In summary, the General Synod in York followed the recommendations of the Revision Committee. They approved, with only minor amendments, the proposed legislation that will allow women to be bishops. They turned down all major amendments, including the Archbishops’ proposals for ‘coordinate jursidiction’. The Measure contains significant provisions for those opposed, and there will be a Statutory Code of Practice to support those provisions. This package was approved overwhelmingly by Synod.
Saturday’s debates.
The ‘Take note’ debate included a number of speeches by people opposed to even accepting the Report from the Revision Committee: if this had happened then the whole process would have stopped there and then. Ven Christine Hardman, Archdeacon of Lewisham, gave a spirited speech in support of the legislation (she had herself contributed the compromise on Diocesan Schemes) and on why having women as bishops with full authority is an imperative for the Church. If we baptise women as equal members of the body of Christ we must ordain them as full members of those offering ministry. The Bishop of Lincoln summed up the opinion of many by saying that the Revision Committee had got it right – just – and that to go further in compromising would be to go too far.
Tony Baldry is the newly appointed MP who liases between the General Synod and Parliament on Church business: he will have to present the final legislation to Parliament for approval. He gave a robust speech saying that it would be hard enough to present the draft legislation to Parliament as it contains compromises that fall foul of the Equality Act. But that a difficult task would be made almost impossible if he had to steer through Parliament a Measure that gives any scintilla of indication that women bishops do not have the same authority as their male colleagues. This warning was received by some members with due regard, but Synod these days includes a large number of members who object to being told what to do by Parliament, and to them this seemed to provide encouragement to go further in offering provision for those opposed.
One theme that emerged from the speeches by those opposed, and was supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his speech, was that this debate is about broad theological issues and not about gender. We need to be aware of and refute this suggestion: of course it’s about theology, and of course it is about gender.
Synod voted overwhelmingly to take note of (ie accept) the Report.
There followed debates on proposed amendments to the legislation.
Synod clearly defeated, again, the suggestions of separate dioceses (by 258 votes to 134) and statutory transfer of jurisdiction from a Diocesan bishop to an ‘acceptable’ bishop who had not ordained women (by 270 votes to 135).
The Archbishops’ amendment. Paula Gooder began the debate, speaking for the Steering Committee. They are the group responsible for steering the legislation through the whole process leading to its enactment. She said that the Committee believed that ‘coordinate jurisdiction’ might look like a good idea in theory, but in practice, when there is conflict between two coordinate bishops, whose authority would prevail? If the Diocesan bishop’s, then we are talking about delegation, in which case the Revision Committee’s legislation should suffice; if the coordinate bishop’s, then we are talking about transfer, which Synod had already turned down.
Bishops spoke on both sides of the argument: the Bishop of Coventry in favour and the Bishop of Bradwell (acting Bishop of Chelmsford) against. Father David Houlding of Forward in Faith made an impassioned speech, ‘This is it; this is when you decide whether we can stay’. Senior clergywomen were called very late in the debate, but both Ven Christine Allsopp and Canon Celia Thomson spoke with great clarity and weight about how badly this amendment had been received by clergywomen across the Church, and how women would not be willing to serve as bishops under such conditions. The vote, when it came, was extremely close.
For Against Abstentions
Bishops 25 15 0
Clergy 85 90 5
Laity 106 86 4
Totals 216 191 9
Although the majority of Synod voted to support the amendment, the House of Clergy voted against it: this meant the amendment failed. The opposition have portrayed this as a victory ascribed to the ‘procedural device’ of voting by Houses. But Synod votes on many issues by Houses, essentially to make sure that all three groupings who will have to work with a proposal will support it in practice.
The opponents are presenting these voting figures as an indication that Synod wanted further concessions to those opposed, and that Dioceses should press for this. In our view the closeness of the vote indicates a mix of loyalty to the Archbishops and a lack of clarity about what the amendment would mean in practice. One Synod member (utterly supportive of women bishops, and wanting the simplest possible legislation) told me how hard it was to vote against the amendment, given that it was presented by the Archbishops and had been so carefully (and emotionally strongly) presented as ‘the only way’ by those opposed to women’s ordination.
Ironically as long ago as 1978 the first motion calling for women to be ordained as priests and bishops was passed by the Bishops and Laity and turned down by the House of Clergy. How different things might be now if that vote had been protested, as the opponents are doing now.
During Saturday evening and all of Sunday the Archbishops came under enormous pressure from the opponents to do something to reverse what had happened. In turn, we urged the bishops to encourage Synod to follow due process and to allow the legislation to go out to the Dioceses.
Monday’s debate.
The Archbishop of Canterbury began the day’s debate by telling Synod that he wanted them to carry on with ‘due process’ and send the legislation out to the Dioceses for debate. He urged the Synod to seek the mind of the wider church, but he also asked them to continue to seek a solution that will satisfy as many as possible of those who will not accept women as bishops. He also indicated that the House of Bishops will begin now to create the Code of Practice to accompany the legislation. Although this cannot be approved until the legislation is finally passed, people need to know what will be in the Code before they can make a sensible decision about whether to support the whole package.
The debate on whether to include Clause 2 in the legislation followed. Should we press now for the simplest possible legislation, given that the opponents were saying that what was on offer in the draft legislation wasn’t enough to let them stay, or should we go with the Revision Committee’s recommendations? There followed a superb hour of debate. Canon Robert Cotton began by explaining why it was so important to hear what this compromise meant for those who would be most affected by it, setting the tone for a serious, attentive, dignified debate. It was deeply moving to hear woman after woman explain what it is like for them continually to be asked and expected to ‘be gracious’. But despite the sacrifices already required of them for the past 15 years since they were made priests, they still wanted to urge Synod to vote for these concessions. This would enable them to work alongside those who would not accept them, and make space for trust to develop. This hour was a manifestation of the giftedness of the women who might be bishops. Compared with the debate on the Act if Synod in 1993, when the bishops insisted that Synod had to make concessions in order for the women priests legislation to get through Parliament, this was indeed grace revealed.
Voting to include Clause 2 in the legislation: For Against Abstentions
373 14 17
This gives a clear steer to the Dioceses that the legislation was overwhelmingly supported by Synod in this form, with these provisions for those opposed. We need to stress this, to refute the opposition’s contention that the vote on the Archbishops’ amendment indicated the need for further provision.
Almost all the other proposed amendments were defeated, with only a few minor technical ones agreed.
What is in the legislation?
• Clause 1 makes it possible for the Church of England to consecrate women as well as men as bishops
There was no debate on this clause at Synod: even those opposed didn’t challenge this.
• Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 7 comprise provisions for those who will not accept women as bishops (or, in some cases, priests).
The inclusion of these clauses is a considerable compromise for supporters of women bishops: there will still be parishes where women are not invited to serve.
• Under Clause 2 each Diocesan bishop will set up a local Scheme, in consultation with their Diocesan Synod, to make suitable arrangements for any parish that wants to have a male bishop and/or a male vicar. Clause 3 describes how a parish can write a Letter of Request asking for such arrangements to be made.
Any duties passed to a male bishop will be delegated, ie the Diocesan bishop retains full authority over the whole Diocese.
• Clause 5 outlines the scope of the statutory national Code of Practice to which all Schemes must adhere. The House of Bishops is to press on with preparing the Code, which will need to be approved by General Synod.
Some members of the Revision Committee (including women) will be in the drafting group for the Code. We expect there will be intense pressure to make the Code include all the things that the opponents have not managed to get included in the Measure – flying bishops etc. We need to urge the bishops to resist this.
• Clause 7 grants the Church of England additional exemption from the Equality Act 2010. This is needed to allow provisions for those opposed. At present, the Church is exempt as long as it has no women bishops, but as soon as there ARE women bishops then any provisions for those opposed fall foul of the Equality Act.
We oppose any exemption from sex equality law, but recognise the need for it in this case. But we need our Parliamentary supporters to make clear that any arrangements, including the Code of Practice, must not go beyond a ‘proportionate’ response to the needs of those opposed.
• The other Clauses are technical clauses or deal with specific situations.
What happens next?
General Synod now sends the legislation to the wider church for consultation. All Diocesan Synods will debate it over the next 18 months. Most Dioceses will encourage Deanery Synods and PCCs to debate it as well. Dioceses cannot amend the legislation – they can only say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – but they can suggest alterations, and no doubt the opponents will urge them to ask for further provisions such as those offered by the Archbishops’ amendment. It will then return to General Synod for final approval, at which there needs to be a 2/3 majority in each House (bishops, clergy and laity) – ie more than 66% of the members of each House have to vote in favour. It then goes to Parliament for approval, and there are some final finishing-off stages before it becomes possible to consecrate a woman as a bishop.
Diocesan, Deanery and Parish debates
We know that the vast majority of the Church want women to be bishops. We believe that the package of legislation to be debated is the best possible way forward. We think that Diocesan Synods will support it, but we need to ensure that it is endorsed without requests for further provisions. WATCH will be offering resources, training and help for those speaking in local debates: let us know when you need it and we will supply it.
General Synod elections: URGENT.
We need people who support the legislation to stand for General Synod now. We especially need supportive lay-people to stand. The opposition will be well organised in getting their supporters to stand, as their last chance to stop women bishops is to prevent a 2/3 majority in Synod at the final approval stage. Synod is usually unrepresentative of the church ‘at large’, as it tends to attract those who are single-minded or of a minority position. If you want to see women as bishops without further delay and without any further concessions to those opposed then please stand, or encourage someone you know to stand. We can help with all the preparations. Please contact Clare Herbert for more information at herbert.clare@googlemail.com. The closing date for nominations is 3rd September.
Hilary Cotton
WATCH Synod Campaign Coordinator July 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment