
In the meanwhile, I send greetings from everyone participating on this triangular partnership and ask your continued prayers. I will send another update at the end of the week after my return late on Wednesday night.
With love and blessings,
+MaryA message from Michael Perham, Bishop of Gloucester
Dear Sisters and Brothers of the Diocese of El Camino Real
I greet you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, rejoicing as always in our partnership, drawing together your diocese, the Diocese of Western Tanganyika and my own.
It has been a great joy to have Bishop Mary with us these last few days, sharing in our partnership meeting, speaking to our Diocesan Synod, preaching in the Cathedral and visiting parishes. It will be a particular joy when, on the last day of the partnership gathering, she presides at the Eucharist in the Lady Chapel of our Cathedral.
People here in the Diocese of Gloucester share my respect and affection for Bishop Mary. Once again having her here has been a delight and an encouragement to us all. Her graciousness is a wonderful gift to our partnership and companion relationship and I believe the partnership is a gift to our troubled Anglican Communion.
I am attaching a note I have written to try to explain some of the difficulties we have run into in England these last few days in relation to the ministry of visiting bishops. The difficulties have felt to be a long way away from the happy acceptance of one another here.
+Michael
The note mentioned is copied here below the fold.
And for good measure, there is a picture at The Three-Legged Stool, see Comments from ECR and Gloucester on recent events.
Background explaining the need for permission to her diocese
Under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure of 1967, which in my view needs urgent revision, but which is still in force and which must therefore be respected, clergy from abroad (Anglican or otherwise) need the permission of the Archbishop to officiate here. My understanding is that over the years, this rule has not been tightly followed in the case of those visiting partner dioceses for short periods of time, but only for those seeking to take up a ministerial post here. However, with all the present tensions in the Communion and with some people prepared to use legal processes to challenge bishops and others who do not follow the letter of the law, the Archbishop’s office has thought it best to ensure that the rule is strictly adhered to. Thus I have sought and obtained permission for Bishop Mary for preside at the Eucharist in Gloucester Cathedral.
(Bishop Gerard is also presiding at the Eucharist while here, but in his case in a private chapel where no such permission is required.)
The Measure makes no reference to what the bishop wears. As it happens, the simple weekday Eucharist at which Bishop Mary will preside is not one when either she or I would expect her to wear a mitre. However in the Cathedral on Sunday, when she stood at my side when I presided at the Eucharist and again when she preached at a Partnership Service later in the day, she did, like me and Bishop Gerard, wear her mitre.
The triangular partnership that draws the dioceses of Western Tanganyika, El Camino Real and Gloucester into a companion relationship emerged from the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops. There has never been any doubt within our dioceses that the three bishops are equally bishops of the Anglican Communion and not for a moment would we have treated one bishop differently from the others. We recognise and honour the ministry of all.
+Michael
From 10 Downing Street:
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Right Reverend James Henry Langstaff, MA, Suffragan Bishop of Lynn, for election as Bishop of Rochester in succession to the Right Reverend Michael James Nazir-Ali, BA, MLitt, PhD on his resignation on the 31st August 2009.
Read the government press release.
From the Diocese of Rochester, there is only a PDF file, available here.
The new Church of England Bishop of Rochester will be the Right Reverend James Langstaff, currently the Suffragan Bishop of Lynn in the Diocese of Norwich. In addition, he is now the Bishop designate of Rochester.
Bishop James (53) will become the 107th Bishop of Rochester later this year. He succeeds the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who retired in September 2009.
Following a media facility, Bishop James will spend the day touring the diocese to visit some of his future colleagues and parishioners. His day will begin at Bishop Justus school in the London borough of Bromley, which is part of the Diocese of Rochester. Here, he will be introduced to staff and pupils before moving on the meet members of his clergy at Chevening. After lunch and a further media facility, Bishop James will meet his staff at Bishopscourt and the Diocesan Office in Rochester. His day will conclude at Rochester Cathedral where he will meet Cathedral staff prior to joining future colleagues and members of the public for Evensong at Rochester Cathedral…
From the Diocese of Norwich: Bishop of Lynn to be next Bishop of Rochester
The General Synod of the Church of England will meet in York from 9 to 13 July 2010. The following press release was issued a short time ago.
See our item below for links to online Synod papers.
Full agenda published for July General Synod sessions at York University
21 June 2010
Key debates centre on women bishops’ legislation, while other subjects include clergy pensions, clergy terms of service, relations with the Church of Scotland, the status of deaneries and resources for Fresh Expressions in sessions of the Church of England’s ‘parliament,’ the General Synod, to be held in York from July 9th to 13th.
This is the last Synod before the five-yearly elections to and inauguration of the new Synod in November. More than half of the time available at these Sessions has been allocated to the key Revision Stage of the women bishops’ legislation.
Women Bishops
In February 2009, Synod agreed that draft legislation to allow women to be consecrated as bishops should be referred for revision in committee. The Revision Committee completed its work in April, and its report has been published.
The draft legislation continues to make provision for those who in conscience cannot receive the ministry of women as bishops, by providing for certain functions to be undertaken by a male bishop under a diocesan scheme made in accordance with a national code of practice.
After a ‘take note’ debate on the Revision Committee’s report, the Synod is scheduled to embark on the Revision Stage. This provides Synod with its last chance to amend the substance of the legislation before it is referred formally to dioceses, and then returns to Synod for Final Approval, probably in February 2012. Synod members need to submit their amendments for this Synod by June 30.
Other legislative business includes two pieces of legislation as part of the preparations for the introduction of ‘common tenure’ for clergy in 2011, including provision for maternity, paternity, parental and adoption leave and time off work to care for dependents for those holding office under the common tenure arrangements.
Clergy Pensions
Synod agreed in February to make certain changes to the clergy pensions scheme, including increasing the pension age for future service and increasing the accrual period for future service. This was subject to statutory consultation with scheme members.
Separately, the Synod carried a Private Member’s Motion from the Reverend Mark Bratton which asked for changes to the clergy pensions rules to remove the remaining differences between pension benefits for surviving civil partners and surviving spouses.
At this Synod, the Archbishops’ Council is reporting back on the consultation exercise and making recommendations about changes to the clergy pensions scheme. Synod will then be asked to formally approve the resulting amendments to the scheme rules.
Relations with the Church of Scotland
The report Our Fellowship in the Gospel is the fruit of informal conversations between the two churches. It sets out ways in which the Church of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland can consult and co-operate as established churches. The Church of Scotland welcomed the report and its recommendations at its recent General Assembly and it now comes before the General Synod for endorsement.
Diocesan Synod Motion - Deaneries
The motion from the Coventry Diocesan Synod asks that the case for conferring incorporated status on deanery synods should be considered by the Archbishops’ Council. The motion also asks that deanery synods should be specifically enabled to promote the deanery in the Church’s mission.
Private Member’s Motion - Fresh Expressions
Synod received a presentation on Fresh Expression from Bishop Graham Cray in February. Richard Moy’s Private Member’s Motion asks the Fresh Expressions team, in consultation with the Liturgical Commission, to produce an on-line library of visual and video resources for worship.
Synod’s other business
Synod will receive a Presidential Address from the Archbishop of York. There will also be a special address from one of the ecumenical guests – the Archbishop of Estonia, The Most Rev Andres Poder.
There will be the one item of liturgical business: the Further Revision Stage and Final Approval of the Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to the Calendar, Lectionary and Collects.
Synod will be asked to agree the setting up of the new Faith and Order Commission, in succession to three bodies: the Doctrine Commission, the Faith and Order Advisory Group and the House of Bishops’ Theological Group. This represents a streamlining and concentration of the Church of England’s theological resources at national level.
Following the Synod’s rejection in July 2009 of the Archbishops’ Council’s proposals for overhauling its committee structure, Synod will debate the Council’s revised proposals, produced after consultation with the bodies concerned, which essentially entail a reduction in the size of the bodies.
Synod will receive presentations of the Annual Reports of the Archbishops’ Council, and the Church Commissioners.
There will also be a closing Eucharist, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preach, as well as the customary Sunday morning Eucharist in York Minster, at which the Archbishop of York will preach.
As this is the last Synod of the quinquennium, there will be a number of farewells.
Communicating Synod
Parishioners can keep in touch with the General Synod while it meets. Background papers and other information will be posted on the Church of England website ahead of the General Synod sessions. A live feed will be available courtesy of Premier Radio, and audio files of debates, along with updates on the days’ proceedings, will be posted during the sessions.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have jointly issued the statement below, outlining amendments that they will propose to the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.
General Synod Draft Legislation: Women in the Episcopate
Monday 21 June 2010
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have signalled their intention to propose jointly in due course an amendment to the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England due to be debated at General Synod in July. This note explains their reasoning.
DRAFT LEGISLATION ON WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE
AMENDMENTS TO BE PROPOSED BY THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK
1. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Revision Committee for their dedicated and painstaking work. We wish, however – after much consideration, and after discussion in the House of Bishops – to offer legislative amendments to the Draft Measure which we believe might provide a way forward for the Church of England. We want as many people as possible to feel that there is good news for them in this process, and we hope that what we are suggesting may help secure the broadest degree of support for the legislation without further delaying the process of scrutiny and decision.
2. Successive General Synod debates have produced clear majorities in favour of admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England. At the same time, a number of motions have also shown a widespread desire to proceed in a way that will maintain the highest possible degree of communion within the Church of England between those who differ on the substantive point, reflecting the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution that ‘those who dissent from as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the Priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans’.
3 The issue that has proved most difficult to resolve in securing these two objectives has been that of ‘jurisdiction’. Once women become bishops, it will be possible to maintain something like the present ‘mixed economy’ in the Church of England only if there is provision for someone other than the diocesan bishop to provide episcopal oversight for those who are unable to accept the new situation. The need for such provision is widely accepted. But what is still much debated is what should be the basis in law for the authority exercised by a bishop in this kind of ministry.
4. The various approaches so far explored have all taken for granted that there is a simple choice between either deriving this authority from the diocesan by way of delegation or removing some part of the diocesan’s jurisdiction so as to confer it on a bishop who then exercises authority (‘ordinary jurisdiction’) in his own right.
5. The amendments we intend to propose involve neither delegation nor depriving a diocesan of any part of his or her jurisdiction. Instead we seek to give effect to the idea of a ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction.
6. What this would mean is that:
the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop – whether male or female – remains intact; he or she would remain the bishop of the whole area of the diocese and would be legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese;
7. The amendments needed to achieve all this will be brief and will not involve a radical rewriting of the draft legislation. They are likely to be confined to Clauses 2 and 5 of the Draft Measure and are consistent with its overall structure. They would not require a further Revision Committee stage.
8. Thus if they were passed – and subject to decisions reached by General Synod on amendments tabled by other members – the way would still be clear to refer the legislation to diocesan synods if the Revision Stage is successfully completed in July. As the recent statement from the House of Bishops makes clear, the Archbishops and most of the House are persuaded that delay would not be wise or helpful.
9. Since the amendments would not divest the diocesan bishop of any jurisdiction, they would involve no change in the Church of England’s understanding of the episcopate. But for those seeking ministry under this provision from a nominated male bishop, there would no longer be the difficulty that this authority was derived in law from an act of delegation by an individual diocesan.
10. An arrangement whereby two people have jurisdiction in relation to the same subject matter would not be unique. For example, the High Court and the Charity Commission each has jurisdiction to make schemes for the reorganisation of charities. Many courts and other bodies have overlapping jurisdictions.
11. Such situations are often described as ‘concurrent’ jurisdiction – though this should not be understood in the sense of two different courts acting at the same time in relation to the same things, simply as meaning two authorities possessing jurisdictions that exist side by side. We prefer the term ‘co-ordinate’ as less likely to give rise to confusion.
12. Where there are cases of concurrent jurisdiction in the law, procedural rules and rules of practice have had to be developed to avoid two authorities acting at the same time on the same matters. Similarly, our amendments will require the Code of Practice to give guidance on arrangements for co-ordinating the exercise of ministry as between the diocesan bishop and the nominated bishop under the diocesan scheme. The diocesan retains the freedom to amend the diocesan scheme from time to time after consultation with the diocesan synod.
13. Since 1994, the Church of England has managed to operate a practical polity that reflects continuing differences over the question of the priestly ministry of women. This has been possible not only because of the framework created by General Synod through the 1993 Measure and the Act of Synod but also because a great many people on all sides have wanted to make it work.
14. We are convinced that the small but significant changes we are proposing will make it easier for the statutory framework and Code of Practice emerging from the legislative process to create a climate in which mutual trust and common flourishing across the Church of England can be nourished, in a situation where for the first time, all orders of ordained ministry are open to women and men alike.
15. We believe that the amendments secure two crucial things:
1. that women ordained to the episcopate will enjoy exactly the same legal rights as men within the structures of the Church of England and that there will be no derogation of the rights of any diocesan bishop, male or female; and
2. that those who request oversight from a nominated bishop under a diocesan scheme will be able to recognise in them an episcopal authority received from the whole Church rather than through delegation or transfer from an individual diocesan.
16. It will be for General Synod to reach a view on these proposals, as on each of the many amendments offered by Synod members. We commend our suggestions to you for prayer and reflection, in the hope that we may emerge from the July Group of Sessions with a sense that the full diversity of voices in the Church of England has been duly heard and attended to.
+Rowan Cantuar: +Sentamu Ebor:
20 June 2010
Many papers for next month’s meeting of General Synod are now online. The list below will be updated as the remainder become available. Papers are also listed when they are known to exist but are not yet online.
Updated 21, 22, 28 June
Agenda
GS 1777 Full Agenda
Outline agenda
Papers for debate
GS 1708-09Y Revision Committee Report Women in the Episcopate
GS 1708A draft Women in the Episcopate Measure
GS 1709A Amending Canon No. 30
GS 1708 AX Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1724Z Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects - further report of the Revision Committee
[which refers to GS 1724A Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects (a paper from February 2010)]
GS 1778 Business Committee Report
GS 1779 Term of office of elected members of the Archbishops’ Council
GS 1780 Clergy Pensions: Report from the Archbishops’ Council
GS 1781 Archbishops’ Council 2011 Budget
GS 1782 Faith and Order Commission of the General Synod of the Church of England
GS 1783 Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
GS 1783X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1784 Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Directions 2010
GS 1784X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1785 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Cessation of Contracting Out etc) (Amendment) Rules 2010
GS 1786 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Retirement Age etc) (Amendment) Rules 2010
GS 1787 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Accrual Rate) (Amendment) Rules 2010
GS 1788 The Church of England Pensions (Health and Disability) (Amendment) Rules 2010
GS 1789 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Civil Partners’ Benefits) (Amendment) Rules 2010
GS 1790 The Church of England Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Rules 2010
GS 1791 The Church of England Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2010
GS 1785-91X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1792 Our Fellowship in the Gospel
GS 1793 Review of Constitutions: Report from the Archbishops’ Council
GS 1794 Archbishops’ Council: Annual Report
GS 1796 Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2010
GS 1797 Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees)
GS 1796-97X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1798 Parochial Fees
GS 1798X Explanatory Memorandum
Diocesan Synod Motions
GS 1773A and GS 1773B (Coventry) Deanery Synods
GS 1799A and GS 1799B (Bath and Wells) Clergy Job Sharing
GS 1800A and GS 1800B (Ripon and Leeds)
Private Member’s Motion
GS 1795A and GS 1795B Fresh Expressions
There are several miscellaneous papers issued to synod members, and these are listed here below the fold.
GS Misc 943 Annual Report of the Audit Committee for the Year to 31 May 2010
GS Misc 944 Liturgical Commission Report 2006-2010
GS Misc 945 Mission Development Funding: Analysis of use in 2009
GS Misc 946 Archbishops’ Task Group: Report on Spending Plans 2011-2013
GS Misc 950 The Dioceses Commission: Annual Report 2009
GS Misc 951 Realising the Missionary Potential of Church Buildings
GS Misc 952 Process note - Women in the Episcopate
GS Misc 953 Kairos Palestine
GS Misc 954 Church Tourism (progress report since July 2008)
GS Misc 955 Disclosure of Interests: Guidelines
GS Misc 956 Sharing the Gospel of Salvation
GS Misc 957 Clergy Discipline Commission: Annual Report for 2009
GS Misc 958 Synod Questionnaire Results
GS Misc 959 Correspondence: Religious Broadcasting
GS Misc 960 - Marriage after divorce and the ordained ministry - A statement from the House of Bishops
GS Misc 961 Anglican Methodist Covenant
Some more items in the “mitregate” saga.
Maggi Dawn (whose earlier post Mitregate: the latest church row was linked previously on TA has written two further articles: first, Mitregate (2): “should I go or should I stay, now?”
…My own mailbox this week has had a stream of comments from women who have just been, or are about to be, ordained as priests or deacons. They are disappointed and dismayed as everyone else who sees this whole charade as a massive PR blunder. But there is a personal element too. It swings straight back at them: with one hand the Church has welcomed their giving up of their time, their careers and their economic security in order to serve, while with the other hand, in the very month that they take their orders, it has smacked them down again. You can serve, the Church seems to say, but never dare to forget you are second class citizens.
At one level this whole affair has been a lot of nonsense – as the Presiding Bishop herself said, “It is bizarre; it is beyond bizarre“. But I don’t mind admitting that the onslaught of mockery from those outside the church and disappointment from inside has had me seriously considering hanging up my own cassock.
And also, Mitregate 3:
I feel sure that the Mitregate story will blow over sometime in the next 24 hours. It’s just a small incident, of course – it’s just a hat, it’s just one misunderstanding, it’s not what we are really all about, and it really deserves a good lampooning of the kind Spitting Image used to do so well. For the true picture, you could do no better than to hear or read the marvellous sermon KJS preached at Southwark last weekend. What I regret about this story, though, is that it’s one of a long series of events that make the Church appear out of touch and absorbed in petty details that don’t matter that much.
Many have asked, “What was Lambeth thinking?”. I may be wrong, but my guess is that it was the timing of her visit – so close to our imminent Synod debate on women bishops in England – that made those in Lambeth anxious not to be seen to be forcing the issue. Perhaps this isn’t surprising given that the history of England* has always inclined towards change by degree. We didn’t make the long journey from feudalism to democracy without a war or two, but once France had her revolution we followed with two centuries of political reform, one tiny step at a time. Whether the anxiety for less bloodshed left us with more frustration is hard to say, but it seems that culturally we carved a path we still follow: change comes slowly, with every miniscule step analysed and considered. The seventeenth century proverb (later adapted by Longfellow) could have been written for the Church of England: “God’s mill grinds slow, but sure.”
Kelvin Holdsworth has provided a Scottish perspective in his article Mitregate:
…The short version is that the Presiding Bishop of the US based Episcopal Church was inhibited from wearing a mitre or carrying a pastoral staff whilst visiting Southwark Cathedral last Sunday. I suspect this is because the Church of Englandshire does not recognise that women can become bishops yet and so inhibit women who have been made bishops from acting as bishop or appearing as bishops when in England. It is a kind of small-mindedness that we don’t indulge in up here. Either Bishop Katharine is a bishop or she isn’t. If she is, she gets treated with respect as a bishop or she isn’t and we don’t have to bother about her at all. (It was the same years ago for Bishop Penny from New Zealand who was able to act as a bishop in Scotland even before we had made any decision about women and the Episcopatate but she could not do so in England).
I remember that +Gene Robinson was banned from wearing Episcopal regalia when in England two years ago for similar reasons. However, I could not remember whether he had worn one a titfer liturgically when he came here. It made me look back at the video of that service and I found that he did indeed wear a mitre. Seems to me that making headgear the cause of controversy is displacement activity.
Presumably the no-mitre on +Katharine rule was instigated in order to appease a certain kind of Evangelical lobby group. (Which again, I don’t think we really have up here either, thank God). Oh how sweet the irony that they become the first bible-believing fundamentalists to insist that a woman not wear a hat in public worship…
And it appears that Kenneth Kearon made a comment about this last week in Maryland.
But this Canadian church website has a video which everyone should watch. (h/t SueM)
Jonathan Petre in the Mail on Sunday reports that Archbishops risk ‘bloodbath’ over women priests by letting opponents of reform remain in the clergy.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to make a dramatic intervention in the long-running row over women bishops this week by demanding that opponents of female clergy are not driven out of the Church.
Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu are so concerned thousands of traditionalist churchgoers will quit when women become bishops that they are to risk the wrath of liberals by calling for major reforms in Church legislation.
Sources said their statement will spell out a legal formula that will give traditionalist clergy and parishes the right to reject the authority of a woman bishop…
The Advisory Committee of Communion Partners has issued A Response to the Pentecost Pastoral Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
(To discover who exactly the signatories are, scroll to the bottom.)
I failed to link earlier to the statement from the Chicago Consultation which doesn’t seem to have made it yet to the consultation’s own website. So I have copied it here below the fold.
Another statement comes from The Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission. That one is here: look for The Convent Station Statement on the changing ethos of the Anglican Communion Sunday, June 13, 2010
Andrew Goddard has written at Fulcrum: Reflections on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost Letter: A pathway for Anglican spiritual renewal?
CHICAGO CONSULTATION APPLAUDS PRESIDING BISHOP’S PENTECOST LETTER
CHICAGO, IL, June 4, 2010: The Chicago Consultation’s spokesperson and co-convener, the Rev. Lowell Grisham, released this statement today in response to the Presiding Bishop’s Pentecost letter:
“The Chicago Consultation applauds Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for her pastoral letter to the Episcopal Church in this season of Pentecost and thanks her for her leadership of our ‘broad and inclusive tent,’ said Grisham.
“In her letter, the Presiding Bishop has defended with grace and clarity our Church’s profound and evolving desire to accept gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Christians as full members of the Body of Christ. She has reminded Anglicans who seek to exert authority over other provinces within the Communion that true Anglicanism requires otherwise. And with gracious restraint she has explained why it is godly to honor the customs of indigenous Americans in our liturgy.
“Above all, the Presiding Bishop has soundly rejected the argument that the Anglican Communion can best be held together by breaking faith with its gay and lesbian members. In rejecting this false choice, the Presiding Bishop stands as a witness to all Episcopalians that we need not fear where God is leading us as we endeavor to do justice and seek true communion.”
The Chicago Consultation, a group of Episcopal and Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people, supports the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. To learn more about the Chicago Consultation, visit www.chicagoconsultation.org.
We linked earlier to a report in the Sunday Telegraph: Divorced bishops to be permitted for first time by Church of England, and a report from the Press Association that the House of Bishops was preparing a a statement setting out its approach to these issues.
This report has now been issued: GS Misc 960 - Marriage after divorce and the ordained ministry - A statement from the House of Bishops. We have put a webpage version here.
The statement outlines current practice when considering the ordination as deacon or priest of someone who has divorced and married again and has a former spouse still living, or who is married to a someone who is divorced and who has a former spouse still living. It then says that the House of Bishops have agreed to adopt what is basically the same procedures for potential diocesan or suffragan bishops.
Also available are two background papers, prepared for the House of Bishops, on the legal and theological issues.
Divorce and Episcopal and Appointments: the Legal Position prepared by The Rt Worshipful Charles George QC (Dean of the Arches and Auditor), Sir Anthony Hammond KCB QC (Standing Counsel), Stephen Slack (Chief Legal Adviser) and The Reverend Alexander McGregor (Deputy Legal Adviser) (webpage version)
Note on Divorce as a Disqualification for the Episcopate by Professor Oliver O’Donovan (webpage version)
Updated yet further Thursday afternoon
An audio recording of the Presiding Bishop’s sermon is now available on the cathedral website, along with the text.
Go to this page.
Also, in the afternoon, the Dean of Southwark made comments about the morning event in his sermon, text here.
This morning there is some comment about the event in the Diary column of the Guardian. Read that over here.
Updates
ENS reports from the TEC Executive Council meeting now proceeding in Maryland, that Lambeth Palace tells presiding bishop not to wear symbol of office.
In the week before her visit, the presiding bishop said, Lambeth pressured her office to provide evidence of her ordination to each order of ministry.
“This is apparently a requirement of one of their canons about the ministry of clergy from overseas,” she said.
The presiding bishop said both the ordination and mitre issues put the Very Rev. Colin Slee, Southwark’s dean, “in a very awkward position.”
She called the requirements “nonsense” and said, “It is bizarre; it is beyond bizarre.”
A commenter on another thread has linked to a picture showing the Presiding Bishop carrying her mitre.
The full text of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 can be found here, and further context can be found at this TA article from February 2005 (scroll down to Question 56 and follow the links).
A comment from the thread below has been republished in this article at Episcopal Café:
jdd commenting on the story that the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the Presiding Bishop permission to preach and preside at Southwark Cathedral on the condition that she not cover her hair…
As to precedents:
Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold wore a mitre at Southwark Cathedral in 2006, see Griswold wore mitre at Southwark.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wore a mitre when she preached at Salisbury Cathedral in 2008, see Salisbury diocese welcomes Presiding Bishop, Sudanese bishops for pre-Lambeth hospitality initiative. See this picture.
Ruth Gledhill has written about this on her blog, see Bishop crossed in mitre row. Another picture there too.
The story in The Times is headlined Female US bishop forced to carry mitre in ‘snub’ by Lambeth Palace, but that is behind a paywall.
WATCH has issued the following statement.
MOVING FORWARD ON WOMEN BISHOPS - CALL TO ACTION!
WATCH supports the draft legislation proposed by the Revision Committee as a framework for moving forward without further delay. But this represents a significant compromise.
The ideal
WATCH has always campaigned for the simplest possible legislation for women bishops, that is, a Single Clause Measure. This is the only way of having women bishops without discrimination. A Single Clause Measure would have brought women in the Church of England under the protection of the Equality Act. It would also have put us in step with all other Anglican Provinces that have consecrated women as bishops. Most importantly it would have signaled that the Church now values women as much as men. What is being proposed falls short of this ideal.The current proposals
The draft legislation provides for the consecration of women as bishops with special arrangements for those with conscientious difficulties by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory Code of Practice. This is the approach that Synod approved after lengthy debate in July 2008.Under the proposals, each diocesan bishop would be required to draw up a Scheme in her or his diocese that takes account of a national Code of Practice and provides local arrangements for the performance of certain Episcopal functions in relation to parishes with conscientious difficulties.
In addition such parishes would be able to request, when there is a vacancy, that only a male incumbent or priest-in-charge be appointed.
A compromise for WATCH
It is a significant compromise for WATCH to consider supporting anything short of a Single Clause Measure. However, the Revision Committee has listened to all viewpoints and investigated the practical possibilities with great care. Their lengthy report is a testament to the enormous patience and generosity of their process.The Revision Committee’s proposals
- Allow for the consecration of women as bishops
- Maintain the integrity of the church and the episcopate
- Make provision for those who are opposed to women becoming bishops
There seems to be a consensus emerging across the moderate mainstream that this is a good basis for moving forward.
All these factors lead us to believe that WATCH should support the proposals at Synod. However, this is a compromise so that we can move ahead with women bishops NOW and be as inclusive as we can without compromising the integrity of the episcopate or of women.
Our Concerns
Although we support the legislative framework proposed, WATCH has concerns over certain details of the draft legislation. Our principle concerns are as follows:1. The Code of Practice.
The Code of Practice has not yet been drafted and yet will be key to the content of Schemes that are drawn up at local level. Para 448 of the Revision Committee’s report accepts that ‘much … turns on what the Code of Practice says and the extent to which the bishops … are prepared to commit themselves to a broadly consistent approach across the country’.We have an incomplete picture at present and we are concerned that there is room for many discriminatory practices to return at a later stage in the process. WATCH is prepared to support the draft Measure but we reserve our position on the details of the Code of Practice.
The Revision Committee has recommended that a draft Code of Practice be ready before Final Approval of the legislation. We would urge the preparation and publication of the draft Code at the earliest possible opportunity and endorse the Committee’s proposal that both men and women should be involved in the drafting process.
2. Diocesan Schemes
The Measure does not provide for a ‘national standard’ for Diocesan Schemes and there is no obligation to consult with a local or national advisory group in drawing up a Scheme. This leaves open the possibility that practice will polarise across dioceses with some dioceses continuing to provide a very difficult environment for women in ordained ministry. There is no simple mechanism for challenge or redress if a Scheme is unsatisfactory.Where the Diocesan Bishop will not ordain women, the Scheme makes no provision for the care of parishes who support the ministry of women or for women discerning a vocation to the priesthood.
3. Letters of Request
Provision for those opposed is triggered by the PCC sending a Letter of Request to the Diocesan Bishop. WATCH would like to see the grounds and process for such Letters to be tightened.We are concerned that the PCC need only pass a resolution ‘on grounds of theological conviction’ and that these grounds need not be further specified in the Letter of Request. We are also concerned that the Diocesan Bishop is given no opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of any such ‘theological’ grounds.
These theological grounds need not be of the PCC themselves – the theological convictions of others (also unspecified) is enough. Given the seriousness of the request – alternative Episcopal oversight or the appointment of a male priest – there is need for more rigorous scrutiny of the grounds of a Letter of Request.
WATCH would also like a requirement for wider consultation in the parish before the PCC considers whether to send a Letter of Request.
4. Exemptions from the Equality Act.
WATCH deeply regrets the need to seek exemptions from the Equality Act and will seek to minimise the effect of such exemptions wherever possible.What next ?
The draft legislation returns to Synod in July for its Revision Stage. But, as the House of Bishops recently made clear, this is likely to be a very difficult Session.
Opponents, though a small minority, remain very vocal and, despite the careful listening of the Revision Committee, still claim they have not been heard. There will be attempts at Synod to bring back structural separation, declarations by bishops and other discriminatory measures.
WATCH will oppose any attempts to institutionalise division within the church that creates new barriers to mission. The Revision Committee has already explored the options thoroughly and has found that none of the approaches suggested to them by those opposed would work in practice.
There must be no further concessions to accommodate theologies that demean and diminish women.
WATCH needs you to ACT NOW!
Get involved!
This is a crucial time for the future of our Church. We need your help to ensure that the best possible legislation is passed by Synod and that there are no further delays in the process. Synod has been debating this for more than thirty years. Now is the time for action! Please help us campaign in the weeks leading up to Synod.
Get writing!
- to your Diocesan Bishop,
- to your General Synod representatives
- to the Church and national press
key points to remember
- this legislation is a compromise
- new structural solutions will not work
- the integrity of the church is at stake
- we need to move forward NOW!
Get blogging!
Engage positively with online discussions
Get together!
Meet locally to co-ordinate action and share ideas. Contact WATCH to find friends in your area.
As well as preparing for this Synod we need to make sure that good people stand for the forthcoming General Synod elections. Have you considered standing yourself? We can help you through the process.
Keep praying!
Statement from WATCH (Women and the Church) in response to the Bishop of Durham’s recent comments appealing for further delay in consecrating women as bishops
The Bishop of Durham has suggested to his Diocesan Synod (21 May 2010 at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Diocesan_Address_May_2010.htm) that the Church of England should delay moving forward with the proposed legislation to allow women to be bishops and engage in further theological debate.
WATCH welcomes the Bishop of Durham’s clear support for the ordination of women, but takes issue with his call for delay. As Bishop Tom himself said in his address, the move to the ordination of women ‘has been debated and decided by the whole church meeting in solemn conclave’. Bishop Tom has himself long argued that ordaining women is right according to the Bible.
‘There can be no excuse for delay now. Calling for more theological debate is simply a delaying tactic, and betrays those women and men who have been working and praying for women’s full inclusion in the Church for so long.’ said Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall Holmes - Chaplain and Solway fellow of University College, Durham and member of General Synod.
The Church of England has been discussing this issue for nigh on a century, and Florence Li-Tim Oi, the first Anglican woman priest, was ordained in Hong Kong in 1944 when there were no male priests available to serve the people behind enemy lines in China.The General Synod of the Church of England has been formally debating this issue for over thirty years. In the 1970s General Synod voted that there was no fundamental objection to the ordination of women. Also in the 70s General Synod debated a motion calling for women’s ordination as deacons, priests and bishops. It received a simple majority, but narrowly failed to achieve the two-thirds majority required in each house. The theology of women in the Episcopate has continued to be explored and debated since then. General Synod has now voted three times, in 2005,2006 and 2008, that it is right for women to be made bishops. Let no-one say that this decision is a hasty one.
“Most people in the Church of England just don’t understand what all the fuss is about. They want to see a church focusing its energies outwards rather than constantly wrangling over internal arrangements to suit the minority opposed to women priests and bishops”, said Rev Rachel Weir Chair of WATCH.
The legislation that General Synod will be voting on in July makes substantial provision for those who still wish to reject the ministry of women. A parish will still be able to vote to have only a male priest. If a female bishop is appointed to a diocese, any parish in that diocese will be able to vote to reject her ministry and instead insist on having a male bishop to do things like confirmations in that parish. Anyone who wishes to avoid the ministry of women will still be able to do so.
WATCH would much prefer to have had simple legislation which just made women bishops on the same terms as men. However, we are prepared to accept this compromise position in order to see the leadership of our Church fully open to women as well as men.
WATCH looks forward, with the vast majority of the Church of England, to seeing women as bishops alongside their male colleagues as soon as possible: even if the General Synod votes to proceed in July, this will not be until 2014. Let it be no longer.
Contact:
Sally Barnes, WATCH Media Officer 07759343335 or 0208 731 9860
Hilary Cotton, WATCH Campaign Co-ordinator: 07793817058
Miranda Threlfall – Holmes WATCH and General Synod Member: 0191 334 4116Notes for Editors
WATCH (Women and the Church) is a voluntary organisation of women and men who are campaigning to see women take their place alongside men without discrimination and at every level in the Church of England. This requires the removal of current legal obstacles to the consecration of women as bishops. WATCH believes that the full equality of women and men in the Church is part of God’s will for all people, and reflects the inclusive heart of the Christian scripture and tradition.
ENS has published the full text of the sermon preached at Southwark Cathedral this morning. See Presiding bishop preaches at Southwark Cathedral in London. The text is copied here, below the fold.
I come from a notorious place. Gambling and prostitution are legal in Nevada. Ministry there means that many congregations host 12-step programs not just for alcoholics and drug addicts, but for those addicted to gambling. There are a few groups for sex addicts, too. A story quietly circulated when I was there, about a priest who encouraged the local madams and their employees to visit the churches he served. One congregation made a warm enough welcome that the women of the night returned frequently. Other congregations acted more like Jesus’ fellow dinner guests – “who let her in here?” The women didn’t return to those dinner tables.
I don’t know what it’s like in the Church of England, but in some circles the Episcopal Church has the reputation for being a place where you have to dress correctly, and know how to act – i.e., you really should know all the responses by heart, and how to find your way around the several books we use in worship – or you shouldn’t even bother walking in the front door. Yes, I’ll admit that there are a few places like that, where the local pew-sitters are more afraid than their potential guests, but there are lots more communities where all comers are not just invited, but welcomed with open arms.
I have an old friend, a quirky priest who’s been a college chaplain for decades, who tells about the summer he traveled across the United States visiting different churches. He was camping, and didn’t get a bath every day, but he talked about what a different reception he’d get when he wore his collar, even when he was grubby. The Bishop of Rhode Island spent part of her last sabbatical learning what it’s like to live on the street. She tells about sleeping in homeless shelters in some of her own churches, and then going upstairs to church on Sunday morning. She was never recognized, but she learned a great deal about the welcome and unwelcome of different congregations.
It’s hard work to get to the point where you’re able and willing to see the Lord of love in the odorous street person next to you in the pew. It can be just as hard to find him in the unwelcoming host.
What makes us so afraid of the other? There’s something in our ancient genetic memory that ratchets up our state of arousal when we meet a stranger – it’s a survival mechanism that has kept our species alive for millennia by being wary about strangers. But there’s also a piece of our makeup that we talk about in more theological terms – the part that leaps to judgment about that person’s sins. It’s connected to knowing our own sinfulness, and our tendency toward competition – well, she must be a worse sinner than I am – thank God!
That woman who wanders into Simon’s house comes with her hair uncovered – “oh, scandal! She’s clearly a woman of the street!” And she starts to act in profoundly embarrassing ways, crying all over Jesus’ feet and cleaning up the tears with her hair. And, “oh Lord, now she’s covering him with perfume! We can’t have this in a proper house – what will people think? And I guess now we know just what sort of person this fellow is!”
The scorn that some are willing to heap on others because we think they’ve loved excessively or inappropriately is still pretty well known. Yet it is this woman’s loving response to Jesus that brings her pardon, and Jesus’ celebration of her right relationship with God. She doesn’t even have to ask. Jesus seems to say that evidence of her pardon has already been given – full measure, pressed down, and overflowing – just like her tears and hair and cask of nard.
It’s the same message Jesus offers over and over: “perfect love casts out fear” (1Jn 4:18). It’s actually our fear of the wretchedness within our own souls that pushes us away from our sisters and brothers. Fear is the only thing that keeps us from knowing God’s love – and we most often discover it in the people around us. Jesus wasn’t afraid to eat with sinners, either Simon or the other dinner guests, and he wasn’t afraid of what the woman of the city was going to do to his reputation.
The forgiven woman of the city is sister to the prodigal son. They are both our siblings. We can join that family if we’re willing to let go of that fearful veneer of righteousness. It covers our yearning to be fully known, because we don’t quite think we’re lovable. That veneer is the only thing between us and a whole-hearted “welcome home.” It’s risky to let that veneer be peeled away, but all we risk is love.
That’s what Paul is talking about in his letter to the Galatians. He knows that all his work at observing the fine points of the law is like piling up the layers in a piece of plywood. Those layers of veneer may make plywood strong, but in human beings they have to be peeled away, or maybe traded for transparent ones. The layers won’t right our relationship with God. Love will. Paul says, “if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a sinner.” The veneered self simply can’t be vulnerable enough to receive the love that’s being offered. Can we see the human heart yearning for love in that person over there? Can we recall our own yearning, and find the connection? That’s what compassion is – opening ourselves to love.
Practicing compassion rather than judgment is one way the layers start to fly off. Think about all those dinner guests. The party’s going to be far more interesting if we can find something to love about the curmudgeonly host and his buddies. Rejecting them is going to shut down any real possibility of compassion. It’s risky, yes, but the only thing we risk is our own hearts, and the possibility they’ll overflow as readily as that woman’s tears. It’s a big risk to let the layers go, but the only thing we risk is discovering a brother or sister under the skin.
Jesus invites us all to his moveable feast. He leaves that dinner party with Simon and goes off to visit other places in need of prodigal love and prodigious forgiveness. His companions, literally his fellow tablemates, are the 12 and “some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities.” Hmmm. Strong, healthy women, and three of them are actually named here: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna. Together with many others they supported and fed the community – they became hosts of the banquet.
Those who know the deep acceptance and love that come with healing and forgiveness can lose the defensive veneer that wants to shut out other sinners. They discover that covering their hair or hiding their tears or hoarding their rich perfume isn’t the way that the beloved act, even if it makes others nervous. Eventually it may even cure the anxious of their own fear by drawing them toward a seat at that heavenly banquet. There’s room for us all at this table, there are tears of welcome and a kiss for the wanderer, and the sweet smell of home.
Want to join the feast? You are welcome here. Love has saved you – go in peace. Lean over and say the same to three strangers: you are welcome here. Love has saved you – be at peace.
Updated again Friday afternoon
Two items from the Swanwick conference:
Bishop Katharine calls on Anglicans to ‘speak truth to power’
The presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church in the US has called on Anglicans to help defeat injustice and human suffering.
Speaking at the USPG Annual Conference yesterday, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said ‘missional partnerships, whether Anglican, Christian or inter faith’ were essential for building a worldwide ‘community of peace and justice’.
Thabo Makgoba Addressing Anglican Differences - Spirit and Culture at the Foot of the Cross
‘Jesus Christ is the standard for discerning the path between authentic cultural expression and flawed syncretism, between ensuring we do not quench the Spirit and yet properly testing what we believe may be the Spirit’s leading’ said Archbishop Thabo Makgoba. He was addressing the USPG Annual Conference in Swanwick, England, on ‘Mission Realities for Southern African Anglicans – and their Wider Implications’.
Follow the link above and scroll down for the full text of his address. Here is one extract:
I am convinced that in our current situation within the Communion neither have we done, nor are we continuing to do, enough of this sort of listening to one another. We do not understand one another and one another’s contexts well enough, and we are not sufficiently sensitive to one another in the way we act. Autonomy has gone too far. I do not mean that we should seek a greater uniformity – I hope it is clear I am saying nothing of the sort. But we risk acting in ways that are so independent of one another that it becomes hard for us, and for outsiders, to recognise either a committed interdependent mutuality or a common Christian, Anglican, DNA running through our appropriately contextualised and differentiated ways of being.
Bishop Katharine, what I am going to say next is painful to me, and I fear it may also be to you – but I would rather say it to your face, than behind your back. And I shall be ready to hear from you also, for I cannot preach listening without doing listening. It sometimes seems to me that, though many have failed to listen adequately to the Spirit at work within The Episcopal Church, at the same time within your Province there has not been enough listening to the rest of the Anglican Communion. I had hoped that those of your Bishops who were at the Lambeth Conference would have grasped how sore and tender our common life is. I had hoped that even those who, after long reflection, are convinced that there is a case for the consecration of individuals in same sex partnerships, might nonetheless have seen how unhelpful it would be to the rest of us, for you to proceed as you have done.
There are times when it seems that your Province, or some within it, despite voicing concern for the rest of us, can nonetheless act in ways that communicate a measure of uncaring at the consequent difficulties for us. And such apparent lack of care for us increases the distress we feel. Much as we understand that you are in all sincerity attempting to discern the best way forward within your own mission context, we ask you to be sensitive to the rest of us.
Let me immediately add that, if there were certain others here, I would speak to them equally frankly. Cross border visitations and other moratoria violations have undermined not only your polity, but wider attempts to handle disagreements in a godly way before the face of the watching world. I will also add that, outside the scope of the moratoria, there are too many other shameful and painful ways that ‘gracious restraint’ has not been exercised by various different individuals and groups from all manner of perspectives. These too destructively exacerbate our attempts to live truly as a Communion, and contribute to the way that disagreements over human sexuality and its handling have come to dominate the life of the Anglican Communion to a disproportionate and debilitating extent. When I am interviewed, when I participate in radio phone-ins, no matter what the ostensible topic, again and again I find myself derailed by questions on this. I have to say this undermines our witness; dissipates energies that ought to be spent on the true priorities of mission; and distorts the focus and agenda of the Communion’s common life to an increasingly detrimental degree.
Updates
ENS has a report, ‘Witnessing to Christ Today’: Presiding bishop, Southern Africa primate address USPG conference.
This has links to videos as well:
Video: Presiding bishop addresses USPG on ‘Witnessing to Christ Today’
[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori delivers a keynote address June 9 on the theme “Witnessing to Christ Today,” during the annual meeting of USPG-Anglicans in World Mission in Swanwick, England.
Video: Archbishop of Cape Town Thabo Makgoba addresses USPG conference
[Episcopal News Service] Archbishop of Cape Town Thabo Makgoba delivers a keynote address June 10 as part of the USPG-Anglicans in World Mission annual conference. Makgoba speaks on the theme “Mission Realities for Southern African Anglicans — and their wider implications.
Video: USPG panel tackles issues concerning mission, Anglican identity, human sexuality, environment
[Episcopal News Service] Archbishop of Cape Town Thabo Makgoba and Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori join the Rev. Mark Oxbrow, international director of the Faith2Share network, for a panel discussion June 9 that focuses on issues of local and global mission, Anglican identity, human sexuality and environmental concerns. The discussion was held during the USPG-Anglicans in World Mission annual conference in Swanwick, England.
