We reported earlier on the outcome of the legal dispute at the Parish of Trumpington.
The Cambridge Evening News now has this report: Sacked vicar’s tirade over departure:
A VICAR sacked for “spitting” at his parishioners has posted a lengthy website criticism over his departure.
However, the Rev Tom Ambrose has withdrawn his bid to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights and an employment tribunal after being sacked from his Trumpington parish.
The parish becomes vacant from today and in two ‘vicar writes’ articles on the St Mary and St Michael Parish Church page of the diocese site, the Rev Ambrose is critical of the Bishop of Ely’s handling of the matter…
The two articles in question can be found (for now at least) at
Response to the Bishop of Ely’s decision
Legal representation to the Bishop
Copies of both documents have been archived: here, and also here.
4 CommentsStephen Bates has written a major essay: Church of England: Beset by liberals, hounded by conservatives, Williams needs a miracle to keep church intact.
26 CommentsPreaching to the converted
Gene Robinson is the Anglican church’s only openly gay bishop. He was denied an invitation to this week’s Lambeth conference but came anyway and on Sunday gave a dramatic sermon in London disrupted by heckling. What’s all the fuss about? Stephen Bates explains, while political sketch-writer Simon Hoggart, theatre critic Lyn Gardner and gay atheist Gareth McLean review the bishop’s performance.
Giles Fraser made his own comments earlier, in Here’s to you, Mr Robinson.
23 CommentsChristopher Landau of the BBC has a report Sexuality stance ‘embarrasses’ Anglicans.
Episcopal News Service has this report by Matthew Davies of her Sunday activities in Salisbury, Salisbury diocese welcomes Presiding Bishop, Sudanese bishops for pre-Lambeth hospitality initiative.
7 CommentsThe Tablet had a leader article about this: Peter, Paul and women bishops. (The previous week they had Flight from women bishops.)
The Bishop of Durham issued an Ad Clerum on General Synod, which can be read here.
1 CommentJim Naughton has published some further reflections on the event, at Live: the sermon, the protester, the press, etc. Part II.
He also corrects some misinformation elsewhere, viz:
1. It is true that many people in the Episcopal Church would like to get us out from under Resolution B033, the legislation passed on the last day of our 2006 General Convention which calls upon “Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” This isn’t a secret. Numerous dioceses have already submitted resolutions to next year’s General Convention asking that the legislation be repealed, or superseded. If this legislation passes (a big if—I am not sure there are enough votes in the House of Bishops to get the job done) a gay candidate would have a better chance of being elected and confirmed. The notion that if the legislation passed we’d immediately elect another gay bishop is speculative. The notion that we’d suddenly have five or six is hallucinatory. At this point, it is not even possible to know for which dioceses will be electing bishops, which priests would be chosen as candidates, or how the internal dynamics of the dioceses would affect the elections. (I have gone on about this at some length because I have had calls from three reporters about this story this morning.)
2. Integrity has not provided cell phones for all of the Episcopal bishops attending the Lambeth Conference—or even for those sympathetic to its agenda. The Episcopal Church has provided cell phones for all its bishops—and their spouses, too, I believe.
Those who are not yet satiated with information about last night can find even more material here:
Full video of the sermon is here.
The Bishop of New Hampshire’s own blog is here.
2 CommentsGuardian
Riazat Butt Church of England: Gay bishop accuses church leaders of mistake over invitation snub
Stephen Bates Repent! Biker’s blast at bishop
The Times
Ruth Gledhill Gay American Bishop Gene Robinson accuses opponents of ‘idolatry’
Telegraph
Martin Beckford Gay bishop Gene Robinson criticises Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
Daily Mail Steve Doughty ‘Heretic’: The first openly gay bishop is pilloried in the pulpit by a long-haired heckler
Episcopal News Service Church need not be afraid, New Hampshire bishop tells Putney gathering
Jim Naughton Live: The sermon, the press, the protestor, etc.
Integrity Fear Not! Gene Robinson preaches at Putney
BBC Heckle that symbolises Church split
Earlier reports are here.
10 CommentsPress Association Protester hits gay bishop’s sermon
BBC Protest disrupts bishop’s sermon
Channel 4 News Katie Razzall Protestor disrupts the sermon by the world’s first openly gay bishop
This video report includes fragments of an interview made earlier today before the service, and summarises the background events leading up to the Lambeth Conference.
Riazat Butt writes at the Guardian that Ian McKellen accuses Anglican church of homophobia.
Watch the entire interview with Andrew Marr on the BBC website here.
13 CommentsThe Sunday Times has an article by John Sentamu Britain’s cruel snub to exiled Zimbabweans.
1 CommentThe full reports of General Synod debates in this week’s newspaper are subscriber-only until next week.
The following news reports by Bill Bowder are available:
Will Catholics stay? The answer is in code
And, there is a leader column: Not the time for hasty reactions:
2 CommentsTHERE ARE, of course, no women bishops in the Church of England; nor will there be for several years. This means that there is a long time in which to reflect on the outcome of Monday’s vote in the General Synod. It is clear that the mind of the majority in Synod was against introducing a legally separate body for those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops, and who is to say that this does not reflect the mind of the Church at large? Apart from the wish to represent generally the view of those in the pews, it is probable that last week’s talks of splits relating to the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) made the Synod even warier than it might formerly have been of anything that looked as if it encouraged formal division. At issue now is whether the manner in which women bishops will be introduced will lead to just such a division in any case…
The Economist weighs in with When compromise fails.
Time magazine has Could the Pope Aid an Anglican Split?
The New Statesman has Doing the splits by Stephen Bates:
…Like Mr Rochester’s first wife, the misogyny and homophobia of its factions keep leaping out of the attic to scare off decent folk. No use conservative evangelicals and high church Anglo-Catholics insisting the Church’s interminable internal rows are all about obedience to scriptural authority and the protection of tender consciences. What the public sees is arcane debates, conducted with a ferocity more in keeping with the 1980s Labour Party than an institution founded on hope and charity…
The Spectator has A Very English Coup — And The End Of Our National Church by Theo Hobson.
The Telegraph has a report by Martin Beckford saying that US Anglican leader Katherine Jefferts Schori wades into women bishop row.
Andrew Carey wrote for the Church of England Newspaper a column (republished at Stand Firm) titled Walking on Broken Glass:
…Observers reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury was visibly discomfited at times by the tone and direction of the debate. His deputy in Canterbury, the Bishop of Dover, Stephen Venner, was reduced to tears. Yet while Dr Williams has often given traditionalists hope that he would back a structural solution to their problems of conscience, he seems to have completely ruled out strong leadership on theological and ecclesial issues. Wearing permanently now, it seems, the persona of the mediator, Dr Williams was seen by Synod trying to have it both ways. “I am deeply unhappy with any scheme… which ends up structurally humiliating women.” But he was equally unhappy about marginalising traditionalists. He therefore came “not very comfortably to the conclusion”, we needed a “more rather than less robust form of structural provision”…
Ruth Gledhill asks Will Rome really take our trads?
41 CommentsUpdated Friday
There was a third article, Ex-Anglicans will bring new life to our Church by Damian Thompson
The Catholic Herald has published two articles.
A news report by Anna Arco is titled Bishop to lead flock to Rome after synod vote:
A senior traditionalist Anglican bishop has urged the Pope and the hierarchy of England and Wales to help Anglo-Catholics convert to Rome following the General Synod’s vote to ordain women bishops.
The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, called for “magnanimous gestures from our Catholic friends, especially from the Holy Father, who well understand our longing for unity and from the hierarchy in England and Wales” as he prepares to lead his flock to Rome in the aftermath of the Church of England’s General Synod.
“Most of all we ask for ways that allow us to bring our folk with us,” he wrote in an article explaining his position in The Catholic Herald…
Bishop Andrew Burnham has written ‘Anglo-Catholics must now decide’:
34 CommentsSo we are to have a code of practice. Traditional Anglo-Catholics must now decide whether to stay in the Church of England in what, for a while, will be a protected colony – where the sacramental ministry of women bishops and priests is neither acknowledged nor received – or to leave.
Leaving isn’t quite so easy as it sounds. You don’t become a Catholic, for instance, because of what is wrong with another denomination or faith. You become a Catholic because you accept that the Catholic Church is what she says she is and the Catholic faith is what it says it is. In short, some Anglo-Catholics will stay and others will go. It is quite easy to think of unworthy reasons for staying – and there are no doubt one or two unworthy reasons for leaving.
There are also honourable reasons for staying. Like the Anglican clergy who wouldn’t swear allegiance to William and Mary at the end of the 17th century and the Catholic clergy who wouldn’t swear allegiance to the French Revolutionary government a century later, the “non-jurors” of the present day will soldier on and die out but they will be faithful to what they have believed and history will honour them for their faithfulness…
Inclusive Church has issued a press release, The vote for women bishops. A copy of the text is also below the fold.
WATCH has issued a press release. The text appears below.
10 CommentsWATCH Press Statement
WOMEN BISHOPS: A STEP CLOSER
9th July 2008 – for immediate releaseThe Church of England has been debating whether women should be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops for nearly 100 years, and today marks the beginning of what we hope is the 26th and final mile in the marathon of discussions and debates since then.
Yesterday the Church agreed to drawing up legislation for women bishops and also for a code of practice with arrangements for those who in conscience cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of a woman.
After 6¼ hours of debate, the House of Bishops Motion was passed by a substantial majority in all three houses. The Legislative Drafting Group for Women Bishops will now work on the legislation and on the contents of the code of practice, which will be debated in General Synod in February 2009.
In spite of the recent statement from the Vatican that Synod’s vote created new obstacles to unity between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, two facts remain: Rome’s official stance is still non-recognition of all Anglican orders, male and female, and the Anglican Church has had women bishops for the last 20 years. The question remains as to why the vote presents a fresh obstacle?
WATCH welcomes the outcome of the vote and rejoices that women will soon takes their place alongside men as bishops in the Church of England.
WATCH Chair and member of General Synod, Christina Rees said, “This is good news for the whole Church and for the nation we serve. Women will soon be able to bring their experience and gifts to the Episcopal leadership of our Church. We rejoice that God has led the Church to this moment.”
During the debate, Robert Key MP said that the people of England are making a judgment on us; a reference to how detached the church has become from the rest of society through refusing to make women bishops. The Bishop of Bath and Wells stressed that we need to trust each other and not have legislation.
Earlier this year, over 1,300 clergywomen signed a statement which was sent to all bishops in the Church of England, declaring that they wished the Church to proceed on a basis of trust and not law: that arrangements for those opposed to women bishops should be managed by the local diocesan bishop, be they male or female as is the case in the fifteen provinces which have already agreed to consecrate women to the episcopate. If such arrangements were enshrined in law then their response would be “thanks but no thanks”. It is to be hoped that the Statutory National Code of Practice requested by General Synod will reflect these concerns.
Contacts:
Christina Rees Chair, WATCH
Hilary Cotton Co-Vice Chair, WATCH
George Pitcher in the Telegraph Women win bloody battle at the Synod
Giles Fraser in the New Statesman Ending women free zones
Simon Barrow Church as Spectacle
24 CommentsLeading articles appear this morning in several London newspapers.
The Times has The Church of England: A Vote for Clarity
The Telegraph has A Church divided
The Guardian has Speaking for England
1 CommentForward in Faith has two items: General Synod Vote – Initial Reaction
Forward in Faith and the Catholic Group in General Synod note with regret that, despite the clear advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Exeter and other Bishops, the Prolocutor of the Province of Canterbury and the Chairman of the House of Laity and the obvious lack of consensus, the General Synod today resolved to make no meaningful provision for those in conscience unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.
There must now be a period of prayerful reflection. However, members of both the General Synod and of the Church of England will understand that actions always have consequences.
and General Synod vote – further reaction
The consistent behaviour of the General Synod compels Forward in Faith and the Catholic Group in General Synod to recognise that, without intervention by the House of Bishops, there is little prospect of gaining a synodical majority which would provide a structural solution that would meet the needs of those who, out of obedience to scripture and tradition, are unable in conscience to receive the ordination of women to the episcopate. We will in the coming days continue to explore all possible avenues which might secure our corporate ecclesial future and look to our bishops to facilitate this.
Vatican Radio has Vatican Regret at Anglican Vote to Ordain Female Bishops.
WATCH has this:
Synod votes in favour of women as bishops, with a Code of Practice
We are delighted that General Synod after many hours of debate, voted to proceed to the consecration of women as bishops with arrangements for those who will not accept their ministry simply in a Code of Practice. This was the stance proposed by the House of Bishops and supported by WATCH, and in the final voting there were clear majorities in each House in favour of taking this step. The voting figures were:
Bishops: 28 for, 12 against, 1 abs
Clergy: 124 for, 44 against, 4 abs
Laity: 111 for, 68 against, 2 abs
The Legislative Drafting Group will now prepare the relevant legislation, along with a Code of Practice, to be brought to the next meeting of General Synod in February next year.
Reform has a statement Reform predicts Synod vote will “further rouse the ‘sleeping giant’ of evangelical Anglicanism”
Reform members who took part in the Synod debates are very disappointed that no legal provision has been made for those who cannot in conscience receive oversight from a female bishop. We note that the opinions of four out of the five most senior bishops on both the content and timing of this measure were swept aside in the course of the debate.
We will scrutinise the proposed code of practice in February’s debate carefully, but remain very sceptical as to its usefulness.
By giving no legal provision Synod has effectively said: “We don’t want people like you in our Church of England.” This message will no doubt further rouse the ‘sleeping giant’ of orthodox and evangelical Anglicanism in the UK and around the globe.
Interfax reports Russian Church alarmed by Anglicans’ decision to ordain women.
Update A further Interfax report has Anglican Church decision to consecrate women-bishops challenges Orthodox-Anglican dialogue – Bishop Hilarion.
The official report of business conducted today is found at General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 8th July 2008.
0 CommentsUpdated to add link to article by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes
Reports
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church vote opens door to female bishops
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England set to split over women bishops
Jennifer Gold in Christian Today Church of England votes to ordain women bishops
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church risks split as Synod votes to ordain women bishops
Steve Doughty in the Mail Church of England faces clergy revolt after paving way for first woman bishop by 2014
The Press Association Church turmoil over women bishops
Ekklesia Church of England makes historic decision for women bishops
John F Burns in the International Herald Tribune As schism lurks, the Church of England endorses women as bishops
The Age [Melbourne] Anglicans vote in favour of women bishops
Stephanie Kennedy in ABC News [Australia] Anglican Synod votes to allow female bishops
Comments
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes in The Guardian There will be women bishops
Andrew Brown in The Guardian Super-bishops fly in
Damian Thompson in the Telegraph The Church of England is Protestant again
53 CommentsFor the final form of the motion before Synod and the voting figures see the end of this article
Synod began its main debate on women bishops at 2.30 pm today.
The Order Paper is here
I have copied this below, but have amended it to include the votes in synod as they took place.
Note: Where a vote is taken by houses, the motion must be carried in all three houses to be carried.
The Bishop of Gloucester moved:
20. ‘That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’
The Bishop of Winchester moved as an amendment:
66. After “That this Synod” leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England, and noting the Manchester Group’s assertion in paragraph 22 of GS 1685 that “far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses”,
(i) affirm the assurances included in paragraphs 67-69 of GS 1685;
(ii) reaffirm (GS 1685 paragraph 74) Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”;
In paragraph (b) leave out “within the existing structures of the Church of England”; and
In paragraph (c) after “in” insert “legislation and in”.
Amendment 66 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
14
|
31
|
0
|
| clergy |
62
|
120
|
0
|
| laity |
78
|
114
|
0
|
The Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London) moved as an amendment:
67. Leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
“(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate”.
Amendment 67 was carried after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
28
|
17
|
0
|
| clergy |
90
|
89
|
4
|
| laity |
97
|
85
|
7
|
The Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) moved as an amendment:
68. Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and in paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.
Amendment 68 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
3
|
40
|
2
|
| clergy |
28
|
149
|
4
|
| laity |
36
|
147
|
5
|
The Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Universities, York) moved as an amendment:
69. In paragraph (b) leave out all the words after “affirm its view that” and insert “this should be done with the simplest possible statutory approach, with local diocesan arrangements for pastoral provision and sacramental care;”;
Leave out paragraph (c); and
In paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.
Amendment 69 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
7
|
37
|
1
|
| clergy |
66
|
107
|
9
|
| laity |
68
|
118
|
4
|
The Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) moved as an amendment:
70. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,” and insert “by preparing a draft Measure and associated code of practice providing new dioceses for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests,” and after the words “so that” insert the words “, if possible,”.
Amendment 70 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
10
|
32
|
3
|
| clergy |
53
|
124
|
4
|
| laity |
71
|
116
|
2
|
The Bishop of Exeter moved as an amendment:
71. In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;
In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “accordingly” and insert “by preparing drafts of possible legislation in accordance with paragraph (c), to include further draft Measures, together with associated codes of practice, based on diocesan structures for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests, so that, if possible, the Business Committee can include consideration of these options in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”.
Amendment 71 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
14
|
29
|
2
|
| clergy |
65
|
116
|
1
|
| laity |
77
|
112
|
0
|
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds moved as an amendment:
72. In paragraph (c) after the words “affirm that these should be” insert “either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”; and
In paragraph (d) leave out “complete” and insert “develop” and leave out the words “first consideration of the draft legislation” and insert “further consideration of both alternatives envisaged in paragraph (c) ”.
Amendment 72 was lost after a vote by houses (since it was defeated in one house).
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
21
|
21
|
1
|
| clergy |
84
|
92
|
2
|
| laity |
98
|
87
|
0
|
At this point (6.30 pm) Synod broke for its dinner break. The session will resume at 8.00 pm
[Miss Emma Forward (Exeter) did not move her amendment so it was not considered:
73. In paragraph (b) leave out “special”.]
The Revd Gillian Henwood (York) moved an amendment:
74. Insert after paragraph (b):
“(..) affirm its view that special arrangements should be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction wish to exercise or receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests in episcopal areas where the bishop has stated that he is not able to ordain women;”.
Amendment 74 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
5
|
31
|
3
|
| clergy |
68
|
85
|
20
|
| laity |
82
|
90
|
7
|
Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham) moved as an amendment:
75. After paragraph (c) insert as a new paragraph:
“(..) require that the Measure enabling women to be admitted to the episcopate should require:
(i) that the Measure should only come into force once the code has been agreed;
(ii) that in order for the code of practice to come into effect, it must receive the approval of the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House; and
(iii) that any future changes to the code can only be made by the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House;”.
Amendment 75 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
15
|
19
|
5
|
| clergy |
86
|
78
|
8
|
| laity |
81
|
88
|
10
|
Ms Jacqueline Humphreys (Bristol) moved as an amendment:
76. In paragraph (c) insert “statutory” before the words “national code of practice”.
Amendment 76 was carried on a show of hands.
the Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) moved as an amendment:
77. Insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (c):
“(..) agree that the code of practice should relate only to the exercise of episcopal functions and describe a commitment to mutual support and cooperation between members of the House of Bishops to help with pastoral provision and sacramental care when situations arise affecting those with conscientious difficulties relating to ordination to the priesthood and the episcopate; and”.
Amendment 77 was lost after a vote by houses.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
1
|
35
|
4
|
| clergy |
38
|
129
|
5
|
| laity |
44
|
129
|
7
|
His Honour Thomas Coningsby QC (ex officio) moved as an amendment:
78. In paragraph (c) leave out all the words after “national code of practice” and insert “which all concerned would be required to follow”.
Amendment 78 was lost on a show of hands.
The Bishop of Durham moved that the debate be adjourned. This motion was lost with 180 votes in favour, 203 against and 9 abstentions.
Final form of the substantive motion
As a result of the two successful amendments (67 and 76) the final form of the substantive motion became:
That this Synod:
(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.
After a vote by houses the substantive motion was carried.
Voting figures
|
for
|
against
|
abstentions
|
|
| bishops |
28
|
12
|
1
|
| clergy |
124
|
44
|
4
|
| laity |
111
|
68
|
2
|