wfn.org | ACNS Guildford Group sets out proposals for women bishops

[Worldwide Faith News <wfn@igc.org>]

ACNS 4094     |     ENGLAND	|     16 JANUARY 2005

Guildford Group sets out proposals for women bishops

A Church of England group is proposing a way forward aimed at both
permitting women to become bishops - should General Synod vote in favour
of this - and of preserving the maximum amount of unity within the
Church.

The group, chaired by the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher
Hill, was set up by the House of Bishops to assess a range of possible
options first put forward in 'Women Bishops in the Church of England?' a
report produced by a group chaired by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt
Revd Michael Nazir-Ali in November 2004.

Today's publication of the Guildford Group's report follows a vote in
General Synod in July 2005 to set in train the process for removing the
legal obstacles to the ordination of women bishops.

Having reviewed the options over the past 12 months, the Guildford Group
is recommending a way forward known as Transferred Episcopal
Arrangements.

Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (TEA) are intended to meet the
essential needs of those who could not accept that women should be
bishops, while avoiding the creation of any new jurisdiction, diocese or
province within the Church, according to Women in the Episcopate: the
Guildford Group Report, which will be debated by General Synod in
February.

"When we started," says the Rt Rev Christopher Hill, who chaired the
group that
encompassed a wide range of viewpoints, "we did not know whether we
would be able to produce an agreed assessment of the options. But the
process of working and praying together has brought us closer to each
other.

"It has also enabled us to identify a way forward which, we believe, has
the potential both to permit the admission of women to the episcopate
and preserve the maximum degree of communion across the Church of
England."

In the introduction to the report, Bishop Christopher continues: "We do
not minimise the difficulty of the choices now facing the Church. There
is no course of action, including the status quo, that is free of pain
and risk."

The other members of the Guildford Group are the Rt Rev Pete Broadbent,
Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn, the
Rt Rev Dr John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln, and the Ven Dr Joy Tetley,
Archdeacon of Worcester.

Some proposed options were firmly opposed on both sides of the debate
and the Group decided to examine the three main options in depth. It
considered a 'single clause' measure with a code of practice;
transferred episcopal arrangements; and a third province of the Church.

The report argues that a 'single clause' measure would not address the
central issue of conscientious non-recognition of women bishops, and
that a third province would go too far in the direction of creating
separate structures which could be seen as representing significant
schism. This, says the report, leaves the Church with a 'stark choice'
of not pursuing the ordination of women bishops for some considerable
time or considering some form of transferred episcopal arrangements.

Under Transferred Episcopal Arrangements as illustrated in the report,
parishes opposed to women priests and women bishops could opt, by
resolution of a Special Parochial Church Meeting, for the Diocesan
Bishop to request the Archbishop of the Province to arrange for
episcopal ministry to be provided by a Provincial Regional Bishop (PRB).

The PRB would exercise jurisdiction over such a parish in certain
matters, while the diocesan bishop continued to exercise jurisdiction in
others. This is similar to the way in which area bishops exercise
functions on behalf of their diocesan bishop. The PRB would be
authorised to act in relation to pastoral care (including ministerial
review), sacramental and disciplinary matters and to act on behalf of
the diocesan bishop in respect of patronage, appointments and ordinands.
In other respects, the parish would be subject to the normal diocesan
structures and procedures, including the faculty jurisdiction, and so
remain for administrative purposes as part of the geographical diocese.

Jurisdiction, says the report, would be shared in a similar way to a
priest sharing the cure of souls with the bishop. At the same time, TEA
would incorporate the present provisions for parishes opposed to the
ordination of women, allowing abolition of those provisions in their
present form. This would remove, in all parishes except those in TEA,
all legislative discrimination that potentially exists where a woman
priest is not now in post.

The question for now, the report acknowledges, is whether the
disadvantages of TEA are outweighed by the potential the Group believes
it offers. They conclude that it could be made to work and that it
merits serious consideration by the General Synod.

A majority of the House of Bishops has also agreed that the approach
merits further exploration.

"In essence," says the report, "TEA recognise that communion in the
Church always falls short of that fullness which will come only with the
fullness of the Kingdom. It is complicated and untidy. But we believe
this is how the Church really is. TEA is an honest acknowledgement of
our frailty and division in this hugely significant area of our life. We
believe TEA is the most inclusive and realistic way forward. It will
allow a continuing inter-relationship between those for and against
women bishops: at the same time, in its attempt to hold together as many
as possible in the highest possible degree of communion, it does not
compound the sin of schism."

The Report will be discussed at next month's sessions of the Church of
England's General Synod. Women in the Episcopate: the Guildford Group
Report, priced £6.00, is available from Church House Bookshop, 31 Great
Smith Street, London SW1P 3BN, tel. 020-7898 1300, e mail
bookshop@c-of-e.org.uk , or on the web at: www.chbookshop.co.uk (mail
order available). It can be read on the web at
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/gs1605.rtf .

Women in the Episcopate - the Guildford Report

Presentation by the Bishop of Guildford

January 16 th 2006

The Guildford Group all ended up in a different place from where we
began.	And though we were a group chosen by the House of Bishops we
included from the beginning the Archdeacon of Worcester, Joy Tetley, as
it was essential that the Group heard the voice of a woman - herself in
a senior ministry of oversight - from the 'inside'.  Our churchmanship
(I note the male language!) was, of course, deliberately broadly based
with the Bishop of Blackburn, Nicholas Reade, a 'traditional' catholic;
the Bishop of Willesden, Pete Broadbent, a definite evangelical and the
Bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee, articulating a liberal voice.  I shall
be asking the General Synod to Take Note of our Report in February.  We
shall have earlier discussed the Ecumenical Responses to the Rochester
Report.  Then the Archbishop of Canterbury will invite the Synod to give
'further exploration' to the Guildford proposals by means of a further
statement for the July Synod on the theological, ecumenical and
canonical implications of our suggested way forward.  So nothing is set
in stone.  Critics will have the chance to demonstrate where we have
gone wrong and the Synod will then have the opportunity to weight both
the merits and objections to our proposals.  All this is essential
before	a legislative drafting committee begins its work, otherwise
years will be wasted in drawing up legislation and Codes of Practice
which do not embody what the Church wants.  This would also risk the
failure of the final proposals as at that stage, not before, the process
requires two-thirds majorities in the three Houses of Bishops, Clergy
and Laity as well as a majority of diocesan synods.  So much for the
process properly proposed by the House of Bishops, for this important
debate affects the faith and order of the Church, a special
responsibility of the episcopate.  What does the Guildford Report
propose?

We ask the Church to explore a form of Transferred Episcopal
Arrangements (the jokes about Tetley Tea - and others - are unending!).
It has some similarities with the present arrangements by Act of Synod
as well as important differences.  People may well judge our proposals
by their own experience of the system of Provincial Episcopal Visitors.
There are pluses and minuses here.  As the Church offered that system
when women were ordained priests it is at least arguable that in
faithfulness to the minority something similar ought to be provided at
the ordination of women to the episcopate.

In TEA a parish would be able to petition their diocesan bishop - if
they are not able to recognise and accept women's priestly and episcopal
ministry and authority - for episcopal ministry from what we have called
for the time being a Provincial Regional Bishop.  The Diocesan Bishop
would request the Archbishop of the Province to provide a Provincial
Regional Bishop for the parish concerned.  The PRB would be the bishop
for that parish much as an Area Bishop is in the larger dioceses which
have Area Schemes.  The Provincial Regional Bishop would exercise
pastoral care, sacramental and disciplinary functions, including
appointments, ministerial review, sponsorship of ordinands and
ordinations.  The oath of canonical obedience would be taken to the
Archbishop, through the PRB.  Nevertheless for more administrative
matters such as churchyards, faculty jurisdiction, clergy housing,
church schools and stipend the usual diocesan arrangements would be
administered by the Diocese.  We do not propose separate 'provincial'
structures for such matters, though the Province, through the Archbishop
and the PRB would provide all the ministry such priests and people are
unable to accept either from a woman bishop or where acceptance of women
bishops makes this impossible.

But, and this is important, the rest of the Church of England would be
entirely clear of all that can be called discriminatory against women's
ministry at all levels.  So Resolutions A and B, potentially against
acceptance of a woman priest in any parish of the Church of England at
the moment, would be abolished.  We have also spent some time pondering
on the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and this will need to
continue.  There are also important questions about communion in the
Church of England and the collegiality of the bishops which are raised
whichever way we go forward.  These questions are wider than the TEA
proposals but do need further urgent attention.

The Guildford proposals fall short of what some opponents of women in
the episcopate have asked for; for example, Forward in Faith in
Consecrated Women?, where a separate Third or Free Province is
articulated in some detail.  Equally, those strongly in favour of moving
forward without any restriction, such as WATCH, may argue that we have
gone too far.  Within the House of Bishops there are those who have
doubts as to whether we put at risk the territorial integrity of the
diocese as they see it.

We say that we want the Church to test our proposals.  The Report is
'illustrative' rather than definitive.	Detail is important but can be
argued and changed - it will be in the legislative process where matters
are always open to revision and amendment.

We believe that some 'structural' provision ought to be made for those
who cannot assent.  Almost everyone believes that some provision ought
to be made - though many have argued that this ought not to be in
legislation.  We understand their argument.  But we have been realistic:
unless something providing for those opposed is in a Measure opening up
the episcopate to women a Code of Practice by itself cannot have teeth.
We have explored this with the Church's Legal Advisor, who has been a
consultant to our Group.  There is a continuing question as to how much
is provided for in a Measure and how much in an associated Code.  The
balance here is still a matter for debate.

What we have tried to do, with necessarily sophisticated proposals, is
itself very simple.
We have identified a way forward which, we believe, has the potential
both to permit the admission of women to the episcopate and preserve the
maximum degree of communion across the Church of England.

We have tried to make a space, to make a room, for those who cannot
accept women in the episcopate.  Even if some want wholly open-plan
arrangements, while others want a semi-detached, or even a separate
house, we believe the Church of England should have enough rooms - with
interconnecting doors - in our traditionally inclusive household of
faith.

Notes to editors

Since the General Synod voted in November 1992 to ordain women as
priests in the Church of England, it has twice debated motions on the
issue of women bishops. In July 2000, Synod debated a private members
motion moved by the Ven Judith Rose, Archdeacon of Tonbridge, and called
for further theological study on the episcopate in preparation for the
debate on women in the episcopate. That study resulted in the Rochester
Report, which informed the Synod's debate in July 2005, which itself
prompted the Guildford Report (see full motions below).

The motion before General Synod in July 2000, which called for the
Rochester Report was passed in the following form:

"That this Synod ask the House of Bishops to initiate further
theological study on the episcopate, focusing on the issues that need to
be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in
the Church of England, and to make a progress report on this study to
Synod within the next two years."

Women Bishops in the Church of England?, the report of the House of
Bishops' Working Party on Women in the Episcopate, is a survey of the
theological issues the Church needs to consider as it decides whether or
not to ordain women bishops. It was published in November 2004 by Church
House Publishing, priced £12.99, and is available as above. It can be
read on the web at
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/womenbishops.pdf .

The motion before General Synod in July 2005, which called for the
Guildford Report was passed in the following form:

'That this Synod

(a) consider that the process for removing the legal obstacles to the
ordination of women to the episcopate should now be set in train;

(b)  invite the House of Bishops, in consultation with the Archbishops'
Council, to complete by January 2006, and report to the Synod, the
assessment which it is making of the various options for achieving the
removal of the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the
episcopate and ask that it give specific attention to the issues of
canonical obedience and the universal validity of orders throughout the
Church of England as it would affect clergy and laity who cannot accept
the ordination of women to the episcopate on theological grounds; and

(c)  instruct the Business Committee to make sufficient time available
in the February 2006 group of sessions for the Synod to debate the
report, and in the light of the outcome to determine on what basis it
wants the necessary legislation prepared and establish the necessary
drafting group'.

Further information from:
Steve Jenkins or Peter Crumpler

Church of England Communications Office
Church House
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3NZ

Direct Dial Telephone: 020 7898 1326
Out-of-hours Telephone: 07774 800212

___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is
distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around
the world.

For subscription INFORMATION please go to:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.html