Updated Thursday afternoon and evening
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has announced that the Dioceses Commission Draft Reorganisation Scheme for the Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds, and Wakefield will be put to General Synod. Because the Diocese of Wakefield voted against it, the scheme could only be sent to General Synod with the authorization of the Archbishop.
The full statement from the Archbishop is here. This includes the text of the paper which will be sent to General Synod members to explain his decision to authorise the Dioceses Commission to lay the draft scheme before the General Synod.
The Church of England communications office has released this Statement from Dioceses Commission.
Of the three dioceses, only Bradford has so far published anything on its website: Diocesan reorganisation referred to General Synod.
Our earlier reports on this proposal and how it has developed are here, here, here, here, here. here, here, here and here.
Update
The Diocese of Ripon and Leeds has now responded: Welcome for Archbishop’s decision on Diocesan Reorganisation.
And so has Wakefield: Archbishop of York decides to take super diocese proposal to General Synod.
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes has been looking at the requirement that some votes at General Synod require a two-thirds majority. She argues that this requirement should be applied earlier in the synodical process, and not left to the very end as at present. Read her argument here: Synod voting and 2/3 majorities: A discussion paper.
The Prime Minister’s office has announced that the next Dean of Guildford is to be the Revd Canon Dianna Gwilliams. The official press release is here, and is copied below the fold.
Canon Gwilliams will be the fifth woman to become a cathedral dean in the Church of England.
The diocese of Guildford has this announcement.
Canon Gwilliams is currently working in the diocese of Southwark, which has its own announcement here.
Press Release from the Prime Minister’s Office
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Reverend Dianna Lynn Gwilliams, to be appointed to be Dean of Guildford.
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Reverend Canon Dianna Lynn Gwilliams, MA, Vicar of St Barnabas, Dulwich and Foundation Chaplain of Alleyn’s Foundation, Dulwich in the Diocese of Southwark, and Honorary Canon of Southwark Cathedral, to be appointed to the Deanery of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Spirit in Guildford, on the resignation of the Very Reverend Victor Andrew Stock, OAM, AKC, FRSA, on 31 July 2012.
Notes for editors
The Reverend Canon Dianna Gwillliams (aged 55) studied Physics and Chemistry at the University of California for her BA, and then moved to London in 1978 to continue her work as a Sound Engineer. She trained for ordination with the Southwark Ordination Course and was ordained deacon in 1992 and priest in 1994. She served her first curacy in Peckham, southeast London, at Copleston Centre Church (a Local Ecumenical Partnership) and second curacy at St Barnabas, Dulwich, before applying for, and being appointed Vicar of St Barnabas and Foundation Chaplain of Edward Alleyn’s Foundation in 1999. She gained an MA Youth Ministry and Theological Education from King’s College, London in 2001.
In addition to these responsibilities Dianna has also served as Area Dean of Dulwich from 2005 to 2012, Diocesan Dean of Women’s Ministry from 2009 to 2012 and has just completed 12 months as Acting Archdeacon of Southwark. Since 2006 she has been an Honorary Canon of Southwark Cathedral.
At the General Synod meeting last November, some Questions were asked about the report that has recently been published.
The full transcript of Questions and Answers is available here, but the section relating to the report (pages 43-44) is copied in full below the line.
Readers may wish to ask themselves whether the report that has now been published fits the description given in the answer:
…The Committee saw no need for a review of the teaching document issued by the House in 1999. It did, however, ask the Commission to produce a short document summarizing the Church’s doctrine of marriage and taking account of further theological work that has appeared since.
The full text of the 1999 document mentioned above can be found here: Marriage: A Teaching Document (PDF).
18. Revd Canon Giles Goddard (Southwark) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Is it the case that the Faith and Order Commission has been invited by the House of Bishops to undertake work in relation to the Church’s teaching on marriage and, if so, who will be conducting that work on the Commission’s behalf?
19. Miss Rachel Beck (Lincoln) asked the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Given the concern expressed at the last group of sessions that the full diversity of beliefs on the issue of same-sex marriage that exist within the Church were not fully represented in the response submitted to HM Government’s consultation on the issue of same-sex marriage, can the House ensure that in any request for work in this area to the Faith and Order Commission it would be encouraged to look at the subject in all its fullness, a fullness which includes debating the possibility of blessing same-sex marriage?
The Archbishop of York (Dr John Sentamu), replied as Chairman of the House of Bishops’ Standing Committee:
With permission, Chair, I will answer these Questions together.
At a meeting of the House of Bishops Standing Committee earlier this year the Bishop of Coventry, as chair of the Faith and Order Commission, asked whether the Committee wished the Commission to undertake any further work on the Church of England’s teaching on marriage. The Committee saw no need for a review of the teaching document issued by the House in 1999. It did, however, ask the Commission to produce a short document summarizing the Church’s doctrine of marriage and taking account of further theological work that has appeared since. The work is now well advanced.
Revd Canon Giles Goddard (Southwark): At best, this sounds like a missed opportunity, given the amount of recent work on these matters, which deserves more serious –
The Chairman: You are making a speech, not asking a question.
Revd Canon Giles Goddard (Southwark): I am coming to the question – which deserves more serious consideration than is possible in a short document. Who is advising the Commission and when will the report be published?
The Archbishop of York: That document has been asked for by the Standing Committee of the House. It will then go to the House of Bishops to decide how, when, where and what will be published after consultation with the House. That is the process.
We overlooked the verbatim Report of Proceedings of last November’s General Synod when it was published, but it is available for download: Report of Proceedings November 2012.
Reports back to February 2007 are available from this page and in most cases audio files are also available.
The Church of England issued this update this afternoon.
Update on progress on women bishops legislation
26 March 2013The consultation document on women bishops issued on 8 February generated 376 responses by the closing date of 28 February. Of these, 10 were from organisations and three from bishops. Of the remaining 363 submissions, 154 were from General Synod members and 209 from others.
The working group has met twice in March and has further meetings scheduled for April and May. It remains on track to report to the House of Bishops before the meeting of the House on 20/21 May, when the House will be deciding what proposals to bring to the Synod in July. At its April meeting the group is having further facilitated conversations with those who joined it for the earlier discussions at the beginning of February.
Notes
The consultation document on women bishops was issued as below
http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2013/02/consultation-document-issued-by-working-group-on-women-bishops-legislation.aspx
Another response to the consultation is available on the REFORM website, written by Rod Thomas.
Here is another submission to the consultation by an individual, Hilary Cotton. (PDF)
Women and the Church (WATCH) has made a formal response to the consultation.
The main body of the response is in this document (PDF):
The WATCH response to GS Misc 1042 Women in the episcopate: a new way forward.
Or it is available here as a normal web page.
There are several appendices:
Another excellent response to the consultation (which has a deadline of today “if possible”) comes from Jonathan Clatworthy.
See How we argue about women bishops.
This is a personal statement but the main points aim to express the theological tradition of Modern Church, which has supported the ordination of women since the 1920s. I support a simple measure which removes the obstacles to the consecration of women on exactly the same terms as men.
The focus is on how to handle the theological disagreements.
No legislation will last long unless it is both self-consistent and theologically coherent. Legislation containing contradictions will fail the test of time, however strong the short-term pressure for fudge.
Currently there is no genuine theological debate between the two sides. This is partly because of the polarisation of views, but also largely because there is no agreement on how to do our theological disagreeing. It is an epistemological issue rather than a theological one…
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes has written this excellent response to the Consultation document on women bishops legislation.
Schrodinger’s Cat Theology? Response to Women Bishops Consultation
David Pocklington has published two articles at Law & Religion UK about the Consultation document on women bishops legislation.
Women in the episcopate consultation: the basics
Women in the episcopate consultation: an analysis
The second includes this comment.
The above analysis suggests that whilst the four propositions developed by the Working Group provide a broad framework within which to proceed, these need to be finessed further to maximize the benefit of the progress achieved to date. This would include.
- more formal declaration of the objectives a) to provide a clearer focus for the group’s work, and b) to give a signal to those outside the group of the expected outcome;
- minimization of “soft law” instruments within the “package” which is developed, which would rely [on] a combination of primary and secondary legislation coming into force at the same time;
- a statement on the expected time-scale, identifying key milestones and reviews of progress.
But do read all of them both.
Church of England press release: Consultation document issued by working group on women bishops legislation:
08 February 2013
A consultation document setting out a new way forward in enabling women to become bishops in the Church of England has today been sent to all General Synod members.The document draws on the facilitated conversations arranged by the Working Group on women bishops legislation held earlier this week and the meeting of the House of Bishops on February 7.
The consultation document can be read here. (PDF)
Notes
Statement following the meeting of the House of Bishops PR28.13
http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2013/02/statement-on-the-conclusion-of-the-meeting-of-the-house-of-bishops.aspxThe facilitation process referred to was set out in PR160.12 on 11 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/statement-from-the-house-of-bishops-on-defeat-of-women-bishops-legislation.aspx
Membership of the working group was set out in PR169.12 on 19 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/working-group-on-new-legislative-proposals-on-women-bishops-announced.aspx
We have made a webpage version of the consultation document available here.
The electronic voting results of the House of Laity meeting held on 18 January 2013 are now available. As usual these take the form of a pdf file, arranged by vote (for/against/abstain) and then alphabetically.
For convenience I have put the results into a spreadsheet arranged by synod number (which brings members together by diocese) and added absentees and vacancies. I have also provided a webpage version of the spreadsheet.
A verbatim transcript of the meeting is also available.
Statement on the conclusion of the meeting of the House of Bishops
07 February 2013
The House of Bishops of the Church of England has today expressed its encouragement and support for new robust processes and steps in bringing forward to General Synod the necessary legislation to consecrate women to the episcopate.
At a special meeting at Lambeth Palace today, the House reviewed the progress to develop proposals to enable women to become bishops at the earliest possible date. The meeting also considered changes to future meetings so as to ensure that eight senior women clergy will be participants in all meetings of the House and its standing committee.
The House was briefed on the two meetings held in January by the working group under the chairmanship of the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. All 10 of the members of the working group attended the House of Bishops meeting. The House also received an account of the intensive, facilitated conversations held by the group with 15 others from a wide range of viewpoints on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.
The House was encouraged to hear of the constructive manner in which everyone had joined together in the search for a way forward. It agreed that the working group should shortly issue a consultation document that would give an outline of the discussions of the past weeks, set out some emerging ideas and provide General Synod members with an opportunity to have an input into that conversation prior to the working group meeting again on 4 March.
The House affirmed the nature of the facilitation process and encouraged opportunities which may be available to extend this process further at a diocesan and regional level. There was also support for the facilitation process to continue in parallel with the fresh proposals that will be brought to General Synod in July.
Following the discussion with the working group, the House went on to consider issues arising from its current all male membership. It decided that until such time as there are six female members of the House, following the admission of women to the episcopate, a number of senior women clergy should be given the right to attend and speak at meetings of the House as participant observers. The intention is that eight members would be elected regionally from within bishops’ senior staff teams (that include deans, archdeacons and others). The necessary change to the House’s Standing Orders will be made in May.
In addition, the House agreed to a special meeting on 19 September when the College of Bishops and a group of senior female clergy will meet to take forward the range of cultural and practical issues about gender and ministry in the Church of England arising from the ‘Transformations’ initiative that was launched at Lambeth in September 2011.
Notes
The facilitation process referred to was set out in PR160.12 on 11 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/statement-from-the-house-of-bishops-on-defeat-of-women-bishops-legislation.aspx
Membership of the working group was set out in PR169.12 on 19 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/working-group-on-new-legislative-proposals-on-women-bishops-announced.aspx
As the intensive facilitated discussions on legislation to allow women to be bishops start today WATCH has published these two articles, from which I have extracted a few key paragraphs.
John Gladwin: Some comments on where we go from here on the legislation for opening the episcopate to women
The issue in front of us is not primarily doctrinal. That hurdle was jumped in the 1970’s and the church has not retreated from its clear commitment that there are no theological principles in our understanding of the tradition preventing women entering holy orders.
The issue is, therefore, fundamentally about the order of the church. The order of the Church of England is that if you are ordained deacon you may be ordained priest after one year and if you are ordained priest you may be ordained Bishop after 6 years and if you are over 30 years of age. Canon C2 sets out the refinements of this. Driving a permanent wedge between the priesthood and the episcopate is destructive of our tradition and order.
That is one of the reasons why the language of reception was used when women were admitted to the priesthood. The experience of this ministry would seal the issue. There can be no doubt that the period is reception is long passed. When the Archbishop Rowan suggested that, in theory, it was possible for the church to reverse its decision to ordain women into the priesthood, he very quickly had to retract. There is no doubt reception time is done.
Jane Charman: Gender discrimination in the Church of England – why it matters and our response
Within the Church of England defending the rights of some individuals and groups to discriminate against women currently has a high priority and is connected in many minds with upholding freedom and diversity. By contrast witnessing to the equal dignity and worth of women in society has a low priority. It is not a moral imperative for us. Opponents of women’s ministry have worked hard to alter our perceptions in this way, to present gender discrimination as a respectable alternative position within the life of the Church and themselves as victims of intolerance. This reversal of values seems perverse and incomprehensible, even morally repugnant, to those outside the Church.
I voted for the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure last November, having persuaded myself that it was the best of the options available to us. I wanted to respect the views of others and make gracious provision for those who tell us they are struggling with this issue for theological reasons. I particularly wanted to find a way for the Church of England to break out of the current impasse and move forward with the pressing missional task that is before us.
I have come to understand that what I did was wrong. I was supporting a lesser good at the expense of a greater good. We cannot place the needs and wishes of a small number of our own members above our vocation to declare a gospel of justice and mercy for all human beings. We cannot achieve our goal of having women in the House of Bishops on such terms.
Following the consecration of Glyn Webster, an election has been held to elect his successor as prolocutor [ie chair] of the lower house [ie clergy] of the Convocation of York.
The Venerable Cherry Vann, the Archdeacon of Rochdale, was elected unopposed.
Amongst other things the prolocutor is an ex officio member of the Archbishops’ Council.
Madeleine Davies writes in the Church Times: Women-bishops summit next week. She reports that ““Intensive” facilitated discussions are to be held on Tuseday and Wednesday next week by the working group on women bishops”.
The chair of the working group has sent a statement to all General Synod members (GS Misc 1041), and this is copied below.
GS Misc 1041
GENERAL SYNOD
Women Bishops: Working Group on new legislative proposalsPlease see below a statement which the Chair of the Working Group has asked to be circulated to Synod members.
William Fittall
Secretary General
31 January 2013Synod members will have seen that, on 11 December, the House of Bishops established a working group drawn from all three Houses of Synod to advise it on the preparation of fresh legislative proposals to be brought before the Synod in July. The Archbishops announced the names of the ten members of the Group on 19 December.
We held our first meeting on 3 January and met again yesterday. At our first meeting we decided to invite 15 people to join us for intensive facilitated discussions on 5/6 February. We sought nominations for some of these places from interested groups and issued some invitations to named individuals.
We thought long and hard about the best arrangements and came to the conclusion that an event of this kind, at which we could do intensive and focused work with the help of outside facilitators, would be what was most productive at this stage of the process.
After our conversations conclude at the end of Wednesday afternoon the Working Group will be meeting the Archbishops and other members of the House of Bishops Standing Committee that evening in preparation for a special meeting of the House of Bishops on Thursday 7 February.
It will be for the House to decide what should happen thereafter in the light of the conversations that have happened. My expectation is that the House will issue a statement and give the working Group a fresh mandate for the next phase of its work. I would also hope that, shortly thereafter, there will be an opportunity to circulate a consultation document enabling all Synod members to make a contribution. Given the timescale to which we are working we shall probably need to seek responses by the end of February.
The ten of us who have been appointed to serve on the Working Group – 4 bishops, 3 clergy and 3 laity – are very conscious of the weight of expectation and responsibility placed on us. Do pray for us and for all those involved in the various discussions during the week of 4 February
+Nigel St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
We reported on the establishment of the working group here and here; the second link includes a list of the group’s members.
The Church of England website has this press release about this afternoon’s debate.
House of Laity rejects vote of no confidence
18 January 2013The House of Laity, meeting in Church House, Westminster today, rejected a motion of no confidence in its Chair, Dr Philip Giddings, with 47 voting for the motion and 80 voting against.
The motion was brought by Mr Stephen Barney, a lay canon of Leicester Cathedral, who said he had lost confidence in Dr Giddings as Chair of the House of Laity following Dr Giddings’ speech in the debate on women bishops legislation in November. In a letter to all members of the House of Laity before the debate, Mr Barney said, “Whatever we decide, I hope it will contribute to resolving this issue in the long term, for the flourishing of all.”
After the vote, Dr Giddings told the House: “Mr Chairman I am grateful for that vote of confidence but I need to, in a sense, take my medicine. There are clearly a substantial minority of the House who do not have confidence in me. I intend to continue in office but I shall take careful advice from colleagues about how we proceed from here. And in particular I think we need to have some kind of debate about what are the expectations of chair and vice chair in matters of this kind. I hope and pray that we can now put this behind us and the temperature can be lowered and that we can seek to work together for the sake of God’s mission to this country.”
There are several online press reports of the debate.
Madeleine Davies and Ed Thornton in the Church Times House of Laity bid to oust Giddings fails
Sam Jones in The Guardian Female bishops: house of laity chair survives no-confidence vote
Lauren Turner in The Independent Women bishops: Church leader Dr Philip Giddings wins confidence vote
BBC Church of England no-confidence vote defeated
John Bingham in The Telegraph Spectre of gay bishops feud returns amid Church debate on women
Matthew Davies of Episcopal News Service England’s laity rejects ‘no confidence’ vote in their chair
Christian Today Church of England: Philip Giddings survives lay vote
Andrew Brown of The Guardian has this comment: God’s hand in General Synod politics.
The motion before the House was:
That this House have no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of this House.
Immediately before the vote was due to be taken, a motion to pass to next business (and thereby cancel the vote on the main motion) was moved, but overwhelmingly lost.
The main motion was defeated with 47 votes in favour, 80 votes against and 13 recorded.
After the debate Dr Giddings said that he would continue in office, but that there was a need for a debate on the role of the chair of the house.
The Anglican Mainstream website carries this editorial (reprinted from New Directions): Special meeting of the House of Laity. It starts:
We are appalled by the news that there is to be a special meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod to have a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of the House of Laity, Dr Philip Giddings. Dr Giddings spoke up for proper and fair provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ordination of women to the episcopate. He has been accused of impartiality, a charge not levied against those leaders in other Houses who spoke out firmly in favour of the legislation and indeed in one case against any provision whatsoever for us.
and later continues:
In response to Bishop Jonathan Baker’s fine reflection on the vote in synod the website ‘Thinking Anglicans’ has been awash with misconceptions and in some cases simple untruths. Many commentators have become fixated with the idea that there is a See of Ebbsfleet. Given that Ebbsfleet is a suffragan see of the Archbishop of Canterbury and on the official advert declaring a vacancy in the see it was called the See of Ebbsfleet, one wonders why people are getting so irate. It is of course because they dislike what the See of Ebbsfleet and indeed the other Catholic sees stand for. They dislike the sense of coherence around a bishop that has grown up in our constituency. They cannot understand the world in which we operate, supporting one another and meeting together, because we share a common faith and a common vision. [emphasis added]
Unlike the Anglican Mainstream website, we are open for comments.
David Pocklington of Law & Religion UK looks ahead to tomorrow’s meeting with these Questions for the House of Laity (and the Church), and suggests that members of the House of Laity might ponder the following:
But do read the whole article.
Updated
As Friday’s meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod approaches with its motion of no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of the House, James Townsend looks ahead to the meeting with Philip Giddings – the mood of the House is yet to settle.
Townsend is a lay member of Synod from the diocese of Manchester. He predicts “a reasonably high turnout of between 75% and 79%”, and his soundings suggest that the voting on the no confidence motion will be close.
Update
Anglican Mainstream has published House of Laity Meeting on Friday January 18 with views from Bishop Jonathan Baker, Canon Stephen Barney, Peter Ould, Tom Sutcliffe and Stephen Trott.
Madeleine Davies in the Church Times looks ahead to next week’s meeting of the General Synod’s House of Laity with Lay rebel explains his Giddings challenge.
Another letter to members of the House of Laity about next week’s meeting has reached us; this time from Tony Berry, a lay member from Chester diocese.
Dear Fellow member of Synod;
We are to debate a motion of no confidence in the chair of the House of Laity at our meeting on the 18th of January.
There appear to be three areas of concern; Leadership, Representation and Accountability. The debate on the Women Bishops measure provides a kind of critical incident through which these may be viewed. The comments below follow the three issues.
It may be that the chair of the House of Laity is not expected to be a leader or to exhibit leadership. In the debate the chair (having as I understand it) voted in July 2010 for the clause defining the principle of provision by delegation (itself carried by 393 to14) and voted to send the measure to the dioceses, then chose to be led by the minority in speaking and voting against the measure. This after the measure had had a ringing endorsement from the dioceses and the support of more than 2/3 of lay people.
In his speech he (three times) used the phrase “there must be a better way” without giving any indication of what he might have had in mind. It would have been an act of leadership (given the lay votes in the dioceses to at least given some indication of what a better way might be. Instead there was emptiness, an emptiness that was widely shared.
[continued below the fold]
However the opponents of the WB measure appeared to have had a common rubric for the debate; “This is not about women Bishops, it is about the provision, there must be a better way”. So far from the lay chair speaking as an individual he was it appears party to an organised process to wish for a better way but to have no idea (or no idea to be admitted) of what that might be. Note that the provision only exists because of the objections to women bishops so the provision has everything to do with women bishops. In this respect the lay chair ignored the other Bishops’ amendment which distinguished between delegation of institutional authority (surely the church has this authority) and the derivation of orders. This amendment did underscore the provision in the measure by making it clear that the Episcopal orders are not delegated.
It may be the case that the lay chair and others thought that by using their blocking minority in the house that they could persuade the new archbishop to change the measure for them. The lay chair appears to be seeking “provision” that would see other lay people in parishes being denied the Episcopal and priestly ministry of women when in parishes that joyfully accept women’s ordained ministry all male orders are welcome; doubtless you will have your own views on the fairness of this.
The lay chair spoke of the “unchurching” of some objectors if the measure was passed. This is an old ploy, to threaten, to choose to be a victim and to then blame others for the self imposed condition. So he was prepared to lay down 3,500 serving women priests for the sake of his friends. And incidentally just because Paul lived in a sexist culture we do not and there is no reason why we should and certainly no reason to subject women to male dominance.
The lay chair appeared to accept the argument that as men may be or are the head of a household so men should exercise headship in the church. This weak argument by analogy rests upon socially constructed gendered roles. There is a stronger argument by analogy which is; to participate in God’s creation of human beings is the most wonderful thing we humans can do. To create humans requires the product of the male testes and the female ovaries to be brought together in an act of mutuality (the woman is not a mere receptacle). This mutuality, the wonderful jointness of creation, provides a splendid analogy for the mutuality and sharing in family, social and church life where we could celebrate mutual dependence and not use trivial ideas of male dominated complementarity. Again in our culture most marriages are partnerships of equals and the idea of male headship in marriage is rather quaint. And it is not surprising that the decision caused by the blocking minority of our house produced such widespread consternation in the dioceses and parishes together with incredulity bordering upon contempt in the country in which our church is supposed to be the national church.
The lay chair did not comment upon the odd and questionable role of lay evangelical women in the debate and in the vote. Here we had examples of such synod members exercising headship in the church (when they argue that women should not do so) and exercising that headship in order to deny that women should exercise headship. The lay chair might have noted this anomaly and asked such women not to vote at all as even to register an abstention was to exercise headship. At the time of the suffragette movement there was a general view that significant numbers of women did not want the vote, it seemed odd to them then to have the vote, it does not now. Very few women do not exercise their right to vote now as a matter of principal.
The lay chair asked that no decision be taken without consensus. Well if he believed that he would not have been party to any contested election in the church. But after twenty years of women priests and nearing ten years of debate on women bishops it was clear enough that his statement regarding consensus was just a kind of resistance tactic, a desperate seeking of avoidance of decision; an abdication of leadership. And let us remember that in July 2010 General Synod had not accepted the third province (a non runner), had rejected separate dioceses and automatic transfer by almost 2/3 majorities, had (just) rejected co jurisdiction but to the extent that it would never have attained a 2/3 support. Also note please that co jurisdiction would have had a women bishop in co jurisdiction with a male who did not accept that she had any jurisdiction; just how many insults do women have to bear?
The lay chair knew as did we all of Tom Sutcliffe’s letter in which Tom wrote that those who claim that the “measure makes provision” were lying. Note that Tom did not qualify the word provision. Any lay chair in a role of leadership must have taken up this issue in the debate for to let it go by was to accept unacceptable behaviour in the house of laity. Before the November meeting of Synod I took the matter up with the clerk to the synod and he referred it to the lawyers, but unlike parliament we have no rules about accusing others of lying so nothing could be done.
It could be said that in going against the expressed wishes of the lay people in the dioceses the lay chair was being brave; well maybe. But it was the act of following the objectors and not leading on behalf of the laity that was the failure of leadership. He noted that he had voted for women priests’ measure as there was the parallel Act of Synod to be brought forward at a later date.
So the whole church now knows that far from representing the house of laity the current lay chair represents only a small section of it. Now by virtue of office the lay chair sits on various bodies including the Group of Six which decided whether the revised measure brought to Synod would have to be referred to the dioceses. It would be useful to know how the lay chair and the lay vice chair voted on this matter as it would clarify their positions; surely it is not enough to hide behind a cloak of confidentiality on such a crucial issue. However in all of these other roles and settings every other person will now know, if they did not know previously, that the current lay chair is not their point of reference for the views of the house of laity. In this critical incident of the debate on the WB measure the current lay chair has lost credibility in role with the great majority of the laity in the church and has lost credibility in other roles as well. He is in office but not in authority. As this becomes clearer the current lay chair whatever the vote on the 18th may well need to consider his position.
The lay chair spoke of the need to have diversity and difference acknowledged and respected; that is true enough for us all. However when slavery was abolished there were no special provisions for those who wished it to continue because to continue slavery would be to legitimise a continuing domination of the enslaved, even where deep acculturation had so accustomed some to slave hood that they wished it to continue. It would also permit the cruelty and corruption of the slave owners to continue. There is a sense in which no provisions should be made for those who wish for whatever reasons they might advance wish to continue in the church the domination of women by men with or without the connivance of other women. A university teacher can hardly claim innocence in the history of female emancipation.
You may agree, as do I, that the lay chair has a right to his opinions. But in most other walks of life to stand so determinedly against the prevailing well argued and agreed position of the great majority of lay people would mean a speech from the back benches following a resignation. That would have been a very honourable position to take. It would have underlined that idea that the lay chair is accountable to the electorate for his actions.
Now you may see the meeting on the 18th as unnecessary, unfortunate, and expensive. Some members have reported that they will not attend. There are two ways to avoid the expense, a withdrawal of the motion of no confidence or the resignation of the current lay chair.
Clearly this motion of no confidence raises significant considerations in respect of Leadership, Representation and of Accountability. These are serious matters, not to be dismissed lightly, not to be laughed off as the action of the winners of the great and long standing church debate about women bishops, surely not to be ignored as bad manners or decided upon “party” lines. So let us have a proper debate about these issues.
Archbishop Cranmer has written on his blog an article entitled The revenge of the liberal laity. In it he quotes the full text of a letter from Gavin Oldham, a lay General Synod member from the diocese of Oxford. In it Oldham explains why he will be voting for the vote of no confidence in the chair of the House of Laity at the meeting of the House next week.
Here is the letter.
Dear friends in Christ,
On 18 January the House will be debating a ‘No Confidence’ motion in its Chair, a motion which has arisen directly from the General Synod debate on women bishops in November. I have given my support to the motion being debated, and it is my intention to support the motion on the day unless by the grace of God there is clear evidence of change.
I owe it to my friends in the House who voted against the women bishops’ legislation to explain why I have given my support, and how my views have changed since that day in November. Let me first explain that I have been a member of the General Synod since 1995 representing Oxford diocese: as does Philip Giddings, who I have been fortunate to regard as a friend over these last 17 years. I am also a member of EGGS, as he is and, although I have been a consistent supporter of women bishops, I regard myself very much as an Evangelical, albeit one who places a high importance on the place of reason alongside scripture and tradition.
This is not in any respect a personal issue.
[continued below the fold]
Over the past years my position on women bishops has been to support the maximum provision for those who have found it difficult to accept the change, consistent with the solution being convergent for the Church as opposed to divergent. I explained this position in July 2012 at the meeting of the House which took place before General Synod. I have never been prepared to contemplate a solution which could evolve into a schism.
However my position has hardened considerably since the November debate, as I have come to realise that it is the destructive ideology of male headship which lies at the root of our problems.
Our deadlock over women bishops has, of course, resulted from a combination of Anglo-Catholic and conservative Evangelical opposition. The Anglo-Catholics naturally look to Rome for a lead, and while Rome might prefer to see a clear resolution of the matter within the Church of England, it is not about to give that lead.
However it is the concept of male headship, espoused by many of my Evangelical friends as theology, which presents the major problem: as was clear from speech after speech during our debate. For while valid questions may have been asked about the representative quality of the House of Laity in the General Synod, the Church should – and does – acknowledge the vibrancy and growth of Evangelical churches which have so much to offer. This vibrancy is not dependent on the adoption of male headship ideology by conservative Evangelicals, but on the working of the Holy Spirit through people of faith.
I have come to realise since the November debate that male headship is to be seen alongside a number of similar major historical issues where prejudice and discrimination have been justified by selected biblical references. These include slavery, national socialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Male headship has its roots in the same soil of prejudice and discrimination. It is another elitist creed which, in my view, has no place in the Church of England, nor indeed in the Christian faith.
It may be helpful to consider these selected biblical references through the filter of the two great commandments from which hang all the law and the prophets. For example, how can a man who is a male headship advocate claim to ‘love his neighbour as himself’ if he is not prepared to accept that she can carry the same roles within the church? Obviously it can’t be ‘as himself’, or perhaps he is denying that women are his neighbours by virtue of their gender? I don’t think Jesus was making that distinction.
The Bishop of Liverpool spoke clearly in the debate setting out how he had come to understand St. Paul’s teaching, and why it should not be used as a prop for male headship ideology. The bishops are the seat of theology within the Church, and I do feel that conservative Evangelicals should listen carefully to, and be prepared to accept, what they say.
The ideology of male headship has come to have assumed the status of doctrine, but even doctrine is shown as capable of change from a biblical perspective. St Peter was clearly of the doctrinal view that the Gospel was meant only for the Jews, and yet his vision at Cornelius’ house (Acts 10) made clear that he must change. And thank God that he did, because otherwise we would not have the opportunity to receive Christ’s salvation today.
So I have come to realise that male headship ideology must be confronted and not appeased, just in the same way that St. Peter confronted his erstwhile interpretation that the Christian faith was reserved for the Jews. Male headship is simply the latest in a long line of elitist creeds, and it is time to consign it to history, as with the others.
Finally, let me say again that the 18 January debate is not personal: it is about the integrity of the House of Laity. Nobody will be more delighted than me to see Philip being prepared to encourage Evangelicals to pursue their zeal for Christ unencumbered with elitist ideology. With best wishes
Gavin
Gavin Oldham
Oxford 370
Paul Bagshaw is publishing an important series of articles on his blog about the electorate for elections to the House of Laity of the CofE General Synod, and of diocesan synods. In them he argues that this electorate should be all those on parish electoral rolls, rather than the lay members of deanery synods as it is a present.
He starts with
in which he writes:
The present system
At the moment those on the electoral roll of a church vote for Deanery Synod members. These people then vote for Diocesan and General Synod members.
This system of indirect voting means that there is no accountability from governing bodies to the people in the pews - the people who very largely pay for the Church. Where there is no accountability, the people don’t count.
The consequences of change
It isn’t possible simply to change the voting system as though it was a technical matter with no other implications.
- The marginalization of the laity is a cornerstone of our present synodical system.
- To change the franchise would be to change the whole set of relationships which currently structure the church - clergy:laity, diocese:parish, General Synod:parish.
- Inevitably too the present kingpins in this structure - bishops and parish clergy - would also have to modify the ways they work and their relationships with the people around them.
The fundamental change will be to treat each enrolled member as a fully adult member of the Church. I think such change will be beneficial - and equally that it will be resisted.
Subsequent articles to date are:
How we got here (briefly)
One member : One vote - simple!
General Synod votes for direct election of lay representatives (almost)
2011 debate on lay representation - background paper 1
2011 debate on lay representation - background paper 2
Radical?
Let’s have a review - the GS debate on representing the laity, 2011
The articles can also be all be read on this one page.
Paul Bagshaw has also written this background article
and this related article:
The Secretary General has prepared an explanatory memorandum outlining the legislative process that would need to be followed by the Church of England to enable women to become bishops. Although prepared for members of the two Houses of Parliament it has been issued to members of General Synod and made available online.
I have also placed an html version online here.
The memorandum concludes, “It would, therefore, be possible for legislation introduced in 2013 to complete all its stages in the lifetime of this Synod, which ends in July 2015. Pending the discussions with all interested parties in the early months of 2013 it is too soon, however, to offer a confident prediction of what the timescale will be given the imperative need to avoid a second failure.”
The summary of decisions taken by the House of Bishops at its latest meeting (December 2012) has been published.
The summary can be read below and has been posted on the Church of England website.
HOUSE OF BISHOPS - SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
A meeting of the House of Bishops was held at Lambeth Palace on 10-11 December 2012. Those matters reported below reflect the items discussed and decisions agreed upon.
1. The House considered the consequences of the 20 November General Synod vote on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure. The House recognised and felt the profound and widespread sense of anger, grief and disappointment experienced by so many in the Church of England and beyond.
2. The House considered that the present situation was unsustainable for all, whatever their convictions, and affirmed that the Church of England now had to resolve the issue through its own processes as a matter of great urgency. It was agreed that a statement from the House of Bishops on this issue would be released as soon as possible after the conclusion of the meeting.
3. The House expressed its gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England, and its sadness that recent events had left so many feeling undermined and undervalued.
4. The House had the benefit of four senior female members of General Synod participating in their discussion. The House agreed to hold an event in early 2013 to which lay and ordained women will be invited, to discuss how the culture of its processes and discussions might be changed and a more regular contribution from women secured.
5. The House also set up a working group drawn from all three Houses of Synod (the membership to be determined by the Archbishops and announced before Christmas), to arrange facilitated discussion with a wide range of people of a variety of views in the week of 4 February and to advise the House so that it can decide in May what fresh legislative proposals to bring before the next meeting of the General Synod in July.
6. The House considered a number of items relating to appointments, personal data and ministry and:
7. The House considered an interim report from the group chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality. Pending the conclusion of the group’s work next year the House does not intend to issue a further pastoral statement on civil partnerships. It confirmed that the requirements in the 2005 statement concerning the eligibility for ordination of those in civil partnerships whose relationships are consistent with the teaching of the Church of England apply equally in relation to the episcopate.
8. The House was updated in relation to a draft document in preparation from the Faith and Order Commission in relation to the doctrine of marriage. The House agreed that, once further revisions had been made, it could be issued with the agreement of the Standing Committee as a FAOC document and commended for study.
9. The Archbishop of Canterbury briefed the House on recent events throughout the Anglican Communion.
10. The House approved new policies in relation to Local Ecumenical Policy.
11. The House approved a proposal to update the publication of Bishops’ Working Costs.
12. The House was briefed in relation to ongoing work by the Archbishops’ Task Group on Spending Plans.
13. The House was briefed on the published results of the 2011 Census. The House noted a statement which had been made on the results.
The agenda and supporting papers for the meeting of the House of Latiy to be held on 18 January 2013 have been published.
I have copied the agenda below.
The press have been advised that this is a public meeting and that it will be chaired by the Rt Worshipful Charles George QC, Dean of the Arches.
HLA1
GENERAL SYNOD
HOUSE OF LAITYNotice is hereby given of a meeting of the House of Laity to be held at 1.30 p.m. on Friday 18 January 2013 at Church House, Westminster.
Church House
Westminster SW1P 3AZ
18 December 2012
Nicholas Hills
SecretaryAGENDA
PRAYERS
Chair of the House of Laity: HL01A and HL01B
Canon Stephen Barney (Leicester) to move:
1. ‘That this House have no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of this House.’
Notes to the agenda are below the fold.
Notes:
1. This meeting has been convened under Standing Order 2(c) of the House.
2. Canon Stephen Barney has prepared a note (HL01A) explaining his reasons for seeking this meeting. Members are also referred to HL01B, which is an unedited transcript of Dr Giddings’s speech during the debate on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708D) at the November 2012 group of sessions of the General Synod.
3. It would help if members who wished to speak in this debate could, if at all possible, notify the Secretary of the House in advance either in writing or at nicholas.hills@churchofengland.org. A request to speak form is included with this agenda.
4. Members who wish to reclaim expenses associated with attendance at this meeting should discuss this with their diocese or, where their expenses are met centrally, with the Synod Support Unit. Diocesan Secretaries have been informed that the meeting is to take place.
Following the meeting of the House of Bishops earlier this month when they said that they would appoint a working group to assist them in formulating new legislative proposals on women bishops the Archbishops have today announced the membership of the group.
Working group on new legislative proposals on women bishops announced
19 December 2012
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have announced the membership of the new working group established by the House of Bishops following the defeat of the women bishops’ legislation.
The group includes members of all three houses of the General Synod - Bishops, Clergy and Laity - and a senior member of clergy who is no longer on the Synod. The members are:
The Rt Rev Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (chair)
The Rt Rev Dr Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry
The Rt Rev James Langstaff, Bishop of Rochester
The Rt Rev Dr Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester
The Very Rev Vivienne Faull, Dean of York
The Ven Christine Hardman
The Rev Dr Rosemarie Mallett
Dr Philip Giddings
Dr Paula Gooder
Mrs Margaret Swinson
The group’s task (see PR 160.12) is to assist the House when it meets in February and again in May to come to a decision on the new package of proposals which it intends to bring to the Synod in July. The group has been tasked to arrange facilitated discussions in February with a wide range of people of a variety of views. It is expected to have two initial meetings in January.
Once draft legislation is ready for introduction to the Synod there will be a separate decision, in the usual way, about the membership of a new Steering Committee. That Committee will have the responsibility for the management of the legislation through Synod. Steering Committees are always composed of members of Synod who support the legislation.
The membership of the Revision Committee is settled after first consideration of the legislation.
Madeleine Davies has two articles in today’s Church Times.
House of Bishops to revive hopes for women bishops
MPs ‘take up the fight’ over women bishops
David Pocklington fo Law & Religion UK has written Towards Women in the Episcopate – I.
Julian Joyce of the BBC has written Women bishops: Ordinary churchgoers could shape CofE’s future.
[There is a mistake in a sidebar to this article. PCCs do not elect deanery synod members. They are elected by the annual parochial church meeting.]
The Hansard transcript of yesterday’s House of Commons debate on women bishops is now available here.
There is also a video recording.
Press reports inlcude:
John Bingham Telegraph Church urged to put faith in Parliament over women bishops crisis.
BBC Women bishops: Clergy could ask for MPs’ help, Bradshaw says.
WATCH has today issued this response to yesterday’s statement from the House of Bishops.
Response to the House of Bishops Press Statement of 11th December, 2012
WATCH welcomes the House of Bishops’ expression of gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England, its acknowledgement of the anger, grief and disappointment so widely expressed during the past weeks and the commitment of all its members to making an effective response.
The House of Bishops’ willingness to consider questions regarding culture, processes and how women might more regularly contribute is also encouraging. We believe this will best be realised through the admission of women to the episcopate and will continue to work for the full inclusion of women at every level in the Church of England.
WATCH support the House of Bishops’ belief that a future legislative package would benefit from greater simplicity. A single clause measure is entirely consistent with that aim and would affirm that those who assent to the ordination of women to the episcopate are, in fact, loyal Anglicans from whom no ‘protection’ is needed.
WATCH remains clear that after ten years of searching for a compromise in law without success, a single clause measure is the best way forward now. Provision for those opposed can be made outside the Measure. This is the way that every other Province of the Anglican Communion with women bishops has proceeded.
We look forward with interest to the Archbishops’ announcement of the membership of the proposed working group and hope that it will be properly representative of the widespread support for women bishops clearly demonstrated at local level through Diocesan Synods.
We hope that future discussions will be guided by the principle that women are as central to the whole life of the church as men. It will be essential that such discussions uphold General Synod’s decision of 1975 there is ‘no fundamental objection to ordination of women to the priesthood’, and also that of 2006 which recognised that admitting women to the episcopate is ‘consonant with the faith of the church’.
Rachel Weir, WATCH CHAIR, commented
“There can be few issues that have undermined the Church’s credibility more than its recent rejection of the women bishops legislation. The entire country is watching as we try to find a way forward. Supporters of women bishops are prepared, if necessary, to wait for a new synod to get this right. It is time for a clear and unequivocal endorsement of women’s ordained ministry embodied in a single clause measure.”
Statement from the House of Bishops on defeat of women bishops legislation
11 December 2012
The House of Bishops of the Church of England met yesterday and today at Lambeth Palace and considered the implications of the General Synod’s recent rejection of legislation to enable women to become bishops. The House had the benefit of participation in its discussion of the Very Rev Viv Faull, the Venerable Christine Hardman, Dr Paula Gooder, and Mrs Margaret Swinson, who had all previously served on the Steering Committee or Revision Committee for the legislation.
The House expressed its ongoing gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England, and its sadness that recent events should have left so many feeling undermined and undervalued. Effective response to this situation is a priority on which all are strongly agreed.
The House acknowledged the profound and widespread sense of anger, grief, and disappointment felt by so many in the Church of England and beyond, and agreed that the present situation was unsustainable for all, whatever their convictions. It expressed its continuing commitment to enabling women to be consecrated as bishops, and intends to have fresh proposals to put before the General Synod at its next meeting in July.
The House will be organising an event early in 2013 at which it will share with a larger number of lay and ordained women - in the context of prayer and reflection - questions about the culture of the House’s processes and discussions, and how women might more regularly contribute.
Future action
In order to avoid delay in preparing new legislative proposals, the House has set up a working group drawn from all three houses of Synod, the membership to be determined by the Archbishops and announced before Christmas.
This group will arrange facilitated discussions with a wide range of people of a variety of views in the week of February 4th, when General Synod was to have met.
The House will have an additional meeting in February immediately after these discussions, and expects to settle at its May meeting the elements of a new legislative package to come to Synod in July.
For any such proposals to command assent, the House believes that they will need (i) greater simplicity, (ii) a clear embodiment of the principle articulated by the 1998 Lambeth Conference “that those who dissent from as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”, (iii) a broadly-based measure of agreement about the shape of the legislation in advance of the beginning of the actual legislative process. These concerns will be the focus of the working group in the months ahead.
The House endorsed the view of the Archbishops’ Council that the “Church of England now has to resolve this issue through its own processes as a matter of great urgency”.
Updated Monday afternoon to include full text of email to members of the House of Laity
The date of the meeting of the House of Laity to debate a motion of no confidence in its chair, Dr Philip Giddings, has now been confirmed as 18 January 2013. Members of the House were sent this email this morning:
Dear Members of the House of Laity
An extraordinary meeting of the House has been called to debate a motion of no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of the House. Sufficient of you indicated your support under the provisions of Standing Order 2(c) of the House to require the meeting to take place.
Given the nature of the motion that will be before the House, the Standing Committee has determined that the meeting should take place as soon as possible and has consequently called the meeting for Friday 18 January 2013. The meeting will take place from 1.30 p.m. in the Assembly Hall in Church House, Westminster.
Tea and coffee will be available free of charge in the Bishop Partridge Hall. Cold snacks will also be available for a charge.
If members wish to claim expenses incurred in attending the meeting, they will need to agree this with their diocese. Those members whose expenses are met centrally will need to agree reimbursement with the Synod Office as usual.
The Standing Committee has agreed that there will be only one item on the agenda - namely, the motion of no confidence - and that no other business will be in order.
I shall circulate an agenda and supporting papers this week.
With all good wishes
Nick
Nicholas Hills
Administrative Secretary
Central Secretariat
The Archbishops’ Council
Church House
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3AZ
Dr Giddings’ local paper, the Reading Post, has published this article by Linda Fort: Top church of England figure faces no confidence vote.
The following letter to the House of Bishops of the Church of England has been sent jointly by four organisations, Inclusive Church, Modern Church, Progressive Christianity Network and the Centre for Radical Christianity.
For the attention of the House of Bishops
c/o Mr Christopher Smith
Archbishop’s Chief of Staff
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU
6 December 2012
We, the undersigned, deeply regret that the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England failed to reach the two-thirds majority required to pass legislation enabling women to be ordained Bishop. This was a huge disappointment delivering a devastating blow to the Church of England and undermining its credibility among the people of the nation it seeks to serve. It is a missed opportunity to see women and men sharing fully in the mission, ministry and leadership of the Church of England. Other Anglican provinces have found a way of doing so and been enriched by the ministry of both male and female bishops as a consequence.
There is overwhelming support for women bishops in both the church and throughout the country. We have been discussing this issue for a generation and working on the details of this compromise legislation for over ten years. Almost 73% of General Synod members voted in favour of women bishops, challenging the legitimacy of a voting process that is able to frustrate the mandate of forty-two out of forty-four Diocesan Synods. This decision may be legally binding, but it carries no moral authority, undermining the process of representation the Synodical system is supposed to enshrine.
We welcome the statement issued on the conclusion of the Meeting of the Archbishops’ Council on 27-28 November 2012, and the decision that a process to admit women to the episcopate be restarted as soon as possible.
We offer our prayerful support to members of the House of Bishops as they prepare to meet shortly in December and ask them to explore, as a matter of great urgency, every possible avenue to effect the will of the Church on this issue.
We urge them to support the recommendation of the Archbishops’ Council to put in place a clear process for discussions in the New Year with a view to bringing new legislative proposals before the General Synod as a matter of urgency, convening in February 2013 if necessary.
We ask the House of Bishops to end the theological anomaly of women priests who cannot be ordained as bishops by bringing forward the simplest possible form of legislation without delay, thus fully recognising and affirming the vital importance of women’s ministry in the church.
We strongly support the principle that a woman appointed to be a bishop must be a bishop on exactly the same terms as her male colleagues, whilst recognising the need to make pastoral provision for those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops. However a new way forward must be found and one which does not enshrine discrimination on the grounds of gender.
In the meantime, we continue to celebrate all the ways in which women enrich the life of the church and look forward to their leadership as bishops.
Rev’d Ian Wallis
Chair, St Mark’s CRC
On behalf of CRC Council
Rev’d Jonathan Clatworthy
General Secretary, Modern Church
On behalf of the Trustees of Modern Church
John Churcher
Chair, PCN Britain
On behalf of PCN Committee
Rev’d Canon Diana Gwilliams
Chair, Inclusive Church
On behalf of the Trustees of Inclusive Church
Once again we have permission from the Editor of The Tablet to reproduce two articles from last week’s issue, dealing with the General Synod’s failure to approve legislation allowing women to become bishops. The first one by Mark Chapman was reproduced here. The second one by Linda Woodhead is below.
A woman’s place
The Church of England is supposedly more hospitable to women than the Catholic Church. After all, the Anglicans ordain women priests and there are laywomen on the General Synod. Here, an Anglican authority on the sociology of religion turns conventional wisdom on its head
Listening to the General Synod debate on women bishops last week, I chortled with recognition when I hear the line: “Of course women aren’t just there to make the tea … Though that is an important aspect of diaconal ministry.” I remember being surprised when I was being inducted as tutor in doctrine and ethics at an Anglican clergy-training college to be asked if I could sew tablecloths. I was equally surprised to find that when I addressed certain gatherings of clergy I seemed to have donned a Harry Potter invisibility cloak.
What shocked me more was the way that insults and downright cruelty went unchecked and unchallenged. I remember a woman ordinand in an Anglo-Catholic college having her “pray for me on the day of my ordination” cards torn up and returned to her pigeonhole by fellow ordinands opposed to the ordination of women. And I remember how, at the ordination services I attended for some of the first women to be made priests, the presiding bishops told them not to celebrate out of compassion for their opponents.
That was 20 years ago. Surely things have changed? It’s true that half of all Anglican ordinands are now female, and a third of all clergy. Moreover, the gender equality scores (where 100 per cent would be perfect equality) have risen from 19 per cent in 2000 to 35 per cent in 2010. But progress has been spotty – in 2010 Blackburn and Chichester Dioceses could still only manage a score of 11 per cent. With the exception of a few high-flyers, women priests are often marginalised – in the least popular parishes, outside the positions of greatest power, and as unpaid or “non-stipendiary”. According to the Church’s own statistics, in 2011 fewer than a quarter of stipendiary clergy were female, compared with more than half non-stipendiary.
Anglican theology also remains a male bastion. In the university departments in which it is largely housed, women make up only 28-30 per cent of the staff, according to a recent study from Durham University (this compares with 57 per cent in languages, 48 per cent in law, and 27 per cent in maths). In fact it’s even worse, because not all of the 28 per cent are theologians, fewer still systematic theologians. Women trained in theology often move into areas which are more open to their talents, including practical theology, Christian ethics and sociology of religion.
Moving beyond the Churches, it’s easier to name prominent Catholic women in British society than prominent Anglicans. In planning a series of debates on religion in public life, my colleagues and I kept thinking of women with interesting things to say on the subject – and realising that they were nearly all Catholic. It’s not that Anglican women don’t make a vital contribution to society, but Catholics seem more willing to own their faith and speak openly about it. Ironically, it may be that the ordination of women in the Church of England has actually served as a brake on progress. By limiting the priesthood to celibate men, the Catholic Church has inadvertently liberated a large and well-educated laity to get on with living out their faith, independent of clerical constraints. By contrast, ordained Anglican women may find that wearing a dog collar means you can be put on a leash.
It’s not that the Church of England is as overtly authoritarian as the Catholic Church; it exercises control in more subtle ways. A prime one is the cult of niceness. You mustn’t be ambitious, and you can never, ever get angry. This applies to women more than to men: they must be patient and caring at all times. Any form of protest or demand is interpreted as pushy, unfeminine and unchristian.
The problem is compounded by a pervasive Anglican commitment to the importance of unity and inclusion. It’s this pursuit of the “common good” that has led the bishops to go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that those who oppose women’s equal treatment don’t feel excluded. They have, in effect, allowed the establishment of a Church within a Church – and this is what opponents of women bishops want to strengthen, contrary to all traditional understandings of the bishop’s role as guarantor of unity.
By virtue of being lay, women in the Catholic Church escape a lot of these pressures. Their Church’s teachings give more weight to issues of truth and justice than the Church of England’s, and there’s a humour and honest earthiness about the Catholic Church and a willingness to criticise and challenge, which I often miss in my own.
Catholic women in Britain are also helped by the fact that they belong to a minority with a history of struggle against poverty and prejudice. Members of religious minorities tend to support one another. They encourage girls to be educated, get good jobs and gain the advantages that their parents – above all their mothers – could only dream of. In practice this means that Britain has many good Catholic schools with inspiring women teachers. Until recently, some of those teachers used to be nuns, sent with a mission to uplift and educate the Catholics in Britain. I attended one myself for a few years, and very empowering it was too. State-assisted Catholic schools often do similar work.
Anglican schools seem not to offer their pupils such clear identity, nor to help workingclass girls in the same way. The Church of England remains class-ridden. Public schoolboys are prominent among its leaders, and the model of the pastor with supportive wife and large family lives on.
All this may offer a crumb of comfort to Catholics, but it’s not really good news for either Church. The Catholic Church has proved more hospitable to women in spite of its official teachings and practices, not because of them, and the Anglican Church has managed to turn its ordination of women into a problem rather than a solution. This is serious for both Churches, as they contemplate declining numbers. When they began to lose power and prestige after the 1970s, increasingly welleducated but still-faithful women were the natural group to step in and inject new energy. By excluding them from senior leadership positions and influence, both Anglicans and Catholics have squandered a vital resource. Some women have done their very best to save the situation. But their difficult experiences and repeated disappointments make it ever less likely that their daughters will do the same.
Madeleine Davies reports in today’s Church Times that July might be too soon to return to fray, bishops warn.
CAMPAIGNERS who want to see a fresh Measure to admit women to the episcopate at the General Synod next July may be disappointed, two bishops have suggested…
On Tuesday, however, the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Trevor Willmott, suggested that the House “ought to be able to share with people a process” at the Synod in July. “That will lead in due course to fresh legislative proposals.”…
Once again we have permission from the Editor of The Tablet to reproduce two articles from last week’s issue, dealing with the General Synod’s failure to approve legislation allowing women to become bishops. The first one by Mark Chapman is reproduced below. The second one by Linda Woodhead will follow soon.
Don’t blame the laity
Most observers inside and outside the Church of England have concluded that last week’s failure by the General Synod to vote through legislation allowing women bishops has left it in turmoil. Here, a member of the synod claims that the problem is a lack of trust by the bishops
Seldom do the decisions of the General Synod of the Church of England make much of an impact outside the somewhat closeted world of ecclesiastical enthusiasts. But last week the Church’s governing body voted to reject the legislation to allow women to become bishops – and the media is still reeling. Although there was an overwhelming majority in favour, the necessary two-thirds majority was not achieved in the House of Laity, and the motion fell. I felt a sense of bewilderment and anger, and shared tears with my women colleagues. After all, the Church of England has ordained women as priests for 20 years, and it seemed a logical progression to move to women bishops. Church people have quickly criticised the House of Laity as unrepresentative of opinion, calling for a reform of the electoral system on the grounds that electors frequently know virtually nothing about the candidates.
But I am not sure that the House of Laity was really to blame. What was being voted on was not simply the principle of women bishops, but the safeguards offered to those opposed to women’s ministry. When women were ordained priests, a mechanism was created so that parishes could refuse their ministrations, and could also ask for “extended episcopal oversight” from bishops who did not ordain women. With this precedent, virtually everybody in the Church thought something similar would be needed if women were to be ordained as bishops.
Consequently after the principle of women bishops was accepted, a series of drafting groups took soundings over a number of years to produce proposals that were carefully crafted. The basic idea was that women bishops should have the same legal jurisdiction as all other bishops, but that pastoral care and celebration of the sacraments would be delegated to male bishops for those parishes unwilling to accept episcopal oversight from a woman or even from a man who had ordained a woman. This measure was presented for consideration to the General Synod in July 2010.
What happened then was unprecedented: no doubt with good intentions, the Archbishops of both Canterbury and York – in an act which rode roughshod over the hard work of the drafting committees – introduced an amendment that would have created parallel legal jurisdictions, and which had the support of the majority of bishops. This would have meant that the diocesan bishop would not have been legally responsible for the diocese, which could have resulted in incoherence or even conflict between bishops in matters of clergy discipline. The rejection of this amendment by the synod spelt the end of the credibility of the House of Bishops. The archbishops did not seem to realise that a blatant refusal to listen to the formal mechanisms of synod would be disastrous for efforts at building the sort of trust needed to move the measure through the legislative process.
In the new General Synod, to which I was elected and which met in November 2010, it was clear that there was a poisonous relationship between the House of Bishops and the Houses of Clergy and Laity. In what was supposed to be a straightforward piece of rubber-stamping, the synod rejected a bishop, who was a suffragan to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as chairman of the business committee. The other two houses simply did not trust the impartiality of a member of the House of Bishops being in charge of synod business.
In the subsequent months, the Anglican Communion Covenant, which was supposed to offer a mechanism for conflict resolution among the worldwide Churches, was rejected in the dioceses, despite – or perhaps because of – the support of most of the bishops for the covenant. The dioceses were also asked to vote on the women-bishops’ legislation – and 42 out of 44 voted decisively in favour. The matter returned in February 2012 for discussion – amendments were discussed, and firmly rejected. Instead, synod asked the bishops not to change anything substantial at the final stage of scrutiny. But having failed to learn from July 2010, the bishops introduced a last-minute and ill-drafted amendment which seemed to allow parishes to choose their own bishops on the basis of “theological convictions” which would have gone against one of the cardinal principles of church government since the time of Augustine’s conflicts with the Donatists.
Some bishops – most notably the Bishop of Liverpool – broke ranks and recognised their own folly. Not surprisingly, most of those in favour of women bishops firmly rejected the amendment – and since it couldn’t be changed at this stage, the measure was returned to the bishops for further amendment. It was obvious to most of us that circles cannot be squared, and there has to be a limit to compromise for the sake of coherence. Synod was consequently forced to meet again in November. Finally, it discussed a measure that was substantially unchanged from that first proposed in July 2010.
What was clear in the run-up to the synod and in the debate itself was that the significant minority who did not support women bishops and their sympathisers did not have sufficient trust that those responsible for the provisions – the bishops – would make them work unless they were forced to by law. The bishops had failed to trust the mechanisms of synod. For those who are likely to be suspicious of bishops anyway, and who certainly feel beleaguered by the dominant liberalism of the Church, it meant little that the bishops rallied behind the measure on Tuesday. The damage had already been done in July 2010.
The measure will no doubt return soon – and perhaps next time the bishops will work with synod rather than against it and realise that it is synod that provides the mechanism for listening to the mind of the Church, and not the loud-mouthed lobbyists who can easily bend bishops’ ears. Synods can work, but they have to be trusted. And in an Established Church it is to the House of Laity that the Royal Supremacy – which had previously been exercised by Parliament – has been delegated. Chastened bishops might do well to remember that – and then the Church of England might have the leaders it so richly deserves, men and women.
Sir Tony Baldry, the Second Church Estates Commissioner answered questions on women bishops and the constitution of General Synod in the House of Commons today. The full text of the questions and answers is here.
Claire Maxim has written about Righteous Anger.
One article we missed earlier is Jane Kramer in the New Yorker writing about The Fear of Women as Bishops
Chris Sugden has written this View from the Church of England (to American Anglican Council).
David Pocklington and Frank Cranmer at Law & Religion UK ask Are the laity revolting?
Rachel Weir the chair of WATCH has her own blog and yesterday she published her Advent Reflections.
She has also recently published these two guest contributions:
Rose Hudson-Wilkin writes: “Sitting in the gallery…”
Anne Stevens writes: “The Synod Vote on Women Bishops - a personal reflection”
For a different perspective read what Martin Dales, a Synod member from York, has to say: Church failed to respect its minority voices.
WATCH (Women and the Church) issued this press statement tonight.
WATCH (Women and the Church) PRESS STATEMENT
Monday 2nd December, 2012 - For immediate release
WATCH urges the House of Bishops to bring back a Single Clause Measure
Women clergy and supporters of their ministry have had enough of the wasteful wrangling over women bishops. Years have been spent in trying to make legal provision that would satisfy those opposed. The cost in human and financial terms has been enormous. Since 2000, there have been three major church reports, and the work of a legislative drafting group, revision committee and steering committee. General Synod has discussed the question at 10 of its meetings, and it has been debated at every level of the church. (Full details of the progress of the debate can be found here.)
The draft Measure represented the furthest possible compromise for those in favour. It was not enough for those opposed. After all these years of discussion, debate, and drafting it is clear that that there is no legal settlement that can be devised that will allow women to be bishops whilst satisfying the demands of those opposed. We therefore have to ask whether it is wise to allow the entire church to be held to ransom by minority factions who resist a change that the Church of England has discerned and declared to be entirely consistent with its understanding of the Christian faith. These same voices have spoken out repeatedly against any of the compromise proposed by the Church, and supported widely, including by WATCH.
Bishop John Gladwin said “What a small minority has done is blow up the bridge to any compromise solution. There is now only one route which must be travelled to that outcome. That is the route which removes all discriminatory provisions from the life and ministry of the Church”
It is now time to go for the simplest possible legislation - a single clause measure. This would enable people to vote for or against legislation simply enabling women to be bishops. Provision can be made at local level as appropriate for those who find this difficult. This option will maintain the greatest degree of unity and open dialogue between those of differing views and prevent ghettos forming within the Church. This is the way that every other Province in the Anglican Communion that has voted to ordain women as bishops has chosen to proceed.
It is also time for honesty in this debate. Those opposed do not want women bishops. They do not want resolution of the issue but to extend the decision-making process as long as possible. We cannot see how further conversation will result in any proposals that have not been tested and rejected before. They will simply prolong the process.
With the disproportionate number of conservatives in the House of Laity, the nature of the internal debate within the church has been so weighted to accommodating small minorities that we have lost sight of the legislation’s main objective – to make women bishops. We are now in a changed landscape. It is clear from the debates in Parliament and the response in the country at large that those outside the church are scandalised by the acceptance of gender discrimination in the established church. As Helen Goodman MP said in the emergency Commons debate on 22nd November,
“too many concessions have been made to those who are opposed to women priests… It is simply unjust to do that at the expense of women in the Church.”
For the sake of the future of the church we need to act swiftly and unequivocally to make women bishops without any discrimination in law. WATCH urges the House of Bishops to recommend a single clause measure be returned to Synod in July with the aim of getting Final Approval in a newly elected Synod.
In the meantime, it is imperative that women are present at the discussions of the House of Bishops in December and beyond. We call on the bishops to open their proceedings to the public and invite senior women to play a full part in their discussions. As Diana Johnson MP said in February 2012
“It is inconceivable to anyone engaged in equality and diversity work in other contexts that the Church would make decisions about consecrating women as bishops without seriously engaging during this last phase with those who will be most directly affected by the decision.”
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said
“We have spent enough time in exploring how to accommodate the views of those who do not want women as bishops. Generosity is laudable but without limits it becomes a kind of profligacy. We are wasting the Church’s precious resources, both its money and its people if we seek to continue the debate about provision in law. The House of Bishops must act decisively now to legislate for women bishops in the simplest possible way.”
Jonathan Petre of the Mail Online is reporting today that sufficient signatures have been obtained to force a meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod to discuss a vote of no confidence in its chair, Dr Philip Giddings: Synod ‘may oust chairman’ after defeat of legislation to allow women bishops.
The standing orders of the House of Laity state that in these circumstances the chair of the house shall convene the House, and give at least 21 days’ notice. I cannot see anything to specify the longest he can wait before calling the meeting, but I have heard that the meeting will probably be in January.
Although the Mail calls the meeting “secret”, meetings of the House of Laity are open to the press and public on the same terms as meetings of the General Synod. The House can vote to exclude the public, or the press and public, whilst it is sitting, but I see nothing to allow such a decision to be made in advance.
The detailed report on the reference to the dioceses of the now failed legislation is contained in GS 1847 available here in PDF format.
As has been widely reported, 42 of the 44 dioceses passed the legislation. The two dioceses where it failed were
Chichester: Bishops 0-2-0, Clergy 30-35-0, Laity 37-41-0 (failed in all three houses)
London: Bishops 2-1-0, Clergy 39-41-0, Laity 45-37-0 (failed only in the Clergy house)
Less widely reported are the aggregate voting figures for all dioceses:
Bishops: 75 for, 13 against, 4 abstentions
Clergy: 1503 for, 461 against, 50 abstentions
Laity: 1664 for, 489 against, 72 abstentions
Thus the proportions voting against the motion were: Bishops 15%, Clergy 23%, Laity 23%.
These contrast with General Synod proportions of 6%, 23%, and 36% respectively.
There were numerous following motions proposed and debated. GS 1847 summarised it thus:
Thus, in aggregate a total of 11 motions calling for some kind of amendment passed, and a total of 31 motions failed. GS 1847 contains much fuller information on all of them.
Here is an interesting perspective from Nigeria: Paul Obi for This Day Live Anglican Church Rejects Women Bishops amid Rancour
Alan Wilson Church & State: Another fine mess?
John Lloyd for Reuters A church divided against itself cannot stand
The Bishop of Liverpool spoke about women bishops in the House of Lords yesterday (during a debate about preventing violence against women).
Jody Stowell asks Are Women Really Human?
Ed Thornton has two articles in today’s Church Times that are available to non-subscribers.
C of E to set about resolving deadlock on women bishops
Campaigners seek to change the system
The Guardian had this news report in today’s newspaper: Lizzy Davies Church of England urged urgently to revive female bishops plan.
Affirming Catholicism has issued this Affirming Catholicism Press Statement the full text of which is reproduced below the fold.
Affirming Catholicism Press Statement – 29 November 2012
Affirming Catholicism welcomes the statement issued on the conclusion of the Meeting of the Archbishops’ Council on 27-28 November 2012, and the decision that a process to admit women to the episcopate be restarted at the next meeting of the General Synod in July 2013.
Affirming Catholicism hopes to be closely involved in the discussions in the New Year with a view to bringing legislative proposals before the Synod in July. Affirming Catholicism will continue to bring to those discussions not only strong support for the consecration of women to the episcopate, but also a deep concern to maintain the Catholic ecclesiology of the Church of England.
In offering support to the move to bring legislative proposals before the Synod in July, Affirming Catholicism will continue strongly to assert the principle that a woman appointed to be a bishop must be a bishop on exactly the same terms as her male colleagues, whilst recognising the need to make pastoral provision for those opposed. However, the rejection of the Measure, combined with the opposition to clause 5(1)© this summer, demonstrated a lack of support for the way forward laid out in the Measure, whilst also demonstrating overwhelming support for the admission of women to the episcopate in the Church of England. This indicates that a new way forward must be found, which recognises from the beginning that acceptable provisions cannot mean structures for separate existence.
In the mean time, Affirming Catholicism urges Bishops of the Church of England to offer a clear demonstration of their commitment to the full inclusion of women, and in particular to the ministry of ordained women, in the Church of England. We believe that this is the time for the House of Bishops to ensure that every diocese in the Church of England has an ordained woman on the senior staff and regularly present at senior staff meetings. In recognition of the need to ensure that theological objections to the ordination of women do not slip into prejudice against women, Affirming Catholicism would welcome an initiative by the House of Bishops, together with those who advise them on senior appointments, to commit to engaging in proper training in gender awareness on all levels of the Church of England.
ENDS
Joint Press Statement From The Chairmen Of The Catholic Group And Reform in General Synod
also available here.
Women Bishops - The Way Ahead
The Chairmen of the Catholic Group in General Synod and the conservative Evangelical group Reform, who called for talks to break the deadlock over legislation to enable the consecration of women as bishops, have received acknowledgement of their request from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Canon Simon Killwick (Catholic Group) and Prebendary Rod Thomas (Reform) have today further pledged themselves to do everything they can to ensure the speedy and safe passage of fresh legislation through the General Synod.
They said, “If agreement can be reached at round-table talks on fresh legislation which provides clearly and fairly for all members of the Church of England, there is no reason why fresh legislation should not be fast-tracked through the Synod before the next elections in 2015.”
The Synod’s Standing Orders only prevent the reconsideration of the same legislation during this period.
“It has never been our intention to prevent the consecration of women as bishops; our concern has always been for legislation which also made clear and fair provision for the substantial minority,” the Chairmen concluded.
The legislation which failed last week in the Synod would have had devastating consequences for the diversity and mission of the Church of England, had it been passed. We want the Church of England to continue to be a broad and comprehensive national Church.
Canon Simon Killwick
Prebendary Rod Thomas
(Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod) (Chairman of Reform)
We published earlier today details of a letter to The Times. It was signed by eight people who are supporters of women bishops, but voted against the Measure last week because they thought that the provisions for opponents were inadequate.
I have prepared a table of the recent relevant voting records of the signatories. This may give an indication of what they would find acceptable.
The main items are these three from July 2010 (the last meeting of the 2005/2010 Synod)
In each case a vote for the item was a vote in favour of adding the provision to the measure.
The links in the first column of the table are to our articles giving more details of the various votes.
A letter appears in The Times today signed by eight members of the House of Laity who voted against the Measure last week, and referring in the text to a larger group of twelve people of a similar mind. Times subscribers can read the letter in full here, and there is a report of the letter at Anglican Mainstream over here.
The following excerpts make clear, first their point of view, and second their specific proposal for the way forward.
First their point of view:
…Most of us who make up the dozen, whose votes against the Measure did not reflect any serious opposition to women bishops, had taken the trouble to state clearly in our election addresses in 2010 that we would vote against the Measure if it did not in our judgment make ample provision of oversight in the way that the minorities needed, or honour promises made to the same minorities only 20 years ago.
Many of us 12 were prepared to vote for the Measure as it stood in July with a clause referring to “theological convictions” of those requiring alternative oversight, had the Bishops not lost their nerve and decided under pressure from “senior women” to reconsider their proposed “helpful” clause…
Second their proposals for the way forward:
…But we now all believe there can be a simpler way forward. A new briefer Measure could incorporate the 1993 Act of Synod governing alternative oversight as we have it, with all the valuable experience it has provided of living together with fellow Anglicans who cannot accept women priests and bishops. The new Measure should provide for alternative oversight on a churchwide basis to those unable to recognise their woman diocesan bishop and also to those parishes that accept or have women clergy which are unsuitably served by a traditional orthodox male diocesan bishop in a predominantly conservative diocese. It will minimally amend but not repeal the 1993 Measure which has served us all well. The Church must be concerned for, and provide for, all its members…
The eight signatories are:
Tom Sutcliffe, Mary Judkins, Phillip Rice, John Davies, Anne Bloor, Priscilla Hungerford, Keith Malcouronne, Christopher Corbet
More information about their voting records will follow soon.
The Archbishops’ Council issued this statement today.
Statement on the Conclusion of the Meeting of the Archbishops’ Council November 2012
28 November 2012
“The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England met on November 27-28th to consider a wide ranging agenda. A substantial amount of time was given over to the discussion of the recent vote by General Synod on Women in the Episcopate.
“As part of their reflections, many council members commented on the deep degree of sadness and shock that they had felt as a result of the vote and also of the need to affirm all women serving the church - both lay and ordained - in their ministries.
“In its discussions the Council decided that a process to admit women to the episcopate needed to be restarted at the next meeting of the General Synod in July 2013. There was agreement that the Church of England had to resolve this matter through its own processes as a matter of urgency. The Council therefore recommended that the House of Bishops, during its meeting in a fortnight’s time, put in place a clear process for discussions in the New Year with a view to bringing legislative proposals before the Synod in July.”
Notes
The Archbishops Council is a body of 19 members which acts as the standing committee of the General Synod and has a number of other responsibilities as a trustee body.
The members of the council include the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the chairs of the House of Clergy and the Chairs of the House of Laity. Full membership of the groups is available here.
First, here are two press reports on yesterday’s release of the General Synod voting lists.
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Almost half the lay members who voted against female bishops were women
John Bingham in the Telegraph Half of women bishops opponents in Synod were women
And then there are several comment articles.
Bruce Kaye for ABC Religion and Ethics The triumph of the radicals: Women bishops and the Church of England
Savi Hensman for Ekklesia Women bishops: how to move forward?
John Coles, director of New Wine Synod Vote: Women Bishops
Paul Roberts A possible way out of the Women Bishops bind
Colin Coward of Changing Attitude The deeper (mis)understandings which divide us
Alice Udale-Smith for Varsity Female bishops and me: a defence of the General Synod
And finally, WATCH has issued a press release “Pressure for simple legislation mounts as first analysis of voting patterns shows General Synod House of Laity dramatically out of step with lay members of diocesan synods” which is copied in full below the fold.
WATCH (Women and the Church)
Press Release 27th November 2012
For immediate release
Pressure for simple legislation mounts as first analysis of voting patterns shows General Synod House of Laity dramatically out of step with lay members of diocesan synods
A week after the disastrous vote in General Synod and after a period of intense scrutiny from both houses of Parliament, pressure continues to grow on Church authorities to find a way to break the impasse on legislating for women bishops.
Given the failure of all attempts at a compromise enshrined in statute, there is increasing support for the adoption of the simplest possible legislation with provision for those opposed being made outside the legislation itself.
On Monday 26th November, the voting records were published. This shows how individual members of the House of Laity of the General Synod voted and also enables comparisons with the votes previously cast by the lay representatives in the diocesan synods.
As expected, there was a considerable discrepancy between the local and national voting patterns.
When the legislation was debated at diocesan level, it achieved more than a two-thirds majority among lay people in 37 of the 44 dioceses. In Guildford, for instance, 70% of lay members voted in favour at diocesan level, but three of the four General Synod members voted against. Had the General Synod members representing six dioceses chosen to reflect the views expressed by their diocesan synods, the measure would have passed.
Full details of the House of Laity voting figures can be found via Thinking Anglicans.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said
“It is clear that the lay members of General Synod have not reflected the wishes of ordinary parishioners in their dioceses. If the House of Laity of General Synod had followed the pattern of the diocesan synods, this legislation would have passed comfortably last week”
Bishop John Gladwin, the recently retired Bishop of Chelmsford, and Hon Vice President of WATCH said
“The public humiliation and deep wound inflicted on the Church of England by the vote in Synod on November 20th has changed the whole landscape of this and many other issues. What a small minority has done is blow up the bridge to any compromise solution. The consecration of women into the episcopate has been moved from certainty to inevitability. There is now only one route which must be travelled to that outcome. That is the route which removes all discriminatory provisions from the life and ministry of the Church”
Electronic voting results for last week’s General Synod on the women bishops legislation have now been published. These take the form of a pdf file, arranged by house, by vote (for/against/abstain) and then alphabetically.
Arun Arora, the Church of England Director of Communications, in announcing the publication of these results has reminded us all that Matthew 5:43-48 applies.
For convenience I have put the results into a spreadsheet arranged by synod number (which brings members together by diocese) for each house and added absentees and vacancies.
For this purpose an “absentee” is someone who did not record an electronic vote (for/against/abstention). There are various reasons for being an absentee; examples known to me include illness and being on sabbatical in New Zealand. In addition some at least of the three ecclesiastical judges consider it inappropriate to vote on church legislation which they may later have to enforce.
Update I have now added a webpage version of my spreadsheet.
There is an excellent article discussing this, on the Law and Religion UK blog, but written by Bob Morris of the UCL Constitution Unit.
He is the principal author of Church and State in 21st Century Britain: The Future of Church Establishment (Palgrave, March 2009).
Women as bishops: should Parliament intervene?
I urge all TA readers to study this article in full. His concluding paragraphs:
The key political and constitutional problem is that, although the Church of England now behaves largely as if it is a voluntary society, it remains nonetheless part of the state. The Queen as head of state is ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church, must be in communion with it, holds the title Fidei Defensor and – nominally – appoints its senior clergy. The Archbishop crowns and anoints the new sovereign, and the Church conducts important public ceremonies and rituals effectively in relation to the UK as a whole. The Church’s courts remain courts of the land, although they lost their public law jurisdictions in the 1850s. Twenty-six bishops continue to sit in the House of Lords – each nowadays actually appointed by a private, unaccountable committee of the Church itself.
These are high matters and could be addressed again by Parliament. However, whatever the degree of change made, none could procure the appointment of female bishops unless Parliament legislated directly to that end. In other words, disestablishment could not by itself resolve the particular question of female bishops. On the other hand, what disestablishment could do would be – a very different matter – to permit the state and Parliament to wash its hands of Church of England affairs altogether.
Since nothing so far suggests that Parliament contemplates such a rupture, it follows that the Church must be allowed to deal with the present crisis itself. Whether in doing so it strengthens the case for a radical review of remaining church/state ties is another question.
However, it appears from a story broken exclusively in The Times this morning by Ruth Gledhill that William Fittall has a somewhat different view. The original Times story is behind a paywall, but it starts this way:
The Church of England is facing a “major constitutional crisis” as a result of the fiasco last week over women bishops, according to an internal document written for the archbishops by one of their most senior staff. The Established Church must take steps in July next year to consecrate women bishops and vote them through by 2015, otherwise it risks the matter being taken out of its hands by Parliament, the secret memo says. It is to be debated behind closed doors this week by the Archbishops’ Council. The memo, a hard copy of which has been handed to The Times, is intended for the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the council members. Women in the Episcopate — Where Next? is a response to growing outrage in and beyond…
The Telegraph has published this version of the story: Failure to vote in women Bishops risks ‘constitutional crisis’ in Church.
And there is this Church ‘faces crisis’ over bishops.
And the Guardian now has Church needs radical new strategy over female bishops, says internal memo
And here are some further quotes from the memo:
“What is for sure and not for maybe is that urgent and radical new thinking is now needed if major shifts in position are to be secured.”
“Unless the Church of England can show very quickly that it’s capable of sorting itself out we shall be into a major constitutional crisis in Church State relations, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with confidence.”
“We have to do so because time is not on our side. Parliament is impatient. In addition to the all-party savaging that the Church of England had yesterday [last Thursday] in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister’s reference to the need to give us a ‘sharp prod’, there was ferocious criticism from some members at the House of Lords at a lunchtime meeting at which the Bishop of Manchester spoke on Wednesday.
“There was a particularly telling sequence of devastating attacks from the formidable combination of Detta O’Cathain (normally a supporter), Elspeth Howe and Margaret Jay. Unless the Church of England can show very quickly that it’s capable of sorting itself out, we shall be into a major constitutional crisis in Church State relations, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with confidence.”
Updated Sunday afternoon and evening
The Tablet editorial Measure of compromise
ABC Religion and Ethics John Milbank Unrepresentative laity: The women bishops debacle demonstrates why bishops need more authority
Telegraph John Bingham Women bishops decision a ‘stab in the back’ to female clergy – Lord Carey
Adam Luser Reputation of Church damaged by decision on women bishops
Revising Reform Rachel Marszalek Women in Christian servant-leadership, with a look at Rev Angus Macleay’s summation speech from General Synod on Tuesday November 20th 2012
OurKingdom Charlotte Methuen Women bishops in the Church of England: No or not yet?
Guardian Catherine Bennett No to women bishops? It’s high time the Church of England was taught a lesson
Mail Online Marie-Elsa Bragg ‘I’m still proud of our history in the women’s ministry’: Melvyn Bragg’s curate daughter on how it feels to be stuck in the middle of the bishops debate
Lay Anglicana Rosemary Lain-Priestley A Very Significant Tipping Point
Modern Church Linda Woodhead It’s believing in the common good that’s got the Church of England into this mess over women bishops
Update
Anglican Ink Gerald Bray Evangelical supporters of women bishops are “liberals in disguise”
to which Peter Carrell has this response: Has Gerald Bray lost the plot?
Jody Stowell The Morning After
This morning’s Sunday programme on BBC Radio 4 included a major item on women bishops starting 20 minutes from the beginning.
Telegraph John Bingham Women bishops rejection has damaged Church, traditionalist bishop admits
Eureka Street Andrew McGowan Rejection of women bishops is not terminal
Ian Paul What does the decision on women bishops mean?
There are a number of online petitions protesting in various ways against the decision by General Synod not to approve the legislation to allow women to be bishops. Here are the ones I am aware of.
No women Bishops, no automatic seats in the House of Lords
Responsible department: Cabinet Office
The Church of England on 20th Nov 2012 voted not to allow women to be Bishops. Though that is within its rights to do, this should worry the Government as Church of England Bishops are awarded legislative power through seats in the House of Lords.
The Church has chosen to be a sexist organisation by refusing women the right to hold highest leadership positions and therefore should not be allowed automatic seats in the House of Lords, as this clearly does not comply with the spirit of UK Equality law.
We call on the Govt to remove the right of the Church of England to have automatic seats in the House of Lords, in line with its commitments to equality and non-discrimination, set out in the Equality Act (2010) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)”
To: Church of England “Group of Six”
Please authorise another vote in this Synod in 2013, to allow the House of Laity to reconsider the results of their vote of 20 November 2012 in the light of clearly-expressed wishes of their electorate.
Why is this important?
42 out of 44 Dioceses have voted for women bishops; the House of Laity vote clearly did not reflect the democratic wishes of the membership they are supposed to represent. A year’s delay will enable Dioceses to reflect again, and make their views even clearer to their Synodical representatives.
Unconditionally ordain Women as Bishops in the Church of England
To: The General Synod of the Church of England
The Anglican Episcopacy should be open to women. Synod and the Dioceses of the CofE have agreed this. The vote at Novembers synod has been deeply hurtful to many women, and damaged the Church as a whole.
The next time this issue is voted on it should be as a single clause: The Church of England may ordain women as Bishops.
As well as a campaigning tool, this petition is a way of gathering together people, especially lay Anglicans, who can organize to elect new and representative Deanery, Diocesan and General synods that will effect this change.
No Confidence in General Synod: Calling for an Urgent Review
We the undersigned therefore hereby lodge a vote of no confidence in General Synod until such time as it can bring its affairs into order by effecting a genuinely democratic voting system that gives a fair and proper representation to its members in place of the current inequitable system.
The Petition
We call upon the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops to conduct an urgent review into the rules of governance in Synod to correct this grossly unfair system; and if the matter is not resolved before his enthronement, we further call upon Archbishop Designate the Rt Revd Justin Welby to make addressing this inequitable situation one of his first priorities following his installation at Canterbury.
Guardian Aida Edemariam and Lizzy Davies Pressure piles on church to vote again on female bishops
Aida Edemariam Maria Miller interview: ‘It’s very disappointing that the Church of England has taken this decision’
Telegraph John-Paul Ford Rojas Lord Carey calls for Church of England to push through introduction of women bishops
Liverpool Echo Alan Weston Frank Field MP tables parliamentary Bill over women bishops
Here is a press release from Frank Field and this is the bill’s entry on the UK Parliament website: Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill.
Stephen Croft, the Bishop of Sheffield, gave this presidential address to his diocesan synod this morning.
Michael Perham, the Bishop of Gloucester, has questioned the Church’s equality law exemption in a statement issued yesterday. The full statement is available online and is copied below the fold. It is summarised in this press release from the diocese.
Bishop questions Church’s equality law exemption
Friday 23 November 2012The Bishop of Gloucester is questioning the Church of England’s right to exemption from equality laws, following the recent voting against women bishops.
In a statement released today, the Rt Revd Michael Perham speaks of his huge disappointment and sadness at the outcome of this week’s voting. He said: “It has undermined the sense of value of our church’s more than 3,000 women priests. It has puzzled our society and brought ridicule upon the Church.
“There are questions that now have to be faced. Is the Church’s exemption from equality laws defensible? Does a system that requires 2/3rds majorities in three separate houses place the bar too high? Can it make sense for members of the Synod to be permitted to vote entirely contrary to the view of their diocesan synod?”
In the Diocese of Gloucester, more than 95 per cent of the diocesan synod voted in favour of the legislation. At General Synod 74 per cent voted for the legislation.
Bishop Michael continued: “It is really important to keep a welcome place in the Church for those who are unhappy with the idea of women bishops, but they must not hold the Church back, undermine its mission or make it a laughing stock in the mind of the nation.
“There will be women bishops in the Church of England. I have no doubt about that. Our response to the Holy Spirit and the effectiveness of our mission require it.”
Full statement from the Bishop of Gloucester
It has been a bleak few days for the Church of England. A failure to approve the legislation that would have allowed women to be bishops has made a sad finale to the archiepiscopate of Dr Rowan Williams, whose visit to our diocese in July was such a high point in our diocesan life. It has also created a major problem for his successor, Bishop Justin of Durham. It has undermined the sense of value of our church’s more than three thousand women priests. It has puzzled our society and brought ridicule upon the Church.
People have been saying, understandably, that the Church of England is in crisis. At a certain level that is true. The General Synod has acted foolishly and its leadership has been undermined. There is a huge repair job to be done in our relationship with our society as well as within the church. But, at another level, we are not in crisis, for, as many have said, the real Church of England is to be found, not in synods, but in parishes and other communities, where Christian ministry to the people of our nation goes on being effective in churches and schools, in pastoral care and in the fulfilment of our mission. The irony is that we would be unable to fulfil that ministry without the women clergy of our church.
It is important to say today that the church has not rejected the ministry of its women clergy. In the Diocese of Gloucester more than 95 per cent of our Diocesan Synod voted in favour of the legislation. In the General Synod 74 per cent voted in favour - I wish it were 100%, but 74% is much more than enough. The responses I am receiving to this vote from ordinary Christians give evidence of the fact that the church has received the ministry of women, values and affirms it and wants to see that ministry extended to include episcopal ministry. The ministry of ordained women has been a huge gift of God to the church.
What the church has done is to fail to pass legislation that made generous provision for those unwilling to accept this development. And, of course, there are questions that now have to be faced. Is the church’s exemption from equality laws defensible? Does a system that requires 2/3rds majorities in three separate houses place the bar too high? Can it make sense for members of the Synod to be permitted to vote entirely contrary to the view of their diocesan synod? It is really important to keep a welcome place in the Church for those who are unhappy with the idea of women bishops, but they must not hold the Church back, undermine its mission or make it a laughing stock in the mind of the nation.
The more immediate question is how we may find a way forward more speedily than over the cycle of a whole new General Synod. I don’t know the answer and I would be suspicious of anyone who thought they did at this stage when we are all still so “raw” after the reverse of this week. But the mood of our leadership, and indeed the mood across the church and the nation, is that a way forward must and will be found without haste but with urgency. I ask you to pray for all those who will be starting conversations about that very soon. I ask you to pray also for those clergy who have experienced this vote as a painful undermining of their ministry. Above all pray for justice, peace and reconciliation in the church.
It has been a difficult time, “grim” as the Bishop of Durham put it, but I have found myself repeating with quiet conviction those wonderful words of the Lady Julian of Norwich - “All shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.” I do believe that.
+Michael Gloucestr:
Here are some more opinions on General Synod’s decision not to approve the legislation on women bishops, and transcripts of some of the speeches made in the debate.
Paul Vallely How a recalcitrant minority stopped the Church from entering the 20th let alone the 21st century
Jane Tillier Ekklesia Rejecting women bishops harms the church’s mission
Fulcrum Statement on the Decision of General Synod not to approve the legislation on Women Bishops
Sarah Coakley at ABC Religion and Ethics Has the Church of England finally lost its reason? Women bishops and the collapse of Anglican theology
John Gladwin Some reflections on the November 20th Vote
Nick Baines Get real
Jeremy Fletcher Women Bishops – After Tuesday
Kevin Lewis man boobs
Benny Hazlehurst Two feet in the grave…
Lesley Crawley I would like General Synod to pass a policy denouncing sexism
Justin Brett What now, then?
Sam Wells Response to Women Bishops Vote
Tom Wright Women Bishops: It’s about the Bible, not fake ideas of progress
Some of the speeches made to General Synod
Elaine Storkey
Philip Giddings
Tom Sutcliffe
Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham
James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool
The Church Times has extensive coverage:
Women-bishops Measure falls by six votes in House of Laity
Dr Williams warns: no short cut, no simple solution
Campaigners talk of betrayal and disaster after vote
Politicians express their dissatisfaction with Synod vote
Leader: After the vote, what next?
Frances Ward What difference does women’s ministry make?
David Houlding I work happily with women clergy
Sir Tony Baldry, Second Church Estates Commissioner, answered an urgent question tabled by Labour MP Diana Johnson on women bishops on 22 November 2012.
Watch a video recording of the ensuing debate (lasts about 34 minutes) via the Democracy Live website here.
The Hansard transcript of the debate is now available here.
Initial media reports:
Yesterday there were also exchanges with the Prime Minister during Question Time, details are below the fold.
From Hansard record, here:
Q11. Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend share my deep disappointment, and that of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Church of England yesterday failed to make proper provision for women bishops? It was a sad day for our national Church and our national character, particularly given that 42 of 44 dioceses voted overwhelmingly in support of women bishops. Is the dangerous consequence of that vote not the disestablishment of the Church of England but simply disinterest?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and knowledge. On a personal basis, I am a strong supporter of women bishops and am very sad about how the vote went yesterday. I am particularly sad for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, because he saw this as a major campaign that he wanted to achieve at the end of his excellent tenure of that office. It is important for the Church of England to be a modern Church that is in touch with society as it is today. This was a key step it needed to take.
……. Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): Following the Prime Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) a moment ago, and given that the Church of England is the established Church, will the Prime Minister consider what Parliament can do to ensure that the overwhelming will of members of the Church and of the country is respected?
The Prime Minister: I will certainly look carefully at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Church has its own processes and elections. They might be hard for some of us to understand, but we must respect individual institutions and the decisions they make. That does not mean we should hold back in saying what we think. I am very clear that the time is right for women bishops—it was right many years ago. The Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme, but we must respect individual institutions and how they work, while giving them a sharp prod.
Audio files for Tuesday’s debate, and (when available) for today’s debate can all be found here.
The business summary for Wednesday has been published: General Synod Wednesday 21 November 2012: Debates and farewells.
Major Update on Wednesday evening
Updated Thursday morning
Guardian Patrick Wintour Female bishops controversy: government says it will not step in
Andrew Brown Why the church’s house of laity is vulnerable to capture by interest groups
Alan Wilson What next for the Church of England?
Telegraph PMQs: David Cameron said the Church needs a ‘sharp prod’ over women bishops
Independent Jerome Taylor Church of England in crisis: Archbishop of Canterbury attacks members for voting against women bishops
Channel 4 News Archbishop: Church less credible after women bishop vote
Huffington Post Female Bishops Deal Will Happen, Says Justin Welby, Archbishop Of Canterbury
Mail Online Steve Doughty and Matt Chorley ‘Very grim day’: Next Archbishop of Canterbury tweets his verdict after Church of England Synod rejected women bishops
BBC Women bishops: PM ‘very sad’ at Church of England rejection
Update
Church Times Women-bishops legislation falls
Guardian Lizzy Davies Female bishops and the Church of England: what happens next?
Lizzy Davies Church of England bishops plot response to vote to exclude women
Patrick Wintour and Lizzy Davies and agencies David Cameron: Church of England should ‘get on with it’ on female bishops
Patrick Wintour and Lizzy Davies Cameron warns priests of turbulence after church votes no to female bishops
Lizzy Davies Female bishops supporter: ‘Although I’m gutted, it’s not the end of the road’
Giles Fraser After the bishops vote, I’m ashamed to be a part of the Church of England
Simon Hoggart Prime minister issues prod for God after vote against women bishops
Suzanne Moore The Church of England can no longer continue as an arm of the state
BBC Women bishops: A century-long struggle for recognition
Mail Online George Pitcher It’s not really about women bishops, it’s a fight for the Church of England’s soul
Steve Doughty The troubles that brought the Synod vote have been building up for decades
Telegraph Allison Pearson Swaziland has a woman bishop – why not Suffolk?
Rowena Mason and Tim Ross David Cameron: Church needs to ‘get with the programme’ after rejecting women bishops
Martyn Percy Women bishops: a failure of leadership
Tim Stanley In its search for ‘relevance’, the Anglican Church is losing relevance
Independent Susie Leafe Why I voted no to women bishops
Jerome Taylor Strong-arm tactics vs misplaced niceties: how the legislation was sunk
Huffington Post Susan Russell A Seriously Sad Day for the Church of England
Ekklesia Symon Hill “Too good for a girlie”? Sexism and women bishops
Fran Porter The Church of England and women: a rare moment of clarity?
Changing Attitude Colin Coward Reform and Forward in Faith achieve unexpected success
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes My reaction? Incredulity, hurt - and anger
Archbishop of Canterbury Archbishop tells women “this is still your Church”
Thursday update
Rachel Weir Time to reform General Synod
Following an emergency meeting of the House of Bishops this morning, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered the Presidential Statement to General Synod, in which he called on members to ‘attend to one another…to give to one another the care that we need’. said that the failure to approve the draft Measure meant that the Church of England has “lost a measure of credibility” and that the Church could be seen as “wilfully blind” to modern trends and priorities.
At the end of yesterday afternoon’s proceedings the Archbishop of York said that the Presidents would be consulting overnight in the light of Synod’s decision not to give final approval to the proposed legislation about women in the episcopate. We met last night and we also this morning had the opportunity of an informal discussion with members of the House of Bishops. And what I say is in light of those meetings.
I’ve already said something in public about my personal reaction to yesterday’s vote and I don’t want to repeat what said then or offer a commentary on other people’s comments. But there are a few things it would be helpful to say from the chair today before we move on, as we must, to the rest of today’s business.
Whatever decision was made yesterday, today was always going to be a difficult day. There would have been, whatever decision was made, people feeling that their presence and their significance in the Church was in some sense put into question. There will be people feeling profoundly vulnerable, unwanted and unsure, and that means that the priority for today for all of us is to attend to one another in the light of that recognition, that is to give to one another the care that we need, and whatever else we do today, and think today and say today, I hope that that is what we will be able to offer one another.”
UPDATED Wednesday afternoon (transcript now available)
You can read and listen to the Archbishop’s address on the Lambeth Palace website. The full text is also reproduced below the fold.
Full text of the Archbishop’s presidential address:
At the end of yesterday afternoon’s proceedings the Archbishop of York said that the presidents would be consulting overnight in the light of Synod’s decision not to give final approval to the proposed legislation about women in the episcopate. We met last night, and we also this morning had the opportunity of an informal discussion with members of the House of Bishops. And what I say is in the light of those meetings.
I have already said something in public about my personal reaction to yesterday’s vote and I don’t want to repeat now what I said then, or offer a commentary on other people’s comments. But there are a few things that perhaps it would be helpful to say today, from the chair, before we move on, as we must, to the rest of today’s business.
Whatever decision had been made yesterday, today was always going to be a difficult day. There would have been, whatever decision was made, people feeling that their presence and their significance in the Church was in some sense put into question. There would be people feeling profoundly vulnerable, unwanted and unsure. And that means that the priority today, for all of us, is to attend to one another in the light of that recognition. That is to give to one another the care that we need, and whatever else we do today and think today and say today, I hope that that is what we shall be able to offer one another.
But today is also an opportunity to express appreciation which I’m sure Synod will share for all those staff members and others in the Synod who have worked so devotedly in the course of this legislative process over the past few years. And while it is invidious to single out any individual, a great deal of the burden of steering this process through has fallen on the steering committee in general and the Bishop of Manchester in particular. Bishop Nigel will be retiring in the New Year, there will be a formal farewell to him later today by the Archbishop of York. But I can’t miss this opportunity of recording my personal gratitude to Nigel for the unfailing graciousness and skill that he has shown through this process.
Recognising the work that has been done prompts the reflection that it won’t really do to speak as if talking had never started between parties and presences in the Church of England or in this Synod. Nonetheless, in the light of much that was said yesterday, I believe it is very important that we hold one another to account for the promises made of a willingness to undertake and engage urgently in further conversation. I believe that yesterday there was both realism and unrealism in much of what was said, and the realism was largely in the recognition that there is now that urgent demand for close, properly mediated conversation. The offers that were made need to be taken up, the Presidents of Synod and the House of Bishops are very eager that that should happen, and in their meeting in December will be discussing further how that might most constructively be taken forward.
But I have to say, and I hope you will bear with me in my saying this, that there was an unrealism around yesterday as well. The idea that there is a readily available formula just around the corner is, in my view, an illusion. There is no short cut here, there is no simple, God-given (dare I say) solution, to a problem which brings people’s deepest convictions into conflict in the way in which they have come into conflict in this Synod and previously. Realism requires us to recognise that; to recognise the depth and seriousness of the work still to be done. The map is clear enough. The decisions we have to make are about the route, and those decisions, given the nature of the terrain, are not going to be simple and straightforward.
So as we enter into further conversation, and as we reflect on the urgency of moving our situation forward, please don’t let us be under any misapprehensions about what it is going to demand of all of us, intellectually, spiritually and imaginatively. Part of recognising that also, I think, involves us recognising the greatest risk of all that faces us as a Synod and I suspect as a Church in our internal life. Yesterday did nothing to make polarisation in our Church less likely and the risk of treating further polarisation of views and identity is a very great one. It will feel like the default setting.
If I can be frivolous for a moment, there is a Matt Groening cartoon set in outer space, an appropriate location you might think at the moment, where crisis is impending for the staff of an inter-galactic rocket and they run around saying, ‘What do we do, who do we blame?’ Well, the temptation to run round saying what do we do, who do we blame today is going to be strong. I hope that we will try and hold back from simple recrimination in all this. So the work to do internally is considerable, but it is tempting to say that is as nothing compared to the work we have to do externally.
We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do. Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted, spoke; the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do. We have, as the result of yesterday, undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society, and I make that as an observation as objectively as I can; because it’s perfectly true, as was said yesterday, that the ultimate credibility of the Church does not depend on the good will of the wider public. We would not be Christians and believers in divine revelation if we held that; but the fact is as it is.
We also have a lot of explaining to do within the Church because I think a great many people will be wondering why it is that Diocesan Synods can express a view in one direction and the General Syod in another. That means that Synod itself is under scrutiny and under question; and I shouldn’t be at all surprised if many members of Synod and groups within Synod were not feeling today confused and uncertain about how Synod itself works – and whether there are issues we have to attend to there. We rightly insist in the Church of England on a high level of consent for certain kinds of change and the failure to secure a two-thirds majority in the House of Laity doesn’t mean that those high levels of consent are necessarily wrong. They do mean that there is a great deal of further work to be done, as I have said. But that sense of a Synod which, for admirable, praiseworthy reasons gives a very strong voice to the minority – that sense of Synod needs some explaining and some exploring if it is not simply to be seen as a holding to hostage of Synod by certain groups. That is part of the explaining we have to do, and we are all, I guess, feeling those uncomfortable questions.
How exactly we structure the conversations which lie ahead, as I have said, will take some time to work out. The House of Bishops will need to be thinking very hard in a couple of weeks’ time about how that goes forward, and the Archbishops’ Council also meets next week. Bishops of course will meanwhile be taking soundings and pursuing conversations in their own dioceses, and that does bear a little bit on a question later today about the pattern of Synodical meetings next year. We have a proposal that we should meet in July and November next year rather than in February. There is clearly a case for not loosing momentum in our discussion. There is also clearly a case for thinking twice about pursuing after a very, very short interval a set of issues that are still raw and undigested. I think the difficult question that Synod will have to address in that context is how we best use the next six months or so. It may be, for example, that if we do not have the Synod in February, that reserved time should be set aside to some brokered conversations in groups rather smaller than 470. But you may well feel, and I think the House of Bishops as a whole feels, that the full Synod in February is a little close for comfort given all the business, all the emotion, all the consequence we have to explore. The best way of keeping up pressure for a solution may not be to meet in February; but that is of course for further discussion and is in no sense meant to minimise the sense of urgency that we all face. Within that timeframe is when initial conversations have to begin.
After all the effort that has gone into this process over the last few years, after the intense frustration that has been experienced in recent years – and I don’t just speak of yesterday – about getting to the right point to make a decision, it would be tempting to conclude that it is too difficult, that perhaps the issue should be parked for a while. I don’t believe that is possible because of what I said earlier about the sense of our credibility in the wider society. Every day in which we fail to resolve this to our satisfaction, and the Church of England’s satisfaction, is a day when our credibility in the public eye is likely to diminish, and we have to take that seriously: however uncomfortable that message may be. There is a matter of mission here and we can’t afford to hang about. We can’t, as I said yesterday in my remarks, indefinitely go on living simply theologically with the anomaly of women priests who cannot be considered for bishops.
I mentioned earlier the duty of care that we have which does not lessen with the pressure and complexity of matters we face. But I do also want to repeat something that I said last night, having said that I wouldn’t repeat what I said last night, let me say something that I did say I as believe that it is probably worth saying, and that is that in spite of headlines in the press, the Church of England did not vote for its dissolution yesterday. The Church of England in a very important sense cannot vote for its dissolution, because the Church does not exist by the decision of Synod, by the will or personality of bishops or archbishops, by the decision of any pressure group, but by the call of Almighty God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. I hope you will not regard it as disrespectful to Synod if I say that Synod cannot vote to abolish God the Holy Trinity. Therefore, what God asks of the Church and what God equips the Church to do are as true this morning as they were yesterday morning and to paraphrase something I said in another context, God does not wait for us to respond to his call for mission and service until we have solved all our internal problems. We are going to be faced with a great deal of very uncomfortable and very unpleasant accusation and recrimination about yesterday and there is no easy way of getting through that except to endure it. But we can at least say God remains God, our call remains our call, our Church remains our Church and it is in that confidence that, with a good deal of deep breathing and as they say heart-swearing, we prepare ourselves to do our business today in the hope that the grace and strength of the Holy Spirit is what is always is, and always was and always will be.
Thank you.
Church of England Evangelical Council:
“The church failed to attend to God’s work in God’s way” – Michael Lawson, CEEC Chairman
The Venerable Michael Lawson, CEEC Chairman, comments on the No vote for Women Bishops “Is the church out of touch? No! It simply failed to attend to God’s work in God’s way.”
“The General Synod’s no vote for women bishops will undoubtedly cause both pain and even incredulity to some, yet to others a relief that biblical and catholic orthodoxy has been upheld. The reality is that the out come brings no victory to either side. It is true that broadly speaking the church as a whole has grappled responsibly with this issue. What will be extremely sad is if the result of this vote leads some women to feel they are marginalised in the church, for the reality is that the New Testament encourages the ministry of both men and women, yet in complementary ways. There are of course many places where the rich ministerial gifts of women already have a chance to flourish. But as a result of the vote, this complementarity needs an even greater encouragement by word and action in our churches.
As CEEC has warned on many occasions, one of the reasons for the outcome of the vote will have been the weak and inadequate approach to provision for those who could not accept the possibility of the ordination of women to the Episcopate. At any return to this issue, this matter will require far more thoughtful attention than it attracted hitherto. There was an easy dismissal by some – of those who disagreed with women bishops. This sadly was perceived as ungenerous to say the least, and the whole church needs to learn and learn again that generosity towards those of different opinions is a true sign of the gospel of Christ.
As an outcome to this vote the church may well be criticized that it is out of touch with the times. The truer criticism could well be that we failed to attend to God’s work in God’s way. The CEEC which represents a range of views on this matter, will happily sit down and pray and discuss possible ways forward with any individuals and groups who seek to know the mind of God and build unity throughout his Church.
The Venerable Michael Lawson
Chairman, Church of England Evangelical Council
Statement from Chairman of Reform on Today’s Synod Vote
We thank God that the Church of England has avoided making a big mistake which would have led to real division and a less inclusive Church. The synod’s decision shows respect for the issues of conscience involved. It has avoided putting significant minorities who, as faithful Anglicans, seek to follow the Bible’s teaching, into an impossible position.
We now have a real opportunity to build on the Church’s solid biblical foundations, reflecting together on the right way forward. The good news is that we are still together and able to witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ, which is the heart of our gospel, the basis of our unity, and the only hope for the future of church and nation.
We stand ready for any discussions that our future archbishop may wish to initiate and happily commit ourselves to approaching these positively. Our hearts go out to those who will now be disappointed and confused about the difficult position in which the Church of England now finds itself. We assure them of our prayers. We recognise there is now a need for everyone to take stock while working together to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God as Advent approaches.
Rev Rod Thomas
Chair of Reform
Forward in Faith reacts to the defeat of the draft Measure
Forward in Faith recognises that the outcome of today’s vote in the General Synod will bring disappointment and pain to many. However, we are not surprised that the legislation failed to command the necessary majorities, as it has been apparent for some time that it lacked any consensus across the whole of the Church of England.
As we have done for the last decade and more, Forward in Faith stands ready to offer a better way ahead, which might indeed command that wider consensus which this draft Measure so clearly lacked.
We ask now for a period of prayer and reflection on the part of the whole church, following today’s events.
Catholic Group on General Synod
from the Guardian
We regret the Synod was put in the position whereby draft legislation failed at final approval because it was unclear and unfair in its provision for those who, in conscience, are unable to accept the ministry of women as bishops or priests.
The Catholic Group calls on the House of Bishops to reconvene the talks started in the summer between representatives of different groups, chaired by Bishop Justin Welby.
Updated Wednesday morning
Today’s General Synod news is extensively covered in the Press, and leads many of Wednesday’s front pages.
The Guardian has
The Telegraph’s main story is
In the Independent the coverage is headlined:
Update
Channel 4 News has a report which includes video from Church House and also an interview with Tony Baldry: Church of England votes against women bishops.
For many more links, see the CofE Media Briefing for today.
Updated overnight
Affirming Catholicism has issued this statement.
The failure of the Women Bishops’ Measure to achieve the necessary majority in the House of Laity today is a huge disappointment and sadness. Many men as well as many women will experience this as a real blow, but our hearts particularly go out this evening to our women clergy who have ministered so effectively in the Church and had hoped today would be an affirmation of their ministry.
The full text is copied below the fold.
WATCH has issed a press release (only on Facebook at the moment)
Today’s vote is a devastating blow for the Church of England and the people of this country.
This vote is a missed opportunity for a whole generation to see women and men sharing fully in the mission, ministry and leadership of the Church of England.
The full text is copied below the fold.
Inclusive Church has issued a press release which can be read here.
Inclusive Church deeply regrets that General Synod did not approve the Measure that would have allowed women to become bishops in the Church of England.
We hope that church leaders will take urgent action to bring forward new legislation and to restore public confidence in the Church.
Dianna Gwilliams, Chair of Inclusive Church said:
“I’m personally disappointed that this legislation did not receive the necessary majority in the House of Laity of General Synod. It is clear that the Houses of Clergy and Bishops, along with 42 out of 44 Diocesan Synods believed that the legislation was the best fit.
This debate is not about women. It is about the nature of our church and her leadership. I pray that as we continue to listen prayerfully to each other God will grant courage to all women and men who, together, are providing courageous leadership in our church.”
GRAS has issued this statement:
We are deeply disappointed that the General Synod has made a decision so out of step with the will of the Church of England as a whole. The Synod’s decision to reject the Measure cuts right across what the vast majority of men and women in the Church of England long for and shows that our attempts at compromise have been ignored. It undermines the validity of the ministry of every ordained woman and sends out a negative message to all women everywhere. A single clause measure is now what GRAS will press for at every level.
Affirming Catholicism’s statement reads:
The Board of Affirming Catholicism issues the following statement following the General Synod Vote on the Women Bishops’ Measure
20th November, 2012:
The failure of the Women Bishops’ Measure to achieve the necessary majority in the House of Laity today is a huge disappointment and sadness. Many men as well as many women will experience this as a real blow, but our hearts particularly go out this evening to our women clergy who have ministered so effectively in the Church and had hoped today would be an affirmation of their ministry.
President of Affirming Catholicism, Bishop Michael Perham, said this evening their “priesthood is honoured and valued.” Thinking particularly of those who have “worked hard for a positive vote”, Bishop Michael adds “we all need now a little time to work through our initial sadness and frustration, but then we must go to work.”
After the cross of disappointment will however come new life; the pain shared on all sides must be the “birth pangs of a new way of being church”, says Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett, Chair of Affirming Catholicism.
The Church in England is synodically governed but episcopally led: and our prayers must in the first instance be for the House of Bishops, meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) in emergency session to find a way forward. Bishop Michael says this must not mean “five more years of waiting for a development that will surely come. There will be women bishops in the Church of England. I have no doubt about that. Our response to the Holy Spirit and the effectiveness of our mission require it”.
Affirming Catholicism will continue to strive and work with all those dedicated to making sure this future becomes an early reality.
WATCH’s press release reads
Women Bishops: House of Laity says no – by 5 votes
Today’s vote is a devastating blow for the Church of England and the people of this country.
This vote is a missed opportunity for a whole generation to see women and men sharing fully in the mission, ministry and leadership of the Church of England.
There is overwhelming support for women bishops in both in the church and in the country at large. We have been discussing this issue for a generation and working on the details of this compromise legislation for over ten years. 42 out of 44 dioceses supported the draft Measure: 75% of all votes were cast in favour.
Today, 74% of General Synod members voted in favour of women bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy voted overwhelmingly in support, but the Measure was narrowly defeated in the House of Laity where it failed to reach the required 2/3 majority: by 5 votes.
In the coming weeks, bishops will need to act promptly to offer pastoral support to women clergy and others who will feel devastated by this outcome.
The General Synod clearly needs to look again at how it represents the will of the people in the pews.
Our Christianity calls us to the future and not the past. WATCH will continue to work towards a future for the Church of England where the gifts and callings of women and men are equally recognised and valued.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said,
“This is a tragic day for the Church of England after so many years of debate and after all our attempts at compromise. Despite this disappointing setback, WATCH will continue to campaign for the full acceptance of women’s gifts of leadership in the Church’s life.”
Following the defeat by General Synod of the women bishops legislation this afternoon the Church of England issued this press release.
General Synod Rejects Draft Legislation on Women Bishops
20 November 2012The General Synod of the Church of England has voted to reject the draft legislation to allow women to become bishops.
Under the requirements of the Synod the legislation required a two-thirds majority in each of the three voting houses for final draft approval. Whilst more than two thirds voted for the legislation in both the House of Bishops (44-03) and the House of Clergy (148-45), the vote in favour of the legislation in the House of Laity was less than two-thirds (132-74). The vote in the House of Laity fell short of approval by six votes.
In total 324 members of the General Synod voted to approve the legislation and 122 voted to reject it.
The consequence of the “no” vote of terminating any further consideration of the draft legislation means that it will not be possible to introduce draft legislation in the same terms until a new General Synod comes into being in 2015, unless the ‘Group of Six’ (the Archbishops, the Prolocutors and the Chair and Vice Chair of the House of Laity) give permission and report to the Synod why they have done so.
Speaking after the vote the Rt Revd Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, said: “A clear majority of the General Synod today voted in favour of the legislation to consecrate women as Bishops. But the bar of approval is set very high in this Synod. Two-thirds of each house has to approve the legislation for it to pass. This ensures the majority is overwhelming. The majority in the house of laity was not quite enough. This leaves us with a problem. 42 out of 44 dioceses approved the legislation and more than three quarters of members of diocesan synods voted in favour. There will be many who wonder why the General Synod expressed its mind so differently.
“The House of Bishops recognises that the Church of England has expressed its mind that women should be consecrated as bishops. There is now an urgent task to find a fresh way forward to which so many of those who were opposed have pledged themselves.”
The House of Bishops of the Church of England will meet at 08.30am on Wednesday morning in emergency session to consider the consequences of the vote.
Exact voting figures will be found here.
To clarify the statement “The vote in the House of Laity fell short of approval by six votes.”, if six members of the House of Laity had voted in favour instead of against, the vote would in that house would have reached the necessary two-thirds majority.
Final approval of the legislation to allow women to become bishops in the Church of England was defeated by the General Synod today, because the vote in the House of Laity was less than the necessary two-thirds majority.
The main motion before Synod was
That the Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” be finally approved.
and this required a two-thirds majority of those present and voting in each of the three houses. [Abstentions are counted but not included in the calculation.] The votes were:
| For | Against | Abstention | |
| Bishops | 44 |
3 |
2 |
| Clergy | 148 |
45 |
0 |
| Laity | 132 |
74 |
0 |
James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool
summary of speeches by Bishop of Manchester and Canon Simon Killwick
summary of speech by the Bishop of Durham
summary of speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury
If I find any more I will add them.
Two questions were asked at General Synod on Monday which were answered by the Bishop of Guildford. The full list of all Questions is available here (PDF).
53. Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford) to ask the Chairman of the Council for Christian Unity:
Q. Has consideration been given to whether the Church of England is in full and unimpaired communion with Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina?
54. Mrs Lorna Ashworth (Chichester) to ask the Chairman of the Council for Christian Unity:
Q. Following the recent issue of a Certificate of Abandonment of the Episcopal Church in relation to the Rt Revd Mark J Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, and recognising that Bishop Lawrence has been one of the declining number of theologically conservative bishops who has sought to remain and to keep his people within TEC, in the light of paragraph 6 in the statement offered to the Synod in GS Misc 2011 by the Archbishops, are there any plans to consider proposing to the Synod fuller recognition of the Anglican Church in North America than has been considered to be appropriate up to this point.
The Bishop of Guildford’s answer (transcribed from audio recording available here)
With your permission sir, I will answer this and Mrs Ashworth’s question together.
The withdrawal from The Episcopal Church of most of the clergy and people of several dioceses, led by their bishops, after diocesan convention decisions, is a development novel in kind as well as in scale. Our North American sisters and brothers have been often involved in a litigious and sometimes acrimonious debate. We should try to remain on good terms with all parties and avoid inflaming matters further. Our response should be deliberate, and not hasty.
As the Archbishops noted in GS Misc 1011, the creation of the Anglican Church in North America raises questions of recognition of orders – ministry – as well as a relationship of communion. The former question is in some respects simpler, because the considerations are more objective, and it is also the more pressing, by reason of requests for transfer. Nevertheless there are some matters that require clarification before any decisions can be taken.
Clergy ordained in several churches with which we are not, or not yet, in communion are seeking permission to minister in the Church of England. The Council for Christian Unity has therefore established a small group to offer advice to the Archbishops through the Faith and Order Commission on the relevant issues. The question about the Anglican Church in North America’s orders (whether it is a church and whether its orders are such, whether they such that we can recognize) will be addressed in that context. This will necessarily involve direct ‘engagement with the Anglican Church in North America’ which was envisaged in the Archbishops General Synod miscellaneous paper that I have referred to, GS Misc 1011, and that will be the context for subsequent exploration of relationships between our churches.
On Saturday, a Special Diocesan Convention endorsed the South Carolina withdrawal from The Episcopal Church. The Bishop has stated that their position would be to remain within the Anglican Communion as an extra-provincial Diocese. The Episcopal Church on the other hand maintains that General Convention consent is necessary for any withdrawal. So the legal and indeed theological and ecclesiological position is extremely complicated. And it is absolutely not certain.
It has therefore not been possible to consider the consequences for our relationships at this immediate stage. And, in my view, any statement just at this point would be premature.
Updated Tuesday morning
Guardian Lizzy Davies Church of England prepares for vote on female bishops
Telegraph John Bingham General Synod: arcane procedures mask passions running high
and Church warned over women bishops
Emma Barnett Women bishops: refuseniks have run out of excuses
Peter Stanford Women bishops: judgment day, at last
Mail Online Church of England to hold final vote tomorrow on whether to approve a law to allow women bishops
Update
BBC Women bishops: Church of England synod to vote
Guardian Editorial Let bulwarks be bishops: women in the Church of England
Guardian Natalie Hanman Should women be bishops?
Here’s a brief, official summary of today’s opening day of Synod: General Synod: Summary of business on Monday 19 November 2012.
Audio files of the session are available here.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has published a speech he made today: Archbishop heralds “another model of Church life coming to birth”.
Over a thousand clergy of the Church of England have signed an open letter to The Independent urging the General Synod to vote in favour of women bishops in Tuesday’s ballot. The letter, with a complete list of signatories, is here: Open Letter: The Biblical case for women bishops.
Daniel Goddard, Gerard Brand, Jonathan Brown and Kunal Dutta write about the letter in the Independent: Clergy demand women bishops ahead of General Synod.
The Telegraph also reports on the letter: Church of England General Synod: women bishop vote in balance as row looms.
There are other news items previewing the debate.
Telegraph John Bingham Top female cleric urges backing for ‘imperfect’ women bishops deal
BBC Michael Buchanan Church of England to vote on women bishops
Updated Sunday night
There are several items this weekend about Tuesday’s debate and vote on women bishops.
Independent Emily Dugan Church of England poised to vote for women bishops
Telegraph John Bingham All eyes on ‘game-changer’ Welby as Church faces final showdown on women bishops
Telegraph Cole Moreton Ladies in waiting at the Church of England
Ruth Gledhill was interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme this morning. The five minute interview starts 20 min 15 sec in from the start.
Update
Guardian Lizzy Davies Female bishops: history awaits at CofE General Synod vote
The Church of England has issued the following advice about visiting General Synod. It will be particularly relevant for the debate on the women bishops legislation which is timetabled for both the morning and afternoon sessions next Tuesday.
Visiting General Synod
Arrangements have been announced for those wishing to visit general synod and observe its proceedings.
112 tickets will be available each day for the public gallery.
Tickets will be valid for either the morning session (9am-1pm) or afternoon session (2pm-7pm).
Those wishing to view for the whole day will need to obtain tickets for both sessions.
Tickets for the morning session will be available from 8.45 from the Deans Yard entrance to Church House.
Tickets for the afternoon session will be available from 1.45 from the same place.
Tickets will be issued on a first come, first served basis. Those leaving the premises will be asked to return their tickets to allow others to enter.
In addition to tickets for the public gallery there will be a further 40 tickets available for the Abbey Room where a live feed of proceedings will be broadcast.
There will also be an opportunity to follow synod proceedings via twitter where the CofE comms account - amongst others - will be live tweeting proceedings. The hashtag being used for the whole session will be “#synod”
The proceedings will also be broadcast on a live audio feed available from the Church of England website.
The agenda for the synod is available here: http://bit.ly/WaeYTV
Updated latest Friday afternoon
As next Tuesday’s debate and vote at General Synod approaches here are a few recent press articles.
Church Times Madeleine Davies As Synod vote nears, both sides slug it out online
Guardian Vicky Beeching How social media could swing the vote for women bishops
Ekklesia Simon Barrow Saying ‘yes’ to women bishops
Telegraph Riazat Butt Women bishops will have to accept discrimination to exist
Update The Church Mouse reports that Evangelical Women’s Group AWESOME back Women Bishops.
Church of England Newspaper Jody Stowell Yes2WomenBishops?
updated again Thursday morning
The Chairs of Reform and the Catholic Group in General Synod have jointly published a printed booklet which has been sent to all synod members. It is available online as a PDF: Women Bishops Legislation Not Fit for Purpose.
Update and here is part 2: Yes 2 Women Bishops Part 2: The Right Measure at the Right Time
Church Society has published a video urging a vote against the Measure. See the associated press release here.
New articles continue to be posted at the website Replace the Measure.
Further material in the Church Times is mentioned in this news article: Synod women-bishops vote appears too close to call by Madeleine Davies.
Andrew Brown asked at Cif belief Female bishops vote: heading for a full dress fiasco?
Affirming Catholicism has published this Statement on the Measure to admit Women to the Episcopate to be debated at General Synod November 2012. It concludes:
…Affirming Catholicism recognises that this Measure represents a compromise by people on all sides of this debate. Many of those who support the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate would have preferred a Measure with fewer provisions for those who do not accept the sacramental ministry of women. Many of those who do not accept the sacramental ministry of women would have preferred more robust structures. Affirming Catholicism welcomes the fact, that unlike suggestions for a separate province or society for those who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministry of women, the Draft Measure preserves the parochial and diocesan structures of the Church of England, preventing the creation of parallel Church of England jurisdictions in the same place. And the voting in Diocesan Synods would suggest that the vast majority of their members also support this way forward.
Affirming Catholicism strongly affirms the basic assumptions upon which the Draft Measure is based and hopes that General Synod will now vote for the Measure, recognising that in doing so it is enacting the will of the Church of England.
The full text of the statement is reproduced below the fold.
Statement on the Measure to admit Women to the Episcopate to be debated at General Synod November 2012
From the beginning of the debate on the admission of women to the episcopate, Affirming Catholicism has argued that the key structural principle that must remain unimpaired, if the ministry of women in the episcopate is to be accepted within the Church of England, is that also enunciated in the first clause of the Act of Synod: “The bishop of each diocese continues as the ordinary of his [sic] diocese.”
Moreover, we recognise that a degree of diversity is core to Anglican ecclesiology; we believe that the Church as a body is enriched by including people with different views, even on key issues of Christian faith. Affirming Catholicism has therefore consistently argued that in moving towards opening the episcopate of the Church of England to women, it is also necessary to make provision for the minority within the Church of England who continue to have private reservations about women’s ministry, provided that these provisions do not compromise the recognition of diocesan bishop as ordinary in that diocese.
Consequently, and despite some continuing reservations about the provision for on bishop’s declarations (§§2.4 and 2.5) and the issuing of letters of request (§3), in July 2010 Affirming Catholicism welcomed the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to admit women to the episcopate as “a good and balanced means by which the Church of England can legislate to allow women to take their full place within the Church of England’s ministry”.
That Measure was referred to the Dioceses of the Church of England, and accepted by 42 of 44, being narrowly defeated in Chichester and London. Moreover, 33 Dioceses voted explicitly against adding additional provisions for those who do not feel able to recognise the ministry of women as priests and bishops, and only nine in favour of doing so. In February 2012, General Synod voted resoundingly in favour of a motion that asked that the House of Bishops should not amend the draft Measure “substantially”.
When in May 2012, the House of Bishops agreed two amendments to clauses 5 and 8 of the draft Measure, Affirming Catholicism welcomed the latter, and particularly its confirmation that the delegation of authority by the diocesan to another bishop “shall not be taken as divesting the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her authority or functions.”
However, Affirming Catholicism argued strongly against accepting the second amendment, the addition of clause 5(1)©, requiring that the Code of Practice to be drawn up and promulgated by the House of Bishops should offer guidance as to:
“the selection of male bishops or male priests the exercise of ministry by whom is consistent with the theological convictions as to the consecration or ordination of women on grounds of which parochial church councils have issued Letters of Request under section 3.”
Affirming Catholicism was very pleased that the July General Synod referred this amendment back to the House of bishops for further consideration.
In September 2012, the House of Bishops suggested a further amendment of clause 5(1)© to require that the Code of Practice should offer guidance as to:
“the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3 (3).”
This is the wording of the Measure that General Synod will be asked to vote on in November. No further amendment can be made to the Measure.
Affirming Catholicism believes that the revised clause 5(1)© is in accordance with the Measure as it was agreed by the General Synod in July 2010 and affirmed by a substantial majority of Diocesan Synods. The legislation as proposed, as the Report accompanying it maintained, “will, for the first time, enable women to be admitted to all orders of ministry. By preserving intact the authority of the diocesan bishop it will avoid any changes in the historic understanding of that office and of the episcopate more generally. And by making statutory arrangements for those with theological difficulties it will endeavour to preserve that broad and comprehensive character of the Church of England that is one of its defining and most attractive features” (GS 1708-09Y, paragraph 459).
Affirming Catholicism recognises that this Measure represents a compromise by people on all sides of this debate. Many of those who support the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate would have preferred a Measure with fewer provisions for those who do not accept the sacramental ministry of women. Many of those who do not accept the sacramental ministry of women would have preferred more robust structures. Affirming Catholicism welcomes the fact, that unlike suggestions for a separate province or society for those who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministry of women, the Draft Measure preserves the parochial and diocesan structures of the Church of England, preventing the creation of parallel Church of England jurisdictions in the same place. And the voting in Diocesan Synods would suggest that the vast majority of their members also support this way forward.
Affirming Catholicism strongly affirms the basic assumptions upon which the Draft Measure is based and hopes that General Synod will now vote for the Measure, recognising that in doing so it is enacting the will of the Church of England.
Affirming Catholicism, November 2012
Update text corrected on Monday at noon
Following consultation with its members WATCH (Women and the Church) issued the following press release this morning.
WATCH (WOMEN AND THE CHURCH)
PRESS RELEASE: November 5th 2012
For immediate release
Majority of WATCH supporters want this Measure passedWATCH (Women and the Church) has been consulting with members and supporters over the past few weeks to get a better sense of whether the draft legislation to allow women in the episcopate has the support of our constituency.
Immediately after the September meeting of the House of Bishops, our conversations revealed a very deep and passionate division between those who would continue to support the Measure and those who could not. It appears that over the past few weeks that position has changed.
Our recent consultation with members and others indicates three things:
1. That our supporters continue to have a number of reservations about the legislation: many expressed concern that by providing such generous provision for those opposed, we are storing up trouble for future years and risk entrenching a discriminatory culture that is deeply damaging to men, women and the health of the Church of England.2. Despite these concerns, a significant majority of those who responded to our consultation would like to see this legislation pass Final Approval on 20th November: they think that the benefits of having women as bishops outweigh any risks inherent in the Measure.
3. There remains a strong minority view that this legislation is discriminatory and should therefore be opposed.WATCH acknowledges that those with both views are sincere in their desire to see the full flourishing of women in the Church of England. We understand that individuals may feel compelled to vote in either direction on 20th November. However, the balance of opinion in our constituency is now firmly in favour of this legislation passing and we hope Synod members will take that into consideration in deciding which way to vote.
WATCH therefore welcomes the positive contributions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and others in seeking to persuade Synod members to support the legislation. We hope that other bishops will follow his strong lead. For details of Archbishop Rowan’s ‘Enough Waiting’ campaign please follow this link http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/.
We also commend the yes2womenbishops campaign initiated by the independent blogger Church Mouse to those who wish to see this legislation pass Final Approval on 20th November http://yes2womenbishops.blogspot.co.uk.
WATCH has worked tirelessly to ensure that the best possible legislation is presented to General Synod for Final Approval and will continue to engage with the legislative process beyond November whatever the result of the vote - especially in monitoring the development of the Code of Practice.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said “What is on the table is the product of many years of consultation and detailed drafting work. Now is the time for Synod members to decide whether this legislation is a workable basis for going forward together. It is clear that the majority of WATCH supporters feel that, although not ideal, this package is ‘good enough’ – an acceptable next step on a continuing road towards a Church that fully values and celebrates the gifts of women.”
Another new website has been launched: YES 2 women bishops
An unofficial website promoting a YES vote in favour of women bishops in the November 2012 meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England
It describes itself thus:
This site was created by The Church Mouse. It is completely independent of the Church of England, and all organisations within it. Whilst it is supportive of Rowan Williams’s “Enough Waiting” campaign, it is entirely separate.
Yes 2 Women Bishops is not an organisation, and has no leadership or members. It is simply a place for Church members to make their voice heard on this crucial issue.
The principal contributors to this website are The Church Mouse, Rebecca Swinson, Jody Stowell, and Vicky Beeching.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has initiated a campaign to this end, called Enough Waiting.
This provides many of the arguments in favour of a YES vote on November 20th. We do not intend replay the arguments for and against on this site, but merely to provide a place for supporters of women bishops to voice that support in the run up to the November meeting of General Synod and to urge them to vote YES to women bishops.There are many ‘special interest groups’ who have been around for many years loudly voicing their positions. Groups representing particular wings and factions within the Church have made their views known and the arguments have been played out in agonising detail.
Yet there has been no attempt to let ordinary church members voice their opinions. Surveys have been clear that the vast majority (around 75-80%) of the Church, and the public at large, want women bishops. We now have a formula for allowing that to happen, whilst providing statutory and legally binding provision for alternative oversight for those who cannot accept women bishops.
This site does not intend to replay the arguments for and against. It is simply a place for those who have decided that they would like to General Synod to pass the legislation to allow women bishops in November to urge them to do so.
A press release has now been issued which is copied below the fold.
For immediate release: Sunday 4th November 2012
Church members mobilise on social media to support a decisive vote in favour of women bishops
Ahead of the crucial vote on women bishops at the upcoming meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, church members are mobilising on social media sites Facebook and Twitter to encourage Synod members to vote YES.
The Yes 2 Women Bishops initiative was launched by the popular blogger The Church Mouse. It is already attracting huge support from ordinary church members who have so far had no say in the lengthy process of drafting and introducing the legislation.
Yes 2 Women Bishops was born out of discussions on the social media site Twitter, and now has a website which lets church members email their General Synod representatives and urge them to vote YES to women bishops in November.
The Church Mouse said, “Rowan Williams launched a campaign called ‘Enough Waiting’ to encourage a YES vote in November, as it is believed the vote will be close. Chatting about the issues on Twitter, it was clear that many people wanted to get involved. A few tweets later, and we had a campaign mobilised. I was inundated with offers of support to help get the word out. A few days later and we had engaged hundreds of supporters to spread the word.”
General Synod member Rebecca Swinson has been helping the campaign and commented on the idea behind it, “We don’t want to re-hash the arguments for women bishops, or to debate the merits of the legislation as presented. Those debates have already been had. We want to provide an opportunity for those who have watched the debate and concluded that they want General Synod to pass the legislation to have their voice heard.”
Theologian and social media expert Vicky Beeching said, “This is an example of the social media ‘digital revolution’ in full flow; giving a voice to the people, a sense of standing together, and a direct channel to appeal to the decision makers. Our ‘Web 2.0’ world gives everyone the potential to have a voice. We need ‘Church 2.0’ where all those in the pews get to have a say on important matters. Hopefully, Synod members will listen to what these church members are saying.”
Other high profile supporters include Jody Stowell from the evangelical group Fulcrum and Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne.
Women Bishops and the Anglican Communion Covenant are not the only items of business at this month’s General Synod. There is also this diocesan synod motion from Southwell and Nottingham, which will be debated on the morning of Wednesday 21 November.
“That this Synod request that Canon B 12 and the Regulations taking effect under it be amended so that:
(a) the Holy Sacrament may be distributed by any authorized regular communicant (including children admitted to the Holy Communion under the Admission of Baptised Children to Holy Communion Regulations 2006);
(b) if the diocesan bishop agrees, the necessary authorization may be given in relation to any parish by the incumbent, priest in charge or (during a vacancy) rural dean; and
(c) no person shall be authorized to distribute the Holy Sacrament without the support of the parochial church council of the parish or, where the Holy Communion is celebrated in a school and the person concerned is a child, of the head teacher of the school.‟
There are background papers from the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham (GS 1881A) and the Secretary General (GS 1881B). It is clear from the first of these papers that the prime purpose of this motion is to allow (some) unconfirmed children to distribute holy communion.
David Pocklington of the Law & Religion UK blog has summarised these papers and added his own comments in this article: Children, Confirmation and Communion?
The full texts of the 2006 regulations and Canons B 12 and B 15A referred to above are available online.
Admission of Baptised Children to Holy Communion Regulations 2006 are available here (Word document) and here (web page).
Canon B 12 Of the ministry of the Holy Communion
Canon B 15A Of the admission to Holy Communion
One of the General Synod papers issued today is GS 1708-09ZZZ which describes how the House of Bishops reconsidered clause 5(1)(c) in the women bishops legislation. It also includes the following legal advice on the meaning of the amendment to clause 5(1)(c) (which was the fourth one they considered) actually adopted by the House.
Legal advice given to the House of Bishops on the fourth of the proposed amendments to clause 5(1)(c)
1. The amendment would substitute the following for the present clause 5(1)(c):
“(c) the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3,”.
2. The effect of the amendment would not merely be to require that guidance be given on the issue of the selection of male bishops and male priests: like some of the other possible amendments, it would impose a requirement as to the end to which that guidance is directed – in this case, that the selection of male bishops and male priests be such as to respect the grounds on which PCCs issue Letters of Request under the Measure.
3. The effect of the use of the word ‘respect’ in that context is to require the Code of Practice to give guidance to the effect that, in selecting a male bishop or male priest, the person(s) making the selection would need to seek to address, or accommodate, the grounds on which a PCC has issued its Letter of Request. They could not simply fail to give effect to those grounds at all, even if they considered that there were cogent grounds for doing so.
4. The effect of the use of the word ‘respect’ in that regard can be helpfully contrasted with the effect of other expressions which have been canvassed in discussion of possible amendments:
5. The analysis set out above is reflected in the illustrative draft wording that has been produced to show what the Code of Practice might say about the selection of male bishops were this amendment to be made to the Measure: it states that “In making the selection of the bishop who is to exercise episcopal ministry by delegation the diocesan bishop should seek to accommodate [my emphasis] the parish’s concerns relating to holy orders and the exercise of ordained ministry of women so far as those matters are relevant to the grounds of theological conviction as to the consecration and ordination of women on which the PCC issued its Letter of Request.”
6. It would be open to the House, if it wished to do so, to include more detailed guidance in the Code as to what would be involved in order to ‘respect’ the grounds on which a PCC had issued its Letter of Request.
7. As to the use in the amendment of the word ‘grounds’, the grounds in question are those on which PCCs issue Letters of Request under clause 3 of the Measure – ie ‘grounds of theological conviction’. By necessary implication those grounds are limited to grounds as to the consecration or ordination of women. (It is implicit in clause 3 that, by allowing a parish to ask for a male bishop or priest, a PCC is allowed - and only allowed - to issue a Letter of Request on grounds of theological conviction as to the consecration or ordination of women.)
8. Thus the guidance required to be given by the amendment would have to be limited accordingly – that is, it would have to make it clear that the grounds which the selection of male bishops are to ‘respect’ were limited to grounds of theological conviction as to the consecration or ordination of women. The illustrative draft wording that has been produced to show what the Code of Practice might say about the selection of male bishops were this amendment to be made to the Measure reflects that position.
Stephen Slack
11th September 2012
Chief Legal Adviser
The Legal Office
Church House
Westminster
The papers sent to General Synod members today include GS Misc 1034: Consecration of Women to the Episcopate: Future Process. In it the Secretary General outlines what will happen after the debates next month on the legislation to allow women to be bishops; he considers both the cases of the Measure receiving final approval and being defeated. I have copied this below the fold.
The paper also includes a note, written by the Legal Office, of the stages required to bring the legislation into effect once it has received final approval from General Synod.
GS Misc 1034
GENERAL SYNOD
Consecration of Women to the Episcopate: Future Process
Note from the Secretary General
1. With the agreement of the Business Committee I issued in January 2012 (as GS Misc 1012) a description of the remaining stages of the legislative process and a possible timeline. This note provides an updated version.
2. On 20 November the draft Measure and draft Amending Canon are due to be considered at the Final Approval stage. For the draft Measure to pass, two-thirds majorities of those present and voting (abstentions not counting for this purpose) are required in each of the three houses. The Final Approval of the Amending Canon requires the same majority. The motion for its Final Approval will be moved only if the Measure itself has been approved, as the Measure contains the statutory authority for the principal provision made by the Canon.
3. If the Measure is rejected the effect of Standing Order 61(d) is that it cannot be considered again on the First Consideration Stage in the same form until a new Synod comes into being unless the Presidents, the Prolocutors and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the House of Laity give permission for such a motion to be moved and make a report in writing to the Synod setting out a summary of the case for reconsideration and their reasons for giving such permission.
4. If the Measure is rejected on 20 November it will, in the first instance, be for the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to consider how best to test the mind of the General Synod on what should happen next. In addition there are Diocesan Synod Motions for the General Synod to consider on the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993 and the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate. The Business Committee agreed to ‘park’ these until the conclusion of the current legislative process.
5. If Final Approval is secured, the Measure will stand committed to the Legislative Committee of the Synod, which will send it, with the necessary explanatory material, to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. It is possible that the Ecclesiastical Committee will be able to meet before Christmas, though it would be the New Year before the House of Commons and the House of Lords were able to debate whether to approve the Measure.
6. It is only once the approval of the House of Commons and House of Lords has been secured, the Royal Assent given and the necessary provisions of the Measure brought into force by the Archbishops that the House of Bishops will be able to make the Code of Practice and bring it to the General Synod for approval.
7. The first scheduled meeting at which the House of Bishops would be able make the Code of Practice would, therefore, be in May 2013. It would also need at the same time to consider the terms of a draft Act of Synod to rescind the 1993 Act of Synod.
8. This would enable the Code and the Act of Synod to be brought together to the Synod under the “Preliminary Motion Procedure” in July 2013. At the same group of sessions the Synod would be able to proceed to a debate on any amendments to either instrument, to which the forty member rule would apply. After the Synod had disposed of any amendments the Code and the Act of Synod would stand committed to the House of Bishops under Article 7.
9. It would then be open to the House of Bishops to make such further amendments as it saw fit to the Code and the Act of Synod before returning them to the General Synod for Final Approval.
10. The House of Laity and the Convocations would have the opportunity to claim Article 7 references on the Code and the Act of Synod.
11. Subject to the outcome of any Article 7 reference, the Final Approval debates would then follow, subject to the possibility of the Synod passing adjournment motions inviting reconsideration by the House of Bishops. Such a motion could invite reconsideration of the instrument in question, whether generally or in relation to a particular amendment made by the House.
12. More details on the processes at each stage are set out in the attached note from the Legal Office.
William Fittall
Secretary General
October 2012
Online copies of the papers for the November 2012 meeting of General Synod are now available online; they are listed below, with links and a note of the day they are scheduled for debate.
In addition a zip file of all papers is available; this also includes the first six notice papers and a list of recent appointments.
The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1878) 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 1708D - Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Tuesday]
GS 1709C - Draft Amending Canon No.30 [Tuesday]
GS 1709E - Draft Petition for Her Majesty’s Royal Assent and Licence [Tuesday]
GS 1708-09ZZZ - Reconsideration of Clause 5(1)(c) by the House of Bishops
GS 1878 - Report by the Business Committee on the Article 8 Reference [Monday]
GS 1879 Agenda
GS 1880 - Report by the Business Committee [Monday]
GS 1881A - Diocesan Synod Motion: Amendment to Canon B12 and Regulations Note (from the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham) [Wednesday]
GS 1881B - Diocesan Synod Motion: Amendment to Canon B12 and Regulations Note (from the Secretary General [Wednesday]
GS 1882A - Private Member’s Motion: Living Wage (from Mr John Freeman) [Wednesday]
GS 1882B - Private Member’s Motion: Living Wage (from the Chair of the Mission and Public Affairs Council [Wednesday]
GS 1883 - Youth Unemployment plus I Am One in a Million leaflet [Wednesday]
GS 1884 - 47th Report of the Standing Orders Committee [Contingency Business]
Other papers
GS Misc 1034 - Consecration of Women to the Episcopate: Future Process
GS Misc 1036 - Archbishops’ Council Report since July 2012 Group of Sessions
Forecast of future General Synod business
This forecast should not be read as more than a broad indication of business that may come to the Synod in 2013.
Legislative business
Liturgical business
Reports
One or more Diocesan Synod Motions and one or more Private Members’ Motions are customarily included in the Agenda for each group of sessions (see Special Agendas III and IV).
The usual pre-synod press release has been issued by the Church of England today, and is copied below. It provides a summary of the business to be transacted.
I will list in a separate article the available online papers.
Agenda for November 2012 General Synod
The General Synod of the Church of England meets in November for a three day meeting to discuss final stages of women bishops’ legislation, with an agenda that also includes the Anglican Communion, the Living Wage and youth unemployment.
The Synod will meet at Church House from 2.15 p.m. on Monday 19 November until 5.30 pm on Wednesday 21 November.
The Agenda provides for the Synod to deal with the final stages of the major legislative process designed to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of England while also making some provision for those who, for theological reasons, will not be able to receive their ministry. The Final Approval debates will take place on Tuesday 20 November, after a celebration of Holy Communion at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside and preach. The debates are expected to fill the rest of the morning and most, if not all, of the afternoon.
On Monday 19 November there will be a presentation about the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, which is meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, from 27 October until 7 November, and developments in the life of the Anglican Communion generally. It will also include reflections on the process in other churches of the Communion with regard to the Anglican Communion Covenant. That presentation will be followed by a debate on the reference to the dioceses of the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant. As a majority of diocese voted against adopting the draft legislation it cannot be presented for final approval.
On Wednesday 21 November the Synod will debate a motion from Southwell and Nottingham Diocese which calls for changes in the law to allow children who have been admitted to communion but are not yet confirmed to distribute the consecrated bread and wine at celebrations of Holy Communion.
A Private Member’s Motion from Mr John Freeman (Chester) will be proposed to affirm the Christian values inherent in the concept of the ‘Living Wage’ and strongly encourage all Church of England institutions to pay it.
The Synod will also be invited to decide to meet in November 2013 but not in February.
On the afternoon of Wednesday 21 November the Synod will consider recent research by the Church Urban Fund and the Frontier Youth Trust on youth unemployment and its long-term effects on those concerned. The Synod will be invited to commend church and community initiatives that provide training and other support.
This will be final occasion at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside, with the Archbishop of York, at a meeting of the General Synod. The final business for the group of sessions will be a motion, to be moved by the Archbishop of York, expressing the Synod’s gratitude to Dr Williams and offering him and Mrs Williams its best wishes for the future.
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 sessions.
A live feed will be available (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.
A new website has been launched. It describes itself thus:
Fair Measure 2012
Welcome to the Fair Measure 2012 blog.
On this website we will be posting a number of papers, links and comments about the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure which is due to be debated by the General Synod of the Church of England on 20 November 2012.
We will show that the Measure as it stands is not fit for purpose, because of its unjust treatment of significant minorities within the Church of England. It must be stopped before it damages the Church irreparably, and replaced with a new, fairer Measure which enables us all to go forward together.
The website can be found here: Replace the Measure where the following paragraph has been added:
Contributors to this site include members of General Synod, and Anglicans from around the Church of England, who are united in their desire to hold together both those in favour and those opposed to the ordination and consecration of women.
Fulcrum has issued this: Fulcrum Statement on Women Bishops (ahead of the vote at the November, 2012 General Synod)
Fulcrum fully supports women bishops and hopes that the Measure passes through the General Synod in November. We believe that this is the view of most evangelicals in the Church of England. We agree with CEEC that all members of General Synod must prayerfully consider the good of the whole church and vote with a clear conscience. We hope that all those who want women bishops will vote for the Measure. We further hope that those who are against will be able in good conscience to abstain, recognising that it is clearly the will of the Church to proceed, and then work with the provision, which is unlikely to be strengthened should the legislation fall this time.
Updated several times: latest 19 November
As part of his campaign to persuade General Synod members to back the new women bishops legislation when it returns to General Synod next month, the Archbishop of Canterbury has released video messages by Rebecca Swinson (the youngest member of the Archbishops’ Council) and Bishop of Chelmsford. The links include transcripts of the videos.
Update Another video - this time from the Bishop of Willesden
two more videos: Mark Russell and the Bishop of Worcester
another video: Bishop of Sheffield
and an audio recording from Janet Appleby
and another video: Jan McFarlane
and yet another video: Sam Follett
PRESS RELEASE from The Catholic Group in General Synod
Women Bishops’ Legislation Not Fit for Purpose
The legislation is unfair, unstable and incoherent; it does not command consensus; there is a better way forward.
UNFAIR
1. There is no legally-binding provision for minorities; instead a Code of Practice is proposed, to which bishops would “have regard”. The only form of appeal against a bishop’s decision would be judicial review, which few parishes could afford.
2. Bishops provided for traditionalists would not have proper oversight as bishops; they would just be allowed to conduct services. There would be no guaranteed future supply of bishops for traditionalists.
3. There is no legal prohibition on discrimination against traditionalist candidates for ordination.
4. Traditionalists would become 2nd. class Anglicans served by 2nd. class bishops.
UNSTABLE
5. The Code of Practice cannot be decided until the legislation has become law. Supporters of the legislation have already stated that they will oppose any further provision being made for traditionalists in the Code of Practice. There would be more years of in-fighting before the Code was agreed.
6. The Code could be changed at any time, meaning that any provision it made for traditionalists could be campaigned against and whittled away over time.
7. The application of the Code would vary from one diocese to another – a postcode lottery.
INCOHERENT
8. The draft legislation would oblige male bishops to delegate certain functions to male bishops - a pointless exercise! It needs to be more specific and to provide for religious conviction.
9. The House of Bishops amendment stating that the Code of Practice shall give guidance as to the selection of delegated male bishops is not enough: (a) the details should be in the legislation itself; (b) the word ‘respects’ has no legal definition – meaning that the amendment is not prescriptive of the contents of the Code; the Code is therefore an unstable instrument.
LACK OF CONSENSUS
10. Major changes in Church order require a clear consensus; this is why legislation like this needs a two-thirds majority in each of the three Houses of the General Synod, in order to pass. At no stage in the process so far has this draft legislation achieved the required majorities in the Synod, meaning that there is no clear consensus. No real attempt has been made to reach consensus outside the formal synodical process.
11. Supporters of the legislation realise that there is not enough consensus, and are resorting to unprincipled attempts to pressurise those opposed to the legislation to abstain, rather than to vote against, as their consciences would dictate.
A BETTER WAY
12. A better way would be to follow the example of the Church in Wales, whose Governing Body rejected unsatisfactory legislation for women bishops, and is now looking at a new process with two linked pieces of legislation, one to provide for women to be made bishops, and the other to provide for traditionalists; the legislation for women bishops cannot come into force until the legislation providing for traditionalists has been passed. Such an approach would lead to the prayerful and reconciling dialogue the Church of England now needs in order to move forward.
ENDS
29th September 2012
The Church of England Evangelical Council has issued a statement
following the meeting of the Council on 16th/17th October 2012:
The CEEC is composed of men and women, clergy, bishops and laity, those for and against the inclusion of women in the episcopate. These convictions are sincerely held, and include those who are satisfied with the present proposals for provision. However, a majority of the Council believes that the current measure does not make adequate provision for the substantial number of the Church of England who cannot support this development, and is concerned that there is a serious possibility the measure may result in their exclusion from the Church. It believes that all members of General Synod must prayerfully consider the good of the whole church and vote with a clear conscience which, for opponents, may mean voting against the Measure, rather than, as they are being asked, to abstain.
Notes to Editors
CEEC is constituted to represent and co-ordinate Anglican evangelicals across the country within the Church of England and its structures and has members both for and against the consecration of women bishops.
There is a substantial number in the dioceses against the present proposals:
a) The votes in the Dioceses on this legislation showed that:
23% clergy opposed the legislation and 2% abstained
22% laity opposed to the legislation and 3% abstained
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1379450/gs%201847%20(women%20bishops%20-%20business%20committee%20report).pdf See page 4b) A ComRes Poll in Oct 2012 showed 18% of Anglicans were against the idea of women bishops and 9% were unsure about the initiative.
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/ComRes_Women_Bishops_Oct2012.pdf See page 8CEEC Chairman: The Venerable Michael Lawson
Executive Officer: The Revd Canon Michael Walters
Communications Officer: The Revd Peter BreckwoldtCEEC Chairman, the Venerable Michael Lawson has added a comment on the background to the Statement:-
‘Many evangelicals, both supporters and non-supporters of the ordination of women to the episcopate, are deeply concerned about provision for those who in good conscience cannot accept women bishops. We believe it is a matter not just of justice but of godliness to treat well this minority of those with whom God has joined us together in fellowship and mission. In all this we have to remember we are God’s people, and behave as such, and not slip into the ungodliness of warring political factions’.
Membership of the CEEC Council is listed here. The Election process is described here. The Basis of Belief to which Council members must subscribe can be found here.
Updated Saturday night
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has “begun a campaign to persuade General Synod members to back the new women bishops legislation when it returns to debate it next month” with this article in today’s Church Times
that is also available on his website: Women Bishops: Enough Waiting. He concludes:
My hope for next month’s debate is that it will tackle what is really before us, not what it is assumed or even suspected to mean; that it will give us grounds for trusting one another more rather than less; that it will be rooted in a serious theological engagement with what makes for the good of the Church and its mission, a serious attempt to be obedient to God’s leading – and, perhaps most soberingly, that it will not ignore the sense of urgency about resolving this that is felt inside and outside the Church, often with real pain and bewilderment. As a Synod, we are asked to act not only as a legislature but as a body that serves the Kingdom of God and takes a spiritual and pastoral responsibility for its actions. And I know that Synod members, myself among them, will be praying hard about what this entails.
The Church Times also reports on the contents of the article: Williams urges waverers to back women-bishops Measure.
Update
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Rowan Williams issues warning over women bishops vote
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Vote for women bishops or face further turmoil within the Church, Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams warns
Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod
PRESS RELEASE
Press briefing for immediate release 8th October 2012
The final draft Bishops and Priests [Consecration and Ordination of Women] Measure
If this legislation is passed we hope and pray that this will be a step on the way towards the full realisation that women and men are equally made in the image of God.
Vigilant scrutiny and care will be needed to ensure that the word “Respect” will be interpreted in such a way that the Code of Practice will ensure the excesses that resulted from the Act of Synod will be prevented through provision of a clearly defined code of conduct.
GRAS objectives:
Forward in Faith has issued this press release Changes at FiF announced.
It was announced today at the Forward in Faith National Assembly that Stephen Parkinson will be retiring at the end of December, after over 19 years as the Director of FiF. He will be succeeded by Dr Colin Podmore, who is currently the Clerk to the General Synod of the Church of England…
Church House Westminster has issued this press release: Statement from Secretary General on new Director of Forward in Faith.
The Secretary General of the Church of England, Mr. William Fittall, has today issued a statement in response to the announcement that Dr. Colin Podmore has been appointed as the new Director of Forward in Faith:
“Forward in Faith has today announced the appointment of the Dr. Colin Podmore, who currently serves as the Clerk to the General Synod, as its next Director, upon the retirement of the present incumbent.
Colin has accordingly given notice that he will be leaving the Church House staff at the end of March to take up the new role. He will continue to fulfill the full range of his current responsibilities until the end of that six-month notice period, except that, at his request, I have agreed that he will not play a role in relation to the Women Bishops legislation…”
The Forward in Faith press release also contains this biographical note:
Colin Podmore, a Cornishman, read history at Keble College, Oxford, and trained as a teacher at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He taught German at S. Michael’s Church of England High School in Chorley, Lancashire, before returning to Keble to research for his Oxford DPhil in church history. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. His publications include Aspects of Anglican Identity (2005) and articles on Anglican ecclesiology. On the staff of the General Synod from 1988, he was successively Deputy Secretary of the Council for Christian Unity, Secretary of the House of Clergy, Secretary of the Liturgical Commission, and Secretary of the Dioceses Commission. He was also secretary of groups that reviewed the processes for choosing diocesan bishops and making senior church appointments and oversaw the publication of the Common Worship liturgy. As well as being Clerk to the Synod, Colin is also the Director of the Central Secretariat of the Archbishops’ Council and Director of Ecumenical Relations.
REFORM has issued a press statement: Reform members resolve to vote against women bishops Measure:
General Synod members at the Reform conference this week joined over 160 other Reform members in resolving to vote against the current draft measure on women bishops at the Synod’s watershed meeting in November.
Speaking at the conference Reform chairman, Rev’d Rod Thomas, a member of the General Synod House of Clergy, said: “After all the tweaking and tinkering with amendments we have sadly been left with a draft Measure which in the long term is likely to have very detrimental effects on our ministries, however benign it may appear in its first few years.
“We are therefore going to oppose this measure and urge those who want to see a strong evangelical presence continuing in the Church of England to join us in doing so.”
The resolution passed was this:
2. Women Bishops
This conference believes the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure represents a step in an unbiblical and therefore wrong direction for the Church of England. Its provision is entirely inadequate for those who believe the Bible’s teaching of male headship in the family and the church. Recent amendments by the House of Bishops will make no material difference. It therefore urges the Reform Council to continue to campaign vigorously against the Draft Measure and calls on General Synod members to vote against it in November 2012.
WATCH has issued a briefing note and consultation paper which can be found as a PDF here. The covering note reads as follows:
Dear WATCH friends,
Since the announcement by the House of Bishops that wording suggested by Revd Janet Appleby (“the Appleby amendment”) has been selected to replace the previous Clause 5(1)c of the draft Women Bishops Measure, WATCH has been consulting widely to help us determine how best to respond. We would like to give all members the chance to contribute and you will find a very short briefing attached which we hope you may find helpful.
It is already clear that WATCH supporters are divided on whether or not they are happy to support the amended Measure and that people hold their opinions with passion and integrity. As we approach the crucial debate in November we want to be clear that WATCH is not intending to campaign either for or against the Measure. We see our role as being to highlight the arguments and issues at stake for those who support the full flourishing of women in the Church and to allow voices to enter the national debate that often go unheard.
Please be in touch to let us know your views before 15th October by emailing: consultation@womenandthechurch.org
Thank you
The National WATCH committee
29th September 2012
The Church of England has issued the outline timetable for the November meeting of General Synod. This is copied below.
GENERAL SYNOD: NOVEMBER 2012
Timetable
Monday 19 November
2.15pm – 7 pm
Worship and formal business
Report by the Business Committee
Anglican Consultative Council meeting: presentation and questions
Anglican Communion Covenant: Report on the Reference to Dioceses
Questions
[brief evening worship]
Tuesday 20 November
9.15 am – 1 pm
9.15 am Holy Communion
10.30 am Legislative Business:
Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and Draft Amending Canon No.30
2.30 pm – 7 pm
Legislative Business:
Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of women) Measure and Draft Amending Canon No.30 – continued
[brief evening worship]
Wednesday 21 November
9.30 am – 1 pm
Worship
Diocesan Synod Motion: Southwell and Nottingham: Amendment to Canon B 12 and Regulations
Private Member’s Motion: John Freeman: Living Wage
Dates of groups of sessions in 2013
2.30 – 5.30pm
Farewells
Youth unemployment
Farewell to the Archbishop of Canterbury
Contingency business:
Report of the Standing Orders Committee
Updated again Friday evening
Forward in Faith has published this statement:
Members of Forward in Faith can take some comfort from the House of Bishops’ recent decision to resist calls to delete clause 5(1)(c) of the Women Bishops’ draft Measure, added by the House in May. The revised clause, with the welcome language of ‘respect’ at its heart, indicates that the theological convictions held by traditional catholics and orthodox evangelicals on this disputed question continue to occupy an authentic and honourable place in Anglican teaching and practice.
Should this draft legislation receive Final Approval in November, the proposed Code of Practice will assume huge significance in setting out the manner in which the new clause 5(1)(c) will be interpreted and implemented. There is, therefore, a good deal more work to be done on the legislative package as a whole before its full implications for traditionalists can be properly assessed.
In the meantime, attention returns to the text of the draft Measure as a whole, in advance of the debate on Final Approval. The question for members of General Synod remains the same: is this legislation fit for purpose in meeting the needs of all members of the Church of England, both those who welcome, and those unable to receive, the development of ordaining women as bishops?
WATCH has also issued a statement:
Today the House of Bishops announced that it had voted by a large majority to substitute a new set of wording in place of the controversial Clause 5(1)c.
WATCH is pleased that the House of Bishops listened to the anxieties voiced concerning their amendment to the legislation in May, and is encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recognition of the enrichment that the ordained ministry of women has brought to the Church of England and her mission.
WATCH is, however, disappointed that the House of Bishops did not feel able to withdraw Clause 5(1)c completely.
It will take time to explore the implications of the new wording fully and WATCH will now begin a process of consultation with members and others before issuing any further comment.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said
“The House of Bishops has today confirmed its commitment to having women as bishops and has attempted to find a new way forward that will ensure the draft legislation is passed by General Synod in November. Time will tell whether the new Clause 5(1)c will produce the desired outcome.”
Update REFORM has now made a further comment which you can see here.
No new statement has yet appeared from REFORM but a spokesman is quoted in this report from the BBC Women bishops: Anglicans still unsure over new wording.
…The Reverend Paul Dawson, spokesman for the conservative evangelical group Reform, said the new clause was “not going to win any more votes from our constituency.”
Of the previous House of Bishops amendment, he said: “Although we weren’t entirely happy with that, there was a sense in which we could probably have lived with it.”
Reform is holding a conference later this month which he said would discuss “Assuming this goes through as it is, what do we do then?”
Already young men from evangelical parishes who were considering entering the clergy were unsure whether there would be a welcome for them in the Church, said Mr Dawson…
A letter has been sent to the House of Bishops by a group of senior women clergy. The full text is published below the fold.
The Church Times reports in an article Amended women-bishops clause speaks of ‘respect’ what the Catholic Group in the General Synod said:
…On Monday, the Catholic Group in the General Synod said that it was grateful to the House of Bishops for “retaining the lifebelts in Clause 5(1)(c)” but “concerned that they have let some of the air out of them by reducing ‘is consistent with’ to ‘respects’”. The Group “continues to have grave doubts about the seaworthiness of this ship [the Measure] and the reduction in the effectiveness of the lifebelts gives it less confidence in the proposed voyage”.
Church Society reports that:
…This month, the Society’s council will be writing to the House of Bishops expressing our guarded support for the suggested rewording of clause 5(1)c. We shall express that while finding a form of words we can agree on is important, ultimately our primary concern is protecting the place of biblical ministry consistent with 2,000 years of Christian tradition.
Text of Letter from Senior Women Clergy
To: Members of the House of Bishops
Dear Bishops
We are writing in response to the announcement of the amended wording of 5.1.c.
We would have preferred the deletion of the clause. However, in the light of the process that has brought us to this point the new wording addresses enough of our concerns to enable us to encourage General Synod to vote for the final approval of the Measure.
An important part of the process will be ensuring together that the Code of Practice provides sufficient clarity and guidance.
We continue to hope that grace and generosity will characterise the Church within which women are consecrated as bishops and where all will have the potential to flourish.
We are committed to continuing our engagement with those whose views differ from our own.
With thanks and prayers for the coming months
Yours sincerely
The Reverend Canon Sarah Bullock, Bishop’s Advisor for Women’s Ministry, Diocese of Manchester
The Venerable Dr Anne Dawtry, Archdeacon of Halifax
The Venerable Penny Driver, Archdeacon of Westmorland and Furness
The Venerable Christine Froude, Archdeacon of Malmesbury
The Venerable Karen Gorham, Archdeacon of Buckingham
The Reverend Canon Jane Hedges, Canon Steward & Archdeacon of Westminster
The Venerable Canon Janet Henderson, Archdeacon of Richmond
The Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons
The Reverend Rosemary Lain-Priestley, Dean of Women’s Ministry, Diocese of London
The Very Reverend Catherine Ogle, Dean of Birmingham
The Very Reverend June Osborne, Dean of Salisbury
The Venerable Jane Sinclair, Archdeacon of Stow and Lindsey
The Reverend Canon Celia Thomson, Canon Pastor, Gloucester Cathedral
The Venerable Rachel Treweek, Archdeacon of Hackney
The Very Reverend Dr Frances Ward, Dean of St Edmundsbury
The Venerable Christine Wilson, Archdeacon of Chesterfield
The Reverend Lucy Winkett, Rector, St James’s Piccadilly
Updated Thursday morning
The final text of the controversial clause 5(1)(c) to be presented to General Synod in November has been agreed by the House of Bishops; it is given towards the end of the press release reproduced below.
NEWS from the Church of England
12/9/12 - For immediate release
Women Bishops: Draft Legislation
The House of Bishops has today by an overwhelming majority settled the text of the legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.
The House of Bishops made clear its desire for the draft legislation to be passed into law when it goes forward for final approval to the Church of England’s General Synod in November.
Speaking on behalf of the House at the conclusion of their meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams said:
“Before turning to the matters we have been discussing, I want to say, on behalf of the Bishops, that our thoughts and prayers are very much with the people of Liverpool and all affected by the Hillsborough tragedy on this day when the report is released. The Bishop of Liverpool has done a great service in steering this work to a conclusion and helping us as a nation to confront this deeply traumatic memory.”
Dr. Williams continued:
“Since women were first made priests in the Church of England in 1994, their ministry has hugely enriched both church and society. It has become increasingly clear to most of us that barring women from becoming bishops is an anomaly that should be removed, for the good of the Church’s mission and service.
“In July this year, the General Synod asked the House of Bishops to reconsider an alteration it had made to the proposed legislation on this subject. The Bishops have taken very seriously the anxieties expressed about the possible implications of their amendment and there has been widespread consultation since then. We are very grateful for all the points and suggestions offered by synod members and others.
“In light of this consultation, the Bishops have discussed the measure again and are now bringing forward a new text that expresses both our conviction of the need to see this legislation passed and our desire to honour the conscience and contribution of those in the Church of England whose reservations remain.
“It is particularly significant and welcome that the new text emerged not from the House of Bishops itself but rather from a serving woman priest.
“I hope all members of Synod will now reflect carefully on what the Bishops have decided and will continue to give thought and prayer to how they will vote in November.”
“I am convinced that the time has come for the Church of England to be blessed by the ministry of women as bishops and it is my deep hope that the legislation will pass in November.”
At its meeting in July the General Synod asked the House of Bishops to reconsider a provision in the legislation - Clause 5(1)(c) of the draft measure.
The new amendment submitted by the Rev. Janet Appleby during the consultation process received overwhelming support from the House of Bishops in both their discussions and in the final vote.
In discussion the Bishops welcomed the simplicity of the new text, its emphasis on respect and the process of dialogue with parishes that it will promote.
The final text proposed by the House of Bishops is:
Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c): “the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3”
The House also agreed to establish a group to develop the illustrative draft Code of Practice published in January to give effect to the new provision.
Update
The Archbishop of Canterbury has recorded a podcast about the new text proposed by the House of Bishops. It can be downloaded from the beginning of Archbishop speaks about women bishops draft legislation. A transcript is also available.
REFORM has replied to GS Misc 1033 with the following letter:
Rod Thomas wrote to William Fittall, General Secretary of General Synod
RESPONSE BY REFORM TO SECRETARY GENERAL ON GS MISC 1033
Dear William,
In GS Misc 1033, you sought views on Clause 5(1)c of the draft Women Bishops Measure prior to the formulation of proposals for the September meeting of the House of Bishops. My purpose in writing is to let you know how members of the Reform network have responded to your request and to the situation in which the General Synod now finds itself.
As you will know, conservative evangelicals have always been assured that their theological outlook relating to male headship in both church and family life will have a respected position. We have argued that to achieve this, any legislation for women bishops should introduce appropriate safeguards - and these should be mainly on the face of the Measure, rather than in a Code of Practice. The latter should be seen as elucidating the basic provision of legislation.
To this end, we have sought over the years to put the case for legislative provision which would achieve four safeguards:
1. Enabling vows of canonical obedience to be taken with integrity.
Such vows are made to the Lord Bishop and his (or in the possible future, her) successors. Those of us who believe in male headship would be unable to make these vows if they were subsequently taken to apply to spiritual oversight exercised by a female bishop. This is not a purely theoretical issue; it is of real practical significance. Already a large number of young men who would otherwise have applied for ordination training have stood aside from doing so - and there is every indication that this number will rise catastrophically from our point of view if the present draft legislation gains final approval. As you know, we sought to address this problem by making proposals for the transfer of Episcopal jurisdiction. When this proved unacceptable, we suggested a way of applying the ‘London Scheme’ to the national church by providing for jurisdiction to be ‘ceded’ rather than delegated. As it is, the present draft Measure seeks to provide some reassurance by distinguishing between delegation and derivation. This is helpful, but our conversations with prospective ordinands have shown that much more work needs to be done if the distinction is to be seen as more than an exercise in semantics.
2. Providing for non-discrimination in selection processes.
The experience of conservative evangelicals in the US and Swedish churches has shown that with the passage of time, attitudes to those who are opposed to female Episcopal oversight harden. In this country, the briefing produced by WATCH prior to the July 2012 General Synod also indicated a desire to see arrangements put in place that were temporary rather than permanent. This demonstrates how necessary it is to provide clear safeguards against discrimination in selection procedures if we are to feel assured about our longer term future. At the moment, such provision is contained within the illustrative Code of Practice - and presumably the argument is that this is equivalent to the present provision in the Act of Synod. However, with the passage of the Women Bishops legislation, the situation will be very different from 1993. This has led us, therefore, to question whether putting such a provision in a Code is adequate, given that changes to a Code require only simple majority voting in the General Synod.
3. Providing for Episcopal Representation.
While Clause 5(1)c of the draft Measure was designed to provide important new reassurances for traditional catholics, it had real significance too for conservative evangelicals. The Archbishop of Canterbury was good enough to spend some time discussing the draft Measure with me last May and he was concerned that I should understand that while substantive changes to the draft Measure might not be possible, the proposed new clause did represent an important peg on which provisions in the Code of Practice could be hung. I was therefore encouraged to see the clause both as providing an important acknowledgement of the need to accommodate our theological position and as a reassurance that there would be now be some legislative weight behind the assurances of the two Archbishops in the foreword to the illustrative Code, that some bishops sympathetic to our theological position would be appointed.
We are very grateful for these assurances about the appointment of bishops, but it has to be said that without the sort of legislative underpinning provided by Clause 5(1)c, it is difficult to see how they might work in practice. The Pilling report recognized discrimination against conservative evangelicals over Episcopal appointments, yet what has happened in practice since then? Despite very encouraging appointments of evangelicals, no conservative evangelical bishops who hold to male headship have been appointed. With the retirement of the Bishop of Lewes, we are now in the extraordinary situation of having no serving bishop of our theological outlook anywhere within the Church of England. As a result, a substantial section of the Church of England has no Episcopal representation; this is deeply alienating.
4. Affirming our Theological Outlook.
We have been very concerned at the way in which the arguments in favour of women bishops have developed over time. At the most recent General Synod, we were told that we did not have a gospel theology. Positions which respected ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ were regarded as gospel positions, while our views on the biblical references to creation order were seen as antithetical to the Gospel. This was not just hurtful. It seemed to suggest that biblical theology could only be legitimate if it supported pre-conceived notions of ‘human rights’. Developments such as these strike at the heart of Anglican formularies. Canon A5 states that the Scriptures are the primary grounds of the Church’s doctrine. Article 6 affirms that we can only be required to believe what is in Scripture. We believe that if this position is to be maintained, then our theological outlook needs to be explicitly recognized as legitimately Anglican. There have been many public statements to this effect, but now that we are facing such opposition, these statements need legislative expression. Again, Clause 5(1)c went some way towards doing this by referring to theological conviction. To remove any such reference would be profoundly counter-productive.
The Options in GS Misc 1033 *
It will, I hope, be apparent from what I have said above that any diminution in the effect of Clause 5(1)c would further undermine our confidence in the draft Measure. Thus while we appreciate all the work that has been done in formulating the options in GS Misc 1033, we cannot support options 2-7 as they stand. Each would materially undermine what little Clause 5(1)c originally gave.
Option 2 would be wholly out of keeping with the effort the House of Bishops has made to make the protective provision for traditional evangelicals and catholics more acceptable to them.
Option 3 would remove from Clause 5(1)c a key element that is of significance to evangelicals - namely an implication that bishops who believe in male headship will continue to serve within the Church of England. The phrase ‘consistent with’ implies that some ‘Scheme’ bishops will need to share the theological outlook of petitioning parishes. The suggested alternatives - ‘respect’ or ‘take account of’ - have no such implication. Furthermore, by prefacing the clause with the words ‘the manner in which’, the impact of the clause moves from ‘outcome’ to ‘process’ in a way which will have widely varying and uncertain results.
Option 4 not only removes the implication that serving conservative evangelical bishops will be available, but also deletes all reference to theological conviction. This means that the process of selection will be open to accusations of sex discrimination and that the theological convictions underpinning the letters of request will not be properly recognized.
Option 5 has attractions because it envisages dialogue, but ultimately cannot be supported because it will give rise to varying outcomes across dioceses and fails to rely on the appointment of any conservative evangelical bishops.
Option 6 introduces the interesting possibility of substituting the ‘position’ of the PCC for the term ‘theological conviction’. This would, in practice, appear to provide for the same possibilities as does the current Clause 5(1)c - but would only do so if the words ‘consistent with’ were re-introduced. Just to ‘respect’ or ‘take account of’ a PCC position adds virtually nothing to the original legislation. As it stands, therefore, we cannot support option 6.
Option 7 suggests that all it does is to add mention of a process to option 6. In fact it completely removes the potential significance of option 6 by substituting a process for an outcome. It therefore significantly diminishes the effect of the Clause and would lead to varying outcomes between dioceses.
Proposal
Having opposed options 2-7 as they stand, we do nevertheless appreciate that the House of Bishops may wish to introduce changes to Clause 5(1)c in order to address some of the concerns voiced at the General Synod last July. We therefore welcome the proposal that has been made by Clive Scowen for retaining Clause 5(1)c but refining the reference to theological conviction and removing the words ‘ as to the consecration and ordination of women’ are removed. As an alternative, an amended option 6, including the words ‘consistent with’ might be appropriate.
Finally, I would like to put on record my gratitude to the House for the work it has done in seeking to address the many concerns that have been expressed over the draft Measure. Reform members met nationally for prayer last June and we will continue to hold you and all the members of the House in our prayers over the next few weeks.
Yours sincerely
Rev’d Preb Rod Thomas
Exeter 120
Chairman, Reform
*For the background to the options follow this link to the Church of England web site.
Updated Wednesday night
The Church of England has this morning issued this report from the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops: Women in the Episcopate: The Next Steps.
Women in the Episcopate: The Next Steps
05 September 2012The Standing Committee of the House of Bishops has set out the next steps in the Church of England’s debate on Women Bishops.
Following the decision of the General Synod on 9th July 2012 to refer the matter back to the House of Bishops for further consideration, the Standing Committee has met to consider the options available when the House meets in Oxford on September 12.
At its meeting yesterday the committee considered all the submissions received in response to a request for members of General Synod and interested groups to suggest possible ways forward, in addition to taking account of comments from the Steering Committee responsible for taking the draft legislation through the General Synod.
In total 120 submissions were received: 17 were from bishops, 33 from clergy members of the General Synod, 48 from lay members of the Synod, 7 from groups and 15 from other individuals who do not sit as members of Synod.
Of the seven options presented in the paper the two which received the greatest level of support are options 1 and 2: retaining Clause 5(1)(c) in its present form or deleting it without replacement. 35 correspondents expressed a preference for retaining the provision (option 1) and 41 for deleting it (option 2). Option 3 attracted relatively little support whilst options 4 to 7 attracted some support and also some criticisms. In addition a few new options were suggested by respondents.
In terms of groups representing particular opinions on this issue the submissions from WATCH - advocating women in the episcopate - firmly supported Option 2 whilst Reform and the Catholic Group - opposing women in the episcopate - firmly favoured option 1.
Having considered and discussed the submissions received, the Standing Committee resolved to invite the House of Bishops to consider the Committee’s assessment of the seven options in GS Misc 1033 and of the additional suggestions received during the consultation process. Members of the House have the right to table amendments before 5pm on Tuesday September 11th.
The amendments will be voted upon at the meeting of the House of Bishops by simple majority. If no amendment were passed the draft Measure would return to the General Synod unchanged (option 1 from GS Misc 1033).
The amendments that the Standing Committee has suggested for discussion in the light of the consultation are as follows:
- (Option 2 from GS Misc 1033) Delete clause 5(1)(c)
- (Option 4 from GS Misc 1033) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection, after consultation with parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male bishops and male priests to exercise ministry in the parishes of those councils,”
- (New option suggested by a Synod member) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3,”.
- (Option 5 from GS Misc 1033) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection, following consultation with parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male bishops and male priests, the exercise of ministry by whom appears to the persons making the selection to be appropriate for the parishes concerned,”.
- (Option 6 from GS Misc 1033) Substitute for the words in clause 5(1)(c):
“the selection of male bishops and male priests the exercise of ministry by whom respects the position, in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service and the provision of pastoral care, of the parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3,”.The General Synod will vote on the draft Measure at its meeting in London on 19-21 November.
We linked to GS Misc 1033 here.
Update The press release includes this summary of GS Misc 1033.
The discussion document GS Misc 1033 was issued on 25 July and set out 7 options making clear that these were not an exhaustive list:
Option 1- Retention of Clause 5(1)(c) in its current form.
Option 2 - Deletion of Clause 5(1)(c).
Option 3 - Replacement of “consistent with” by “respect” or “take account of”.
Option 4 - Focus on broad subject area and perhaps process.
Option 5 - Focus on suitability/appropriateness.
Option 6 - Revised formulation of what parishes need (inserting references to the position of PCCs in relation to the celebration of the sacraments etc).
Option 7 - Option 6 plus some process.
The verbatim record of the July meeting of the Church of England General Synod is now available for download: Report of Proceedings: July 2012.
There is also a Summary for parish magazines (two A4 pages) prepared by the Communications Office.
Updated Thursday evening to include additional link
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 28th August 2012
WATCH continues to call for complete withdrawal of Clause 5(1)c
WATCH (Women and the Church) has considered the consultation paper GS Misc 1033 sent out to members of Synod near the end of July and considers that complete withdrawal of amended Clause 5(1)c remains the wisest course of action for the House of Bishops at their meeting in September.
Opinions are divided amongst supporters of ordained women as to the best way forward. Though every effort has been made to engage fully with the brief consultation process, no one proposal for a new wording for 5(1)c has achieved very wide support.
WATCH has made a formal response to the consultation (attached and also here as a web page). Amongst the key points in our thinking are:
We conclude that withdrawing 5(1)c is the safest path to the successful passage of this Measure and the only way to keep faith with the diocesan consultation process.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said
“The House of Bishops will have a very difficult judgment call at their meeting in September. It is vital that whatever decision they make does not further undermine the ministry of ordained women.”
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes has published her response to GS Misc 1033 on her own blog and you can read it in full here. She makes her own alternative proposal for replacement wording:
‘To promote the flourishing of, and foster co-operation between, parishes whose PCCs have, and have not, signed Letters of Request under clause 3 of this Measure’.
But you will need to read her full response in order to understand why she makes this proposal.
WATCH has issued the following statement:
Petition to remove Clause 5(1)(c) from the Women Bishops Measure
You may be aware that legislation to allow women to be bishops in the Church of England has been going through General Synod and the Diocesan Synods for several years. Final approval was to have been in General Synod in July this year. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury was concerned that it did not do enough for those people who are opposed to women priests and, in May this year, the House of Bishops decided to insert an amendment that fundamentally changed the draft legislation.
In the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own words, this amendment to the legislation that had been agreed by 42 of the 44 dioceses “de-stabilised” the steady progress towards final approval.
The draft legislation already allowed parishes effectively to “opt out” by requesting a male priest or bishop. However, the clause that the House of Bishops inserted into it [Clause 5(1)(c)] would have further allowed them, in effect, to choose their own bishop and to insist that the male bishop selected for them had never ordained a woman or been ordained by a woman. This angered so many people that WATCH started a petition to enable their voices to be heard.
An initial avalanche of signatures – 5,000 in just one week – showed the strength of feeling on this issue, and when General Synod met in July it decided to adjourn the final approval debate as it had become clear that it was unlikely that the amended version of the Measure would have enough support to be passed.
Since then the number of people signing has fallen away, probably because people feel that the battle has been won. However, the amendment has not yet been withdrawn, and when the House of Bishops meets in September it could still decide to keep the same amendment, or – more likely – try to come up with another version of it. WATCH believes that it is time to stop tinkering with the legislation and allow General Synod finally to vote on the Measure as it was agreed by the dioceses.
If you have not already signed WATCH’s petition please do so, in time for the meeting on 10 September and, even if you have, please try to encourage everyone you know who wishes to see women made bishops on the same basis as men to sign. There is a link to the petition on the WATCH website: www.womenandthechurch.org
You can still make a difference, and help to ensure that when General Synod meets again in November it is able to vote to approve the legislation that has carried the support of 95% of the Dioceses of the Church of England.
Here is a link to the petition.
Madeleine Davies reports in today’s Church Times Women bishops: a lot of ground for the Synod to make up.
…Today is the deadline for responses to a consultation document about the options, which was circulated to Synod members by the secretary-general, William Fittall.
By Wednesday, only about one member in ten had responded. The General Synod Office reported “more than 50” submissions, the “great majority” from Synod members, but also some “from individuals and others from groups”. There are 477 Synod members.
Such a low response will make it difficult for the House of Bishops to ascertain the mind of the Synod when it meets to discuss the Measure on 12 September, although several dioceses are planning their own consultations later.
This week, Synod members expressed preferences for four of the seven options…
The press release from GRAS referred to in this news report is copied below the fold.
GRAS
Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod
PRESS RELEASE
Press briefing for immediate release 14th August 2012Amendment to the Draft Bishops and Priests [Consecration and Ordination of Women] Measure
On 9 July the General Synod voted to adjourn the Final Approval debate on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to enable the House of Bishops to reconsider the new clause 5(1)(c) which it had inserted in May during the Article 7 Reference. Subsequently a discussion document (GS Misc 1033) was commissioned by the House of Bishops Standing Committee so that diocesan bishops can take soundings before they meet on 12 September to reconsider that provision.
The document offers for consultation in para 2 three alternative avenues.
- Retain clause 5(1)(c)
- Amend the draft Measure by removing clause 5(1)(c)
- Amend the draft Measure by replacing clause 5(1)(c) with a different provision.
GRAS favours the second possibility – ‘Amend the draft Measure by removing clause 5(1)(c)’
The reasons for this view are that:
- the unamended Measure (prior to the Bishops’ amendments) was carefully negotiated and agreed in detail over a considerable time, and was accepted by a huge majority of dioceses (42/44)
- the unamended Measure already reflects enormous compromise. The outcry against the Bishops’ amendments that led to the current adjournment of the debate suggests that any further compromise goes too far. The Church of England risks finding itself in a position where people who long to see women and men as bishops together will vote against the Measure, because the compromises it makes would be too damaging to the church and to our theology of the place of men and women in creation.
Responses to GS Misc 1033 Women in the Episcopate - the Final Legislative Lap were requested from synod members (though not from the general public) by Friday 25 August (see paras 94 and 95).
Our original introduction to this document can be found here.
One such response that has been submitted is from April Alexander, a lay General Synod member from Southwark Diocese, and she has agreed to its publication here in full. It is available as a web page or as a PDF file. The response is in 12 numbered sections.
Section 1 argues that option 1 (retain the bishops’ amendment) is not a satisfactory outcome. In discussing the difficulties of qualifying “maleness” she notes that:
The Archbishop’s argument that qualifying maleness would allow charges of misogyny to be avoided is excruciatingly insulting (para 33). It is an idea which the traditionalists have developed in the recent past in the context of women bishops; (“we are rejecting male as well as female bishops and therefore we cannot be accused of discrimination”). Women and their supporters are already accommodating misogyny and have been doing so with astonishing generosity for years. The responses to the unamended Measure from the Dioceses indicated that there was very wide acceptance of this.
To say that the phrase “male bishop” is “insufficient [and] does not go to the root of [the problem]” is incorrect. The position of the traditionalists and of the conservatives depends totally on a theology of gender and pandering to the notion of “pedigree” on the face of the legislation does nothing to alter this.
And she goes on to quote a statement from senior women clergy issued way back in 2008.
Section 2 deals with Option 2 (delete the amendment) which is the course of action April Alexander supports. She notes that:
…If the Archbishops were to throw their weight behind the unamended draft Measure on the basis that it contains all the provision necessary for extremists at either end to continue to practice as they have been doing up to now by statute and by grace and trust, then the very few changes of heart which are required among the House of Laity could be achieved.
… If Simon Killwick’s estimate that the traditionalists and conservatives form 35% of the House of Laity, then the numbers who need to change their vote in order to achieve 66.6% in favour in that House would only be four. Changing hearts and minds is the life’s work of bishops and archbishops and it would be strange indeed if , between them, they could not effect a change of heart in this small number if they put their weight behind the unamended Measure…
Other sections discuss a range of issues:
the identification in the Diocesan Scheme both of the bishop or bishops who will exercise episcopal ministry by delegation to parishes who issue a letter of request and the circumstances under which alternative provision might be made in a particular case (adapted from draft CoP para 40)
‘At the root of some of the options set out is the view, apparently held by some, that “Bishops who had associated themselves with the ordination of women” would no longer be “valid ministers of the sacraments”. I find this an extraordinary attitude. The scholastic doctrine, that the “unworthiness of the minister hindereth not the effect of the sacrament” is enshrined in Article 26. It is also traditional catholic theology that unorthodoxy does not invalidate the sacraments. The opposite view seems to me to introduce uncatholic heresy. How could we allow a situation where individual church members or groups decide who are real bishops and who are not? To reject the bishop is to reject the Church that he represents. I do not believe that it is possible to be an Anglican and not be in communion with your bishop and - I say this with deference and due humility - with the See of Canterbury.’
The elections for the central members of the Crown Nominations Commission (to serve for five years from 1 September 2012) have just been held, and the results are now available.
The House of Laity elected
April Alexander (Southwark)
Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London)
Jane Patterson (Sheffield).
The House of Clergy elected
John Dunnett (Chelmsford)
Judith Maltby (Oxford University)
Andrew Nunn (Southwark).
The current elected members will continue on the CNC to select the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The newly elected members will first take part in the choice of the next Bishop of Blackburn, with CNC meetings scheduled for 10 January and 30/31 January 2013.
The elections were by STV (single transferable vote) and the detailed voting sheets are available for download.
CNC Elections - House of Clergy
CNC Elections - House of Laity
This article is concerned with what GS Misc 1033 calls “Option 5”. To encourage a constructive discussion of this option, I have brought together below the specific sections of the document which deal with this. This option is titled Focus on suitability/appropriateness and it builds in a specific reference to the ‘suitability’ or ‘appropriateness’ of the person selected for the particular context in which he was to exercise ministry.
Paragraph 59 contains the suggested possible rewording of sub-clause (c)
(c) the selection, following consultation with parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male bishops and male priests, the exercise of ministry by whom appears to the persons making the selection to be [suitable][appropriate] for the parishes concerned.
The full text of the relevant section of the paper, paras 58 to 67 is copied below the fold.
The paper also comments on what wording in the Code of Practice would be appropriate in conjunction with option 5. Reference is made to the most recent draft code, contained in GS Misc 1007 and a few extracts from that are included as an annex at the end of GS Misc 1033.
Here is what it says:
88. In the case of option five, an alternative version would be preferable. There would also need to be a revised version of paragraph 97 (which could incorporate some of the elements from paragraph 91 below), with consequential amendments to paragraphs 126 and 127. The text to go in after paragraph 40 might be along the lines of the following:
A diocesan scheme should provide that the arrangements for selecting bishops who will exercise their ministry by delegation will enable parishes to receive ministry that is [suitable] [appropriate] to their circumstances given the basis on which the Letter of Request was issued.
This does not mean that the arrangements should allow a parish to choose its own bishop or insist that the person selected should be of its own churchmanship. But they should provide for the diocesan bishop, through consultation with the PCC, to seek to establish the nature of the conviction that underlies the Letter of Request, and, in the light of that, to select someone whose ministry can be effective in that context.”
Paragraph 91 which is mentioned above, as being partially relevant to option 5, reads as follows:
91. Paragraph 97 [of the draft code] would then be replaced (and there would be corresponding amendments to paragraphs 126 and 127 in relation to priestly ministry) by the following:
Before sending the PCC the written notice setting out the arrangements to give effect to the Letter of Request, the diocesan bishop should inform him - or herself, by consulting the PCC of the parish (either personally or through a representative), of its position in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service and the provision of pastoral care.
The Measure does not allow parishes to ask that their bishop should hold a particular set of beliefs, or subscribe to any statement of faith beyond what all bishops have to affirm when making the Declaration of Assent. Nor does it allow parishes to choose their own bishop or insist that the male bishop selected for them reflects their own churchmanship.
In determining what arrangements to set out in the written notice the diocesan bishop should seek to accommodate the parish’s concerns relating to holy orders and the exercise of ordained ministry of women so far as those matters are relevant to the parish’s position in relation to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service and the provision of pastoral care. But the diocesan should not take into account other, unrelated matters. In practice, the needs of conservative evangelical parishes, and traditional catholic parishes, in this respect are unlikely to be identical.
Option five - Focus on suitability/appropriateness
58. A further approach, which would incorporate elements of option four but attempt to avoid some of its downsides, would be to build specifically into the provision a reference to the ‘suitability’ or ‘appropriateness’ of the person selected for the particular context in which he was to exercise ministry.
59. A possible formulation along these lines might be as follows:
“(c) the selection, following consultation with parochial church councils who issue Letters of Request under section 3, of male bishops and male priests, the exercise of ministry by whom appears to the persons making the selection to be [suitable][appropriate] for the parishes concerned.”
60. Again, as with option four, this approach identifies the broad subject on which guidance must be given. And, as in its second variant, it builds in a reference to process - there has to be consultation with the relevant PCC to discover more than is apparent from the Letter of Request before a male bishop or priest is selected to exercise ministry there.
61. But it goes a step further in identifying an objective, namely that the person selected by the diocesan bishop (or in the case of a parochial appointment, by those with the relevant responsibilities) should be ‘suitable/appropriate’.
62. The advantage of this approach is that it would signal on the face of the Measure that for some parishes more was at stake than simply being offered the ministry of any male bishop or priest. Thus, for the first time, there would be an acknowledgement of the much discussed ‘necessary but not sufficient’ issue.
63. The potential downside is that words such as ‘suitable’ or ‘appropriate’ are very broad unless related to particular criteria. The nature of the guidance given in the Code of Practice would, therefore, be of particular importance.
64. As between ‘suitable’ and ‘appropriate’ either would be possible. In legislative drafting ‘appropriate’ is generally used as a convenient shorthand to avoid spelling out what is clear but complex to spell out in full (so that, for example, Acts of Parliament may refer to ‘the appropriate minister’ or ‘appropriate authority’ where from the context it is clear which one is being referred to).
65. ‘Suitable’ tends to be used when the emphasis is on provision which reflects particular contexts or needs (for example ‘suitable alternative accommodation’).
66. The guidance given in the Code of Practice would need to be framed in terms which avoided carrying any implication that the parish could regard as ‘unsuitable/inappropriate’ anyone who did not match their expectations in all respects.
67. Equally it would need to provide confidence to parishes that they would receive episcopal or priestly ministry that would be effective in their circumstances, given the nature of their convictions concerning the ordained ministry of women.
Updated
A discussion document (GS Misc 1033) has been issued to all members of the General Synod today. It explores possible ways of resolving the issue which led to the adjournment of the final approval debate of the women bishops’ legislation in York a fortnight ago.
Here is a link to GS Misc 1033: Women in the Episcopate – the Final Legislative Lap in PDF format.
And here is a copy of the document as a web page.
The document is in the name of the Secretary General and has been issued with the agreement of the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops (Canterbury, York, London, Coventry, Dover, Gloucester, Norwich and Rochester).
It also reflects input from the Steering Committee for the legislation (Bishop of Manchester, Bishop of Dover, Viv Faull, Paula Gooder, Ian Jagger, Margaret Swinson and Geoffrey Tattersall), and from the three bishops (St Edmundsbury, Chichester and Coventry) who were previously members of the Code of Practice Working Group.
No recommendations are made at this stage. Instead the document sets out the decision making process which now has to be followed, explains how the disputed issue concerning clause 5(1)(c) relates to the rest of the legislation (which cannot now be amended) and discusses seven possible options.
Two of these are to retain or remove clause 5(1)(c). The other five are ways in which the present wording might be replaced by a new provision. These five alternative drafting approaches are not intended to be exhaustive. As the document says at paragraph 11: ‘The hope is that these possibilities will stimulate further suggestions.’
The consultation period ends on 24 August so that the results can be assessed and reported to the House for its meeting on 12 September. On that occasion - which will also be attended by the Steering Committee - the House will need to decide how to respond to the Synod’s request to reconsider clause 5(1)(c). In the light of the decision taken then Synod members will have just over two months to reflect on how they will vote when the Final Approval debate is resumed at the group of sessions called for 19-21 November.
On 12 September the House will also consider the need for supplementing the illustrative draft Code of Practice which was circulated to Synod in January (GS Misc 1007). A final decision will not be needed then because drafting the Code does not at this stage form part of the formal legislative process.
To start our discussion of how the House of Bishops (HoB) might respond to the action of General Synod in referring the legislation back to them, let’s first look at the range of options that is legally possible.
The first point to note is that under the terms of the referral, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the General Synod, the HoB cannot make changes to any other part of the draft Measure. The only part of the Measure they are now permitted to alter is that which comes between sub-clauses (b) and (d) of Clause 5 (1).
The wording is shown in context below the fold.
There is however nothing to prevent them introducing some additional separate documentation, outside the text of the Measure, including but not limited to some proposed wording for the Code of Practice.
The second point is that the HoB could decide not to make any further change at all, and simply return the existing text to the Synod. Again this might be accompanied by some separate documentation. Those who wish to argue in favour of this course of action need to explain why they think that, despite the clear majority vote for referral, this is what the HoB should do.
The third point is that the HoB could simply withdraw the existing sub-clause altogether, thus restoring this part of the Measure to the wording that existed previously. Again, those who wish to argue for this option, need to explain why they think that, despite a clear lack of a two-thirds majority for referral in the House of Laity, this is what the HoB should now do.
The final point is that the HoB could propose some modifications to the existing wording of sub-clause (c). This would involve the additions of new words or even sentences, or the deletion of existing words or phrases. They might also split the sub-clause even further, for example to make a distinction between what it says about bishops and what it says about priests. They might add words to clarify the meaning of the term “theological convictions”. In all these cases, and any others, it may be helpful if the bishops issue some additional separate documentation, as mentioned above.
Before the General Synod considers any further change, the “Group of Six” has to determine that it is not now so substantial a change from the original draft Measure that it requires further review by all the diocesan synods.
But the purpose of any change now must be to increase the level of support that the Measure will receive in the Synod in November, and subsequently in Parliament. The question we are discussing here is what more can be said in the Measure that will allow those opposed to the underlying principle of it to feel less exposed, whilst still allowing those in favour of the underlying principle to feel able to support the Measure.
Clause 5 (1) (c) in context:
5 (1) The House of Bishops shall draw up, and promulgate, guidance in a Code of Practice as to—
(a) the making of schemes under section 2,
(b) the exercise of episcopal ministry in accordance with the arrangements contained in such schemes,
(c) the selection of male bishops or male priests the exercise of ministry by whom is consistent with the theological convictions as to the consecration or ordination of women on grounds of which parochial church councils have issued Letters of Request under section 3,
(d) the exercise by those involved in the making of an appointment of an incumbent and of a priest in charge for the benefice, of their functions in that regard where a Letter of Request is issued under section 3(3),
(e) the matters referred to in section 2(5), and
(f) such other matters as the House of Bishops considers appropriate to give effect to this Measure.
Ian Ellis, editor of the Church of Ireland Gazette, interviewed the bishop of Dover, and two of the editors of Thinking Anglicans, following the General Synod vote to adjourn the debate on final approval of the women bishops legislation. You can listen to, or download, both interviews here.
The Gazette also has an editorial about the Synod meeting which you can read here.
The official summary of the business transacted at the July Synod (including the texts of the motions carried) is now available for download: Business Done.
All the electronic voting results lists for the group of sessions are now available to download here.
This article, which appeared in The Tablet last week, is reproduced here by kind permission of the Editor.
‘Nowhere is it written that a parish may excommunicate its bishop’
The Church of England has reached an impasse over the issue of women bishops. As conservatives blame the liberals and liberals blame the conservatives – and both blame the bishops – might a candid friend suggest that they would be more honest if they blamed themselves?
On 11 November 1992, the General Synod gave the required two-thirds majority to the decision to ordain women as priests. There were three hostages to fortune given that day. The first was to suppose a theological issue could be settled by such a majority as that. Not long before, the issue of unity with the Methodists had required a 75 per cent majority, which it failed to get. Two-thirds was chosen simply because the pro-women-priests side felt it could be achieved.
Secondly, the assumption was made that the issue of the consecration (i.e. ordination) of women bishops could be postponed to another day. Anything that might have alarmed the waverers was removed. Indeed, even this minimalist proposal was only secured by a margin of two votes, and there were more than that number of abstentions. But in the apostolic tradition, the priesthood is a unity. Priests exercise their ministry with their bishop; bishops with their priests. Theologically, one follows from the other. It is the attempt to separate them that is now coming unstuck, for the theological unity of the ordained ministry is deeply embedded in the Church of England’s structure, where it has survived since before the Reformation.
Thirdly, the two-thirds requirement guaranteed that up to a third of the Church would withhold its assent. The solution was to give the minority what was, in effect, their own Church-within-a-Church, with its own bishops who would not themselves ordain women (dubbed flying bishops because in effect they flew in when episcopal ministry was needed, and then flew out again).
This had two consequences. It meant abandoning any attempt to achieve a better consensus, to bring the Church to one mind on the matter. The Church proper and the Church-within-a-Church were henceforth destined to be rival and mutually incompatible versions of Anglican orthodoxy. It also implied that there was, in conservative eyes at least, a fundamental flaw in the episcopal credentials of any bishop who had ordained women, a “taint”.
By voting for the flying-bishop proposal as part of the minimalist package, furthermore, the liberal majority had colluded in this theology of taint, whether they meant to or not.
But it is not a doctrine known to the Catholic and apostolic tradition, to which the Church of England has pledged to be faithful. Nor is it biblical. It is a toxic novelty. Nowhere in the tradition is it written that a parish may excommunicate its own bishop and opt for another one, which is what the flying bishops idea amounts to. If a parish decided to reject the ministry of the local bishop if that bishop was female, it could arguably question her orders. But to reject it because a (male) bishop had, at least once, ordained a woman priest is contrary to the necessary (and Catholic) principle of ex opere operato – that the validity of a sacramental ministry is independent of the worthiness of the office-holder.
So the pro-women-priests majority may have set up this untenable situation by their eagerness to scrape up a two-thirds majority. But the anti-women-priests minority then made a grievous error by embracing the theology of episcopal taint that the flying bishops solution implied, contrary to the Catholic tradition. Henceforth they were sitting on a time bomb. If the Church decided to follow the logic of 11 November 1992 and ordain women as bishops, the minority’s position would become hopeless. Bishops often participate in each other’s consecrations: “taint” would become a sort of theological virus, transmitted by the laying on of hands. Sooner or later, none would be untainted.
The measure to ordain women bishops was adjourned by the General Synod this week because it entitled parishes by law to choose a bishop of the pure kind if their local diocesan bishop is tainted (or even more so, if the local bishop is female). The objection was made that this is deeply insulting to women priests and to any woman subsequently chosen as a bishop. So it may be, but this is an issue that is better dealt with by rigorous theological analysis than by indignant rhetoric.
Theological chickens have a habit of coming home to roost. The next step forward therefore needs to be a step back, to examine afresh what happened on 11 November 1992. And to be honest about – wherever that may lead.
——
Clifford Longley is an Editorial Consultant to The Tablet. He is a journalist who has been a religious affairs specialist since 1972, for The Times for 20 years and then until 2000 for the Daily Telegraph.
Updated Monday evening to add a webpage version of the spreadsheet.
The detailed electronic voting results for the vote on the motion
That the debate be now adjourned to enable the new clause 5(1)(c) inserted by the House of Bishops into the draft Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” to be reconsidered by the House of Bishops.
at General Synod last Monday are now available for download.
As already announced at the time of the vote the result was 288 votes in favour and 144 against with 15 recorded abstentions.
From the detailed electronic voting results I have calculated how the votes went in each house.
| for | against | abstain | |
| Bishops | 36 | 10 | 4 |
| Clergy | 136 | 54 | 6 |
| Laity | 116 | 80 | 5 |
| total | 288 | 144 | 15 |
From these figures it can be seen that there was a comfortable two-thirds majority in the houses of bishops and clergy. But the majority was only 59% in the house of laity. These figures may or may not be relevant to the vote on final approval in November when a two-thirds majority will be required in each house for the measure to be approved.
I have split the voting lists into houses in this spreadsheet, also available as a webpage. I have also added the names of those members who did not record a vote or abstention. They are marked as absent for convenience but at least one (the Archbishop of York, who was in the chair) was present.
Here is the official summary of Monday afternoon’s business at General Synod, which concluded this group of sessions: General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Monday 9th July PM.
The Press Association carried this report of one of the debates: Schools ‘must keep spiritual core’.
Updated Monday evening
John Bingham writes in the Telegraph Women bishops row is a ‘train crash’.
Stephen Lynas (a synod member) blogs Monday: delayed but not denied.
Avril Ormsby writes for Reuters Church of England delays women bishops vote.
A Statement from Forward in Faith
Forward in Faith is disappointed that the General Synod today resolved to adjourn the debate on final approval of the draft Measure to permit women to be ordained as bishops in order to give the House of Bishops an opportunity to rethink its recent amendments to the Measure. We call upon the House of Bishops to stand firm in the face of this unwarranted pressure and to return the draft Measure to the Synod in a form which will provide for the future of traditional Catholics and conservative Evangelicals in line with the clearly expressed mind of the Synod throughout this morning’s debate.
Reform comment on Women Bishops adjournment
Following today’s adjournment of the debate on women bishops, Rev’d Rod Thomas, chairman of Reform, said: “We stand ready to co-operate to find a solution if there is a genuine desire to see a permanent place secured within the Church of England for those who on theological grounds cannot accept women as bishops.”
Giles Fraser writes in The Guardian Women bishops amendment has been rightly thrown out.
George Pitcher writes for the Mail Online If some parts of the Church of England want women bishops, they must also satisfy those who don’t.
Updates
Jerome Taylor writes in The Independent Months of frantic lobbying expected as women bishops debate is temporarily stayed by Church of England .
Lizzy Davies writes in The Guardian that Church of England must reassure female clergy.
BBC Women bishops: Church’s General Synod delays vote
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church backs away from women bishops debate
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Church of England postpones vote on female bishops
Ed Thornton, Gavin Drake and Madeleine Davies in the Church Times Synod postpones final decision on women bishops
In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contribution to this morning’s debate is now online, both as an audio recording and a transcript.
Following Synod’s vote to adjourn, the House of Bishops will reconsider its amendment to clause 5(1)(c) of the draft measure at its meeting on 12/13 September. The General Synod will meet in November (19-21) in London to resume the Final Approval debate in the light of the House of Bishops’ consideration.
There are two official press releases on this morning’s business and its consequences.
Latest on women bishops legislation from General Synod
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Monday 9th July AM
Women and the Church (WATCH) has issued this press release.
Press Release 9th July 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Adjournment gives bishops opportunity for the House of Bishops to reconsider Clause 5(1)(c)
WATCH is relieved that General Synod has today adjourned the final vote on consecrating women as bishops in the Church of England. 288:144 with 15 abstentions.
There has been widespread opposition to the inclusion of an amended Clause 5 and this adjournment gives the House of Bishops the opportunity to reconsider.
WATCH hopes that the bishops will withdraw Clause 5(1)(c) so as to allow General Synod the opportunity to vote on legislation that is as close as possible to that which was approved by 42 out of 44 dioceses.
WATCH’s petition asking the House of Bishops to withdraw Clause 5(1)(c) has now attracted nearly 6,000 signatures after just over a week See link on our website.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH, said
We are very relieved that the House of Bishops now has the chance to reconsider Clause 5(1)c and we hope that there will be a thorough consultation process over the summer so that whatever is presented to General Synod in November keeps faith with the dioceses that voted overwhelmingly for the unamended Measure.
General Synod has just voted to adjourn its debate on final approval of the legislation to allow women to be bishops. The vote was 288 in favour of the adjournment and 144 against with 15 recorded abstentions. The measure will now go back to the House of Bishops, and return to General Synod at a later group of sessions.
In more detail, immediately after the motion
That the Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” be finally approved.
was moved by the Bishop of Manchester, the Bishop of Dover proposed an adjournment to allow the House of Bishops to reconsider their amendment to clause 5:
That the debate be now adjourned to enable the new clause 5(1)(c) inserted by the House of Bishops into the draft Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” to be reconsidered by the House of Bishops.
It was this latter motion that was carried.
The General Synod debate on women bishops will start at about 10.00 am this morning. Here are some more predictions of what might happen.
BBC Women bishops: Church’s General Synod to delay vote
John Bingham in the Telegraph Women bishop vote set to be suspended
Avril Ormsby of Reuters Church of England seen delaying women bishop vote
And here are some reports on some of yesterday’s business
Lizzie Davies in The Guardian Church report on riots warns about effects of cuts
Madeleine Davies in the Church Times Christians should show their faith in public, Synod says
Cal Flyn in the Telegraph Archbishop warns followers ahead of crucial vote
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Church of England vote on women bishops likely to be postponed
Ed Thornton in the Church Times Don’t get depressed, Dr Williams tells Church of England
Here is the official summary of today’s business.
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Sunday 8th July PM
Ed Thornton writes in the Church Times Whittam Smith ‘shocked’ by banking scandal.
Edward Malnick writes in the Telegraph: Women bishops must be given full powers, MPs warn.
Lizzy Davies writes in The Observer that Women bishops campaign approaches crucial synod vote.
BBC has Women bishops vote facing postponement at general synod.
The BBC Radio 4 programme Sunday this morning presented this special programme from General Synod in York.
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave this speech on Saturday in the debate on World-shaped Mission.
The Archbishop of Canterbury preached this sermon in York Minster this morning.
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian reports on the Archbishop’s sermon: Rowan Williams issues warning ahead of women bishops vote.
It was announced at lunchtime today that the Steering Committee for the draft legislation on Women in the Episcopate will seek permission to move a motion to adjourn tomorrow’s debate to allow the House of Bishops to reconsider the amendment that they made to clause 5 of the draft measure. Here is the press release.
Latest on women bishops legislation - General Synod July 8
08 July 2012Permission to be sought to move adjournment motion
The Steering Committee for the draft legislation on Women in the Episcopate has indicated that it intends to seek permission from the Chair of the debate on the Final Approval of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to move a motion adjourning the debate to enable the House of Bishops to reconsider the amendment made by the House to clause 5 of the draft Measure.
Permission will be sought to move the motion during the Final Approval debate on Monday morning (July 9).
If permission is given to move the motion, and the Synod passes it, the effect will be to adjourn the Final Approval debate on the draft Measure until the House of Bishops can meet (probably in September). When it does so it will have power to amend the part of the text of the draft Measure previously altered by the amendment it made in May to clause 5.
Following the reconsideration by the House, the Final Approval debate would be resumed at the next group of sessions of the General Synod - the earliest date for which would be in November this year.
Notes
The two amendments made by the House of Bishops in May (see press release).
The amendment made by the House to clause 5
The House accepted an amendment to express in the Measure one of the three principles which the House had agreed in December. This amendment adds to the list of matters on which guidance will need to be given in the Code of Practice that the House of Bishops will be required to draw up and promulgate under the Measure. It will now need to include guidance on the selection by the diocesan bishop of the male bishops and priests who will minister in parishes whose parochial church council (‘PCC’) has issued a Letter of Request under the Measure. That guidance must be directed at ensuring that the exercise of ministry by those bishops and priests will be consistent with the theological convictions as to the consecration or ordination of women which prompted the issuing of the Letter of Request. Thus the draft Measure now addresses the fact that for some parishes a male bishop or male priest is necessary but not sufficient.
Amendment to Clause 8
The House accepted an amendment making it clear that the use of the word ‘delegation’ in clause 2 of the draft Measure relates to the legal authority which a male bishop acting under a diocesan scheme would have, and is distinct from the authority to exercise the functions of the office of bishop that that person derived from his ordination. For example, when another bishop ordains someone to the priesthood he needs permission to do from the bishop of the diocese (“delegation”), but the power to ordain derives from his consecration as a bishop. The amendment also makes clear that delegation should not be taken as divesting the diocesan bishop of any of his or her authority or functions.
Diarmaid MacCulloch writes for The Guardian about Women bishops: Jesus was happy with female apostles. What is the CofE’s problem?
Madeleine Davies writes for the Church Times that Archbishop defends gay-marriage response.
Lizzy Davies writes for The Guardian that Church of England votes to ban clergy from discriminatory political parties.
Edward Malnick writes in the Telegraph: Archbishop of Canterbury: Government has no right to introduce gay marriage.
Gavin Drake writes in the Church Times: Ban on clergy in racist groups approved.
Official summary of Saturday’s business
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Saturday 7th July AM
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Saturday 7th July PM
On 3 July The Times published a letter from a group of bishops, led by the Right Rev Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe, in which they write:
We are wholeheartedly committed to honouring those women whom the Church of England calls to the ordained ministry. We ask, too, for that proper respect for conscience which will continue to allow all traditions in our Church to flourish without detriment to one another.
The original copy of the letter is behind The Times paywall, but it has now been published elsewhere, including here on the Better Together website.
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Friday 6th July PM.
This summary also includes links to audios of the sessions.
The Press Association CofE to vote on BNP membership ban
BBC Church of England to ban race group membership
Paul Vale in The Huffington Post: Women Bishops: Church Of England To Vote On Female Ordination
Benny Hazlehurst writes about last night’s Questions & Answers (& more Questions).
WATCH (Women And The Church) issued this press release this morning.
Loyal Anglicans say “Enough!”
WATCH petition gains over 5,000 signatures in its first weekTo the House of Bishops [of the Church of England]: Withdraw Clause 5(1)c
Today WATCH (Women And The Church) sent the interim results of their Petition, to the House of Bishops in advance of their emergency meeting this morning.
The Petition calls upon the House of Bishops to withdraw their last minute amendment to clause 5(1)c which many feel will entrench discrimination against women in the Established Church and place a permanent question mark over the validity of women’s orders, if passed into law.
Over 5,000 have signed in the first week and the numbers are still rising rapidly.
The signatories represent a very broad constituency including lay and ordained women and men, committed church goers, and those who are on the fringes and put off deeper commitment by (amongst other things) the Church of England’s perceived ambivalence towards women.
The comments that many people have made when signing the petition offer lucid and powerful arguments for the withdrawal of the amendment to Clause 5(1)c, but there is also much anger and sadness that the House of Bishops have seen fit to override the opinions of the overwhelming majority who voted in diocesan synods to approve the unamended legislation.
Most worryingly, there are many people who are truly beginning to lose faith in the Church of England, and there is clearly a danger that by falling over backwards to accommodate the loud demands of those who will not accept the ministry of women bishops the church will lose many thousands of quietly despairing loyal but weary Anglicans.
Comments can be viewed can be viewed online here.
The following quotes give a flavour of the responses;
“As a lay woman in the C of E, I have observed developments in this field for nearly 50 years. It is now time to say that ‘enough is enough’. I value the Anglican approach to holding views in tension, but there comes a time when it is simply a matter of refusing to address prejudices”
“This amendment gives permanent support to a theology of ‘taint’ and a theology of male headship. As the co-founder of a women’s refuge and worker there before ordination I am sadly aware this has ramifications far beyond the priesthood and reflects badly on the C of E. General Synod has a responsibility to look beyond itself. ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ Acts.10.15, this morning’s NT reading.”
“There comes a point at which the Church of England must find the courage to make a decision and stick to it - there is no way to square this particular circle. I am fed up with being expected to accept being a kind of “Shroedinger’s Priest” - simultaneously a priest and not a priest, depending on who is looking at me - and it baffles and offends most of those outside the church that this should be the case.”
“This measure implies that women can only make second class bishops and maintains the perception that male bishops are ‘tainted’ by association once they’ve ordained women. I’ve been a member of the CofE for over ten years since becoming a Christian, moved churches at the beginning of the year and recently became an Adherent member of the Salvation Army. It’s so refreshing and affirming to be in a church where gender just isn’t an issue and women are treated as equals.”
“Having worked as a Training Officer in Chaplaincy, relating to Chaplains of several denominations and World Faiths, I have always found myself to be respected as fair, sensitive and generous in my dealings. I am profoundly shocked that fellow Anglicans seem unable to trust potential women Bishops to be just and generous. It is time to pass this measure in the form in which it has already been affirmed by a large majority.”
“Too many questions have been raised by this late addition to draft legislation that has already been through a long process, including overwhelming approval in the dioceses. There is insufficient time for General Synod members to consider and weigh all the implications of enactment of the legislation as amended before taking a final vote.”
“I am an Anglican worshipper, married to an Anglican priest. I don’t want the polite internal schism we agreed to when women were ordained to the priesthood to be perpetuated for further generations. The arrangements for woman-free enclaves of the church should only ever have been transitional: the amendment threatens to make the division, and the injustice, a lasting feature.”
Following the preliminary debates yesterday, the measure will be considered again on Monday. WATCH urges General Synod to adjourn the debate on Monday to allow the House of Bishops to reconsider and withdraw the amendment.
John Bingham reports in the Telegraph on what the Archbishop of Canterbury said to his convocation this afternoon: Women bishops: Church is looking into the abyss, says Archbishop of Canterbury.
Lizzy Davies writes for The Guardian: Rowan Williams urges speedy solution to row over women bishops and Debate on women bishops goes to General Synod.
Gavin Drake writes for the Church Times: Convocations and laity say preliminary yes to women bishops.
Steve Doughty writes for the Mail Online: Archbishop of Canterbury warns supporters of women bishops they face years of delay if they do not accept compromise.
Christian Today has Rowan Williams: I long to see women bishops in CofE.
Robert Pigott at the BBC has Church of England votes to allow women bishops vote.
The Guardian has published this editorial: Church of England: what women don’t want.
Christina Rees writes for The Guardian: Female bishops: this is about the church’s attitude to all women.
The House of Laity and the two Convocations (the clergy and bishops) met separately this afternoon to debate the legislation to allow women to be bishops.
The votes below are for the main vote on the approval of the draft measure. There were also votes (all in favour) on the consequential draft amending canon.
The bishops of the Canterbury Convocation approved the legislation by 27 votes to nil. The Canterbury clergy voted 95 for and 19 against with one recorded abstention.
In the York Convocation the bishops voted 11 for and 2 against. The clergy voted 38 for and 11 against with 2 abstentions.
The House of Laity voted 123 for and 53 against with no recorded abstentions.
Since all votes were in favour the draft legislation can now go to the whole Synod for the debate on final approval on Monday.
Many members will have voted to approve the legislation not because they are in favour, but to allow it to be debated in full Synod on Monday.
The Church of England website has this press release Latest on women bishops legislation from General Synod 06 July 2012 which starts “Convocations and House of Laity approve draft legislation”.
Madeleine Davies in the Church Times Bishops to meet amid fevered pre-Synod lobbying
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Fears Church of England vote on women bishops has begun to unravel
Robert Pigott for the BBC Women bishops: Vote could change Church forever
The BBC also has Q&A: Women bishops vote and Church of England meeting ahead of women bishops vote.
The Artsy Honker on her blog: A Provisional Note
Jeremy Fletcher on his blog: General Synod – What’s a chap to do?
Benny Hazlehurst on his blog: Trouble at the Top…
Richard Coles in The Independent: A typically Anglican compromise on women bishops
Avril Ormsby for Reuters: Church of England vote on women bishops could be derailed
Jerome Taylor in The Independent: Can the Church finally embrace women bishops?
The group Proper Provision has written to members of General Synod urging them not to vote for an adjournment of the women bishops debate next Monday. The letter can be read on the Anglican Mainstream website, and is copied below.
Time to put this Measure to the test – from Proper Provision
Dear Member of General Synod,
We are writing to you on behalf of the thousands of loyal Anglican women who believe that men and women are inherently equal, and that our families and churches prosper when men take responsibility to provide godly oversight and headship. You may have heard about the petition we took to the House of Bishops asking them to amend the Measure.
We would urge you not to seek an adjournment for three reasons:1) The House of Bishops have listened:
- To the laity and clergy in the Dioceses, of whom 23% rejected the unamended Measure and 3% abstained.
- To General Synod:
- who in February voted to ask the House of Bishops to make amendments as long as they were insubstantial. The Group of Six has ruled that they are insubstantial.
- and who historically have never given two-thirds majority support to an amendment or motion on this topic unless it specifically moved towards proper provision.
The House of Bishops have listened to the concerns of this substantial minority and simply sought in their amendments to clarify two points in order that it would make it easier for these people to give their consent to this innovation, the heart of which goes against their conscience.
2) The amendments have revealed how unwilling to compromise some proponents of women bishops can be.
WATCH have suggested that both sacramental assurance and headship are “non-gospel theologies” which “indirectly contribute to domestic and sexual abuse and violence against women”.
A Statement of our Concerns 11/06/12 p5
WATCH have also criticised the House of Bishops for attempting to “provide a permanent, guaranteed doctrinal space” for those who seek male clergy and bishops.
A Statement of our Concerns 11/06/12 p6
The suggestion that we are not fellow-Christians and that the women in our congregations are unsafe is personally hurtful. Doctrinally, it makes a mockery of the 1998 Lambeth statement, affirmed by General Synod in July 2006, which recognized that both those in favour of women bishops and those opposed were loyal Anglicans.
The House of Bishops deemed the amendments necessary to provide proper provision for all loyal Anglicans. The adjournment motion is simply an attempt to remove even that (inadequate) provision in favour of arrangements that are anticipated to be purely temporary and which will immediately be wholly insecure.3) An adjournment will be expensive and may achieve very little.
In November 2010 it was estimated that a four-day Synod in London cost approximately £400,000 (including the lost revenue from Church House). While recognizing that our meeting may be shorter, we are not convinced that this would be money well spent.
If the Measure returns in its present form then nothing will have changed; we will have simply delayed the day when supporters of a female episcopate finally have to decide whether their priority is the Bishop’s attempt at church unity or their own particular understanding of equality.
If the Measure returns without the amendments then, unless it is defeated, we will have confirmed that there is no secure place in the Church of England for those who until now have been considered loyal orthodox Anglicans.
It has been the constant desire of the majority of General Synod both to consecrate women as bishops and to provide for those who seek male clergy and bishops. Let’s use the time we have in July to try and convince one another that this Measure could work and if we can’t do that, then so be it.
Surely the time has come to put this Measure to the test and move on.
Lorna Ashworth GS 287
Jane Bisson GS 428
Mary Durlacher GS 272
Sarah Finch GS 344
Susie Leafe GS 416
Andrea Minichiello Williams GS 293
Jane Patterson GS 403
Kathy Playle GS 275
Alison Ruoff GS 350
Ruth Whitworth GS 277
Alison Wynne GS257
The petition referred to at the beginning of the letter can be found at the end of this article on the Reform website: Media Statement: Proper Provision Petition 2012: 2,200 Anglican women say.
The BBC has covered the debate over women bishops in several ways today.
The Sunday programme on Radio 4 this morning included an interview with Lucy Winkett. You can listen to this here; it runs from 23 min 49 sec to 28 min 48 sec.
Also on Radio 4 Charlotte Smith presented a half-hour documentary: The Frock and the Church which can be listened to online.
And Charlotte Smith also wrote this: Anglican agonies over women bishops.
Emily Dugan writes in the Independent: Church set to reject ‘deal’ on female bishops.
Christian Today has: Orthodox Anglicans to vote against legislation on women bishops.
Jonathan Petre writes in the Mail Online: Historic vote on women bishops put in jeopardy as senior female clergy say concessions would make them second-class citizens.
WATCH: Women and the Church has launched an online petition urging the House of Bishops to withdraw its amendment to clause 5 of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure.
The petition can be seen, and signed, here: The House of Bishops [of the Church of England]: Withdraw Clause 5(1)c.
The Church Times has today published this longer than usual leading article: Women bishops: what should happen next.
THE General Synod is in trouble. In ten days’ time, it is to consider giving final approval to the consecration of women bishops. In the normal run of things, this would be the stage for a general debate in which the participants return to first principles, examine whether the legislation does or does not fulfil their wishes, and vote accordingly. This debate looks increasingly unlikely to happen…
The effect of the amendments has been the opposite of what was intended, however. The failure of opponents to endorse them, understandable though this may be, and the fierce rejection of them by many of the proponents, to the extent that some have been calling for the Measure to be voted down, mean that the Measure might fall in both the Houses of Laity and Clergy. This would be a farcical end to the long, tortuous synodical process, and hard to square with the overwhelming vote in the diocesan synods…
The Synod is in danger of attracting widespread puzzlement if it fails to agree women bishops after such a long process. Put simply, it must not fail. Anxiety has been expressed about the precedent set by allowing parishes to choose their own type of priest (as if this did not happen at present). A far more worrying precedent will be set if Synod members cannot find a way to live in the same Church as those with whom they disagree.
There is also this news item: Women bishops: ‘little silver balls won’t stay in their holes’.
Another letter to General Synod members about the bishops’ amendments to the women bishops legislation is circulating. This time it is from the Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod.
Subject: Women Bishop Legislation
Dear fellow member of General Synod,
Some supporters of women bishops are now urging us to send the draft Women Bishops legislation back to the House of Bishops for them to reconsider their amendments; the same people are advising us to vote against the Measure if the House of Bishops do not withdraw their amendments. We need to reflect very carefully what referring the matter back to the Bishops would do to the Church of England.
What the Bishops have done is entirely reasonable in terms of the synodical process. It is consistent with how the majority of the Synod voted in February: the Southwark motion calling for no amendments at all to be made by the House of Bishop was itself amended by Pete Spiers so as to request that no substantial amendments be made.
The Bishops’ amendments are consistent with the original substance of the Measure; that is the clear advice of the Legal Office (reproduced in the annex to GS 1708-1709ZZ); it is also the decision of the majority of the Group of Six (Archbishops, Prolocutors, Chair and Vice-Chair of the House of Laity). Members of Synod would do well to read the Legal Office’s advice very carefully before forming a view on the amendments.
The House of Bishops’ amendments are consistent with their responsibility to try to hold the Church of England together; their amendments are also consistent with their responsibility to find a way forward that stands a reasonable chance of success at Final Approval. Synod’s voting in May showed that unamended, this Measure was doomed to fail at Final Approval.
The present agitation also provides a warning as to what would lie ahead of us were this Measure to be passed, with or without amendment. The formation of the Code of Practice would become a new battleground. Were the House of Bishops to be forced to retreat over their amendments to the Measure, they would be forced to have the contents of the Code of Practice dictated to them. Even after the Code were initially agreed, it would be open to pressure groups to campaign to whittle away its provisions over time.
A recent survey by Christian Research has found that 69% of CofE members surveyed wanted to see women bishops, and 75% wanted to see proper provision made for opponents so that they are not forced out of the Church of England. We have to ask ourselves: how do we achieve legislation that is faithful to the majority of CofE members? Pressurising the House of Bishops into withdrawing their amendments is most clearly the wrong way. Reliance on a Code of Practice is now looking to be an increasingly shaky and temporary foundation for making provision - which is what the Catholic Group in General Synod and others have consistently said.
The Bishops’ amendments are very modest but welcome steps in the right direction for the Catholic Group, though they do not go far enough. We appreciate the good intentions of the House of Bishops, but we are surprised that even the little they have offered, others are now determined to take away.
With prayers and good wishes,
Simon Killwick.
The Revd. Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester 163)
(Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod)
Reform has issued this statement saying that the bishops’ amendments are not sufficient and that they will encourage their members on General Synod to vote against the legislation as it stands.
Media Statement: Reform members on GS encouraged to vote against Women’s Measure: REFORM SAYS ‘FURORE’ OVER WOMEN BISHOPS SHOWS NEED FOR BETTER PROVISION
Posted on 27 June 2012Wednesday 27th June 2012
Reform Chairman Rev’d Rod Thomas said today that “Reform deeply regrets that we have reached such an impasse on women bishops” with the current House of Bishops’ amendments not satisfying the conservative evangelical network’s concerns over their future in the Church of England.
Speaking in advance of a prayer meeting for over 200 Reform members in central London, Mr Thomas said: “We thank the House of Bishops for their work. They have tried to find a way through. But their amendments have not succeeded in persuading our members that there is a secure future for those who cannot in conscience accept the oversight of women as bishops. In light of that we will be encouraging our members on General Synod to vote against the legislation as it stands.”
Mr Thomas added: “The furore created by some in response to these small amendments reveals most clearly the reason why those who hold to our Biblical position need legislative clarity, not just a code of practice if we are to continue to encourage young people to come forward for ordination.
“There is clearly a desire on the part of some to see any provision for us as strictly temporary, despite the fact that we’re simply seeking to follow the Bible’s teaching about how God wants his Church to be organised. They hope we’ll just leave. However, we believe the majority of Anglicans want to honour the promises made to us over the last two decades to preserve a place for us in the Church of England. As it stands, the draft Measure doesn’t do this – and we’ll be asking General Synod to withhold approval of the draft Measure so that some proper compromises can be agreed.
“We face a very difficult situation, so we are urging our members to pray today for the House of Bishops, the General Synod and for the church’s witness in this country to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.”
The full statement also includes some background notes.
Updated 2 July
Another diocesan synod has passed an emergency motion supporting the adjournment of the final vote on women bishops and a referral back to the House of Bishops. This was Gloucester which met on Tuesday evening this week (26 June) and passed the motion “overwhelmingly”.
Before the debate on the motion Michael Perham, the Bishop of Gloucester, gave his presidential address in which he said “If we are not to avoid a debacle that I believe would be a catastrophe for the Church of England, the House of which I am a member must think again.”
Update
There is now a report of the debate on the Gloucester diocesan website.
GRAS (Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod) have sent the letter below to the members of General Synod to express their opposition to the bishops’ amendment to Clause 5 of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, and urging Synod members to adjourn their debate to allow the bishops to think again.
GRAS
Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod27th June 2012
Dear Member of General Synod,
The Act of Synod all over again It’s the Act of Synod all over again – but worse this time: more divisive, and proposed to be written into law.
Amendment 5(1)(c) in the latest draft of the women bishops legislation (the Draft Bishops and Priests [Consecration and Ordination of Women] Measure) goes beyond the previously agreed form of the Measure in that it invites congregations to judge the theological convictions of the bishops they consider acceptable. This is unprecedented in privileging in law undefined theological positions, and in allowing congregations to sit in judgment over the characteristics of their bishop.
We have worked and prayed for many years for Women Bishops and would find it deeply painful to say No to this Measure. However, many people, who long for the Church of England to have women bishops, cannot support it in its present form.
We urge you to support an adjournment to allow time for the Bishops to reconsider Amendment 5(1)(c). If this does not happen, we ask you to prayerfully consider voting the amended measure down.
With our concern and prayers,
Yours sincerely,
Ruth McCurry
GRAS Chair
A group of senior women clergy have sent the letter below to the members of General Synod to express their opposition to the bishops’ amendment to Clause 5 of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, and urging Synod members to adjourn their debate to allow the bishops to think again.
To all members of General Synod:
Following the House of Bishops’ amendments many people have asked for the perspective of senior women clergy regarding the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure as it now stands.
We the undersigned wish to express our deep dismay at the introduction of Clause 5(1)(c), which has serious implications for the way the Church understands itself and undermines women so profoundly that we are now unable to support the Measure.
We recognise that bishops voted in favour of this amendment in good faith, believing that further assurances for those unable to accept the ministry of ordained women would help secure the Measure’s passing.
However, with the introduction of this clause the Measure is likely to be defeated. It is therefore our hope that the General Synod will adjourn the debate in July and return the legislation to the House of Bishops for further reflection. This will give the opportunity for the Measure (as passed by 42 of the 44 dioceses) to be returned to General Synod for approval later in the year.
The Venerable Christine Allsopp (Archdeacon of Northampton)
The Revd Canon Sarah Bullock (Bishop’s Advisor for Women’s Ministry Diocese of Manchester)
The Venerable Annette Cooper (Archdeacon of Colchester)
The Venerable Penny Driver (Archdeacon of Westmorland and Furness)
The Very Revd Vivienne Faull (Dean of Leicester)
The Venerable Karen Gorham (Archdeacon of Buckingham)
The Revd Canon Jane Hedges (Canon Steward & Archdeacon of Westminster)
The Venerable Canon Janet Henderson (Archdeacon of Richmond)
The Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons)
The Revd Rosemary Lain-Priestley (Chair of the National Association of Diocesan Advisers in Women’s Ministry)
The Very Revd Catherine Ogle (Dean of Birmingham)
The Very Revd June Osborne (Dean of Salisbury)
The Venerable Jane Sinclair (Archdeacon of Stow and Lindsey)
The Revd Canon Celia Thomson (Canon Pastor, Gloucester Cathedral)
The Venerable Rachel Treweek (Archdeacon of Hackney)
The Very Revd Dr Frances Ward (Dean of St Edmundsbury)
The Venerable Christine Wilson (Archdeacon of Chesterfield)
The Revd Lucy Winkett (Rector, St James’s Piccadilly)
Worcester Diocesan Synod met last night and passed this emergency motion by 38 votes to 5.
This Synod calls upon the members of General Synod to support an adjournment of the debate on final approval of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, so that the House of Bishops can reconsider its recent amendment to clause 5.
Affirming Catholicism issued a statement today on the House of Bishops Amendment to the Women Bishops Measure. They say that
the idea that parishes should have statutory authority to demand specific provision of oversight according to particular theological views is a dangerous precedent to be setting, both for the Church of England and for the Anglican Communion as a whole.
The clause 5 amendment raises significant questions about the credibility of the Church of England’s insistence on the historic episcopate as one of the bases for our ecumenical relationships
and conclude that the amendment to Clause 5 proposed by the Bishops “calls into question the catholic nature of the ecclesiology of the C of E”.
On procedure they strongly support the motions in the Convocations and the House of Laity to refer the amended measure to General Synod, but strongly urge Synod to refer it back to the House of Bishops.
The full statement is here.
Updated 5pm Wednesday
Thursday morning update The bishop’s presidential address is now available here.
We have been informed us that Salisbury Diocesan Synod last night overwhelmingly passed an emergency motion that “This Synod calls upon the House of Bishops to withdraw its amendment to Clause 5 of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure”.
Nicholas Holtam, the Bishop of Salisbury, said in his Presidential Address, “the Bishops have destabilised the compromise agreed by 42 of the 44 Dioceses”. Both he and Graham Kings, the suffragan Bishop of Sherborne, voted for and welcomed the motion.
WATCH has issued a press release stating that “This emergency motion is the latest indication that the House of Bishops needs to rethink its approach to this important legislation.”
Wednesday Update
The Diocese of Salisbury has this evening issued a press release summarising the bishop’s presidential address, from which the following is extracted.
Revolutionary Talk
The Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, … called for an end to changes to legislation for women bishops…
Bishop Holtam said: “This is not a matter of pragmatics but of principle and what the House of Bishops has done is to destabilise a very carefully crafted proposal, which already had significant compromise within it to recognise the legitimate place of difference within the Church of England, but which had substantial agreement from the dioceses.”
Referring to a vote on whether to accept the amendments to the legislation, he added: “The motion that has been tabled tonight is in keeping with the strong support this diocese has previously given to the ordination of women bishops and I welcome it as a contribution to what is indeed a very urgent debate.” …
Updated Tuesday
Two press reports look at what might happen to the women bishops legislation at next month’s General Synod.
Gavin Drake has written in Church Times that Women-bishops supporters might send Measure back.
John Bingham has written in the Telegraph that Church of England: new row could set women bishops plan back five years.
Opinions on the bishops’ amendments include these three.
Modern Church has published this paper by Jonathan Clatworthy: When is a bishop not a bishop (also available as a pdf).
Jeremy Fletcher has blogged Women Bishops – What I think I think.
Michael Sadgrove (the Dean of Durham) has blogged Where are we now on Women as Bishops?
And looking further ahead, last Friday’s edition of Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4 included an interview with Ben Bradshaw MP about what might happen if the women bishops legislation as amended by the bishops reaches the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. The programme can be downloaded as a 12 MB mp3 podcast, or listened to on the BBC iPlayer. The interview starts with an introduction at 6 min 41 sec.
Update WATCH has provided a transcript of this interview.
The usual pre-synod press release has been issued by the Church of England today, and is copied below. It provides a summary of the business to be transacted, and one item not on the agenda.
I have listed in a separate article the available online papers.
For those interested in the legislation to allow women to be bishops, I draw particular attention to the paper background Q & As which inter alia lists the possible outcomes at the July Synod.
Agenda for July 2012 General Synod
15 June 2012
General Synod meets in July for final stages of women bishops legislation, with an agenda that also includes world mission, church growth, the August 2011 riots, manifesting faith in public life, church schools, Palestine and Israel.
The General Synod will meet at York University from 5.15 p.m. on Friday 6 July until lunchtime on Tuesday 10 July. The meeting will be preceded by meetings of the House of Laity and the Convocations (provincial synods) of Canterbury and York at 2 p.m. on Friday 6 July.
The Agenda provides for the Synod to deal with the final stages of the major legislative process designed to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of England while also making some provision for those who, for theological reasons, will not be able to receive their ministry. If the legislation is approved, by simple majorities, by the House of Laity and the Convocations, the way will be clear for it to be presented for final approval on Monday 9 July. As with the women priests legislation in 1992, the whole of the morning and afternoon sittings has been allocated to the Final Approval debates. (See background Q & As).
As in July 2011, part of the Saturday morning has been structured in such a way as to foster a culture of listening and reflection in the Synod. The groups that met last year, each comprising twelve members and led by a bishop, will reflect, in the context of worship, on a Bible passage and on the Church’s contemporary mission.
This will be followed by a debate on the role of mission agencies and on partnership between the Church of England and other churches of the Anglican Communion.
The mission theme will continue on the Saturday evening with a debate on the ‘fresh expressions’ movement, which encourages new ways of being the Church within the contemporary context, in the light of a joint Anglican-Methodist report which considers how these initiatives relate to the doctrinal understanding of what it is to be a church.
Further aspects of the Church of England’s engagement with society - corporately and individually - will be considered on the Sunday and on the Monday. The Synod will debate a report on the Church’s role in local communities in the context of the August 2011 riots and a Private Member’s Motion expressing the conviction that it is the calling of Christians to manifest their faith in public life as well as in private. It will also receive a presentation on the report ‘The Church School of the Future’, which looks at ways in which the Church of England could extend its role in the education system, in the context of the current changes to that system.
On the Sunday afternoon the Synod will be invited to authorize new Eucharistic Prayers for use from 1 September at services at which there are significant numbers of children present - at a Communion service in a church school, for example.
The Synod will also debate a Private Member’s Motion affirming support for the World Council of Churches’ Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, for agencies working for justice and peace in the region, and for Palestinian Christians and organizations that work to ensure their continuing presence in the Holy Land.
Other items of legislative business will be taken on the Saturday afternoon. These include the final approval of a draft Measure amending aspects of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and of a draft Measure giving the Church Commissioners power to make financial provision for the mission of the growing Diocese in Europe.
The Synod will also receive presentations on the annual reports of the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners, and will be invited to approve the Council’s budget for 2013. It will debate a Diocesan Synod Motion relating to the size of the committees that elect diocesan representatives to participate in the choosing of diocesan bishops.
If the Synod completes its consideration of the women bishops legislation in July, there will be no need for a third group of sessions in November, and this will therefore be final occasion at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside, with the Archbishop of York, at a meeting of the General Synod. Dr Williams will preach at the Eucharist in York Minster on the Sunday morning. The final business for the group of sessions will be a motion, to be moved by the Archbishop of York, expressing the Synod’s gratitude to Dr Williams and offering him and Mrs Williams its best wishes for the future.
One item not on the Agenda for July is the Anglican Communion Covenant. The Business Committee publishes today its report on the voting in the diocesan synods on the draft Act of Synod adopting the Covenant. 18 diocesan synods voted in favour and 26 against, so this draft Act of Synod cannot be presented to the General Synod for final approval. As the report shows, the voting was quite close. The majority of Houses of Clergy (26) voted against, but the majority of Houses of Laity (23) voted in favour. Overall, of the 1516 members of houses of clergy who voted, 732 (48%) voted in favour and 784 (52%) voted against, whereas, of the 1813 members of houses of laity who voted, 960 (53%) voted in favour and 853 (47%) voted against. The Business Committee believes that it would be helpful for members of the Synod to have time to reflect on the position before the Synod debates the report and the Diocesan Synod Motions about the Covenant that have been passed by nine diocesan synods. These will therefore be debated not in July but at the next group of sessions after July.
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 July 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 Tuesday 19 June to add link to GS 1878 (Business Committee report on diocesan synod voting on the Anglican Communion Covenant)
Updated Friday 22 June to add more papers
Update Wednesday 27 June A zip file of all papers is available. As well as papers listed below it includes the first five notice papers and a list of recent appointments.
The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1864) 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 1863 Full Agenda
GS 1864 Report by the Business Committee [Friday]
Women Bishops legislation
GS 1708C Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Monday]
GS 1709C Draft Amending Canon No.30 [Monday]
GS 1709D Draft Petition for Her Majesty’s Royal Assent and Licence for Adoption [Monday]
GS 1708-1709ZZ Report from the House of Bishops on Article 7 reference
Other papers for debate
GS 1814B Draft Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure [Saturday]
GS 1814Z Report by the Steering Committee
GS 1822A Additional Eucharistic Prayers [Sunday]
GS 1822B Report by the House of Bishops
GS 1853A Draft Diocese in Europe Measure [Saturday]
GS 1859A and GA 1859B Private Member’s Motion: Manifestation of Faith in Public Life [Sunday]
GS 1862 Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council [Sunday]
GS 1865 World Shaped Mission [Saturday]
GS 1866 Draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure [Saturday]
GS 1877 Draft Amending Canon No. 31 [Saturday]
GS 1866X/1877X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1867 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Amendment) Rules 2012 [Saturday]
GS 1867X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1868 The Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2012
GS 1869 The Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2012
GS 1868X/1869X Explanatory Memorandum
[items only to be debated if a synod member requests this]
GS 1870 Fresh Expressions and Church Growth: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council [Saturday]
GS 1871 Fresh Expressions in the Mission of the Church
GS 1872 The Archbishops’ Council’s Draft Budget and Proposals for Apportionment for 2013 [Sunday]
GS 1873 Testing the Bridges: Understanding the Role of the Church amidst Riots, Disturbances and Disorder [Sunday]
GS 1874A and GS 1874B Private Member’s Motion: Palestine and Israel [Tuesday]
GS 1875A and GS 1875B Diocesan Synod Motion: Vacancy in See Committees [Tuesday]
GS 1876A and GS 1876B Private Member’s Motion: Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 [Contingency Business]
GS 1878 Anglican Communion Covenant: Draft Act of Synod - Report by the Business Committee on the reference to the dioceses.
Church Commissioners’ annual report 2011 [Saturday]
The Church School of the Future Review [Monday]
Other Papers
GS Misc 1020 Membership of Boards, Councils and Committees
GS Misc 1023 Dioceses Commission Annual Report
GS Misc 1024 Activities of the Archbishops’ Council
GS Misc 1025 Pursuing the three Quinquennium Goals
GS Misc 1026 The Report of the Meissen Commission 2007-2011
GS Misc 1027 A response from the Church of England on the Government Consultation on Same-Sex Marriage
GS Misc 1028 Background Press Questions and Answers re: Women in the Episcopate
GS Misc 1029 Clergy Discipline Annual Report
GS Misc 1030 Analysis of Mission Funds and Appendix A and Appendix B
GS Misc 1031 Higher Education Validation Partnership
HB (12) M1 House of Bishops: Summary of Decisions
Forecast of future General Synod business
This forecast should not be read as more than a broad indication of business that may come to the Synod in 2013.
Legislative businessDiocesan Synod Motions and Private Members’ Motions
One or more Diocesan Synod Motions and one or more Private Members’ Motions are customarily included in the Agenda for each group of sessions.
The National WATCH Committee has released a paper setting out its position on the House of Bishops’ amendments to the draft legislation on female bishops: A Statement of our Concerns.
The paper is quite long, but here are the conclusions (from page 7).
WATCH’s conclusions
The bishops have argued that they have not changed the substance or intention of the Measure, and hope that when looked at dispassionately and carefully everyone will agree with them.
Our conclusions, after consultation and careful and dispassionate consideration, are these:
1. The House of Bishops has made changes that are significant in how the draft legislation might work in practice. In so doing, it has de-stabilised the legislative process: there is no clear way forward towards July’s General Synod.
2. The amended draft legislation comes to General Synod for approval this July. It is not possible for Synod to amend the legislation further at this stage – though it could be referred back to the House of Bishops for reconsideration.
3. WATCH consistently supported the unamended Measure that was supported by 42/44 dioceses, as an act of generosity to those opposed and a compromise from our preferred route of the simplest possible legislation.
4. The bishops were repeatedly informed by those supporting the Measure that any amendment along these lines would put the Measure at greatly increased risk of defeat in July. They are now expressing surprise at our reaction. We wonder what it is that stops the House of Bishops hearing and taking seriously the voices of ordained women and all who support their ministry.
5. Our principal concerns about Clause 5(1)c are:
i) It legitimates negative theologies about women and expects women to live with permanent institutional uncertainty about their orders. This is bad for women and bad for the Church.
ii) It opens the way for parishes to require a bishop and priest in accordance with their theological convictions. This is a new and unwelcome departure for our Church that will lead to conflict and increasing fragmentation.6. The amendment to clause 5 means that the legislation no longer meets the objective of the Manchester Report (2008) that legislation should ‘avoid any flavour of discrimination or half-heartedness by the Church towards women priests and bishops.’
7. WATCH has grave concerns about the amendment to Clause 5 and the WATCH committee cannot support the Measure as it now stands. However, it will fall to General Synod members, to make up their own minds and decide whether, in good conscience, they can support the legislation as amended.
8. Our consultation suggests that the amended Measure is at grave risk of being voted down by the very Synod members who most strongly support women becoming bishops. It is a tragedy that after so much work and so much compromise, this should be the situation a month before the final vote.
9. Despite our disappointment, WATCH remains committed to working constructively with others to find a way forward that does not further institutionalise discrimination and create a Church divided in law.
National WATCH Committee
11 June 2012
The Church of England has issued the outline timetable for the July meeting of General Synod. This is copied below (with non-business items omitted).
GENERAL SYNOD: JULY 2012
Timetable
Friday 6 July
2.00 pm – 4.45 pm
Article 7 meetings of the Convocations and House of Laity
(Canterbury Upper House meeting at 4.00 pm)
5.15 pm – 6.15 pm
Formal business (prayers, introductions, welcomes, progress of legislation)
Address by the Archbishop of Turku and Finland
Business Committee Report
8.30 pm – 10.00 pm
Questions
Saturday 7 July
11.45 am – 1.00 pm
World-Shaped Mission: Report from MPA
2.30 pm – 6.15 pm
Legislative Business
Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure: Final Drafting/Final Approval
Diocese in Europe Measure: Revision Stage and Final Approval
Miscellaneous Provisions Measure: First Consideration
The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Amendment) Rules 2012
(Fees Orders – deemed)
Church Commissioners’ Annual Report: presentation
8.30 pm – 10.00 pm
Fresh Expressions: Report from MPA
Sunday 8 July
2.30 pm – 6.15 pm
Liturgical Business Additional Eucharistic Prayers
Archbishops’ Council’s Annual Report: presentation
Financial Business
Testing the Bridges: Understanding the Role of the Church amidst Riots, Disturbances, Disorder: Report from MPA
8.30 pm – 10.00 pm
PMM: The Revd Stephen Trott: Manifestation of Faith in Public Life
Monday 9 July
9.30 am – 1.00 pm
Legislative Business Women in the Episcopate
2.30 pm – 6.15 pm
Legislative Business Women in the Episcopate
8.30 pm – 10.00 pm
The Church School of the Future: Chadwick Report (Education Division): Presentation
Farewells
Tuesday 10 July
9.30 am – 1.00 pm
PMM: Dr John Dinnen: Palestine and Israel
Bradford DSM: Vacancy in See Committees
Farewell to the Archbishop of Canterbury
Prorogation
Contingency business:
PMM: The Revd Christopher Hobbs: Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956
Women and the Church (WATCH) has issued a press release about the House of Bishops’ amendment to Clause 5 of the draft Women bishops measure.
Women and the Church (WATCH) Press Release
Monday 28th May 2012: For immediate release
WATCH consults membership over Clause 5 amendment
The WATCH committee met on Saturday to consider the House of Bishops’ amendments to the draft legislation for women bishops and agreed the following statement:
“WATCH recognises that some amendments were rejected by the House of Bishops. However, the WATCH committee is unanimous in its serious concern about the amended Clause 5 and is therefore consulting further about how to proceed as we approach General Synod in July.”
A consultation paper has been sent to WATCH members reporting the arguments that WATCH has heard both for and against the Clause 5 amendment. This is a work in progress and does not represent WATCH’s considered view but shows that, at the time of writing, the arguments against the amendment heavily outweigh those in favour.
The principal arguments WATCH has heard in favour of the amendment are pragmatic. Those against come under a variety of headings: the problems with process; the unforeseen legal effects; the institution of a permanent state of ‘reception’ for women; the consequences of qualifying ‘maleness’ and including taint on the face of the Measure. For full details see attached paper ‘For and against’.
Many people continue to express enormous anger that these changes have been made at this late stage.
The WATCH committee will meet later in the week to consider the merits of these and other arguments. We will then consider how best to respond to the House of Bishops’ intervention.
The Rev’d Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH said:
“We have not found anyone who thinks the Clause 5 amendment is helpful in substance. The Church Times poll currently shows 68% people consider it will not improve the chances of the legislation passing in July. This is a very serious situation and we need to consult more widely before deciding our response.”
We have made a copy of the For and against paper available online.
The full set of questions and answers from last months’ Church of England General Synod is now available.
Updated Monday
A following motion is being proposed in a number of diocesan synods where the Anglican Covenant is being debated. The latest wording of this is as follows:
A following motion to the Article 8 reference of the Anglican Covenant
Version five:
‘This Diocesan Synod, following the reference from the General Synod of the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant, requests the General Synod to debate the following motion:
“That this Synod:
(a) rejoice in the fellowship of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is rooted in our shared worship and held together by bonds of affection and our common appeal to Scripture, tradition and reason;
(b) thank the Archbishop of Canterbury for his tireless efforts throughout the Communion to sustain and strengthen unity in difficult times; and
(c) call on the House of Bishops:
(i) to find ways to maintain and reinforce strong links across the world-wide Anglican Communion and to deepen the Church of England’s involvement with the existing Communion ministries and networks (especially the continuing Indaba process);
(ii) to publicise and promote this work within the dioceses of the Church of England in order to broaden understanding of, and enthusiasm for, the Anglican Communion; and
(iii) to encourage a wide understanding of, and support for, the next Lambeth Conference.” ’
Update
So far this motion has been passed in Bath & Wells, Chelmsford, Worcester, and with some amendments, also in Southwark.
It is scheduled for debate in St Albans, Chester, Oxford, Guildford, Exeter, and London.
The Church Times detailed reports of this month’s Church of England Synod are now available to non-subscribers as a pdf download.
Full report from the General Synod
Earlier today I linked to the electronic voting lists from this month’s Church of England General Synod. I have now consolidated the three votes on various aspects of the women bishops legislation into a single spreadsheet. This is available as a web page and as an xls spreadsheet.
My consolidated list includes all voting members of Synod and shows whether they voted for or against the motion, or recorded an abstention. A blank indicates that the member did not vote (perhaps because he/she was absent).
These were the motions before Synod on Wednesday 8 February.
The Manchester motion
13 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 Southwark amendment to item 13
35 Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert –
“(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.”.
The Spiers amendment to item 35
36 Leave out all the words after “request the House of Bishops” and insert –
“in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”
The motions were voted on in reverse order.
Item 36 was carried in a vote by houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 40 5 1 Clergy 122 70 1 Laity 107 85 4
Item 35 (as amended by 36) was then carried in a vote by house.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 26 16 5 Clergy 128 64 0 Laity 111 85 1
Item 13 (as amended by 35 as amended by 36) was then carried on a show of hands.
The motion before Synod on Thursday 9 February was
502 That the Synod do take note of this Report
where the report was that about final drafting. In effect the motion was asking Synod to approve the final drafting of the legislation. The motion was carried in a vote by houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 28 0 2 Clergy 149 14 8 Laity 132 37 10
The voting lists from the electronic votes taken at this month’s General Synod of the Church of England are now available as pdf files.
Women bishops legislation
item 35 results - Southwark amendment to Manchester motion
item 36 results - Spiers amendment to Southwark amendment
item 502 results - final drafting
Other matters
item 8 results - Assisted Dying
item 12 results - Archdeacons
item 17 results - Health care
item 34 results - Nigeria
item 37 results - standing orders amendment
Each pdf file also includes the full text of the motion being voting on.
Also available is the official summary of the business transacted at the Synod: Business Done.
The Church Times will publish its detailed reports from General Synod next week, but today they publish these news items.
Ed Thornton and Glyn Paflin Women vote now rests substantially with the Bishops
Madeleine Davies Synod condemns ‘outrageous’ attack on the sanctity of life
Gavin Drake Dr Williams issues warning on Nigeria
All three are available to non-subscribers.
And The Lead asks What really happened in the Church of England’s debate of female bishops?
In Christian Today is Bishop defends presence in House of Lords
John Bingham in The Telegraph Women bishops a step closer after Church of England vote
Ruth Gledhill in The Australian Leaders lose on female bishops
Trevor Timpson for the BBC Women bishops law must not be changed, say campaigners
This page will be updated during the day.
The final day’s business of this group of sessions started with worship led by the Deaf Anglicans Together representatives.
Synod then moved onto Additional Eucharistic Prayers. These are prayers intended for use when many children are present, and were being returned to Synod from the revision committee. Synod accepted the committee’s report and did not ask for any further revision.
These prayers will not be authorised for liturgical use unless and until they receive final approval at a later meeting of Synod.
Papers for Additional Eucharistic prayers
GS 1822A Additional Eucharistic Prayers
GS 1822Y Report by the Revision Committee
Synod then moved onto the final drafting of the draft legislation to allow women to become bishops. The only proposed amendments were Drafting Amendments (amendments where only the wording of the Measure is altered and not its substance) which are supposed to be non-controversial.
There was a vote by houses and the final drafting was passed by all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 28 0 2 Clergy 149 14 8 Laity 132 37 10
It is likely that those who voted against were voting against the general principle of the legislation rather than against the final drafting.
Papers for final drafting
GS 1708B Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709B Draft Amending Canon
GS 1708-9Z Report by the Steering Committee
The morning’s business ended with a presentation on Higher Education Funding Changes
Background paper for this item
GS Misc 1008 Higher Education Funding Changes
Here is the official summary of the morning’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Thursday 9th February 2012 AM
The afternoon session opened with a debate on Reform of the House of Lords.
The debate was on this motion moved by Professor Anthony Berry (Chester)
That this Synod request that the Archbishops’ Council establish a working group with members from each House of the General Synod to prepare the Church of England’s official response to the Government’s consultation on the reform of the House of Lords and that any such Church of England response should be tabled at General Synod in February 2012 for debate and approval.
Mrs April Alexander (Southwark) moved an amendment, which was accepted by Synod and which reworded the motion to read:
That this Synod, welcoming both the Archbishops’ submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the draft Bill on House of Lords Reform and the extension of the Episcopal group on Lords Reform to include members of the other two Houses of Synod:
(a) invite the extended group to bring to the February 2013 group of sessions
(i) an assessment of the implications for the Church and nation of any Bill to be brought forward by the Government, and
(ii) recommendations for changes in custom and practice to accommodate any new requirements placed on the Church; and(b) recognising the unpredictable nature of the passage of any such Bill through parliament, request that the extended group allow Synod members to contribute to published statements by alerting them in advance, by email where necessary, and inviting comments.
Synod voted on parts (a) and (b) separately. Part (a) (and the preamble) was passed, but part (b) was not. So the motion, as passed, was:
That this Synod, welcoming both the Archbishops’ submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the draft Bill on House of Lords Reform and the extension of the Episcopal group on Lords Reform to include members of the other two Houses of Synod invite the extended group to bring to the February 2013 group of sessions
(i) an assessment of the implications for the Church and nation of any Bill to be brought forward by the Government, and
(ii) recommendations for changes in custom and practice to accommodate any new requirements placed on the Church.
Papers for this item
GS 1856A and GS 1856B
Synod then moved onto a debate on Health Care and the Church’s Mission. The motion before Synod was:
That this Synod, mindful of Our Lord’s ministry of healing and his charge to his disciples to heal the sick in his name:
(a) affirm the ministry of all who promote health and wholeness in body, mind and spirit, and call upon Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that chaplaincy provision remains part of the core structure of a National Health Service committed to physical, mental and spiritual health;
(b) call upon Her Majesty’s Government to apply as the test to any proposed changes to the NHS whether they are best calculated to secure the provision throughout the country of effective and efficient healthcare services provided free at the point of delivery and according to clinical need;
(c) commend the work of mission agencies and the networks of the Anglican Communion in embodying the churches’ contribution to health and wholeness and promoting fairer sharing of health resources worldwide.
One amendment to the motion was carried (to add some words to paragraph(a)) so that the motion became:
That this Synod, mindful of Our Lord’s ministry of healing and his charge to his disciples to heal the sick in his name:
(a) affirm the ministry of all who promote health and wholeness in body, mind and spirit, and, recognising in particular the role of chaplains in the NHS as an expression of the Church of England’s commitment to minister to all in the community, whether as patients or healthcare
workers, call upon Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that chaplaincy provision remains part of the core structure of a National Health Service committed to physical, mental and spiritual health;(b) call upon Her Majesty’s Government to apply as the test to any proposed changes to the NHS whether they are best calculated to secure the provision throughout the country of effective and efficient healthcare services provided free at the point of delivery and according to clinical need;
(c) commend the work of mission agencies and the networks of the Anglican Communion in embodying the churches’ contribution to health and wholeness and promoting fairer sharing of health resources worldwide.
The motion (as amended) was carried by 208 votes in favour with none against and one recorded abstention.
Background paper for this item
GS 1857 Health Care and the Church’s Mission: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council
The Archbishop of Canterbury then paid tribute to John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, who will be retiring before the next meeting of General Synod.
Here is the official summary of the afternoon’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Thursday 9th February 2012 PM
That completed the business of this group of sessions. General Synod next meets from 6 to 10 July 2012 in York.
Michael White in The Guardian Fratricidal tensions at the Church of England Synod
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church of England reaches compromise on women bishops
Avril Ormsby for Reuters Church of England takes step towards allowing women bishops
Christian Today Church of England nears consensus on women bishops
Nelson Jones in the New Statesman When is a bishop not a bishop?
Torey Lightcap for The Lead Another step in female-bishop process in Church of England
[The last part of this appears to be copied from my article here on Thinking Anglicans.]
And two that I missed earlier.
Christian Today Archbishop seeks greater provision for opponents of women bishops
Christian Today India Church of England’s legislation on women bishops ‘needs more work’
The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke during this (Wednesday) morning’s debate on women bishops. There is a video, an audio file, and a transcript of what he said on his website.
Archbishop Rowan speaks in Synod debate on women bishops
In his remarks the Archbishop spoke about at two things.
First then – I’d like to pick up some of the questions that were asked yesterday about this question of ‘derivation’ and ‘delegation’, and see if that can be clarified at all for members of Synod.
and
Now, the second point relates to the second principle that I enunciated at the beginning – provision for minorities that respects theological integrity and pastoral continuity.
Update Thursday night I have corrected the voting figures on item 35; the number of bishops voting against was 16 (and not 15).
This page will be updated during the day as business proceeds.
The day started with a service of Holy Communion.
Synod then moved onto this motion on Recent Violence in Nigeria proposed by the Bishop of Durham
That this Synod, gravely concerned at the desperate plight of Christian communities in parts of Nigeria, as described in GS 1861, request the British Government to do all it can to support those in Nigeria seeking to protect religious minorities of all faiths and enable them to practise their religion without fear.
There is a brief background paper (GS 1861).
The Archbishop of Canterbury made this contribution to the debate.
The motion was carried with 344 votes in favour, none against and one recorded abstention.
Synod them moved onto the first of two items of business on the legislation to allow women to be bishops. This was the report (GS 1847) of the Business Committee on the reference of this legislation to the diocese. A couple of items were omitted from the report, and are listed in Notice Paper 10.
The motion before Synod was ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report’. Motions of this type allow a general debate on the report. Synod duly took note of the report and then adjourned for lunch.
Here is the official summary of the morning’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 8th February 2012 AM
Synod resumed at 2.30 pm.
The Diocesan Synod Motions on this topic, taken after lunch, are below the fold.
Initially the motion from Manchester was moved. The proposers of the other two motions have spoken, but will move their motions later. This procedure allows a general debate to be held on all three, before Synod moves onto debating and voting on each one specifically in turn (in the order 36, 35, 13).
4.50 pm All motions and amendments have now been moved. Voting will take place shortly.
5.05 pm Pete Spiers’ amendment (item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 40 5 1 Clergy 122 70 1 Laity 107 85 4
Following this amendment, the text of item 35 (a proposed amendment to item 13), became:
35 (as amended by item 36) Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert –
“(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 in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”.
5.25 pm Item 35 (as amended by item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below
For Against Abstentions Bishops 26 16 5 Clergy 128 64 0 Laity 111 85 1
5.30 pm Item 13 (as amended by item 35) was then carried on a show of hands. Here is the final text of the motion as passed by Synod.
13 (as amended by item 35)
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 in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.
Synod then took a ten minute break before moving onto a debate on its standing orders. There was then a delay as too many members had taken the opportunity to have a cup of tea, and some had to be called back to make up a quorum.
The only item requiring debate was a proposed change to standing orders to make the Chair of Synod’s Business Committee an elected position, rather than a position appointed by the Archbishops’ Council and subject to confirmation by Synod.
The Bishop of Willesden proposed an amendment to restrict the position to members of the houses of clergy and laity (ie not a bishop). This was defeated with 99 votes in favour and 103 against, with 9 recorded abstentions.
The original proposal was then carried on a show of hands.
There was not time to take a following motion, so this concluded the day’s business.
Here is the official summary of the afternoon’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 8th February 2012 PM
Motions before Synod in the afternoon
The Ven Cherry Vann, Archdeacon of Rochdale (Manchester) to move on behalf of the Manchester Diocesan Synod:
13 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 Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett (Southwark) to move as an amendment on behalf of the Southwark Diocesan Synod
35 Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert –
“(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.”.
The Revd Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool) to move (with the permission of the Chair) as an amendment to item 35:
36 Leave out all the words after “request the House of Bishops” and insert –
“in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”
Ekklesia C of E General Synod hears of climate change chaos in Bangladesh
Mark Hennessy in The Irish Times Church of England synod to decide on women bishops
Christian Today Church of England’s legislation on women bishops ‘needs more work’
BBC General Synod discussing women bishops compromise bid
Lancashire Evening Post Are we ready for a female bishop?
Richard Vernalls in the Worcester News Women should be bishops, says city’s top churchman
Matthew Davies in Episcopal News Service Church of England resumes women bishops debate
John Walsh in The Independent Church debate: Who’d be a bishop?
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church of England votes to increase marriage and funeral fees
Press Association C of E wedding fees to rise by 40%
The Guardian offers this Head to head between Rosie Harper and Adrian Furse: Should the Church of England allow female bishops?
The Telegraph CoE synod: Cost of weddings and funerals to dramatically rise
There were a number of questions asked relating to the two recently announced House of Bishops working groups dealing with sexuality issues. None of these questions were reached during the session, so here are the written answers that would have been given.
Judith Maltby asked
Q. Given the inclusion of a man who is not a bishop in the group to advise the House of Bishops on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality, are there any plans to include some women members in order to achieve at least a partial gender balance on this currently all-male group addressing the complex issue of human sexuality?
The Archbishop of York to reply:
A. The Archbishop of Canterbury and I made the appointments to this group, after consultation with Standing Committee of the House. It was, like the parallel group on civil partnerships, established as a small episcopal group. We concluded, however, that there was advantage in inviting a distinguished and independent outsider to chair and facilitate the process.
We do not intend to enlarge the membership of the group but it will be open to the group to consider how others can help it in its work, including, if it so decides, through inviting individuals to serve as consultants or assessors.
Giles Goddard asked:
Q. In the interests of transparency and of gaining the confidence of the Church of England in their reports, how are the terms of reference for the House of Bishops’ working groups on human sexuality and civil partnerships to be agreed and when will they be published?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. The 1 July statement from the House of Bishops constitutes the terms of reference for both groups.
Stephen Coles asked
Q. What provisions are being made to ensure that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Anglicans are consulted by both the group reviewing the Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships and that advising the House on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality.
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. Before Christmas I wrote on behalf of the civil partnership group to a number of groups inviting them to submit representations and have now received replies from them all and some submissions from others. These include a detailed submission from the LGBT Coalition and some of its associated bodies. I understand that the group on human sexuality is to have its first meeting shortly and will be considering then how it is going to go about its task.
Stephen Coles asked:
Q. To what extent were the provisions of the Equality Act taken into account by the House of Bishops when they declared a moratorium on the appointment of clergy in civil partnerships to the episcopate?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. On this as on other matters where legal issues are at stake, the House had the benefit of support from its Legal Adviser who had been involved both in the preparation of the relevant papers and was present at the discussion which took the decisions set out in the 1 July statement.
April Alexander asked:
Q. Recent press statements (5 January 2012 and 1 July 2011) on human sexuality and on civil partnerships indicate that the appointed working groups undertake to “draw together material from the listening process”. Can further information be provided about this process, including such matters as who has listened to whom (in broad terms), when they listened, what they heard and how they overcame the difficulty that homosexual priests do not feel free to declare themselves in order to participate?
The Bishop of Gloucester to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. The House of Bishops’ mandate for drawing together material from the listening process was set out in its statement of 1 July and given to the group of which I am now a member. We have a more extended timescale than the group reviewing the 2005 statement on civil partnerships and are just about to have our first meeting. So I can’t say much today about how we shall be setting about our task. But I can give an assurance that we shall certainly want, among other things, to assemble and reflect on the very considerable range of material and experience that has emerged from the listening process around dioceses since 1998.
Order paper for Tuesday’s business
The first item of business was Parochial Fees.
Some, but not all, of the amendments listed in the order paper were carried. The amended Fees Order was then approved by Synod.
Background Papers for this debate
GS 1852 Draft Parochial Fees and Scheduled Matters Amending Order 2012
GS 1852X Explanatory Memorandum
GS Misc 1015 Draft Fees Order, An explanation of the proposed fee levels
Synod then moved onto the Draft Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure
Papers for this debate
GS 1814A Draft Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure
GS 1814Y Report by the Revision Committee
The final business in the morning was the Draft Diocese in Europe Measure
Papers for this debate
GS 1853 Draft Diocese in Europe Measure
GS 1853X and Explanatory Memorandum
Here is the official summary of the morning’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 7th February 2012 AM
The afternoon started with a presentation by the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on the Draft Code of Practice (GS Misc 1007) required by the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure.
Presentations at Synod allow members to ask questions, but not to make speeches.
After the presentation Synod moved onto The Ecclesastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2012
The amendment in the order paper was agreed, after which the order was approved.
Papers for this item
GS 1858 The Draft Order
GS 1858X and Explanatory Memorandum
As Synod finished this business earlier that expected, a gap opened up in the agenda which was filled with this Chichester diocesan synod about the Appointment of Archdeaccons originally planned to be taken tomorrow.
That this Synod request that Canon C 22.1 be amended to read “No person shall be capable of receiving the appointment of archdeacon unless he has been six years complete in holy orders at the time of appointment
At the end of the debate the Bishop of Chichester successfully called for a vote by houses. The motion was defeated in all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 9 21 0 Clergy 31 118 1 Laity 53 84 9
The day’s business finished with a presentation by Mrs Sally Keeble (Director of the Anglican Alliance for Relief, Development and Advocacy) about the work of the Alliance, followed by questions.
Here is the official summary of the afternoon’s business
Summary of business conducted on Tuesday 7th February 2012 PM
updated Tuesday at noon and in the afternoon
Andrew Brown in The Guardian General Synod: the perfect forum for Anglicans who want to avoid decisions
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church of England has ‘no plan B’ on female bishops
The Australian Anglican male co-bishop talk rubbished
Christian Today Call to Church of England to defend traditional marriage
Steve Doughty in the Mail Online Legalising assisted dying would be a disaster that undermines sanctity of life, Archbishop warns
Updates
Peter Mullen wrote this comment article for the Telegraph: Let us pray for those against women bishops.
John Bingham in The Telegraph Archbishop Rowan Williams: assisted suicide could spell ‘disaster’
There is a change to the agenda for Wednesday morning. See GS 1861 which contains a background briefing note by the Bishop of Durham, Justin Welby.
Recent violence in Nigeria
In view of the recent serious violence in Nigeria the Bishop of Durham travelled to the country at short notice on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury to meet members of the Anglican Church in Nigeria and others caught up in the deteriorating situation there.Following the Bishop’s return we have decided, in the exercise of our powers under Standing Order 4 (b) in relation to urgent or other especially important business, to direct the addition to the agenda for the February Group of sessions of a short debate. This will enable the Synod to hear from the Bishop of Durham, to reflect on the attached briefing note and, if it agrees, to pass a short motion that the Bishop will move on our behalf in the following terms:
“That this Synod, gravely concerned at the desperate plight of Christian communities in parts of Nigeria as described in GS 1861, request the British Government to do all it can to support those in Nigeria seeking to protect religious minorities of all faiths and enable them to practise their religion without fear.”
+ Rowan Cantuar: + Sentamu Ebor:
3 February 2012
On Wednesday General Synod will be holding a debate on two diocesan synod motions relating to women bishops. The details of this have already been explained here.
There were several other dioceses that passed resolutions in support of the Archbishops’ Amendment, although many more dioceses rejected such an amendment. However, it turns out that all those who did will get some preferential treatment in the debate, as revealed by this Question and Answer from tonight’s Questions session. As this was the very last question on the list, it was not reached during the session, which is why I am reporting it now.
The Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) to ask the Clerk to the Synod:
Q. As it is normal practice, where more than one diocese has submitted a DSM in identical or similar terms, for the diocese(s) concerned to be invited to nominate someone who could speak on behalf of their diocesan synod in the General Synod debate on the DSM and then to draw this to the attention of the person chairing the debate, is it also normal practice to invite the diocese(s) whose synods had rejected a motion in identical or similar terms to those of the DSM to nominate someon who could speak on behalf of their diocesan synod in the debate on the DSM and then to draw this to the attention of the person chairing the debate?
Dr Colin Podmore to reply as Clerk to the Synod:
A. The reason for the practice to which the question refers is that a motion moved at the instance of a diocesan synod can only be moved once in the same, or a substantially similar, form, yet it would be discourteous to a diocesan synod that submitted a motion listed in Special Agenda IV if it (or a motion in a substantially similar form) were debated without a representative being called to speak.
That consideration does not apply in the case of motions that diocesan synods have rejected, or have passed without submitting them for inclusion in Special Agenda IV. However, individual members may of course seek to speak in the debate.
In any event, the overriding duty of the Chair in all debates is to ensure that there is a balance of speakers for and against the motion and any amendments.
The Church of England General Synod opened this afternoon. I will update this page with reports of the Synod’s business during the day. The full agenda is here.
There is a live audio link from Synod here.
The Church of England’s own summary of the day’s business is here.
Monday’s Business
The Archbishop of Canterbury moved a Loyal Address to the Queen to mark her Diamond Jubilee; Synod members were all in favour.
Synod debated the report of the Business Committee. This is largely an opportunity for members to complain about items that are not on the agenda, eg same-sex marriage, and how the debate on the Manchester and Southward motions on women bishops has been arranged.
The dates of Synod sessions in 2014-2015 were agreed. I have posted these dates here.
The Archbishops’ nomination of Rebecca Swinson for a five-year term on the Archbishops’ Council was accepted. Andrew Britton’s membership of the Council was extended for twelve months to 30 September 2012.
Independent Commission on Assisted Dying
Mrs Sarah Finch (London) moved her private member’s motion:
That this Synod express its concern that the Independent Commission on Assisted Dying is insufficiently independent to be able to develop proposals which will properly protect the interests of vulnerable and disabled people.
Mr Philip Fletcher (Archbishops’ Council) proposed this amendment, which was carried.
After the words “That this Synod” insert “(a)”.
After the words “Assisted Dying” leave out “is” and insert “was”.
And
After the words “disabled people” insert -
“;
(b) endorse the responses to the Commission on Assisted Dying referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of GS 1851B;
(c) affirm the intrinsic value of every human life and express its support for the current law on assisted suicide as a means of contributing to a just and compassionate society in which vulnerable people are protected; and
(d) celebrating the considerable improvement in the quality of care of the dying brought about by the hospice and palliative care movements and by the input of clinicians, clergy and others, encourage the Church’s continued involvement in the wider agenda of the care of those approaching the end of their lives and the support of those caring form them.”.
The amended motion then read:
That this Synod
(a) express its concern that the Independent Commission on Assisted Dying was insufficiently independent to be able to develop proposals which will properly protect the interests of vulnerable and disabled people;
(b) endorse the responses to the Commission on Assisted Dying referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of GS 1851B;
(c) affirm the intrinsic value of every human life and express its support for the current law on assisted suicide as a means of contributing to a just and compassionate society in which vulnerable people are protected; and
(d) celebrating the considerable improvement in the quality of care of the dying brought about by the hospice and palliative care movements and by the input of clinicians, clergy and others, encourage the Church’s continued involvement in the wider agenda of the care of those approaching the end of their lives and the support of those caring form them.
The amended motion was carried with 284 votes in favour and none against. There were 4 recorded abstentions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in this debate and has published this summary of his speech.
Background papers for this debate: GS 1851A and GS 1851B
Synod then moved onto the final business of the day: Questions.
Some live blogs from Synod
General Synod blog
Jeremy Fletcher
Riazat Butt
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.
Updated Monday 6 February Links to an addendum for GS 1854C and to more notice papers have been added.
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, GS 1854C Addendum 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
Notice Paper 9
Notice Paper 10
Notice Paper 11
Notice Paper 12
Notice Paper 13
Notice Paper 14
Notice Paper 15
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