Category: The Lead

Neither side seems to accept their resolution according to Gledhill.

John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham who is chairman of Forward in

Faith, said: “The Archbishops’ amendment is a brave effort to answer some very serious questions about the dispossession of orthodox Anglicans. “But I do not quite understand how a traditionalist bishop can work in partnership with a woman bishop while he actually rejects the concept of her ordination.”

Campaigners for women bishops also said the proposals from the archbishops raised several questions. Hilary Cotton, vice-chairwoman of Women and the Church, said the group had already made significant compromise on women bishops. “We cannot give an immediate response to whether we can support this amendment. But I would want to say that supporting the legislation as it is drafted is a significant compromise from us.”

However, Forward in Faith has this statement at its web site:

Forward in Faith warmly welcomes today’s Statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and now looks forward with great interest to seeing the precise texts of the amendments to the Draft Measure which they will propose to the General Synod next month.

At his blog the Rev. Edward Tomlinson posts a statement by Bishop Edwin Barnes:

However, we have said throughout that what we need is our own Bishops, with Jurisdiction. What we are being offered in this amendment sounds like that, but is not. The Archbishops assert “both the diocesan and the nominated bishop would possess ‘ordinary jurisdiction’.” Now that is the language of Humpty Dumpty, making words mean just what you want them to mean. For the Archbishops continue (without emphasis this time): “the diocesan would retain the complete jurisdiction of a diocesan in law, and the nominated bishop would have jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure to the extent provided for in the diocesan scheme.” That, to me, does not sound like ‘jurisdiction’. It sounds rather as though the nominated bishop would be hedged round by whatever scheme individual dioceses come up with, which will only be drawn up “in the light of the provisions contained in the national statutory Code of Practice drawn up by the House of Bishops and agreed by the General Synod.”

WATCH (Women and the Church) has issued a press release:

All bishops are equal but some are more equal than others.

WATCH has studied the outline proposals of the Archbishops’ intervention in the progress of legislation for women bishops. Despite the assurances that all will be well we are not convinced that the issues raised regarding jurisdiction will be resolved equitably when the practical steps of implementation are worked out. Will an “unacceptable” Diocesan bishop be required to share jurisdiction and how? Or will it be at her or his discretion? If the former, we are in effect back to automatic transfer.

The timing of the Archbishops’ intervention is similarly to be questioned. The Revision Committee considered all proposals put to them in great and thoughtful detail. These new proposals could have been made in similar detail to the Revision Committee. This would have enabled their practical consequences to be thoroughly considered before they came to be debated by General Synod. It is important that the Church does not re-create the unforeseen consequences of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod in agreeing to proposals that have not been thoroughly explored and explained. We ask; In what way are ‘nominated bishops’ not actually flying bishops with extended jurisdiction? Are we not creating a two-tier episcopacy of ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ bishops with all that implies about how the Church continues to view women? Have the Archbishops sought the views of the senior women who must be counted amongst “the full diversity of voices in the Church of England”? Has their support been obtained for these proposals?

WATCH has received many messages that suggest that the Revision Committee has accurately judged the amount of compromise that people are prepared to make. While we would prefer the legislation to be simpler and more straightforward we are willing to support the Revision Committee proposals for the sake of the Church. Let us move forward on that basis.

In a post it entitles “Taking Co-ordinate Jurisdiction Seriously” Thinking Anglicans has the following from an American correspondent:

Reactions are rolling in on the last minute intervention by the ABC and the ABY into the well-laid plans of the Church of England General Synod to approve women bishops. The two archbishops call their plan co-jurisdiction. There’s broad agreement that it’s arm twisting, it’s hypocritical, it’s naive, and it’s absurd.