Archdeacon of Rochdale leads debate on Women Bishops

Published: 08 February 2012

The Archdeacon of Rochdale has introduced the debate on the issue of women bishops and the ‘Manchester Motion’. Here is her speech.

Chair, Members of Synod.

In considering this motion, brought by Manchester Diocesan Synod and passed by four other diocesan synods, it’s worth reminding ourselves that this debate is not about whether or not the Church of England should ordain women as bishops. That we should has been affirmed time and again over the past 6 years. Indeed, in July 2010, General Synod voted through clause 1 of the draft legislation, that enables women to be bishops, without debate. More recently 42 of the 44 dioceses have voted in favour of the proposed legislation, including Manchester which voted with a clear majority in all three houses.

Nor is this diocesan motion a delaying tactic. Quite the contrary. It’s seeking to ensure that the Church of England has women bishops as soon as possible. It will, in the end, be up to the House of Bishops to decide whether the legislation should be amended if this motion is passed this afternoon. Similarly, it will be up to the Group of Six* to determine whether, if amended, the legislation needs to be referred again to the dioceses for further debate. But even if that were to be the case, many would see the sense in waiting a while longer in order to ensure that the legislation we finally vote on is legislation that is the best way forward for as many of us as possible and has the best possible chance of being voted through.

Whilst consistently voting in favour of having women bishops, the General Synod has also consistently voted to try and find a way of enabling those who are opposed to remain within the Church of England. To this end, this Manchester Diocesan Synod motion is simply asking what is a new General Synod to look again at an amendment to the legislation that, when it was brought to us by the Archbishops in July 2010, was voted for by a majority of the synod. It failed on a vote by houses, only in the house of clergy and only by 5 votes, with 5 people abstaining. This suggests to us, (and we believe to many others) that the Archbishops’ amendment, or something akin to it, merits further consideration. Furthermore, that unless we do consider it one last time, we cannot legitimately say that we have sought to be as generous as possible.

The remit of the Legislative Drafting Group set up in 2006 was ‘to establish arrangements that would seek to maintain the highest possible degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.’

Notwithstanding the many hours of painstaking work that the Revision Committe (and the Legislative Drafting Group before it) have put in to creating the finely tuned legislation that the dioceses have recently debated, it does not sufficiently address matters of concern to traditional catholics and some conservative evangelicals. This is because, as we outlined in the background paper, they would not be able to recognize authority delegated from a bishop who, in their eyes, does not have authority in the first place.

It is for this reason that many people in Manchester Diocesan Synod and elsewhere voted in favour of following motions which asked for greater provision for those who find themselves in that position. Many who want to see women as bishops, remain profoundly uncomfortable with legislation that will mean that some faithful clergy and laity sense that they no longer have an honoured place in our church.

The Archbishops’ amendment, we believe, provided another possible way forward. It gained general support in 2010, despite being presented at short notice. It has been affirmed by those who are opposed to women bishops as providing them with a way of staying within the Church of England with a good conscience. It would not deprive a diocesan bishop, male or female, of any part of his or her jurisdiction; a key requirement for those in favour of women bishops.

The current draft legislation already requires all diocesan bishops, whether female or male, to draw up a diocesan scheme and that will remain the case if the legislation is amended in line with this motion. Equally, there will remain the need for a Code of Practice and it is particularly helpful in the light of this debate to have a draft code to hand. This, of course, is only illustrative and has been drawn up by the working group with the current legislation in mind, where the authority of the nominated bishop is to be delegated from the diocesan bishop.

But in Annex 2 of the draft, we get an idea of the number of functions that are already being proposed as needing to be exercised by the delegated bishop. It may well be that the same or similar list of functions could be proposed as being exercised by a co-ordinate bishop under the proposals enshrined in the archbishops’ amendment; the difference only being that a co-ordinate bishop would derive authority from the whole church via the measure rather than from the diocesan bishop via delegation.

Furthermore, in the Foreword to that document, as has already been noted, ‘the Archbishops and Bishops commit themselves to seeking to maintain a supply of bishops...whose ministry will be consistent with the theological convictions’ of those parishes submitting a Letter of Request. On that basis, even with the current draft legislation, there will be some bishops who don’t recognize other bishops.

Synod, throughout its history, the Church of England has found ways of accommodating difference, holding things together in tension (sometimes in considerable tension) and finding a middle way through compromise, mutual respect and a desire to make it work. That is its great strength. That is why many love it. Whilst some believe that something in the manner of the archbishops’ amendment would lead us to the point of legislating for division, others see it positively as a way of legislating for co-operation: providing us with a framework of how to live in harmony together despite our differences. Whilst some see the amendment as unworkable, others believe that with a robust diocesan scheme and a code of practice to which all must have regard - perhaps not disimilar to the illustrative draft that we have seen – an amendment such as the archbishops’ proposed could well provide us with a solution that allows us to have women bishops and helps those opposed to remain.

Today, we have one last opportunity to consider, in open and honest debate, a motion which many in the Manchester Diocesan Synod and beyond believe could offer us a way forward. It would, if passed, give hope to clergy and laity wishing to remain within the C of E, and enable the C of E to embrace, in a more comprehensive way, the Lambeth Conference Resolution of 1998 - that ‘those who dissent from as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans’. We believe that it’s right to test this once again, in this chamber, at this stage, so that we can be absolutely sure that the legislation on which we vote at Final Approval stage really is providing us with the ‘highest possible degree of communion.’

Chair, on behalf of the Manchester Diocesan Synod, I move the motion standing at item 13.


* The Group of Six are the two Archbishops, the two Prolocutors, the Chair and Vice Chair of the House of Laity


Other Stories