WATCH have announced an event A Way in the Wilderness to be held at the start of next week’s meeting of General Synod.
They will be gathering at St Margaret’s Westminster on 6 February from 11.00 am to 2.00 pm for a panel discussion and service in the course of which they will hear from two of the Anglican Communion’s women bishops about their experience of episcopal ministry and pray for the guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit on the General Synod.
Details and an invitation to the event are below the fold.
WATCH (Women and the Church)
‘A Way in the Wilderness’
at St Margaret’s Westminster
Feb 6th 2012 11am – 2pm
General Information
This is a critical time in the Church of England’s journey to ordaining women as bishops. Diocesan voting on the draft legislation showed overwhelming support: 42/44 dioceses voted in favour. The final vote on the proposed legislation will take place at the General Synod meeting in York in July.
At the February group of sessions (Feb 6-9), members of Synod will be discussing the results of the diocesan consultation on the draft legislation, a following motion calling for greater provision for those opposed will be debated and the draft Code of Practice (published on Friday 13th January) will also be presented.
The Event
WATCH is holding ‘A Way in the Wilderness’ on Feb 6th at the beginning of the February Synod. We are gathering at St Margaret’s Westminster for a panel discussion and service in the course of which we will hear from two of the Anglican Communion’s women bishops about their experience of episcopal ministry and pray for the guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit on the General Synod. We are most grateful to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for making us welcome.
As we pray for a way to be found in the wilderness we will be reminded of God’s promise to bring new life even in desert places. Our service will conclude with a silent prayer vigil in Dean’s Yard. Unlit candles will be held by the congregation to symbolise the light of women’s episcopal ministry that is, as yet, unseen by our Church in England.
Aims
WATCH’s aims are to provide the opportunity for supporters of women’s ordained ministry to make a prayerful act of witness at the start of February’s meeting of General Synod. In particular,
Invitation and detailed programme
WATCH (Women and the Church) invites you to join us for
‘A WAY IN THE WILDERNESS’
St Margaret’s, Westminster
Monday 6th February 2012
11.00 am to 2.00 pm
11.00 am Welcome & Coffee
11.30 am Panel discussion
Chaired by the Ven Dr Jane Hedges, Canon Steward of Westminster Abbey
The Rt Revd Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island
The Rt Revd Susan Moxley, Bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island
The Rt Revd Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells
The Revd Canon Dr Judith Maltby, Chaplain of Corpus Christi College, Oxford
The Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Speaker’s Chaplain in the House of Commons
1.00 to 2.00 pm Service
Preacher – The Rt Revd John Gladwin. Former Bishop of Chelmsford
The service will end with a silent prayer vigil in Dean’s Yard
Bring a sandwich lunch, a new candle, and dress warmly!
For more information, contact Hannah Cleugh
(Hannah.cleugh@yahoo.co.uk or 01865 341382)
WATCH has published a paper explaining The Case against the Archbishops’ Amendment. This is reproduced in full below the fold.
The reason for doing this now is that next week the General Synod will debate a Diocesan Synod Motion from the Diocese of Manchester. The motion reads:
That this Synod call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure”.
The briefing papers relating to this can be found here:
Diocese of Manchester
Diocese of Southwark (this diametrically opposed DSM will be moved as an amendment to the Manchester one)
Secretary General’s Background Note
The full voting records from the July 2010 debate, when this was previously considered, can be found here.
The Case against the Archbishops’ Amendment.
Background
The Archbishops’ Amendment was presented to General Synod in June 2010 after the Revision Committee had published its carefully crafted and agreed revised draft legislation. It was an untimely intervention. General Synod did not have scrutiny of how it would work legally or in practice. The Amendment proposes that the diocesan bishop should ‘co-ordinate’ some aspects of episcopal ministry with a male bishop for those parishes that request it, rather than ‘delegate’ this ministry as in the present draft legislation. (“Co-ordinate” is an ambiguous phrase which means variously “share with a willing colleague” and “give away entirely” – experience shows that such ambiguity does not serve the church as a whole)
General Synod debated this Amendment in July 2010 and it was defeated. For those who were not then members of General Synod, the debate is well worth reading. It can be found at www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/general-synod/reports-of-proceedings/july-2010-group-of-sessions.aspx pages 150 - 168
Why do we not support the Archbishops’ Amendment?
A. It proposes an apparently legally ‘tidy’ solution that is not an appropriate answer to a pastoral and theological problem.
1. Only a few words in the Measure would be changed: but they are crucial words, for they are the words that would, in law, give all Diocesan bishops the retention of authority over their entire Dioceses. If these words were changed then the Church of England’s traditional historic understanding of episcopacy within a Diocese would be undermined. A parish would then have two bishops with equal jurisdiction, only one of whom they would recognise and only one of whom would regard the other as a bishop.
2. The Amendment would not satisfy the stated need for ‘sacramental assurance’, since co-ordinate jurisdiction would continue to be with a male bishop, not by law a male bishop who has not ordained women or been ordained by a woman.
3. The wording is apparently simple but the consequences have not been examined. General Synod has not seen any work on how the Amendment would work in practice, or any exploration of unforeseen consequences. The debate in July 2010 illustrated how differently the two Archbishops understood the Amendment, as well as how Synod members struggled to interpret the wording.
4. The parallel with Area bishops or army chaplaincy or prison chaplain falls down because of the fact that in this case one party does not recognise the other’s orders and authority. In the offered parallels each party, and those amongst whom they minister, recognises the authority of both bishops (or priests), who can act interchangeably. In this case they cannot. This changes the whole nature of the sharing, where one party has full recognition and the other does not.
5. If the two Coordinate bishops in a Diocese were to disagree, whose authority would prevail? If the female (Diocesan) bishop’s, then surely this is what is offered in the draft legislation; if the (Coordinate) male bishop’s, then this is the same as statutory transfer, which General Synod resoundingly rejected.
6. A Diocesan bishop is a sign and focus of unity across his or her Diocese. This would be sorely challenged when there would be parishes in almost every Diocese where there were overlapping jurisdictions and two Diocesan bishops, one of whom would not recognise the other.
7. Provincial Episcopal Visitors minister to parishes under the delegated authority of Diocesan bishops who have ordained women, doing so because such parishes are unwilling to accept the ministry of their Diocesan bishops. If this has been acceptable for nearly twenty years, then why suddenly is such delegation not acceptable?
8. What will happen when both Archbishops have consecrated women? Who will be left to consecrate the bishops who are not only against women’s ordination but who believe that a male (arch)bishop is unacceptable and invalidates his orders when he ordains or consecrates a woman?
9. Senior women clergy have repeatedly indicated that they would not be prepared to accept appointment as bishops under such amended legislation. Moreover, the Archbishops have never discussed their amendment with senior women clergy, whereas senior women have been well represented on the Revision Committee and the Code of Practice drafting group.
B. For all its (superficially appealing) suggestion of sharing authority and new models of episcopacy, this amendment is still based on the notion that women are a problem and need to be legislated for, to keep the problem from spreading to the whole church.
1. It would put in law a question mark over the Episcopal orders and authority of female bishops. If a female Diocesan bishop must, in law, share her authority with a male bishop who does not recognise her orders, then her status and authority as a bishop would be called into question. This would perpetuate the sense that the Church is ‘not quite sure’ that women are fully human and of equal value in the sight of God.
2. It might be good for the Church to consider different models of authority – but not to take that step simply because it is women who are consecrated.
3. The co-ordinate arrangements would apply not only where there was a female bishop but in almost every other Diocese: where the Diocesan bishop supports the ministry of women and is prepared both to ordain and to participate in the consecration of women. It is therefore legislation which is based around the idea of women as a problem . . .
4. . . . unless it is possible to “pick your Bishop” on other theological grounds – eg interpretation of Scripture, issues re human sexuality – but who wants to go down that path? We would not even conceive of offering such a choice in relation to race or ethnicity.
5. We seem to be losing sight, through trying desperately to accommodate a small minority, of the fact that the Church has decided that women should be ordained in all three orders. Being held by a majority doesn’t automatically make a viewpoint right, but this viewpoint has been very carefully discerned by the Church and should be implemented in a way that does not undermine its central aim.
C. The current draft legislation offers good provision to those opposed to women’s ordination as priest and bishops, but there are fears about what an extension of the current provision would create.
1. Those with difficulties now have three specially consecrated suffragan bishops who act as Provincial Episcopal Visitors. When the Act of Synod is rescinded, the title of PEV will go but their Sees will not. Presumably they will then become suffragan bishops working as part of the Episcopal teams in Canterbury and York Dioceses, but will also be available to minister in parishes in other Dioceses under local Diocesan Schemes created in response to the Measure.
2. If co-ordinate Bishops, like PEVs, work across a whole province, we are in danger of moving towards the “additional dioceses” model, with jurisdiction conferred directly by virtue of the Measure rather than by delegation from the Diocesan. This was clearly rejected by Synod and would undermine the aim of this legislation to enable people of differing views, all loyal Anglicans, to work together in the service of God and God’s people.
WATCH (Women and the Church)
January 2012
Last week’s Church Times carried a detailed report which is now available to non-subscribers: Synod given chance to signal its wishes on women bishops by Margaret Duggan and Ed Thornton.
THE subject of women bishops will dominate the General Synod’s meeting in Church House, Westminster, next month.
Dr Colin Podmore, the new Clerk to the Synod, said at a press briefing a week ago that there were four separate items about it on the agenda, with ten documents to back them. It would be the first time that the membership of the current Synod, elected a year-and-a-half ago, has tackled the subject, and so it would be of great interest to see which way they might go.
The secretary-general, William Fittall, refused to speculate on any outcome. He said that it would be a very significant chapter in a debate that had already gone on for more than a decade. It would be a chance for the Synod to reflect on the draft legislation, and on the Illustrative Draft Code of Practice.
Members would be invited to make suggestions and recommendations, but not to make amendments; only the House of Bishops could amend the legislation when it met in May. Should any of those amendments be substantial, the legislation would have to be referred to the diocese again; otherwise, the final vote could be next July…
Scroll down the same page for a second article: Illustrative code by Glyn Paflin.
THE Code of Practice on women bishops cannot be settled until the Measure itself has been passed, but the Synod will debate an Illustrative Draft Code of Practice on the Tuesday of its next meeting.
Drafted by a House of Bishops working party, chaired by the Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, it supersedes the illustrative draft produced by another group in 2008, owing The House of Bishops debated the new draft code in December, and the Archbishops’ foreword to the report says that the House “does not wish to see any outcome that would entrench radical division or given any impression of a ‘two-tier’ episcopate”. But it is committed to “the most adequate and sustainable provision for theological dissent over the ordination of women”, and seeks “a balanced provision” that will enable all members of the Church of England to “flourish”.
The House has committed itself to three principles: (1) ensuring that bishops do not discriminate when selecting candidates for ordination on grounds of their theological convictions about the admission of women to holy orders; (2) paying heed, when new bishops are chosen to provide episcopal ministry under diocesan schemes, to the theological convictions on women’s ordination of those who issued the Letter of Request for their ministry; and (3) maintaining a supply of bishops who can minister to those unable to accept women bishops…
Earlier this week Andrew Brown wrote for the Guardian that The Church of England’s fudge on female bishops is breathtaking.
The Church of England’s House of Bishops – for which, read the archbishops of Canterbury and York – has explained how they hope to mollify the opponents of female clergy. The proposals are breathtaking.
The archbishops envisage that the Church of England, once it has female bishops, will continue ordaining men who do not accept these women, finding them jobs they will deign to accept, and promoting some of them to be bishops who will work to ensure the continued supply of male priests who refuse to accept female clergy. In fact, the church will pay three bishops (the formerly “flying” sees of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, and Beverley) to work full time against their female colleagues, and to nourish the resistance.
The General Synod, last summer, rejected the archbishops’ plan to fix a reservation in law where the opponents could live as if nothing had changed. Now they have brought back the same proposals, but call them “a code of practice” instead. In theory, this gives both sides what they want. In reality neither will find it easy to accept.
Obviously this will be unacceptable to most supporters of women’s ordination. But the cream of the joke is that it will probably be unacceptable to their principled opponents as well. The unscrupulous ones will, of course, be very happy with the deal.
Despite all these concessions, there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don’t want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women’s authority wherever it appears.
This is apparently Rowan Williams’s idea of justice…
To read in full what the archbishops wrote in their Foreword to the Report of the Working Group on an Illustrative Draft Code of Practice, see the first couple of pages of GS Misc 1007, available as a PDF here.
The usual pre-synod press release has been issued by the Church of England this morning, and is copied below. It provides a summary of the business, much of which has nothing to do with women bishops.
Agenda for February 2012 General Synod
16 January 2012
Women bishops central to General Synod agenda that includes debates on assisted dying, health care, House of Lords reform, and Eucharistic prayers for use when children are present
The General Synod will meet at Church House from 2.15 pm on Monday 6 February until late-afternoon Thursday 9 February.
The Synod will be spending a significant amount of time on the major legislative process designed to make it possible for women to be bishops while also making some provision for those who, for theological reasons, will not be able to receive their ministry. This will be the present Synod’s first opportunity to engage with that process since it was elected 18 months ago.
There will be four separate items of business dealing with different aspects of this complicated process, on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. These include fine-tuning of the draft Measure and consideration of making specific requests to the House of Bishops in relation to the next stage of the process in May. In addition, the Synod will have a presentation and opportunity for questions on the report from a working group on an illustrative draft Code of Practice that would be made once the legislation had been approved. These debates lead towards a possible final debate in July.
Other items of legislative business include the approval of an Order that completes a new framework for the charging of fees for weddings, funerals etc and the revision of a draft Measure amending aspects of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.
Legislation is an important function of the Synod but not the only one. Its Constitution says its second main function is ‘to consider and express their opinion on any other matters of religious or public interest’. There are some quite important matters of religious and public interest on the agenda for February.
On the Monday, Synod will be asked to approve the sending of a Loyal Address to H. M. the Queen on her Diamond Jubilee. By coincidence there will be an added poignancy in the fact that 6 February will be the 60th anniversary of King George VI’s death and therefore of The Queen’s Accession. Synod will also be invited to approve the appointment of a new member of the Archbishops’ Council, whose name will be announced nearer the time.
Synod will have the opportunity to debate an important matter of religious and public interest in the Private Members Motion on the issue of assisted suicide. Also of interest will be a presentation on the Tuesday about the Anglican Alliance for Relief, Development and Advocacy. This was established by the Archbishop of Canterbury and grew out of the 2008 Lambeth Conference. It aims to co-ordinate the work of the Anglican Communion internationally on relief and development issues.
On the Tuesday evening members of the Synod will join members of the United Reformed Church for a service in Westminster Abbey marking both the 350th anniversary of the departure from the Established Church of those who felt unable to accept ordination by bishops and use the Book of Common Prayer and also the 40th anniversary of the inauguration of the United Reformed Church, which took place in the Abbey.
There is a significant matter of internal Synod business on Wednesday, 8 February. Up to now, the Chair of the Business Committee which sets the Synod’s agenda has been appointed from among the six members directly elected to the Archbishops’ Council. That is a very narrow pool and it is now proposed that in future the Chair of the Business Committee should be elected by and from among the whole Synod. There are a number of other miscellaneous amendments to the Standing Orders.
Synod is in the process of authorizing new Eucharistic Prayers for use at services at which there are significant numbers of children present - at a Communion service in a church school, for example. They have been revised in the light of members’ comments and the Synod will consider the revised texts on Thursday 9 February.
The Synod will also receive a presentation about how the Church plans to respond to changes in the funding of higher education which will have a significant impact on the cost of training new clergy. At present, ordinands receive degrees and certificates from 19 different universities. The proposal is that the Church of England, with its partner churches, should establish a single suite of HE awards with a single set of validation arrangements. Some ordinands will continue to study for general theology degrees of universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, but for those on courses leading to a qualification specifically designed for ordinands there will only be one set of qualifications.
Finally, on the Thursday afternoon there will be a debate on the reform of the House of Lords and a debate about Health Care. The Church of England has always had a strong commitment to the ideals of the NHS. The debate will give the Synod an opportunity to offer a public expression of the Church’s concerns and priorities in the light of its vocation to seek health and healing. There is a particular call in the motion for chaplaincy provision to remain part of the core structure of the NHS, a position recently backed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. There is also a commendation of the work of Anglican agencies and networks in promoting health and wholeness worldwide.
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 (www.churchofengland.org) ahead of the General Synod sessions.
A live feed will be available courtesy of Premier Radio (accessible from front page www.churchofengland.org), and audio files of debates, along with updates on each day’s proceedings, will be posted during the sessions.
Online copies of the papers for the February 2012 meeting of General Synod are starting to appear online; they are listed below, with links and a note of the day they are scheduled for debate. I will update the list as more papers become available.
Updated Friday 27 January All papers are now online and linked below. In addition they can all be downloaded in one zip file.
Updated Monday 30 January The first eight notice papers are also available and are linked below.
The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1849) includes a forecast of future business, and I have copied this below the fold.
The Church of England’s own list of papers is presented in agenda order.
GS 1848 Full Agenda
GS 1849 Report by the Business Committee [Monday]
Women Bishops legislation
GS Misc 1007 Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure: Draft Code of Practice2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1854A, GS 1854B, GS 1854C Diocesan Synod Motion: Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Wednesday]
GS 1847 Report by the Business Committee on the Article 8 Reference [Wednesday]
GS 1708B Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Thursday]
GS 1709B Draft Amending Canon
GS 1708-9Z Report by the Steering Committee (GS 1708-9Z)
GS Misc 1012 Women in the Episcopate: Future Process
Other papers for debate
GS 1814A Draft Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1814Y Report by the Revision Committee
GS 1822A Additional Eucharistic Prayers [Thursday]
GS 1822Y Report by the Revision Committee
GS 1846A and GS 1846B Diocesan Synod Motion: Appointment of Archdeacons [Wednesday]
GS 1850 Approval Of Appointments To The Archbishops’ Council [Monday]
GS 1851A and GS 1851B Private Member’s Motion: Independent Commission On Assisted Dying [Monday]
GS 1852 Draft Parochial Fees and Scheduled Matters Amending Order 2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1852X Explanatory Memorandum
GS Misc 1015 Draft Fees Order, An explanation of the proposed fee levels
GS 1853 Draft Diocese in Europe Measure 2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1853X Explanatory Memorandum (GS 1853X)
GS 1855 Chair of the Business Committee and Miscellaneous Amendments: Forty-Sixth Report of the Standing Orders Committee [Wednesday]
GS 1856A and GS 1856B Private Member’s Motion: Reform Of The House Of Lords [Thursday]
GS 1857 Health Care and the Church’s Mission: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council [Thursday]
GS 1858 The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2012
GS 1858X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1859A and GS 1859B Manifestation of Faith in Public Life [contingency business]
GS Misc 1008 Higher Education Funding Changes [Thursday]
Other papers
GS Misc 1003 Lords Spiritual: Parliamentary Spokespeople
GS Misc 1004 House of Lords Reform
GS Misc 1005 Civil Partnerships in Religious Premises
GS Misc 1006 The 39th Report of the Central Stipends Authority
GS Misc 1009 Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches
GS Misc 1010 Report on Pensions and Remuneration
GS Misc 1011 The Church of England and the Anglican Church in North America
GS Misc 1012 Women in the Episcopate: Future Process
GS Misc 1013 Archbishops’ Council Annual Report
GS Misc 1014 The August Riots, Responding to Austerity and the State of Society
GS Misc 1015 Draft Fees Order, An explanation of the proposed fee levels
GS Misc 1016 Archbishops’ Council Apportionment 2012 and table
GS Misc 1017 Resourcing Christian Community Action: Parishes and Partnerships
GS Misc 1018 Archbishops’ Council response to Richard Moy’s Private Member’s Motion on Visual and Video resources for worship
HBM2 House of Bishops: Summary of Decisions
A(12)1 Appointments Committee: Recent Appointments
Notice Papers
Notice Paper 1
Notice Paper 2
Notice Paper 3
Notice Paper 4
Notice Paper 5
Notice Paper 6
Notice Paper 7
Notice Paper 8
Forecast of future Synod business
July 2012
Legislative BusinessFinancial Business
The Church of England General Synod will meet in London from 6 to 9 February. We have already published the outline agenda and an article about the women bishops legislation.
The usual pre-synod press briefing was held yesterday, resulting in these two reports. Apart from one sentence in each case, they are entirely about the women bishops legislation.
Ed Thornton in the Church Times Women bishops: weathervane debate next month
If the Bishops do amend the legislation, it will be up to the “group of six” — the two Archbishops, the chair and vice-chair of the House of Laity, and the two prolocutors — to decide, after legal advice, whether those amendments have changed the substance of the legislation. If so, it would have to be sent back to the dioceses for further consideration.
Martin Beckford in The Telegraph Archbishops reassure traditionalists ahead of women bishops debates
The two most senior clerics in the Church have stated that they do not want would-be priests to be discriminated against if they oppose the ordination of women.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York also said they would try to ensure there is a continuing supply of traditionalist bishops to cater for parishes who do not want to be looked after by a female bishop.
The papers for Synod are not yet online, but we will list them when they are.
The Business Committee report on the reference to diocesan synods of the legislation to allow women bishops was emailed to synod members today. It is also available online as GS 1847.
The report includes the detailed voting figures on the motion in favour of the legislation (42 dioceses in favour and two against). Five diocesan bishops exercised their right to have a statement of their opinion recorded in the minutes of their diocesan synods and, as required by General Synod standing orders, these are included in the report. The report also gives details of all the following motions (whether passed or not).
The outline agenda for the February meeting of the Church of England General Synod includes these three items concerned with the legislation to allow women bishops.
Women in the Episcopate: Draft Code of Practice: Presentation and questions (Tuesday afternoon)
Women in the Episcopate: Manchester DSM (Southwark DSM as an amendment) (Wednesday afternoon)
This is the Manchester diocesan synod motion as it will have been submitted to General Synod.
That this Synod [i.e. the General Synod] call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure
and this is the motion from Southwark
That this Synod:
(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods; and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval
request the House of Bishops not to exercise its power under Standing Order 60(b) to amend the draft Measure.
Women in the Episcopate: Final Drafting (Thursday afternoon)
At final drafting the steering committee can propose amendments that deal with matters previously overlooked or that clarify the wording. Members of the Synod no longer have the opportunity to propose amendments. Also this is not the point at which the House of Bishops can exercise its powers of amendment.
The Church of England General Synod will meet in London from 6 to 9 February 2012. The outline agenda is available online and is copied below.
2.15 p.m. Prayers, introductions, welcomes, progress of legislation
Loyal Address
Report by the Business Committee
Dates of Groups of Sessions in 2014-2015
Appointments to the Archbishops’ Council
Private Member’s Motion: Mrs Sarah Finch: Independent Commission on Assisted Dying
Questions
[brief evening worship]
9.30 a.m. Worship
Legislative Business
Draft Parochial Fees and Scheduled Matters Amending Order 2012
Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure – Revision Stage
Diocese in Europe (Amendment) Measure – First Consideration
2.30 p.m. Women in the Episcopate: Draft Code of Practice: Presentation and questions
Legislative business not completed in the morning sitting
Presentation by Sally Keeble on the Anglican Alliance for Relief, Development and Advocacy, followed by questions
5.30 p.m. Session ends
6.15 p.m. Joint service with the United Reformed Church at Westminster Abbey
9.15 a.m. Holy Communion in the Assembly Hall
Chichester DSM: Appointment of Archdeacons
Legislative Business
Women in the Episcopate: Report on Reference to Dioceses
2.30 p.m. Women in the Episcopate: Manchester DSM (Southwark DSM as an amendment)
Report of the Standing Orders Committee
[brief evening worship]
9.30 a.m. Worship
Liturgical Business
Additional Eucharistic Prayers
Legislative Business
Women in the Episcopate: Final Drafting
Higher Education Funding Changes: Presentation and questions
2.30 p.m. Private Member’s Motion: Professor Anthony Berry: Reform of the House of Lords
Health and the Church’s Mission:Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council
Farewell
Prorogation
Contingency Business
PMM: The Revd Stephen Trott: Manifestation of Faith in Public Life
The 2010 office and working costs of bishops in the Church of England were published today (27 October).
Bishops’ Office and Working Costs for the year ended 31 December 2010
Reports for previous years (back to 2005) are available here.
The questions asked at last month’s Church of England General Synod, and the answers, are now available online.
The detailed results of the electronic votes at this month’s General Synod are now available.
Item 12 Results
private member’s motion on Mission action planning in the Church of England
Item 13 Results
motion on higher education funding changes
Item 14 Results
motion on report on Anglican-Methodist Covenant
Item 19 Results
diocesan synod motion on House of Laity elections
Item 20 Results
motion on report by the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
Item 502 Results
motion to finally approve the Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure
Item 504A Results
That the Parochial Fees Order 2011 be considered.
The full texts of the motions can be found in the official record of the Synod’s business, Business Done July 2011, which is also now available.
The Church Times detailed reports of this month’s General Synod are now available to non-subscribers as a pdf download from this page.
There are also these three news reports.
C of E in ‘ticklish’ position over its Murdoch shares
C of E faces demise in ‘perfect storm’ Synod is told
Williams: Focus on South Sudan to prevent genocide
I reported here that the draft Parochial Fees Order 2011 had been defeated at General Synod earlier this month. This order proposed revised fees for weddings and funerals from 1 January 2012.
I wrote then that the current order (the 2010 Order) would remain in force. William Fittall, the Secretary General, has today issued a paper (GS Misc 999) explaining in detail the implications of Synod’s decision. His paper includes topics such as transitional arrangements for incumbents who have not assigned their fees, what PCCs may and may not charge in addition to the statutory fees, and when fees may be waived.
Our html copy of GS Misc 999 is here.
I reported here a week ago that the Bishop of Dover had withdrawn his nomination to be the chair of the General Synod’s Business Committee.
William Fittall, the Secretary General, has today issued a paper (GS Misc 998 Appointment of the Chairs of the General Synod’s Business Committee) explaining the background to the bishop’s nomination. The paper also outlines a proposal from the House of Laity Standing Committee that the chair of the Business Committee should not be a bishop, but should be chosen from a wider pool of clergy and laity than is currently eligible. It concludes by inviting comments on what to do next for consideration by the Archbishops’ Council.
Our html copy of GS Misc 998 is here.
Three Questions were asked at General Synod last Friday about the Legal Opinion issued as GS Misc 992. They were answered together.
Question 7
Mrs Sue Johns (Norwich) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Has the House considered the issues addressed in GS Misc 992?
Question 8
The Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops”
Q. Given the legal opinion offered in GS Misc 992 (‘Equality Act’) can the House indicate the following:
a. Which individuals or bodies are responsible for weighing and, if appropriate, adopting this opinion as policy;
b. The process by which this opinion shall be weighed and, if appropriate, adopted;
c. How these deliberations will be communicated to this Synod and candidates for episcopal appointment?
Question 9
The Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett (Southwark) to ask the House of Bishops:
Q. As we have in effect debated paras 14-18 of GS Misc 992 regarding divorce and remarriage at the February Synod, what process does the House envisage to ensure that a debate on the complete paper takes place, recognising that the circulation of a paper to Synod by the Legal Office does not create policy?
The Bishop of Norwich to reply:
A. With permission, I shall answer this and the related questions from Simon Butler and Rosemarie Mallet together.
The Legal Office note was produced in December and made available to members of successive Crown Nominations Commissions and to all diocesan bishops in connection with episcopal appointments. It explains the implications of the legal framework created by the Equality Act so that those making appointments understand the parameters within which they now have to operate. It offers no policy advice. The relevant policy documents are the well known texts referred to in the document, to which must now be added last Friday’s modest supplement from the House.
The policy issue on civil partnerships is now for the review of the 2005 statement and the Church’s stance on same sex relations more generally will be addressed in the consultation document that the House will produce in the light of the listening process in 2013.
Supplementary Question from Simon Butler:
While I welcome the House of Bishops clarity that GS Misc 992 isn’t the policy of the Church, nevertheless it is the legal opinion of the church’s lawyers. Can the Bishop confirm then what freedom the House of Bishops has to depart from this legal opinion?
A. Well, I think what the legal opinion seeks to do is to explain for those involved in episcopal appointments what the law permits. It simply refers back to formal statements of the Church of England’s policy, including statements by the House of Bishops on divorce and civil partnerships, and of course that’s been amended in the light of what the synod decided last February, but it actually offers no policy advice. And the House of Bishops statement is about policy reviews, not prejudging their outcome.
Supplementary Question from Rosemarie Mallett:
Again, we thank you for the clarity of your answer. As part of the review process that will be now ongoing, can we be assured that the House of Bishops will consult with members of the House of Clergy and the House of Laity, before bringing the final consultation document to synod in 2013, so that we have a truly dialogic as well as listening process between now and 2013.
A. Well I think that what we hope for in the 2013 review, which will cover matters related to human sexuality, is to try and create an account of what’s gone on in the listening process, which has included clergy and laity over the course of the past decade or more. And there is a sense in which quite a lot of that work of course has already included clergy and laity, and how that review group will go about its work I can’t say, but it would be very surprising if it did not include consultation with clergy and lay people, to produce the sort of document that we hope would be representative of the mind of the church as a whole.
A Question was asked at General Synod last Friday about this. (The deadline for filing Questions was several days prior to the issue of GS Misc 997.)
Question 6.
The Ven Jan McFarlane (Norwich) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. What consideration has the House given to the eligibility for the episcopate of those in civil partnerships?
The Bishop of Norwich to reply:
A. As Synod members will now have seen from GS Misc 997, which was issued last Friday, the House of Bishops has decided to review the pastoral statement on civil partnerships that it issued in July 2005 before the Civil Partnership Act came into force. That review will, among other things, address an issue on which the 2005 statement was silent, namely whether those in civil partnerships should be eligible to become bishops. To avoid breaking new ground while the review is in progress the House has concluded that clergy in civil partnerships should not at present be nominated for Episcopal appointment. The review will be concluded next year.
Supplementary Question from Mr John Ward (London):
In welcoming GS Misc 997 most sincerely and the review of the civil partnerships statement, will the House engage with the whole People of God when reviewing this statement, including lesbian and gay people in civil partnerships, and if so how?
A. Well, that will be a matter for the review group when it is established, how it goes about its work, and I think I wouldn’t want to say more than that. But your point is well made.
Several Questions were put down for answers at Question Time last Friday relating to the Anglican Church in North America. Only one of them was reached during the session, but the written answers prepared for the others were issued afterwards (and are reproduced below the fold).
Question 40.
Ms Susan Cooper (London) to ask the Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
Q. Father Thomas Seville CR, ‘of the Faith and Order Commission of the Church of England’ was welcomed as a ‘participant and observer’ at the Provincial Council 2011 of the Anglican Church of North America in Long Beach, California. What was the status of his attendance from the point of view of the Faith and Order Commission?
The Bishop of Chichester to reply as Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
A. Fr Seville attended the ACNA Provincial Council as an observer at my request following a resolution of the General Synod in February 2010.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had subsequently highlighted certain questions on which he and the Archbishop of York would value the thinking of the Faith and Order Commission in preparing the requested report.
As Fr Seville is one of the two members of the Faith and Order Commission most closely associated with its work on “continuing churches” in the light of a resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, he attended as an observer on behalf of and reporting to the Commission in order to assist our work in advising the Archbishops.
Supplementary Question by Ms Cooper:
Would the bishop clarify how the visit… was funded?
A. It was entirely funded by the Anglican Church in North America.
Question 75.
The Revd Stephen Pratt (Lichfield) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishopss:
Q. What steps are being taken by the House to enable the Archbishops to respond to the resolution passed by the Synod in February 2010 on a motion moved by Mrs Lorna Ashworth in relation to the Anglican Church in North America, given that the Archbishops’ report requested in that resolution is due this year and there may not be a Group of Sessions in November.
Questions 76.
Mr Clive Scowen (London) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. What steps has the House taken or will it now take to enable and encourage the Archbishops to respond to the Synod’s invitation, in a resolution passed on Wednesday 10 February 2010, “to report further to the Synod in 2011” in relation to the desire and aspiration of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family and to the necessary further exploration by the relevant authorities of the issues raised by that aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion.
The Bishop of Chichester to reply:
A. With the permission of the Chair I should like to answer this question and a similar one from Mr Clive Scowen together.
As indicated in my earlier reply to a question from Ms Susan Cooper, the Faith and Order Commission is undertaking work on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Faith and Order aspects of any development of relations between the Church of England and ACNA. This work will help to resource a report from the Archbishops to members of Synod that will be sent out before the end of the year.
Updated to add link to official summary
Updated Tuesday night and Wednesday morning
General Synod - summary of business Tuesday 12th July 2011 AM
Synod ended its meeting in York at lunchtime today.
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a presidential statement about Christians in the Holy Land: Archbishop launches appeal for Christians in the Holy Land, and showed this video: Christians in the Holy Land Conference 2011.
Riazat Butt of The Guardian has blogged the final day.
Tim Ross writes in The Telegraph Christians should learn how to be a ‘minority’ from Muslims, bishop says
This refers to the Bishop of Bradford, who responds on his blog with Minority matters.
The Star has Church could train clergy.
Ekklesia has C of E seeks to change ‘pale, male and stale’ leadership.
Ruth Gledhill has written this blog article about Monday’s motion on elections to the House of Laity: General Synod in York: Church of England votes for fairer votes [also online here].
Tuesday night update
Tim Ross in The Telegraph News of the World: Church of England retains stake in Murdoch empire
Press Association Bishop: Apply values to all lessons
Wednesday morning update
Tim Ross in The Telegraph Ageing Church of England ‘will be dead in 20 years’
Martha Linden in The Independent Church of England faces extinction, says cleric
Rosie Harper looks back at the recent meeting of General Synod for Cif belief: General Synod: saved by an archbishop on fire.
“The unspeakable tedium of General Synod was enlivened by Rowan Williams’s rallying call for a new language of faith.”
The Independent has this story from the Press Association: Church votes to recruit minorities.
Riazat Butt has blogged Monday’s business for The Guardian.
Tim Ross in The Telegraph Church of England bishops meet ministers over ‘chilling’ effect of equality laws.
General Synod - summary of business Monday 11th July 2011 AM
General Synod - summary of business Monday 11th July 2011 PM
This will be updated later with the evening session summary.
The PM summary now includes the evening session.
Updated Monday evening
Updated Tuesday morning
Synod was due to vote on a motion to appoint the Bishop of Dover as the chair of its business committee this morning. This followed the adjournment of a debate on a similar motion in February. There is a lot of opposition in Synod to any bishop chairing this committee.
But instead the Bishop of Dover made a personal statement to Synod saying that he was withdrawing his name from consideration. The Archbishop of Canterbury then effectively told Synod off for putting the bishop in this position.
Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, has written about the background to choosing the chair of the business committee and why it should not be a bishop. Do read his article.
On Chairing the Business Committee.
Monday evening updates
Riazat Butt has obtained the full text of Rowan Williams’ remarks this morning, and they can be found at the bottom of this page of her live blog of the Synod. See item timed at 6.11 pm.
There is another transcription of both the Bishop of Dover and the Archbishop of Canterbury over here at TitusOneNine.
Tuesday morning update
Tim Ross writes in the Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury rebukes senior Anglicans in row over Bishop of Dover appointment
Today’s business
The members of General Synod joined the congregation at York Minster for the 10.00 am Eucharist today (Sunday). The preacher was the Rt Revd Peter Skov-Jakobsen, the Bishop of Copenhagen. Alastair Cutting has published the text of the bishop’s sermon: The Bishop of Copenhagen’s sermon.
Official summary: General Synod - summary of business Sunday 10th July 2011 PM
Comment on yesterday’s business
David Green writes on his blog about yesterday’s vote against the new Parochial Fees Order: Synod, wedding fees and allowing some churches to rake it in.
Savi Hensman has written about the presidential address given on Saturday by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Church is “the visible sign of a faithful God”, declared the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was speaking at the Church of England’s General Synod on 9 July 2011, in York. He expressed the view that those present were “entrusted with the strength not to abandon and the joy of knowing ourselves not abandoned.”
Rowan Williams made many valuable points in his presidential address to Synod, the Church of England’s key decision-making body. Yet his lack of acknowledgement of the Church’s mixed record raises some concerns…
Changing Attitude has published some comment about the note sent to synod members from the House of Bishops about the Equality Act and the appointment of celibate people in a civil partnership as a bishop.
See Bishops in the church and the Equality Act.
The House of Bishops sent a note to Synod members about the Equality Act and the appointment of celibate people in a civil partnership as a bishop. The legal advice is discriminatory and unworkable. No priest who is gay, let alone in a civil partnership, is going to reveal their sexual orientation when confronted by five such intrusive questions.
The legal note will simply encourage people to stay in the closet, maintaining secrecy about their sexual orientation for all gay (and eventually, lesbian) clergy who are nominated for episcopal office…
Martha Linden of the Press Association (in The Independent) Archbishop attacks self-indulgence
Tim Ross in The Telegraph Phone-hacking scandal: Church of England could withdraw £4 million from News Corp
Jodie Ginsberg and Olesya Dmitracova for Reuters Church of England threatens to pull News Corp investment
Anonymously in The Telegraph Church blocks funeral costs rise
And at the BBC Church of England wedding price rise rejected
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in The Telegraph Archbishop Williams calls for church schools to be inclusive
There is also this press release from the Church of England today about school admissions policies: Publication of new church school admissions advice
General Synod - summary of business Saturday 9th July 2011 AM
General Synod - summary of business Saturday 9th July 2011 PM
As we reported earlier Synod debated the Parochial Fees Order this afternoon. This order proposed revised fees for weddings and funerals from 1 January 2012.
In the debate (on a motion to “consider” the order), most speeches were against various aspects of the new fees order and many alternative, often contradictory, proposals were made. At the end the motion was defeated with 134 votes in favour and 166 votes against, with 18 recorded abstentions.
As a consequence the new order cannot come into effect. Unless and until a new order is approved by Synod the current order, which has applied since 1 January 2011, will continue in force.
Note on procedure
Approval of a fees order takes three stages.
1. Consideration - a general debate
2. Consideration of amendments to the order
3. Approval of the [amended] order
Since the order was defeated at the first stage Synod did not have the opportunity to consider the amendments, of which there were 25.
Updated Saturday afternoon to add another blogger
Updated Sunday
Riazat Butt of The Guardian has this live blog from York.
Update That blog is for Saturday only. There is another blog for Sunday and presumably there will be others later.
Some Synod members are also blogging.
Alastair Cutting and Justin Brett The General Synod Blog
Jeremy Fletcher Jeremy Fletcher’s Blog
Suem Significant Truths
And at Twitter several members and others are tweeting with the hashtag #synod.
General Synod - summary of business Friday 8th July 2011 PM
This includes links to audios of all the sessions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his presidential address to General Synod this morning. You can read it here:
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address.
You can listen to an audio of his address: here.
Tim Ross in the Telegraph Church of England faces being wiped out, report warns
Robert Pigott at the BBC Price of church weddings may rise by up to 50%
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Funeral prices to soar 50 per cent as Church feels effect of downturn
The Diocese of Lichfield has issued this press release: Christians should be free to manifest their faith in the workplace.
General Synod is now in session. One item of business is the Parochial Fees Order which sets fees for weddings and funerals in the Church of England. Synod will be asked to approve the order during its afternoon session tomorrow (Saturday).
Justin Lewis-Anthony has written this for Cif belief: Fees, managerialism and the death of the Church of England.
“Churches must be allowed to set their own fees for funerals and weddings. Let’s hope the synod rejects the parochial fees order.”
These are the official papers issued to synod members for this item of business.
GS 1832 The Parochial Fees Order 2011
GS 1832X Explanatory Memorandum
GS Misc 989 2012-2014 Fees Order - Rationale
Margaret Duggan has a detailed preview of next month’s General Synod agenda in the Church Times: Small groups and a ‘big idea’ for Synod in York.
My list of online synod papers is now, I think, complete.
One item of synod business is the order setting parochial fees for 2012 to 2014. As well as the draft order itself there is an explanatory memorandum and a rationale.
GS 1832 The Parochial Fees Order 2011
GS 1832X Explanatory Memorandum
GS Misc 989 2012-2014 Fees Order - Rationale
Amendments to the Order are permissible. Any member who wishes to give notice of an amendment must do so in writing to the Clerk to the Synod not later than 5.30 p.m. on Thursday 7 July 2011.
The Fees Order will only come into effect if it is passed by Synod; if it is not passed the current scale of fees will continue to apply.
There has been some not necessarily totally accurate reporting of these proposals.
Steve Doughty in the Mail Online: End of ‘Ryanair’ fees for church weddings where choirs and organists are extra
John Bingham in the Telegraph: For poorer: cost of church weddings to rise 50pc
Updated Monday morning, afternoon and evening
Updated Saturday 25 June
Update: This press release, outlining the contents of the Synod agenda, was released on Monday: Full agenda published for July 2011 General Synod sessions in York.
Online copies of the papers for the July 2011 meeting of General Synod are starting to appear online; they are listed below, with links. I will update the list as more papers become available.
The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1824) includes a forecast of future business, and I have copied this below the fold.
The Church of England’s own list of papers is presented in agenda order.
GS 1805A Draft Church of England marriage (Amendment) Measure
GS 1805Y Report by the Revision Committee
GS 1822 Additional Eucharistic Prayers
GS Misc 983 Guidance Notes
GS 1823 July 2011 Group of Sessions - General Synod - Agenda
GS 1824 Business Committee Report July 2011
GS 1825 The Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2011
GS 1826 The Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2011
GS 1825-26X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1827 Annual Report of the Archbihsops’ Council
GS 1828 The Payments to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2011
GS 1829 Constitution of the Legal Advisory Commission
GS 1829X List of Members
GS 1830 Annual Report of the Audit Committee
GS 1831 Appointments to the Archbishops’ Council
GS 1832 Parochial Fees Order 2011
GS 1832X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1833 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Sodor and Man) (Amendment) Rules 2011
GS 1834 The Church of England Pensions (Sodor and Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
GS 1835 A and GS 1835 B Private Member’s Motion: Mission Action Planning in the Church of England
GS 1836 Higher Education Funding Changes: a report from the Ministry Council
GS Misc 990 Higher Education funding - April 2011 report of the working group chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield
GS Misc 990A Funding ministerial training - background information for the above report
GS 1837 The Anglican-Methodist Covenant: a report from the Council for Christian Unity, to which is appended Moving Forward in Covenant: Interim Report of the Joint Implementation Commission
GS 1838 Generous Love for All: Presence and Engagement for the new Quinquennium: a report from the Presence and Engagement Task Group
GS 1839 The Reorganisation Schemes (Compensation) Rules 2011
GS 1840 A and GS 1840 B Diocesan Synod Motion: Admission of Baptized Adults to Communion
GS 1841 Conversations with the United Reformed Church: a report from the Council for Christian Unity
GS 1842 The Archbishops’ Council Draft Budget and Proposals for Apportionment for 2012
GS 1843 A and GS 1843 B Diocesan Synod Motion: House of Laity Elections
GS 1844 Unfinished Business: A Pastoral and Missional Approach for the Next Decade: a report by the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
GS Misc 994E appendices
GS 1845 The Church and Education: Into the Next 200 Years: a report from the Board of Education
GS Misc 996 Background to GS 1845
GS1846A and GS 1846B Chichester Diocesan Synod Motion [Contingency Business]
Church Commissioners Annual Report
GS Misc 981 EIAG Annual Review 2010/2011
GS Misc 983 Additional Eucharistic Prayers
GS Misc 984 The Changing Role of Deaneries
GS Misc 985 Dioceses Commission Annual Report 2011
GS Misc 986 Clergy Discipline Commission Annual Report 2011
GS Misc 987 Activities of the Archbishops’ Council
GS Misc 988 Analysis of Mission Funds
GS Misc 989 2012-2014 Fees Order - Rationale
GS Misc 990 Higher Education Funding (electronic distribution only)
GS Misc 990A Funding Ministerial Training (electronic distribution only)
GS Misc 991 Chaplains to the Synod
GS Misc 992 Choosing Bishops - The Equality Act 2010 (Our html copy is here.)
GS Misc 994E Apprendices for GS 1844 (electronic distribution only)
GS Misc 995 Challenges into the new Quinquennium: Next Steps
GS Misc 996 Background to GS 1845
Forecast of future General Synod business
One or more Private Members’ Motions and Diocesan Synod Motions are customarily included in each group of sessions.The outline agenda for the General Synod meeting at York in July is now available from this page, as a PDF file. The information is copied below the fold.
GENERAL SYNOD: JULY 2011 Timetable
Friday 8 July
2.30 p.m. Meeting of the House of Clergy
4.30 p.m. Introductions, Presentations and Welcome to Guests
Address by Archbishop of Tirana, Durrës and All Albania on behalf of the ecumenical guests
Progress of Measures and Statutory Instruments
Business Committee report
Dates of groups of sessions in 2013
Appointments to the Archbishops’ Council
Legal Advisory Commission constitution
6.20 p.m. Evening Worship
from 6.30 p.m. Dinner
8.30 p.m. Questions
Saturday 9 July
9.30 a.m. Presidential Address (by the Archbishop of Canterbury)
Rest of the morning: reflection, discussion and worship in small groups
from 1.00 p.m. Lunch
2.30 p.m. Legislative Business
6.20 p.m. Evening Worship
from 6.30 p.m. Dinner
8.30 p.m. Private Member’s Motion: Mission Action Planning in the Church of England
Sunday 10 July
10.00 a.m. Holy Communion in York Minster
2.30 p.m. Higher Education Funding Changes
Anglican-Methodist Covenant
Bradford Diocesan Synod Motion: Admission of Baptised Adults to Communion
6.20 p.m. Evening Worship
from 6.30 p.m. Dinner
8.30 p.m. Annual Report of the Audit Committee
Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council
Monday 11 July
9.30 a.m. Morning Worship
Confirmation of the Appointment of the Chair of the Business Committee
Legislative Business
Liturgical Business: Additional Eucharistic Prayers: First Consideration
London DSM: House of Laity elections
1.00 p.m. Lunch
2.30 p.m. Unfinished Business: A Pastoral and Missional Approach for the Next
Decade: A report by the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
Budget of the Archbishops’ Council
Presence and Engagement: Inter faith issues
6.20 p.m. Evening Worship
from 6.30 p.m. Dinner
8.30 p.m. Conversations with the United Reformed Church
Tuesday 12 July
9.30 a.m. Morning Worship
Christians in the Holy Land: Presidential Statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury
Church Commissioners’ Annual Report
The Church and Education: Into the Next 200 Years
12.30 p.m. Prorogation
There are many General Synod resources on the Church of England website. Here are some that have been recently added or updated.
The verbatim Report of Proceedings: February 2011 is now available.
The verbatim report of the meeting of the House of Laity held on 7 February 2011 is also available.
The Agendas and Papers page now includes links to the General Synod Index. This is a classified list of General Synod papers, issued after each quinquenium, that now goes back to the first General Synod in 1970.
There is also a list of Synod papers in number order with links to online papers. It is not yet complete but is gradually being extended.
There is a forecast of the business for the July 2011 meeting of General Synod. There is a note here to say that the final agenda will be determined by a meeting of the Business Committee on May 25 2011.
There are up-to-date lists of private members’ motions and diocesan synod motions.
Updated to include Committee for Ministry of and Among Deaf and Disabled People result.
The Church of England has released more results of elections to General Synod boards and committees. I have listed the names of the successful candidates with links to the detailed results below the fold.
Elected unopposed
Finance Committee
The Revd Stephen France
Appointments Committee
The Rt Revd Richard Frith, Bishop of Hull
Legislative Committee
The Rt Revd James Langstaff, Bishop of Rochester
Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
The Rt Revd David Walker, Bishop of Dudley
The Revd Paul Cartwright
Linda Ali
Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee
Brian Wilson
Church of England Pensions Board
The Revd Paul Benfield
House of Bishops’ Standing Committee
The Rt Revd Michael Perham, Bishop of Gloucester
Successful candidates in contested elections with links to full results.
Board of Education
Rachel Beck
Kenneth Shorey
Cathedrals Fabric Commission
Tim Allen
Peter Bruinvels
Mary Durlacher
Perran Gay
Celia Thomson
CMDDP (Committee for Ministry of and Among Deaf and Disabled People)
Cherry Vann
Alison Wynne
Dioceses Commission
Robert Hammond
Keith Malcouronne
Ministry Council
Vivienne Goddard
Judith Maltby
RACSC (Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee)
Philip Plyming
Council for Christian Unity - House of Clergy
Janet Appleby
George Howe
Council for Christian Unity - House of Laity
Paula Gooder
Elizabeth Paver
Mission and Public Affairs Council - House of Clergy
Duncan Dormor
Robert Freeman
Dagmar Winter
Mission and Public Affairs Council - House of Laity
Lindsay Newcombe
Clive Scowen
Anna Thomas-Betts
Pensions Board - House of Laity (Casual Vacancy)
Brian Wilson
The detailed reports of last week’s Church of England General Synod in the Church Times are now available to non-subscribers.
Stand up to false prophets, says Sentamu
UK a ‘scary place’ for Christians
Synod approves ban on clerics in racist parties
No high hurdle for Anglican Covenant
Catching a vision for mission
Synod considers its understanding of Mary as a woman
No change in law for bishops, but vigilance promised
More ‘accessible’ baptism prayers on the cards
Members call for higher and lower fees
A vicar’s welcome makes all the difference
Minister gives Synod assurance over the commitment to aid
Theology aids ‘relaxing’ on defence
Farewells
Synod briefs
James Townsend has published some statistics on the age distribution and gender balance of the current Church of England General Synod.
They are well worth looking at in detail, but a couple of his conclusions are particularly noteworthy.
“only 28% of the convocations [ie clergy] being female”
“Even though 35% of the Synod are newly elected, the bulk of the [lay] membership has simply got older by five years”
A number of links have been quietly added to the Church of England’s webpage of papers for this past week’s meeting of General Synod: February 2011 Group of Sessions: Papers.
They include this Full summary with links to all papers and audio feeds for each session. this is more detailed than the summaries that were published shortly after the end of each morning and afternoon session.
There is also the official Business Done, and, at the bottom of the page, a full set of notice papers.
The subject of the Anglican Church in North America was raised twice in the course of last week’s General Synod sessions in London.
First, it was raised in the debate on the Business Committee report. This was not because ACNA was mentioned in that report, on the contrary, it was a complaint by Lorna Ashworth that the forecast of future business showed no plan to bring forward the report that had been requested a year ago. You can hear her remarks by listening to the recording of that debate here (start at minute 34), or there is a longer transcript here.
…I do wonder how is it that we come to this agenda and there is no report back? And there is no indication of the forecast agenda for July either that there will be a report back. So I would like to request the Chair of the Business Committee to see to it, that that there is a report - that we will follow this up - and nothing will be kicked into touch. Thank you.
In his response to the debate, the acting chair of the committee, Bishop Trevor Willmott commented on this request (go to minute 40):
..Finally, if I may say to Lorna Ashworth, again I think the question is that she is - not solely in this chamber that that debate takes place, and I am assured that there will be opportunity for her to listen in to, and all of us to listen in to any comments which are made back by the Archbishops and the House of Bishops on that motion which was passed at that last session of Synod.
Second, a Question was asked, as follows.
The Revd Christopher Hobbs (London) to ask the Secretary General:
Q. What procedure would have to be followed for the Anglican Church in North America to be in communion with the Church of England and/or part of the Anglican Communion?
You can hear the answer given and the supplementary question and answer, by going here (go to minute 34.5). The first answer was as follows:
Mr William Fittall to reply:
A. Under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 a determination by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is conclusive where any question arises whether, for the purposes of the Measure, a church is in communion with, or its orders are ‘recognised and accepted’ by, the Church of England. A decision that the Church of England should enter into communion with another church outside the Anglican Communion would fall to be taken by the Synod. The one legally constituted body for the Communion is the Anglican Consultative Council, membership of which is regulated by its Constitution. That provides that the addition of a church to its schedule of membership requires the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Communion.
The second answer, to a supplementary by Fr David Houlding includes this:
…The archbishops gave a commitment in that motion that they would report back to the Synod in 2011, by my reckoning 2011 is only 5 weeks old, so I am sure that they will be reporting to the Synod in due course on what is indeed an important matter.
The detailed reports in today’s Church Times are only available to subscribers until a week today. But meanwhile this summary by Ed Thornton can be read by all: Synod wrestles with an England that no longer understands.
The Church Mouse looks at what the media decided to publish about the Synod: General Synod in the media - when there are no splits to dig into.
Updated Wednesday evening and Thursday lunchtime
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Baptisms to be given in ‘BBC1 language’
BBC Baptism language to be simplified
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Church of England hopes simpler baptism language will connect with unchurched
Tim Ross in The Telegraph Church of England to rewrite baptism service words in ‘EastEnders’ speak
Independent Catholic News Bishop George Stack addresses Church of England General Synod
Updated at 5.30 pm
Here is the Order Paper for today’s business at General Synod.
Order Paper III - Wednesday 9th February
This is the text of the motion on Common Worship baptism provision as carried by Synod after amendment.
That this Synod request the House of Bishops to ask the Liturgical Commission to prepare material to supplement the Common Worship Initiation provision, including additional forms of the Decision, the Prayer over the Water and the Commission, expressed in accessible language.
In the afternoon there was a debate on the ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission) report Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ after which this motion was carried unamended.
That this Synod, affirming the aim of Anglican - Roman Catholic theological dialogue “to discover each other’s faith as it is today and to appeal to history only for enlightenment, not as a way of perpetuating past controversy” (Preface to The Final Report, 1982), and in the light of recent steps towards setting up ARCIC III:
(i) note the theological assessment of the ARCIC report Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ in the FOAG briefing paper GS 1818 as a contribution to further dialogue;
(ii) welcome exploration of how far Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a common faith and spirituality, based on the Scriptures and the early Ecumenical Councils, with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary;
(iii) request that, in the context of the quest for closer unity between our two communions, further joint study of the issues identified in GS 1818 be undertaken - in particular, the question of the authority and status of the Roman Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary for Anglicans; and
(iv) encourage Anglicans to study the report with ecumenicalcolleagues and in particular, wherever possible, with their Roman Catholic neighbours.
And here are the official summaries of all the day’s business, with links to audio recordings of the debates.
morning: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 9th February 2011 AM
afternoon: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 9th February 2011 PM
Riazat Butt in The Guardian: Church must continue to influence debate, says archbishop of York
Maria Mackay in Christian Today: Church has ‘God-given duty’ to shape Britain’s moral order – Sentamu
Yesterday the General Synod failed to approve the proposed appointment of the Bishop of Dover as the Chair of the Business Committee.
Justin Brett has written about this development at On votes, rules and resistance.
…The Business Committee of General Synod is the body that decides Synod’s agenda. It is mostly (I think) either directly or indirectly elected by Synod itself. The rules that govern it state that its Chair must be one of the six people elected from General Synod to the Archbishops’ Council. One of these people is nominated by Archbishops’ Council in consultation with the Appointments Committee, and the name sent to Synod for approval.
As things have fallen out this time round, the person in question is the Bishop of Dover. Needless to say, this has caused some muttering among those for whom a purple shirt often serves dual purpose as a red rag…
In addition to the official papers available for this afternoon’s debate, which can be found here, the following may also be of interest:
Fulcrum Response to the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission Agreed Statement (first published in 2005) by Bishop Graham Kings.
Anglican Mainstream has published an article by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali Evangelical Mary.
The BBC previews one debate: Church debates BNP ban for clergy.
And The Telegraph and The Guardian both carry a Press Association report of the debate.
The Telegraph General Synod backs ban on clergy joining the BNP
The Guardian Church of England backs draft ban on clergy joining the BNP
The House of Laity met on Monday before the first session of General Synod.
Justin Brett has reported what happened in What The House Of Laity Did First…
This afternoon the House of Laity was invited to co-opt Dr Priscilla Chadwick as a member of the House so that she could be re-appointed as Chair of the Dioceses Commission. The short version of what happened is that we declined to make such a co-option…
updated Tuesday at 2.00 pm, 5.25 pm and 11.30 pm
Here is the Order Paper for today’s business at General Synod.
Order Paper II - Tuesday 8th February
And here are the official summaries of the day’s business.
morning: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 8th February 2011 AM
afternoon: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 8th February 2011 PM
The Archbishop of York gave a presidential address after lunch. The full text is here.
The General Synod of the Church of England began its February group of sessions this afternoon.
Here is the official summary of the day’s business.
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Monday 7th February 2011 PM
This includes links to audio recordings of the debates.
One item of business was this follow-on from the debate on the Anglican Communion Covenant held in November 2010.
Mr John Ward (London) moved:
‘That this Synod resolve that final approval of the Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant shall require the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting.’
Following debate, and a division by Houses, the motion was lost. Here are the voting figures.
ayes noes abstentions Bishops 4 32 2 Clergy 82 92 1 Laity 66 112 0
We will be reporting on some of the questions and answers separately.
The results for the election of two members of the General Synod’s House of Clergy to serve on the Archbishops’ Council were announced today; the successful candidates were the Revd Canon Robert Cotton and the Revd Mark Ireland. This completes the current round of elections to the Council.
Also announced today was the election of the Revd Canon Timothy Dakin to fill the vacancy on the Crown Nominations Commission caused by the death of Colin Slee.
The detailed voting figures for both elections can be downloaded from here.
The full membership of the Council and the CNC can be found on my website here.
GS MISC 979 is now available as a PDF from the Church of England website. The cover page says:
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ORDINARIATE OF OUR LADY OF WALSINGHAM
SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
I attach for the information of Synod members some Questions and Answers on legal issues relating to the implications for the Church of England of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham which has been established within the Roman Catholic Church by the Pope.
They have been prepared by the Legal Office and Provincial Registrars and circulated to diocesan bishops, chancellors and registrars.
WILLIAM FITTALL
Secretary General
Margaret Duggan has a detailed preview of next month’s General Synod agenda in the Church Times: Synod to debate Mary, and divorced bishops.
In my earlier article on pre-synod press reports I linked to two articles about a motion on Common Worship baptism texts. The one in the Mail Online in particular has come in for much criticism, as the following examples show.
Doug Chaplin in his Clayboy blog: Today’s English Baptism and the nasty net
The Church Mouse: Baptism lite - the low God version?
Ann Fontaine at the Episcopal Café: New language for baptismal rites requested
The results for the election of two members of the General Synod’s House of Laity to serve on the Archbishops’ Council have been announced; the successful candidates were Christina Rees and Paul Boyd-Lee. The detailed voting figures can be downloaded from here.
The full membership of the Council is listed here. This shows that the House of Bishops have elected the Rt Revd Steven Croft (Bishop of Sheffield) and the Rt Revd Trevor Willmott (Bishop of Dover) to serve on the Council, although I have not seen the detailed voting figures.
updated Tuesday lunchtime to include statement from William Fittall, and link to podcast.
There were rather fewer journalists than usual at yesterday’s press briefing for next month’s General Synod; a rival attraction featuring Father Keith Newton had been called at short notice.
The only articles in today’s press that I have seen are these two, about a request for additional texts in the baptism service:
Steve Doughty in the Mail Online: The christening without much Christianity: Anglican church offers ‘baptism lite’ to attract non-worshippers
A “Staff Reporter” in the Liverpool Echo: Church of England plea to make church services less baffling for non-churchgoers
Another item on the synod’s agenda is a debate on parochial fees which attracted some advance attention in the press over the weekend.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in The Telegraph: Couples face higher fee to marry in church
Jonathan Petre in the Mail Online: Clergy anger over plan to raise church wedding fees by 50%
Sean Nash at Wedding News: Plans to raise cost of church weddings opposed by some vicars
Church House Westminster has given me the following statement in relation to the above.
William Fittall, Secretary-General of the Archbishops’ Council said:
“The General Synod agreed last summer a new and clearer framework for the future setting of fees for weddings and funerals. The present situation is unclear and unsatisfactory, and can lead to discrepancies between fees charged by churches across the country.
“Fee income represents a small part of the Church’s income - the vast majority comes from parishioners’ donations. The legislation was not prepared with a view to producing any fundamental change in overall fee income.
“Next month, General Synod will discuss some principles and proposals relating to how fees are set, but will not be taking any decisions on specific fee levels. These are due to be decided by the Archbishops’ Council in a few months’ time and brought to Synod for agreement.
“The Church of England remains committed to providing ministry to all those in the nation who want it, irrespective of their ability to pay.”
I have linked to the online synod papers here, although the fees paper is not yet available.
Also now available is this podcast: Clerk to Synod David Williams takes us through the agenda for February Synod.
Updated 19, 21, 22 and 24 February
Online copies of the papers for the February 2011 meeting of General Synod are starting to appear online. I have listed them below, with links, together with other papers listed in the agenda but not yet online. I will update the list as more links become available.
The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1817) includes a forecast of future business, and I have copied this below the fold.
GS 1808 Amending Code of Practice under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003
GS 1808X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1812 Full Synod Agenda
GS 1813 Parochial Fees Policy: Report from the Archbishops’ Council
GS 1814 Draft Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure
GS 1814X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1815 Challenges for the New Quinquennium
GS 1816A Common Worship Baptism Provision (Liverpool DSM)
GS 1816B Common Worship Baptism Provision (Note from the Secretary General)
GS 1817 Report by the Business Committee
GS 1818 Briefing paper by FOAG on ARCIC II - Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ
Christian Aid Report: Poverty - We’re All in this Together
GS Misc 872 FOAG Essays on ARCIC II - Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ
GS Misc 960 The House of Bishops’ Statement on Marriage after Divorce and the Ordained Ministry
GS Misc 970 Dioceses Commission: Guide to the Review Report No 2
GS Misc 971 Anglican Communion Covenant: Reference to Diocesan Synods
GS Misc 972 Affirming Our Common Humanity
GS Misc 974 Faith, Work and Economic Life
GS Misc 974B Faith, Work and Economic Life (Resources)
GS Misc 977 Central Stipends Authority report (38th)
GS Misc 979 Ordinariate: Questions and Answers
There are copies of the ARCIC report Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ on the websites of the Anglican Communion Office and the Vatican. The ACO also has a pdf version.
Forecast of future Synod business
One or more Private Members’ Motions and Diocesan Synod Motions are customarily included in each group of sessions.
The forecast of business provides a forward look to the groups of sessions in 2011. There are always considerable uncertainties when looking ahead in this way, so this should not be read as more than a broad indication of business that may come to the Synod in the future.
In February, the Synod will be debating a report from the Archbishops’ Council on the main areas of work for the Council over the next five years. These will include issues to do with ministry and the Church’s needs; the common good; and growing the Church, both in terms of numbers and confidence. Connected with that is the debate the Synod held in November 2010 on the Big Society. There are some major issues raised in both reports and the Business Committee is of the view that the Synod would benefit from a range of possibilities for engaging with them and deepening its understanding of them. While nothing concrete is included in this forward look in relation to that, the Committee will be considering how best this might be achieved over future groups of sessions.
In July, there will be the following regular business:
Presidential Address
Financial business (including the Archbishops’ Council’s budget for 2012)
Archbishops’ Council’s annual report
Church Commissioners’ annual report
Legislative business
I have already linked to the outline agenda for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod. If normal practice is followed the full agenda and papers will soon be available online, and I will publish links as soon as possible.
Meanwhile the following press release was been issued by the Church of England this morning.
17 January 2011
Secretary of State for International Development to address the Synod.
Key debates on national Church plans for the quinquennium, Anglican-Roman Catholic relations, clergy discipline, parochial fees, baptism services, and marriage after divorce and the ordained ministry.
The Secretary of State for International Development, the Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell, will address the Synod on the scope for greater collaboration between Government and the Church on the Millennium Development Goal of partnerships for development. This will also link in with the Big Society debate at the November Synod.
The Synod has been addressed from time to time by Cabinet ministers, including the Rt. Hon Hilary Benn in 2004 and the Rt Hon Clare Short in 1998, on different aspects of international development.
The General Synod will meet at Church House from 3.00 pm on Monday 7 February until mid-afternoon Wednesday 9 February.
Plans for the quinquennium
Synod will debate a strategic report from the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops looking at the opportunities and challenges facing the Church of England over the next five years and how work done at national level can support dioceses and parishes in meeting them.
Anglican-Roman Catholic relations
The report from the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC): Mary - Grace and Hope in Christ, published in 2005, is the last of the second series of ARCIC reports to come to the General Synod for debate (the decision to initiate a third series of ARCIC studies was announced last year).
The motion from the Council for Christian Unity welcomes the dialogue between the two churches; notes the strengths and weaknesses of the ARCIC report and the areas for further work identified in the briefing paper from the Faith and Order Advisory Group; and encourages study of the report.
The debate will be preceded by a presentation by the Bishop of Guildford, Rt Rev Christopher Hill, (Chair of the CCU) and Bishop George Stack, on behalf of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.
Clergy Discipline
The focus of the legislative business at this Synod is clergy discipline. In July 2009, the Synod passed a motion on this subject from the London Diocesan Synod and, in the following year, the Clergy Discipline Commission assessed what changes might be needed to the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 in the light of experience over the last seven years. The Commission’s recommendations, which do not involve fundamental changes to the existing legislation, now come before the Synod by way of draft amending legislation for first consideration. The Clergy Discipline Commission is also bringing to the Synod some changes to the Code of Practice under the 2003 Measure.
One additional proposed change to the legislation results from a motion passed by the Synod in February 2009 and would allow disciplinary proceedings to be brought against clergy who support organisations which have aims that are inconsistent with the Church’s teaching on race equality.
Parochial Fees Policy
Last year, Synod gave final approval to new legislation (which is now completing its parliamentary stages). The legal framework for setting fees will in future be significantly different and before the Archbishops’ Council draws up the first Fees Order under the new legislation the Council has decided that the new Synod should have a general debate about principles and their practical outworking.
Baptism Services
The motion from the Liverpool Diocesan Synod asks for additional texts to be prepared as alternatives for passages in the Common Worship Baptism Services, which would be expressed in more culturally appropriate and accessible language than is perceived to be the case with the present services.
Marriage after Divorce and the Ordained Ministry
This provides the opportunity for a take note debate on the House of Bishops’ statement on Marriage after Divorce and the Ordained Ministry which was issued in June. The statement clarified the position on a number of matters including the possible appointment of bishops who may have married again after divorce or have married someone who has been divorced.
Other business
There will be a Presidential Address by the Archbishop of York; and a celebration of Holy Communion at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside and preach.
The Business Committee has also scheduled for debate the following motion from Mr John Ward that was not debated at the November Synod during the discussions on the Anglican Communion Covenant, for lack of time. The motion seeks to specify two-thirds majorities (rather than simple majorities) in the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity at the Final Approval Stage for the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant. The Covenant was referred to dioceses in December and is expected to return to the General Synod in 2012.
There will be two presentations: on ethical investment policy, from the Ethical Investment Advisory Group; and on the Weddings Project.
The Synod will also be asked to approve the appointment of the new Chair of the Synod’s Business Committee (following the Synod elections), and the new Clerk to the Synod (upon the retirement in March of David Williams).
Updated 9 & 11 January 2011: All the four documents linked below are now available on the new Church of England website, and I have updated the links accordingly.
As a result of the debate at the November 2010 General Synod on the Anglican Communion Covenant, the matter was referred to Diocesan Synods. The papers sent to dioceses and are available online. They include this paper outlining the process
Reference to Diocesan Synods (GS Misc 971)
and these background papers.
Transcript of debate on Anglican Covenant November 2010
Draft Act of Synod (GS 1809)
Faith and Order Commission: Briefing Paper (GS Misc 966)
Dioceses are required to respond by 5pm on Monday 30 April 2012, so the earliest that this matter can return to General Synod for a final decision on whether to adopt the covenant is July 2012.
In addition to the election of the General Synod officers (who, amongst other things, will be members of the Archbishops’ Council), Synod has been electing members of the Appointment and Business Committees. So far, I know of the following successful candidates.
Appointments Committee of the Church of England
three clergy elected by and from the House of Clergy
The Ven Dr John Applegate (Manchester)
The Ven Annette Cooper (Chelmsford)
The Revd Canon Giles Goddard (Southwark)
three laity elected by and from the House of Laity
Ms Susan Cooper (London)
Ms Sarah Finch (London)
Mr Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London)
The Business Committee of the General Synod
three clergy elected by and from the House of Clergy
The Revd Canon Susan Booys (Oxford)
The Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark)
The Ven Julian Henderson (Guildford)
three laity elected by and from the House of Laity
Mrs Anne Foreman (Exeter)
Mrs Sue Johns (Norwich)
Mr Gerald O’Brien (Rochester)
In addition the House of Bishops elects one member to each committee.
The committee chairs are appointed by the Archbishops (Appointments Committee) or the Archbishops’ Council (Business Committee), and the Archbishops’ Council appoints respectively four and two of its members to the committees.
I maintain a list of members of these, and other committees, here.
Elections for officers of the Church of England General Synod have recently taken place and the following were elected.
House of Laity
Chair: Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford)
Vice-Chair: Mr Tim Hind (Bath & Wells)
House of Clergy
Prolocutor of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury: The Venerable Christine Hardman (Southwark)
Prolocutor of the Lower House of the Convocation of York: The Revd Canon Glyn Webster (York)
The detailed voting figures have been issued to candidates and I have collated them into this web page.
The elections were carried out by STV (single transferable vote), with voters putting candidates in order of preference. When, as here, there is only place to be filled in an election, STV reduces to the successive elimination of the candidate with the fewest votes, and the re-allocation of those votes to the elector’s next preference, until one candidate has more than half the votes.
The turnout, particularly for the clergy elections, appears to be rather low. I don’t have definite figures for the number of eligible electors, but I don’t think the figures in the table below are significantly in error.
| votes cast | electors | percentage turnout |
|
| Laity Chair | 163 | 212 | 77 |
| Laity Vice-Chair | 162 | 212 | 76 |
| Canterbury Prolocutor | 90 | 142 | 63 |
| York Prolocutor | 32 | 60 | 53 |
The General Synod of the Church of England will be meeting for a shorter than usual group of Sessions in February 2011. The outline agenda was published today, and is copied below.
One item is “Draft Act of Synod Adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant (GS 1809): John Ward’s following motion”. Here is the text of this motion.
That this Synod resolve that final approval of the Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant shall require the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting.
GENERAL SYNOD FEBRUARY 2011
TIMETABLE
Monday, 7 February
1.45 pm Meeting of the House of Laity
[House of Clergy/Convocations (tbc)]
3.00 pm Prayers, welcomes and introductions
Progress of Measures and Statutory Instruments
Address by the Secretary of State for International Development, followed by questions and response from one of the Archbishops
Report by the Business Committee
Draft Act of Synod Adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant (GS 1809): John Ward’s following motion
Questions
Tuesday, 8 February
9.30 am Service of Holy Communion (Assembly Hall)
Legislative Business:
Clergy Discipline Amending Code of Practice
Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure – First Consideration
Ethical investment policy: Presentation by the Ethical Investment Advisory Group
1.00 pm LUNCH
2.30 pm Presidential Address (by the Archbishop of Canterbury)
Into the New Quinquennium
Appointment of the Chair of the Business Committee and of the Clerk to the Synod
Weddings Project: presentation
Parochial Fees policy
Wednesday, 9 February
9.30 am Prayers
House of Bishops’ statement on marriage after divorce and the ordained ministry (GS Misc 960)
Liverpool Diocesan Synod Motion: Common Worship Baptism Provision
Introduction to the debate on ARCIC report on Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ - Joint presentation by the Bishop of Guildford and senior RC Bishop
1.00 pm LUNCH
2.30 pm ARCIC report on Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ
Farewells
Prorogation
At the recent November group of sessions Rachel Beck (Lincoln) asked the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Have any actions been taken by the CNC in response to the media reports that appeared in July, purporting to disclose details of its deliberations in relation to the Southwark episcopal vacancy, and will the CNC undertake to make public the full results of any investigation that it may have commissioned into the circumstances surrounding those reports?
The Archbishop of Canterbury replied:
The answer to the first part of the question is Yes. The Archbishops commissioned an external scrutiny by Baroness Fritchie, a senior cross bench peer, of how the CNC process around the vacancy in the See of Southwark gave rise to a number of media reports. This scrutiny has just been completed and the document will be shortly be shared with the members of the Commission for Southwark. It would not be appropriate to give that wider circulation. Any recommendations made in the report will first have to be carefully considered by the central members of the Commission and they will be so considered.
Rachel Beck asked a supplementary question:
What measures have been taken to limit the effects of the disclosure on the ministries of all those concerned.
The Archbishop replied:
There has been contact from both myself and the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary to deal with the pastoral questions arising as you have identified them.
Robert Hammond (Chelmsford) asked a supplementary question:
What steps have been taken to reduce the time taken for each CNC and the following announcement, and therefore reduce the potential for leaks of this type.
The Archbishop replied:
No steps are being taken at the moment. The timetable is of course not entirely in the CNC’s hands on the rate of vacancies appearing from dioceses. Every step is taken to accelerate that process but it is extremely difficult with the quite considerable turnover we currently have to secure the kind of rapidity we would all like.
(the above is my own transcription from the audio recording)
The speech made at General Synod last month by the Bishop of Gloucester has been reproduced in full at RevdLesley.
Read it all at Bishop of Gloucester - the Indaba Process #nocovenant.
Here is an extract:
I’m one of those who will vote for the motion - with some reluctance. Reluctance because I do fear, despite assurances, that a Covenant could eventually be used in a punitive manner against fellow Anglicans, as well as because of the most general worry that a Covenant may alter the kind of church we are.
Nevertheless, I will vote for the motion for two connected reasons. First, that not to do so is to make more difficult the task of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his ministry to the Communion and I want us to strengthen and not weaken his hand. Second, that the Covenant process keeps us talking, keeps us all in Communion through challenging times. The process helps even if we fear the final outcome. What I really hope is that when we eventually reach the point when it is poised to come into force we shall look at one another and say, ‘What’s this for? We have no need of it.’ And one of the reasons that I hope that this is the outcome is the continued ‘Indaba process’…
At the recent November group of sessions Mr Justin Brett (Chichester) asked the Secretary General, Mr William Fittall:
The Second Church Estates Commissioner recently told Parliament that: “there is no Church of England rule that prevents a celibate person in a civil partnership from being considered for appointment as a bishop. The issue is whether someone in that position could act as a focus for unity in a diocese. That would have to be considered by those responsible for making any episcopal appointment”.
In the light of that statement and the recent coming into force of the Equality Act 2010, is the Secretary General aware of any guidance from those involved in episcopal appointments processes on how to approach these matters consistently with the law.
Mr Fittall replied:
The Legal Office stands ready to provide legal advice to those responsible for overseeing episcopal appointments exercises. The Equality Act, like the 2003 Regulations before it, permits those making appointments for the purposes of organised religion to apply a requirement related to sexual orientation so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers. The Church of England’s policy on same sex relationships and civil partnerships is set out in the various well known formal statements dating back to 1987, of which the most recent is the House of Bishops pastoral statement, issued in 2005, when civil partnerships were introduced. Any requests for clarification would be for the House to consider.
Mr Brett then asked Mr Fittall a supplementary question:
Within the procedure for appointing bishops, what is the understanding of what it means to be a focus of unity in a diocese.
Mr Fittall replied:
That’s a very good question and it’s a phrase that I think is allowed to speak for itself. It is a canonical requirement that a bishop should be a focus of unity. And it is for the judgment, in the case of a suffragan bishop, of the diocesan bishop, advised by those who support him in that process. And in the case of diocesan appointments it is for the judgment of the Crown Nominations Commission. And those making appointments have to take account of a wide range of considerations, including statements made by the House of Bishops. It is at the end of the day a judgment.
The results of the electronic vote on the Anglican Communion Covenant at last month’s General Synod are now available.
For convenience I have made this available as a webpage.
Readers might like to note that the speculation about which bishop abstained was incorrect.
The detailed reports in the Church Times of last week’s meeting of General Synod are now available to non-subscribers.
Presidential address: Surprise your critics by listening and agreeing, Dr Williams suggests
Big Society? We’re doing it already
Anglican Covenant: Reservations, but the Covenant moves forward
Synod in brief
Legislation and farewells
Also now available are the official record of Business Done and a brief official summary “ideal for use in parish magazines”.
The speech made last week by the Bishop of Lincoln has been reproduced in full at RevdLesley.
Read it all at Bishop John Saxbee on the Anglican Covenant.
Here is an extract:
…Members of Synod, the Church of England has a bit of a history of putting in place measures in response to a particular presented issue and then discovering that the proposed cure does not only have unintended consequences (and The Good Intentions Paving Company is still very much in business, I assure you), not only will there be unintended consequences, but the cure can actually make matters worse.
We all know that the process towards the drawing up of this Covenant was triggered by events in The Episcopal Church of a few years ago, notwithstanding the long preamble which was helpfully presented to us by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Those events were by no means trivial, but to elevate them to the status of game changers when it comes to how we deal with each other over time is… well… stepping over a very significant mark in the sand. And I truly doubt whether it will be conducive to long term stability.
The Covenant may of itself not be tyrannical, but there are those in the Communion whose treatment of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers has had at least a touch of the tyrannical about it. And if I ever come to the conclusion that a covenant of this kind would give them comfort then I would be bound to resist it.
Anglicanism has been described as a fellowship of civilised disagreement. Well I leave you to judge whether a two-tier Communion with first and second division members answers to that description of civilised disagreement. It frankly feels like we will be sending sincere and faithful Anglicans to stand in the corner until they have seen the error of their ways and can return to the ranks of the pure and spotless…
Updated Friday
Whilst Synod was debating the Anglican Communion Covenant, news broke that the GAFCON primates had rejected it, although this was too late to affect the Synod debate. But the press is naturally reporting both stories together.
Riazat Butt writes in The Guardian that Unity document exposes Anglican divisions and that African clergy reject ‘fatally flawed’ effort to unify Anglicans.
Ekklesia has Anglican Covenant confusion reins after firm GAFCON rejection.
Matthew Davies at Episcopal Life Online writes that General Synod supports Anglican Covenant process.
Reuters reports that Conservative bishops deliver blow to Anglican pact.
At Christian Today Maria Mackay writes that Church of England affirms support for Anglican Covenant, while Jenna Lyle writes that Anglican Covenant in question after conservatives withdraw support.
The BBC has General synod step closer to Anglican Covenant.
AFP reports that Church of England backs covenant but traditionalists rebel.
Update
John Martin has written for the Living Church about the Covenant debate: Victory for Covenant, ‘Catholic Spirit’ at English Synod.
Here is the official summary for Wednesday afternoon: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 24th November 2010 PM.
More reports later.
updated Wednesday afternoon
General Synod is debating debated the Anglican Communion Synod this (Wednesday) morning. We will update updated this article as the debate proceeds proceeded.
There is a briefing paper (GS Misc 966) available, which includes the text of the Anglican Covenant. The text of the draft Act (GS 1809) is reproduced below the fold.
The Bishop of Bristol (The Rt Revd Michael Hill) moved
504 ‘That the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant be considered.’
After much debate Mrs Mary Johnston (London) proposed that the debate be adjourned to July 2011. The proposal was defeated on a show of hands. Synod then immediately agreed to close the debate and move to a vote. The voting was by houses and motion 504 was carried in all three houses with the voting figures below.
Bishops 39 for 0 against 1 abstention
Clergy 145 for 32 against 11 abstentions
Laity 147 for 25 against 8 abstentions
Mr Justin Brett (Chichester) moved as an amendment [to the draft Act of Synod]:
505 In recital (1) after “the Anglican Covenant” insert —
“, subject to the exception referred to below,”; and
After “GS Misc 966” in paragraph 1, insert —
“, with the exception of section 4.2,”; and
Before “solemnly covenants” insert —
“subject to that exception”.
Item 505 was defeated on a show of hands.
Dr Brian Walker (Winchester) moved as an amendment [to the draft Act of Synod]:
506 Insert as new recital (3) —
“The Church of England understands the Anglican Communion Covenant as a means for maintaining continuous inclusive relationships between all covenanting Churches.”; and
At the beginning of paragraph 1, insert —
“Subject to paragraph 2.”; and
After paragraph 1. insert
“2. The Church of England will not participate in or support any limitations or suspensions of the kind provided for in Section 4.2.5 or sanctions effected under Section 4.2.7.”.
This amendment lapsed, since fewer than 40 members stood to ask for debate to continue.
The Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) moved a following motion.
507 That this Synod, recognising and affirming the difficult issues addressed by the Anglican Communion Covenant:
(a) request that the date determined by the Presidents for the reference of the draft Act of Synod to the dioceses under Article 8 should be no earlier than November 2011;
(b) direct the Business Committee to ensure that the documents circulated to diocesan synods for the purposes of the Article 8 reference include a range of briefing material, properly reflecting the diversity of views on the Covenant within the Church of England; and
(c) invite the House of Bishops to encourage in the dioceses a process of widespread education about, and engagement with, the substance and text of the Covenant.
The motion 507 was defeated on a show of hands.
Here is the official summary of the morning’s business: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 24th November 2010 AM.
GS 1809
GENERAL SYNOD
DRAFT ACT OF SYNOD
ADOPTING THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION COVENANT
Affirmed and proclaimed an Act of Synod - ***
Ratified and confirmed by the Presidents of the General Synod - ***
WHEREAS:
(1) It is intended that the Church of England should enter into and adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant and that effect should be given to that intention by resolution of the General Synod of the Church of England; and
(2) It is desired to give formal publication to the same as the embodiment of the will of the Church of England as expressed by the whole body of the Synod by its affirmation and proclamation as an Act of Synod
IT IS RESOLVED by the Archbishops, Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England, assembled in their Synod at [Westminster], as follows—
1. The Church of England hereby enters into and adopts the Anglican Communion Covenant as set out in Annex 1 to GS Misc 966 and solemnly covenants with the other Churches which enter into and adopt it in making the affirmations and commitments that it contains.
2. This resolution shall come into force upon being affirmed and proclaimed an Act of Synod and ratified and confirmed for their respective provinces by each of the Presidents of the General Synod.
Updated Wednesday morning
Dave Walker Rough notebook scribbles from the opening of General Synod at Westminster Abbey
Three articles in The Guardian:
Riazat Butt Religious do not have monopoly on virtue, Queen tells synod
Stephen Bates Reassuring presence at General Synod of the Church of England
Stephen Bates and Riazat Butt Anglican church faces ‘piece by piece dissolution’, warns archbishop
Press Association Queen warns of ‘painful’ times ahead for Church
Matthew Davies at Episcopal Life Online: The Queen inaugurates new General Synod, underscores need to communicate the gospel
We will update this page during the day.
Updated Tuesday evening
Morning
Official summary of the morning’s inauguration: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 23rd November 2010 - Inauguration
Afternoon
Official summary of the afternoon’s business: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 23rd November 2010 PM
Both official summaries include links to audio recordings of the sessions.
Archbishop’s Presidential Address - General Synod November 2010. This includes the full text.
The newly elected General Synod of the Church of England meets for the first time today and tomorrow. Here are a few press reviews.
Riazat Butt in The Guardian The Queen set to open General Synod
Robert Pigott at the BBC Queen opens Church General Synod amid signs of change
The BBC also has Queen to open Church of England general synod
Christian Today Church of England General Synod to be formally opened by Queen
Press Association Queen to open Church of England general synod
The Church of England General Synod will be debating the “Big Society” on Tuesday afternoon this week. As background material to this debate the Mission and Public Affairs Division has produced a report: GS1804 “The Big Society” and the Church of England. There is also a summary of this report: GS1804A. The debate will undoubtedly extend to the government’s cuts in public expenditure.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones writes in today’s Telegraph: Bishops warn David Cameron’s Big Society will be undermined by welfare cuts
Today’s Diary of a civil servant column in The Observer is Welcome to the ever-diminishing world of the ‘big society’.
The Common Wealth (Christians for Economic and Social Justice) network has been launched with Christians say cuts-based Big Society is ‘a Big Lie’. The network has issued a statement with this abstract.
In the face of sweeping public spending cuts and a UK government economic strategy which targets the poor to pay for a crisis produced by the wealthy, a group of Christians in public life (activists, ministers and theologians) have issued this statement calling for Christian unity with others in the movement to resist the cuts in public and welfare provision. It urges the churches to be wary about being co-opted into the Big Society initiative - which it calls ‘a big lie’ in economic terms. The document articulates a radical theological critique of government policies and the social and economic order they seek to maintain. It is rooted in an alternative vision based on strong Christian roots and wide solidarities, arguing for a Common Wealth that expresses the central dynamics of the Gospel message. The statement is also a call to form a network of discernment, resistance and creativity in the generation of fresh approaches to the shared life of people and planet.
Savi Hensman has written for Ekklesia about Cuts that divide and devalue
The Church in Wales has issued this press release: Count the human cost of the cuts - Bishop responds to Draft Budget.
And there is this from The Church of Scotland: Kirk challenges Chancellor to meet the poor.
Church Action On Poverty has published Churches challenge Government over poverty and welfare.
As a follow-up to the recent advertisements in the Church Times and Church of England Newspaper Inclusive Church and Modern Church have mailed a leaflet to all General Synod members.
A copy of the leaflet is available as a PDF here, and as a web page.
Here are some press reports following today’s release of papers for this month’s General Synod and a press briefing this morning.
Riazat Butt in The Guardian: Church of England eyes £5m of state funds to combat extremism
Tim Ross in the Telegraph: Anglicans who defect to Rome ‘could share CofE churches’
and Religiously ‘illiterate’ politicians treat all faiths with suspicion, says CofE
The General Synod of the Church of England will meet in London on 23 and 24 November 2010. The following press release was issued a short time ago.
See our item below for links to online Synod papers.
Synod to debate the Big Society and the Anglican Communion Covenant
1 November 2010
Her Majesty The Queen will inaugurate the Ninth General Synod of the Church of England in Church House, Westminster on Tuesday 23 November. The Inauguration ceremony will follow the Eucharist in Westminster Abbey, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will preside and Dame Mary Tanner (a President of the World Council of Churches) will preach.
This Synod will reflect some significant changes amongst its membership: 35% of the elected members of the General Synod are starting their first ever five-year term; the proportion of elected clergy who are female has increased from 21% to 28%; and women now make up 46% of the elected laity membership (up from 40%).
The November group of sessions will continue with regular business for the afternoon of Tuesday, 22 November, until late afternoon on Wednesday, 23 November. There will be a Presidential Address from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Other key features are indicated below.
Newly elected and continuing Synod members will also be attending an induction seminar in Church House on the Monday.
The Big Society
The Big Society is a major theme of the new Government and is of considerable relevance to the role of religious bodies, including the Church of England. In June, the Bishop of Leicester sponsored a debate in the House of Lords on the concept of the Big Society. The Mission and Public Affairs Division has been in discussion with Government ministers to consider ways the Church might work in partnership with the Government to promote greater social cohesion.
The debate in Synod should enable the Church to understand the issues concerned more deeply and prepare dioceses and parishes to feel better equipped to respond at local level.
Anglican Communion Covenant
The idea of an Anglican Communion Covenant was first proposed in the Windsor report of 2004, following developments in relation to same-sex partnerships in North America. It was envisaged that the Anglican Covenant would “make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection” which govern the relationships between the Churches of the Anglican Communion. A text of the Covenant was sent last December to all the Churches of the Anglican Communion for their approval.
The House of Bishops agreed in May to commend the Covenant to the Synod for adoption; and the Synod is now being asked to approve the draft Act of Synod which will be required to express the Church of England’s agreement. At the November group of sessions, Synod will be asked to formally consider the Covenant, before it is referred to dioceses, and (if any of them so request) to the Convocations of Canterbury and York and the House of Laity. Subject to these procedures, the draft Act of Synod would return to the Synod in due course for Final Approval, possibly in 2012.
Other Legislative Business
The Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure will be introduced at the November Synod to give effect to the resolution passed by the Synod in July, calling for the introduction of legislation to enable a diocesan bishop to give directions allowing those who have a ‘qualifying connection’ with a particular parish to marry in any church within the benefice of which that parish forms a part.
Two other pieces of legislation come to the Synod for approval as the remaining steps in the process of preparing for the introduction of ‘Common Tenure’ early in 2011. These comprise some amending Regulations and an amending Order.
The Clergy Discipline Commission will be bringing to the Synod an amending Code of Practice under the Clergy Discipline Measure of 2003, including amendments on which the Commission conducted a consultation in 2008.
Communicating Synod
Anyone 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. Audio files of debates along with updates on the day’s proceedings will be posted during the sessions, which will also be live streamed by Premier Radio.
Updated Monday evening
Most papers for this 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.
GS 1802 Agenda
GS 1803 Business Committee Report
GS 1804 Big Society (Full Report)
GS 1804A Big Society (Short Report)
GS 1805 Draft Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure
GS 1806 Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2010
GS 1806X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1807 Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Order 2010
GS 1807X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1808 Amending Code of Practice (Clergy Discipline Measure)
GS 1808X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1809 Draft Act of Synod - Anglican Communion
GS 1810 Draft Scheme Amending the Diocese in Europe Constitution 1995
GS 1810X Explanatory Memorandum
GS Misc 965 Constitutions of Bodies answerable to Synod through the Archbishops’ Council
GS Misc 966 The Anglican Covenant: a briefing paper
Fulcrum has published an article by Andrew Goddard entitled Framing the Anglican Covenant: Trick or Treat? A Response to Inclusive Church and Modern Church.
The propaganda on the Anglican covenant produced by Inclusive Church (IC) and Modern Church (previously MCU) and published in the church press reveals a most frightening development in contemporary Anglicanism. Two of the Church of England groups most associated with an appeal to reason have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of reasoned argument. They have also revealed themselves so hermeneutically challenged when faced with a relatively simple and short text whose contemporary context is well known that, did I not know some of the groups’ leaders, I would conclude they were deliberately misrepresenting the situation and framing false charges just in order to rally their troops and engender fear in those relatively uninformed of the covenant’s background and content…
Malcolm French who blogs at Simple Massing Priest has written about Aesop on the Anglican Covenant.
Paul Bagshaw at Not the same stream has written The legal fiction at the heart of the Covenant and earlier he also wrote How to mount a successful coup in Anglicanism, and even earlier there was Two conversations not talking to one another.
Lesley’s Blog has some thoughts from Jonathan Clatworthy at Is the Anglican Covenant Innocuous or a Serious Threat?
Earlier Lesley herself wrote What to write about the covenant?
And there is media coverage of the IC/MC advert:
Guardian Liberal Anglicans challenge ‘dogmatic’ Church of England covenant
ENS ENGLAND: Church groups campaign against Anglican Covenant
Ekklesia Campaign launched in C of E against ‘backward-looking’ Anglican Covenant
Press Release from Modern Church and Inclusive Church
Thursday 28 October 2010
Church Groups Unite Against Anglican Covenant
Two major Church of England groups, Inclusive Church and Modern Church (formerly MCU) have joined together to campaign against the proposed Anglican Covenant.
In November the Church of England’s General Synod will be asked to approve the Anglican Covenant. Many Synod members do not realise it, but it could be the biggest change to the Church since the Reformation.
Each of the 38 Provinces in the Anglican Communion is being asked to sign it. By signing, it undertakes not to introduce any new development if another Anglican province anywhere in the world opposes it – unless granted prior permission from a new international body, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
The campaign opens tomorrow Friday, when full-page advertisements appear in both the Church of England Newspaper and the Church Times. It will continue during the weeks leading up to the General Synod debate scheduled for Wednesday 24 November, and if the draft is not rejected, but referred to the dioceses, it will continue throughout 2011.
The full text of the Church Times advert is available as a PDF file here.
Updated
Two articles appeared today which relate to this subject.
First, Peter Ould wrote about the problems of discovering the full election details from the dioceses. See Through a Glass Darkly.
I thought it would be interesting (with my psephological hat on) to have a look at the full returns from the recent General Synod elections, to see whether I could pick up any interesting insights on the voting patterns. The full returns are the rather long pieces of paper (handily normally produced on a spreadsheet for easy consumption) that help explain all the transfers and quotas that are used in the STV election system that the Church of England utilises for its elections. For a worked example, see here on the fabulously wonderful Elections Ireland website…
Update Peter has now published the (not quite complete) results that he has collected. See (Almost) Full General Synod Election Results. If you can help him complete the task, please respond to him.
Second, Elaine Storkey has written at Fulcrum about Who won the General Synod elections and what hope for women bishops?
As the Church House machinery grinds into action, mailing out a truckload of papers for November’s inauguration of the new General Synod, it is interesting to reflect on how this new Synod will respond to some of the issues it inherits from the old. At the centre of these is, of course, the draft legislation on women bishops. Canon Simon Kilwick, chairman of the Catholic Group cautions against any tacit assumption that this will go through in 2012, since there has been a ‘shift in the landscape’ of Synod. However, there is always a shift in the landscape of synod, as change occurs after every election: older members retire, some leave for many different reasons, and others are not re-elected. What this current ‘shift’ actually represents needs therefore to be carefully interpreted…
The outline agenda for the November 2010 Inaugural Group of Sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England is now available and is copied below.
GENERAL SYNOD NOVEMBER 2010
TIMETABLE
Monday, 22 November 10.30 am to 4 pm
Induction of new and returning members
Tuesday, 23 November
am Inauguration of the Synod
2.45 pm Prayers, welcomes, progress of legislation
Presidential Address: Archbishop of Canterbury
Business Committee Report
The Big Society: report by the Mission and Public Affairs Council
Questions
7 pm Close of business
Wednesday, 24 November
9.30 am Prayers
Draft Act of Synod Adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant
Ecclesiastical Offices (Clergy Terms of Service) (Amendment) (No 2)
Regulations and Consequential Transitional Provisions Order
Code of Practice under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003
1 pm Lunch
2.30 pm Draft Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure
Scheme Amending the Diocese in Europe Constitution 1995 (deemed approval)
Farewells – Bishop of Lincoln (10 minutes)
Prorogation
4 pm Meetings of the Convocations and the House of Laity
The votes in the elections to the Church of England General Synod will be counted this week. I will publish the names of the successful candidates here: General Synod List of members.
Please help me do this by sending election results to gs2010@peterowen.org.uk. I will only publish the names of successful candidates, so I do not need the details of the count (although you are welcome to send these to me as well).
Updated 9 & 10 January 2011: links updated to refer to the new Church of England website.
The Church of England has announced today that the Women in the episcopate draft legislation has now been officially referred to dioceses. Here is the press release.
Women in the episcopate draft legislation referred to dioceses
27 September 2010Dioceses have until Monday, 14 November, 2011, to debate and vote on draft legislation that would allow the consecration of women as bishops, according to documents published this week.
The four documents have been posted to Diocesan Secretaries and circulated to General Synod members, as well as being posted on the Church of England website. They are:
- a background note on the history of the legislative proposals;
- the text of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and draft Amending Canon No 30;
- an explanatory memorandum relating to the draft Measure and draft Canon; and
- a procedural note together with a copy of the response form which diocesan secretaries need to send the Clerk to the Synod recording the diocesan decision by 5pm on Monday 14 November 2011.
The membership of a group established under the auspices of the House of Bishops to prepare the draft statutory code of practice will be announced shortly.
Article 8 of the Constitution of the General Synod provides that certain kinds of legislation may not receive the final approval of the General Synod unless they have first been approved by the majority of diocesan synods. Legislation to enable women to become bishops falls within the scope of Article 8 and hence this reference of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and draft Amending Canon No 30 to dioceses.
There are actually five documents, which are linked from this page: Women in the Episcopate: Article 8 Reference, the text of which (with links) is copied below.
Article 8 of the Constitution of the General Synod provides that certain kinds of legislation may not receive the final approval of the General Synod unless they have first been approved by the majority of diocesan synods . Legislation to enable women to become bishops falls within the scope of Article 8, hence this reference of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and draft Amending Canon No 30 to dioceses.
Key documents
The Article 8 process is outlined and explained in a note from the Business Committee of the General Synod (GS Misc 964). The Business Committee has also circulated four other documents:
- a background note on the history of the legislative proposals (A8(WE)BACKGROUND);
- the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (A8(WE)M);
- the draft amending Canon 30 (A8(WE)AC); and
- an explanatory memorandum relating to the draft measure and amending Canon (A8(WE)X).
Voting for the Church of England General Synod has started. Voting closes on or about Friday 8 October. The exact date varies from diocese to diocese, so if you are a voter who leaves things to the last minute be sure to check the closing date in your diocese.
All candidates are entitled to have an election address sent to each elector at the diocese’s expense. Some of these addresses are available online, and the General Synod Blog has published this list: Online Election General Synod Addresses/Statements. If you know of any more do add it as a comment to that list.
I have prepared a list showing the number of candidates in each constituency, where I know them, and in due course I will publish the names of successful candidates.
Candidates for the 2010 Election
General Synod List of members
If you have any updates and/or corrections to either of these lists please send them to the email address given at the head of each list.
Back in June, I wrote an article for the Church Times, Equality Law will affect church appointments. This is a more detailed look at the same subject, with particular reference to the draft legislation on women bishops that is about to be referred to the dioceses of the Church of England.
That draft measure, GS 1708A as amended by synod in July, contains the following clause:
7 Equality Act exceptions
(1) Section 50(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) of the Equality Act 2010 (2010 c. 15) (“the Equality Act”) do not apply so far as they relate to sex or religion or belief, in relation to —
(a) any arrangements contained in a scheme made by the bishop of a diocese under section 2,
(b) any request made by a parochial church council under section 3(1) or (3),
(c) any arrangements set out in a notice sent to the secretary of a parochial church council by the bishop of a diocese under section 3(8),
(d) any action taken in exercising functions relating to the appointment of a priest in order to take account of a request made by a parochial church council under section 3(3), and
(e) any provision in a Code of Practice made under section 5.
(2) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to Schedule 9 to the Equality Act
Section 50 of the Equality Act 2010 deals with the particular topic of Public offices: appointments, etc. Under the Equality Act, a Public office is defined as:
a) an office or post, appointment to which is made by a member of the executive;
(b) an office or post, appointment to which is made on the recommendation of, or subject to the approval of, a member of the executive;
(c) an office or post, appointment to which is made on the recommendation of, or subject to the approval of, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the National Assembly for Wales or the Scottish Parliament.
Clearly, this definition encompasses all Crown appointments, which within the Church of England includes among many others all appointments to bishoprics.
Section 50 goes on to specify the various ways in which discrimination is prohibited in relation to such appointments. For example:
(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer the appointment;
(b) as to the terms on which A offers B the appointment;
(c) by not offering B the appointment.
It is self-evident that several provisions in the draft legislation are, and are intended to be, discriminatory against women appointees. See, for example, the references to a “male bishop” in the text. Unless a clause along the lines of Clause 7 is included in the draft measure, there will be a clear conflict with Clause 50 of the Act. It is worth noting, perhaps, that this requirement is entirely separate from, and in no way impinges on, the various exemptions for religious organisations which are enumerated in Schedule 9 of the Act.
It is also worth noting that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, and the former MP, Robert Key, both issued warnings to synod during the debate that even with, or perhaps because of, Clause 7, the draft measure might face opposition in Parliament. See my earlier report women bishops and equality legislation.
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.
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.
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 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…
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)
We already linked to the full text of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks at the beginning of Monday’s debate.
This was the second of three interventions. The first was in the course of Saturday’s debate and is reproduced immediately below.
The third was at the end of Monday, and is reproduced below the fold, i.e. after the Saturday text.
There is a comprehensive set of links to these texts and others on the Lambeth Palace website here.
Saturday:
Thank you Chairman. Archbishop of Canterbury, 001.
As I indicated this morning, the moving of this amendment doesn’t betoken any lack of appreciation for the labours of the revision committee. We wish to test Synod’s mind on whether the kind of provision already outlined in the draft legislation can be adjusted so as to give it just enough extra credibility with those for whom it’s intended, to help us towards an outcome which we can all find constructive.
Feelings have run quite high in recent weeks and the Archbishops’ amendment has been presented by some in very negative – not to say sinister – terms. It may help to make just one or two points in response:
First, we know it is unusual for archbishops to move amendments. But we should both be very disappointed if this was seen as some kind of covert loyalty test. Synod must scrutinize our suggestion in the way it would scrutinize any other. Because, of course, Synod’s task is scrutiny, including the scrutiny of draft legislation. It’s odd to claim that this piece of draft legislation – whatever its virtues – should be exempt from that kind of scrutiny and the possibility of an amendment. Now, the archbishops have a responsibility for trying to find ways of preserving the highest degree of communion possible, and it’s with those responsibilities in mind that they are asking whether this would help. When the revision committee’s report was published we tried (both of us) to give ourselves time to reflect on what it did and didn’t say on the history of the discussion, which references have already been made to, and to digest the possibilities and explore them. During that time, naturally, we had conversation with a range of people. But again I need to say no group saw these amendments before publication; they’re not the result of ‘horse-trading’. They’re neither a long-framed plot nor a hasty response.
Second, it’s essential to stress what’s already been stressed by the Archbishop of York and by the Bishop of Coventry, that the idea of a coordinate jurisdiction does not take away any liberty or any prerogative from a diocesan bishop in law. Nor does it carve out any community from a diocese. What it does is this: it allows a dissenting parish or congregation the ministry of a bishop whose right to exercise that episcopal ministry is agreed by the diocesan and, so to speak, guaranteed by the decision of the bishops, clergy and laity of the Church of England in Synod – that’s us.
And I would want to echo what’s been said earlier today in debate about the seductions of a view of episcopal jurisdiction that sees it as completely territorial and exclusive. Even a seamless robe may be a coat of many colours, you might say. And we’ve already had allusion to those models of interweaving and cooperative jurisdiction which the history of religious orders – not to mention of course the example of service chaplaincies in our dioceses – already provide.
And third, with a nod in Christina’s [Rees] direction if I may: Many of the points of unease raised today and elsewhere are already recognized in the existing report as unfinished business. The revision committee explicitly does not rule out (for example) the formation of a society or societies that will give more solidity to minority groups. There’s a recognition that a code will have to deal with this. The amendment introduces no distinction between male and female bishops. It preserves the principle that every diocese must draw up a scheme, not those presided solely over women. Such schemes must be worked through in the light of a national code of practice, they are subject to scrutiny, once again, and are appropriate to revision and reworking. The legislation does not seek to answer every possible question here and if there are issues between a diocesan bishop and a nominated bishop – issues which could occur anyway in the present draft – there is the possibility of discussion, consultation and adjustment in the scheme. And I might just add here in parentheses that I didn’t feel able to support the previous amendments partly because I was wary to attempt to do too much on the face of the legislation, and to produce something too detailed.
There are other questions which I think could arise on the existing draft which I don’t think our amendment in any sense makes any more complex – the business has to be done.
In short, this amendment doesn’t introduce any complexities not already present in the proposals. What it does is to put, we believe, one crucial element on the table that we hope might allow significantly more people in the Church of England to own the legislative outcome. It does not sanction prejudice or discrimination. It does not envisage any automatic obligation that disadvantages women bishops as distinct from men. It attempts to be faithful to the visions set out in paragraph 459 of the report if you want to look at that.
The Archbishops have been seeking a solution that goes with the grain of Synod’s wishes to preserve a church in which dissidents from the majority view may still live with – and I’m sorry about the word but I can’t think of any other – integrity. But they do not wish to pursue that at the expense of the integrity of their commitment – and I want you to be in no doubt about the commitment of both archbishops to seeing women ordained to the episcopate – at the expense of the integrity of their commitment and Synod’s commitment to the ordination of women as bishops.
Some of the debate today, I think, has illustrated a real risk that in excluding or marginalising the theological position of certain persons in the Church, division is actually made more serious, not less. We’re trying to give some ground for showing those who are in a minority that their views are taken with a degree of seriousness.
And so the question I want to leave you with is quite simply: Who loses if this amendment is passed? The Archbishop of York and I have offered it in the hope and the prayer that the answer just might be: no-one.
Monday evening:
Before I invite you to pray, just a very brief word about where I think we now are:
We have decided to invite the dioceses to join us in prayer and reflection. We have decided to send to the dioceses a number of suggestions, proposals, by way of draft legislation, about which the feelings of many people in this hall are still very mixed. Some will have decided to, in effect, to send forward to the dioceses proposals, suggestions, which they are not themselves committed to but which they believe need to be discussed as fully and deeply as possible.
I might, perhaps, just say, to read into the record, I had technical difficulties this morning with my voting machine – I was not able to vote on the motion around clause 2 standing part of the measure. In spite of having proposed amendments and in spite of my expressed doubts about that, I believe that that should be discussed by the dioceses because that is an opportunity for doing necessary work, so I should’ve voted in favour had I been able to master a recalcitrant machine. And I do that with some difficulty.
But that is where we are. We are inviting the dioceses to give to this business some of the depth and honesty of feeling that members of Synod have given to the business. We are hoping and praying that the dioceses will regard this as something more than a ‘mechanical’ task. And I would remind you that there are further stages to this process in which we all need to revive flagging energies, looking forward to what I spoke of this morning which is that possibility of finding a way of serving one another through all this, however challenging it is. Like the Chair I’m grateful, as one of the Presidents of the Synod, for the degree to which people have attempted to listen to each other, and I hope that - to echo my fellow President - what emerges is - in the long run, and whatever way - a witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ; after experiences which, for people on all sides of the debate, have involved a good deal of carrying the cross. And by that I mean those who are in a minority and are feeling at the moment bruised and excluded, but also those of our sisters in ministry and in baptised identity who have also had moments of feeling deeply bruised and excluded. The Body of Christ is that sort of body. But it’s also the body which is raised, so in that hope I invite you to pray.
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.
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