back back to Synod previous previous story  |  next story next

WOMEN BISHOPS: Go extra mile, bishop pleads as Synod wrestles with women bishops

Glyn Paflin, Bill Bowder, Margaret Duggan and Pat Ashworth. Photos by Geoff Crawford


Knotty problem: Synod members, among them the Bishop in Europe, Dr Geoffrey Rowell (centre, front), ponder assurances for traditionalists

THE LEGISLATION for women bishops has passed its first hurdle in the Synod. After a debate that took up the whole of Wednesday morning, it stands referred to the revision committee.

The Synod was assured by the Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch: “It is open season once again, and everything is re­view­able.” Members were told that they would now have until 5.30 p.m. on Monday 16 March to write to the Clerk to the Synod with proposed amendments for consideration by the committee.

Because any Synod member who has submitted a proposal for amend­ment is entitled to attend the com­mittee’s meeting and speak to that proposal, the meeting will be held in the Convocation Hall at Church House. The committee will decide whether public and press are admit­ted.

Introducing the debate, Bishop McCulloch said that the legislative drafting group, which he chaired, had been engaged in an intellectually demanding and spiritually tough task. Today marked a new stage. It would be open to Synod to reshape the draft Measure and Amending Canon in whatever manner it chose. “The fact that particular amend­ments to the motion were defeated last July does not mean that members are now precluded from proposing changes to the texts to give effect to those defeated amendments.” When the legislative process was under way, those earlier votes ceased to have any formal status.

Although, formally, the decision to commit the draft Amending Canon was a separate item of business, the proposals formed a single package. The short report from the drafting group made clear that it had worked within the mandate from the Synod. It had set out the dilemma with which the Synod would have to go on grappling, and had explained why it had proposed a significant rewriting of Canon A4.


the Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett © not advert
Opposing views: the Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett


Christina Rees making a speech © not advert
...and Christina Rees, who chairs Women and the Church (WATCH)

“We went into all this at length in our April report, and then began to conclude that lack of comment on our proposals meant that they com­mended wide support. More recent comments suggest that not everyone had studied them very closely. Well, now is the time to do so — because, as paragraph 13 says, the internal balance that the proposed new Canon A4 ‘seeks to strike is at the heart of the accommodation that will need to be made if the Church of England is both to welcome women wholeheartedly and enthusiastically to each order of ministry and leave generous space for those who in conscience cannot receive this development.’”

The group did ask itself whether — consistent with a code-of-practice approach — it would be possible for a bishop invited to exercise oversight of those unable to receive the minis­try of women as bishops or priests to have some measure of jurisdiction. “This might help address some of the concerns of those for whom delega­tion from the diocesan bishop is a potential stumbling block.”

Its conclusion was that, as a matter of law, such an approach was pos­sible. But they did not believe it was an approach under the mandate they had that they could commend. “If others wish to propose that — or indeed other approaches that confer jurisdiction and are not dependent on a code-of-practice approach — then the revision-committee stage is the point at which to come forward with amendments to give effect to your proposals.”

The draft Measure was intended to provide a single statutory basis for the ordination and ministry of women as priests and their consecra­tion as bishops. “Thus, if we get to the point when this legislation has achieved the Royal Assent and come into force, the 1993 Measure would automatically be repealed. At that point, Synod would also be invited to rescind the Act of Synod.”

The draft Measure provided that Resolutions A and B would continue to have legal effect for five years after its coming into force, unless pre­viously rescinded by the PCC or, in a multi-parish benefice, brought to an end at the request of another parish.

Subject to that, arrangements in relation to those unable to receive the ministry of women as priests or bishops would all be dealt with in accordance with arrangements set out in a statutory code of practice made under the Measure. All those exercising functions of any kind in the Church of England would be under a legal duty to “have regard to” that code.

In legal terms, a statutory code of practice was a good deal more robust than an Act of Synod, which was not legislation at all. Equally, it did not give the same degree of certainty as the sort of statutory rights embodied in the 1993 Measure. “So, clearly, questions about the degree of assur­ance to build into the legislation itself are bound to be at the heart of the continuing debates over the coming months.”


Edward Keene at the microphone © not advert
Debate: Edward Keene at the microphone. Standing behind him is Sister Anne Williams CA

One of the most difficult issues the drafting group faced was the balance to strike in the legislation — and in the illustrative draft code of practice — between prescription and flexi­bility. In clause 3 of the draft Meas­ure, it was provided for the archbishops to nominate one or more suffragan sees in each province which could be filled only by a man who had taken the full form of the declaration under clause 2.

“The judgement of the group was that, without such a provision, a number of those who genuinely wish to remain within the Church of England would feel that they could not do so; but that, like all the judge­ments of the drafting group, and in­deed the wider decisions reached by the Synod last July, needs further testing and probing.”

The intention was that all clergy would be required at their ordination or on taking up a new office to swear an oath of canonical obedience to the diocesan bishop in a new form. Those being ordained or appointed to a place where a complementary bishop exercised functions would take an additional oath to him.

Finally, there was only an illustra­tive draft code of practice at this stage because, if and when the legislation received the Royal Assent, the initia­tive would lie with the House of Bishops to bring a code to the Synod for approval. “But we want to try and take the process as far as we sensibly can at this stage.”

There would be searching and un­welcome dilemmas over the next 18 months. “Let none of us expect others to set aside convictions that they hold as deeply as our own. Instead, let us each ask what it might mean for each of us to go the extra mile for our brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Christina Rees (St Albans) acknow­ledged the report to be a compromise, but one that had taken forward the House of Bishops’ motion as amended. Her concern was the proposal for specially nomi­nated suffragan sees. What would the relationship of these bishops be with the other bishops? The current provincial episcopal visitors were in communion with other bishops: what would the relationship be in a House of Bishops that would in time include women? The House of Bishops was not only an ecclesial body, but a constitutional body of state: how would its constitutional standing be affected? The Synod should not lose sight of this in the draft proposals.

Members should also remember that, though the Synod was making canon law, it was also about “people beloved of God” and about relation­ships. The ordination of women was often cited as a stumbling-block to unity with the Roman Catholics, but many in the RC Church were praying for it. “The tragic reality is that our tradition has said things about women that we now condemn. . . There is a distant echo of those views in our Church.”

The Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett, said that the proposals before the Synod mani­festly failed to achieve what had been intended. They did not solve the central problem of jurisdiction, which for Catholics was not “just part of some power struggle”. No code of practice could compel a priest hold­ing the traditional view to come under a bishop whom he could not regard as a true father-in-God. This nettle must be grasped. The report recognised the problem all too well.

To proceed without sorting this issue would make all promises “little more than window-dressing”. Promises over the ordination of women had been whittled away. Even if traditionalists had managed to maintain and protect the minority, did anyone doubt that after the Act of Synod was repealed, another group would not come forward to rescind the code of practice? There was no parity for Anglicans in the proposals. Minorities would be unlikely to be able to afford to apply for a judicial review.

Kevin Carey (Chichester) said that this should be an occasion for joy and celebration, “but it seems like a damage-limitation exercise.” The loud­est objections in the Synod in July had come from those just ordained, but anyone who had been ordained since 1975 had known what was coming. The opponents were in the main people who wanted to undo the Reformation, and people who wanted to undo the Elizabethan Settle­ment. “It is a big ask, but we will do our best,” he said.

Women were already providing the most effective leadership in run-down areas. “Who can read the Magni­ficat and then say that ecclesi­astical rules are more important than justice?”

The Bishop of Bath & Wells, the Rt Revd Peter Price, said that he hoped there could be greater generosity in the Catholic Group. He called on the Synod to consider the theological and anthropological dimensions, and urged the Synod to “see each other differently”. Through dialogue and solidarity, traditionalists, he hoped, would be able to welcome women’s episcopal ministry.



The Archbishop of Canterbury said that he had abstained in the vote in the July Synod because, while wanting women bishops, he could not accept that what was before the Synod made adequate provision for those who did not.

The Synod wanted to vote for that which was manifestly good news, but was what was before the Synod good news, either for women who would become bishops or for those who opposed them? In York, he had agreed that “excessive negotiation of their position” was not necessarily good news for women in episcopal orders. The Manchester group had said that these issues were still capable of being addressed and resolved during the revision stage.

“What surprises me is not that we have not agreed, but have moved so far to something that might just com­mand a common mind. . . We are not that far from something we had hoped.” The question was whether the gap to be bridged was narrow, but a very, very deep gulf, “or is it, as it were, two hands reaching out to each other and waiting for a spark to unite them”.

The question was: was this good news for everyone in the Church of England, “because, if it isn’t, there is something missing in our witness to each other and to the world”.

Edward Keene (Church of England Youth Council) said that at a meeting of the Youth Council a motion for a simple Measure for the ordination of women to the episco­pate had been rejected in favour of measures that would ensure that there was special pro­vision for those who could not receive the episcopal ministry of women. The Youth Council was dis­pro­portionately female, and 80 per cent of the executive was female. He called on the Synod to reject the Measure and press for proper statu­tory arrange­ments to be made.

Sister Anne Williams CA (Dur­ham), a member of the Man­chester group, acknowledged the different perspectives of its members. They had not all agreed, but had come to an understanding and mutual respect for one another in Christian love. The group had been limited by its remit. Much had been said about discrimina­tion against and justice for women, but it worked both ways. The early 1990s debates had been about equality issues, not theology.

Women had been ordained as priests, and there could be no glass ceiling: they could not be prevented from becoming bishops. But pro­vision must be made for those unable to accept it, and assurances given for the future. She urged the Synod to find a way forward by revising this piece of legislation “to suit all of us. Let’s keep at our hearts: ‘How these Christians love one another!’”

The Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Universities of Durham and Newcastle) urged the Synod to respect the restraint exercised by women who had accepted a code of practice in place of the simple statutory Measure they would have preferred. She wel­comed the authority of the final clause of the new Canon A4 as spelling out that the C of E had no doubts about the sacramental validity of women’s ordination.

But the C of E could not hold two different views on the same subject. The code of practice represented a sacri­fice by the ordained women of the Church: she urged those who re­mained opposed to understand how great that sacrifice had been, and to “meet us halfway”.

The Archdeacon of Berkshire, the Ven. Norman Russell, had been con­sistent in his support for women and in his belief in adequate provision for opponents, he said. The word “statu­tory” made no difference: a code of practice did not have the binding power of a statutory instrument or Measure. If people believed that they had been wronged, they would have to apply for a judicial review. He issued a challenge: could it be ex­plained in “unambiguous, clear lan­guage” how the code of practice before the Synod could be more effec­tive than the code of practice which went with the Pastoral Measure?

The Revd Rod Thomas (Exeter) asked why it was that, when such pro­vision was being made for oppo­nents, did they still sense they were being excluded? How should they vote? The instrument was uncertain, because it could be examined only in the secular courts, and operated at the discretion of the diocesan bishop.

“Our ministry is only tolerated, not encouraged to flourish,” he said. The litmus test was what happened to ordinands. Many who had been ex­pected to go forward were not now considering ordination, because they saw it as an uncertain future. He urged the Synod to vote against the motion.

The Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Revd Graham James, said that the proposals left episcopacy so damaged and fractured that he could not see what would make them satisfactory. Parishes had not been able to pass the Resolutions if they already had a woman priest. But, under these pro­posals, they would be able to petition when a woman bishop was in post, which had serious consequences for the episcopate itself.

Opponents, on theological and ec­clesio­logical grounds, would not find the proposals satisfactory, and might well leave for another Com­mu­nion. The more bereft they become, “the more we will be pressed into deeper schism”, he said.

Further, he did not sense in himself or others the joy of “God doing a new thing among us. God is telling us that the means we are choosing will defeat the end. Waiting on God is neither dishonourable nor unfaithful.” He urged the Synod to vote against the motion.

The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Revd Jonathan Gledhill, said that everyone was trying to square the circle and to show how seriously they took the views of “our brothers and sisters”. But the minority could not dictate. The Synod must go forward. The New Testament did not outlaw a code of practice: the real issue was trust in bishops. The code of practice was so safeguarded that it would be im­possible to ignore. A statutory arrange­ment would be a structure against women. “Go ahead,” he urged the Synod. “Support Manchester and his team.”

Anne Martin (Guildford) said that her greatest fear was what would happen if the draft legislation was rejected and the Synod had to start again. What would the wider mem­ber­ship of the Church and those out­side think if it continued to focus inwardly on itself? “There will be women bishops. We are just pro­longing the agony if we go back­wards.” The debate was about “trust, respect, compromise, and working together”. All Church of England bishops should be equal.

Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (Lon­don) asked whether the Synod was really in the right position to set in full motion the detailed scrutiny of the legislation. As a lawyer, he had respect for due process, but care should be taken not to make the Synod a process-driven business. “Open season” might be true in theory, but not in reality, he sug­gested. Tweaking detail was not re­visiting the fundamentals.

The Archdeacon of Chichester, the Ven. Douglas McKittrick, in a maiden speech, said that the Synod was in danger of losing sight of “members of one another”. He was committed to working with those who had different convictions from his own, but felt he was being told in a code of practice that he had “a reduced place in the Church of England”. The code of prac­tice was not robust and was potentially unsafe. “Reject it for a statute robust enough for mutual accountability.”

The Revd Maureen Hobbs (Lich­field) supported the provision, but wanted to point out “how far the code of practice asks us to bend over”. Where was the parity of esteem in the suggestion that, in a diocese where the bishop had signed the declara­tion, an adviser for women’s ministry be ap­pointed and invited “from time to time” to address the Bishop’s Council about issues affec­ting women’s mini­stry, she asked. How could women clergy in such dioceses be encouraged? Who cared for lay people who felt strongly?

The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd John Gladwin, said that the Church of England could not be accused of rushing things. It was im­portant not to compromise the nature of episcopal ministry, which would be damaged if the full episcopal ministry of women was not accepted. “The solutions may be impotent and incomplete, but are necessary. . . Many of us have waited long enough.”

The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Stephen Venner, said that he was grateful to the Bishop of Manchester and his committee for the work they had done; for the result was that they were now “in a better place” than he had thought possible last July.

He said, however, that the code of practice was a brilliant bit of legisla­tion which would be a detailed act of law, would become more detailed in revision, whether it was expressed in a code of practice or in more legal terms. But “the letter of the law is going to kill rather than give life.” The code would not lead to the joyful reception of the development of which the Archbishop of Canterbury had spoken.

Second, it was not really liked by anyone. Third, it gave “an unbalanced and intolerable situation” where all diocesan bishops, on assuming office, immediately had to delegate powers to “auxiliary bishops”, and so were not able fully to celebrate their new posi­tion.

What was needed, to ensure that the development of women in the episco­pate could be welcomed, was a “fresh expression” of being a bishop, where the bishops for the traditional­ists could be in a sacramental re­lationship, “almost like a religious order”. This would be not unlike the case of prison or college chaplains.

The Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, said that the Elizabethan Settlement was intended to provide a spiritual home for all English people. The code of practice was intended to hold together both Catholic and Reformed and to advance the vision and ministry of the Church of Eng­land. It would be a “promissory note” made by the Church as a voluntary society, seeking a new kind of collegiality.

People could not be compelled to come to communion: it was an invi­ta­tion. “If they decide they cannot accept my ministry because I have ordained a woman bishop, then God bless them,” he said. “The only way we will know if it is good news is to send this Measure into revision, and then see what it looks like.” It would lift the spirit, because it would allow the Church to go forward with its eyes open.

The Archdeacon of Lewisham, the Ven. Christine Hardman, said that, although she would support the motion because of the Bishop of Manchester’s assurance that “exten­sive revision is possible,” she was con­cerned, as were the Bishops of Nor­wich and Chelmsford, that it was undermining the nature of the episcopate.

The idea of “complementary bishops” suggested that there was something lacking in the diocesan bishop’s episcopacy. Far more had been delegated than was legally necessary. It was also not Catholic order to take oaths to two different bishops.

Canon Simon Killwick (Man­chester) said that he was “fighting to stay in the Church of England”, and he was a fan of the Elizabethan Settlement. The code of practice was “patently flawed”, but it was also subject to revision, and would not come to the Synod finally until 2014. “Five years later, it will look different to Synod.” That Synod would not be committed to anything done in the present Synod. “We would be signing a blank cheque,” he said.

It would be far better for the House of Bishops to go away and bring back a fairer settlement that all could rejoice in.

The motion that the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Or­dina­tion of Women) Measure be con­sidered for revision in committee was carried by 281 votes to 114, with 13 abstentions.

THE SYNOD then focused on the draft Amending Canon No. 30, which would alter legislation that derived from the 17th century.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, said that he wanted to see women bishops, but that the proposals compromised the ministry of all bishops. Only if they went against the advice of the Bishop of Manchester group and created new dioceses would every bishop feel that he or she was equally a bishop.

“It is the only way forward,” he said. Diocesan boundaries were not hard and fast. If new dioceses were created, there would be some chance of rebuilding the co-operation and understanding needed. He asked for, and received, an assurance that this was still possible at the revision stage.

John Freeman (Leicester) said that, “in the spirit of sacrifice”, and as an alternative to “this dreadful code of practice”, episcopal authority could be invested in the House of Bishops as a corporate body. Then they could have women bishops and episcopal visitors, and everyone would be happy.

The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe, Dr Geoffrey Rowell, said that Canon A4, which was being revised, had been intended to oppose those who had sought supplementary ordi­na­tion because they did not regard ordination in the Church of England as being in the Church of God and into the historic orders of the Church.

“This Canon needs to be looked at, because its intention was to affirm the orders of the Church of England,” he said. It was to provide assurance that those orders were part of the historic ministry, what had always been held in common by Churches. The Church of England could not now say that what it was intending to do was in historic continuity with that practice.

The Revd Paul Benfield (Black­burn) said that not just the sacra­mental acts of a woman, but all acts of a woman as chief pastor of the diocese would be a cause of difficulty for him. Even swearing an oath would not resolve the issue, because the duty of canonical obedience was independent of an oath sworn. “Only if jurisdiction can pass away from people we do not recognise as bishops could we stay in the Church of England,” he said.

The motion that Amending Canon No. 30 be considered for revision in committee was carried by 309 votes to 79, with 14 recorded abstentions.



back back to Synod up back to top previous previous story  |  next story next


© Church Times 2006 - All rights reserved

Website by Baigent