Document 2

What views are there now in the CofE?

A rough overview(in real life views overlap!): Key terms in bold

  1. Those fully in favour of women as bishops, justified on grounds of justice and equality, men and women in image of God, Jesus came to redeem humanity, etc. There should be no discrimination. There is room for a transitional period to accommodate traditionalists but this would have no statutory backing and, if passed, everyone ordained from that point onwards should personally agree theologically with women in the episcopate.
  2. Those in favour but they appreciate that it’s a big change for many members of the CofE. So they require special, indefinite provision nationally protected by legislation for those unhappy with women as bishops. They would want this done in a way that doesn’t fundamentally change the current structures of the CofE.
  3. Those in favour of women as bishops in principle, but they are very aware of the potential for divisions overthe issue and place a very high value on unityin the CofE. They are not convinced by a half-way position and would be prepared to see very structured and long-term protected provision for those who deeply disagree with women bishops
  4. Those against women in the episcopate on Scriptural grounds ofheadship – ultimately, leadership is a role for men and so they object to women as vicars and bishops. Female assistant priests under the authority of a male priest are generally no issue for this group. They are mainly concerned that there is provision made for them to opt out of structures with female headship.
  5. Those of a traditional anglo-catholic understanding – the body of Christ is gathered around a bishop. Because of the tradition of the Church, biblical reasons and the belief that the CofE is not entitled to take such a decision, without the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches agreeing,they believe that women should not be admitted. Anglicans holding these views are also concerned about the validity of the sacraments since they doubt women can be priests or bishops. This issue becomes particularly crucial with women bishops since women bishops ordaining priests, male or female, throws into doubt for them the validity of any of the sacraments administered through these priests. This is called the issue of sacramental assurance.

People in this group want structural arrangements – a provision which allows their tradition of the apostolic succession etc. to remain free standing and preserved, ideally in a Third (non-territorial) Province alongside the Province of Canterbury and the Province of York.

The offer of the Anglican Ordinariate in the Roman Catholic Church has complicated the traditional Anglo-Catholic position. Broadly speaking, there are those who have announced they are leaving, those who are waiting to see what the legislation for women bishops will look like, and those who are committed to stay in the CofE, whatever.

P.S. The argument for Church unityecumenically can go either way: Roman Catholics have warned Anglicans that women bishops will damage ecumenical relations, while Methodists are unlikely to accept church structures where women and men are not treated equally.

The Diocese of Newcastle Women in the Episcopate

A Background Paper for the Deanery Conversations

The Current Synodical Process in the CofE

In July 2000, the Archdeacon of Rochester, Judith Rose, put forward a General Synod motion to ask the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focusing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England. The result was the Rochester Report, published in 2004.

In July 2005 the General Synod voted to remove the legal barriers to women bishops. General Synod also restated what had been said at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, that “those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.”

In January 2006, The Guildford Group Report was published: Following on from the Rochester Report, it proposed a way forward aimed at both permitting women to become bishops – should General Synod vote in favour of this - and of preserving the maximum amount of unity within the Church. Three main options were considered: a ‘single clause’ measure with a code of practice; transferred episcopal arrangements; and a third province of the Church. The report argued that a ‘single clause’ measure would not address the central issue of conscientious non-recognition of women bishops, and that a third province would go too far in the direction of creating separate structures which could be seen as representing significant schism. Therefore, TEA, transferred episcopal arrangements, were the recommended option.

In July 2006, the General Synod made the decision that having women as bishops was theologically justified. Synod also agreed that a legislative drafting group be established, with a view to preparing a range of specific options for enabling women to be consecrated as bishops.

This was the Report of the Manchester Group which was published in 2008. The Vatican expressed regret at the Church of England’s proposed move to have women bishops and said this would be a further obstacle in ecumenical relations.
The Manchester Group Report formed the basis for what was a memorable and tense debate at General Synod in July 2008.

The following motion was carried, it was a barely amended version of that moved on behalf of the House of Bishops:

‘That this Synod:

(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, ….’

The Legislative Drafting Group completed this further stage of their work and their report and draft legislation was published on 29 December 2008. The General Synod in February 2009 then debated this draft legislation and code of practice. The vote taken commended the draft legislation to the Revision Committee for further work.

The revised draft legislation was brought back to General Synod in July 2010.

With only minor amendments, General Synod approved the legislation which meant it is now sent to the dioceses for debate.

An amendment by the Archbishops which had suggested the concept of ‘coordinate jurisdiction’, ie Bishops in parallel, failed. While receiving an overall majority of votes, it failed in the House of Clergy and thus did not reach the required majority in all three houses. One of the contentious issues was whether coordinate jurisdiction undermines the concept of one bishop uniting the diocese, or whether ‘mono-episcopacy’ (having only one Diocesan bishop) is not necessary for an Anglican understanding of episcopacy.

What’s going to happen next?

At least two-thirds of the dioceses must approve the draft legislation before it comes back to General Synod for final approval. Newcastle Diocesan Synod will vote on 12 November 2011. Meanwhile, the House of Bishops will draw up a Code of Practice to accompany the legislation.

If a majority of dioceses approve, final drafting could happen in General Synod in February 2012 and final approval in July 2012. If the draft legislation does not meet the required support of the dioceses and falls, then the whole process goes back to Square One and a motion for women bishops would need to be put afresh on the General Synod agenda.

If the draft legislation is finally approved by General Synod, the following course ensues: legislation is sent to Parliament, going first to the Ecclesiastical Committee which deems it expedient (it may not). It is debated in both Houses and passes (it may not). After clearing all these hurdles, it becomes the law of the land.

What does the Draft Legislation actually say?

Clause 1: it will be lawful for General Synod to enable women to be consecrated to the office of Bishop
Clause 2:every Diocesan Bishop will have a duty to make a statement regarding the ordination of women; and will also have a duty to draw up a scheme (to care for those with opposite conviction – either way)

Clause 3: possible for PCCs to pass a resolution, on the grounds of theological conviction, requesting that the Diocesan Bishop should provide them with episcopal ministry and pastoral care from a male (traditional?) bishop.

Clause 5: the House of Bishops will draw up a Code of Practice

Clause 6: Bishops (and others) will be “under a duty to have regard to” the Code of Practice issued.

Clause 7: exemption from the Equality Act

Clause 10: legislationcan only be repealed by a vote of General Synod which is at least 2/3rd majority in each of the 3 houses.

What are Bishops called to be and to do?

The Common Worship Ordinal summarizes this as follows:

  • Shepherd of Christ’s flock
  • Guardian of the faith of the apostles
  • Principal Minister
  • Source of Unity
  • Source of Authority

National Statistics (with the latest figures available in Nov 2010)

Diocesan Clergy: 71% male (55% stipendiary, 13% self-supporting, 2.8% digitaries); 29% female (15% stipendiary, 14% self-supporting, 0.3% dignitaries)

Chaplains:78% male, 23% female.

Parishes: 6.2% with Resolution A; 7.5% with Resolution B; 2.8% Resolution C

Resolution A states that a woman may not exercise priestly ministry in the parish.

Resolution B states that a woman may not be appointed Vicar or Priest-in-Charge.

Resolution C requests a Provincial Episcopal Visitor (‘flying bishop’) rather than

accepting the episcopal ministry of the Diocesan bishop.

Landmarks

in the History of the Ordination/Consecration of Women

  • 19th century: Various Protestant denominations introduce female ministers.
  • 1917:The Church of England appointed female Bishop's Messengers to preach, teach and take missions in the absence of men.
  • 1944:Anglican communion, Hong Kong: Florence Li Tim Oi was ordained priest on an emergency basis (threat of Japanese invasion).
  • 1971:Anglican communion, Hong Kong. Joyce Bennett and Jane Hwang were the first regularly ordained priests.
  • 1974:MethodistChurch in the United Kingdom ordained its first women.
  • 1976:Anglican Church in Canada ordained six female priests.
  • 1985: The first women deacons ordained by the Scottish Episcopal Church.
  • 1987: The first female deacons ordained in the Church of England.
  • 1988:EvangelicalLutheranChurch of Finlandordainedits first women.
  • 1988: Episcopal Church USA chose Barbara Harris as its first female bishop.
  • 1990: Anglican Church in NZ has first female Bishop, Penny Jaimeson.
  • 1994: The first women priests ordained by the Scottish Episcopal Church.
  • 1994: The first women priests ordained by the Church of England
  • 2006: The Episcopal Church USA elected Katharine Jefferts Schori first woman Presiding Bishop, or Primate.