From the Revd Paul J. Benfield

Sir, - The Revd Anne Stevens (Women Bishops Preview, 21 June) writes: "When General Synod votes down a draft Measure, the subject can only be reintroduced in that Synod if the proposed legislation is substantially different. Option One clearly meets this requirement in the way that other options do not." This is incorrect.

The Standing Orders provide that the Measure cannot be re-introduced "in the same form". None of the four options outlined in the report of the working party would produce draft legislation in the same form as the failed Measure. It would be unfortunate if anyone thought that the present Synod could not proceed in any way other than Option One. It is free to choose any of the four options, or, indeed, other options not specified in the report.

PAUL J. BENFIELD
St Nicholas's Vicarage
Highbury Avenue
Fleetwood FY7 7DJ
 

From Susan Cooper

Sir, - I read with interest the article (Women Bishops Preview, 21 June) by Alastair McKay observing that there was little evidence of listening during the debate on 20 November 2012. This was indeed true, but that does not mean that no listening had taken in the process that led to the final-approval debate on 20 November. It most certainly had.

Over the nearly 13 years that I have been a member of the General Synod, women bishops have been discussed formally or informally in most groups of sessions. We debated what we wanted in a Measure; we debated the Measure at first consideration; there was a lengthy re-vision process when various amendments were worked through in the revision committee; and finally many of these amendments were debated in plenary sessions over two days at the revision stage.

People had their opportunity to have their say and fight their corner. Clearly, there were some major issues over which the majority did not give way, but listening took place, and minds were changed. For example, I spoke against one amendment, but my speech elicited a response that made me rethink. If people who I knew had previously said that a Code of Practice was not enough were now engaging with the implications of a Code of Practice, then I could support this amendment if it helped them on their way.

In the process, I think some among those who are unable to receive the ministry of women as bishops were beginning to come to terms with the implications of the Measure for them and accept that it would happen. After the overwhelming support from the dioceses for the Measure, it would have been possible to change the few hearts necessary to get the Measure through.

But General Synod elections intervened. New Synods do not like feeling jumped into agreeing to Measures at final approval. A number of people got elected with the express aim of "improving" the provisions for those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops. At this stage, there was no longer any scope for ordinary members of the Synod to influence the form of the Measure.

If the Archbishops, Bishops, and other senior members of the Synod had put their backs into supporting the Measure that had been so well endorsed by the dioceses, the Measure might have still stood a chance last November. The Bishops added to the uncertainty and anxiety by proposing various amendments to the Measure.

What is important, as we go forward, is that the timetable suggested in GS1886 is followed, and that final approval is in July 2015. A Measure developed during this quinquennium will stand a better chance of being owned by the Synod and passed if final approval takes place within the same quinquennium.

If that fails, there will be a new Synod elected straight away, and another new Measure could be developed and processed within the next quinquennium. If the timetable slips, and the Measure is defeated by a new Synod in November 2015, then the Church of England will be up a creek without a paddle.

SUSAN COOPER
(Lay Synod member for London)
28 Headstone Lane
Harrow HA2 6HG
 

From the Revd Dr Bernard Randall

Sir, - After the latest report and proposals on getting women into the episcopate of the Church of England, WATCH has declared that it will not accept "enshrining discrimination in statute", while Forward in Faith and Reform remain clear that only statutory protection will be acceptable to them. There are no surprises in these positions, but we appear to be back to square one, with no sign that the circle will be squared.

But perhaps a solution would be to chose Option One or Two (i.e. no statutory provision in the Measure itself), but to state explicitly in the Act of Synod or House of Bishops Declaration, what is surely implicit anyway, that failure to observe its terms by a cleric of whatever rank would be misconduct under the Clergy Discipline Measure, since it would be "conduct unbecoming a clerk in Holy Orders".

It would remain to be demonstrated by the complainant that the terms of the Act or Declaration had been breached, of course, and it would apply equally to proponents and opponents of the consecration of women. The Clergy Discipline Measure has rules for handling complaints quickly, and provides for the possible penalty of an injunction, which could be an instruction to follow the terms of the Act or Declaration.

In this way, there is no statutory discrimination in the Measure, but there is known to be statutory backing for the high standards of conduct in which we are being called to place our trust.

We might add to this an undertaking by the national Church to pay the legal fees of anyone who, in following the Act or Declaration, is challenged under the Equality Act 2010 - a significant worry of opponents. Given the negligible chance that such a challenge will be successful (consider how Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge, manages to refuse applications for a Fellowship from men), a very low-cost insurance policy would be all that was necessary to set nerves at rest.

Taken together, these might just give us the makings of a way forward.

BERNARD RANDALL
Chaplain
Christ's College
Cambridge CB2 3BU
 

From Dr Jonathan Morgan

Sir, - The definition of "tradition" employed by the Revd Patrick Davies ( Letters, 14 June) escapes me. There is very little theological or historical warrant for thinking of the Christian tradition as a static entity perfected at some undefined moment in the distant past to which the Church is (or should be) subject.

Rather, the concept of a dynamic and evolving tradition is considerably more orthodox and theologically satisfactory. Moreover, a question mark has long hung over the heads of those who oppose the priestly and episcopal ministry of women under the banner of "traditionalist", and yet accepted the provision of extended episcopal oversight, a move that rewrote and undermined the tradition of episcopal authority.

Fr Davies's misleading talk of priests' being forced out of parishes and Evangelicals' and Anglo-Catholics' being de-churched conveniently obscures the fact that he is referring not to their being excluded, but, rather, excluding themselves, which is very different. Unity is a vital but also a teleological ideal. As such, it must not be something that the Church places in the way of the life to which the Spirit is calling it - a calling that is properly considered the grounds of tradition.

JONATHAN MORGAN
16 Lowestoft Street
Manchester M14 7PU
 

From the Revd John Bloomfield

Sir, - It seems clear through all that has happened since the General Synod meeting when the vote on women bishops failed that some people are determined to have their way regardless of anything else.

What is being brought before the Synod now shows that we have not learned anything about waiting on God and having the courage to let him do the directing.

Obviously, we cannot trust God to listen to our prayers when the answer is not to our liking. Determined to follow the ways of the world rather than trust God, the General Synod changes its own rules to get what it wants. I cannot be the only one who is fed up with the mantra reiterated by the Revd Anne Stevens (Women Bishops Preview, 21 June) that we have damaged our credibility in the eyes of the nation it serves. Surely we should be more concerned about how we stand before God rather before than the world. Yes, we are to serve the nation, but not at the expense of forgetting that the Church belongs to God. It is his Church, not ours.

If we are to proceed with the ordination of women as bishops, it should be because we feel that this is the direction God wants us to take. I am becoming more and more disillusioned by the Church of England. We seem to have forgotten that we are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy people, God's own people, who are to transform the world for God. It does seem that we are more determined to be credible in the eyes of a secular nation rather than discern God's way through prayer and waiting on him.

JOHN BLOOMFIELD
The Vicarage, 53 Northgate
Hunstanton PE36 6DS
 

From Canon Allan Buik

Sir, - I am surprised by the approach favoured by the majority of the House of Bishops, and by some of the words used by the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Michael Perham (Women Bishops Preview, 21 June) in its favour:

". . . last November, the scheme that was most generous to opponents of women bishops". It is a matter of record that members of the House of Laity who favour the ordination of women to the episcopate voted against the Measure because they considered the provision for opponents inadequate; and there were enough of them to give the Measure the necessary two-thirds majority if they had voted in favour.

Indeed, that vote was much less close than that which made the ordination of women priests possible in 1992. These "generous" proposals had been stripped of everything that was designed to make the Measure acceptable to traditional Catholics and Evangelicals, notably the Archbishops' amendment.

"Generous trust-building needs now to be on everyone's agenda." We who are opposed seem to be expected to trust those who make no secret of their belief that there is no place for us in the Church of England. Assurances of no discrimination against us in appointments have been, shall we say, more honoured in the breach than the observance. In 1992, I was a new incumbent in the diocese of Lichfield. Bishop Keith Sutton was the diocesan bishop; and he, together with successive area bishops of Stafford, clearly believed in the Act of Synod and operated it even-handedly, graciously and, yes, generously; the first Bishop of Ebbsfleet lived in the diocese and was an Assistant Bishop. When I mentioned to Bishop Christopher Hill that my PCC was about to consider Resolution C, his reply was "Oh, well, you've been morally a C parish for years, haven't you?"

It was only gradually that I discovered that life was less comfortable elsewhere: there were stories of pressure put on PCCs, often by archdeacons, to rescind, or not to pass, the Resolutions; and even of bishops who claimed not to be bound by the Act of Synod because they had not been in post when it was passed. We in Lichfield didn't know we were born.

But we are expected to trust those who did their best to circumvent the safeguards we had, and still have, and to be content with the provisions of Option One!

ALLAN D. BUIK
17 Hermitage Road, Higham
Rochester ME3 7DB
 

From Margaret Simpson

Sir, - Please will someone explain to me why, in the 21st century, when almost all church electoral-roll members can read and write, and even use a computer, it is impossible for them to be able to vote on matters of national importance such as women bishops?

I am weary of being told that the House of Laity represents me, when no one has ever even asked my opinion, let alone given me the opportunity to vote - even for members of the diocesan synod. It must be 15 years since anyone aspiring to belong to that body bothered to hold any accessible canvassing session in this area.

I wonder what those who are ordained are afraid of.

MARGARET SIMPSON
86 Wells Road
Fakenham
Norfolk NR21 9HH