Thinking Anglicans

The motion on women bishops

To put into context the letter recently published arguing for further delay in the process of deciding about women bishops in the Church of England, the full wording of the motion to be debated is published below the fold.

The motion does not, as was the expectation earlier, ask synod to decide anything about the specific options for proceeding (see here for what the Rochester report said about options.)

It only asks for a decision yes/no about proceeding further at all.

If a yes decision is made, it asks that a further report be published before the February 2006 synod meeting and that options should be debated at that time. (No action on this topic is proposed for the November 2005 meeting.) A committee of the House of Bishops chaired by Christopher Hill is already working on this report.

Monday 11 July at 2.30 p.m.


The Bishop of Southwark to move:

19. ‘That this Synod

(a) consider that the process for removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate should now be set in train;

(b) invite the House of Bishops, in consultation with the Archbishops’ Council, to complete by January 2006, and report to the Synod, the assessment which it is making of the various options for achieving this; and

(c) instruct the Business Committee to make sufficient time available in the February 2006 group of sessions for the Synod to debate the report, determine on what basis it wants the necessary legislation prepared and establish the necessary drafting group.’

The next timed agenda item is not until 8.30 p.m. Thus the entire afternoon is allocated for this debate.


  • The Revd. LJ Roberts says:

    You’ll be consecrating gays next–oops forgot you already do–with the provio that they, and you, are dishonest about it.

  • jody says:

    Contrary to the helpful (?!) post above, I do not see that the homosexuality discussions and male/female discussions lead from one to the other. I am quite surprised that a theologically trained person would suggest this is the case, as I am assuming ‘Revd LJ Roberts’ is theologically trained. My understanding of the debate regarding male/female is that it is thoroughly based in our understandings of the creation order at Genesis, depending on how you understand the proper translation of the Hebrew together with a fresh and honest look at what the text actually says rather than what we read into it (ie because Eve was made from Adam does not necessarily advocate subordination of Eve – ref Gilbert Bilezikian – amongst lots of other refutations we could discuss regarding historical understanding of the text). It would be helpful for me as a lay Anglican to feel that there were more of our church leaders committed to an helpful open discussion about male/female image in God, rather than clergy who are unthinking enough to make a statement like the above.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *