The House also accepted an amendment to express in the Measure one of the three principles which the House had agreed in December (see notes). This amendment adds to the list of matters on which guidance will need to be given in the Code of Practice that the House of Bishops will be required to draw up and promulgate under the Measure. It will now need to include guidance on the selection by the diocesan bishop of the male bishops and priests who will minister in parishes whose parochial church council (PCC) has issued a Letter of Request under the Measure. That guidance will be directed at ensuring that the exercise of ministry by those bishops and priests will be consistent with the theological convictions as to the consecration or ordination of women which prompted the issuing of the Letter of Request. Thus, the legislation now addresses the fact that for some parishes a male bishop or male priest is necessary but not sufficient.
The House rejected more far- reaching amendments that would have changed the legal basis on which bishops would exercise authority when ministering to parishes unable to receive the ministry of female bishops.
“necessary but not sufficient” Do I interpret this correctly to mean that male clergy ordained by male bishops are sufficient but male clergy ordained by female bishops are not sufficient? Or does it mean that the male clergy must have been ordained by a male bishop who has not ordained any women? Or does it mean something else entirely? I’d be grateful for some assistance from one of our English members.
Tom Rightmyer Asheville, NC
Welcome to the 20th Century, Church of England 😉
#1 I read it as saying that bishops and priests who are selected to minister to parishes that don’t accept female priests and bishops should, in addition to being male, also share the the same theological conviction on the subject as the parish.
The headline is misleading – the house of bishops have not given final approval to the draft measure (this is not T19s fault – the headline comes from the CofE media organ).
Rather, the HOB have considered whether any amendments are needed before the draft measure is sent to General Synod for approval. Once it arrives at General Synod (there is still one more hurdle before that) then each house (laity, clergy and bishops) must approve the measure by a two-thirds majority before it becomes law.
The HOB have made two amendments. It seems clear to me that these will not satisfy the orthodox evangelicals, who are a substantial group in CofE and generate most of its growth and much of the non-investment income. Therefore if this measure is passed into law, I think it is inevitable that the orthodox evangelicals will continue their current steps to cut off control and income of their parishes and missions from the CofE hierarchy. The latest manifestation of this process is the Southwark Ministry Trust which enables evangelical congregations to prevent the diocesan or central hierarchies from controlling how their ministry money is spent.
The more immediate question is whether these amendments will aggravate the ultra-liberals in CofE? They are a small minority, and they do not generate any real growth or income, but they do hold most of the reins of power. The liberals have said they will vote the whole measure down if it is amended in a way they don’t like. We should soon know if they like these amendments or not.
The dust has not yet settled.
Looking further at this and considered some of the commentary on various blogs and news reports. I am starting to think that those who view it as pure window-dressing are correct:
1. A problem for anglo-catholics with the draft measure is that the female bishop “delegates” her authority to the visiting male bishop. The HOB’s first amendment states that this delegation is really just delegation of “legal permission” to conduct activities within the diocese; the authority to do things like ordain and confirm actually comes from the male bishop’s original consecration as a bishop. Will this “declaration” (it is no more than that) be enough to assuage anglo-catholic concerns that the male bishop is acting under delegated authority from the female bishop?
2. Evangelicals who believe that the bible teaches ‘male headship’ also have a problem with the male bishop deriving his authority by delegation from the female ordinary. Similarly to the anglo-catholics, it is unlikely that this concern will be allayed by the HOB amendment.
3. A significant concern for both anglo-catholics and evangelicals in CofE is that the right to receive alternative oversight from a male bishop is to be placed in a “code of practice” (which has not yet been drafted), but the right will not be protected in the legislation. Both camps are suspicious that the “right” will vanish like vapour once the draft measure is passed. The HOB amendment provides that the code of practice must cover the issue of a male bishop being doctrinally appropriate to the parishes which he is to minister to, but this doesn’t confront the problem that the code of practice has no teeth, and/or that its terms are subject to the later whim of a CofE committee.
4. Finally, the liberals have a phobia about the draft measure being watered down in any way; they do not want any hint that female bishops could be “second class bishops”. The sentence near the end appears designed to assuage liberal fears:
“The House rejected more far- reaching amendments that would have changed the legal basis on which bishops would exercise authority when ministering to parishes unable to receive the ministry of female bishops.”
Liberals may not be satisfied with this. Also, some of them have expressed reservations about the protections for evangelicals and anglo-catholics being defined in a document (the code of practice) which has not yet been written.
Somehow I don’t think it is possible for the HOB to have satisfied all of these groups. What if it has satisfied none of them?
I can’t work out what it is saying – it reads like gobbledegook put together by someone whose first language is not English.
I expect it has been ‘written’ by the Druid.
You may find my blog, which attempts to elucidate what is quite complex material, throws some light on all this.
http://bishopofwillesden.blogspot.co.uk/
Thank you Bishop Pete. As I haven’t followed all the ins and outs or the evolving text of the measure and as yet unseen by me Code of Practice, can you please explain to this layman:
How a new woman bishop is compelled under the proposed Measure or Code to accede to a parish’s request for alternative oversight forthwith without resisting, ignoring or arguing with them? At least one wannabee wrote a while back in the papers that she would regard such a request as a starting point for ‘discussion’ with that parish.
Simple. Every Diocese will be obliged to have a scheme in place. That scheme will be drawn up under the Code of Prcatice, which has statutory effect. The code requires that each Diocese make arrangements for delegation to a male bishop who shares the theological convictions of the parish which submits a letter of request. (In other words, a very similar arrangement to petitions for extended episcopal care under the Act of Synod – or Resolution C, as it’s popularly known).
Any bishop refusing to provide such delegation would both be subject to judicial review proceedings (which, despite my fears, is apparently not as costly as I suspected, once you get m’learned friends involved). He or she would also be in dereliction of a duty imposed by the Measure and Code of Practice and could be subject to proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure. So they can’t resist, ignore or argue (unless, of course, the parish is trying to use the Measure to avoid a diocesan bishop they just don’t like – we had one parish here which didn’t like a previous bishop because he was a charismatic, and used the pretext of the OWM to avoid him).
In point of fact, we’ve never had a problem with parishes being refused such episcopal care when they request it. What they [b] won’t [/b] be able to do is “pick their own bishop”, despite some of the comments on the blogs! A bishop or bishops will be designated in the Diocesan scheme.
#10 Many thanks for that Bishop Pete. Can you help me further understand what the remedies for parishes are a bit further:
Bringing Judicial Review Proceedings:
[blockquote]Any bishop refusing to provide such delegation would both be subject to judicial review proceedings (which, despite my fears, is apparently not as costly as I suspected, once you get m’learned friends involved).[/blockquote]
1. May I ask what the expected costs for a parish and bishop would be and how it is envisaged either party will be funded for this procedure?
2. My understanding is that normally Judicial Review will not consider the rights and wrongs of whether a decision taken is the correct one but instead will look at the quality of the decision made in three areas: that the decision made is outside the statutory powers of the person making it; that the procedure used in reaching the decision is unfair; or that the decision made is a conclusion that no reasonable person making that decision could have reached. Does the Measure and Code envisage that a parish may only challenge a decision at Judicial Review in such cases on the grounds that the Bishop had acted unreasonably or illegally in law rather than incorrectly on the facts of the parish’s request?
3. In addition my understanding is that Judges will take into account the provisions of Human Rights Law and Equality and Non-Discrimination Legislation. Is it not likely given recent cases, that civil judges will just refuse to grant review of the parish’s request decision on the grounds either of such existing laws or given the growth of law in this area, future such laws?
4. Following on from #3: Whatever the religious exemptions granted in decision-making to churches, is there any reason to believe that the judges would extend such exemptions to the case of a review of a bishop’s decision-making actions?
5. Most Judicial Review cases require the permission of the Court before they will consider their merits. Less than half of cases brought are granted permission. Of the successful cases, there is a low and declining number of cases where Judicial Review is successful [a brief search suggests between 14% and 20%]. Is there some other provision in the Measure or Code which will grant automatic review or give the judges guidance so that this woeful weighting against claimants for review is made more balanced from the point of view of the parish?
6. The judges who hear Judicial Review cases will not generally be ecclesiastical lawyers, but used to hearing requests for judicial review by asylum seekers, claimed terrorists seeking relief from extradition and feckless youngsters who hack government computers fighting criminal extradition to the US. There will also be a few fighting overbearing local authorities and the occasional person in a tree trying to stop building on a beauty spot. The lists are extremely busy. Is Judicial Review really appropriate as a remedy for a parish who just wants oversight in accordance with its theological convictions?
7. Why did the HOB think that Judicial Review by civil and usually non-Christian judges unfamiliar with church law and custom is an appropriate remedy for a parish? Wouldn’t review of the merits of the decision by a panel of other bishops or an ecclesiastical court within the church such as takes place for so many other issues, have been a better choice for Christians?
8. Are you aware of any other instances in the Church of England where the only remedy of a parish from a decision is to go off to the the High Court?
9. Is resolution of the issues of the Church in public courts really a Christian answer, and given examples such as the public opprobrium brought on the Bishop of Hereford, why has the House of Bishops decided that this is an appropriate manner for the church to go?
Clergy Discipline Measure:
[blockquote]He or she would also be in dereliction of a duty imposed by the Measure and Code of Practice and could be subject to proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure. [/blockquote]
10. Well, that may be but will not assist the parish who has had a refusal by a bishop, although such proceedings will certainly embarrass the bishop and probably the wider church, whether or not they go any further, much as a negative finding against a bishop on judicial review would. Is such a combative set of procedures in Judicial Review or Clergy Discipline Measure actions really the best way of dealing with parish requests for alternative oversight? Isn’t all this a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and in the case of outside civil court referees a hostage to fortune? Can you just see the headlines? is this fair on either the parishes or the bishop to put them in this position?
11. What would you say to those such as myself who while in principle not against women bishops subject to proper provision for traditionalists, nevertheless find themselves perplexed by the cumbersome and apparently weighted system against those parishes should they come across a difficult bishop?
Well, I think your questions are all entirely academic – and rather litigious. The fact is that if/when the Measure passes, there will be a Code. The Code will require all Dioceses to have a Scheme. This is not the USA, and I’m quite clear that no English Diocesan would be so derelict in their duty as to go the route of refusing a proper letter of request.
We checked with the lawyers at some stage during the Revision Committee. The costs are minimal. Yes, I’d prefer it all to be within the ecclesiastical law system, but a parish always has the right to seek redress through the civil courts. Although I’m not a great fan of judges, the recent judgement in an employment tribunal by a judge who was not immediately aware of ecclesiastical law was well infomred, and he came (in my view) to a good judgement http://crosswire.org.uk/2012/02/17/former-rector-loses-employment-tribunal-claim-against-bishop/
We (Bishops) spend our time every week dealing with matters that are laid upon us by the ecclesiastical law. We don’t ignore them. Nor do we refuse to implement requests from parishes. So I think you’re just barking up the wrong tree here. My view is that you’d never get to the remedies I’ve mentioned. The Bishops will do what’s laid upon them. We can make this work.
#12 Many thanks and very helpful, but I am not sure I yet understand fully:
[blockquote]Well, I think your questions are all entirely academic – and rather litigious. The fact is that if/when the Measure passes, there will be a Code. The Code will require all Dioceses to have a Scheme.[/blockquote]
Am I really just being academic? What is litigious surely is the procedure parishes will be put through if their bishop delays, argues or will not agree to alternative oversight. A lot of effort has gone into securing this provision, so it is surely reasonable to look at things on a worst case scenario, and therefore it is not academic to ask how it all stacks up, particularly when the remedy parishes are being asked to undertake involves [what is invariably expensive] high court litigation.
[blockquote]This is not the USA, and I’m quite clear that no English Diocesan would be so derelict in their duty as to go the route of refusing a proper letter of request.
[/blockquote]
This is not the USA, but the procedure of pushing ecclesiastical disputes into the Courts is indeed American, and over there has brought Christians and ECUSA into disrepute. While I am sure bishops here will act in good faith, people see things differently, and as I say, at least one of those tipped to be a bishop of extreme liberal persuasion has already indicated that she will play merry hell with a parish seeking alternative oversight and initiate what might be called some sort of endless indaba process with the parish probably with the intention of wearing them down. Recent senior and particularly diocesan appointments in the Church of England give one no confidence that the first women bishops appointed will be any the less liberal and ‘difficult’ for traditionalists – in fact the slate of those apparently lined up pretty much all fall into that category don’t they?
When looking at such provisions in the Measure and Code, surely it is reasonable to ask how they will work, and hence I would appreciate an answer to the questions I asked. If not me, surely at some stage before Synod someone else will ask them, so as you know much more than most people about all this it might be an idea to address them now.
[blockquote]We checked with the lawyers at some stage during the Revision Committee. The costs are minimal.[/blockquote]
It should be easy to say what they are then and I will be delighted to be surprised at how minimal they are. Do you remember what you were told by the lawyers? Ball park figures will do.
[blockquote]Yes, I’d prefer it all to be within the ecclesiastical law system, but a parish always has the right to seek redress through the civil courts.[/blockquote]
Why not then deal with it through the ecclesiastical law system, and make the merits of the decision of whether or not to provide alternative oversight the issue, rather than the character of the bishop and whether he/she has come to a decision that only someone out of their mind could have come to?
[blockquote]Although I’m not a great fan of judges, the recent judgement in an employment tribunal by a judge who was not immediately aware of ecclesiastical law was well infomred, and he came (in my view) to a good judgement http://crosswire.org.uk/2012/02/17/former-rector-loses-employment-tribunal-claim-against-bishop/%5B/blockquote%5D
Judges do the best with what they are given, but they take into account a secular outlook and factors which may not fit a church setting. Recent decisions in senior courts give little confidence that there is anything in common between the thinking of some judges and Christian concerns other than a complete gulf, although I see the decision quoted was in favour of the bishop so I imagine it was a good one for bishops.
[blockquote]We (Bishops) spend our time every week dealing with matters that are laid upon us by the ecclesiastical law. We don’t ignore them. Nor do we refuse to implement requests from parishes. So I think you’re just barking up the wrong tree here. My view is that you’d never get to the remedies I’ve mentioned. The Bishops will do what’s laid upon them. We can make this work.[/blockquote]
Well, I should certainly hope so, but when dealing with protection of minority rights, one does have to plan for the exceptional case: the bishop who does not give due attention to child protection, the bishop who does not uphold minority rights and we know from recent cases in Chelmsford, Worcester and now Southwark that bishops do not always act fairly or reasonably. A lot of time and effort has gone into the process of providing protection to traditionalists, including your time, so at the end of all that are you really saying that it is a case of “Trust me, I’m a bishop”?
Any elucidation on the questions I asked will be gratefully received.
On reflection, and having spent a lot of time on the American blogs where people kindly put up with me, I do wonder about the wisdom of saying what has happened in the States could never happen here. Five years ago, who would have believed that a Conservative party would be pushing through the unConservative family policies they now are; that doctors and councillors would be ruled out of order for saying prayers, that wearing crosses would be outlawed.
The decisions being made by our Synod now are akin to those made in the US ten plus years ago. I know they are American, and therefore not like us Brits, but is it really impossible that at some stage in the future our bishops in a very liberal house could not act as ECUSA bishops do now? Who would have believed ten or twenty years ago that ECUSA bishops would remove the licenses of priests they disagreed with, closed parishes who will not do what they want, purport to depose hundreds of priests, initiate getting on for a hundred lawsuits against clergy and laity, depose dozens of bishops and lie to say that they had ‘voluntarily renounced their orders in writing’ much as they did to our Bishop Henry Scriven.
And it continues. You have already seen the attacks that good Bishop Lawrence, for whom I pray, has been subject to from the office of the Presiding Bishop.
Can we really adopt an attitude in our dealings with provision for traditionalists that it must be dealt with on the basis that what happened in Germany and now the US could never in the future operation of this Measure, happen here?
Well, what we’ve got in this Measure is the best we’re going to get. I think it can work. A deal can be struck.
And if the CofE ever becomes like ECUSA, I’ll be somewhere else, and so, I suspect, will most evangelical Anglicans.
It also has to be said that the Court itself encourages alternative dispute resolution by parties before it ever gets to them, or even afterwards in Judicial Review cases.
I would have thought that the sensible thing would be to provide that in the case of a dispute between the bishop and parish that the matter be referred either as a binding or non-binding adjudication or dispute resolution process to a panel perhaps comprised of the Archbishops and some senior bishops from the province concerned. It might also comprise bishops involved in alternative oversight who have some understanding of the parish’s needs. If the church does not take this initiative, the court will encourage it anyway. Most Judicial Review cases settle anyway. In the first instance, I would have thought this would be a sensible, cost-effective, and Christian manner in which to proceed.
It was the intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury and senior bishops which resolved matters in both Chelmsford and Southwark under their old bishops, and after all what is the point of having Archbishops and senior bishops if not to help colleagues in dispute out?
Just trying to be helpful.
#15 Bishop Peter thanks
[blockquote]Well, what we’ve got in this Measure is the best we’re going to get. I think it can work. A deal can be struck.[/blockquote]
There is more of a chance of a deal being struck if people have questions like mine answered. It might help others.
[blockquote]And if the CofE ever becomes like ECUSA, I’ll be somewhere else, and so, I suspect, will most evangelical Anglicans.[/blockquote]
True, but decisions made now will determine in part whether the CofE ends up like ECUSA – best to deal with it all now, for the sake of those who come after us, and for the benefit of the Body of Christ as it manifests itself in the gift of the Church of England.
The more I think about this, the less I understand it:
Costs
1. I don’t know where the lawyers advising the Revision Committee got their figures, which we have not yet seen, but while it may be that they are ‘minimal’ to them, to any parish they are likely to be an extraordinary expense.
2. An application for Judicial Review is a specialist appeal and will require qualified legal help. For Claimants 4-6 years plus experience so a solicitors costs are likely to run at a minimum of £150/hr but more probably in the £200-£300/hour region. In addition experience Counsel will conduct the application which will be a minimum of say £1,500 to draft the papers and attend the hearing. If there is evidence and a contested hearing costs could well go beyond £5,000 to £30,000 for the parish very easily. Unless provision is made for funding from central funds, no parish will have generally such large funds available without raiding any investments or touching parishioners. Few people will be willing to fund litigation, although they might well fund church repairs.
3. The evidential burden on the parish is great. They will have to show, not that the refusal or delay of the bishop was wrong, or on the facts the wrong decision was made, but instead that on a balance of probabilities that the bishop made a mistake in procedure or arrived at a conclusion that NO REASONABLE bishop could have come to i.e. the decision may have been wrong, but if arrived at apparently reasonably and following procedure, it would stand.
4. The bishop will have access either to diocesan funds or perhaps funding from the Church Commissioners for legal costs, or at the minimum the right to an indemnity for them. The bishop will thus be well funded and able to engage top legal advice. The parish on the other hand will only have its own resources, unless provision for funding from central funds is available or parishes club together to fund a few ‘test cases’. We are in the dreadful situation which has sunk the American church that its funds and endowments donated by parishioners past and present are being used to fund legal fights between Christians – a wicked misuse of God’s funds and a misdirection from the mission of the Church.
5. If the parish loses this application which is highly likely, given the legal system in England where costs follow the event [including on Judicial Review], the likelyhood is that the parish will have not only to cover its own costs, but that of its bishop as well. One can see a losing parish ending up with costs of £50,000 plus very easily. The lawyers advising the Review Committee and indeed the HOB must have known that however superficially attractive to present to parishes, that this is is not a realistic remedy for parishes faced with a truculent bishop.
Looking at all the above and reading round the reactions from the various parties – WATCH, Reform, FiF, the women against the Measure who protested outside the HOB meeting, it seems to me that nobody is happy at all. To be certain that the Measure will get through Synod, it will be necessary to persuade the turkeys to vote for Christmas, knowing that they are provided for, which it doesn’t seem that they are. Presumably the only hope underlying this is not that any of the main parties will be convinced, but that it can be shown to those Synod members who want to see women bishops and adequate provision for traditionalists, that the HOB have made an effort, however illusory the real remedies provided are.
The truth is we are a divided church and a divided HOB, and as one of the vicars’ blogs I read after the last Synod said, we are spending our time reorganising the dog collars on the ship’s decks. All very inadequate and all very sad, though I suppose the HOB must be commended for making this effort, however much the provision discussed above fails to stack up.
His will be done.
Pete Broadbent wrote:
[blockquote] “Well, I think your questions are all entirely academic – and rather litigious.” [/blockquote]
+Peter, what does this mean? How can a question be “litigious”? If you are implying that Pageantmaster of all people is intending to enter into litigation then that is absurd. You clearly do not know your man. His concern on blogs is always for the Church of England. He is entitled to ask these questions and it is incumbent upon you and your fellow bishops to answer them.
Secondly, how is the question “academic”? Have you pre-judged that issues as have arisen in America over the last ten years will not arise in England? If so, on what basis?
[blockquote] And if the CofE ever becomes like ECUSA, I’ll be somewhere else, and so, I suspect, will most evangelical Anglicans. [/blockquote]
How is this an answer? Comments by Pageantmaster and others are designed to prevent CofE becoming like ECUSA – a brush-aside answer from yourself on behalf of the HOB, along the lines of “Don’t you worry about that, because if it happens, I won’t be there” does not assist in the least.
[blockquote] “Well, what we’ve got in this Measure is the best we’re going to get. I think it can work. A deal can be struck.” [/blockquote]
It is the best deal YOU and your fellow bishops are going to get. Why should orthodox evangelicals or anglo-catholics be interested? (that is not a rhetorical question by the way)
[blockquote] “Simple. Every Diocese will be obliged to have a scheme in place. That schemewill be drawn up under the Code of Prcatice, which has statutory effect.” [/blockquote]
Which the HOB haven’t drawn up yet. They ask everyone to vote in favour of something that they have not seen. Do you really think that is going to win the support of liberals, evangelicals or anglo-catholics?
[blockquote] “In point of fact, we’ve never had a problem with parishes being refusedsuch episcopal care when they request it.” [/blockquote]
Very well chosen words, +Peter. Defined that way, ECUSA could probably say the same thing.
Now, back to reality. Since you haven’t defined what is in the Code of Practice, what parishes will be able to legitimately request will be entirely up to you, won’t it?!
Ah, so it won’t be in a statute, but it will have “statutory effect”. The joys of delegated legislation. So this Code of Practice will be in the nature of by-laws, regulations, etc. An enabling Act will be passed by Parliament with the initial version of the Code of Practice attached.
Tell me, who will have the authority to AMEND the Code of Practice? Someone within the delegated body (in this case CofE) will have the role of proposing amendments to Parliament. Who will that be – the HOB perhaps?
I don’t think it’s helpful to carry on trying to engage with people on this forum. It’s a shame, but there you go. The hermeneutic of suspicion against bishops is so strong that there is nothing that I can say that will convince you. You think we’re all likely not to do what the law requires, whereas it would be very difficult for you to adduce any examples of the sort of non-compliance of which you’re suspicious. I would love to feel that orthodox Christians on this forum would wish to support what we’re doing to try to sort things out to get a win-win for all concerned. I’ve no idea who you guys are, as you have the luxury of anonymity, whereas I am posting under my own identity. And I don’t much like being excluded from being what MichaelA calls an orthodox evangelical position just because I support the ordination of women bishops, believing it to be consonant with the biblical witness.
You asked what the [i] in extremis [/i] position would be likely to be in the event of non-compliance – I told you that it would be judicial review. I don’t think it would ever come to this – and would be willing to put money on it.
The UK is not the USA, and our legal framework works very differently. You’re assuming that the litigious ethos of ECUSA is the way we do things here. It isn’t. We operate within a very clear understanding of needing to be properly compliant with the provisions of ecclesiastical law.
So it’s probably not worth trying to explain how it works – because you’re not going to “get” it. Where we are in the CofE is that we know we’re going to have women bishops. We can’t get Synod to agree on the provisions being contained in a Measure. It’s the art of the possible to deliver something that will give those opposed some degree of provision. That’s what we’ve done. Nobody is asking you to support it, but you could at least be a bit less paranoid and a bit more generous to those of us who’ve fought on behalf of those opposed.
Bishop Broadbent wrote:
[blockquote] “I don’t think it’s helpful to carry on trying to engage with people on this forum. It’s a shame, but there you go. The hermeneutic of suspicion against bishops is so strong that there is nothing that I can say that will convince you.” [/blockquote]
Now, now. All that has happened is that you have been asked some searching questions by someone who (at least in my case) does not share all of your convictions.
If you are unable or unwilling to respond to those questions, that is a matter for you. No-one is forcing you to do so.
[blockquote] “I would love to feel that orthodox Christians on this forum would wish to support what we’re doing to try to sort things out to get a win-win for all concerned.” [/blockquote]
To do that, you first have to convince them that it actually is a win-win for all concerned.
Those in England who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops have to know that their convictions will be permanently protected in CofE. How can they know that if you won’t disclose what the detail of the Code of Practice will be?
[blockquote] “I’ve no idea who you guys are, as you have the luxury of anonymity, whereas I am posting under my own identity.” [/blockquote]
What “luxury” is that? What difference would it make if you knew everyone’s name and address, particularly as most posters on T19 seem to be lay people living in North America?
In any case, you made the choice to post on this forum as a bishop of the Church of England, in order to publicise and support the HOB amendments . I am sure you knew the nature of T19 before you posted, so why complain now, after you have been asked some difficult questions?
[blockquote] “And I don’t much like being excluded from being what MichaelA calls an orthodox evangelical position just because I support the ordination of women bishops, believing it to be consonant with the biblical witness.” [/blockquote]
What’s in a name? The important issue is that there are many evangelicals (and anglo-catholics and traditionalists) in the Church of England who cannot and will not accept the ministry of women bishops. Your convictions are quite different to theirs, so if you want to convince them that your solution makes proper (and permanent) provision for them in the Church of England, you need to engage with them and show that you understand their concerns and take them seriously.
[blockquote] “You asked what the in extremis position would be likely to be in the event of non-compliance – I told you that it would be judicial review. I don’t think it would ever come to this – and would be willing to put money on it.” [/blockquote]
That was Pageantmaster’s question so I will leave that up to him. But my concern is somewhat different: I want to know why the bishops have held back a large amount of the relevant detail which will go into a “Code of Practice”? I also would like to know why this Code of Practice is going to be delegated legislation, and who will be given the power to amend it?
[blockquote] “The UK is not the USA, and our legal framework works very differently. You’re assuming that the litigious ethos of ECUSA is the way we do things here. It isn’t. We operate within a very clear understanding of needing to be properly compliant with the provisions of ecclesiastical law.” [/blockquote]
Of course. But the point in this case is that you are asking people to give their consent, in July, to a law which is yet to be formulated by the House of Bishops.
[blockquote] “So it’s probably not worth trying to explain how it works – because you’re not going to “get†it.” [/blockquote]
You may find it more helpful to concentrate on engaging with those whose convictions differ from yours, rather than making assumptions about their abilities.
[blockquote] “Where we are in the CofE is that we know we’re going to have women bishops.” [/blockquote]
Respectfully, that is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether CofE should approve, in July 2012, women bishops on the terms set out in your amendments.
[blockquote] “Nobody is asking you to support it, but you could at least be a bit less paranoid and a bit more generous to those of us who’ve fought on behalf of those opposed.” [/blockquote]
With all due respect, surely you have been fighting primarily on behalf of your own position, rather than “on behalf of those opposed”?
At present, women bishops are illegal in the Church of England. You want them to become legal, and therefore you want to garner the maximum support in General Synod from all parties. To do that, you have agreed to certain amendments to the draft measure, which you claim will secure the interest of those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but you can’t really call that “fighting on behalf of those opposed”; rather, you are fighting for your own position, and in the process giving something to those of a different conviction with the hope of securing their support. Isn’t that a more accurate summation?
My my.
#19 MichaelA
[blockquote]+Peter, what does this mean? How can a question be “litigious� If you are implying that Pageantmaster of all people is intending to enter into litigation then that is absurd. You clearly do not know your man. His concern on blogs is always for the Church of England. He is entitled to ask these questions and it is incumbent upon you and your fellow bishops to answer them.[/blockquote]
Thank you for jumping to my aid, but hey, we all have our cross to bear. I can ask questions, and +Pete if he feels inclined can answer them, or not, as he feels drawn.
I do recollect that there has been a Draft Code of Practice knocking about somewhere, but not yet a finalised version that Synod can get its teeth into understanding, although maybe that will change.
#21 Bishop Pete
[blockquote]I don’t think it’s helpful to carry on trying to engage with people on this forum. It’s a shame, but there you go[/blockquote] That’s a shame indeed. Engagement here can be robust, but usually is informative; but there are more robust places than T19 to engage. It is hard to carry on two conversations at once so it is hard to work out which of your remarks are addressed to me, and which to MichaelA, or perhaps both, so I will respond to those which seem pertinent, but first a few preliminaries.
[blockquote]I’ve no idea who you guys are, as you have the luxury of anonymity, whereas I am posting under my own identity.[/blockquote]
I know, irritating isn’t it, but freely speaking weblogs are here to stay and the genie is not going back in the bottle. T19 like a number of US blogs, which is where I mainly hang out, make no distinction between commenters, all are equal, and by and large comments are judged according to how they address issues, rather than on personalities or position. Some people post in their own name and others [for very necessary reasons in the US] use a nom-de-blog, and that is fine with pretty much everybody, but it certainly rankles with some of the powers that be. I think it is to be lauded and responsibly used, a good thing.
[blockquote]And I don’t much like being excluded from being what MichaelA calls an orthodox evangelical position just because I support the ordination of women bishops, believing it to be consonant with the biblical witness.[/blockquote]
I have searched through what MichaelA has written but have failed to see him make any such exclusion, and indeed if he had done so it would probably exclude me as well. I as you know am English, Michael is Australian and rather more reformed than I am, although we mostly speak the same language, with different accents.
[blockquote]The hermeneutic of suspicion against bishops is so strong that there is nothing that I can say that will convince you. You think we’re all likely not to do what the law requires, whereas it would be very difficult for you to adduce any examples of the sort of non-compliance of which you’re suspicious.[/blockquote]
Certainly as far as I am concerned this is not the case. The issue we have been discussing is what safeguards the legislation and code provides and it is that drafting detail as to what is meant by the wording that is being considered here, not whether bishops can be trusted.
[blockquote]I would love to feel that orthodox Christians on this forum would wish to support what we’re doing to try to sort things out to get a win-win for all concerned.[/blockquote]
That is certainly, as far as I am concerned why I am trying to understand what the wording to be considered does. Understanding comes before support.
[blockquote]You asked what the in extremis position would be likely to be in the event of non-compliance – I told you that it would be judicial review. I don’t think it would ever come to this – and would be willing to put money on it.
The UK is not the USA, and our legal framework works very differently. You’re assuming that the litigious ethos of ECUSA is the way we do things here. It isn’t. We operate within a very clear understanding of needing to be properly compliant with the provisions of ecclesiastical law.[/blockquote]
I have certainly asked what the protection provided is and two explanations have been provided by you:
1. That parishes can in the event on non-compliance by a bishop take the matter to [according to the lawyers to your committee] judicial review at minimal cost and because the bishop would be subject to disciplinary action; [the legal remedy protection “LRP”] and
2. That parishes need not worry as that will never arise because English bishops can be trusted to do the right thing and observe the spirit and letter of the measure/code, because they are not litigious like Americans, and the sort of thing which happens in America could not happen here [the ‘trust me I’m a bishop’ protection “TMIAB”].
[blockquote]So it’s probably not worth trying to explain how it works – because you’re not going to “get†it.[/blockquote]
Dealing with the first legal LRP protection, you said that the lawyers advising the committee you sat on advised the committee that an application to the high court for judicial review could be made by a parish for minimal cost, but haven’t told me how much they consider ‘minimal’. Further, I can’t see from what is on this thread, how a parish is likely to get a hearing on the merits of their claim to alternative oversight from an application for judicial review.
Now I see no reason to assume the lawyers have misled the committee, indeed it would be a serious matter if they had, so that is why I asked whether what was envisaged on the LRP Protection route was really a normal judicial review or whether they had something else in mind in the measure or code, and of course how that would be ‘minimal’ in cost compared with a normal judicial review.
If of course, parishes should only rely on the TMIAB Protection, then of course that is understandable, but means that the Measure/Code does not provide legal remedy that parishes can rely on, and therefore that legal protection is problematic for parishes. They of course may be happy to accept the TMIAB Protection offered. That is a matter for them to let us know.
[blockquote]Where we are in the CofE is that we know we’re going to have women bishops.[/blockquote]
I have no crystal ball but accept that you must have scrunched the Synod figures and reckon that 2/3 in all three houses will definitely support this, so I imagine you are in a position to know how this pans out.
[blockquote]It’s the art of the possible to deliver something that will give those opposed some degree of provision. That’s what we’ve done.[/blockquote]
That is understood, and I guess we will have to wait to hear whether those opposed are going to be happy with what apparently is possible
[blockquote]Nobody is asking you to support it, but you could at least be a bit less paranoid and a bit more generous to those of us who’ve fought on behalf of those opposed.
[/blockquote]
Not paranoid in my case – just trying to understand exactly what is on offer. In any event, it is not provision I will be taking advantage of, but I would be glad to see those who will taken care of properly. I am not on Synod, so whether I support it or not is neither here nor there, but I do believe in the unity of the church, and do not believe that any price is worth paying, particularly when so much else in the church and Communion is at risk, and indeed will be aggravated if there is further splitting.
As for being a “bit more generous to those of us who’ve fought on behalf of those opposed” – always.
So in conclusion, I suppose the lesson to be drawn from this thread is that there will be no legal redress for parishes that is practical or affordable at least so far as it has been explained and the principle of ‘Trust me I’m a [woman] bishop’ is the only comfort they can take. If of course there is anything more you want to add if this is not the case please do.
On a slightly different topic as far as the amendments made by the HOB are concerned, reading the comments in different places including WATCH and the [anonymouse mind you] Church Mouse, it is remarkable how many diametrically opposed interpretations of these amendments there are being put forward.
Thanks for engaging.
Following on my prior comment #23 here is a timely reminder why some in the US use a nom-de-blog. Unfortunately what starts over there, often comes over here.