Press release from the Church of England today.
First meeting of Women Bishops steering committee
06 September 2013The first meeting of the women Bishops steering committee set up after the General Synod debate in July 2013 took place on 5th and 6th September in Coventry.
The committee considered a first draft of the Measure and amending canon as requested by Synod and also looked at the possible shape of a declaration from the House of Bishops and a mandatory grievance procedure. The discussions were serious, honest and constructive.
The committee is due to meet again on 11th and 12th of October 2013.
We listed the members of the steering committee here.
15 CommentsThe Revd Canon Sue Booys has been elected Chair of the Business Committee of the General Synod of the Church of England, it was announced today. The detailed election results are here.
Canon Booys is team rector of the Dorchester Team of Churches in the diocese of Oxford.
2 CommentsWomen and the Church (WATCH) issued this statement today.
Response to the announcement of the membership of the Steering Committee Appointments Committee to prepare women bishops’ legislation
The prompt formation of the Steering Committee, demonstrating the Church of England’s determination to proceed with its commitment to opening the episcopate to women, is welcomed by WATCH.
We are glad to receive information on the committee’s makeup, particularly the inclusion of experienced, respected women, lay and ordained, in the discussions. We note the strong presence of those representing groups opposed to the episcopal ministry of women and requesting provision and hope that presence of the Archbishop’s Director of Reconciliation will enable the different groups to work together to produce constructive legislation.
We look forward to seeing legislation produced that will:
The following are now available.
The official summary of the business transacted at the Synod: Business Done.
I have already published details of the voting on women in the episcopate. Also available are the voting lists for the debates on Safeguarding and Welfare Reform. The vote on the Welfare Reform debate shows one vote against. I have confirmed that this was a mistake. The person concerned pressed the wrong button and was unable to correct this error before the voting period (one minute) came to an end.
0 CommentsUpdated
Electronic voting results for this month’s General Synod debate on the women bishops legislation have now been published. These take the form of pdf files, arranged by houses (in two cases), by vote (for/against/abstain) and then alphabetically.
I list below the four items voted on electronically, and the voting figures in each case. At the end I link to my consolidated version of the four votes arranged by synod number.
Item 39 (The Revd Paul Benfield amendment)
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “on the basis” and insert “that the provision made for those who cannot receive the ministry of female priest or bishops should be made by Measure or regulations made under Canon”.
The effect of this amendment would have been to make statutory provision for opponents. It was defeated in a vote by houses.
| item 39 | For | Against | abstain |
| Bishops | 7 | 34 | 0 |
| Clergy | 48 | 137 | 4 |
| Laity | 75 | 115 | 4 |
Item 42 (The Ven. Clive Mansell amendment)
In paragraph (d) leave out “79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 described as ‘option one’” and insert “89-95 of the annex to GS 1886 described as ‘option two’”.
The effect of this amendment would have been to include in the measure a requirement for an Act of Synod to be in place before final approval of the measure. It was defeated in a vote by houses.
| item 42 | For | Against | abstain |
| Bishops | 10 | 28 | 1 |
| Clergy | 55 | 128 | 8 |
| Laity | 93 | 100 | 4 |
Item 46 (The Ven. Clive Mansell amendment)
At the end of paragraph (d) insert “together with provision to prevent legal challenge to patrons, bishops, PCC members and parish representatives acting properly in accordance with their duties in the appointment process for an incumbent or a priest -in-charge (such issues being identified within paragraphs 130-136 of GS 1886)”.
This amendment was defeated on a division of the whole Synod (200 in favour, 210 against and 15 recorded abstentions). But I have divided the voting list up by houses as follows.
| item 46 | For | Against | abstain |
| Bishops | 15 | 23 | 2 |
| Clergy | 87 | 98 | 4 |
| Laity | 98 | 89 | 9 |
The final vote was on the substantive motion: Item 16 (as amended by items 45 and 47). The two successful amendments were each carried on a show of hands. They added the references to a grievance procedure, and to the use of facilitated conversations.
That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency;
(b) instruct the Appointments Committee to appoint this month a Steering Committee to be in charge of the draft legislation required to that end;
(c) instruct the Business Committee to arrange for the First Consideration stage for that draft legislation to be taken at the November 2013 group of sessions, so that the subsequent stages can follow the timetable set out in paragraph 141 of the annex to GS 1886;
(d) instruct the Steering Committee to prepare the draft legislation on the basis described in paragraphs 79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 as ‘option one’ with the addition of a mandatory grievance procedure for parishes in which diocesan bishops are required to participate and invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consideration at the February 2014 group of sessions a draft Act of Synod or draft declaration to be made by the House to accompany the draft legislation; and
(e) urge that the process of facilitated conversations continue to be used at significant points in the formulation and consideration of the draft legislation.
This was carried on a division of the whole Synod (319 in favour, 84 against and 22 recorded abstentions). Again I have divided the voting list up by houses as follows.
| item 16 | For | Against | abstain |
| Bishops | 37 | 2 | 1 |
| Clergy | 154 | 27 | 8 |
| Laity | 128 | 55 | 13 |
Spreadsheet of votes [Updated Friday night to correct totals for House of Bishops]
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.
Update 1: There is also this webpage version of my spreadsheet.
Update 2: For convenience I have extracted below the voting records for the members of the Steering Committee.
| surname | house | item 39 | item 42 | item 46 | item 16 | ||
| Benfield | Paul | clergy | 67 | For | For | For | Against |
| Charman | Jane | clergy | 203 | Against | Against | Against | For |
| Cotton | Robert | clergy | 125 | Against | Against | Against | For |
| Giddings | Philip | laity | 367 | For | For | For | For |
| Gooder | Paula | laity | 249 | Against | Against | Against | For |
| Hardman | Christine | clergy | 214 | Against | Against | Against | For |
| Harrison | Jamie | laity | 301 | Against | Against | Against | For |
| Langstaff | James | bishops | 34 | Against | Against | abstain | For |
| Leafe | Susannah | laity | 416 | For | For | For | Against |
| Mallett | Rosemarie | clergy | 216 | Against | Against | Against | For |
| Swinson | Margaret | laity | 341 | Against | Against | For | For |
| Thomas | Roderick | clergy | 120 | For | For | For | Against |
| Warner | Martin | bishops | 14 | For | For | For | Against |
| Willmott | Trevor | bishops | 45 | Against | Against | Against | For |
| Winter | Dagmar | clergy | 168 | For | Against | Against | For |
The membership of the Steering Committee to prepare women bishops’ legislation for the Church of England General Synod has just been announced.
Membership of Steering Committee to prepare women bishops’ legislation
22 July 2013
The Appointments Committee of General Synod has announced the membership of the Steering Committee to take charge of the preparation of draft legislation to enable women to become bishops. The Committee will meet a number of times in September and October to prepare the draft legislation for consideration at the November meeting of the Synod . The size and membership of the Committee will be reviewed by the Appointments Committee after this initial phase of work.
As outlined at this month’s Synod in York the size of the newly formed Steering Committee reflects the suggestion from the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, urging “facilitated discussions” to continue. Canon David Porter, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s director of reconciliation, who guided the facilitated discussions at Synod, helped advise the appointments committee.
Steering Committee members
The Revd Paul Benfield
The Revd Canon Jane Charman
The Revd Canon Robert Cotton
Dr Philip Giddings
Dr Paula Gooder
The Ven Christine Hardman
Dr Jamie Harrison
The Rt Revd James Langstaff (Chair)
Mrs Susannah Leafe
The Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett
Canon Margaret Swinson
The Revd Preb Roderick Thomas
The Rt Revd Dr Martin Warner
The Rt Revd Trevor Willmott
The Revd Canon Dr Dagmar Winter
The Very Reverend Vivienne Faull (Consultant)
67 CommentsYES 2 Women Bishops has published this useful Infographic: women bishops in the Anglican Communion showing the status of women in the episcopate around the Anglican Communion.
They have also published a summary of what General Synod did last week, Synod’s resolve, and these thoughts on where we are now.
16 CommentsSo where does this all leave us? A few thoughts:
1. It seems premature for anyone to try to decide whether this form of legislation is acceptable or not. Whilst on the face of it, the proposal seems to be closer to what supporters of women bishops wanted and further from what opponents wanted, the reality of how this works will be in the Act of Synod or House of Bishops declaration which will set out the provisions for those opposed. There is a bit of a phoney war already underway with opponents of women bishops claiming that only provisions set out in the face of the legislation are adequate. In truth they already operate very happily under an Act of Synod which is detested by women clergy. This would imply that this form of provision is perfectly acceptable in other areas for those who cannot accept women bishops. It is perfectly possible, therefore, that any new Act of Synod provides precisely the provisions that opponents are looking for and is problematic for supporters of women bishops, so we really don’t yet know what the final package will look like. There is still a lot of work to do.
2. The synodical arithmetic has clearly not changed in any significant way – opponents remain opposed and supporters remain supportive. If it were put to another final vote today, requiring a two thirds majority in each house, it looks like it would still fail. For this reason, the legislative timetable is intriguing. In theory the final vote could come in the last sitting of the current synod, before elections are held and a new synod is formed. It seems implausible that a final vote will be held in the current synod session if it looks like the blocking minority remains opposed to the legislation in the run up to the final vote. Instead, the final vote will be shunted into the next Synod session when a new group have been elected, in the hope that the blocking minority is removed. Such a tactic is high risk, as there is no guarantee that this would be the outcome of synod elections. This means that unless some hearts and minds are won over in the next 12-18 months, synod elections will be dominated by this issue as each “side” seeks to get more of their number into general synod.
3. We’re back on our way. We must remain hopeful that Synod will succeed this time. The resolution passed last week is strong and positive, and so must we be. We must give thanks to those who have worked to make this happen, and resolve to pray and support them in the months and years ahead until we finally see the day when Christian women are able to fulfill their divine calling and serve as bishops.
The Catholic Group in General Synod issued a statement last week after the General Synod debate on Women in the Episcopate. It is not yet available on the Group’s website, but we have been given this copy.
1 CommentStatement from the Catholic Group in General Synod
We welcome the clear commitment of General Synod to make provision for all in the Church of England.
We are fully supportive of a new kind of legislative process involving facilitated conversations as outlined by the Bishop of Willesden and endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and most members of Synod.
It is clear, from the voting on a number of the amendments, that the amended Option 1 will need a considerable amount of further work in order to build a sufficient consensus for when it comes to the Synod for Final Approval in 2015.
Martin Dales on behalf of the Group
The CofE has published two summaries of the recent Synod.
First is a two-sided A3 illustrated version: In Review.
Second is an A5 insert for parish magazines, without illustrations but with a slightly fuller text: In Focus.
Both of the above are pdf files ready for printing, but the text of the magazine insert is also available as an rtf file.
0 CommentsHere are some reflections and comments on what happened at General Synod.
Nick Baines (Bishop of Bradford) Mixed feelings
Andrew Carey The ghastly Indabas return
Colin Coward A health report on the C of E following the York Synod
Steven Croft (Bishop of Sheffield) Three processes in one: today’s Synod debate on Bishops
Jeremy Fletcher General Synod July 2013 – Jeremy’s Report
Giles Fraser General Synod brings out the worst in the Church of England – and in me
Jody Stowell Women bishops: Building bridges to avoid repeating history
Chris Sugden Update to AAC from Canon Chris Sugden
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes Starting again on women bishops
Lichfield Diocese’s reps reflect on General Synod
Church Times leader Has the Synod shifted at all?
There are also a few more press reports.
6 CommentsToday’s Church Times has revised versions of two reports published immediately after the Synod debates:
Ed Thornton, Madeleine Davies, Gavin Drake and Glyn Paflin Synod makes a new start on women bishops in York
Madeleine Davies and Gavin Drake Synod approves new West Yorkshire dioceseThe Living Church Synod Slogs through in York
Amaris Cole in The Church of England Newspaper Women bishops back on track
Question 65 Rachel Jepson to the Chair of the Board of Education
What progress has been made by the Board on developing recommended policies and staff-training materials relating to the bullying of LGBT people, and have any recommendations of the Board in those respects been implemented in any Church of England schools?
Answer from the Bishop of Oxford
The Board of Education/National Society, and indeed all Diocesan Boards of Education, are clear that any form of bullying is unacceptable in Church of England schools. If the Board became aware that existing tried and tested materials for both staff training and pupil activities were proving inadequate in developing relationships of respect and acceptance for all, the Board would take advice from the schools to determine appropriate action.
Question 66 Robin Hall
How many incidents of homophobic bullying were recorded in Church of England schools in the last school year (or the most recent school year for which statistics are available)?
Answer
No national or even diocesan figures are collected.
—-
Earlier in the day, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Presidential Address had said this:
11 Comments…The majority of the population rightly detests homophobic behaviour or anything that looks like it. And sometimes they look at us and see what they don’t like. I don’t like saying that. I’ve resisted that thought. But in that debate I heard it, and I could not walk away from it. We all know that it is utterly horrifying. to hear, as we did this week, of gay people executed in Iran for being gay, or equivalents elsewhere. With nearly a million children educated in our schools we not only must demonstrate a profound commitment to stamp out such stereotyping and bullying; but we must also take action. We are therefore developing a programme for use in our schools, taking the best advice we can find anywhere, that specifically targets such bullying. More than that, we need also to ensure that what we do and say in this Synod, as we debate these issues, demonstrates above all the lavish love of God to all of us, who are all without exception sinners. Again this requires radical and prophetic words which lavish gracious truth…
Last month I outlined the proposals from the Elections Review Group on the composition and electorate of the General Synod: part 1 and part 2. The Business Committee brought these to Synod for debate as the last items of business (apart from farewells) at Synod yesterday morning.
The proposals in part 1 were largely uncontroversial, and Synod agreed to send the draft legislation to a revision committee. But there was a lot of opposition to the proposal to abolish the university constituencies rather than reform them (and the way in which the review group had made its decision), and Synod passed this following motion, proposed by Professor Richard Burridge:
That this Synod request that the Steering Committee appointed under SO 49 to be in charge of the draft legislation arising from GS 1901 undertake full consultation with the University proctors regarding the proposals relating to the University constituencies in GS 1901, GS 1902 and GS 1904 and bring forward further proposals for consideration by the Revision Committee for the reform of those constituencies, based on accurate information.
Synod then moved onto part 2, of which the main part is the possibility of a change in the electorate for the House of Laity. Although the Business Committee supported replacing the lay members of deanery synods by an electoral college, they wanted to test the mind of Synod before producing any draft legislation. There is also a proposal to conduct elections online. But there was not time to complete the debate, and it was adjourned to a future group of sessions. Which group will be decided by the Business Committee.
The official summary of all Tuesday’s business is online, but strangely there is no mention of Professor Burridge’s motion.
4 Commentspress release from Forward in Faith
WOMEN BISHOPS: FORWARD IN FAITH RESPONDS TO JULY 2013 GENERAL SYNOD DEBATE
Forward in Faith thanks the many members of the Catholic Group in General Synod, together with other supporters, for their excellent contributions to yesterday’s debate.
Naturally, we are very disappointed that none of the amendments which would have ensured secure provision for those unable to receive the ministry of women as bishops and priests was passed. However, we are encouraged by the significant minorities, especially in the House of Laity, which did vote for such provision. We are confident that these votes, and the commitment which they represent on the part of many to a genuinely inclusive Church of England, in which all may flourish, will not be overlooked as the process moves forward. The alternative, which we would deeply regret, would be to pursue unsatisfactory legislation, lacking the necessary breadth of support, with the strong risk of ultimate defeat.
More detailed comments are set out below.
We welcome the commitment to continuing the facilitated conversations.
We welcome the widespread affirmation of the five points endorsed by the House of Bishops (GS 1886, para. 12), and trust that the draft legislation will embody and reflect all of them together.
We welcome the fact that 49% of the Synod voted for provisions to reduce the risk of legal challenge in the context of parochial appointments, and the resulting commitment to further work on this.
We strongly welcome the proposal, endorsed by many speakers (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) that the Steering Committee should be representative of a broad spectrum of opinion, and should draft legislation to which all can subscribe.
We also welcome the strong support of a very large minority of Synod members for legislation setting out rights and obligations that would create a clear and stable context for our future life together. We note the preference expressed by 40% of the House of Laity and over 30% of the Synod as a whole for provision to be made by Measure or by regulations under Canon.
In later votes even larger minorities, especially in the House of Laity, rejected key elements of the approach preferred by the House of Bishops and by the most uncompromising supporters of women bishops. In the end, 25% of the Synod declined to endorse even the drafting of legislation on that basis. The logical conclusion is that to do so would result in a repeat of last November’s failure.
We feel bound to reiterate that, while we are not trying to prevent women from becoming bishops in the Church of England, we cannot support any legislation which removes the existing rights of the laity to a ministry that they can receive in good conscience and which fails to offer the minority what the working group termed ‘a greater sense of security’ than the previous draft Measure.
We are unconvinced as to how a ‘mandatory grievance procedure’ binding on bishops can deliver this in respect of parochial appointments by lay patrons and incumbents. We question whether replacing Resolutions A and B with this is the right way of going about the rebuilding of trust.
We remain committed to playing our full part in identifying a consensus that will command the necessary breadth of support to enable those who wish to receive the ministry of female bishops to do so in the near future. We hope and pray that further facilitated conversations and a more broadly-based Steering Committee will achieve this.
+ JONATHAN FULHAM
The Rt Revd Jonathan Baker, Bishop of Fulham Chairman
LINDSAY NEWCOMBE
Dr Lindsay Newcombe Vice-Chairman
9 July 2013
David Pocklington of Law & Religion UK looks at CofE General Synod, Legal Issues
Peter Dominiczak in The Telegraph Welby reignites row with Government over ‘benefits scroungers’
John Bingham in The Telegraph Future Church of England bishops to be quizzed on their sex lives
Steve Doughty in the Mail Online Sex quiz for Church of England vicars who want to be bishops: Candidates will be asked after concerns gay and divorced clergy are breaking rules
BBC Women bishops: Church of England synod votes for new law (includes a two-minute interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury)
Andreas Whittam Smith in The Independent Women bishops at last? Law debated by Church of England Synod
Reuters UK Divided Church of England renews pledge to ordain women bishops
Christian Today Church of England makes fresh start on women bishops
Madeleine Davies and Gavin Drake in the Church Times Synod approves new West Yorkshire diocese
BBC General Synod approves Diocese of Leeds merger plans
Michael Black in the Bradford Telegraph & Argus Bradford Diocese to be axed after General Synod decision
Yorkshire Post Yorkshire ‘Super diocese’ given go-ahead as Synod agrees to shake-up
Brighouse Echo Super diocese for Calderdale churches
Andrew Jackson in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner Huddersfield to get own bishop under new Church of England ‘super-diocese’ proposals
Heather Saul in The Independent Church of England issues ‘unreserved’ apologies to victims of Chichester child abuse after investigation reveals extent of failures
6 CommentsEd Thornton and Madeleine Davies and Gavin Drake and Glyn Paflin in the Church Times Synod votes to explore Option One on women bishops
Sam Jones in The Guardian Justin Welby promises to press on with introduction of female bishops
Liz Dodd in The Tablet CofE progresses women bishops vote
BBC Women bishops: Church of England synod votes for new law
3 CommentsWATCH has responded to today’s General Synod vote on women in the episcopate.
11 CommentsSynod affirms desire to have women bishops as a matter of urgency.
WATCH is pleased that the House of Bishops’ preferred option received overwhelming support from General Synod, which today re-affirmed its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency. The positive experience of the facilitated conversations was reflected in the tone of the debates. WATCH remains committed to full engagement with the ongoing process.
Vice-Chair, Charles Read commented, “This is an encouraging start to a process that will enable women to be bishops on equal terms as men.”
Updated
The proposal to dissolve the three dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield, and to replace them by a new diocese of Leeds (that may also be known as the diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales) was debated by General Synod this afternoon. The proposal was carried on a show of hands.
A second vote was carried to set up a transitional vacancy in see committee. The process to nominate the first Bishop of Leeds can now start. Meetings of the CNC have already been set: 12 November 2013 and 9/10 January 2014.
Update
The CofE has issued this press release.
Synod approves new Diocese of Leeds for West Yorkshire and The Dales
08 July 2013
The General Synod has, today, approved a draft reorganisation scheme that will see the creation of a new Diocese of Leeds, serving West Yorkshire and The Dales, and replacing the current Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds, and Wakefield.
The new diocese will come into existence on a day to be set by the Archbishop of York after the scheme has been confirmed by Her Majesty the Queen through an Order in Council. Synod also approved a resolution establishing a Vacancy in See Committee for the new diocese so that the process for appointing the first Bishop of Leeds could begin.
Professor Michael Clarke, chair of the Dioceses Commission that prepared the scheme, welcomed the decision of the Synod. “Synod’s historic decision confirms the Commission’s judgement that the radical creation of a new diocese centred on Leeds offered the best way of meeting the mission challenges facing the Church in West Yorkshire.”
In addition to the Bishop of Leeds, the new diocese will be served by four area bishops of Bradford, Huddersfield, Ripon and Wakefield (the latter two being renamed Sees currently occupied by the Bishops of Knaresborough and Pontefract).
The Cathedrals of Bradford, Ripon, and Wakefield will be the cathedrals of the new diocese. There is provision for Leeds Minster to become a pro-cathedral in the future if the Bishop of Leeds so directs.
So as to be more in sync with civic boundaries existing archdeacon and deaneries will be reorganised under the scheme and a small number of parishes will transfer to neighbouring dioceses. Detailed arrangements about the workings of the new diocese are still to be worked out, as these will be for local decision.
The scheme was drawn up to enhance the ability of the Church to respond to the challenges of mission in the West Yorkshire region.
Notes
The detailed scheme can be read at http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1781735/gs%201898%20-%20draft%20reorganisation%20scheme.pdf.
Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York’s speech in the debate can be read at http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/2938/yorkshire-diocesan-reorganisation.
The Rt Rev Nick Baines, Bishop of Bradford’s speech can be read at http://nickbaines.wordpress.com/.
Diocese of Wakefield, http://www.wakefield.anglican.org/index.htm.
Diocese of Ripon & Leeds, http://www.riponleeds.anglican.org/.
1 CommentThe Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in today’s debate on women in the episcopate. Here is a transcript of his remarks taken from his website.
General Synod: Archbishop Justin on women bishops
Monday 8th July 2013
Read the Archbishop’s remarks during today’s Synod debate in which members voted to restart the legislative process to allow women to become bishops
The following transcript has been edited for clarity in several places
As has been widely agreed this is not about whether but about how, so that women are ordained on exactly the same basis as men and all parts of the Church of England may be enabled to flourish.
But history and contemporary experience shows that detailed arrangements not only embed division, they are also unworkable and lead to frequent and prolonged litigation. My last twelve months’ experience with Parliamentary Banking Standards has shown this very adequately. If they do not lead to litigation they invite attempts, through clever reading, to ensure a desired outcome. And if they do not lead to gaming the system they invite a box-ticking approach that seeks to conform to the letter not to the spirit.
I therefore strongly support an approach that is between Options 1 and 2, including the Dover amendment, with the extra work needed as suggested by the Archbishop of York. I also strongly support Bishop Peter Broadbent’s scheme, although, as our last speaker so correctly said, we must recognise that while it is certainly the right thing to do it will require hard work and generosity to have any effect. As was just said there are neither magic processes any more than there are magic solutions that get us off the hook of needing a commitment to mutual flourishing.
The approach before us is a radical way forward. It provides the possibility of building trust, it gives us space for imagination, and it affirms an inclusive approach that is consistent with our previous resolutions – as I have said, the commitment to ordaining women as bishops on exactly the same basis as men, and the flourishing together of all parts of the church. The approach we have in this amended resolution sets a clear principle combined with a follow-through to the consensus building approach that we are developing.
I hope the Synod will take the opportunity of setting a clear general direction while leaving space for discussion and debate in various ways. I entirely agree that it is essential that the simple and clear five principles command wide support and ownership here and across the whole church, and have strong boundaries. They must be discussed, debated and agreed, be very robust, and closely followed and monitored. Essentially they are to be an electrified ring-fence. Thus the resolution, amended as we have agreed, combined with Bishop Peter Broadbent’s scheme, seems to me the best way forward.
2 CommentsFollowing the vote earlier this afternoon the CofE issued this press release.
General Synod votes to restart the legislative process to allow women to become bishops
08 July 2013
The General Synod has reaffirmed its commitment to women bishops and called, less than a year after the previous proposals were rejected, for new draft legislation to be introduced. It will be considered by the Synod in November 2013, with the aim of reaching the stage of Final Approval in July or November 2015.
This was the first time Synod members had met since November 2012, when the previous draft legislation narrowly failed to secure the requisite majority in the House of Laity, despite enjoying the support of 73% of the Synod’s members overall.
The Synod reached its decision at the end of this today’s debate, after its members had devoted much of Saturday to facilitated discussions on the options available. Introducing the debate, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, who chaired the Working Group set up by the House of Bishops to advise on new legislative proposals, said, “I believe that option one, together with a mandatory mediation process and including as it does a declaration or, possibly, Act of Synod deserves to be taken very seriously as a means to provide the basis for securing the necessary majorities in the lifetime of this Synod.”
The House of Bishops had recommended that draft legislation be prepared on that basis described as ‘option one’ in the report of the Working Group established by the House to consider possible ways forward. That involved:
– a measure and amending canon that made it lawful for women to become bishops;
– the repeal of the statutory rights to pass Resolutions A and B under the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, plus the rescinding of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993; and
– arrangements for those who, as a matter of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests, set out either in a declaration from the House of Bishops or in a new Act of Synod. (The possible content of such arrangements is set out in paragraphs 52-62 of the annex to GS1886.)
Accepting the proposal made by the House, the General Synod passed the motion, by 319 votes to 84, in the following form:
‘That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency;
(b) instruct the Appointments Committee to appoint this month a Steering Committee to be in charge of the draft legislation required to that end;
(c) instruct the Business Committee to arrange for the First Consideration stage for that draft legislation to be taken at the November 2013 group of sessions, so that the subsequent stages can follow the timetable set out in paragraph 141 of the annex to GS 1886;
(d) instruct the Steering Committee to prepare the draft legislation on the basis described in paragraphs 79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 as ‘option one’ with the addition of a mandatory grievance procedure for parishes in which diocesan bishops are required to participate and invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consideration at the February 2014 group of sessions a draft Act of Synod or draft declaration to be made by the House to accompany the draft legislation; and
(e) urge that the process of facilitated conversations continue to be used at significant points in the formulation and consideration of the draft legislation.’
amendments 45 and 47 in Order Paper V having been carried by the Synod.
Notes
The Report from the House of Bishops “Women In the Episcopate – New Legislative Proposals” (GS1886) can be found here.
The report of the Working Group established by the House of Bishops is at the Annex of the Report.
The General Synod of the Church of England meets in York from Friday 5 – Tuesday 9 July 2013.
The House of Bishops of the Church of England met in York on May 20 – May 21 2013 in York. Following its meeting, it released two statements which can be found here.
The Working Group was established by the House of Bishops at its meeting in December 2012.
The Working Group issued a consultation document on February 8 following facilitated conversations. The document can be found here.
By the deadline on February 28, 376 responses to the document had been received. Of these, 10 were from campaign groups or other organisations, 3 from bishops. Of the rest, 154 were from members of the Synod and 209 from others.
General Synod debated Women in the Episcopate this morning. The motion as passed by Synod is at the end of this article.
The paper before Synod was GS 1886, and this included the various options referred to in the motion and amendments.
The original motion before the Synod, proposed by the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on behalf of the House of Bishops, was:
That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency;
(b) instruct the Appointments Committee to appoint this month a Steering Committee to be in charge of the draft legislation required to that end;
(c) instruct the Business Committee to arrange for the First Consideration stage for that draft legislation to be taken at the November 2013 group of sessions, so that the subsequent stages can follow the timetable set out in paragraph 141 of the annex to GS 1886; and
(d) instruct the Steering Committee to prepare the draft legislation on the basis described in paragraphs 79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 as ‘option one’ and invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consideration at the February 2014 group of sessions a draft Act of Synod or draft declaration to be made by the House to accompany the draft legislation.
[Option 1 comprises a measure and amending canon to make made it lawful for women to become bishops, and the repeal of the statutory rights to pass Resolutions A and B under the 1993 Measure, plus the rescinding of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.]
Several amendments were moved. The first (proposed by the Revd Paul Benfield) was:
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “on the basis” and insert “that the provision made for those who cannot receive the ministry of female priests or bishops should be made by Measure or regulations made under Canon”.
This was defeated on a vote by houses; all three houses voted against.
| For | Against | Abstentions | |
| Bishops | 7 | 34 | 0 |
| Clergy | 48 | 137 | 4 |
| Laity | 75 | 115 | 4 |
Tom Sutcliffe proposed:
‘In paragraph (d) leave out “described in paragraphs 79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 as ‘option one’” and insert “of coprovincial provision for alternative episcopal oversight to be administered by the two Archbishops jointly through the Archbishops’ Council along lines that continue the system of episcopal visitors currently in existence”;
And
Leave out “or draft declaration to be made by the House”.
This was defeated on a show of hands.
Peter Collard proposed:
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “the basis described in” and insert “paragraphs 96-109 of the annex to GS 1886 as ‘option three’, but on the basis that (i) the only amendment made to the 1993 Measure is the removal of the ability of cathedrals to pass Resolutions A and B and (ii) the provision to be made in relation to episcopal ministry is contained in an Act of Synod based on the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, and invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consideration at the February 2014 group of sessions a draft Act of Synod to accompany the draft legislation”.
This was defeated on a show of hands.
Clive Mansell proposed:
In paragraph (d) leave out “79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 described as ‘option one’” and insert “89-95 of the annex to GS 1886 described as ‘option two’”.
[Option 2 includes in the measure a requirement for an Act of Synod to be in place before final approval of the measure.]
This was defeated on a vote by houses; all three houses voted against.
| For | Against | Abstentions | |
| Bishops | 10 | 28 | 1 |
| Clergy | 55 | 128 | 8 |
| Laity | 93 | 100 | 4 |
The Revd Simon Cawdell proposed:
In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “to prepare” and insert
“draft legislation which enables women to be admitted to the episcopate without reservation and which also enables those unable on theological grounds to accept their ministry to flourish within the Church of England as described in paragraph 12 of GS 1886;
(e) invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consideration at the February 2014 group of sessions a draft Act of Synod or draft declaration to be made by the House to accompany the draft legislation; and
(f) request the Presidents to convene such facilitated groups as may assist the Steering Committee in its task throughout the process.”.
This was defeated on a show of hands.
The Bishop of Dover proposed:
In paragraph (d) after “‘option one’” insert “with the addition of a mandatory grievance procedure for parishes in which diocesan bishops are required to participate”.
This was carried on a show of hands.
At this point the Synod broke for lunch.
After lunch Clive Mansell moved:
At the end of paragraph (d) insert “together with provision to prevent legal challenge to patrons, bishops, PCC members and parish representatives acting properly in accordance with their duties in the appointment process for an incumbent or a priest-in-charge (such issues being identified within paragraphs 130-136 of GS 1886)”.
The amendment was defeated, with 200 votes in favour and 210 against, with 15 recorded abstentions.
Keith Malcouronne proposed:
At the end insert as a new paragraph –
“(-) urge that the process of facilitated conversations continue to be used at significant points in the formulation and consideration of the draft legislation.”.
This was carried on a show of hands.
Since two amendments were carried, the substantive motion became
That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency;
(b) instruct the Appointments Committee to appoint this month a Steering Committee to be in charge of the draft legislation required to that end;
(c) instruct the Business Committee to arrange for the First Consideration stage for that draft legislation to be taken at the November 2013 group of sessions, so that the subsequent stages can follow the timetable set out in paragraph 141 of the annex to GS 1886;
(d) instruct the Steering Committee to prepare the draft legislation on the basis described in paragraphs 79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 as ‘option one’ with the addition of a mandatory grievance procedure for parishes in which diocesan bishops are required to participate and invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consideration at the February 2014 group of sessions a draft Act of Synod or draft declaration to be made by the House to accompany the draft legislation; and
(e) urge that the process of facilitated conversations continue to be used at significant points in the formulation and consideration of the draft legislation.
The motion (as amended) was carried with 319 votes in favour, 84 against and 22 recorded abstentions.
20 Comments