So–the House of Bishops four proposed options

English: The Most Reverend Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The House of Bishops have responded to four options offered to them from a working party who were commissioned to try to get Women into the Episcopate. The options are:

1) Have Women in the Episcopate, repeal resolution A (which disallows women from celebrating Communion in certain parishes), resolution B (which disallows women from being incumbent, priest in charge or a team vicar in certain parishes) and rescind the Ministry Act of Synod (often nicknamed resolution C – which means that certain parishes can be overseen by a Bishop who has never dirtied his hands by ordaining a woman – dubbed ‘flying bishops’). There could be later a statement from the Bishops and an Act of Synod that replaces these resolutions, but neither would be legally binding. The report states that “How it would be worked out in practice would be dependent on the discretionary decisions of individual bishops, clergy, PCCs, patrons and parish representatives.”

2) Rework resolutions A and B and create an Act of Synod that could be brought to synod before the vote on Women in the Episcopate. (It would need significant reworking because at the moment the Measure stops women being consecrated as Bishops). The Act of Synod would not be legally binding.

3) Keep significant parts of resolutions A and B and create a legally binding Measure that means that women cannot be incumbent in certain places or celebrate Holy Communion in certain places (note this needs some thought because the priests appointed by a bishop who is a woman would be ministering in her stead). The House of Bishops only offer limited support for this option as it would enshrine inequality in law.

4) As 3 but the Diocesan Bishop would need to find an appropriate Bishop (ie a flying bishop) to oversee those who want that. The House of Bishops say they will not support this option.

The House of Bishops favours option one, and recommends that legislation is put together for the new synod to vote on in 2015.

What I don’t understand is that Reform and Forward In Faith claimed to have enough people in General Synod to block Women Bishops (it needs a 2/3rds majority to go through). That statement turned out to be true in November last year, when the previous legislation did get blocked. Therefore, what is to stop them blocking everything (except perhaps they will go for option 4) when this is discussed in July with the same synod?

There are some nice things said in the document:

“There should no longer be any dioceses where none of the serving
bishops ordains women as priests”

“Once legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the Church of England will be fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and will hold that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience.”

“Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must then be prepared to acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter”.

Hurray.

There is also much talk about trust in the document – I think the gist is do we trust female bishops to treat well those who don’t agree? How will the minority feel – they must be treated well. Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see any mention of how badly women priests have been treated over the years… There is no Measure or Act of Synod proposed to stop the discretionary decisions of individual bishops, clergy, PCCs, patrons and parish representatives from being biased against women, as we know they often are. There is no plea that they act trust-worthily and in non-discriminatory ways.

No, in industry this is policed, but in the church “those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests” are loyal Anglicans, and those who are pure and simple sexists can easily say that God is on their side.

Still, I’m pleased that the Bishops have advocated “option one”, perhaps I am jaded, but I can’t see that happening in the current synod. The problem for WATCH is how far do they compromise – do they accept inequality reinforced by law in order to have Women in the episcopate now?

I would say “no” to inequality enshrined in law – wait until we have a 2/3rds majority for women in the episcopate with no strings attached.