As a member of General Synod trying to decide whether to stand for a second term, I am extremely perturbed by the apparent disregard for what we clearly voted for in respect of Women in the Episcopate in July 2008.
Following the clear mandate to the Manchester group by General Synod in July and their faithful representation of this mandate in the papers submitted for the February session, I was very concerned both by the tenor of the debate on February 11th, 2009, and some of the signals which appeared to be given.
It seemed that the position taken, by those unable to accept the ministry of women, was that a single clause with a statutory code of conduct had become the start point for an accommodation to enable them to stay within the Church of England -something we all want. We knew from previous attempts (TEA etc.) and the July 2008 debates that a structural solution is very unlikely to be acceptable to the less vocal majority -here I would be with the Bishop of Norwich if we are not careful we compromise the Episcopate and damage it forever and yet the people for whom it has been compromised are no longer members of the organisation. The phrase "a fallen solution, for a fallen church in a fallen world"-used during the TEA debate comes to mind and cannot be nearly good enough and is certainly not good news. The message from July 2008 was that what was proposed for drafting was as far as those (the majority) in favour of Women in the Episcopate are prepared to go since anything more compromises what a Woman as a Bishop is, in comparison to what a man as a Bishop is, too greatly. It was therefore the end point rather than the start point for negotiation.
What I had heard in private said by those in difficultly but most likely to stay was "the statutory code gives us more assurance than we have at present and if the issue of delegation is resolved slight differently we will be content."
What is confusing and disturbing for many "ordinary members" is the way the clear mandate given in July appeared to be undermined with quips like "everything is up for grabs" or referring to "Episcopally led and Synodically governed" as a hackneyed phrase. It appears as if some are only prepared to accept votes of synod as being valid if they agree with the outcome.
I was therefore mystified by the outcome of the legislative group?s proposals on Women in the Episcopate as announced in October 2009, since in July 2008 General Synod decided to consecrate women bishops, as a single clause measure with a statutory code of conduct. The voting was that this motion was passed by large majorities in all houses, in fact Bishops voted by 28 to 12 for the motion, the clergy by 124 to 44 and laity by 111 to 68.
How is it that what was now being proposed could be so different from what was agreed to the extent that the Church would now be asked again to approve the plans for “super bishops”, which were rejected in July 2008 last year, and which would create a new class of bishop, operating in traditionalist zones “untainted” by the spectre of women bishops?
Either what was being proposed is unconstitutional, in the light of the July vote, or what General Synod votes for has no bearing on what legalisation is drafted. Of course subsequently it appears that the legislative group may have reverted to what was voted for, but we shall see!
It feels as if some in leadership positions are prepared to try to disregard what is voted for, by clear majorities in each house, if they do not agree. If we are in fact not Episcopally led and Synodically governed, but actually Episcopally led and Episcopally governed, then we could all save a lot of time and money by not spending so much effort trying to understand the issues and expressing our views in debate and by voting having weighed the arguments as carefully and prayerfully as we can.
Stephen Barney
