The Church of England’s House of Bishops met this week. The formal agenda for the meeting is available online, although the papers do not appear to be. Following the meeting the following press release was published.
House of Bishops meeting May 2025
22/05/2025
The House of Bishops met in person from 20th to 22nd May in York.
The House spent time considering what would help the flourishing of women, both lay and ordained, in the Church of England.
First, the House considered provision for ordained women in the context of the settlement on the ordination of women to all three orders. A proposal for each diocese to have at least one diocesan advisor on women’s ministry was approved, with further work to be undertaken on the associated guidelines to ensure consistency of approach in each diocese.
Secondly, the House discussed commissioning a significant piece of work to assess ongoing disparities and discrimination based on gender in the Church of England, to identify how women and men may work better together at local and national levels and offer a vision for a diverse church that works together for the flourishing of all. The overall aim of the work is to enable the inclusion and positive treatment of women in the Church, rather than mirroring negative elements of wider culture, to offer Gospel hope and transformation. Importantly, it was noted that the work does not in any way aim to undermine the current settlement on the ordination of women to all three orders, but rather to reflect on its implementation and impact.
The House was briefed on the ongoing work of the Triennium Funding Working Group, including the proposals from Archbishops’ Council on significant changes to pensions which are part of a wider range of measures on clergy wellbeing currently under development.
The House discussed the current situation in Gaza, with a number of Bishops relating their personal experience of visits to the region. The House agreed a joint statement in which they condemned the Government of Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza, calling it “an atrocity that defies our common humanity”.
The House received an update from Living in Love and Faith Programme Board and the Faith and Order Commission Episcopal Reference Group. The Bishops then spent time in groups discussing different areas of the current LLF proposals (as outlined in a recent LLF update to provide feedback to the LLF Programme Board. A further iteration of these proposals will be brought before the House in the autumn. This will also take into account the wider feedback gained from an informal consultation of diocesan synod members that is currently underway.
The House heard insights from research aligned to the Vision and Strategy, celebrating experiences and discussing evidence of growth and revitalisation, and what can be learnt. Topics included the recent findings regarding the openness of Gen Z to faith, along with other local case studies and examples.
I would love to know what this means: “to enable the inclusion and positive treatment of women in the Church, rather than mirroring negative elements of wider culture”. Who decides what counts as a “negative element”? I would think that, for some in the Church, women having authority over men is a “negative element”.
Another way to look at is that it accepts women aren’t properly included – though I doubt whether that was what the person writing up the notes was trying to say in the midst of the waves of anodyne pomposity!
anodyne pomposity. That’s a good one!
Yes indeed. There are entrenched measures to enable the “negative treatment” of women and it’s noted that this will not change. I find the self-satisfied reference to “negative elements of the wider culture” intensely annoying. The Church is no position to assume a superior position here. The “wider culture” at least provides a legal framework which reflects an aspiration to equal treatment. Far from giving a lead the Church is lagging well behind “the wider culture” and a bit more humility would be welcome.
Yes, I thought that a really odd phrase too. In the diocese where I live (Gibraltar in Europe), both bishops and all of the archdeacons are men, so I would imagine that those of us who inhabit the “wider culture,” where such unequal employment situations never arise, might view whoever makes all these appointments as being “negative elements,” rather than vice versa!
Ah now ‘negative elements of wider culture’ are very precisely defined by the HOB…. ‘anyone and anything that does not agree with us, in whatever our position might be on whatever it is at whatever time’.
I hope that helps, Helen….(!)
i wonder if this is a belated response to the drama “adolescence” and a reference to cultural forces of the previous years like Andrew Tate?
Andrew Tate and the like would have been my understanding of ‘negative elements of wider culture’, and the possibility that some bishop, or whoever composes the ‘finely crafted’ words following the HoB meeting. I recognise that other interpretations are possible, and indeed that the words from ‘on high’ may have been intended to allow for a range of understandings. Who ‘approves’ the HoB statements?
The somewhat sotto voce joint statement is welcome, if extremely belated, since what has become utterly undeniable now was actually very obvious – even to the most incurious – from the outset (not least thanks to the vast array of statements and recordings of those implementing the ‘impunity’). However, it coincides with a number of highly opportunistic, insubstantial, optical and performative statements made by a number of self-serving Western politicians, officials and journalists in recent days. I cannot help but think that such statements are more informed by a rather desperate need to preserve reputations and/or deflect the attention of… Read more »
Thanks for the link. Lots of good discussion there. Words may not matter for those dying, but: There may be debate about whether Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians or not. But there is no doubt at all that Hamas want genocide of Israel. My summary is that Israel does not want genocide of Palestine, but is succeeding, whereas Hamas want genocide of Israel but is failing. One weekend afternoon, I was jogging around Tooting Bec common, and came across a group of about 20 who had come from a march. They were shouting the normal slogans, waving flags, and… Read more »
Wanting the dismantling of an evil and murderous political entity is not the same as wanting the destruction of thousands of people. Hiroshima was a genocide. Dresden was a genocide. Gaza is a genocide. If you had encountered a similar group in Birmingham and asked the same question, you would certainly have received an affirmative answer. Wanting the state of Israel to continue as it is would surely be morally reprehensible.
But wanting it as it is is not the same as destruction whatever. When i ask the question i am only expoaing hypocrisy. If they say they want the destruction of israel they are being honest at least
To clarify for the evidently slow of intellect – Hamas seeks the abolition of the state of Israel while Israel seeks the extermination or total expulsion of the Palestinian people. Yet in this country it is against the law to support Hamas but perfectly legal to support the Israeli regime.
I hope you ate not accusing me of being slow of intellect. Words like genocide are easily bandied about but less easy to demonstrate. It is a great mess but naivitie will mot get anything anywhere. My father wrote a chapter on the situation in his book Britain and the UN.
I deduce from an online search that your father was Prof Geoffrey L. Goodwin of LSE.Is that so?
Yes.
May be difficult to find a copy of the book, but it is on my bookshelf somewhere! I think his summary, from memory (it was a voluminous write-up of a Chatham house gathering) was that they all hated each other, it had been going on a for a long time, Britain and USA didn’t want to keep troops there for ever, the UN voted for a resolution, but did nothing to put that resolution into effect. Words, not actions. Like many of his generation, naive idealism did not come naturally to him. Any views his children expressed was met by… Read more »
I am not confident that the first part of your statement is completely correct: in its 2017 charter (which has not yet been repudiated) Hamas recognised the 1967 borders, which amounted to an implicit, but only de facto, recognition of the State of Israel: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders This reinforced a policy shift which had already occurred at Cairo in 2005 (which had also indicated a commitment to the 1967 borders). The 2017 charter was considered by Israel as anti-Semitic because, amongst other things, it reinforced the existing condemnation of Zionism which had been Hamas policy since the charter of 1988. Noting the… Read more »
I ought to have added the text of the 2017 charter: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
The rhetoric is not unlike that of older declarations, but the key clause is Art. 20, which is the de facto recognition of the outcome of the Six Day War and, in effect, an abandonment of both territorial maximisation, of the UN frontiers delimited in 1947 (Resolution 181), and of the 1949 Green Line.
Thank you, this is correct. The false claim that Hamas seek the ‘genocide’ of Jewish Israelis or the ‘destruction’ of Israel is deployed to add tacit but specious justification for Israel’s monstrously barbaric response to 7 October (which was also barbaric). And why should any people accept a mere 22% of the land stolen from them by recent immigrants and see that as some kind of concession for which they should be grateful?
OK, I agree that I didn’t follow my own advice and accused Hamas of wanting genocide, whereas they MAY only want the destruction of the State of Israel and the dispersal of Jews.
Jews can now feel safe.
Recent immigrants? Really?
What do you think of Ian Paul’s article and the discussions within that?
The degree of intemperate remarks and ignorance of facts and history is lamentable in these kinds of discussions. Not accusing Jonathan, just a general comment.
How ‘should’ Israel have responded to Hamas’ atrocities on 7 October?
Are we sure that Hamas are actually telling the truth here?
It is fairly evident Matthew that in this appalling situation in Gaza and in the West Bank, the tide is turning very fast against the State of Israel and I think the Judgement of God is coming down on that Nation. The Western nations will end that aweful situation by crashing the economy and they did in South Africa, which brought the whole edifice of Apartheid crashing down with it and when the Israeli economy is soon crashed the whole edifice of Zionism, the whole Zionist project will come crashing down with it, it is only a matter of time… Read more »
So you want the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder and dispersal of Jew? How do you make peace with those who want to destroy you?
I would be the last to defend the disproportionate actions of the current Israeli government, but the degree of naivety around the situation is astounding.
I only respond because it against my principles to allow such views to appear on TA unchallenged.
Ian Paul’s views are very similar to my own. See point 10 in his article.
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/how-to-avoid-being-antisemitic/
You endorse genocide denial. Got it.
Once again, Jo, you twist my words. I have never endorsed genocidal denial. There is denial on all sides. Especially amongst useful idiots. The term genocide is quite specific, and I leave it to those who understand international law to say whether or not there is genocide. That people are being killed or maimed, on both sides, unnecessarily (??), is beyond doubt. I often listen to LBC, and when a caller uses the term ‘genocide’ the presenter usually responds by questioning the use of the term. These are usually very aware presenters who understand these issues much better than you… Read more »
“I leave it to those who understand international law to say whether or not there is genocide.”
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
The ICJ decision was made 14-1, and was made 16 months’ ago. Further proceedings will follow.
Sorry, I should note that it was 15/2 or 16/1 depending on the item being ruled upon. In any event the decision was made by a great majority of the panel. I should add that it was a preliminary determination of a plausible state of affairs (for the purpose of obtaining a species of injunction), and that a definitive finding will take time to be produced.
Exactly. Some choose to ignore that caveat. Thank you.
I’m not going to spend much more time on this, but I think there is no determination (yet) whether or not Israel’s or Hamas’ actions are genocide or violate international law. It talks about provisional measures to prevent possible acts of genocide, and gathering of evidence for any future determination. ‘Further proceedings will follow’. No doubt. My father (as mentioned before, Emeritus professor of International Relations at LSE, was a fervent admirer of UN, but also a realist. In his 1957 book he was very clear that UN resolutions, regarding Palestine, without any effective backup to enforce them, are pretty… Read more »
Sorry, you think LBC presenters have a superior understanding of international law? Compared with, say, the Genocide Convention:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide
Note particularly Article 2, (a), (b) and (c), all of which have been committed by the Israeli regime and by Hamas. In particular Israel uses violence and terror, along with propaganda, to deny the very existence of the Palestinian people and force them into exile in the hope that they will be subsumed into neighbouring countries.
Western nations and the establishment media dance around this because if they admitted it was happening they’d then have to ask why they’re enabling it.
You obviously don’t listen to LBC! Superior? Superior to what or whom? I see you also accuse Hamas of genocide. Correct, but not what you were saying in previous comments. You forgot to quote in Article 2 ‘with the intent to destroy’ which is the difficult part to legislate. No doubt some members of the Israeli regime do indeed have an intent to destroy. This discussion is pointless. You throw accusations around indiscriminately, it is tiresome to respond to them all. What about the Palestinians living within the State of Israel? They may be second class citizens, but, in your… Read more »
The Israeli state refuses to even call its non-Jewish citizens “Palestinians”. It will only refer to “Arabs”. It refuses to acknowledge that Palestinians exist, as that would recognise a connection to the land at least as valid as that of Israel’s Jewish population.
To continue the quote “with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part”. Nobody tries to split hairs like this over the Srebrenica massacre. Is it because scrutiny of Israel invites closer scrutiny of older settler-colonial states like Canada, the US and Australia (and Northern Ireland, for that matter)?
I don’t think we are ever going to agree on anything! Settler-colonial states are great! Britain did wonderful work in India. Britain gets blamed for everything, everybody sang kumbaya before the evil British colonialists got involved, Hindus and Muslims got on fine prior to partition.
What did the Romans ever do for us?
My only request is that you do not castigate me for views which I do not hold.
This was my immediate reaction Helen. The bishops seem to be pre-judging or pre-determining the outcome.
there is that strange phrase where it is wider culture, and not church culture, that is said to have negative elements
And a piece of work assessing ongoing disparities and discrimination related to gender in the church must not be seen to suggest that the present settlement is part of the problem.
It is positive that the House considered how women might be helped to flourish in the C of E, rather than the more usual phrase of “ encouraging mutual flourishing” etc.which often ignores the experience of women. It is good that the needs of women are named – and also an implicit recognition that women, whether lay or ordained, are often not flourishing in the institution of the church. It is also positive that the value of the contribution of DAWMs is recognised , and the need for consistency across dioceses – though I hope that this will lead to all dioceses… Read more »
Thanks for the response Rosalind, I agree with everything you say. It is important to do this sort of research, but equally important not to constrain the investigation within pre-determined limits. And your detailed response indicates that such constraint is a real risk. But I think the problem goes beyond women’s ordination and is about the attitude to women in general. I was struck by this comment piece when reflecting on this issue. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/25/young-men-reform-women-green-voters The reported increase in young men joining the church has created a lot of noise and comment, but what about the young women? What is going… Read more »
Sorry about the typo – it should have read young women aged 20 to 40.
They won’t ask the question because they don’t want to know the answer. It’s deliberate.
No doubt this is well-meaning, but we’ve now got far beyond all the years of well-meaning meetings, reports, and statements. Just commissioning another piece of work this year? Err. No. Women of the church can have no confidence that anything will be done with that piece of work. They might also think it’s actually not up to the bishops to suggest or decide for everyone else that the 2014 Settlement charade should continue. Is it not now a matter for the wider Church to have a national discussion, and for General Synod to debate it? It doesn’t need another ‘piece… Read more »
Lizzie , I heartily agree with all your post apart from the first sentence… or would like to ask you who do you think the obfuscating house of Bishops is meaning to do well for? Froghole as ever puts things in context comparing it with the ‘highly opportunistic ,insubstantial, optical and performative statements made by a number of self serving Western politicians , officials and journalists …’ As with any difficult issues their ‘Graces’ achieve stalemate by pretending to want change while those who are opposed to it dig in and achieve ‘Red lines’ like the statement that the work… Read more »
Trying to be charitable, leadership of the CofE must be very hard. No doubt they feel it’s: herding various types of cats; loose/ungovernable structure; archaic and inadequate management processes; needing to be nice to everyone; endless repetitive debates. The thought of re-opening inevitably-troubling discussions on whether women should be treated equally or kept down, complete with a group of clergymen publicly demanding women still be under their authority, with the national optics of that… Hard to open that door. History shows it’s often only when the CofE is poked from outside with a stick that it moves forward in a… Read more »
The comment about clergy pensions is an interesting one. The headline seems always to be about redressing what most see as an injustice and restoring pension rights to what they used to be before the great and good of protected/inflated pension land who made up most of Synod at that time (Laity and Bishops) culled them (2/3 of pensionable stipend). What nobody seems to be pointing out, if what I’ve been told is true, is the qualifying service for a full pension is set to rise from 30 to 40 years in these proposals. Consequently, for most clergy serving today,… Read more »
That’s simply not true.
The qualifying period for a full pension went up in 2008 from 37 years to 40 years. And up further to 41.5 years in 2011, when the pension payable for full pensionable service decreased by 25% from 2/3 of stipend to 1/2.
The proposed changes represent a marked improvement for the pension prospects of clergy who have served between 2011 and today. A full pension will be achievable after 18 months less service, and will be 33% greater in value.
Qualifying service for a full pension is currently 41and a half years.
Thank you for these responses – I appreciate the information. As to it being good news, I’ll reserve judgement until such time as the proposals may pass and I receive some figures on my own pension situation that I can compare with the latest not very inspiring projection. But I’m always grateful to have things I’ve been told that aren’t accurate corrected by people in the know!
No hint that their Lordships discussed the problem of the squatters in Lambeth Palace! Will the bailiffs have to be called in?
I’ve been away and now ‘catching up’. I imagine that this refers to a contining occupation by the former Archbishop now Bishop Justin, of his former home, some months beyond it being for the better performance of his duties? I iam confident that suitable rent will be being paid, as would be the case for any other no-longer incumbent, potentially quite a large slice, for central London accommodation, out of his meagre pension. I can see there is no pressing need for it to be available for the incoming Archbishop. I am intrigued that it might be thought worthy of… Read more »
It strikes me that what would enable women to flourish would be to treat them no differently to men, which means acknowledging them being able to be ordained and removing separate oversight. Simples!
It is indeed simple, except in the Alice in Wonderland world of a Church “where words mean exactly what they choose them to mean”.
The Living in Love and Faith update, referenced in the House of Bishops report, has: “The theological advice from the ERG to date indicates an argument can be made that the Prayers of Love and Faith as outlined are not and do not resemble a marriage, or change the doctrine of marriage. However, the context in which the Prayers might be used, especially in bespoke services, could impinge directly on the doctrine of marriage.” On this alone, it’s hard to see how bespoke services can get past General Synod. And it’s not as if ERG theologians are the only ones… Read more »
I can’t help thinking its all more pompous ‘blah blah’. What about ‘The HoB decided to launch a humanitarian aid fund for practical help in Gaza, pledging immediate medical help and support.’ ‘The HoB while recognising the importance of fair pension for clergy also requested that the funding for victims of clergy sexual abuse was also an urgent priority and should be clearly implemented by the Autumn.’ ‘The HoB noted the increase of senior staff and church office workers in diocese while at the same time noting the decrease in stipendiary parochial posts and decided this needed urgently addressing, and… Read more »
I agree with your overall concern. The good thing about ‘blah blah’ is that it makes the people saying ‘blah blah’ feel comfortable and satisfied. It does very little else. All these calls for this or that, with carefully crafted cliches and triggering words, is of very little practical use. Just one example – what exactly is the difference between a call for a ceasefire, and a call for an end to hostilities? The former is the correct term, and woe betide if your use the latter term, you are devils. In reality, of course, much of what you are… Read more »