Habemus episcopum? Who will replace the departing bishops?

The departure from the Church of England of the current bishop for the London Scheme and two out of the three serving Provincial Episcopal visitors does more than resolve a tension that has been around for some months. Importantly, it creates some significant vacancies which ought to be filled.

Some may argue this is unnecessary. The advent of women bishops will also see the abolition of the present arrangements for those who have petitioned for episcopal provision under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993. Why bother appointing people to posts which are about to disappear?

But no one can be absolutely sure — especially not since the change in the makeup of General Synod — exactly when that will take place. It is certainly not for two years, given that the matter will be debated by diocesan synods throughout 2011 before returning to the General Synod, after which Parliament will also have to approve any Measure that is finally presented. Meanwhile ‘Resolution C’ parishes are still in need of episcopal ministry.

Step forward ... well, who, exactly?

When the Act of Synod was introduced, it envisaged a ‘three tier’ level of provision. The first tier was local, diocesan, arrangements (which in those days could have included the diocesan bishop himself). The second was regional arrangements by neighbouring dioceses. The PEVs were only a third option. But as time went on, the other forms of provision largely (though not entirely) fell into desuetude, and ‘flying bishops’ became the preferred option for most ‘C’ parishes.

Moreover, the system worked quite well, and thus commended itself even further, not least by creating a sense of solidarity amongst parishes which otherwise were in danger of isolation.

If the PEVs are not to be replaced, then in the Province of Canterbury at least, it will be necessary to create numerous local ‘schemes’ of an untried nature and unknown duration. Moreover, the non-replacement of the PEVs would itself be a presumption of the outcome of the ongoing debates — something which one would doubt the present Archbishop of Canterbury would be willing to undertake.

So we are back to the question as to who could be appointed.

To begin with, they must be people committed to the Church of England. One of the effects of the Ordinariate is that it will no longer be possible to live as an Anglo-Catholic within the Church of England and, simultaneously, ‘flirt’ with Rome. The wholeheartedly Roman must, henceforth, choose one of the two options available in that direction. Those who remain, no matter how doctrinally Catholic they may be, must also be clearly ‘Anglo’, not Roman, in their expression of this.

And this could raise at least some questions about the liturgical options available to the constituency, and therefore open to (or perhaps required of!) the new bishops.

At the same time, they should be people who would have the confidence of the remaining constituency and, if the appointing bishops are wise (and I have no doubt in this regard that they are - update, see here), they will be people who can simultaneously address the hurts of that constituency and help it develop its own understanding of its future place within Anglicanism.

Naturally, they will also need all the gifts proper to their episcopal office, added to which, given the opprobrium likely to come their way in the wake of what has just happened with their predecessors (see the blogosphere passim), they will also need to be emotionally as tough as nails.

Such men may well exist, and it may be that names are already under consideration.

There is, however, a thought I’d would like to put forward, just on the off-chance it might be taken seriously, which is that at least one of those finally appointed ought to be an Evangelical. It is quite clear that Evangelicals now have an identical interest in the episcopal outcomes of the present debates as have had the Anglo-Catholics. And it is also arguable that the movement of some Anglo-Catholics into the Ordinariate will create a greater opportunity for dialogue, and perhaps even rapprochement, between Evangelicals and those — shall we call them Catholic Anglicans?* — who remain.

It would, moreover, provide a clear signal from the ‘powers that be’ that a constituency which has seen just a single episcopal appointment from its ranks in seventeen years is still recognized as having an abiding place within the wider denomination.

We continue to live in interesting times.

John Richardson
8 November 2010

* Probably not.

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.

Why Resolution C is still the issue for REFORM

Over the last few days and weeks, I have listened to leaders of the Conservative Evangelical constituency demanding (and there are good reasons for their demand) that ‘proper provision’ (that is the usual phrase) must be made for their constituency in the event of the introduction of women bishops in a few years time.

Indeed, as part of this, the Church of England Evangelical Council has been asked to sponsor a ‘following motion’ to be put to diocesan synods on their behalf, as this is one of the few legal ways in which the legislation which will come before the General Synod can be radically amended at this late stage.

The question is, ‘proper provision of what’?

And the answer on the table at the moment is ‘proper provision of a scheme very similar to the present resolutions A, B and C which Conservative Evangelicals have largely ignored as a constituency over the last seventeen years’.

The details of the provisions can be read here in a pdf document of the draft Measure which will go out to dioceses for discussion. Unfortunately, a ‘cut and paste’ copying of this is not possible right now, and time literally prevents me labouriously typing it out, so interested parties will have to read it for themselves. But basically it offers much the same as is presently available.

A Parochial Church Council will still be able to request that only a male priest be appointed as priest-in-charge or incumbent, and it will be able to request that episcopal ministry be provided by a male bishop.

The provision is, indeed, nowhere good enough. The PCC has to apply to the bishop by a ‘Letter of Request’. (Try sending something like that to officialdom anywhere else, and you will begin to get a sense of the problem.) Those responsible for appointments are only required to “take account” of such letters (3:9 — I myself am not above ‘taking account’ of people’s objections, but not changing my position). There is no doubt that the whole thing is a watered down version of what is available now, and is open to further dilution in the future.

There are many other criticisms that could be made of the ‘provision’ now on offer. But that is not the issue for the likes of Reform who are demanding that the provision should be ‘proper’.

As readers of this blog and others will be well aware, I have been arguing for several years now that all Reform parishes ought to have passed ‘Resolution C’ — the petition for episcopal ministry to be exercised under the Act of Synod 1993. I was even there at the Reform conference a few years ago when Phillip Jensen told those assembled that they should all go away and pass Resolution C, if only to make it clear that they did not want women bishops.

Nothing was done.

Various reasons were given for this, but two stood out. The first was that petitioning parishes would have to accept an Anglo-Catholic bishop, which was simply not true. However, on this I must offer my own mea culpa for not seeing it clearly enough at the time and not refuting the falsehood.

The second, however, is more pernicious, which was that PCCs could not be persuaded, either of the urgency or of the need to pass such a resolution. Either they had bigger things on their agenda or they simply were not united enough.

And here is the problem. Let us assume that the present campaign succeeds (it is unlikely, but still possible). Essentially, this would mean that what is currently being proposed would be backed up by stronger legislation than a ‘code of practice’.

The point is, PCCs would still have to pass appropriate motions to petition for a male incumbent or priest in charge and for oversight from a male bishop.

In other words, those clergy who have not urged, or been able to persuade, their PCCs to pass Resolutions A, B or C, will nevertheless have to get those PCCs to pass the new equivalent.

Now at this point, further to my article yesterday, I am very tempted to do some ‘naming and shaming’. Instead, I will content myself for the time being with pointing out to those who have not raised these issues with their PCCs that now would be a good time to begin doing so. Indeed, it is, of course, still possible for a PCC to pass Resolutions A, B and C. Indeed, it would be right in principle, it would be good practice for the future, and who knows what will actually happen when General Synod meets again to discuss this issue?

I wonder, though, whether our Evangelical leadership has actually grasped this point? My impression is that whilst they have rallied to the ‘cause’ of proper provision, they have not grasped the small print of what this would mean in practical terms — basically that they will have to do in a few years time what they have resolutely not done for the last decade and a half.

Meanwhile, watch this space. It is where the equivalent of the Society for St Wilfred and St Hilda will soon emerge. No prizes, but is that Canterbury or Hippo?

John P Richardson
14 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.

Next for REFORM: 'time to feel the FORCE'

As the Yom Kippur war showed, the holiday period is always a good time to launch an attack on your enemy if you are prepared and he is not. So the 7/7 vote by the General Synod on women bishops is meeting with a sluggish response in some circles, particularly from Conservative Evangelicals, partly because so many (including myself) are (or are meant to be) on holiday.

Phoning around during the week, I was told that the Reform Council has a scheduled meeting in September, but beyond a press release expressing disappointment and promising to look at the Code of Practice proposals in February next year, it is not clear what more immediate action will be forthcoming. Thus although the same press release states that Synod’s action, “will no doubt further rouse the ‘sleeping giant’ of orthodox and evangelical Anglicanism,” it is by no means clear what time the ‘giant’ has set his alarm clock for.

And when the giant does finally stumble out of bed, what is he to do?

There is some talk going around about quota capping or cutting. But then there is always talk about quota capping or cutting. It is the standard Conservative Evangelical response to every such crisis, and it is completely the wrong answer. Apart from the fact that it almost never happens (and see here for an alternative that also never got off the ground), the problem is that in this case it is particularly hard to see the connection with the presenting issue.

The problem is not money. And depriving the Church of England of a chunk of its income isn’t going to address what has happened. In any case, does anyone seriously think that even if every Reform parish (and there aren’t that many) withheld all its money tomorrow, the General Synod would be persuaded to change its mind?

Others have mentioned GAFCON in a slightly vague ‘mightn’t this be grounds for an appeal?’ way. But what form could an appeal take? As is well-known, GAFCON includes those (some of them evangelicals) who do ordain women as well as those who don’t. One can hardly appeal to GAFCON on the grounds that the Church of England has decided to do what some of them find unexceptionable.

Nor can it be argued that Traditionalists are being ‘excluded’ from the Church of England. First, we don’t know what form the Code of Practice will take, so it might be argued that we would all have to ‘wait and see’. Secondly, there is no absolute certainty that Synod will vote through the required legislation. I note that in the Church Times poll on the Synod vote, it currently (11/07, 2.30pm) shows 92% of respondents think Synod took the wrong decision — and that in a ‘Liberal establishment’ journal! (Go here to vote.) A new Synod might well make life difficult for the legislation currently proposed.

So another problem with the ‘appeal to GAFCON’ approach’ is that it means waiting to see the outcome of the Synodical process, when what is needed is action now.

Whatever Reform proposes to do, therefore, it must take account of the true nature of the problem facing us, which is not that we will have women bishops but that we will have no adequate structural provision for those who cannot accept their ministry. As a result, the whole Church will be affected by the marginalizing of Conservative and Traditionalist views. What is needed, then, is something which will address the structures effectively, keeping us firmly in, instead of pushing us further out.

And here (as I have been arguing for some time) there is only one obvious contender, which is the legislation already in place, and which will remain in place unless or until it is repealed. I refer, of course, to Resolutions A and B from the Priest (Ordination of Women) Measure and the so-called ‘Resolution C’ of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993.

Unfortunately, it is precisely here that the sleeping giant’s slumber has been deepest, for despite making the issue of gender and leadership in the Church a priority in the Reform Covenant, only a tiny handful of Reform parishes have passed Resolution C. On the contrary, many in Reform have strenuously resisted the suggestion that Resolution C provides any sort of solution for the problems facing them and the wider Church.

It is a direct result of that policy that Conservative Evangelicals find themselves today without any ecclessiologically coherent strategy. Reform has patterned itself on the voluntary organizations of old, such as CPAS or Eclectics. It is a pastoral club, when what is needed is an ecclesial structure, comparable to the other structures of the Church as a whole.

As of last Monday, the Church of England is set on a course which will inevitably take is in the same direction as TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada — to say nothing of the Church in Wales and Scotland.

Distancing ourselves from the Church, by quota cuts or appeals overseas, will only make things worse for the Church as a whole. Resolution C is there begging. The Reform leadership needs to see this and to seize the opportunity it represents.

There has been much talk in the press since GAFCON about FOCA — a fellowship of confessing Anglicans. Within these shores, it is time for FORCE —a Fellowship of Resolution C Evangelicals. Reform’s policy of indifference and hostility towards Resolution C has been a mistake. There is time to correct it, but the time is now.

John Richardson
11 July 2008

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

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.

Reasons to be cheerful, maybe!

Today I am feeling a bit less gloomy than I did yesterday, partly because I actually had some sleep last night and partly because I’ve been speaking to others in the constituency and getting a feel for what might happen next.

One of the things to be clear on is the actual issues. In some of the media, and even by some religious commentators, the events of Monday at General Synod have been covered as if they were about the decision to have women bishops.

As the Manchester Report itself made clear, however, that was not the issue. It has been a foregone conclusion for some time that the Church of England would have women bishops. The issue was how provision would be made for those who could not receive their ministry. That is what Monday’s debate was about, and that is how the consequences of the Synod vote must be understood.

The Manchester Report also made clear that there would be consequences for taking the route opted for by the General Synod:

There is no doubt ... that proceeding with legislation that removed the earlier safeguards would trigger a period of uncertainty and turbulence within the Church of England. Many priests and congregations would undoubtedly leave. The Church of England that emerged at the end of the process might possibly be more cohesive. It would undoubtedly be less theologically diverse.

No one who supports Monday’s decision can therefore complain if the Church of England now enters just such a ‘period of uncertainty and turbulence’. Indeed, it would be odd if it did not, following the Manchester Report’s warning that it would.

I am reminded of that great line in Men in Black, just after Agent Kay, played by Tommy Lee Jones, has blown off the head of alien pawnbroker Jack Jeebs, much to the consternation of New York policeman James Edwards, played by Will Smith. (Don’t worry, it immediately grows back.) “I warned him!” says Kay to Edwards, “You warned him!” (which is true, but Edwards hadn’t actually expected him to do it).

So here we are, but why does it matter? As critics of GAFCON have observed, there are alliances today in the Anglican church which embrace those on both sides of the debate over women’s ordination. Is this not just a case of hopeless (or even devious) compromise?

To this we must reply that until Monday, the Church of England was also an organization which embraced both sides in the women’s ordination debate. And on Monday it was perfectly possible for the Synod to continue to do so. The problem is that it has chosen not to — or rather it has chosen to do so in a way (the ‘Code of Practice’) which those who voted for the final motion knew would not be acceptable to precisely those for whom it is intended. This is a bit like serving meat to a vegetarian on the grounds that it is organic, and therefore ethically acceptable.

There is more than this, however, as I have pointed out elsewhere. It is well-known that thanks to a widespread lack of discipline, the ministry of the Church of England is deeply compromised on doctrinal specifics. It is no accident that whereas the Church has managed to produce a new Clergy Discipline Measure to deal with structural infringements (such as preaching the gospel in someone else’s parish without proper permission), it has stalled on the second, though promised, Discipline Measure to deal with matters of doctrine.

The reason is simple: whilst there are very few infringements of the Church’s practical requirements (most clergy work hard and keep their noses clean), the introduction of a doctrinal discipline would result in chaos, since so many clergy sit so light to the Church’s declared doctrines. Such is the Anglican way of muddling along.

However, into this soup of faith there now drops a crouton of clarity: the ordination and consecration of women. Let me stress, it would not be such a problem having women ordained as priests, or perhaps even consecrated as bishops, if the Church’s doctrinal discipline showed any coherence whatsoever. The problem is that is manifestly does not.

Take this interview on Radio 4’s Sunday programme, with Rosemary Lain-Priestly:

Roger Bolton: [...] Do you believe it doesn’t matter whether [the resurrection] was about a body or not, or do you believe it definitely wasn’t?

Rosemary Lain-Priestly: The Scriptures tell us that the tomb was empty and it may well have been. Who am I to limit what God might choose to do? But my faith in the resurrection doesn’t stand or fall on whether there were human remains in Christ’s tomb. [...] So perhaps it doesn’t matter whether or not Jesus took his [physical body] with him.

RB: [...] Would it matter to you, would it shake your faith if a tomb was opened up and the bones in it were confirmed as those of Jesus? Your answer to that is it wouldn’t matter at all ...?

R L-P: I don’t think it would matter because the resurrection that I believe in, I think has continuity with what we experience in this life but in some very profound sense is about transformation, it’s about something other than what we have already experienced.

Is this anywhere close to what the Apostles preached or what the Creeds declare? Yet Rosemary Lain-Priestly is a Dean of Women’s Ministry. I therefore wrote to a relevant bishop and queried how this was possible. His reply was brief, “She’s a quite articulate and intelligent liberal. But she doesn’t speak for anyone apart from herself.”

Now with respect, the last part of that sentence is not true. As a minister of the Church, she speaks for the Church. In her particular ministry I presume she also speaks for the Church to other ministers. In matters of the faith, she is not a private individual and hers were certainly not privately expressed views.

But you can see why there is no Clergy Discipline Measure (Doctrine).

The situation we are now heading for is thus that whilst those with such views can, and do, enjoy deployment and promotion to senior responsibilities, no such leeway will be available for those who do not accept the ordination and consecration of women. We thus have inflexibility where perhaps we might at least have flexibility (and so avoid more trouble in the Church), whereas there is continuing flexibility where there ought to be inflexibility.

Moreover, as we well know from those who campaigned hardest for this situation, next on the agenda is ‘full inclusion’ on sexuality and the modification of the image of God. It is there in black and white on their websites and in their publications.

I warned you!

John Richardson
9 July 2008

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

I (well actually, he) told you so: On the inevitability of the ‘Single Clause’ option

(Ed: Readers re-directed here from the Fulcrum website may have read 'Liddon's' statement that Bp Pete Broadbent's claim regarding "solemn and binding promises" given to objectors to women's ordination in the 1990s is, in his [or her?] words, "a terminological inexactitude". The same is alleged in one of the comments below. People need to read my replies to the comment quoting the relevant sections of the Manchester Report to see that such assurances were indeed given.)


Via another website, I came across this article written by Nigel Atkinson and published in Churchman in 2001.In it, he pointed out how the ordination of women would inevitably lead not only to the consecration of women bishops but to the effective exclusion from the Church of England of those who did not accept them.

I take a different attitude to Nigel on the issue of whether women can be presbyters, in the sense that they can be recognised as ‘elders’ in the congregation. Indeed, I regard the PCC as ‘elders’ in this sense. Moreover, I do not believe that the acceptance of women in the Anglican priesthood, with its imposition of congregational authority, is always the result of anti-Scriptural thinking. Although I do believe it is unscriptural, I recognise there are those who are persuaded Scripture does not forbid it, though I find their exegesis unconvincing.

But the ordination of women took place within an institution and an atmosphere that was, and is, often decidedly indifferent to Scripture (contrary, as Atkinson points out, to the foundational principles of Anglicanism). As a result, the authority of Scripture was diminished overall by the decision. And therefore what Atkinson warned against is coming to pass, despite there being supporters of women’s ordination within the Church who personally remain faithful on this issue.

Even for many of them, however, and certainly for those who believe that Scripture can and must be overridden at times, women’s ordination is, as Atkinson observes, “a first order issue” of justice, “similar to the abolition of slavery.” And as he adds, “for those who persist in advocating slavery there is no other recourse apart from sending in the gunboats once and for all.”

Hence driving out opposition to (and, if necessary, the opponents of) women’s ordination is nothing short of a moral crusade.

That much is becoming clear as events unfold and the House of Bishops spearheads a move to abolish the legal provisions set up in 1993. Atkinson argues, however, that it was never really intended that these should be permanent. On the contrary,

... the framers of the legislation realised that to have a continuation of bishops would also mean a continuation of priests and to have a continuation of priests would also mean to have a continuation of parishes. [Thus] the Synod’s intention never to have a continuation of orthodox bishops contradicted the doctrine of ‘theological reception’ — the very notion on which the legislation itself was predicated.

Why, then, did the General Synod at the time, under the guidance of the bishops, put such safeguards in place? Atkinson refers to the report of the Synod’s Revisions Committee, GS 830 Y, which concluded that “the necessary majority in [the legislation’s] favour would indicate that a common mind on the issue had in fact been achieved within the Church of England,” and therefore that all the safeguards intended to achieve was to “give opponents an opportunity to plan their future,” or in other words, their exit-strategy.

Thus he quotes a member of that committee who, in presenting the legislation in 1989, said,

We must never lose sight of the basic fact that the various safeguards are unusual and exceptional. They are exceptional provisions given by the majority to the minority with very strong views [...] so that the minority may have space to assess the reality of the ordination of women as it takes place in our provinces. However, because the provisions are exceptional they must in the end be seen as temporary. [Emphasis added]

Thus, almost eight years ago, Atkinson warned that “dissent on this issue will not be tolerated in the long run.” And as evidence of this, he pointed to overseas experience, just as the recent petition from women clergy also pointed overseas to argue precisely for the removal of existing provisions, in line with his predictions:

We should be humble and wise enough to learn from the experience of those churches overseas who have experimented with female presbyteral ordination and, after a short period of grace extended to the opponents, have very quickly moved to abolish all conscience clauses and to demand full compliance. [Emphasis added]

Reading Atkinson's article today, I find myself embarrassed at the lack of attention I paid to the women’s ordination debate in the early 1990s and the clear signs of what the future would hold for those who remained traditional evangelicals. The only mitigation is that, like many, I thought the provisions the Synod made would be enough, and that they were an indication of future good will. And that is surely not a bad basis for a decision not even to consider leaving. However, in the light of what has happened since and is threatened now, I find the assurance of WATCH and others that continued provision will be made for people like me on the basis of “trustful relationships” leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Where I feel no personal embarrassment, and can haul on my own ‘Told You So’ tee-shirt, is with Atkinson’s observations about Conservative Evangelicals and Resolution C (remember, this was published seven years ago):

The way forward then is clear. By all means let us argue for an extension of the ministry of the Flying Bishops but let us also as evangelicals begin to start using them. I and my four parishes in Devon all appealed to the Bishop of Exeter to come under the superb and orthodox Episcopal care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet. And it was just as well we did. For when I left Exeter Diocese, if it had not been for the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, I doubt very much if a Reform type of evangelical would have ever replaced me. I dare say the same is true of others. Should others be brought to glory tonight or in the near future what will happen to their parishes? Again I doubt very much whether the powers that be would welcome Reform evangelicals. In short we need the Flying Bishops in order to protect our parishes. [Emphasis original]

Atkinson also warns against the ‘overseas import’ solution to the problem, to which many Conservatives still look:

To go down any other road is to turn our backs on the Church of England and not to live up to our calling to reform it. For example, if we were to fly in two or three bishops from overseas in order to ordain reform evangelicals one thing is certain: those men so ordained would have to be issued with their letters of orders. As soon as they tried to obtain a parish within the Church of England they would be turned down flat as their letters of orders would betray their irregular ordinations. To go down this route is, in effect, to abandon the Church of England and it is a counsel of despair.

Thus the way ahead is clear:

We must all plan to come under the Flying Bishops by passing Resolution C. Let us give ourselves two years. Let us all work towards securing Flying Bishops for three hundred, four hundred, five hundred Reform parishes by October, 2002.

Yet here we are in 2008, and there are probably no more than ten Reform Resolution C parishes in the entire country. Those who fear a ‘conservative conspiracy’, please take note!

Indeed, at last year’s Reform Conference in London, the question was put to me what good passing Resolution C could possibly achieve. I will let Nigel Atkinson — surely a prophet without honour — have the last word:

What will we have then achieved? We will have formed ourselves into a coherent ecclesial body. We will have our bishops, our clergy, our parishes, our people and our money welded together. From this position we will be on an almost unassailable footing to press for further reform or, should we need to, to press Parliament for a third, non-geographical, province. But we must act quickly. We have a window of opportunity before us now, but it will soon be gone. For in order to create female bishops, which is inevitable, all concessions that have been granted us so far will need to be withdrawn.

Now read my own Why Conservative Evangelicals should pass Resolution C.

Revd John P Richardson
18 June 2008

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