The motion as amended which has just been passed h/t Thinking Anglicans for amended text:
“That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency;
(b) instruct the Appointments Committee to appoint this month a Steering Committee to be in charge of the draft legislation required to that end;
(c) instruct the Business Committee to arrange for the First Consideration stage for that draft legislation to be taken at the November 2013 group of sessions, so that the subsequent stages can follow the timetable set out in paragraph 141 of the annex to GS 1886;
(d) instruct the Steering Committee to prepare the draft legislation on the basis described in paragraphs 79-88 of the annex to GS 1886 as ”˜option one’ with the addition of a mandatory grievance procedure for parishes in which diocesan bishops are required to participate, and invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consideration at the February 2014 group of sessions a draft Act of Synod or draft declaration to be made by the House to accompany the draft legislation; and
(e) urge that the process of facilitated conversations continue to be used at significant points in the formulation and consideration of the draft legislation.”
The motion (as amended) was carried with 319 votes in favour, 84 against and 22 recorded abstentions.
Motion and proposed amendments can be read here and the background paper provided is here. Video of the full debate should be available later.
T/A notes: [Option 1 comprises a measure and amending canon to make made it lawful for women to become bishops, and the repeal of the statutory rights to pass Resolutions A and B under the 1993 Measure, plus the rescinding of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.]
The CofE live stream when in session is available here
Good grief! Can’t they just get it over with already? It’s as plain as the nose on my face that the outcome has been preordained and that voting and debate will continue until the correct results are obtained.
And it is equally clear that once those results are obtained, that no further debate or voting on this subject will ever again be tolerated.
So said Archbishop Justin today but it’s a bit perplexing:
1. There have been few or no court cases challenging the current “detailed” arrangements for those unable to receive the priestly ministry of women.
2. Far from being “unworkable” they seem to have worked fairly well. It’s just that they are despised by folks like WATCH.
3. Of course they provided a legal binding form of conscience protection for parishes that wished to make use of them. That wasn’t a bug, that was the point.
Synod seems incapable of learning an obvious lesson, If you reject every single proposal made by those would would like to see a more robust conscience protection, don’t be surprised if they vote against your plan. That’s the way Synod is supposed to work.
Thanks, driver8. I agree.
There are so many things about this whole debate and prolonged struggle that are depressing to all who love the Church. Alas, it shows that many of the same pathological tendencies are at work in the CoE that have been terribly toxic in North American Anglicanism. While I rejoice that there is a much larger orthodox minority within the CoE than there ever was within TEC, I fear (as an ignorant outsider from across the Pond) that the historic established nature of the CoE makes it even harder for the mother church to morph into a truly counter-cultural Church. But it seems that is now the inevitable position that Anglicans who are faithful to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition (i.e., basically the patristic consensus) are in, and will be increasingly driven to adopt, in an aggressively secular and post-Christendom society.
Whatever happened to Paul’s concern about not causing fellow Christians to stumble? Although I personally support WO, I also endorse the ACNA’s fundamental decision to bar women from the episcopate, not least on the sort of grounds Paul lays out in Romans 14 for disputed issues like Sabbath-keeping or eating food offered to idols. Approval of women bishops will be one more wedge between “Global North” Anglicanism (including Australia and New Zealand) and the growing majority of Anglicans in the Global South. As far as I know, none of the GS provinces that ordain women to the priesthood (and diaconate, of course) have ever come close to ordaining a woman bishop. I don’t think they’d even consider it in Kenya, Uganda, or Rwanda, etc.
On a more light-hearted note, a friend of mine told me about a delightful quip by an RC friend of his who supports WO in principle but is well aware of how disastrous WO has proven in North America, where ordained women are often FAR more liberal as a whole than male clergy. The quip? He wishes the Catholic Church would approve WO in principle, but then firmly reject the first 5,000 women who apply!
David Handy+
[blockquote]”That this Synod:
(a) reaffirm its commitment to admitting women to the episcopate as a matter of urgency;[/blockquote]
A while back, I heard someone on a radio show make a statement something like “Lust pushes. Love waits.” Which one does the above statement most closely resemble?
So much for Tradition and for respect for those who hold to it. Synod members are due to be “facilitated” into selling their heritage for a mess of pottage.
As I understand it, one of the driving forces at work here is the fear that if Synod does not legislate, then parliament will do so for the Church. Anathema! Long overdue time for the separation of church and state in England. But when I have said to practising Anglicans ‘lose that ball and chain around your feet’ they have either (a) blinked uncomprehendingly, wondering what on earth I am on about; or (b) said to me, pityingly, ‘You don’t understand. The Church of England is here for everybody and has a unique relationship with the state.’