General Synod – 4th to 8th July 2008
(Taken from notes compiled by the Salisbury Diocese representatives)
Debate On Women Bishops
Monday afternoon and evening were devoted to a debate on how legislation to enable women to become Bishops should be taken forward. The House of Bishops proposed the motion below (minor amendments in italics):
“That this Synod:
reaffirms the wish of the majority for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
affirm that these should be contained in a national statutory code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard;
instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”
This motion was finally approved at 10.25 pm by: In the House of Bishops: 28 for; 12 against; and 1 abstention: In the House of Clergy: 124 for; 44 against; and 4 abstentions: In the house of Laity: 111 for; 68 against; and 2 abstentions
The Archbishop of Canterbury said he was deeply unhappy with any solution which structurally humiliates women nominated to the episcopate; he was equally unhappy about marginalising traditionalists, wanting a more rather than a less robust form of structural provision. The motion, approved by the House of Bishops, was to test the mind of Synod and he expected there to be a robust debate. There certainly was! The main issue was the form of accommodation for those who could not accept the ministry of women. During the long debate 13 amendments were considered which asked the Legislative Drafting Group to explore various options from separate Dioceses to compulsory legislation to nothing but local voluntary arrangements. All but two were defeated, despite an impassioned interjection from the Archbishop of York to give the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds’ amendment “a go!” The majority were against pursuing legislative work on any solution other than a statutory national code of practice. During the debate many spoke with passion and some exhibited much hurt. The Bishop of Durham proposed, late on, to adjourn the debate as it was too close to the Lambeth Conference. That would have resulted in a continuation of the debate in February. That motion was narrowly defeated.
In February we will be looking at the first draft of the code of practice.
