General Synod Diary

Women as Bishops?

A précis of the Manchester Report on Women & the Episcopate

The Manchester Report was recently published by a legislative drafting group commissioned by the General Synod in response the motion passed in July 2006 stating: ‘That this Synod welcome and affirm the view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ’.

Synod has voted overwhelmingly to ordain women to the episcopate, so whether or not it wishes to proceed is not the question before us. Rather the issues we are left facing are what the Synod wants the development to mean and just how it wants the change to be effected. This is no small matter. Not only is this an historical moment for the church, but the consequences monumental to all involved.

In offering a very simple précis I would like to first bring you up to speed on where the Church of England is at in the process of ordaining women as bishops by offering a brief history. Secondly to look at the three broad approaches recommended by the report and what the House of Bishops have decided in response. Finally I will touch on some of the consequences and my own personal opinion.

It is my desire however that you will take the time to think through this issue theologically. It is all too easy to develop opinions on the basis of cultural logic or by thinking, ‘I don’t see why not?’ This subject is far too important not to give it the biblical consideration it requires.

A brief history:

• General Synod approved the admission of women to the diaconate in July 1986 and to the priesthood in November 1992, but not to the episcopate.

• The compromise at this stage was to introduce a Measure offering protection for parishes not wanting women priests. Ie. Resolutions ‘A’ & ‘B’

• November 1993 Act of Synod: allowed for the creation of ‘alternative Episcopal oversight’. This became known as Resolution ‘C’.

• In July 2000 General Synod passed a motion asking the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate. In July 2002 The Rochester Group made its interim report to General Synod. The final report, ‘Women Bishops in the Church of England?’ was published in November 2004. February 2005 saw the Rochester Report debated and Synod voted overwhelmingly to take note of the report.

• July 2005 General Synod passed motion to set in train the legal process for removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate.

• February 2006 Synod debated the preliminary report which discussed a system called ‘Transferred Episcopal Arrangements’. There was some unease about these arrangements and hence it was rejected, although the principle of making room for those within the Church of England who in conscience could not accept the priestly or Episcopal ministry of women was well received. This brings us to the July 2006 motion mentioned above and the report before us. The report offers three broad approaches.

Three Broad Approaches

First, remove all legal obstacles to the consecration of women as bishops. Second, provide arrangements within existing structures to allow for those unable to receive the ministry of women to remain in the church and thirdly, to provide legislation that would create new structures within the Church enabling dissenters to stay. None of these options are as easy as it seems. Each of these possible solutions contains complex legal implications and relational dilemmas.

1. Removing all legal obstacles

This would mean starting with a clean slate. There would be no accommodation for those with dissenting views, no binding national arrangements.

2. Special arrangements for dissenters to be made within the present structures

Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference asserted “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.” This statement is supported in practice by present legislation that seeks to maintain the widest possible breadth of theological conviction within the C of E and is outlined below:

Resolution A
That this parochial church council would not accept a woman as the minister who presides at or celebrates the Holy Communion or pronounces the Absolution in the parish.

Resolution B
That this parochial church council would not accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice.

Resolution C (added on to the Measure in 1993 through the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod allowing for the creation of Alternative Episcopal Oversight)
Where the parochial church council of any parish has passed one or both of the resolutions set out in Schedule 1 to the Measure, a decision may be taken jointly by the minister and the council to petition the diocesan bishop concerned to the effect that appropriate Episcopal duties in the parish should be carried out in accordance with this Act of Synod.

The Manchester Report recommends four possible variations for special arrangements within existing structures and are as follows:

1. Statutory code of practice
2. As variation 1, except part II of the 1993 Measure would continue in full force (Resolution B)
3. As variation 2, except that the legislation itself would require the diocesan bishop to delegate the prescribed functions to a complementary bishop.
4. Legislation that would itself transfer from the diocesan bishop to a complementary bishop

3. Incorporating New Structures to accommodate dissenters

Some ideas on offer are having an additional / Third Province, dissenters being absorbed into the Diocese of Europe, a new religious society, peculiar jurisdiction and a new or special non geographical diocese. As mentioned earlier, the legal complexities are enormous and creating new structures would delay the process even longer.

House of Bishops Recommendation

In the note from the Presidents , (Archbishops of Canterbury & York) they say that the majority of bishops “while entirely willing to set up arrangements that would be available to those with conscientious difficulties over women’s ordination, favoured the securing of them by means of a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard. This would entail no legislative limitation on the exercise of Episcopal ministry by women.” As a result the motion up for debate at the July session of Synod is:

‘That this Synod:

(a) reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

Consequences & Personal Opinion

This is a hugely emotive issue for people on all sides of the argument. The thrust of the argument for proponents is based on the belief that the church legislates for gender discrimination. For them, any form of legal protection for dissenters continues to enshrine this dated ideology. As a result there is pressure being applied to Synod members to vote against any form of legal protection. A recent paper published by WATCH (Women And The Church) and written by the Revd Canon Peggy Jackson says that in order for women to trust the church in upholding the (future) policies,

“it follows that it will no longer be appropriate to select, train and bring into ordained ministry those who from the outset will have a conscientious objection to a central part of those policies – ie. to the full and equal status of women and men together in holy orders.”

This approach disregards scripture and down grades theological debate in exchange for cultural interpretation.

For dissenting Evangelicals (myself included) this is clearly not an issue of gender discrimination but of obedience. We believe in a divinely created order of male headship that addresses life in the church and in family relationships. It teaches that we are equal in status before God and yet have complementary roles. As I said in the July 2006 debate in York, as a woman I feel fully capable of entering ordained ministry but my priority is to be faithful to scripture as I understand it, without reference to the wisdom of the present age. In this view, we still believe that “God’s way of life for his people includes the unique value of women’s ministry in the local congregation.” Anglo- Catholics on the other hand have an issue due to their belief of sacramental assurance. That is to say that as a priest or bishop has an iconographic function as a representative of the incarnate Christ, particularly at the celebration of the Eucharist; it follows therefore that he must be male. If not, any purported sacraments ministered by them (women) are utterly null and totally void of grace to effect salvation. This also means that any male priest who has been ordained by a female bishop would have invalid orders. Although I do not uphold the belief of sacramental assurance, you can see how both these positions would fly in the face of perceived discrimination. However, If no legal provision is put in place to allow for these two genuinely held theological convictions, many loyal Anglicans will be ultimately be put out to pasture unless they can come to terms with the modern age. And as shown above, there are many, if they had their way, who would not allow anyone who disagrees with them to even enter ordained ministry.

I must mention of course that, aside from the arguments already presented, there are sincere Christians who disagree that the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate is relevant for today, yet support legal protection for dissenters.

7 ½ hours have been set aside to debate this issue at the July session of Synod in York. There will be a presentation; a take note debate, working groups and a debate on the Bishops motion (no doubt with countless amendments). It is my sincere desire that Synod will agree to make legal provision for dissenters either within existing structures or with new ones. It is not good enough for the bishops to simply call for an impotent code of practice which essentially cannot be enforced. If Synod is truly desirous to maintain unity as they keep going on about, they must put their money where their mouth is.

Finally, I am willing to be challenged on my position regarding this issue. But if you do please come having prayerfully worked through the biblical issues presented! The bible must be our guide because theological or doctrinal decisions based on opinion or cultural interpretation hold no authority and can only lead to self absorbed, self induced ‘doctrine’. It is just this kind of revisionist ideology that can be used to explain away just about anything that offends us in scripture.

Lorna Ashworth
June 2008

Special thanks to Father Jamie Houghton (St. Michaels, Eastbourne) for his helpful summary of Synod business which I have used in this report.