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.
3 CommentsThe Evening Standard reports:
A Church of England bishop today supported gay marriage, saying God is not “an angry old man out to get us”.
Bishop of Buckingham Alan Wilson, a married father of five, caused a row in the Church by urging leaders to “get our head around blessing gay people’s relationships”.
He said in a YouTube video for the Out4Marriage campaign: “It all comes down to how we see gay people and how we see God. We don’t actually believe gay people are sick or stunted or criminal. We don’t believe God is an angry old man out to get us.
“Let’s stop behaving as though we did. Recognising gay people are equal means they won’t dilute or spoil marriage but potentially enrich it.”
The video made by the Bishop of Buckingham, The Right Reverend Alan Wilson can be viewed here.
But, according to the Evening Standard:
A Church of England spokesman contradicted Dr Wilson. “Our Church is committed to marriage as being between a man and woman,” he said.
“Opening marriage to same-sex couples would add nothing to the rights and responsibilities that already exist within a civil partnership but would require multiple changes to law, with the definition of marriage having to change for everyone.”
And the newspaper also reports:
Influential Tory Party Right-winger Lord Ashcroft urged the Prime Minister to ignore traditionalists urging him to abandon the proposed law. The peer revealed private polling suggested dropping gay marriage would offend more people than it would please.
He said: “Ditching gay marriage would probably be more likely to put off joiners and considerers — whom we need if we are to win a majority — than it would win back defectors.”
Earlier this week, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson also gave the campaign his support in this video.
17 CommentsResponses 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)
8 Comments‘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 House of Commons Library has published a briefing note, dealing primarily with the situation in England and Wales, and summarising published responses to the recent government consultation on equal civil marriage. It gives a good deal of space to the arguments put forward in the official Church of England response.
The full briefing paper is available here, as a PDF file.
Two members of the House of Commons have recently published their own views on this topic.
John Howell MP has written a paper on Gay Civil Marriage. He says:
I have had a number of e mails over the past weeks both from those who support gay civil marriage and those who oppose it. Many of the latter are based on template instructions issued to constituents by the Coalition for Marriage when writing to MPs and reflect a standard suite of points. However, the issue of Gay Civil Marriage is not one which can be boiled down to a few bullet points without radically undermining the complexity of the issues involved or producing a simplistic standard campaign letter.
In addition, some of those who have written to me predominantly from a religious perspective have not sufficiently recognised that what we are talking about is gay civil marriage or that the theological arguments are themselves complex and allow for different approaches even within a Christian tradition.
I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made and I read with care the reasons given as to why some oppose this change. However, I have to say that I do not agree with them. However, in recognition of the sincerity with which many have put their views forward I have attached a paper to this page as a pdf download which I have put together myself and which sets out my own perspective on this issue. It runs to 7 pages which is, at the very least, an attempt to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves and hopefully makes a thoughtful contribution to the debate whether you agree with me or not.
His full paper can be read here (PDF).
Tom Harris MP has also written. He titled his article Confessions of a Recovering Evangelical.
The vast majority of opposition to the idea of equal marriage comes from the Church and the followers of the other non-Christian religions. Homosexuality is a sinful state, they believe, therefore gay relationships should not be endorsed or approved of by the state.
I should say at the outset that I consider myself a Christian. Not a very good one, I admit, but a Christian nonetheless. In a former life I was very evangelical and spent a lot of time studying the Bible and trying to “convert” my less enlightened, hellbound friends. These days I am what a parliamentary colleague rather wonderfully described as a “recovering evangelical”. I’ll settle for that.
I still have lots of friends who were better at staying the course than I was. At least three of them are full-time leaders of their respective churches, and many others remain far more regular attendees at worship than I. So when I hear members of the clergy or lay members of the Church decrying moves towards equal marriage, or when I receive letters from local church members in my constituency warning me of the dire consequences of this move, I kind of understand where they’re coming from. I don’t agree with them, dearie me, no. I’m forthright and unapologetic in my support for equal marriage, largely on the (some might say counter-intuitive) basis that I’m a strong believer in marriage and therefore want to encourage as many as possible to give it a go…
This has provoked a response from Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs, the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, which is titled Response to a Recovering Evangelical.
22 Comments…The key point in our submission on same sex marriage is that the virtues of faithful homosexual relationships cannot embrace everything that is good about heterosexual marriage. There is an inescapable difference and complementarity between men and women that allows procreation to be an important component of a marriage between a man and a woman. Yes, of course many marriages are childless, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that a flourishing society needs some sort of social institution that celebrates and encourages having children and their upbringing in a family with their biological parents wherever possible. Our concern is emphatically not to say that same-sex relationships are wicked, but to ask what sort of a society we would have if the social meaning of marriage was stripped of any expectation at all that it involved having children. You don’t have to agree with our analysis of this, but many would surely agree that it is a question worth asking.
Unfortunately, the Coalition’s consultation on Equal Marriage is based on a profound ignorance of the current laws about marriage and, to be blunt, is a dog’s breakfast of erroneous assumptions and begged questions. The mistaken assumption that “religious marriage” and “civil marriage” are two different things in law is only the most egregious example of the GEO document’s failings. These points have nothing to do with Christian approaches to sexuality, but the church had no option but to oppose a proposal which would be based on such an utter misreading of the law and of the Church of England’s present role as a “purveyor of weddings to the nation”…
The Guardian has published a precis of the new Preface to Permanent, Faithful, Stable in Wednesday’s newspaper in the Comment section. You can read it online here: Under Rowan Williams, the church has failed gay people.
Lizzy Davies has written a news story to accompany this, which is also in Wednesday’s newspaper on page 2: Anglican stance on same-sex marriage ‘morally contemptible’, says gay cleric.
She concludes her article thus:
21 Comments…Condemning the leadership of the Church of England for apparently prioritising the unity of the worldwide Anglican communion over gay rights, John adds: “This policy may be institutionally expedient, but it is morally contemptible. Worst of all, by appeasing their persecutors it betrays the truly heroic gay Christians of Africa who stand up for justice and truth at risk of their lives. For the mission of the Church of England the present policy is a disaster.”
In the postscript, John denounces the church for “sanctioning” liberal wings of the communion while capitulating to vehemently homophobic churches. “This is morality turned upside down; and the inevitable result is that people of goodwill with a concern for justice and truth turn away from the Church in disgust,” he writes.
“Almost as long as it has existed, the Church has been directly responsible for evils and injustices committed against gay people, and it is responsible for them still. Appalling atrocities have been perpetrated on homosexuals by the Church, or in the name of the Church, or as in Nazi Germany, with the tacit connivance of the Church. Yet there is still not a glimmer of repentance; rather the opposite – an arrogant restatement of ‘traditional’ exclusion and contempt.”
A Church of England spokesman said: “These are very strong personal opinions that Jeffrey John has expounded before.” The Church was far more inclusive than they made it seem, as testified to by the fact that John, an openly gay man, occupied a senior position in it, he added.
Darton, Longman and Todd is republishing the book by Dr Jeffrey John previously titled Permanent, Faithful, Stable and originally published in 1993 (second edition in 2000).
The 2012 edition has been retitled: Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian Same-Sex Marriage. There is a new Foreword by Mark Oakley, Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral, and a forthright new Preface and new Postscript by Jeffrey John, urging the church to back the government’s proposal to legalise gay marriage.
The book is available now from the publisher, from Church House Bookshop, and soon from Amazon UK and Amazon USA.
Inclusive Church has reproduced the publisher’s press release.
1 CommentThe 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.
3 CommentsCNC Elections – House of Clergy
CNC Elections – House of Laity
The Deputy Prime Minister announced this week that the the Government does not intend to proceed with Lords reform in this parliament.
The Church of England then issued this Statement from the Bishop of Leicester on the House of Lords Reform Bill.
All this is reported today in the Church Times (sadly subscription only) under the headline Bishops safe as Lords Bill dropped.
David Pocklington has written at Law and Religion UK about Parliamentary Reform and the Bishops. He includes the following comment:
Perhaps instead of proclaiming ‘Bishops safe, as Clegg drops Lords’ Bill’, the headline in the Church Times should have read ‘Bishops miss opportunity to reorganize strategically’.
Earlier, Frank Cranmer had written Parliament: plans for House of Lords reform abandoned and now he has added Bishops in the Lords: a non-English perspective.
The British Humanist Association which has opposed bishops in the Lords consistently reported it this way: Government abandons House of Lords reform.
6 CommentsAt the Church of England General Synod sessions in July, this motion was passed:
‘That this Synod, recognizing the Church of England’s historic and continuing participation in world mission as essential to our identity as members of the universal Church
(a) welcome the report entitled World-Shaped Mission and commend it to the dioceses, deaneries and parishes of the Church of England for further study;
(b) affirm the ongoing role of the Mission Agencies in resourcing the mission of the Church of England at home and overseas;
(c) affirm the continuing growth, whether through the Diocesan Companion Links, initiatives by parishes or otherwise in the relationships between the Church of England, the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and the world church
(d) encourage the building of continuing partnership between all involved in Church of England world mission and development relationships.
The ACNS has now published Continuing Indaba team welcomes “biggest change to mission policy in 50 years”.
The Church of England’s recent decision to move its model of mission from one of dependency to mutuality has been warmly welcomed by the Anglican Communion’s Continuing Indaba team.
The resolution passed at the York synod was not only a major step for Church of England, but also a boost for everyone involved with the Anglican Communion’s efforts to encourage dialogue across difference.
“This vision of a new way of doing mission has far reaching consequences for the Church of England and the Anglican Communion,” said Continuing Indaba’s Canon Phil Groves. “The World-Shaped Mission report endorsed at the Synod asks dioceses to commit to principles of partnership that encourage the continuation of a journey from former patterns of dependency towards mutuality.
“That means a move away from a model where Anglicans in the North are simply giving resources to those global South, to one where members of the Communion are genuinely giving and receiving to one another.”
What’s more, the report also contains commitments to partnership through listening and learning, listening across cultures through Indaba, and using Continuing Indaba and similar processes….
The Continuing Indaba website is here. It contains lots of resource materials.
Some earlier ACNS press releases:
Continuing Indaba is celebrated as “a wonderful gift to the Communion”
And there was this ENS report: Continuing Indaba enables ‘gospel-shaped conversation’ which includes some videos.
3 CommentsRobert Cotton, Rector of Holy Trinity Guildford and a member of the General Synod, writes …
At various points in the Measure actions are described which, it must be presumed and hoped, spring from deeply held beliefs; but these beliefs are not described. For example, section 2 (5) says “ … includes a statement by the bishop that he will not ordain women to the office of priest…” This statement is a declared action with no reference to the supporting theological rationale. Moreover, the provision that must be made in the diocesan scheme flowing from the bishop’s statement does not need to refer to the attitude of the diocesan bishop. ‘Legislation is generally about the achievement of practical objectives’ (paragraph 35, GS Misc 1033). So there are already examples within the Measure of restraint being shown. Legislation is not the best place to name and describe theological convictions.
This is partly because theological convictions appear different to different people. My passionately held belief may appear to you to be prejudice, or vice versa. The church flourishes when convictions are articulated and understood, and not merely held. In particular, spiritual discernment is made possible when theological convictions are articulated in the company of those who may disagree. Convictions may become held more passionately when we speak with our sympathisers, but they become better tested when we are not “preaching to the choir”. Indeed, it is a present danger for the church increasingly to fragment into pockets of ardently held beliefs where the ability to listen and speak is not fully practised. It is humbling to be in a position that our deeply held convictions are not convincing others. Such humility is needed both for conversations within the church and, even more pressingly, with those ‘in the world’.
So, theological convictions may themselves be necessary but not sufficient. The Archbishop of Canterbury identified that something was missing in section 2 (1) of the original Measure in his speech to Synod on July 9 (Para 33, GS Misc 1033). He pointed out that the church should be rightly fearful of accommodating itself to certain beliefs. But paragraph 36 notes that it is very difficult as well as contentious to seek to define what theological convictions are acceptable. It may also be seen to be inappropriate for legislation to attempt this task. What the legislation can do is commit all parties to become involved in further discernment by requiring there to be conversations that explore both the roots and consequences of firmly held beliefs. Indeed, the example that is frequently used is misogyny. Given that what to you appears to be misogyny may be to the other person a deeply held belief (a theological conviction), the example acknowledges that there are theological convictions that can be deemed unacceptable. The method for making that judgement must include conversation between interested parties; no legislation can be sufficient in itself to determine the rightness or otherwise of theological convictions.
The logic of these points moves us towards option 4. Restraint urges us to ‘prune the provision’ (Para 52); but this must be balanced by reference to process. So the suggested wording in paragraph 55, second option, captures these two aspects. Paragraph 56 raises a concern that there is no ‘assurance that the guidance would result in the provision of ministry that parishes would be able to receive’ – nor should it. For, as has already been established, there are deeply held beliefs, that will be presented as theological convictions, which the church should resist accommodating (see the archbishop’s remarks). Rather the inclusion of reference to process ensures that there will be opportunity ‘to discover more than is apparent from the Letter of Request’ (Para 60).
Seen as an enlargement of option 4, option 5 falls foul of the criteria of seeking to state too much. We have already recognised that a desire to have a male bishop leaves the theological rationale unsaid. This is inappropriate for relationships (where reasoning needs to be offered, heard and discussed), but appropriate for legislation (which is not the right forum for such discernment). In a similar way, the consequences that flow from having a male bishop should also be left unspoken within legislation, but articulated in the context of spiritual relationships between bishops, priests and parishes. The structure of the theological argument should be “we request a male bishop for XYZ theological reasons so that ABC may follow”. For example, a Traditional Catholic parish should be able to describe the particular ways in which it will flourish given the provision of a male bishop. Both reasons and goals, once discussed, heard and respected, will enable parishes, priests and bishops to work actively together with mutual understanding. The word “effective” in paragraph 67 is a good example of legislation over-reaching itself. No law can assure parishes of effective ministry; only proper training, active prayer and the blessings of the Holy Spirit can do that. So legislation itself is not the right place for reasons (XYZ) or goals (ABC).
4 CommentsThis 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:
12 Comments91. 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.
The Prime Minister hosted a reception at 10 Downing Street on Tuesday evening, and a transcript of his remarks has been published: Prime Minister’s speech at Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Reception.
There have been several reports of this event including:
Changing Attitude David Cameron reveals government’s total commitment to equal marriage
Pink News Exclusive: Out4Marriage says David Cameron personally backs gay religious marriages
Thurible At Number 10
The speech linked above includes the following paragraph:
…I run an institution – the Conservative Party – which for many many years got itself on the wrong side of this argument, it locked people out who were naturally Conservative from supporting it and so I think I can make that point to the Church, gently. Of course this is very, very complicated and difficult issue for all the different Churches, but I passionately believe that all institutions need to wake up to the case for equality, and the Church shouldn’t be locking out people who are gay, or are bisexual or are transgender from being full members of that Church, because many people with deeply held Christian views, are also gay. And just as the Conservative Party, as an institution, made a mistake in locking people out so I think the Churches can be in danger of doing the same thing…
This has provoked a response from Anglican Mainstream Prime Minister urged to correct serious misrepresentation.
And Reform has issued this Media Statement.
87 CommentsUpdated
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.
6 CommentsTo 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.
12 CommentsThe Dean of St Albans, The Very Reverend Dr Jeffrey John, has made a video for the Out4Marriage website.
You can view it via this link.
He was a signatory to a letter to the editor of The Times on this topic, published in April, which is reproduced here.
23 CommentsIan 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.
1 CommentIt was announced earlier this week that the Bishop of Durham is to serve on the Banking Standards Commission. Here is the Church of England press release.
Bishop of Durham to serve on Banking Standards Commission
17 July 2012The Rt Revd Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham, has been invited to sit on the Parliamentary Commission On Banking Standards. His appointment to the Commission underlines the depth and value of the non-partisan expertise the Lords Spiritual bring to their work in the House of Lords.
The Commission will be chaired by Andrew Tyrie MP, Chairman of the Commons Treasury Select Committee. The terms of reference set out in the motion which established the Commission require it to consider and report on ‘professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector, taking account of regulatory and competition investigations into the Libor rate-setting process’ and ‘lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy’.
Following graduation, Bishop Justin spent most of his professional life in business, including 11 years in the oil industry. He was part of the senior management team of a large British exploration and production company, responsible for its financing operations, eventually becoming Group Treasurer of Enterprise Oil PLC in 1984.
Giles Fraser interviews the bishop for The Guardian: The Saturday interview: Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham
There are some press reports of the bishop’s appointment.
Ed Thornton in The Church Times Durham joins team to tackle banks
And The Guardian has a list of all the commission members: Parliamentary commission on banking standards set up.
2 CommentsThe 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.
0 CommentsThis 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.
14 Comments