The difficulty many feel is that to leave the phrase ”˜male bishop’ in the draft Measure insufficiently recognises where that particular point comes in the argument people are trying to make. It doesn’t go to the root of it. In other words the theological conviction is not about male bishops as such: it arises from certain other convictions. And one of my questions about the draft Measure is whether anything can be done there, and / or in the Code of Practice, to overcome the resistance that is felt to that phrase, and to do better justice to what it rests upon. If I’m right about the two fundamental principles, that’s not a substantial change in the Measure. But it does of course then raise the question of how, whether in Measure or in Code, we do proper justice to this second point about theological integrity and pastoral continuity and ecclesial integrity; how we do that without over-legislating, over-prescribing in way that creates parallel church identities by default. And that I suppose is what a couple of years ago the Archbishop of York and myself were feeling our way for in the now notorious ”˜archbishops’ amendment’. If you look at some of the background literature that was provided at the time with that amendment, precisely the two principles with which I began were enunciated as the principles on which that amendment was based. Whether we were right or not to cast it in that form, I’m not at all sure. But looking forward to the debate later today, I would quite like Synod””no, I’d very much like Synod””to consider whether leaving a door open for the bishops to revisit some of those questions in the light of where we have got to might not a good idea at this juncture.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
A contact in the UK has just written that the measure passed in Synod today with no allowance made for traditionalists.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
[Comment deleted by Elf]
As I understand it they haven’t voted on the final measure yet.
++Rowan understands the danger the Church of England is in if it alienates its committed orthodox clergy and laity. His amendment is largely froth, but he doesn’t want the Synod to vote on a measure which does not even pretend to make provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.
Very interesting comments from the Bishop of Bath and Wells: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/06/church-of-england-female-bishops “Bishop of Bath and Wells says church will have ‘substantial period of shock’ if it rejects moves to let women become bishops”
All sides in this must find planning difficult, because it will all come down to a single vote in July (or is it August?). The measure must get two thirds of the votes in each of three houses – laity, clergy and bishops. Its difficult to predict how any of the houses will vote, given the differences in the situation now as compared to when the last General Synod votes were taken.
Lambeth Palace is obviously proud of the Archbishop’s contribution, given in the morning rather than the debate on the Manchester Motion – so much so that they have not only video’d it; but have provided an audio track, and to make sure no one misses anything a complete transcript. However what will an ordinary Synod member seeking guidance have made of it:
Synodista: I am all ears your Grace
Williams: There’s no suggestion that the other diocesan bishop somehow becomes a ‘subordinate’ (in terms of theological order) to the bishop making the request and issuing the permission. Likewise it’s the case that in some circumstances the ordinary authority of a diocesan is exercised by someone who isn’t a bishop. For example in a vacancy-in-see, or in a period between a bishop being confirmed as bishop-elect and being ordained as a bishop.
All of that might sound a little bit full of fishbones but I hope that if we can keep that clear we may avoid some of the misunderstandings that are around, and allow ourselves just a little bit more lee-way in thinking about delegation and why and how it matters.
Synodista: Er, go on..
Williams: The difficulty many feel is that to leave the phrase ‘male bishop’ in the draft Measure insufficiently recognises where that particular point comes in the argument people are trying to make. It doesn’t go to the root of it. In other words the theological conviction is not about male bishops as such: it arises from certain other convictions. And one of my questions about the draft Measure is whether anything can be done there, and / or in the Code of Practice, to overcome the resistance that is felt to that phrase
Synodista: Thanks Professor, but what do you want us to do?
Williams: I think, you see, that we have a very high degree of clarity about the basic principles here. I think we have the possibility of some bits of fine-tuning that will take us a little bit further. To use the analogy I’ve used in this chamber before: it’s a little bit like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with God’s finger and Adam’s just about within touching distance!
Synodista: Oh – but what do you want us to do?
Williams: If there is a way of clarifying these last couple of points then maybe we can find something we can all more-or-less gratefully live with. And one of the things I shall be listening for this afternoon in the debate on the Manchester motion, is perhaps a little bit of clarity as to whether it means a recommendation to the House of Bishops to bring back the archbishops’ amendment in its pristine form; or whether that phrase [in the Manchester amendment] ‘in the manner of’ the archbishops’ amendment gives us some scope to think again about whether there are ways of getting to that point by another route. So that’s what I’ll be listening for.
Synodista: So that is what you are listening for, but what do you want us to DO?
Williams: not to detain you further, I hope that the two principles that we have, I think, enunciated as basic in this debate—clarity about a single structure of episcopal ministry, and clarity about respect and adequate provision for a minority—are for all members of Synod clear enough to feel grateful for. Because I think it’s rather remarkable that in spite of the depth of division and the sharpness of theological disagreement that has been around in Synod, we have nonetheless come to a point where we can say, ‘This is the kind of church we could, with celebration, with affirmation, live in’. I hope we won’t lose sight of that today.
Synodista: What are you talking about? Tell us what it is that you want us to do?
I am afraid that to many of the members of Synod looking for a steer from him, the Archbishop’s elyptical intervention will have come across as incomprehensible gobbledygook.
Elves,
If comments critical of W/O are off limits let me know and I will refrain from posting on W/O related threads. Thanks…
John
[Comments instructing, suggesting or in anyway encouraging others to leave or join any church or advocating its break up are not permitted on T19, John – thanks – Elf]