Wednesday: In the morning The Women Bishops Steering Committee Report has been accepted and in the afternoon the procedure for revision of draft legislation in full Synod was approved
After that Proposals to change the system of election of lay members of Synod were debated and the motion as amended was carried with the removal of the scheme to create an electoral college.
This post will be updated regularly
The Church of England General Synod took place between Monday November 18th and Wednesday November 20th in Church House, London
Some links to audio recordings are here During Synod live streaming was provided here It is not clear if video recordings of the debates will be made available
Some information: Press Release, Agenda, Papers, Daily Reports from the Media Office and
Twitter: #synod and it may be worth following: @CofEgensyn, CofE
WEDNESDAY
Morning
Women Bishops debate
Report of morning business
Order Paper for morning business
Debate of the Report of the Steering Committee for the draft Legislation on Women in the Episcopate [GS 1924] [audio of the debate is available here]
The Bishop of Rochester (Chair of the Steering Committee) moved the motion [Report]
Synod passed the following motion [378 votes for; 8 against; 25 abstained]:
That this Synod, welcoming the package of proposals in GS 1924 and the statement of principles endorsed by the House of Bishops at paragraph 12 of GS 1886, invite the House of Bishops to bring to the Synod for consultation in February a draft declaration and proposals for a mandatory disputes resolution procedure which build on the agreement reached by the Steering Committee as a result of its facilitated discussions.
Afternoon
Women Bishops debate continued
Report of afternoon business
Report: “In its afternoon session, the Synod also voted to progress the legislation to its next legislative stage of revision at its next meeting in February.
As a result of the votes carried today, Synod has agreed to dispense with the normal Revision Committee process and move straight to revision in full Synod which next meets in February 2014, thereby clearing the way for a possible vote on final approval later in 2014.”
Responses after the votes from: The Catholic Group in Synod, Archbishop of Canterbury
THE WORK OF THE ELECTIONS REVIEW GROUP:
ELECTORATE FOR THE HOUSE OF LAITY AND ONLINE ELECTIONS: SECOND REPORT BY THE BUSINESS COMMITTEE (GS 1906)
Resumed debate
Debate was resumed on the motion:
12. ”˜That this Synod request legislative proposals to be brought forward to:
(a) establish an electoral college for elections by the laity to the General Synod and diocesan synods;
(b) make provision by 2020 for elections to the General Synod to be undertaken online; and
(c) make provision by 2015 for nominations for elections to the General Synod to be undertaken by email.’
moved by the Ven. Julian Henderson at the July 2013 group of sessions.
The motion [as amended to remove (a) the establishment of an Electoral College] was carried on a show of hands
Farewells
Prorogation
[MONDAY and TUESDAY – see below]
WOMEN BISHOPS
As far as the Elves understand it: The proposal being brought forward is what Synod approved in July should be considered by the Steering Committee which was formed, to draft, based on Option 1, a measure and amending canon to make 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 [right to oversight from a ‘flying bishop’ etc]
There is a summary from Law and Religion here of the key Steering Committee’s report [GS 1924] which attaches at Appendices A and B a draft declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests that the House of Bishops could make; and a set of draft regulations for a system for resolving disputes, introducing an “Independent Reviewer.”
Following on from that there is the draft Measure [GS 1925], and Amending Canon 33 [GS 1926] and what is termed an Explanatory Memorandum [GS 1925-6x all of which which will be the subject of closed discussion on Tuesday morning and debate on Wednesday. At this stage only a simple majority of Synod will be required for the matter to go forward to the Revision stage by a future Synod although in order to pass the final measure will still require to pass with a 2/3 majority in each of the three houses of bishops, clergy and laity. According to a House of Bishops Statement in May, if it proceeds final approval could take place in 2014 according to the Steering Committee Report which also thanks Canon David Porter for his role in facilitating conversations among the Steering Committee.
Papers:
Women in the Episcopate: Statement from the Archbishops
GS 1924 – Report of the Steering Committee for the Draft Legislation on Women in the Episcopate [item 11]
GS 1925 – Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [item 503-504]
GS 1926 – Draft Amending Canon No.33 [item 505-506]
GS 1925-6x – Explanatory Memorandum [item 503-506]
Reform Statement, Forward in Faith Statements and
more links to follow
TUESDAY
Order Paper
Morning
Report of morning business
8am Communion
9:15am – 11:30 am Indaba – Women Bishops groups with a member of the Steering Committee each – no eavesdroppers
11:45am – Legislation: Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction
Afternoon
Report of afternoon business
The Archbishop of York’s Presidential Address [audio]
Legislation: Church Schools, Ecclesiastical Property; Vacancy in See Committees
Standing Orders Committee Report
The London Diocesan Synod Motion to review working of General Synod and consider non ‘Parliamentary Model’ alternatives, [presumably more Indaba].was lost on a show of hands [Report]
MONDAY
See report on Monday’s business now available and a report from the floor by Stephen Lynas – Bathwellschap. This is the first year that audio of debates has not been available, though some speeches from officials are available here
Order of Business
Archbishop Justin’s presentation to the General Synod [audio]
A Motion on Intentional Evangelism was carried on a show of hands [Report]:
CHALLENGES FOR THE QUINQUENNIUM: INTENTIONAL EVANGELISM (GS 1917)
As passed: That this Synod in the light of the priority of evangelism and making new disciples:
(a) support the formation of an Archbishops’ Task Group on Evangelism with the terms of reference and timetable as set out in GS 1917 and urge that its membership include:
(i) staff of Anglican home mission agencies with expertise in helping local churches engage in effective evangelism and disciple-making, and
(ii) those with a proven record in those disciplines at local level;
(b) call upon the Task Group to make its first priority a new call to prayer;
(c) commend to the Task Group an initial programme for its work around the seven disciplines of evangelisation as set out in the same paper;
(d) call upon every diocesan and deanery synod and every PCC to spend the bulk of one meeting annually and some part of every meeting focusing on sharing experiences and initiatives for making new disciples; and
(e) urge every local church in 2014 prayerfully to try at least one new way, appropriate to their local context, of seeking to make new disciples of Jesus Christ.
Introduction by the Archbishop of York
Various incomprehensible legislation [to listeners] has been considered
Questions [here] were answered – including on the Pilling Report to the House of Bishops at Qu’s 39-47 – Thinking Anglicans have a record of Archbishop Welby’s answers on Pilling here and there is now audio of the Question and Answer session here [mp3]
Women Bishops: The Bishop of Rochester gave a presentation on Women in the Episcopate {audio]
[Note: There will be small group Indaba-daba-doo on Tuesday morning and the debate will be on Wednesday]
I am praying that a just provision will be made for the minority who cannot accept female bishops. I am praying, but I am not optimistic, given the relentless pressure to eliminate the traditional position in the CofE.
Ditto, Katherine.
But on a happier note, I was very pleased to read about the remarkable fact that an ecumenical group of prayer warriors is to live at Lambeth Palace and engage in constant intercession for ++Justin and Anglicanism worldwide. An Anglican married couple, joined by a Lutheran man preparing for ordination and a Roman Catholic nun. What a wonderfully diverse and representative group: male and female, ordained (or almost ordained) and lay, Protestant and Catholic. Whatever else ++Justin Welby is doing, he is putting enormous emphasis on the need for earnest, persistent, faith-filled prayer, and that’s a most welcome development. Inviting this ecumenical group to come and live in the Palace in order to undergird his ministry with prayer is a bold and imaginative move. I commend him highly for it. Even while I deplore that more isn’t being done to assure adequately a safe and permanent place in the CoE for die-hard opponents of WO.
Although I support WO myself, even in principle supporting women starting to exercise the episcopate at the proper time, I believe that it’s still premature. The principle of Romans 14 applies here, and those of us who support WO must not cause those unalterably opposed to it to stumble. Thus, I support the ACNA’s balanced approach, which allows women deacons and priests, but refuses to make women bishops, until a broader consensus emerges for that.
In the end, though, what we are witnessing is the inevitable result of the CoE being an established church. It seems to be utterly incapable of becoming truly counter-cultural and resisting whatever the prevailing culture demands. Since the CoE is ultimately subject to Parliament’s control, if Parliament were to declare that the doctrine of the CoE was now to be Unitarianism, there is no doubt in my mind that the CoE would ultimately compromise and succomb.
That’s the fatal flaw in state church religion. It always, ALWAYS, ends up favoring the interests of the state at the expense of the Church. Sooner or later, and maybe sooner than any of us yet realize (myuself included), the CoE is going to have to be disestablished to survive as a truly Christian church.
David Handy+
Fr. David, perhaps someday you explain to this laywoman how your high view of ecclesiology can be reconciled with ordained women when the vast majority of the Church catholic does not support the idea. (I myself join you in holding the catholic Tradition in very high regard.) But this is something that belongs in another comment thread, perhaps. For this thread, I think the Church of England majority will be committing a grave injustice against the evangelical and catholic minority if they require acceptance of the innovation.
Well I read through the Steering Committee Report and the draft legislation – I don’t hold out any hope as it is currently drafted.
The current position is that on a parish making a resolution, appropriate oversight from an episcopal visitor or ‘flying bishop’ is made. The report says that this has never been challenged in the courts because no such situation has presumably arisen when this clear resolution of a parish has been challenged by a [currently male] bishop.
The package rejected by the Synod a year ago, required parishes to apply to the courts for judicial revue – something which is prohibitively expensive and which can only challenge whether the bishop followed procedure correctly and fairly, not whether the decision was correct.
This draft legislation and the guidance in making regulations set out in the report provides a more complex route than the current one to be followed:
1. the parish [75% of its PCC (Vestry)] makes a request to its bishop [male or female];
2. the bishop follows the procedure laid down and bearing in mind factors which are laid down for him/her to bear in mind.
3. the bishop can delay by entering discussions or negotiations with the parish.
4. the bishop makes a decision
5. the parish can appeal by issuing a ‘Grievance’ to the Independent Reviewer to review the procedural fairness of that decision.
6. the Reviewer can issue a recommendation to the bishop or others
There are a number of real problems with this as drafted and explained:
Firstly: The major problem shared with the previous scheme, is that the Independent Reviewer is prohibited from reviewing the decision itself, only whether the bishop has followed the procedure laid down fairly. This failing is continued in these proposals as well as the Steering Committee itself makes clear:
Secondly, while both the bishop and others are required to cooperate with the Independent Reviewer’s review and non-cooperation is said to possibly lead to the possibility of action against clergy [including the bishop presumably] under the Clergy Discipline Measure [para 70], there is no requirement on the bishop or others to impliment the Independent Reviewer’s recommendations. The only consequence for a recalcitrant bishop [such as we saw with Bishop Howard of Florida under the recommendation of the equally flawed Panel of Reference] it has been suggested is “Opprobrium” – assuming that in the new model Church of England denying traditionalists would incur ‘opprobrium’ from either the increasingly liberal bishops or society. Thus the recommendations of the Independent Reviewer lack any force or teeth whatever and there are no consequences at all to the bishop of not implimenting them, nor any means of redress for the parish concerned. It is a tiger without any teeth.
Thirdly, there is a deliberate failure to define what ‘theological conviction’ and the needs of a parish which has theological conviction are. I would have thought it was quite simple – evangelicals require male headship and catholics require an unbroken connection in the [male] apostolic succession. that means that not only is any member of clergy male, but his line of ordination and consecration [if a bishop] has been undertaken by the male succession. As a side issue it may also mean that the clergy person is in accord with the views of the parish. By not defining what theological conviction is but making it a plank of the request of the parish [currently there is no need to explain theological objections in applying for alternative arrangements], the legislation leaves open exactly what a parish is entitled to expect from the bishop on making a request. It also gives infinite room for the bishop to delay, browbeat with long negotiations or otherwise frustrate the intention of the parish. It opens the way to a long wearing down of the parish without any appointment by an awkward bishop. Provided the bishop follows the procedure laid down and says he/she has taken into account all the matters supposed to be fairly taken into account, the bishop can wear down the parish and frustrate the needs it has expressed.
Fourthly complaint and protection is granted to the parish through its PCC – there is no protection for traditional clergy who will be required to serve under a woman diocesan, nor for ordinands.
Thus a procedure which does not allow a bishop’s decision to be challenged, only its conformity to procedure, a procedure which ultimately has no teeth in the face of a bishop who decides to ignore its recommendations, and a lack of definition of what is expected to take account of the parish’s theological convictions giving endless opportunity for a difficult bishop to frustrate a parish which has been led to believe it should have the right to apply for alternative arrangements. Finally absolutely no protection for clergy and ordinands as the legislation has been phrased.
It is Ming’s law:
Hi, Katherine,
Yes, I’ll save trying to explain that paradox for another thread, except to hint that I’m the Diocese of Albany, Diocese of Dallas sort of Anglo-Catholic, not the Diocese of Ft. Worth, Diocese of Quincy, or FiF kind. But I agree that the CoE appears ready to reneg on its solemn promises of a permanent safe place for opponents of WO that were made back in 1992. As likewise happened in TEC, of course. Those promises obviously had a shelf life, and the expiration date was in small print at the bottom of the page that was easy to overlook.
As a native of SD, it reminds me of how the US government shamelessly broke treaty after treaty made with the Indian tribes in this country. For example, the Sioux/Lakota were solemnly promised that they could retain the Black Hills (which were sacred to them) after losing all their other land and they could keep them “as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow.” Well, that is, until gold was discovered there. So Gen. Custer marched in and took the Black Hills away from them.
It never ceases to amaze me how illiberal liberal activists can be once they attain power and seek to consolidate their gains. Or to use your language of injustice, it never ceases to amaze (and dismay) me that advocates of supposed social justice can resort to all sorts of unjust means to achieve their all-important goals, as if the end justifies any and all means. TEC’s lawsuits being the ultimate example of that pursuit of “social justice” by unjuust means.
David Handy+
The debate is going on now here in about 10 minutes
Please lend us your prayers particularly in the next few hours, for light to shine [John 3:18-21], for the good men and women at Synod, and for God to move in power in His Church of England.
I see that the [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25019566]clergy have voted for the scheme overwhelmingly[/url]. This is not the end of the process, however. Continued prayer is needed, I believe.
Pageantmaster, Thank you for translating what they wrote into English that resembles what is taught in US universities.
Would I be correct that under the current scheme, there is actually no protection whatsoever theologically for an Anglo Catholic parish? Which is to say, any man is as good a selection as any other- regardless of whether he is viewed as in Apostolic Succession by the parish in question. It would appear that under this, Nick Holtam could be given oversight over all dissenting parishes, or a suffragan who was ordained by 3 women bishops, or they could call VGR out of retirement.
It would appear that this legislation is primarily targeting Evangelicals (those big, rich, semi-independent parishes that CoE cannot afford to lose, so long as they keep funding the diocese) and concerns over male headship, but has nothing in it to guarantee Apostolic Succession or proper administration of the Sacraments for Anglo Catholics. Or is that to be indaba’ed in a couple vague sentences at a later date?
As an aside, let me correct something that I have written several times in the past, which turns out to be in error.
For quite a long time, I have been holding that the British usage of the word “scheme” means “plan” or “course of action.” Now, of course, it can on occasion mean this in US English as well. But more commonly, it has a connotation more along the line of “nefarious plan”. One “plans” to build a bank, but “schemes” to rob a bank.
I have come to the conclusion that the meaning of “scheme” in British English, at least as applied by CoE and its leaders, means exactly the same thing as it does in US English.
#8 TJ
Thanks – I can only go on what has been put in the report and the draft legislation. There is a great deal of muddy thinking shown both in the apparently inadequate scheme set out in the report and the drafting of the legislation [there’s a surprise – muddy thinking in the Anglican Church]. As it stands, this ‘scheme’ does not hang together, it does not even cross-refer between its different parts or key them together.
I will be interested to hear any defense of it on logical rather than on fluffy emotional grounds, including from the conservatives bodies who voted it through or abstained, but so far as I can see as drafted at the moment, it has all the credibility and teeth of the ‘Panel of Reference’.
As for your #9 and the meaning of ‘scheme’ – you may well think that, but I could not possibly comment.
I guess it can assumed that eveyone understands that the “Consecration and Ordination of Women” refers to both women and lesbians.
Thanks PM at #4, great analysis.
One of the rallying calls for the orthodox when the last measure was put to Synod was that it didn’t really give protection for those who disagreed. That also appears to have been the main concern for liberals who voted against the measure. So this issue should be thoroughly explored.
And it would be *exactly* like the bishops of CofE and their minions to put forward a procedure which looks very impressive, with lots of words, but carefully gives the orthodox nil protection.