Andrew Brown writes in his blog about The triumph of Anglican women. As the strap line says “The General Synod’s rejection of compromise on women bishops is historic. There’s no return from here.” He concludes with:
20 CommentsAnyway. I have been watching this story, more or less, for nearly 25 years now, and in all that endless wrangling this is only the second time I can remember the synod making an unequivocal choice. From now on, things really will be different.
Anglican Mainstream Press Release
38 CommentsFor Immediate Release
10 July 2010ANGLO– CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL GENERAL SYNOD MEMBERS SEEK ‘URGENT’ MEETING WITH ARCHBISHOPS FOLLOWING THIS AFTERNOON’S DEBATE ON WOMEN BISHOPS
ANGLO-CATHOLIC and Evangelical members of the Church of England’s General Synod, meeting in York this weekend, have asked for an “urgent” meeting following Synod’s defeat of the Archbishops’ amendment on the Measure which would allow Women to be Bishops in the Church of England.
The Archbishops’ put forward an unprecedented amendment to the Women Bishops Revision Committee’s recommendations , which they felt would help maintain unity within the church and be pastorally sensitive to those who, from theological and conscience issues, cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of women.
Despite a majority of synod voting FOR the Archbishops’’ amendment, it failed on a “procedural device” of requiring a two-thirds majority in all three houses: Bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Clergy, the vote was split 50/50.
The subsequent crisis in the CofE, and its Synodical and Episcopal leadership has led senior Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical leaders this evening to request and urgent meeting with both Archbishops to discuss the matter before Synod resumes its Women Bishop debates on the issue on Monday morning.
In the meantime, leaders of the two groups within the CofE are asking parishes to pray earnestly this weekend for grace and wisdom for the General Synod as they seek God’s will for His church.
BBC Women bishop row compromise plan fails in synod vote and Archbishop John Sentamu calls for end to ‘spin’
Telegraph Archbishop of York appeals for end of attacks on Archbishop of Canterbury and Split looms for Church over women bishops
Guardian Church of England faces crisis as Synod rejects concession on women bishops
Press Association Synod rejects compromise on bishops
AFP Sentamu urges end to ‘spin’ in Church of England
Ruth Gledhill’s blog is now behind a paywall, but her latest entry is copied in part below the fold.
14 CommentsPress Release Saturday 10th July 2010
0 CommentsWomen and the Church (WATCH)
Full Steam Ahead for Women Bishops
Church can Move Forward at LastWATCH is delighted that the Church has today affirmed its wish to appoint women as bishops on the same basis as men.
The General Synod, meeting in York, re-iterated its decision of July 2008 that when women are appointed bishops they will be in charge of their entire Diocese. Amendments suggesting that there should be separate dioceses for those opposed, or permanent flying bishops, or that parishes should automatically be transferred to another bishop, were all rejected by the Synod.
Hilary Cotton, Vice-Chair of WATCH, said, ‘We are absolutely delighted that Synod has stuck with its decision of two years ago and wants women to be bishops with full authority. This is good news for all women, not just women in the Church.’
Rachel Weir Chair of WATCH said, ”This has been an agonisingly slow journey and the Church has rightly wanted to do all it could for those who find this difficult, but we are delighted that Synod has made the right decision in the end”. Now at last the Church can move forward and accept the wonderful gifts of leadership that our women bring.”
On Monday the Synod will decide what minor amendments to make. It will also be given the opportunity to vote for the simplest possible legislation, in other words that ‘the Church will appoint male and female bishops’. Arrangements for those opposed would then be entrusted to individual bishops under a Code of Practice that will be drawn up in the near future.
This is not the end of the journey. The wider Church will now be invited to debate the proposals and if approved General Synod will have a final vote on them in about eighteen months time.
This page will be updated during the debates.
*Debate continued on Monday, and our report is here.*
After morning worship and the presidential address from the archbishop of York, Synod started its mammoth series of debates on the Women in the Episcopate legislation this morning.
These are the relevant papers.
GS 1708-09Y Report of the revision committee.
GS 1708A Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709A Draft Amending Canon 30
Notice Paper 5 Amendments before Synod
We will update the following two web pages during the debates to show what happens to the amendments and how those amendments that are passed change the text of the draft measure.
Draft measure as amended by Synod
Annotated copy of Notice Paper 5 showing what happened to amendments
Saturday morning
This started with a “take-note” debate on the report of the revision committee.
The Chair of the Revision Committee (the Ven Clive Mansell (Archdeacon of Tonbridge)) moved:
501 ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report.’
This was a general debate. Voting in favour did not necessarily imply supporting the report, but the take-note motion had to be passed before any further progress on the legislation was allowed.
11.47 am Synod voted to close the debate. Archdeacon Mansell the responded to the debate.
11.52 am Synod voted in favour of item 501 on a show of hands.
12.00 noon Synod started the revision stage.
Canon Simon Killwick proposed the creation of new, parallel dioceses by moving amendment 512a in Appendix 1 of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. In these circumstances standing orders require more than 40 members to stand for the debate to proceed. Many more than 40 stood.
12.52 pm Synod voted to close the debate on amendment 512a. Enough members (standing orders require at least 25) then stood to require a division of the whole synod, ie an electronic count. There were 134 votes in favour, 258 against and 8 recorded abstentions, so the amendment was defeated.
12.58 pm Synod broke for lunch.
Saturday afternoon
2.00 pm Synod resumed the revision stage
The Revd Rod Thomas proposed complementary bishops and compulsory transfer of functions from the diocesan bishop by moving amendment 513a in Appendix II of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
3.26 pm Votes to close the debate on the amendment and move to the vote. Sufficient members stood to require a vote by houses. The motion was defeated in all three houses.
| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 10 | 28 | 2 |
| clergy | 52 | 124 | 3 |
| laity | 73 | 118 | 4 |
The combined figures (135 for, 270 against and 9 abstentions) were almost identical to the vote on the previous amendment.
Synod then took a ten minute break.
Clause 2
3.45 pm Synod resumed.
The archbishop of York then moved the amendment 514, which (with 531) would set up co-ordinate jurisdiction, proposed by him and the archbishop of Canterbury.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
5.07 pm Synod voted to close the debate and proceed to a vote. A call for a vote by houses was successful.
The amendment was defeated, because it was lost in one house (House of Clergy).
| Voting figures | for | against | abstentions |
| bishops | 25 | 15 | 0 |
| clergy | 85 | 90 | 5 |
| laity | 106 | 86 | 4 |
In the light of the result, there was a motion to adjourn the debate until Monday. This was defeated on a show of hands.
5.25 pm Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe, proposed his amendment 515 to restrict the delegation of functions to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.37 pm Kevin Carey proposed amendment 516. The steering committee resisted the amendment. Very members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.41 pm Tom Sutcliffe proposed his amendment 517 to set up a Review Commission.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.
5.52 pm The next item on the agenda was the motion to include clause 2 in the measure. The chair adjourned the debate until Monday as he judged there was insufficient time to complete this before the scheduled closure time of 6.15 pm.
*Debate continued on Monday, and our report is here.*
20 CommentsUpdated Sunday morning
Here are the official summaries of Saturday’s business at General Synod.
[We will add links to the afternoon and evening’s business in due course.]
These summaries are now complete.
Summary of business conducted on Saturday 10th July 2010 AM
Summary of business conducted on Saturday 10th July 2010 PM
Riazat Butt in The Guardian General Synod meets to discuss Catholic defection
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Archbishops face test of authority over women bishops at Synod
Ruth Gledhill in The Times and reproduced here, Bishops ready to sabotage Williams over consecrating women.
ENS Matthew Davies General Synod set for lengthy debate on women bishops legislation
Press Association Further debates over women bishops
BBC Views differ on women bishops compromise bid
5 CommentsThinking Anglicans will do its best to provide up to date reports during the long debates today and Monday on Women in the Episcopate. We will report here on each amendment in turn as the debate progresses.
For Twitter coverage please follow all those contributing by using the #synod hashtag. That will include occasional contributions from @simonsarmiento.
You may find Peter Owen’s summary of the various amendments useful to read while you wait.
There is a live audio feed on Premier Radio.
0 CommentsUpdated Saturday morning
Here are the official summaries of Friday’s business at General Synod.
[We will add a link to the evening’s business in due course.]
The page linked below now includes the evening business.]
Summary of business conducted on Friday 9th July 2010 PM
These entries also include links to audios of the sessions and to relevant papers.
0 CommentsJim Naughton writes in The Guardian that Rowan destroys his own credibility. Rowan Williams cannot speak truth to power when he has so clearly capitulated to it himself.
1 Comment… as the General Synod convenes once again, to discuss issues about which its members can actually be presumed to know something, I find myself walking right up to the precipice of that promise to say a few words about what it will mean if the synod embraces Rowan Williams’ poorly conceived ecclesiastical innovations.
Justin Brett a member of General Synod has written a splendid essay explaining what will happen. See A Lesson concerning the Debating of Women Bishops.
“Good morning class. Today’s lesson is all about how to work out what on Earth General Synod is doing in all these debates over the next few days. You are going to need the following set texts – the Report of the Revision Committee, the Draft Measure, and Notice Paper 5. If you have forgotten them, go and download them now. Yes, we’ll wait… OK. Everybody got the right bits of paper? Good. Now, the first thing you need to know is that there are actually only two debates about this happening at Synod. Yes, I know it looks from the Agenda as though there are going to be at least five, but it’s actually one short debate and one very long one, that will take about a day and a half to get through. Let’s deal with the short one first…
Support for a simple measure comes from an unlikely quarter, see Ed Tomlinson’s article at Cif belief This fudge on bishops must fail. An Anglican considering going to Rome says, keep your women bishops, and give us the money and buildings we need.
And Riazat Butt in the Guardian reports that women clergy could be driven out if too many concessions are made. See Female bishops decision in the balance.
17 CommentsChristina Rees who is a member of General Synod has written a detailed press briefing entitled A Response to the Archbishops’ Amendments.
In addition to the web page version linked above, there is a PDF version here.
Andrew Goddard has made a detailed analysis of what the conservative evangelical objections are to women bishops, see at Fulcrum Evangelical opponents of women bishops: What is sought and required?
16 Commentspress release from Affirming Catholicism 6th July 2010
7 CommentsWomen and the Episcopate
Affirming Catholicism welcomed the Report of the Women Bishops Revision Committee published on 8th May 2010. We believe that the draft legislation proposed by the Revision Committee offers a good and balanced means by which the Church of England can legislate to allow women to take their full place within the Church of England’s ministry.
After much consideration, Affirming Catholicism does not recommend supporting the Archbishops’ amendments. Although these amendments claim to retain the authority of the diocesan bishop, they do not clarify what would happen if the diocesan and the coordinate bishop found themselves in disagreement. The Archbishops’ amendments therefore create – through the legislation itself – a situation in which authority is granted to the diocesan bishop in name, but potentially not in actuality if the diocesan bishop is a woman. This is precisely the situation which the Revision Committee sought to avoid. The archbishops have not resolved the tensions between the different views on women bishops, but have merely transferred them into the detail of the Code of Practice, which does not yet exist. The danger therefore remains that by passing these amendments, two ‘classes’ of bishops will be created, a development that would threaten the catholic nature of the Church of England. We share the concerns ably expressed by Fulcrum in their helpful commentary (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=545).
Many other amendments have been proposed. The two most significant and far-reaching ones attempt to re-write the entire Measure in order to reflect positions which the Revision Committee considered at length and eventually regarded as impracticable – and in the case of separate dioceses, undesirable. The passing of either of these amendments would in our view so compromise the catholic nature of the Church of England, and so hamper the ministry of women ordained as bishop under such arrangements, that they would have the effect of wrecking the primary purpose of the legislation.
The Report documents the Revision Committee’s consideration of a range of structural solutions to arrive at a proposal which will leave the authority vested in the Diocesan Bishop, whilst making pastoral provision for those who cannot recognise that authority in the case that the Bishop is a woman. As the Report notes, the legislation as proposed “will, for the first time, enable women to be admitted to all orders of ministry. By preserving intact the authority of the diocesan bishop it will avoid any changes in the historic understanding of that office and of the episcopate more generally. And by making statutory arrangements for those with theological difficulties it will endeavour to preserve that broad and comprehensive character of the Church of England that is one of its defining and most attractive features” (Report, § 459).
The proposed legislation, unlike suggestions for separate structures for those who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministry of women, will preserve the parochial structures of the Church of England, preventing the creation of parallel Church of England jurisdictions in the same place. Affirming Catholicism shares the basic assumptions upon which the Draft Measure is based and would therefore recommend that it be supported.
We do, however, have some concerns about certain aspects of the proposals put forward by the Revision Committee:
- We are cautious about the wisdom of allowing bishop’s declarations to be made on the basis of the views of others in the diocese (Draft Measure, § 2.4).
- We believe that the provisions for those in dioceses where the bishop has made a declaration that he will not ordain women to the priesthood are not strong enough (Draft Measure, § 2.5). In particular, they do not ensure that the voice of someone supportive of the ordination of women will be heard on the senior staff of such diocese; neither do they make provision for the pastoral care of laity who are supportive of the ordination of women.
- Whilst Affirming Catholicism respects the reasons why the Revision Committee deemed the Parochial Church Council the proper body to petition on behalf of a parish (Report §§ 236-240), we remain convinced that the legislation needs to include an explicitly stated duty of the PCC to consult widely when seeking to make parochial declarations (Draft Measure, § 3).
Affirming Catholicism supports the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee, whilst welcoming amendments relating to these three points.
Updated Tuesday afternoon to include comment on the effect of deleting certain clauses
Note: “clause” and “section” are used interchangeably.
The text of all the proposed amendments to the draft Women in the Episcopate legislation was published in a notice paper yesterday.
Here is a simplified explanation of what I think is the intended effect of the various amendments.
The first three make provision for transfer of episcopal functions by right and not by delegation from the diocesan bishop.
512 This set of amendments will create additional dioceses for parishes unable on grounds of conviction to accept the episcopal ministry of women. There will be no women bishops or priests operating in these dioceses. The additional dioceses will exist in parallel with the current geographical dioceses. A PCC will be able to vote for its parish to join or leave one of these additional dioceses.
513 This set of amendments will set up complementary (or transferred) episcopal arrangements (sometimes abbreviated to TEA). There will be suffragan bishops acceptable to those who cannot accept the episcopal ministry of women. Parishes will be able to require that the episcopal functions of their diocesan bishop be transferred to one of these complementary bishops.
514 and 531 These are the Archbishops’ amendments to set up Co-ordinate Jurisdiction.
The remaining amendments leave intact the principle of delegation from the diocesan bishop.
515 This will restrict delegation of episcopal functions to sacraments and other divine services by removing the reference to “the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners”.
516 This provides that schemes of delegation to a male bishop will also include support for parishes not seeking such delegation.
517 This will set up a Review Commission to regularly review the arrangements for male bishops.
519 This will require PCCs to consult with electoral roll members before requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop.
520 This will require every PCC to consider requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop every 5 years.
521 This will require those involved in appointing incumbents and priests in charge to take account the fact that a parish has not requested episcopal ministry from a male bishop as well as the fact that it has.
522 to 527 These will relax in various ways the voting requirements when PCCs vote on requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop.
530 This will give the House of Bishops complete discretion about what to include (or not include) in the Code of Practice.
531 See 514 above.
535 and 536 These relate to guild churches and are consequential on 523 and 524.
540 This will cause the provisions of the measure (except for allowing women bishops) to expire after 40 years.
541 This will require two-thirds majorities in each house of General Synod to subsequently amend or repeal this legislation.
542 This will require compensation to be made available to those who resign from ecclesiastical service before the measure comes into effect.
Synod procedures require a vote to be taken on the inclusion of each clause in the draft measure, and the relevant motions are also included in the notice paper. Notice has already been given that speeches will be made against the inclusion of clauses 2, 3, 4 and 7. The effect of deleting these clauses (in particular 2 and 3) would be to give the “simplest possible solution” with no provision for those opposed to women bishops and priests other than a code of practice.
There are no proposed amendments to the accompanying amending canon.
20 CommentsA notice paper listing all the proposed amendments to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708A) has been published.
It is 37 pages long.
3 CommentsPress Statement from WATCH (Women and the Church) 5th July 2010
20 CommentsWATCH Opposes Archbishops’ Amendment Regarding Women Bishops
The text of the Archbishops’ amendment on women bishops appears innocuously brief and simple. However, their proposed small alterations to the draft legislation hide some changes for the Church that WATCH sees as highly contentious.
In removing the reference to ‘delegation’ we are returned to the idea of ‘transfer’ of jurisdiction: a female bishop will have some of her job automatically removed as soon as she is appointed. This was rejected (as TEA) by the House of Bishops in 2006, and found unworkable in practice after detailed examination by the Revision Committee.
When it comes to having ‘coordinate jurisdiction’, the Archbishops appear to be seeking to create, in effect, two Diocesan bishops in each Diocese: one to minister to those who accept ordained women, and one to minister to those who don’t. This is a step further even than flying bishops. Such an innovation must not be accepted without serious examination of the consequences.
Senior clergywomen have written in the last week to the Archbishops asking them to withdraw their amendment. They say that the proposed amendment ‘brings dismay and despair amongst women priests, and many have voiced their reaction by saying how deeply undermining it is of their ministry as ordained women.’ WATCH remains opposed to the Archbishops’ amendment.
Fulcrum has published this Fulcrum Press Statement.
WOMEN BISHOPS AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Statement by the Fulcrum Leadership Team3 July 2010
(read the Commentary on this Statement here)The Bible supports ending restrictions on the ministry of women by making women bishops and the mission challenges of our times require it. It is vital that the General Synod debate later this month does not produce a stalemate. We need to move forward now toward women bishops in the life of the Church of England and we need them serving from 2014 and not 2018 or 2025.
We recognise that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are loyal Anglicans. Those who oppose this development need a space and a future in the Church of England. We believe this would be best served by appending a Code of Pastoral Practice to the Measure, not permanent legislation.
We believe the new legislation must not be framed to create what might be deemed to be a second class of bishops based on gender or a “Church within a Church”.
For these reasons we believe the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee provides the best framework for a practical way forward.
Comment on the relationship between the work of the Revision Committee and the alternatives suggested by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is posted on the Fulcrum Website.
Do read the full commentary.
14 CommentsThis is an attempt to explain in plainer English what the amendments, that the two archbishops are proposing to make to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, are trying to do.
First, they remove from the wording of the measure the explicit reference to “delegation”.
for the exercise by
way of delegation toa male bishop
This is because the concept of “delegation” has proved to be a stumbling block for some of those who are opposed to women bishops. See for example the discussion in this earlier TA thread from last October, when for a brief while it appeared that the Revision Committee was going down a path towards “statutory transfer” which is exactly what this amendment now seeks to restore. See also the earlier (2006) proposals which were for Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (shortened to TEA) and from the debate in July 2008, look at Amendment 72, which is reported on here, and which sought to insert the words:
“either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”;
The vote on that amendment was relatively close, compared to the others, but it failed in the House of Clergy.
This point is summarised in the press release from the archbishops as follows:
Second, they make an assertion that this change:
shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions.
From the press release:
Third, they insert into the section about the Code of Practice, an explicit requirement that the code must include guidance about the
arrangements for co-ordinating the exercise of episcopal ministry under section 2(1), (3) and (5) by the bishop of the diocese and any other bishop who exercises episcopal ministry in accordance with those subsections.
This is intended to ensure that the Code of Practice does cover the topics mentioned in those subsections.
From the press release:
So, to summarise, the amendments do exactly, but no more than, what the press release from the archbishops said they would do. They are a reversion to the principle of “statutory transfer” which was voted down by synod in 2008, and abandoned by the revision committee last November.
21 CommentsUpdated to include (below the fold) the text of the measure after amendment
Updated Thursday evening to correct extent of struck through text below the fold
The Archbishops have today released the text of their proposed amendments to the Women in the Episcopate legislation. We have copied this below.
We have put the text of the draft measure online here. There is also a pdf version available from the CofE website.
We linked to the Archbishops’ original announcement of their proposals here.
General Synod Draft Legislation: Women in the Episcopate amendments
Thursday 01 July 2010
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have submitted the following amendments to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, GS1708A, to be considered at the forthcoming July sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England.
DRAFT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS (CONSECRATION AND ORDINATION OF WOMEN) MEASURE
Draft amendments to omit reference to delegation
Co-ordinate Jurisdiction
Clause 2
1. In subsection (1) leave out the words “way of delegation to”.
2. After subsection (1) insert –
“(2) The episcopal ministry referred to in subsections (1), (3) and (5) shall be exercisable by virtue of this section and shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions.
Clause 5
In section 5(1)(b), at the end, insert the words “and, in particular, arrangements for co-ordinating the exercise of episcopal ministry under section 2(1), (3) and (5) by the bishop of the diocese and any other bishop who exercises episcopal ministry in accordance with those subsections”.
+Rowan Cantuar +Sentamu Ebor
We show below the fold the effect of these amendments on the text of the measure.
34 CommentsGS 1782 (PDF) contains the detailed proposals for this. A webpage version of the entire document is now available here. As the press release about the forthcoming meeting of General Synod explains:
Synod will be asked to agree the setting up of the new Faith and Order Commission, in succession to three bodies: the Doctrine Commission, the Faith and Order Advisory Group and the House of Bishops’ Theological Group. This represents a streamlining and concentration of the Church of England’s theological resources at national level.
Here are the web pages of the Faith and Order Advisory Group.
The paper explains the current situation and proposed changes this way:
17 Comments1. This paper sets out a proposal that the current theological resources of the Church of England at the national level should be brought together to form a new Faith and Order Commission of the General Synod (‘the Commission’). As well as consolidating the present arrangements, the proposal offers scope for a more focused and streamlined handling of work in this area in the future.
2. The proposal has been prepared in discussion with the chairs of the Council for Christian Unity, the Faith and Order Advisory Group (‘FOAG’) and the House of Bishops’ Theological Group. The idea has also been considered by FOAG, the House of Bishops Theological Group, the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops and the House itself, and has been supported, with minor amendment, at each stage. The Archbishops’ Council has been kept informed and we endorse the proposal.
3. Theological resourcing for the Church of England at the national level is currently provided by the Doctrine Commission, the House of Bishops’ Theological Group, and FOAG.
4. The Doctrine Commission has provided extensive theological resources in the past, normally in the form of major set piece reports, published every five years or so, but has been in abeyance for several years.
5. The Theological Group advises the House of Bishops and its Standing Committee on theological issues that arise within the work of the House or the College, offering reflection on all theological aspects of the House’s agenda. This provision would continue under the new arrangements.
6. FOAG provides theological resources and reflection for the House or College of Bishops and the Council for Christian Unity and through them for the Synod. Over the years, FOAG has produced a number of reports and other documents which have been adopted by the House of Bishops and made available to the wider Church. FOAG’s main strength is in ecclesiology and ecumenical theology, though it currently also contains expertise in biblical studies, liturgy and ethics, and this sort of expertise will be needed in the new Commission. FOAG normally has several bishops among its membership. It scrutinises draft ecumenical agreements and other ecumenical and ecclesiological texts involving the Church of England. The members and the episcopal chair of FOAG are appointed by the Archbishops. It receives commissions of work from either the House of Bishops or the CCU.
7. The current proposal is for the establishment of the Commission, which will incorporate FOAG, the House of Bishops’ Theological Group and the Doctrine Commission. The Commission will therefore have a special relationship to the House of Bishops and to the Council for Christian Unity (as FOAG has now)