Pastoral from 15 Bishops

To the priests and deacons who signed the Open Letter

Dear Brothers and Sisters, July 2010

‘God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you, but I will tell you the good and proper way.’ (1 Samuel 12:23)

These are grave times in the Church of England especially for those of us unable in good conscience to accept that any particular church has the authority to admit women to the episcopate. While we certainly accept the good faith of those who wish to make this change believing it to be God’s will, we cannot rejoice with them, not least because of the disastrous cost to Catholic unity.

Our concerns are not only about sacramental assurance though that is of profound importance. If the legislation now proposed passes, it will not provide room for our tradition to grow and flourish. We will be dependent on a Code of Practice yet to be written, and sadly our experience of the last almost twenty years must make us wonder whether even such an inadequate provision will be honoured in the long term.

Neither the Report of the Revision Committee nor the legislation itself shows a proper understanding of our reservations, however carefully these have been presented through the consultation process and in the College and House of bishops. It remains a deep disappointment to us that the Church at large did not engage with the excellent Rochester Report and paid scant attention to the Consecrated Women report sponsored by Forward in Faith.

We must now accept that a majority of members of the Church of England believe it right to proceed with the ordination of women as bishops, and that a significant percentage of those in authority will not encourage or embrace with enthusiasm the traditional integrity or vocations within it. Nor is it their intention or desire to create a structure which genuinely allows the possibility of a flourishing mission beyond this generation.

However, the closeness of the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment for co ordinate jurisdiction, concerns though there are about its adequacy, suggest at least a measure of disquiet in the majority about proceeding without a provision acceptable to traditionalists. The Catholic group fought valiantly on the floor of synod and we are grateful for that, and while many in the Church and press are speaking as if the legislation is now passed, final Synodical approval is still some way off.

Whatever happens in the Synod, there are some Anglo Catholics, including in our own number, who are already looking at, indeed are resolved to join the Ordinariate as the place where they can find a home in which to live and proclaim their Christian faith, in communion with the Holy Father, yet retaining something of the blessings they have known and experienced in the Anglican tradition. Of course the Ordinariate is a new thing, and not all of us are trailblazers or can imagine what it might be like. Some will undoubtedly want to wait and see how that initiative develops before making a decision.

Yet others will make their individual submission and find their future as Roman Catholics.

Were the present proposals not to be substantially amended or defeated, many more of us will need to consider seriously these options.

A number will remain, perhaps even reluctantly because of personal circumstances, family loyalties, even financial necessity, but with a deep sense of unease about the long term future, an unease that is surely well founded. There are faithful Catholic clergy and lay people, though deeply opposed to the likely Synodical decision who cannot currently imagine themselves being anywhere else but within the Church of England. They wonder how they can stay, yet cannot imagine leaving their much loved church and parish. They do not want to be forced out of the Church they love and will persevere where they are, whatever the theological or ecclesiological ambiguities, and seek God’s blessing on all they do.

Those who are not actively seeking a home elsewhere must work to defeat the currently proposed legislation. It is essential that traditionalists engage in the debate and discussion in their diocese and are active in the election process for the next quinquennium of the General Synod when the two thirds majority in each House will be required if the legislation is to pass. Whatever our individual futures, and however disheartened we might feel, the Church of England needs strong catholic hearts and voices.

The text quoted at the beginning of this letter was the one used by John Keble in his famous Assize sermon, often regarded as the starting point of the Oxford Movement. It seems remarkably apposite, and gives a clue to an appropriate attitude of heart for this process: prayerful and gracious, but clear.

We are all bishops united in our belief that the Church of England is mistaken in its actions. However, we must be honest and say we are not united as to how we should respond to these developments.

Nevertheless we are clear that each of the possibilities we have outlined has its own integrity and is to be honoured. We are resolved to respect the decisions made by laity, bishops, priests and deacons of our integrity, and call on you to do the same. It would be a sad and destructive thing indeed if we allowed our unhappiness and wondering to drift into unguarded or uncharitable criticism of those who in good conscience take a different path from our own. We must assume the best motives in one another, and where there are partings let them be with tears and the best wishes of Godspeed.

You will we hope know of the clergy meetings in both provinces to take place in late September when there will be opportunities for discussion and an exchange of views about the future. Be assured of our prayers as you reflect about how best to respond to the challenges which face us, and we ask your prayers for us too as we seek to be faithful to the Lord, and to the Faith once delivered.

Please share the contents of this letter with your people, and indeed with any who might be interested to know of it.

The Rt Revd John Hind, Bishop of Chichester

The Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Europe

The Rt Revd Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn

The Rt Revd Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough

The Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley

The Rt Revd John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham

The Rt Revd Peter Wheatley, Bishop of Edmonton

The Rt Revd John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley

The Rt Revd Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet

The Rt Revd Tony Robinson , Bishop of Pontefract

The Rt Revd John Ford, Bishop of Plymouth

The Rt Revd Mark Sowerby, Bishop of Horsham

The Rt Revd Martin Warner, Bishop of Whitby

The Rt Revd Robert Ladds

The Rt Revd Lindsay Urwin OGS

Ebbsfleet on Synod

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet's Pastoral Letter – August 2010

The General Synod at York

IT IS now 40 years since the Church of England General Synod came into being. It was an exciting new development, replacing an even more cumbersome system of dual control by Convocations of Clergy and the Church Assembly. The laity at last had a full and effective voice in the government of the Church of England. There were some safeguards in place. Certain matters had to be passed by two thirds’ majority and there could be a call for a vote by Houses, even when one was not strictly required. That meant that there needed to be majorities in each of the three Houses, Bishops, Clergy, and Laity.

It was this last safeguard which torpedoed the attempt of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to introduce an amendment to safeguard the ministry of traditionalist bishops. (As far as the democratic process is concerned, the archbishops are simply two members of the Synod). The amendment was voted down by five votes in the House of Clergy. This followed an earlier vote, where only 34% of the Synod supported new dioceses. Finally the whole draft Measure was approved, the only safeguard for traditionalists being the promise of a Code of Practice. The matter now moves from the General Synod, whose quinquennium has now ended, to the dioceses. It will return from there to the new General Synod. In 18 months’ time, November 2012, the hope of supporters of women bishops is that the Measure will be finally passed by the necessary two-thirds majority in each House, the hurdle which the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood Measure cleared on November 1992. Thereafter it must pass muster in Parliament, receive the Royal Assent, and be promulged as a canon. Last time, all of that took another 15 months, which would take us to February 2014, with the first consecrations of women bishops soon thereafter.

Traditionalists have been beaten four-square. When (though, strictly, it is still ‘If’) the Measure comes into force, there will be no more Resolution A and B, no more ‘petitioning parishes’. There will be no more ‘flying bishops’, no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough. There will be again the assurance of good behaviour: no one will be over-faced by women priests and bishops ministering where they are not wanted. But there will be no guarantees (and, increasingly, no likelihood) that male bishops and priests ministering to us will share those convictions, or derive their orders from an unbroken apostolic succession of bishops in the Catholic line. Avoiding women ministers will become not a conviction about Catholic Order, shared throughout the ages, but a matter of sexual discrimination, abhorrent to all of us. In a very short time, it will have become unacceptable to invoke a sexist Code of Practice.

It is important for us all to understand how momentous all this is and what the implications are for our life together. I was never very hopeful of the Archbishops’ amendment, though it was good that it was debated. It would not have brought a clear and certain place for the Catholic understanding of Faith and Order. But it would have allowed a new generation of Provincial Episcopal Visitors – flying bishops – to try to work out, with the Archbishops, some sort of corporate life for our priests, people, and parishes. It is fair to say that both Archbishops wanted that. Moreover 60% of the bishops in Synod (though not two thirds) were prepared, more or less enthusiastically, to support the Archbishops and accept their spiritual lead.

Come the final judgment when, as the Prayer Book says in the Marriage Service, ‘the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed’, some will have to account for the broken promises of the early 1990s. Traditionalists were then assured of a permanent and honoured place. Great store was set by the doctrine of reception (whereby no change in Holy Order would finally thought to be ‘received’ until it was accepted by the ancient churches of East and West). It was on the basis of these promises - both now very hollow - that Provincial Episcopal Visitors were appointed, ordinands and their families exchanged comfortable life styles for theological college, curacies, and what promised to be a lifetime of ministry, and parishes set to work energetically with the task of evangelism and catechesis. However honourably these promises were made, there were liberal pressure groups intent on destroying them. These liberal pressure groups are not full of bad people: the women and men concerned were always exasperated that the Church made such high-sounding, but undeliverable, promises. In their view –the view that has prevailed – we all simply needed to get used to the new ‘inclusive’ way of doing things. In their view, twenty years is quite long enough for that to have happened. But there have been broken promises indeed and some supporters of the women bishops’ project recognise that and seek forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation.

For Ebbsfleet, the critical vote came when nearly two thirds of the General Synod rejected the creation of new dioceses. The only sense we have been able to make of the whole Ebbsfleet project these last sixteen years (of which I have been bishop for nearly ten), is that the See of Ebbsfleet is an ‘Apostolic District’. That is, it is an area of the vineyard which seeks to grow into, and become, a ‘local Church’, a ‘diocese’. To that end, we have had our Stational Masses of Initiation, our Ordinations, and our Chrism Masses. We have had our Area Deans and Deaneries, our Council of Priests, our Lay Council, and our Lay Congress. We have also had parish evangelism weekends and research into resources for catechesis and formation. We have had clergy retreats, festivals of faith, and the annual Children and Young People’s Eucharistic Festival. Our churches have been as well-attended as most, with, if anything, more than our share of men, children, young families, and other endangered categories of church-goer. Here was a new kind of diocese, not without its problems, but with promising signs. ‘In house’ there has been very little discussion of ‘church issues’ and that in itself has made us vulnerable. We have never been attacked by anyone who got to know us and experienced our corporate life. It has always been fear of who we might be, what we might represent, rather than what we actually are.

For now, the prescription is for some serious summer rest and to get some praying and thinking done. I shall be addressing these issues further in the September Pastoral letter, at a Sacred Synod for clergy, and at the Ebbsfleet Lay Conference, but, for now, at least we know where we are. It is time to stop trying to make bricks without straw.

May God bless you as you seek to discern, obey, and trust his will.

+ Andrew Ebbsfleet

© The Bishop of Ebbsfleet AD2010

Synod ends

General Synod Report 12 July 2010

Report on business from the General Synod at York University, Monday 12 July 2010 Women Bishops Debate resumed on the various clauses of the draft legislation to consecrate women as Bishops. However, first there were statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Chairman of the Steering Committee. The Archbishop spoke about what had happened on Saturday and about the Code of Practice now to be produced. He clearly thought it would now be possible to beef up the Code to appease those opposed. He also seemed to be saying that there might yet be other options, although this seems a bit unlikely. The first item for debate was Clause 2. This is the first Clause making provision for those unable in conscience to accept the ministry of a woman bishop. There have always been those who wanted legislation simply to permit women bishops and for everything else to be confined to a code of practice. There were several people who spoke against Clause 2 but indicated that they would reluctantly vote in favour. The Clause was eventually passed by 373 votes to 14. An amendment to require PCCs to consult everyone on the electoral roll lapsed due to lack of support. Gerry O’Brien moved an amendment which would require consideration of the issue by all PCCs every 5 years. This was defeated after debate on the basis that the norm would be women bishops and the legislation only concerns those unable to accept this. Another amendment to do with appointments also lapsed due to lack of support. Peter Hobson moved an amendment to remove the requirement that 2/3rds of the PCC to be present when a vote was being taken about requesting the ministry of another bishop. It was noted that this was an extraordinary provision and that it allowed 1/3rd of a PCC to block the resolution simply by not turning up. This resolution was defeated by 239 votes to 128 but its intent was then picked up in the following motion from Clive Scowen which still creates a special rule for this one situation, but less draconian. Clive’s amendment appeared to be accepted unanimously. The next amendment, put by Gerry O’Brien and Paul Benfield, would have removed the requirement that an Incumbent or Priest-in-Charge must agreed to a Letter of Request for the ministry of a different Bishop. It was argued, with some justification, that it would be difficult for the Incumbent and PCC to disagree on this matter. However, there is no other case where such a blanket veto exists. It could lead to a situation where the whole PCC wants the Letter but the incumbent, who may perhaps have changed their mind, does not. Since it is possible in law for a Bishop to impose a Priest-in-Charge it opens the possibility of an unscrupulous Bishop, imposing someone during a vacancy and thus undermining the stance of the parish. It was also pointed out that if an incumbent is sick or absent for other reasons the resolution could not be passed. However, the Synod voted, in all three houses, to reject the amendment. An amendment to ensure that a better record of the results of the voting was kept was passed. Clause 3 was then debated and agreed as were the following clauses up to Clause 7. The new cobbled together Equality Act put through in the dying throes of the last government is still being assessed. However, the lawyers of the Church and Government were of the view that this new Measure should explicitly state that it is exempted from parts of that Act. Robert Key MP opposed this Clause but got short thrift from some on the Synod and in the end the vote in favour of Clause 7 appeared to be unanimous. After lunch an amendment consequential on a previous amendment was passed as were Clauses 8-10. Paul Benfield proposed that any future changes to this legislation should require a 2/3rd majority of each of the three houses of Synod. There is a fear that without this all the hard work in producing the present legislation could be undone by a simply majority of the synod. There was some opposition to this proposals but eventually it was passed by 287 votes to 78. Paul Benfield then proposed that whilst the main legislation is being considered by Dioceses a Measure be brought which makes financial provision for those who suffer hardship because they feel in conscience that they must leave. Following the earlier legislation to ordain as women as presbyters around 500 clergy left and the cost, when it is finally dealt with, will be around £30million. This provision would be only for cases of hardship and there had already been discussion about a code possibly allowing for such cases – though it is questionable whether there is any legal framework to permit it. The debate was perhaps the sharpest so far because after the rejection of adequate provision it is clear that some will leave. The motion, not surprisingly, was defeated. The final action regarding this business was an attempt to recommit the legislation to the Revision Committee on the basis that the Synod had voted by a majority for the Archbishops amendment but this had been lost in the vote by houses. It would be possible for the Revision Committee to consider further options but given that no solution had been found yet it seemed highly unlikely. After half an hour of discussion on this point it was lost by 293 votes to 102. There followed a vote on the Amending Canon which accompanies the draft legislation and at 4.30pm it was complete. The legislation will now be referred to the Dioceses and it is expected that it will return to General Synod in around 2 years when it will need the approval of 2/3rds of each of the houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. As it stands the legislation makes no realistic provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. The Synod then returned to the details of the new Faith and Order Advisory Commission and a Diocesan Synod Motion on job sharing. However, after the marathon debates on women bishops there was a noticeable trickle of people leaving. The business for the evening session is Final Approval for Additional Weekday Lectionary ad amendments to the Lectionary, Calendar and Collects. This will be followed by a Private Members’ Motion calling for some central body to make available resources for fresh expressions. A Statement from Forward in Faith Jul 12, 2010 The draft Measure to permit the ordination women as bishops, approved today by the General Synod and sent for discussion and approval by Diocesan Synods, contains nothing which can satisfy the legitimate needs of members of Forward in Faith. Now, though, is not the time for precipitate action. There will be ample opportunity for priests to take counsel together at the Sacred Synods called by the Catholic Bishops in each province in September, and for Forward in Faith to take stock at the National Assembly in October. Statement from Catholic Group Jul 14, 2010 The Catholic Group in General Synod is encouraged by the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is still ‘unfinished business’ and that ‘the Church is only part of the way through the process’ of determining the way forward for women bishops legislation. The Group was, however, disappointed that there was a lack of support for provisions for alleviating financial hardship where clergy feel by conscience that they need to resign from the Church of England. The onus now is on the Church of England to provide for its clergy to remain within the Church for which we have always fought as loyal Anglicans. We remain committed to both the process and our Church, and would wish to play a major part in helping the Church in its ongoing journey in a spirit of unity that is Christ’s way. A Statement from the Chairman of Forward in Faith Jul 15, 2010 Like you, I was very disappointed at the outcome of last weekend’s debate at General Synod in York and appalled at the intransigence of some feminist clergy and their supporters. What kind of a church is it that is willing to ignore the leadership of its Archbishops and to renege on a solemn promise given to Parliament about an honoured and permanent place for us? We now face a most serious situation, made all the worse by the refusal of the Synod to pass the Archbishops’ amendment. Resolutions A & B - which provide the basis in law on which the ordination of women can be opposed - are to be removed. This means that any opposition which might be tolerated will be based on the recognition of supposed prejudice rather than the respect of theological principle. Further, the abolition of the PEVs is proposed, which will leave our constituency in an intolerable position. All we would be allowed under the draft Measure as it now stands is access to a male bishop, whose own beliefs need not coincide with ours. That is sexism writ large. Despite the dreadful result in York, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Group in General Synod, along with all those who supported them in the debate. In the coming weeks, a new Synod is to be elected and it is vital we all do all we can to ensure the return of as many orthodox candidates as possible, in order that a Catholic presence on the Synod can be there to continue to represent the interests of Catholic Anglicans throughout this divisive and unnecessary process. That these are very difficult times for all of us goes without saying; we need, above all, to take time to pray, to consult together and to support one another, as we try to discern our respective ways forward – not just in faith, but also of course in hope and in love. Every blessing, XJohn Fulham

Synod continues

Saturday, 10 July 2010

General Synod - Women bishops debates

After morning worship and the presidential address from the archbishop of York, Synod started its mammoth series of debates on the Women in the Episcopate legislation this morning.

Saturday morning

This started with a “take-note” debate on the report of the revision committee.

The Chair of the Revision Committee (the Ven Clive Mansell (Archdeacon of Tonbridge)) moved:
501 ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report.’

This was a general debate. Voting in favour did not necessarily imply supporting the report, but the take-note motion had to be passed before any further progress on the legislation was allowed.

11.47 am Synod voted to close the debate. Archdeacon Mansell the responded to the debate.
11.52 am Synod voted in favour of item 501 on a show of hands.

12.00 noon Synod started the revision stage.
Canon Simon Killwick proposed the creation of new, parallel dioceses by moving amendment 512a in Appendix 1 of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. In these circumstances standing orders require more than 40 members to stand for the debate to proceed. Many more than 40 stood.
12.52 pm Synod voted to close the debate on amendment 512a. Enough members (standing orders require at least 25) then stood to require a division of the whole synod, ie an electronic count. There were 134 votes in favour, 258 against and 8 recorded abstentions, so the amendment was defeated.
12.58 pm Synod broke for lunch.

Saturday afternoon

2.00 pm Synod resumed the revision stage
The Revd Rod Thomas proposed complementary bishops and compulsory transfer of functions from the diocesan bishop by moving amendment 513a in Appendix II of notice paper 5.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
3.26 pm Votes to close the debate on the amendment and move to the vote. Sufficient members stood to require a vote by houses. The motion was defeated in all three houses.

Voting figures	for	against	abstentions
bishops	10	28	2
clergy	52	124	3
laity	73	118	4

The combined figures (135 for, 270 against and 9 abstentions) were almost identical to the vote on the previous amendment.

Synod then took a ten minute break.

Clause 2

3.45 pm Synod resumed.
The archbishop of York then moved the amendment 514, which (with 531) would set up co-ordinate jurisdiction, proposed by him and the archbishop of Canterbury.
The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded.
5.07 pm Synod voted to close the debate and proceed to a vote. A call for a vote by houses was successful.
The amendment was defeated, because it was lost in one house (House of Clergy).

Voting figures	for	against	abstentions
bishops	25	15	0
clergy	85	90	5
laity	106	86	4

In the light of the result, there was a motion to adjourn the debate until Monday. This was defeated on a show of hands.

5.25 pm Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe, proposed his amendment 515 to restrict the delegation of functions to the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.

5.37 pm Kevin Carey proposed amendment 516. The steering committee resisted the amendment. Very members stood so the amendment lapsed.

5.41 pm Tom Sutcliffe proposed his amendment 517 to set up a Review Commission.
The steering committee resisted the amendment. Fewer than 40 members stood so the amendment lapsed.

5.52 pm The next item on the agenda was the motion to include clause 2 in the measure. The chair adjourned the debate until Monday as he judged there was insufficient time to complete this before the scheduled closure time of 6.15 pm.

FiF reacts to General Synod debate Jul 10, 2010

Forward in Faith notes that the amendment to the draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops standing in the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to gain approval today by just five votes in the House of Clergy, despite the fact that a significant majority of the members of Synod voted in its favour.

We naturally share the Archbishops' disappointment at this turn of events and will now take counsel together, as we await the resumption of the debate on Monday.

Catholic Group in Synod reacts to today's debate Jul 10, 2010

We deeply regret that the General Synod has decided to ignore the leadership of the chief pastors of the Church of England Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

The voting was by the three Houses of Synod separately, with support from the Bishops and Laity but not from the Clergy. In total, 216 people voted in favour and 191 against with 9 abstentions - so there was support for the Archbishops' amendments.

By rejecting the opportunity for unity that the Amendments they proposed would have achieved, it has made it very difficult for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry for women priests and bishops.

The process in General Synod is not over and we would wish to be involved in the ongoing discussions as to a way forward that includes all loyal members of the Church of England.

Synod in York

Church of England General Synod

July 9th, 2010 Posted in Church of England, General Synod |

General Synod starts today [Friday] in York at 3:45 pm and continues until 1 pm on Tuesday 13th July. (Hat Tip: Pageantmaster at Titusonenine for the links)

The Agenda is here

General information and links to other resources including the live audio links and other materials [top right] are here

More materials including hopefully audio podcasts should be posted once sessions start on this page. The programme for today may also be found on this page.

Women Bishops: This debate starts on Saturday after a Presidential Address by the ABY [host] and is in two parts:

1. a 'take note' debate on the report of the revision committee. This only permits an up or down debate on whether or not to accept it. No debate on amending it or more general issues to do with women bishops are permitted.

2. a line by line debate on the legislation in the Measure and amending Canon. This is quite complicated and there are a great many amendments, including those by the ABC and ABY to provide for 'Coordinate Bishops' which seem to be flying bishops, but at the discretion of the diocesan who still remains as a woman bishop, or one who has ordained women.

The materials relating to this debate are:

1. The Measure and Amending Canon – Draft Bishops and Priests [Consecration and Ordination of Women] Measure and Draft amending Canon

2. Notice Paper 5 containing the proposed amendments to the above

3. Revision Committee Report including illustrative Code of Practice [142 pages and includes the draft measure and amending canon]

In addition the background to this with a detailed examination of the historical role of bishops and the arguments over extending the episcopacy to women was contained in the Rochester Report chaired by +Michael Nazir-Ali [302 pages]

The Church Times also has an explanation of the grouping of amendments

Archbishops' Amendments

Archbishops issue Statement on Draft Legislation Jun 21, 2010

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have today issued a Statement indicating that they will be proposing an amendment to the Draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops, which will be debated by General Synod in July.

FiF reacts to Archbishops' Statement Jun 21, 2010

Forward in Faith warmly welcomes today’s Statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and now looks forward with great interest to seeing the precise texts of the amendments to the Draft Measure which they will propose to the General Synod next month

The Saint Barnabas’ Blog

the vague ramblings of the Revd. Fr. Edward Tomlinson SSC……

It is no secret that many bishops are in a bit of a panic about this summer’s debate over women bishops and fear the loss of many traditionalists. According to reports in the Daily Mail both the Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury now plan to intervene in the forthcoming debate over women bishops by demanding greater provision for opponents whose needs will not be met if the conclusions of the revision committee come into force. Quite what the Archbishops will propose is not made clear and nor is there any guarantee that synod will listen to their plea but at least it shows that they understand the plight of those being forced into the fringes of ecclesial life.

What is the English Anglo-Catholic to make of this latest twist in a very long saga? Most importantly what will the impact of this public support be on the emerging Ordinariate? The answer depends on which of three camps an individual occupies at present. Perhaps it helps us to name them:

• The Anglo-Papalist stance: those occupying this position will embrace the Ordinariate regardless of what synod may or may not offer Anglo-Catholics in the future. This group yearns for communion with Peter above all else and the erection of a bridge across the Tiber places a spiritual obligation on them to move. The declaration from Canterbury and York might impress them but it will not move them.

• The Congregational Catholic stance: these Anglo-Catholics yearn for synod to find a solution that keeps them within the Church of England and will likely rejoice in the latest news but with a degree of sceptiscism- this does little to temper synod’s mood and promises in the past have frequently been broken. Nevertheless, should York and Canterbury succeed then they will have what they truly desire- a means of being part of a Catholic tradition as opposed to part of the Catholic faith. This is the group most affected by this news as they are the group who are open to the Ordinariate but not enthusiastic about it. we might define this group as those who would join an Ordinariate but only as a last resort.

• The High-church Protestant stance: those occupying this group might enjoy lace, incense and High Mass on a Sunday but they have no desire at all to enter into the Roman Catholic fold. A deeply protestant group they will be remaining out of Communion with Peter regardless of what unfolds in the General Synod. This group will delight in the latest news and we should be pleased that it will help them remain faithful to the Church they clearly belong to.

Having identified these three positions we can begin to assess the impact of July’s synod on the Ordinariate. Those of us in the first group will not be swayed regardless of what transpires and nor will those in the last group. It is the many who sit in the middle group whose vote is ‘up for grabs’. The question I want to pose for debate is quite simple then.

How should the supporters of the Ordinariate view July’s synodical debate? Should they pray that it goes well for traditionalists in order that those entering into communion with Rome are clearly seen to be doing it for all the right reasons? Or should they pray that Synod goes badly in order to convince as many as possible to join even if they do so reluctantly? I am increasingly favouring the first scenario and would prefer a smaller but purer Ordinariate group….but what about you?

What expectation should we have about those entering the Roman Catholic fold through the Ordinariate? And what expectations should be made for those opting to remain behind? Does this decision change the doctrine, liturgy, identity and practice of such people? I think it must and it will….

Carry but not wear

Don't you dare put that thing on!

Southwark Cathedral allows woman bishop to carry mitre but NOT to wear it

The Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in America, Katharine Jefferts Schori, was allowed to carry her mitre when she presided at the Eucharist in Southwark Cathedral last Sunday – but not to wear it. Why? Not because The Episcopal Church (TEC, the current name of her denomination) recently ordained a lesbian priest. Indeed, the Dean of Southwark, Colin Slee, had to clarify that point at Evensong. The “practising lesbian” issue was irrelevant, he made clear, even though that’s the cause of a formal rift between Lambeth and TEC, and stops American Anglicans from sitting on various committees. No: the mitre had to stay folded because Ms Schori is not recognised as a bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury – yet. Wearing it on her head would break a rule imposed by +Rowan. But carrying it? Fine. And note the bishop’s shirt underneath her alb. (A quick footnote: until a few decades ago, some evangelical bishops would have their mitres carried in front of them rather than wear them – not because they doubted their episcopal orders, but because mitres as hats as opposed to symbols were popish.) However, Dean Slee (an old mate of mine who wants to see Anglicanism follow the logic of liberal Protestantism properly and quickly) does personally recognise Jefferts Schori as a bishop, even if he’s not ready to pick a fight with Lambeth over headgear. So, she’s a bishop in Southwark Cathedral, a simple priest in Lambeth Palace, and a lay person masquerading as a priest in Southwark’s Forward in Faith parishes. There may even be one or two churches which, adhering to the position taken by some Anglo-Catholics in the 1980s, recognise her as a deacon but not a priest. No one has yet denied that she’s a woman. Anyway, Jefferts Schori is cross, though I can’t help wondering: couldn’t she (a) have left her mitre in her suitcase, thus avoiding embarrassment, or (b) quickly popped it on in Southwark, thus affirming her status? I doubt that anyone would have lunged forward and knocked it off her head. Though, with the C of E in its current jittery mood, who knows?

The wonderful world of the c of e

• 
• • Hugh Muir
  • The Guardian, Tuesday 15 June 2010
  • Article history

• If the US Episcopal Church – still part of the worldwide Anglican communion despite having the temerity to elect gay bishops – feels nervous about the warmth of its welcome from the mothership that is the Church of England, perhaps there are reasons. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the US church and the first woman ever to lead an Anglican province, preached at Southwark Cathedral last weekend despite muted hisses of disapproval by conservative evangelicals. But close observers would have seen there was something missing: no mitre on her head. Who could be responsible? Step forward, Rowan Williams, Archbish of Canterbury, birthday boy (60 yesterday), who couldn't stop her preaching but said she could not wear the symbol of her office, or carry a bishop's crosier. Something to do with women bishops not yet being allowed in the C of E. A bit petty, some say, as Jefferts Schori is indeed a bishop and head of her national church – but in any event, she carried the mitre. And the subject for her sermon: God welcomes everyone, regardless of dress or condition.

• And, with women clergy in the C of E looking forward to next month's vote in the general synod in York – which is expected finally to agree that women can become bishops here – word comes of a last-minute attempt to scupper the plans. And who is responsible for that? Step forward again, Williams, who with fellow archbishop John Sentamu is framing an amendment to put off yet again making any decision. Synod headed off their attempts to delay progress last year, but the archbishops are trying it on again. The world moves on but somehow time stands still. Welcome to the C of E.

Southwark Cathedral

Evensong on Sunday 13th June 2010

Preacher: The Dean

Some of you will already be aware, and others will be completely unaware, that we had the Presiding Bishop of the USA here to celebrate the Eucharist and preach this morning. Being an egalitarian culture, in social ranking if not in economic assessment, the Church in the United States does not have an archbishop. So, in English terms, we had the Archbishop of the USA here this morning.

On evangelical and ecclesiastically conservative websites I have been denounced this week for being ‘provocative’ and ‘discourteous to the Archbishop of Canterbury’ for extending this invitation. Well, I haven’t been denounced on these various websites for many months and I was beginning to feel neglected and unwanted so I am glad of the reassurance and attention.

The facts are simple; we have had a steady stream of archbishops here to preach during the time I have been Dean, and I expect well before that. The archbishops of Brazil, South Africa, Canada, and of course York and Canterbury, come to mind. Bishops from Zimbabwe, Norway, a woman bishop from the USA, and many others have held this pulpit. The invitation to the Presiding Bishop is not at all a novelty for us, and the date was fixed in July 2008 after we had failed to find a suitable date around the Lambeth Conference when first I invited her in the spring of 2008. I happened to be at Lambeth Palace on Friday where I collected the Archbishop’s licence for the Presiding Bishop to officiate, I have kept him informed at all times, I would not act without courtesy, nor he towards us.

There are several reasons for the fury. The Presiding Bishop is a woman and some people hate the idea of women as bishops. The General Synod of the Church of England is about to debate the admission of women as bishops within the Church of England. The church in the United States has just consecrated an openly lesbian woman as a suffragan bishop in Los Angeles and so they are accused of breaking an embargo on such consecrations. It is not nearly so simple.

It seems to me that love must, by its essential nature, be always unconditional. We welcome Katharine Jefferts Schori to this pulpit because we love our sisters and brothers in the Episcopal Church of the United States; not because she is female, or a woman bishop ahead of us, or has permitted a practising lesbian to become a bishop (As it happens she couldn’t have stopped it after all the legal and proper canonical electoral processes resulted in the election and nomination), we welcome her because she is our sister in Christ.

It may be that some Anglicans will decide to walk a separate path. I believe the Chapter and congregation of this church will walk the same path as the Episcopal Church of America, the links are deep in our history, especially here. Their actions in recent months have been entirely in accord with the Anglican ways of generosity and breadth. They have tried to ensure everyone is recognised as a child of God. They have behaved entirely in accord with their canon laws and their freedom as an independent Province of the Church, not imposing or interfering with others with whom they disagree but proceeding steadily and openly themselves.

It is my hope and prayer that Anglicans with different perspectives can continue to recognise their common inheritance in the faith even when they live many miles apart and conduct their churches in divergent ways; I also hope they read the scriptures intelligently. It is my hope that this is a way that love can continue such that its realisation is in peace. It is our constant experience that God is discovered when we have the courage to let go, to give freedom to the smallest of things and allow God to work giving the growth, we know not how.

Nothing like a dame

Preferred: the women bishops' group photo at the Lambeth Conference in July 2008 LAMBETH CONFERENCE

THEY were warned that the issue of women bishops would dominate their forthcoming meeting in York; but General Synod members might not have realised the extent to which they would be eating, sleep ing, and drinking the subject at the beginning of July.

The timetable of the York sessions was published this week. Between 3.45 p.m. on Friday 9 July and 1 p.m. on Tuesday 13 July (and not counting the separate meetings of the Houses of Clergy and of Laity), the Synod members could spend 17 hours in debate on the subject.

The heaviest days will be Saturday and Monday, on each of which the Synod will begin debating the issue at 9.30 a.m. and finish at 6.15 p.m. The last morning is also given over completely to the subject.

The reason for the amount of time given is that the issue has reached the revision stage. The draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure can be amended clause by clause by the whole Synod, and amendments are expected which would reintroduce all the permutations that have been considered (and rejected) in previous debates (News, 14 May).

For light relief, there is an address by the Archbishop of Estonia on Friday, and a report of the Standing Orders committee on Saturday.

Sunday (the day of the World Cup final) is traditionally a day for tackling non-contentious subjects. This time, these include legislative business that must be finished before the Synod is prorogued, including maternity leave, pension changes, and fees. There is also a report on relations with the Church of Scotland.

On Monday evening, the Synod will be asked for final approval for the weekday lectionary and the calendar, and will debate a motion on Fresh Expressions.

Bishop demurs. The Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, has said he would prefer to delay a decision on women bishops, in contrast to the House of Bishops’ statement last week.

In a diocesan address on Friday, he said: “Like many bishops who are in principle committed to the ordination of women to the episco pate, I do not think I have yet seen the scheme which would enable us to proceed as one body, without further and deepening division, without straining one another’s consciences. . .

“I hope and pray we will be able to square that circle, and I would rather get the right answer in two or three years’ time than the wrong one tomorrow. I really do believe that ordaining women is the right thing to do; but St Paul’s insistence on how adiaphora [‘things that don’t make a difference’] works prohibits me from forcing it on those who in conscience are not ready for it. And the answer here, I believe, is a proper theological argument, which we have not yet had.”

Background. The legal office at Church House, Westminster, has issued a legal briefing paper, explaining the functions of each clause in the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure. It can be found at:www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/gspapers/gs1708ax.pdf.

Is there room on the bench?

Women in the episcopate - House of Bishops’ statement

18 May 2010

At its meeting in York on 17/18 May, the House of Bishops discussed the Revision Committee’s report on the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops.

The House noted that the forthcoming meeting of the General Synod in July would be a key moment in the legislative process when all 470 members of Synod would have the opportunity to debate the report and proceed to a clause by clause consideration of the draft Measure and Amending Canon. The House believed that the Synod would be helped in its task by the clarity and thoroughness of the Committee’s analysis.

As previous debates have shown, a majority of the members of the House strongly support the admission of women to the episcopate. At the same time there remains a strong commitment on the part of the House to preserve an honoured place within the Church of England for those unable to receive this development. There continues to be a variety of views within the House over the best way of achieving that, while enabling women fully to exercise their new ministry.

The July Synod has the potential to be one of the most demanding meetings of the Synod for many years. It will, in the view of the House, be an occasion when all concerned will need to listen with particular care to those with views that differ from their own and to acknowledge the passion and sincerity with which those views are held.

The House is aware that there are those who believe that the present legislative process does not have the potential to lead to a satisfactory conclusion and that a better outcome is more likely to be achieved in some years’ time. Most members of the House consider, however, that it is crucial to keep faith with the present process. They see no grounds for believing that the issues with which the Church is grappling will become significantly easier to resolve with the passage of time.

The July debates will provide the chance for the full Synod to decide whether it wishes to make significant changes to the draft legislation, including whether to retain an approach based on a statutory code of practice or to support amendments giving effect to some other approach. What happens thereafter will depend on what Synod decides. On any basis it will be at least another two years before the mind of the Church of England can be determined at the final approval stage.

The House accepted the recommendation of the Revision Committee that, if the proposal for a statutory code of practice is retained in July, work to develop a fresh draft of the code should start soon thereafter. The House will, in those circumstances, establish a group, constituted consistently with the Committee’s recommendation.

American Madness

The Episcopal Church in the US is set to go ahead with the controversial ordination of an openly lesbian bishop.

Saturday's ordination comes despite warnings from the Archbishop of Canterbury that it will deepen an already bitter dispute on sexuality.

Canon Mary Glasspool, 56, will become an assistant bishop in Los Angeles, the first openly gay US bishop since Gene Robinson seven years ago.

Since then the Anglican Communion has been on course for a permanent split.

Marginalisation

The election of Mary Glasspool - who has been with her partner Becki for 22 years - represented a snub by the liberal Episcopal Church to other Anglican Churches around the world.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had urged the American Church not to proceed with the ordination, warning that it would further alienate traditionalists who believe active homosexuality to be a sin.

It is likely to accelerate the gradual marginalisation of the Episcopal Church within a two-tier Communion and increase tensions between Anglicans elsewhere.

The Communion has never recovered from the crisis prompted by the election in New Hampshire of Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop in November 2003.

The Episcopal Church at first agreed to suspend the creation of gay bishops but reversed that decision last July. (Robert Pigott for BBC)

Legislative Report Reactions

Forward in Faith notes with interest the publication of the Report of the Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate.

It is of course disappointing - though not surprising - that, after nearly two years' work, the Committee has so singularly failed to take proper account of the needs of all those loyal members of the Church of England who are unable in conscience to receive the innovation of women bishops (and this despite the best efforts of those members of the Revision Committee who are committed to proper provision for traditionalists).

The inevitable result of this corporate failure will be that, in July, this draft legislation will need to be submitted to the most critical examination and, we trust, substantial amendment. We are confident that the senior leadership of the Church of England will recognise that the legislation will not be able to proceed in its present form without excluding a substantial body of loyal Anglicans from the Church of England of the future.

The Report of the Revision Committee, the draft Measure and draft Amending Canon can be found here.

A statement issued on behalf of the three members of the Catholic Group on General Synod who served on the Revision Committee for the draft legislation on the admission of women to the episcopate

We came to this part of the legislative process on the ordination of women to the episcopate in good faith. Our aim, in accepting membership of the Revision Committee, was to work on the legislation sent to that Committee by the General Synod, in partnership with the other committee members, so that (in a notable phrase of the Bishop of Norwich in the July 2008 debate) we might return legislation to the full Synod which offered a sense of joy to every member of the Church of England: joy for those who earnestly desire the admission of women to the episcopate; joy for those who, for reasons of conscience and theological conviction, are unable to assent to that proposed development.

We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of the Committee's work. Not only has there been no progress towards the desired outcome we have described above, but the provision for 'complementary bishops' - successors to the present-day Provincial Episcopal Visitors, popularly known as 'Flying Bishops' - has been swept away. The draft Measure as it now stands offers nothing but the prospect of local arrangements whereby a parish may ask - at the discretion of the Diocesan Synod - for the ministry, in certain very circumscribed areas, of a male bishop or priest rather than a female one. This discrimination on grounds of gender alone is precisely the opposite of what members of the Catholic Group have long argued for. It means that, for example, the ministry of a female priest can be avoided or declined; but that no reservations can be held about the ministry of a male priest who has been ordained by a female bishop. This clearly drives a coach and horses through any continuing sense that two views can be held with integrity in the Church of England about the sacramental ministry of women priests and bishops.

The draft legislation is deeply flawed in other respects; for example it removes the rights of lay people - hitherto enshrined in Resolution 'A' of the 1993 Measure - to require that all priestly ministry in a parish should be carried out by male priests. This is detail. Fundamentally, the draft legislation would render it virtually impossible for anyone to live the Christian life within the Church of England, who had conscientious objections about the ordination of women. Why does this matter? Not only because the ordination of women continues to be a contested development in the life of the universal Church, but also because Anglicans in general - and the Church of England in particular - have always insisted that no-one is to be penalised or marginalised for adhering to the traditional view about gender and the ordained ministry. Those who hold this view are not dissenters or reactionaries but - as the Lambeth Conference of all Anglican bishops has agreed - are loyal members of their church and deserve an honoured place in it.

While the situation has no doubt been in some ways a messy one, the Church of England has lived with a diversity of views on this issue since 1994. 'Traditionalists' have remained committed to the life of the national Church and have contributed - as they wish to continue to do - to its mission to all the people of England. But this legislation would cut off their life blood, and force them out from that same Church of England, to its great detriment. A narrower and more exclusive church would be the result.

We hope and pray that the House of Bishops, and the General Synod, will pause and think again. There must be a better way ahead, which will be good news for all in the Church of England.

Jonathan Baker

X Martyn Beverley

Simon Killwick