Whitby: Another Fine Mess

I doubt whether he realized it at the time, but John Secker, the Churchwarden at St Oswald’s Lythe who organized the petition which led the Revd Philip North to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Whitby, is urging others to break church rules and indeed may be in transgression of those rules himself.

The 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, which is of course still in force, states as its first principle the following:

Ordinations and Appointments

1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Although Mr Secker and other signatories might not themselves be covered by the Act (they are not, after all, involved in the appointments process), the pressure they are exerting is, in fact, encouraging others to do just that.

Any appointment at Whitby which took their request into account would be a violation of the Act of Synod.

However, such violations have already taken place, most explicitly in the appointment of the latest Bishop of Salisbury, where the diocesan statement of needs said that “The Bishop will have to be prepared to ordain men and women without discrimination”. This, of course, was itself clearly in breach of the Act.

Unfortunately, no one picked it up at the time (which seems extraordinary, but is the case) and the appointment went through. But clearly, given the lack of ‘traditionalist’ appointments at every level, such discrimination has been going on for some time.

The situation is confused, however, by the fact that the abortive appointment of Fr North may itself have been in breach of the Act.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the succession of traditionalist catholic bishops at Whitby has been part of ‘an informal arrangement’. And informal arrangements do not seem to be envisaged by the Act.

According to the Act of Synod, a diocesan bishop should ‘make arrangements so far as possible within his own diocese for appropriate care and oversight for clergy and parishes’. Similarly, bishops in a region ‘acting jointly shall from time to time nominate from within their region for the purpose of this Act of Synod one or more bishops who are opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood.’ And of course the Archbishops may operate the scheme of PEVs (Flying Bishops).

So in London, for example, the post of the Bishop of Fulham was more formally linked with the oversight of traditionalist parishes and clergy, in keeping with the first provision of the Act.

The problem in Whitby seems to be that there was no such formal ‘designation’ – hence, presumably, the disappointment of some of those in the Cleveland area who would have expected at least a chance of having a bishop who did support the ordination of women.

The thing to bear in mind — which is often forgotten — is that both those in support of, and those opposed to, the ordination and consecration of women, are faithful Anglicans. In principle, therefore, the good people of Whitby should have been prepared to take what they were given, provided everyone stuck to the rules. And it  may be that the signatories of the Cleveland petition are unaware of the nuances of Anglicanism and of the formal provisions still in place, in which case they acted out of ignorance, not in defiance of those rules.

Nevertheless, they have created a doubtless-unforeseen difficulty over Fr North’s replacement, for if the process still follows the rules, the views of his ‘successor’ must be disregarded, in which case they could find themselves back in the same situation as before. However, precisely because Fr North has stood down on the grounds that his views (in his opinion) would make it difficult for him to be a ‘focus of unity’, it is hard to see how his replacement’s views could simply be ignored as the rules actually require. Yet if his replacement does not share his views, it will be hard to avoid the suggestion that the rules have again been broken, this time in the other direction.

Meanwhile, ironically, the action of the Cleveland petitioners contradicts the demand of many supporters of women bishops that people ought not to be able to choose their bishop on the basis of his or her views. In this case, the supporters of women’s ordination are doing exactly that — although one suspects (given the theological position of some of those in support of women bishops) that this  demand has at least partly in view the next flashpoint, which will be over bishops’ views on homosexuality.

Of course, one could say the objectors ought not to be allowed to get away with it. Alternatively, one could argue instead that the introduction of one innovation (women bishops) opens the door to others (bishops whose sphere of influence is defined theologically as well as geographically).

Either way, it is ‘another fine mess’.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

GRAS, trust and the question of assurances

According to a front-page article in the Church of England Newspaper today, no promises made to opponents of women’s ordination in 1993 have been broken since then.

The claim comes in a paper (downloadable as a pdf) by Revd Rosalind Rutherford, which is published on the website of GRAS, the Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod.

Unfortunately, it illustrates precisely why there is so much mistrust around this issue at present. It also illustrates an astonishing lack of self-awareness.

Rosalind Rutherford’s paper seems to take the line that if the word ‘promise’ wasn’t actually used, and if the undertakings were not made in or through the General Synod of the Church of England, they don’t count. Thus, for example, she quotes Archbishop Carey’s statement to the Ecclesiastical Committee regarding the Act of Synod that, ‘it is our intention for this to be permanent and we are not thinking of rescinding it.’ This might appear to most people to be in the nature of an assurance, if not a promise. ‘However,’ she comments dismissively, ‘this remark was not made to Synod’ (5).

This whole approach rather overlooks the fact that legislation affecting the established Church is debated and approved by Parliament, and at the time it was quite clear that Parliament sought watertight provision for traditionalists.

Thus in a debate which took place on the eve of the meeting which actually passed the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, Lady Saulton of Abernathy stated in the House of Lords, “I myself asked the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury whether it was envisaged that the Act of Synod would operate in perpetuity or whether it would be in the nature of a temporary measure which would cease to operate at some future date. He replied that it was the intention that it should be permanent and that they were not thinking of rescinding it or anything like that. Then he added the caveat, ‘with the goodwill of the House of Bishops’. He went on to say that of course anything could happen in the future.”

As we now know, the Archbishop's ‘anything’ is precisely what happened. Moreover, it is clear from Rosalind Rutherford’s paper that this ‘anything’ will reduce, rather than increase, the present provision. At the end, she quotes an unnamed member of General Synod as stating ‘recently’ that in 1993 ‘we were too accommodating’. Clearly that is a mistake which is not about to be repeated.

What takes the proverbial biscuit, however, is the assertion in the paper that, ‘if the current proposals are agreed, the very provisions which the House of Bishops was trying to put into place in [the 1993 Act of Synod] will become part of legislation’ (3). Or again,

‘what was promised [by Archbishop Carey] for “as long as is needed” was episcopal oversight clearly exercised in full cooperation with the Diocesan who would retain jurisdiction, not a totally separate oversight defined by being uncorrupted by having ordained women. It could be argued that the current legislation is making good that commitment ...’ (Emphasis added)

The argument throughout Rutherford’s paper is that the problem since 1993 has been not that the Act of Synod was necessarily bad, but that the PEV’s operated in a way that exceeded what was intended. However, I may be missing something here, but is not this being said by someone on behalf of the Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod? And does not the word ‘rescind’ mean to revoke, cancel or repeal, as it says in my dictionary? And is there not some contradiction between ‘making good’ a ‘commitment’ and working for a number of years to ‘revoke, cancel or repeal’ the very administrative provision that expresses that commitment?

Forgive me, but given the express intention of GRAS not to make the same mistake of being ‘too accommodating’ this time round, it is hard not to question the self-awareness, indeed the integrity, behind such a statement.

John Richardson
15 September 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Episcopal appointments - from subtle exclusion to overt discrimination

Since 1993 I have chosen to belong to a church that ordains women priests, and before I retire it is likely I will belong to one that consecrates women bishops. Yet this is a practice that I believe to be mistaken, so why am I still here?

One answer is that I am committed to the Church — not to the official ‘fine tuning’ of its theology. I have often argued that the Church of England is exactly what it says on the tin: the Church of England. It is not demarcated from the Church anywhere else by anything other than geography, and therefor it ought not to be defined by anything other than what the ‘Church universal’ accepts as essential.

Now I know this is a ‘pipe dream’ at innumerable levels. But when I read Scripture I see a similar picture. One of my favourite bits of the Bible is the book of Revelation, and in the seven letters to the churches in chapters 2-3 we find ourselves in very familiar territory. There is division, there is heresy, there is immorality, there are false apostles, there is lack of love, there is indifference. It’s just like home, really! And yet each letter is addressed “to the church in ...”, and each concludes with a promise “to him who overcomes” — and I take it that part of what is to be ‘overcome’ is precisely the situation in some of those churches.

So although I have been tempted to give up on the Church of England, I feel that on principle I ought not to.

Another reason I have stayed, however, is that when the Church of England decided it would ordain women priests, it also decided that the decision was not absolute. Instead, the phrase that was coined was ‘a period of reception’, meaning that it would go ahead with a move that seemed right to the majority of its decision-making body, but without prejudice to whether this was right or not. (Incidentally, this makes further nonsense of the 1975 ‘decision’ that there were no “fundamental” theological objections to the ordination of women. If that was what the Synod really believed, it would have acted accordingly.)

What this means, however, is that every woman who has been ordained in the Church of England has done so knowing that not everyone else accepts this should (or could) have happened. Now that is tough, but there are other denominations they could have joined which would not have presented them with the same problem. Only a day or so ago, I was yet again invited to leave the Church of England by someone who thinks I should go (actually, he tends to do this quite a lot!). But why should the boot not be on the other foot? So I stay knowing that everyone knows we are a ‘mixed economy’ denomination on this issue.

And then thirdly I stay — or at least I stayed — because I and others like me were assured of fair treatment. Unfortunately, it is on this third point that problems have developed and are getting worse.

We hear a lot about equality today, and there is a widespread insistence that people are treated ‘equally’ at every possible opportunity.

In 1993, as the ordination of women to the priesthood was brought in, the Church of England similarly committed itself to treat those on both sides of the debate equally. Thus the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (which is still in force) stated as its first principle that,

There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Unfortunately, that commitment was never upheld, and has now effectively been overturned.

Thus in 2001, just eight years on from the original legislation, the Perry Report on episcopal appointments noted that of the thirty-one diocesan bishops appointed between 1993 and 2000, twenty-seven ordained women and two were already diocesan bishops elsewhere. Only two new bishops did not ordain women, and these were both appointed before 1995 (2:28).

More recently, in 2007 the General Synod report ‘Talent and Calling’ (GS 1650), which looked at the appointments of suffragan bishops, cathedral deans, archdeacons and residentiary canons, made the following observations:

4.6.1 While the proportion of women on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments is lower than the proportion of full-time stipendiary clergy who are women, we are pleased to note that action is being taken to address this.

“Quite right, too,” we may respond. But then the report added this:

4.6.2 The proportion of minority ethnic, conservative evangelical and traditional catholic candidates on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments would appear to be even lower.

At least regarding conservative evangelicals, that is something of an understatement. It is true that traditionalist Catholics continue to be appointed as both suffragan and (occasionally) diocesan bishops. However, the last Evangelical appointment was in — well, can you guess?

In the past year, however, the discrimination has changed from being subtle (indeed not necessarily proven) to overt. In 2010, the Diocese of Salisbury, as part of the process of looking for a new diocesan bishop, published, as it is required to, a ‘Statement of Needs’. This, however, included the following:

The Bishop will have to be prepared to ordain men and women without discrimination ... and to envisage in due time a female episcopal colleague. (Section 20)

It doesn’t take much of a legal mind to realize that this rides roughshod over the requirement of the Act of Synod that there shall be “no discrimination ... on the grounds of ... views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.”

So what happened in the Vacancy in See Committee to bring about this situation? Did no one spot that this was, in fact, contrary to the Act of Synod? Or did no one care? Discrete enquiries suggest there was some awareness of potential difficulties in this area, but the statement itself was presumably not challenged.

But then should it not have been picked up by the Crown Nominations Commission? After all, this includes some fine minds, well aware of what is legal or not — to say nothing of the two Archbishops. Did they not see a problem? Well, of course the workings of the CNC are strictly confidential (at least in theory), so you can ask (I did), but don’t expect long answers.

What seems clear is that the Salisbury members of the CNC went into the selection process having been given a mandate that contradicted an Act of Synod, which is supposed to represent the ‘mind of the Church of England’. And given that the diocese was not asked to rewrite the Statement and publicly invite a new round of submissions of possible candidates, presumably either the other members of the CNC did not spot the problem, or they spotted it but did not feel it made any material difference.

Meanwhile, we have had two new appointments of Provincial Episcopal visitors, though how long their services will be required is anybody’s guess. Despite belated lobbying from the evangelical constituency, however, both of them are traditionalist Anglo-Catholics.

So when will the next Conservative Evangelical be appointed as a bishop in the Church of England. I don’t know. But the last one — and the way things are going he might actually turn out to be the last one — was in 1997, fourteen years ago.

John Richardson

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Speech to Deanery Synod on the Women Bishops Measure

Next Wednesday I have to speak to our Deanery Synod in a debate about the draft Women Bishops Measure, and have been asked to oppose the motion. This is the gist of what I intend to say, and I would invite feedback and comment in advance.)

**************************

I’m sure you’ll agree it makes a change for me not to be talking to you about the growth of the church [I chair the Deanery Growth Task Group which makes regular presentations to the Synod].

However, I do believe that what I have to say this evening has to do with the health of the church.

Since 1993, the Church of England has been able to ordain women as priests and it is now proposed to consecrate women as bishops.

However, the legislation framed in 1993 was carefully designed to preserve the unity of the Church of England.

This was achieved through two instruments.

First, the Measure which passed through Parliament had two ‘Resolutions’ in an appendix, which allowed parishes to choose not have a woman as their incumbent, team vicar or priest in charge, or to pronounce Absolution or to celebrate Holy Communion.

The latter clauses were particularly framed out of concern for Anglo-Catholics committed to the doctrine that priesthood is essentially a male quality, and that the priest, as a representative of Christ, had to share his maleness.

The former was more important for evangelicals who believe this is more an issue to do with rôles within the congregation as the ‘household of God’.

However, there was a second instrument, not a parliamentary Measure, but an Act of Synod, which made special provisions regarding specifically episcopal ministry for those who opposed the ordination of women.

This Act of Synod is often treated as being one-sided, having regard only to the needs of traditionalists. But it also had something for those in favour of women’s ordination by providing that, even if the diocesan bishop were himself opposed to the ordination of women, with his permission, women could be ordained, licensed and instituted in his diocese by the Archbishop or by another bishop acting on his behalf.

Since 2000, I have often heard complaints about the untidiness — and worse — of the system of flying bishops (which was just one of the provisions of the Act of Synod).

But there was an equal untidiness (if we want to call it that) embodied in the Act of Synod (11:1-3) for those who supported women’s ordination, whereby ordination, licensing and institution — surely key elements of the bishops oversight — could be handed over to another bishop outside his diocese, where the diocesan bishop opposed women’s ordination

Let it be noted that the Flying Bishops have never had this much authority with regard to those who received their ministry.

The principle at work throughout the introduction of the ordination of women, however, was expressed in the Act of Synod, which said that

... the highest possible degree of communion should be maintained within each diocese; and

... the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected. (3.a.ii, iii)

And that is where the health of the Church of England comes to the forefront.

Authority in the Church of England is often said to be like a stool with three legs, namely Scripture, tradition and reason. But that is not quite a complete picture, for although the Church of England recognizes the important of reason and tradition, it gives priority to Scripture.

Article XX of the 39 Articles, states that “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.”

Scripture, tradition and reason are not three separate ‘legs’ but three interacting sources of understanding. So we need reason and tradition to understand Scripture.

But once we have understood Scripture, the Articles state that the Church cannot then contradict Scripture, despite our traditions or our other ‘reasonable’ justifications.

In the present debate, there are those who believe that Scripture does allow the ordination and consecration of women as priests and bishops, and there are those who believe it does not.

The official position of the Church of England since 1993 has been that both are authentically Anglican — and this can be maintained insofar as we believe neither are deliberately and consciously acting contrary to Scripture.

However, whilst that continues to be the case — and it is still the case at present — the Church must organize its structure so that both those in favour of, and those opposed to, the ordination and consecration of women can function coherently within the same denominational body.

Now it may be that this is impossible. Baptists and Anglicans would find it difficult to operate in the same denomination because they have contradictory views of infant baptism. It is possible to be a Baptist layperson in the Church of England, but you can’t really be a Baptist ‘priest’, because your office requires you to carry out baptisms of infants.

Sometimes doctrinal differences require structural separation. And indeed, it has been said to me on more than one occasion that if I don’t like what is happening I ought to leave the Church of England.

In reply, I would make two observations. First, when I was ordained in the Church of England, women’s ordination was only just being considered. In fact in 1977, the National Evangelical Anglican Congress, meeting at Nottingham, passed a resolution which said,

Leadership in the Church should be plural and mixed, ultimate responsibility normally singular and male. (The Nottingham Statement, J6)

That was my own position then and it continues to be my position now. And that is one reason why I feel under no obligation to go, despite the urging of others.

Furthermore, the Church of England maintained in 1993 and has continued to maintain since then, that the issue is not settled. The technical term for this is that we are ‘in a period of reception’ — which doesn’t mean ‘we are giving everyone time to get used to it’, but ‘we still discerning whether this is right or wrong’ (see the Act of Synod ‘Proposal’ 3:a.i).

And that brings me to my second observation, which is that although I may be mistaken, I genuinely think that the Church of England has got it wrong on this issue and that it has acted contrary to Scripture.

But if that is true — and officially the Church of England goes on saying it may be true — it is especially important to go on witnessing to what one believes to be true, for the sake of the Church.

And that is why I want to urge the Church to look again at this legislation and not to accept it in its current form.

You will have noticed that the Measure is quite long and complicated. The reason is that there are four long clauses (2,3,5 and 6), detailing the provisions for those who, like myself, continue to have difficulty with the ordination or consecration of women.

May I make the point, in passing, that by making this legal provision, a vote for this legislation is a vote to accept that the Church of England still may be wrong on this issue?

But it is a grudging and inadequate provision. For example, PCCs may request that only a male incumbent or priest in charge be appointed to a parish or benefice, but it is only a request, not a requirement (3.3, 6).

Nor can such a decision be made by a meeting attended by the existing priest in charge of a church (nor, indeed, their spouse or civil partner, 3.7). The PCC must now act alone and only once there is an actual or impending vacancy — and we know what an anxious time that is.

We also know — or at least I do — that Archdeacons are not above reminding parishes in this situation that passing any of the existing Resolutions will, of course, narrow the field of any possible future replacements.

It is when we come to the provision of episcopal oversight, however, that this legislation is wholly inadequate.

Here, again, it is only possible for a PCC to make a request “that episcopal ministry and pastoral care shall be provided by a male bishop” (3.1).

The response to that request will be governed by a ‘Code of Practice’ which has yet to be decided. However, it is up to the diocesan bishop to frame the scheme that will apply in his or her diocese.

Moreover, that scheme may make different provisions for different churches or even individuals (5.2). But then the scheme itself must be reviewed every five years, and meanwhile may be revoked or amended at any time (2.6).

A major problem with these proposals, however, is that episcopal ministry to parishes in these circumstances is not really ‘episcopal’ at all. The Measure defines it in terms of:

the celebration of the sacraments and other divine services ... (2.1.a)

And

the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners ... (2.1.b)

Now with the exception of some ‘divine services’ like confirmation, and the provision of pastoral care to the clergy (which could in any case come from a lay ‘spiritual director’), the other duties are those of the local priest, not a bishop.

Compare this with the Act of Synod, which in the case of dioceses where the bishop opposed women priests, allowed the Archbishop or his commissary to ordain, license and institute women priests in someone else’s diocese (11:1 — not forgetting that the Archbishop is himself a diocesan bishop in the Church of England.)

This is why the Church of England Evangelical Council, with the support of Forward in Faith, is sponsoring a ‘Following Motion’ which it is hoped will be discussed at General Synod, calling for oversight under the new Measure to be exercised with a bishop with ‘ordinary jurisdiction’ — the power to ordain, license and institute.

As pointed out before, that provision was never granted to the ‘Flying Bishops’, but it is there in the Act of Synod for supporters of women’s ordination.

To my mind, however, the biggest problem with the Measure is not legal but theological.

Under the Measure, these very limited episcopal functions — which I have said are not really ‘episcopal’ at all — will be delegated to another bishop in the diocese, or a different diocese, simply because he is male.

Strictly speaking (unless I have misunderstood the legislation), he does not himself have to be a bishop who holds the views on women’s ordination held by those to whom he will minister — the clergy and congregations (2:1).

To take this approach, however, is to drive a wedge between what a bishop believes and what a bishop does in terms of the exercise of his ministry. Yet if a parish or a priest requests episcopal ministry because of their beliefs in this area, it is not enough to say, “You can have bishop B although he doesn’t agree with a word you say, because he’s a man.”

If the Church of England is to continue to maintain that it has a place for both integrities at this point — which this legislation clearly presumes — then there must be provision that the beliefs involved are held by actual, living and ministering, bishops. Just being a ‘bloke’ is not enough!

Finally, and unfortunately, we have to remind ourselves just how things have been for the past eighteen years under the existing legislation, which shows why the provision needs to be strengthened, not weakened.

In the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, it is stated that,

There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood. (1)

Actually, since 1993 there has been just one appointment of an Evangelical bishop opposed to the ordination of women (and that was to a suffragan post) and a handful of Anglo-Catholic appointments.

Indeed, the 2001 Perry Report on episcopal appointments, noted that of the 31 diocesan bishops appointed between 1993 and 2000, 27 ordained women and two were already diocesan bishops elsewhere. Only two new bishops did not ordain women, and these were both appointed before 1995 (2:28).

I would also refer to ‘Talent and Calling’, GS 1650, published in 2007, which looked at the appointments of suffragan bishops, cathedral deans, archdeacons and residentiary canons, which made this observation:

4.6.1 While the proportion of women on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments is lower than the proportion of full-time stipendiary clergy who are women, we are pleased to note that action is being taken to address this.

But then it added this:

4.6.2 The proportion of minority ethnic, conservative evangelical and traditional catholic candidates on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments would appear to be even lower.

In other words, the reality on the ground suggests that despite the Act of Synod, discrimination has taken place even in the period before the new legislation was proposed — and this may, of course, go some way towards explaining the passage of that legislation through the Church’s governing bodies.

I hope you will understand, therefore, why the feeling of traditionalists is so strong that a ‘Code of Practice’ — yet to published, leaving wide discretion to the diocesan bishop, without any guarantee of what will be put in place, subject to revocation at any time and review every five years — just will not do.

Personally, the more I have examined the small-print, the more I would like to see this Measure defeated. It is not that I could not live with women priests and bishops — I can, and so far have done since 1993.

But the Measure seems to be applying the biblical principle that ‘to those who have not, even what they have shall be taken away’, and this is a bad application.

I would ask you therefore to vote against the Measure.

However, if the Measure is to go through, the House of Bishops must do what the CEEC Following Motion requests, and make provision in the Measure itself for people and parishes to receive oversight from a bishop with ‘ordinary jurisdiction’ — just as the Act of Synod did for the supporters of women priests in 1993.

So I would ask you, whether you support the Measure or not, to vote for the CEEC Following Motion.

*******************

The CEEC Following Motion:

This [General] Synod,

1. desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England and therefore

2. calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The forgotten rôle of the 1993 Act of Synod

Recently I was at a meeting of evangelicals from the Diocese of Chelmsford which, at one stage, turned quite painful. The occasion was a discussion of the ‘Following Motion’ suggested by the Church of England Evangelical Council, to be put to deanery and diocesan synods considering the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure being proposed by the General Synod.

The Following Motion urges the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the Measure in order to strengthen the provision of episcopal oversight for those “unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops”.

Many evangelical Anglicans actually have no problem with this, but for the sake of those who do, the CEEC is sponsoring the motion specifically in the interests of evangelical unity.

Even so, in our own conversations it was clear that not everyone was willing to give their support, one of the stated reasons being that the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod — the legislation that provided for the ‘flying bishops’ — had created “a mess”.

As the discussion became more detailed, I found myself checking the specifics of the Act, but also looking back at the original Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure itself. And what I found came as a surprise.

In what follows I may be mistaken both in terms of interpretation of the legislation and regarding what actually happened at the time and subsequently. Corrections will therefore be welcome. However, it seems to me that as the debate on women bishops nears its probable conclusion, there are things about the original provisions, and specifically the rôle of the Act of Synod, which have been forgotten.

First, there is the stark nature of the original Measure. This consists of three main parts plus a Schedule. The first simply allows the General Synod “to make provision by Canon for enabling a woman to be ordained to the office of priest”.

The third contains general material relating to interpretation.

But it is the second which is the most striking in the present context, given that it allowed an existing diocesan bishop to ‘opt out’ with his entire diocese:

(1) A bishop of a diocese in office at the relevant date [of the enabling Canon] may make any one or more of the following declarations—

(a) that a woman is not to be ordained within the diocese to the office of priest; or

(b) that a woman is not to be instituted or licensed to the office of incumbent or priest-in-charge of a benefice, or of team vicar for a benefice, within the diocese; or

(c) that a woman is not to be given a licence or permission to officiate as a priest within the diocese.

The only thing a woman could do in such a diocese, according to the Measure, was “officiate as a priest in a church or chapel for one period of not more than seven days in any period of three months without reference to the bishop or other Ordinary” (2.2.7).

And here is where the Act of Synod comes in. Bear in mind, however, that when the Measure went before Parliament, the Act itself had not been passed, or even presented to the General Synod. It was simply a plan in the House of Bishops to present the Act to the Synod the week after Parliament approved the Measure.

It is therefore important to read at length what the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd George Carey, had to say in the House of Lords on the 2nd November. Note especially the highlighted sections (the quotation is necessarily shortened for the sake of blog readers):

[...] Much attention has been focused on Clause 2 of the Measure which provides that a diocesan bishop, who is in office when the canon enabling women to be ordained priest is promulged, may make one or more of three declarations. By making all three of these declarations, a diocesan bishop could in effect exclude women priests from his diocese.

[However ...]

The potential significance of Clause 2 has substantially lessened as a result of the pastoral arrangements which the House of Bishops wishes to put in place once the canon is promulged.

[...]

The arrangements the House envisages are designed to ensure that appropriate pastoral episcopal care is provided for those in favour and those opposed to the legislation, without undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop. Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject. The arrangements are embodied in an Act of Synod, which the General Synod will be invited to approve when it meets in London next week.

Thus the Act of Synod, whilst certainly having in mind the particular interests of those opposed to women priests, also made provision “for those in favour”, specifically as follows:

11 (1) ... where the bishop of the diocese has indicated that he is opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and, in case of a bishop in office at the relevant date, that he is unwilling to make a declaration under section 2 thereof, the ordination to the priesthood of women from the diocese and their licensing and institution shall be carried out by the archbishop concerned, either personally or through a bishop acting as his commissary; and the archbishop shall cause the archiepiscopal seal to be affixed to any documents that are needed for that purpose.

(2) The archbishop shall act under subsection (1) above either at the request of the diocesan bishop concerned or in pursuance of his metropolitical jurisdiction, but shall not so act unless he is satisfied that the diocesan bishop concerned has no objection.

(3) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the bishop of a diocese has made arrangements for the ordination of women to the priesthood and their licensing and institution to be carried out by another bishop. (Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993)

Hence, as the 2004 report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate observed, the Act of Synod not only took into account the view of those opposed to women priests but,

It made provision for the ordination, licensing and institution of women priests in dioceses where the diocesan bishop was opposed to the ordination of women priests. (Women Bishops in the Church of England? 2004, 4.2.47)

The Act of Synod, therefore, was not offered simply as a ‘messy’ response to the demands of traditionalists, but was an important part of a total package presented to embrace both sides. As Archbishop Carey said, for example, “the potential significance of Clause 2” of the original Measure was “substantially lessened” by the Act of Synod.

Moreover, it is clear from the Hansard record of the debate in the House of Lords that the assurances being given about the Act of Synod were fundamental to the successful passage of the Measure itself at the time. What Parliament considered was not simply the Measure in isolation, but a combined package of ‘Measure and Act’. The passionate closing speech of the Archbishop of York, one of the chief architects of the Act, bears this out:

People have said, “Well, it is possible to revert an Act of Synod”. Of course, it is possible to revert anything, even legislation. However, as I am sure that your Lordships realise, it is not very easy to reverse things in the Church of England; indeed, it is not easy to do anything in the Church of England, especially if one is trying to undo something. Any motion of that kind requires the approval of all three Houses. Therefore, once you have something, it is really quite hard to get rid of it. I believe that the House can, with confidence, vote for the Measures before us unamended. I feel that we will all come together and that the synod will, next week, see the point of enshrining this treasured diversity of the Church of England in the Act of Synod. (Emphasis added)

Yet the words of Lady Saltoun of Abernethy earlier in the same debate are also worth quoting at length:

I myself asked the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury whether it was envisaged that the Act of Synod would operate in perpetuity or whether it would be in the nature of a temporary measure which would cease to operate at some future date. He replied that it was the intention that it should be permanent and that they were not thinking of rescinding it or anything like that. Then he added the caveat, “with the goodwill of the House of Bishops”. He went on to say that of course anything could happen in the future.

That is just the trouble. The fact is that the safeguards should have been incorporated in the Measure for the ordination of women. I feel that the General Synod underestimated the strength of the opposition to the Measure and thought that it would get it through with only such safeguards as are in Clause 2. I believe that it became clear to them that the majority of the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, even many of them who supported the ordination of women, were concerned as to the efficacy of those safeguards and felt that they might be faced with an adverse vote in the committee. They produced the Manchester Declaration Mark II and the proposed Act of Synod very quickly. I am cynical enough to suspect that that was done out of necessity in order to get the Measure through Parliament and that, had the Ecclesiastical Committee in general not expressed such concern at the unfairness with which it was proposed to treat orthodox clergy and members of the Church, nothing would have been done at all.

Indeed, in the light of the Archbishop of York’s comments, her words now seem entirely prescient:

I want to concentrate on the safeguards for those who hold orthodox Anglican views, because I am concerned that those safeguards will be short lived. [...] They are to be enshrined only in an Act of Synod, which can be amended or rescinded at any time by a simple majority in the General Synod. Since we have no real guarantee that diocesan bishops who are opposed to the ordination of women will continue to be appointed, we wonder how long it will be before there is not one single bishop in the Church of England who does not support the ordination of women and who can therefore act as a provincial episcopal visitor to those who do not.

It is the history of what happened subsequent to 1993 that makes the need for ‘proper provision’ so urgent in the eyes of those who today remain opposed to the consecration of women as bishops.

The Act of Synod provided that “There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.” And yet there has clearly been such discrimination.

The Archbishop of Canterbury suggested to a Peer that the Act of Synod would be ‘permanent’, and the Archbishop of York amusingly pointed out how hard it is to change things in the Church of England. And yet the Act of Synod has long been under threat and may soon be repealed.

Safeguards, provisions and assurances were offered and put in place in one generation, only for the current generation to propose removing them at a stroke.

And, of course, Parliament itself has changed its tune and may even be willing to force the Church of England to change accordingly.

No doubt, few if any of those opposing the request of ‘proper provision’ will think in terms of ‘betrayal’. And yet the words spoken just two decades ago do seem to tell a different story. The Act of Synod was vital then to giving supporters of women’s ordination what they wanted, when they wanted it, and that ought to be remembered in the current debate. But what ought also to be remembered, and acknowledged on both sides, is that the safeguards last time were not in the Measure. This time, they surely must be.

John Richardson
10 February 2011

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

And now — a Conservative Evangelical 'Flying Bishop'?

Some years ago I was quite rightly ticked off by an archdeacon (now retired) for saying that the system of Provincial Episcopal Visitors, or ‘Flying Bishops’, had been set up “for Anglo-Catholics”. Of course, it was not. It was set up for everyone and anyone where there was a Parochial Church Council wanting to avail themselves of the provisions of the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.

It is also worth observing that the system of PEVs was only one, and indeed not the foremost, way of providing the necessary oversight. The first option was actually to have local, diocesan, schemes, follow by regional arrangements between dioceses. Only thirdly would the Archbishops appoint extra suffragans to act as PEVs.

This is why, although the Act provides for only three PEVs, two in Canterbury and one in York, there are four bishops commonly identified with this system, the Bishop of Fulham having been appointed under the local ‘London Plan’.

Now it would be interesting to note, first of all, that the other arrangements made possible under the Act of Synod either never took off or quickly fell into desuetude. One of the key reasons for this was surely that the first provision of the Act itself was simply ignored from its inception. This is the clause that states,

There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Though it is possible even now to be ordained whilst opposing the ordination of women (as has just happened with our local assistant curate), senior office has pretty well been closed to such opponents since the year women began to be ordained.

And this must also, incidentally, mitigate against the suggestion that provision for opponents of women bishops can be made satisfactorily by means of a Code of Practice. Since an Act of Synod has been so roundly ignored, how much more, experience tells us, would a Code of Practice similarly be sidelined.

Since 1993, episcopal opposition to women’s ordination has been eliminated by the simple expedient of not appointing such bishops to diocesan and suffragan posts. Those that were appointed as PEVs, however, were dedicated Anglo-Catholics, and this has had a somewhat ‘chicken and egg’ effect on the wider Church.

Clearly in 1993, it was the Anglo-Catholics who most felt the need for episcopal oversight consistent with their theology of priesthood.

By contrast, Evangelicals were generally neither interested in episcopacy, nor particularly beholden to their local bishop.

This was partly due to a lack of ecclesiological clarity, but also partly down to history. In the post-war years, Evangelicals were very much at the fringes of an Anglican church which was itself very much bigger and stronger than today. (I well remember Colin Buchanan telling us that in the early years of liturgical revision, he never missed a meeting of the relevant committee because he was its only Evangelical member.)

Evangelicals were thus used to operating with neither much reference to nor support from the central institutional structures. When the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure passed in 1993, therefore, the mood amongst many Evangelicals was that local, parish, ministry could continue largely unaffected, as it had done during the ‘Honest to God’ years and beyond. Bad bishops had not unduly hindered, and good bishops had not particularly helped, traditional Evangelical ministry. And thus, with the pragmatism that so characterizes their movement, the Evangelicals focussed on ‘getting on with the job’ as they understood it to be.

But hence also, when a group of Evangelicals approached Archbishop George Carey a few years later to ask for the appointment of an Evangelical PEV for their own constituency, they were told that there was no demand. Although this has echoes of the apocryphal shop keeper whose answer to the question, “Why don’t you stock such-and-such?” was that, “People never ask for it,” the fact is (as I have frequently bemoaned) that Evangelicals had not really been much interested in the provisions of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.

Yet this has, at least in part, also been due to the misapprehension I observed at the beginning, that the scheme was really ‘for’ Anglo-Catholics — a misapprehension reinforced by the way the scheme has operated from the outset. Thus Evangelicals have not been drawn into the scheme, and the scheme has been run as if it were not really for Evangelicals.

The news that the Bishop of Fulham is to join the Anglican Ordinariate, however, means that an interesting opportunity may be about to present itself, for there will certainly be one vacancy to fill, and there may be others.

Let us imagine (though I am neither suggesting, nor hoping this will happen) that in addition to Bishop Broadhurst, one of the PEVs decides either to become a Roman Catholic or to join the Ordinariate. And let us assume those resignations come into effect early next year.

It is hard to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury or York (wherever the vacancy occurs), would suggest that the remaining PEVs must ‘take up the slack’. If they were facing a demanding situation before July, things must be even more challenging for them now. In any case, the failure to appoint a replacement would suggest foreclosure on the outcome of the Synodical process.

It should be noted, incidentally, that General Synod must still be at liberty to reject the proposed legislation entirely. It has been argued that one of the reasons why the Synod was not bound by assurances given in 1993 is that a current legislature cannot be tied to the decisions of its predecessors. That being the case, the same must be true now — Synod can say no.

And there will certainly be ‘Following Motions’ being proposed during the discussions which must now be undertaken in dioceses. In other words, the outcome of the whole process is far from certain.

That being the case, a vacancy amongst the PEVs must, surely, be filled — as, equally surely, must John Broadhurst’s post in the Diocese of London.

Given, however, that the Evangelical constituency is at last waking up to the need for episcopal provision, this would present an excellent opportunity for the appointment of a Conservative Evangelical PEV.

Such an appointment would send a powerful signal that the needs of Evangelicals in this regard are being taken seriously by the establishment, and it would also encourage the Evangelicals to take these things seriously themselves.

Now of course there might be problems, not least with the fact that until now the PEV scheme has rather operated as if it were the preserve of Anglo-Catholics.

Our own experience with Bishop Keith Newton (all our three parishes are ‘Resolution C’) has been nothing short of superb, especially in the way that he has accommodated himself to our liturgical tradition. But could the same work the other way? Would — could? — a Conservative Evangelical even fit in, let alone go along, with the traditions found in typical Anglo-Catholic ‘C’ parishes?

It is a fair question, and the answer is probably not as things stand. Yet that does not have to close the matter.

I have observed to Anglo-Catholics that the Pope’s offer of an Anglican Ordinariate actually pushes them to do one of two things — either to move closer to Rome or to move closer to the Church of England. Like it or not, the position of mere ‘disaffection’ is no longer the option it was previously.

In other words, just as those who go into the Ordinariate will need to ask what it is they take with them of the Anglican heritage, those who do not must also ask how they stand in relation to the heritage in which they remain.

And this suggests an elegant solution to the question of how a Conservative Evangelical PEV might operate within the Anglo-Catholic constituency, namely by using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for his liturgy and Convocation Robes for his dress.

Of course, this would not be entirely satisfactory for parishes used to other rites and rituals. Yet it would not be as if they were required to abandon such usages, for this is only being proposed for those occasions when the Bishop would be present. And it would have the advantage of allowing the Bishop himself to act conscientiously. Moreover, as Canon B3.2 requires, the BCP is the ‘default’ setting of the Church when there is a dispute over the liturgy, and therefore ought to be regarded by all parties as ‘neutral Anglican territory’.

There would, doubtless, be other issues to consider and other anxieties to settle on all sides. Nevertheless, in view of what is happening in the Church of England, and for the sake of a future in which as great a degree of unity as possible ought to be sought by everyone, the creation of a new Conservative Evangelical bishop would potentially be timely for all concerned.

John Richardson
18 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Parliament and the "moral authority" of the Act of Synod

As a PS to my earlier article, someone e-mailed me a link to Hansard for 1st November 1993, prior to the final parliamentary debate which approved the 1992 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, which records the answer from Mr Michael Alison to a question put by Harry Greenway MP.

This makes it quite clear that without the Act of Synod, Parliament would "insist" that the Synod put in place a further Measure, "to create a statutory provision" for those opposed to the ordination of women and requiring appropriate episcopal provision. The necessary linkage between the 1992 Measure and the 1993 Act is thus, I believe, firmly established, as is the "moral authority" of the Act.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : The Act of Synod will provide for the appointment of up to three new suffragan bishops to act as provincial episcopal visitors. Their remuneration will be the same as that of other suffragan bishops. Housing and a car will be provided and working expenses will be reimbursed.

Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Church Commissioners will bear in mind the great concern expressed by the House in last Friday's debate that priests and congregations committed to a male priesthood be properly looked after when females--ladies--are ordained as priests in a few months' time? Will he give an assurance that the Act of Synod measure which deals with the matter will give proper moral and real authority to those bishops committed to protecting those congregations and to serving them?

Mr. Alison : I am delighted that my hon. Friend has underscored the need for the co-called Act of Synod to have real teeth and real moral authority. I shall convey the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed to the General Synod when it meets at Church house next week to discuss the very point that my hon. Friend has raised. The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

It's now or never - your Resolution C

Until Parliament approves any legislation General Synod may bring forward, it is still perfectly possible to pass Resolution C, petitioning the diocesan bishop for episcopal oversight to be provided under the terms of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (1993).

In plain English, you can still opt for a flying bishop.

If you are in a parish thinking of doing this, could you please contact me.

(A read through the Act will also show how far we've moved from the broader Church of those days.)

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

GRASed up: the betrayal of a commitment

The proposal from the Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod to give ‘Conscientious Objector’ status to existing clergy who do not believe in women’s ordination, whilst excluding any new candidates for the ministry from the ranks of Christians who take the same view, raises for me an interesting question: was not the Anglican Church with an all-male priesthood which voted to allow woment to be ordained more tolerant than that which now has a mixed priesthood of men and women?

The question is not at all artificial. It is freely acknowledged, not least by some of those in GRAS, that the Church of England would not have voted to ordain women in 1992 if there had not been a legal provision for those who did not agree. This provision is partly provided within the 1993 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure itself.

However, the General Synod, reflecting the mind of the Church, realized that even this was not enough. The inclusion of this provision was a clear admission that the question was not settled, despite the majority vote to allow women to be ordained. And so a further provision was made in the Act of Synod, without which it is quite possible that the Measure itself would not have received parliamentary approval.

In other words, the ordination of women was achieved in 1993 as the result of a deal. Calling it a political deal may be too pejorative. Rather, it was a recognition that, just as there were those persuaded that women could be ordained to the priesthood, there were those who were not. The outcome was, on the surface, an honourable arrangement —an agreement to differ, but to allow movement.

Now, the impression is given that this was, after all, only on the surface. Some of the supporters of women’s ordination have reneged, insisting that what is not the case —that the issue is settled —should be treated as if it were true. From henceforth, no argument will be brooked.

Frankly, this suggests either a dishonesty amongst those who argued for women’s ordination in the early 1990s, or a betrayal of a past commitment.

Either way, we should look and learn. Anyone who imagines that a Church which ordains and blesses those in active gay relationships will have room for those who don’t twenty years later is living in a fool’s paradise.

Revd John P Richardson
29 November 2007

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.