Let a layman speak

A Church Times letter

Draft legislation

for women bishops

From Mr O. W. H. Clark Sir, — Once again, members of the Church of England are much  in debted to the Bishop of Manchester and his colleagues on the  legislative drafting group for a further report (GS 1707) that is lucid, concise,and charitably and eirenically motivated.  It is to be hoped that the General Syn od will follow this example in Feb ruary next and  eschew the sheer nastiness that pervaded so much of its deliberations on this issue in July last. While commendably faithful to its mandate, the drafting group — of diverse individual views — has not failed as a body to think more broad ly, not least in the area of jurisdiction and the possibility of that being accorded by operation of law. How different, it seems, is the attitude of the House of Bishops, which has, once again, demonstrated its incapacity or unwillingness to offer any sort of corporate leadership — and scant guidance — as the General Synod enters on the legislative process. It is commonly observed that the C of E is “episcopally led and synodically governed”. But what hap­pens when there is no episcopal leader ship? The answer would seem to be that the synodical machine takes over, subject to the dynamics and dictates of a timetable originally seen as indicative and tentative but fast becoming,  in effect, all-dominant. It is clear, as widely predicted, that the Illustrative Draft Code of Practice (GS 1710) is no more than — in Luther’s terms — a thing of “straw”, and cannot be otherwise. It is fairly stated (GS 1707, para. 28) that the Code of Practice option “necessarily involves the diocesan bishop having a measure of discretion”. In fact, almost everything of sub stance in the 71 paragraphs of the Illustrative Code depends upon the decision, consent, invitation, discre tion, or good will of the diocesan bishop, whose assurances can only be personal and time-limited. The Code’s only “enforceability” lies in the hollow concept of “having regard to”, which (notwithstanding the introduction of “cogent reasons”) anyone with experience of the former Pastoral Measure will know to be virtually worthless. A Code of Practice cannot deal adequately with any of this. It will not do. I am ready to be part of a C of E that admits women to the priest hood and episcopate. I can accept that the ordination of such women is  “valid in legal terms”(GS 1707, para. 9), and that they are the lawful occupants of the sees and offices to which they have been duly appoint ed. Certainly I would expect to work  with them with mutual respect, and as closely as possible. But I cannot accept their sacra mental ministrations, nor can I accept the capacity of women bishops to confer authority and  jurisdiction by delegation. In honesty, I cannot account them “truly bishops and priests”, as Canon A4 requires. I am desperately anxious to remain in the church of my birth and baptism, and to banish as much discrimination as possible, but I must have justice  and parity of recognition, and treatment in accordance with my theological convictions, together with legally entrenched safeguards and an assured future for myself and my children as loyal Anglicans within one Church of England. None of this is possible in a Code of Practice that, as stated in GS 1710, para. 11, “does not have the binding effect which a statutory provision or a statutory instrument would have”. Those who think as I do will therefore oppose a Code of Practice at every stage in every synod. Those who are sincerely anxious to see the earliest possible introduction of women bishops should beware lest their persistent adherence to procedure by Code of Practice results in a defeat of the whole legislative package. O. W. H. CLARK 5 Seaview Road, Highcliffe, Christchurch Dorset BH23 5QJ