Women bishops: the debate

Christina Rees of Watch is jubilant after the Church agreed to proceed with legislation to ordain women bishops. The women are prepared to work with the code of practice option, although they would have preferred nothing at all. The reaction of the traditionalists remains to be seen but can perhaps be predicted. I'll bring you more on that when I can speak to them tomorrow. If they're still here. Christina was up here in the press office just now however, where this quick snap was taken: 'It is the result we have been building up to for the last few years,' she said. 'It is very good for the Church, very good for women, very good for the established church, good for the whole nation. A vast majority have wanted this for so long.' She said there was 'absolute respect' for opponents and there would be 'adequate provisions' for them.

The full motion as amended is reproduced below, with the precise voting figures.

This is the final motion approved by Synod:

         ‘That this Synod:

(a)            affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b)            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;

(c)            affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d)            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.’

The voting was:

Bishops: 28 for 12 against 1 abs

Clergy: 124 for 44 against 4 abs

Laity: 111 for 68 against 2 abs

 

Debating the main motion, Bishop of Liverpool James Jones: 'In these painstaking steps we have taken we have produced a painstaking motion which lifts the bar on women for ever.' We've had a motion for closure which was carried. Bishop of Gloucester now responding, he has five mins before at last we get final vote. He says he will not respond to every single one of the 72 people who have spoken in the debate. (They do normally respond to speakers individually when they answer.) Asked vote to be received in silence and not with acclamation. 'There are some who have consistently said a code of practice cannot provide what is needed... I hope that those who remain doubtful about a code will give the motion a chance. If we let the Holy Spirit work a code could emerge that would provide a way forward everyone can embrace.' If motion failed or was close, would be a sign that no clear unifying ecclesiology existed in the CofE.

*******************************************************************

Vote on adjournment: 180 in favour. 203 against. 9 abs. no adjournment. So synod narrowly avoided kicking the whole thing into the long grass.

***********************************************************************************

Venner weeping in chair at Synod. Bishop of Durham Tom Wright now making dramatic intervention for adjournment. He said he has always argued that now, a week before Lambeth is a 'bad time' to have this debate. 'One of the most annoying things Paul did was in the middle of the storm, say told you so we should never have come. What we are going to do is break bread.' He said synod should adjourn, meet at 7.30 in the morning to break bread together and pray that they come safely together to land.

Earlier, debate was extended to 10.15pm.

John Packer supported the adjournment mption. Tom Butler Bishop of Southwark however appealed to synod to resist it. 'We have done something radical today. We have worked through many amendments. The end result is we have said we want to ordain women bishops. That is a radical thing. We really do need to get on with the job. To delay it or adjourn would just prolong the agony in an unbearable way.'

More massive applause

***************************************************

Moving at last to debate the final motion, Alan Hargrave pleaded that none would leave the Church and said that staying in the Church was the 'test of a true Anglican.'

Stephen Venner, Bishop of Dover, said: 'I have to say that for the first time in my life I feel ashamed. We have talked for  hours about wanting to give an honourable place for those who disagreed. We have turned down almost every opportunity for those opposed to flourish. And we still talk the talk of being inclusive and generous. The Rochester report said in many many pages that there were a variety of ways in which scripture and reason could be read with integrity. It argued over and over again that it is possible to be a loyal member of the CofE and [accept] some legal safeguards for those who oppose the ordination of women. It is not just those who are opposed to the ordination of women who find the motion we have at the moment difficult. I do. Where is the CofE about which we have spoken today? Is this CofE to which we have come to in this vote the CofE at its best? I have to say I doubt it. Is this the CofE to which I thought I belonged? I have to say with huge sadness, I doubt it.'

Massive applause. Venner sitting in chair, weeping.

*****************************************

Judge Thomas Coningsby, who stands down from synod tomorrow after continuous attendance for 38 years, spoke to an amendment that the national code of practice should be replaced by a code 'which all concerned would be required to follow.' ]

Gloucester noted that this amendment was problematic because the code would have to be done by act of parliament. The possibility of making a code legally binding was rejected by the drafting group.

The Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, whose vicar general Judge Coningsby is, and himself a former judge, disagreed with the Judge and said a recent House of Lords ruling had made clear that even a statutory code of practice was not binding. He urged the amendment be rejected.

The amendment was lost. 

************************************************

Vote by houses on Robert Cotton's motion, the penultimate tonight.

Bishops: 1 for 35 against 4 abs

Clergy: 38 for 129 against 5 abs

Laity: 44 for 129 against 7 abs.

*************************************************************************

Canon Robert Cotton of Guildford spoke to his motion 77, urging for a code of practice that would legislate for 'pastoral provision and sacramental care.' This would mean bishops would cooperate, and 'we would recognise the devotion and dedication in each other.'

Gerald O'Brien of Rochester said the synod had been very 'ungenerous' and had voted down provision after provision. 'We can legislate, we can force people out of the Church of England. But the experience in America says you can't force people out of the Anglican Communion. There are a lot of archbishops [hiss hiss] .. you can hiss if you like ... there are a lot of archbishops around the communion who would be willing to provide support.'

Canon Simon Killwick explained why the code of practice was unworkable. 'A code of practice cannot do for traditional Catholics in the Church of England however strong it is legally.' It would be enforceable via judicial review, and he questioned whether the church really wanted enforcement in this way through the civil courts.

**********************************************

Jacqueline Humphreys of Bristol speaking to her motion for a 'statutory' rather than 'national' code of practice. 'A statutory code of practice has real teeth and is robust.' It could be tailor made to fit perfectly, written in easy-to-understand English. 'It actually has the potential to keep us talking and listening and working together in the long term.'

There was no vote by houses. It went straight through by a show of hands.

*********************************************************************

Vote by houses on Dr Baxter's amendment 75. Rowan's head is in his hands. Both Archbishops looking seriously worried.

Bishops: 15 for 19 against 5 abs

Clergy: 86 for 78 against 8 abs

Laity: 81 for 88 against 10 abs.

Motion lost.

*************************************************************

Archbishops' Council member Mark Russell, an evangelical, said: 'One of the things that growing up in Northern Ireland teaches you is that unity does not mean uniformity.' He said he had heard no giving ground in the debate. People outside the Church did not 'get' the debate, he said. 'Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley sat down together. Surely to God we can find some form of agreement and walk together to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'

(Strongest applause yet.)

Bishop of Gloucester warned that consequences of passing Christina's motion would be to raise the code to the status of legislation. He asked synod to ponder that before voting.

Procedural motion lost and debate on Christina's motion is continuing. But procedural motion to stop debate wasn't by houses, so v difficult to read synod just at the moment. Andrew Dow of Gloucester noted that in spite of the vote by houses, more people had actually supported Packer's motion than voted against it.

Rev Rob Munro of the Chester diocese said the church had moved position. A code would be judged by a secular tribunal. 'I am concerned about the violation of inegrity... I am left with this dilemma. It would be political for me to support Dr Baxter's amendment because that would give me a greater level of protection.' But his conscience would not allow him to accept the code. He pleaded with the synod to work out 'how loyalty might be maintained in the face of illegitimacy.'

*************************************

Sudden change of mood. Cold chill sweeps across Synod. A possible interpretation of Cantuar's remarks just made is that he now wants the whole thing blown out of the water. He seems disappointed by the failure of the Packer amendment. The Bishop of Burnley, the Right Rev John Goddard, has just interrupted the debate to ask for a move to final vote immediately. It was his wife, Vivienne Goddard, who collected those 8,000 signatures of lay women opposed to women bishops. Could the laity be about to scupper the whole thing? The synod is now voting on whether to close the debate immediately on Christina Baxter's amendment. The women won't like it because it brings things too close to a structural solution. The women gave ground on women priests in 1992 but are clearly not going to do so now on women bishops. In Wales, the recent attempt for women bishops was lost over this very issue. Could the same thing happen here?

*********************************************************

Christina Baxter argued for the code of practice to have a stronger legal status in moving her amendment 75. This would mean 'that what we have decided in our code of practice we would not change lightly.' She said: 'Although we haven't said tonight that we are going the route of legislation [for trads] we are going the route of staying together.'

Archbishop of Canterbury: 'I hadn't intended to speak about any of the amendments but felt the need to say something about this because of the drift of the debate.' He said Christina's argument was clear and it was important to decide whether 'this was going to make it easier' for those finding it difficult. He said it was clear that the code of practice was 'not going to make it easier'. The debate so far had left the synod with 'an extremely hard choice about voting for the future of the Church of England.' He warned that legislating the code of practice now could delay things even further for those who so much want women to be bishops.

Rev Jonathan Alderton-Ford said that a stronger code of practice provided a means of going forward. 'If the two extremes in this debate do not give a little bit of ground, they will destroy the very thing they love. The great thing about the Church of England is that they do compromise to stay together. I have not heard much of compromise yet.'

*****************************************************

Vote by houses on amendment 74:

Bishops: 5 for 31 against 3 ab

Clergy: 68 for 85 against 20 abs

Laity: 82 for 90 against 7 ab

(It is worth noting here how quick this is - voting takes 2.5 minutes - two minutes to 'divide', one to vote and then 30 secs to count. This is the new electronic system. Under the old system we'ld have been here all week.)

******************************************************

Rev Sarah Chapman of Southampton described how when she came to be ordained, her local vicar refused to have her any more in his church. She moved to another parish and was ordained, but after 18 months, when she went to the bishop to ask if she could have a full time job, he told her there was no place for people like her in his diocese. So, sad to leave the parishioners she had served and loved for 15 years, she moved to another diocese and got a job right away. That is the kind of discrimination she wants removed from the Church.

******************************

*It's 8pm and synod has come back to finish off the amendments, mostly about the code of practice. Emma Forward of Exeter withdrew her amendment that the 'special arrangements' for traditionalists should be changed merely to 'arrangements'. So we went on to Gillian Henwood who called for special arrangements for those who want to receive the ministry of women.

Timothy Cox opposed it as inviting 'flying women bishops in through the back door.'

Debbie Sutton of Portsmouth also resisted the amendment. 'It is about language, the tone of the language I have been hearing. The language of support seems to be addreessed to those unable to accept the ministry of women. I haven't heard so much about the same level of support being offered to women who believe they should have equal [access] to ministry, right up to the level of bishops... Last week saw the 80th anniversary of women in Britain being given the vote.' She said women clergy used dignificed and generous language. 'What they say and how they say it seems to me to reflect the Christian values that the Church at its best offers the world around it.'

(rg writes: There is a different mood at synod. The malaise has gone. Everyone is laughing a lot, maybe they've imbibed a bit at dinner. I'm looking out for the Catholics. Not sure how many of them are still here.)

*********************************

Division by houses on Ripon and Leeds' amendment 72:

Bishops: 21 for 21 against 1 abs

Clergy: 84 for 92 against 2 abs

Laity: 98 for 87 against

So that's it! Unless the laity throw the whole thing out in the final vote at 10.30, admittedly a possibility, the rest of the amendments concern merely the code of practice. What this means is that the Church is going to move towards the ordination of women bishops with a code of practice, with the draft legislation now to be drawn up to be considered in February next year. It's not over long-term of course. The legislation will have to get a two-thirds majority in each house when it reaches the final vote in two or three years time. The narrowness of the vote on this motion shows just how close it could be and of course the women priests vote in 1992 only went through when one lay traditionalist woman crossed the house and voted for woman priests instead of against at the very last minute.

More debate after dinner with the final amendments, but women are going to be bishops and there will be a national code of practice for the trads. Christina Rees welcomed it as the 'lesser of two evils' and said the women would accept and work with the code of practice. The former Archdeacon of York, Ven George Austin, who was watching the debate, has just left, almost in tears. He will stay in the CofE, as long as he has somewhere to worship. 'If I had been a serving priest, I couldn't have stayed.' I hear rumours of a protest walk-out planned by 100-or so trads at the end of the sessions this evening. And of course there will be more meetings in Rome, more plotting. Father David Houlding said: 'It is getting worse. It is going downhill very badly. It is quite clear there is a pincer movement and we are being squeezed out.'

***************************************

Ven Christine Allsop, Archdeacon of Northampton, said among women she knew in the church, she had seen those who she believed would be called to be bishops in the Church. 'We have a great danger here that if we put in place mandatory transfer, it could be a bridge too far. We could find many senior women clergy with the gifts to offer the church who feel unable to resist the call to be a bishop on that basis.'

The Rev Ferial Etherington of Carlisle said: 'It seems to me a total nonsense that the Church proclaims a gospel of equality for all while seeming to categorise some of its ordained ministers as unacceptable.' It would be institutionalised discrimination enshrinhing legislation which would have the effect of building permanently enduring walls between communities of faith. Love requires trust. Love drives out fear.' Said he alck of trust in those demanding separate structures and deicoeses was an 'unhappy unbiblical sgtate of affairs.'

Sarah Finch of London appealed on the traditionalist side for synod to be generous. 'I appeal to your better nature. Please allow this to go through.'

***********************************************

Super-bishop amendment 72 from Bishop John Packer. This is the crucial vote now, coming in about 19 minutes from here. There will be more hours of debate, but this is when we will get a good idea of what is going to happen.

Bishop Packer said: 'I believe we need to appoint priests who are women to the office of bishop in the church for the sake of the Gospel and of the Kingdom.' It would be wrong not to move forward now. 'To delay would deprive a generation of the real benefits of the ministry of women bishops for the proclaiming of the Gospel.' He said: 'We do need to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that the Church of England currently encompasses - and not only to accommodate but to encourage them.' Not having seen any code of practice, none could know how it might respond to different theological views. Separate dioceses would 'trample on the natural sense of place so crucial to our parishes and leave some of them in an impossible dilemma.' He wanted more work done on what statutory transfer would look like in practice. This would mean that Synod next February looked at two options in depth, rather than juggling with the six in the Manchester report. 'I believe we mustn not wait for a decade or more to move forward and I believe that this way on from now gives us the chance to learn how to bear one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ.'

The Bishop of Gloucester commented that this would allow the church to explore further the possibility of 'statutory transfer' while leaving open the option for a code of practice.

The Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu backed Ripon and Leeds' amendment. He delegated to his three suffragans and it worked well. He reminded what happened in 1992 when women priests were voted on. 'We made promises to the Church. It was not to a group, it was to ourselves. Delegated authority was the least the opponents would go for. He had no problem with delegated responsibilities, as long as people recognised where the authority lay. 'He who travels fast travels alone. He who travels slowly travels in the company of others. I would like to travel in the company of others in the CofE.' In a society that forgets its memory, it becomes senile, he said. 'We are a family, we are a family of God, and what is important is the mission of the Church. Liberty in the end must be the thing that rules us. In the church it is freedom, liberty, responsibility, care and concern. I want to work with the people who for different reasons find it difficult.'

(Strong applause.....)

Division by houses on Exeter amendment 71:

Bishops: 14 for 29 against 2 abs

Clergy: 65 for 116 against 1 abs

Laity: 77 for 112 against

***********************************************

Canon Pete Spiers of Crosby, Liverpool contested the argument that everyone would win if new structures were put in place. 'I think everyone will lose. I want to reach out and go for a code of practice, make every effort to keep the unity of spirit in the bond of peace.'

***********************************

Rev Jonathan Baker, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford, and a member of the legislative drafting group, supported the Bishop of Exeter's amendment. He said the only thing that offered a way forward for him with integrity was to do more work along the lines of a diocesan solution. 'We need to have bishops who those of us who need to can look to with conviction and assurance but still play our full part in the Church of England.' He wanted to be in a church where he could continue to play his part in 'nurturing the vocation' of young men who had difficulty with the ordination of women. A church in danger of losing its memory was a 'sad church to belong to'. This amendment was the way to ensure that people like him could be not just part of the memory of the CofE, but 'part of its present and part of its future.'

Bishop of Blackburn, Nicholas Reade, who like Lincoln is a veteran of the Guildford group, said that if this was what the church wanted to do, they must make it work, but 'with some provision for change'. The Manchester group should be given the chance to work through the structure outlined in Exeter's amendment. 'We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions... The CofE needs to understand itself as a communion in dialogue, committed to staying together in the ongoing discernment of truth. My friends, we want to continue along this route. If we still want to live in this highest degree of communion and let women flourish as bishops in the church then there must be some handing over of jurisdiction, some structural provision.'

Ven Christine Hardman, Archdeacon of Lewisham, criticised the 'blinkered navel gazing' and parochial outlook of the Church of England. 'Were we to follow this path whole communities, without their consent, would find themselves taken out of the local diocese into a federation of congregations. We must equip the CofE in what we decide to serve the people of  England.' Mandated, delegated or transferred authority would not equip male and female bishops to serve the nation as they should. (rg notes: again, massive applause.)

******************************************************

Voting by houses on Killwick's amendment 70:

Bishops: 10 for 32 against 3 abs

Clergy: 53 for 124 against 4 abs

Laity: 71 for 116 against 2 abs

(rg notes: not looking good for the catholics... one said to me just now: 'it's all over.')

***********************************************

Rev Hudson-Wilkin warned that separate structures would create a 'ghetto of no-go areas.' 'We cannot seriously be thinking of creating a church within a church. Can I have a black church because I am a minority? Can I have a gay church? Can I have a church with Mr Sugden in charge?

'We are always changing the goal posts. We need to say who we are as a church. We can be courteous and loving and respectful of each other, we don't need to live in two separate houses. As big as we both are, we can still find space in the same house.'

Bishop of Dudley, David Walker, also strongly urged opposition to Canon Killwick's amendment. He's been a bishop for seven and a half years and hoped he was a 'symbol of unity'. He hoped he shares that with the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the flying bishop consecrated by his side at St Paul's. He said new structures would create a 'centrifugal effect'. He spared synod the maths but warned of future bishops who would go around 'clutching their episcipal pedigrees' proving there was no hint of the hands of a woman anywhere in them.

Bishop in Europe Geoffrey Rowell said: 'The Catholic inheritance is important. Apostolic order is a gift, part of the DNA of the Church. The unity of the  Church is a gospel imperative and Anglicans have been conspicuous in their commitment to full visible unity... I do think structures can liberate. There should be some diocesan structures that would enable those of us with the theological commitments I have outlined to remain within the Church of England. Structural legal provision is not the creating of a ghetto but enabling the freedom to live together in mission.'

Both these amendments now being commented on by Gloucester, debated and formally moved and voted on.

********************************************

Canon Ruth Worsley, of Southwell and Nottingham, welcomed the main motion which seeks an 'inclusive church' united behind decision made 33 years ago that there are 'no theological barriers' to the ordination of women. She as an evangelical had moved from the position of male headship to one of men and women standing together under the 'headship of Christ.' All bishops should be equal and authoritative in the ministry of Christ. She said evangelicals and catholics recognised that true catholicity recognised episcopal leadership. At a time when the Anglican Communion itself is facing schismatic pressures, the last thing the CofE needed was legislated divisions. It ought to be possible for a national church to accept that both theological stances are held 'with integrity'. There had to be a growth in trust.

The Bishop of Portsmouth, Kenneth Stevenson, said: 'When a code of practice arrives on a bishop's desk there's a sigh at another piece of paper but also a welcome that people are going to hold you to account. A code of practice has teeth. It is also the kind of instrument that has a balance between responsibilities and rights... The advantage of a code of practice without legislation means that you can revise it and that is very important.' He warned against 'structural separatism' and producing a church of 'two groups not in communion with each other.' This was an 'ecclesiological nonsense and an ecumenical stumbling block.'

The large, long round of applause that greeted this speech gave a good indication of where the synod is going.

**********************************************************************

Canon Simon Killwick of Moss Side, Manchester spoke on amendment 70, which like the next amendment provides for new dioceses or structures for opponents. He said his view had been changed. He had supported a third province but now believed new dioceses a better option. New dioceses would be part of CofE structure, would be represented on Synod, would be 'the best option for all of us.' They would have 'theological integrity' and legal clarity. Dioceses are the focus of unity and the source of sacramental life. 'The diocese is the bishop'. He said: 'Everybody wins with this option. Women are admitted to a full episcopate unfettered in any way.' He disputed that new dioceses were an 'extreme' option. 'I have scoured the book of Revelation to see if there is a magic number for diocese in the CofE for all eternity. I am not sure if its 43 or 44 but I cannot find that number anywhere in the Book of Revelation.' He reminded Synod that the Diocese in Europe was only created in 1980.

Bishop of Exeter Michael Langrish spoke on amendment 71. His own dioceses contains largest number of parishes under a flying bishop. He warned that a code of practice would not have sufficed after women priests were ordained. He called for legislation that ensured 'absolute parity of jurisdiction' for male and female diocesan bishops. 'The second principle must be that those who wish to continue to believe and behave as Anglicans have always believed and behaved should be able to and not on sufferance.' His amendment would mandate Manchester group to prepare drafts on possible legislation and bring them to synod in February. 'I do not want delay but I do want clarity.' 

*******************************************

Vote by houses on amendment 69:

Bishops: 7 for 37 against 1 ab

Clergy: 66 for 107 against 9 abs

Laity: 68 for 118 against 4 abs

Miranda's mendment lost.

*********************************************

Canon Dr Chris Sugden, of Oxford diocese and Anglican Mainstream. 'The Church of England at its inception resisted the continental reformation and said it would not require what Scripture did not require.' C of E was not known for religious absolutism. 'So there should be provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.' He said it was clear that those who cannot receive the ministry of women bishops want provision by measure. 'We should have the big tent approach, a generosity of spirit.' He quoted: 'He who keeps his oath even when it hurts, he who does these things will never be shaken.'

Bishop of Lincoln John Saxbee said was faced with one of the most difficult decisions of his life. A veteran of the Guildford group, which had been unanimously for women bishops but struggled with the letter of interpretation, his instincts led him to the 'simplest route' but he wanted a situation where the different sides were 'in trust with each other.' He quoted Tanya of East Enders: 'Where there is no trust there is no relationship' and said: 'With Tanya's marital difficulties, she should know.' So he supported the spirit of the amendment... and yet..... he would like to see a code and have a better idea of how pastoral provision would work before synod made a final decision

***********************************

Christina Rees of St Albans, and leader of Women and the Church, said: 'We are voting on going forward on woman as bishops. Three years ago synod voted to remove legal obstacles to women as bishops. Two years ago synod voted that women bishops were consonant with the faith of our church... Anything that distinguishes between bishops in our church is bound to make one set of bishops different.'  This was for the sake of unity, of dioceses and of the Anglican understanding of what it is to be a bishop. What kind of church do we want to be? 'One that says yes to God calling women as He calls men, yes to a Church that ordains women fully as it ordains men. Unless we remove any doubt that they are as fully bishops as are males, some doubt will remain.'

Barry Barnes of Southwark: 'What would John Keble say if he were here?' He was on his second marriage, so for him reception into the Roman church would be difficult. They could go along to Mass like a 'thief in the night' but that was not what he or his wife wanted. 'The assurance we require is that there shall be some sort of provision that will enable us to remain.'

Professor Marilyn McCord Adams of Oxford University: 'To recognise people as loyal Anglicans is not the same as to recognise that their conscientious principle should be given legal expression.' People would have to think long and hard about remaining in the church. 'Believe me we know the feeling.' For years she and others had wrestled about remaining in a discriminatry church. 'We decided to stay because we love our church.... because it's the arena of Gospel proclamation, because it's the home of the sacraments. We chose to stay and work for change from the inside and we sincerely hope that you will make that choice too.'

********************************************

Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes of Durham University speaks on amendment 69. The code of practice is 'unnecessary' she said. Without it the legislation would be 'as simple, clear and elegant as possible' and would have theological coherence. More than 1,300 ordained women had written an open letter calling for women bishops. 'We find ourselves again and again being asked by those outside the church being asked what the church is playing at. We find out mission to the nation being impaired.'

The amendment did not mean no provision would be made. It would provide for a 'proportionate and appropriate' local response and models of best practice from sister churches would be shared. This was the option passed by all the 15 Anglican provinces that have already voted for women bishops. It was a 'tried and tested' solution. Flying bishops had also been tried here, and it was hoped they would be effective and build bridges. 'This has not worked. Instead our fault lines have become deeper and our positions more entrenched.' Legal structures would be counter-productive. There was fear, but where women had been made bishops the mood was of celebration. 'We should not legislate out of fear.'

Gloucester commented that the motion allowed for the mind of Synod to be tested on whether a simple measure was what was wanted.

****************************

Vote by houses on Fr Trott's amendment.

Bishops: 3 for 40 against 2 abs

Clergy: 28 for 149 against 4 abs

Laity: 36 for 147 against 5 abs

Debate now running 20 minutes behind schedule.

Preb Sam Philpott of Exeter said: 'I would like to kill off the Code of Practice immediately.' He said God was not leading him to any new place. 'He is actually telling me to stay where I am.... We are baptised brothers and sisters, going in different directions.' He was not prepared merely to be 'tolerated'. 'If you need a bishop you can fully accept, I need a bishop I can fully accept.' He wanted 'hands on bishops' to be 'leaders of mission.'

Motion for closure. Burridge noted in a point of order that the cost of passing this amendment would be about £300,000 and complained this had not been spelled out earlier to Synod. Also, he noted that all other amendments would fall if it were passed.

****************************************

Stephen Trott moves his amendment and urges synod not to 'gamble everything' on binding itself to a code of practice. Smattering of applause. 'We cannot allow this legislation to become a catalyst for strife,' he warned.

Gloucester opposed it because it failed to narrow down the options and was therefore impractical.

London University's Dr Richard Burridge, wearing a fantastically vivid Hawaiian shirt, also opposed it. He said people at synod were not discussing women bishops or the timing because it was being taken for granted that it would happen. The discussion was all about arrangements for opponents. Father Trott's motion would just take it back to the beginning. He quoted Richard Hooker's praise of 'harmless dissimilitude.'

Bishop of Oxford, the Right Rev John Pritchard: 'I want to honour women's ministry without equivocation. I do not want to lose the excellent ministry of the Catholic priests we have in the diocese of Oxford.' He appealed for a respect for 'elegance', which he said could be seen in the options before synod, meaning the minimal legislation with a code of practice. 'I can be trusted. Please resist the amendment.'

***************************

Vote by houses on amendment 67.

Bishops: 28 for 17 against

Clergy: 90 for 89 against 4 abstentions

Laity:  97 in favour 85 against 7 abstentions

(rg writes: This is important because it gives an indication of how synod is going to go in the end. Although Houlding won, it was very close. The code of practice and the main starting motion will probably prevail, or possibly Bishop Packer's 'super bishops' amendment.)

************************

The Bishop of Burnley, the Right Rev John Goddard, an Anglo-Catholic, said the amendment would allow everyone to vote the motion if it were amended later with stronger provisions. 'Please accept the challenge, allow us all whatever our integrities to vote together.'

*********

Gloucester supported the amendment.

Tim Hind of Bath and Wells: 'I don't want to be cynical about this. What I want to be is synodical about this. We are talking about an episcopally led and synodically governed church.'

Rev Jonathan Clarke of London also urged the amendment to be opposed. 'It is the only part of the motion that makes a positive statement about the reason we are approaching this issue. We believe it [women bishops] is consonant with Holy Scripture and what the Spirit is calling us to today... If it is God's will for us, we must approach it wholeheartedly and joyfully

*******

Father David Houlding speaks to his amendment. He wants the church to be 'honest' about where it is. 'I recognise that the priestly ministry of women has brought a great blessing to our Church. I want to get off the battlefield and onto the mission field.' He wants provision for conscience but also for ecumenical sake. 'It is also for giving an equal and honoured place in the CofE for those who cannot in principle accept this development. It was AB Rowan himself who taught me some 10 yrs ago when a group of Catholics on both sides went to Walsingham. He taught me how it was possible to hold both views in tensions together. There wasn't a right or wrong, both sides were right. It is a matter of Scripture and obedience.'

**************************

Voting results on Winton amendment:

Bishops: 14 for 31 against

Clergy: 62 for 120 against

Laity: 78 for 114 against

No abstentions. Vote lost in all three houses

Rain drums down on roof while various points of order are raised. Amendment to be put to vote, 25 members stand and there is a division by houses. Bell rings and the House divides.

**********************************

Sister Rosemary representing religious communities: 'The most important question we have to face is how their [women's] ministry can be welcomed encouraged celebrated and carried out in collegial cooperation with other bishops.' Said: 'There is something in the nature of a threat being hung over us... ... that if robust enough arrangements are not made, they will leave the CofE.' On the warning of a loss of theological diversity, she contested 'vigorously' that the Catholic element would be lost from the CofE. Order and beauty in worship, veneration of BVM, beauty in liturgy and sacrament - [rattled them off too fast to get down] ... there would still be plenty of people left who would honour all these... 'please accept us as loyal, Catholic Anglicans.'

*******************************

Bishop of Chichester John Hind supported Winton's amendment. 'The question this afternoon makes the dividing line between the strictly theological and the procedural very find indeed.' Added: 'The ministry of women bishops must be unimpeded by [anything] designed to protect people from them.' The choice was therefore between simplest possible approach and a structural solution.

**************************

Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter Price, said the issue was one of justice. 'Theologyn and justice go together in the ecology of God. Saving justice is marked among other things by a passion for those who are excluded.' Spoke about Peter in Acts being invited to eat unclean food. 'What God has cleansed you must not call common,' said a voice from the heavens in this episode that was a prelude to the mission to the gentiles. This was how to understand the development of tradition today. 'God's saving justice called Peter into a new place... Christian faith cannot gain from human bondage. It is in being fully human that we are made in God's image... The first rule of the Gospel is that you do trust.'

*****************************

Ruth Whitworth of Ripon and Leeds delivered a maiden speech, calling for legislation rather than a code of practice. A code was 'simply not acceptable' to those in principle opposed to women bishops, a group that included young men and women and young ordinands and clergy. Secondly there was the question of trust. Most of her working life had been spent in banking. 'The first rule of banking is that you don't trust anyone.' In church finances as banking, two people always counted the cash. 'Full legal provision needs to be in place for when trust breaks down.' Thirdly the system of flying bishops worked well. 'It is one of the few creative things the CofE has done in the last few years.'

Annette Cooper of Chelmsford resisted Winton's amendment passionately. To opponents of women  bishops, she said: 'Fear not. A national code of practice is a formal way to support you and will not weaken your position but rather strenghen it... There have been times when I thought we would never get to this place. We have studied the scriptures we have debated the theology we have prayed and are praying. A positive decision is consonant with our faith and practice in the CofE and is essential to God's mission in our nation.'

Archdeacon Norman Russell of Oxford noted that bishops are called to lead, archdeacons are called to find practical solutions. 'I don't think anyone on this synod wants to see the CofE fall apart... but nor do we believe that those who have held to the traditional teachings of the Church should be driven out.' An evangelical, he had spent a lot of the weekend talking and trying to understand Anglo-Catholics. 'Not too much has yet been done on the new dioceses option. More needs to be done... Many of my Anglo-Catholic friends are very keen to remain in the mainstream of the CofE. I think that there could be acceptability for new dioceses which would not require very significant changes for practical arrangements eg over church schools.' That said, he was not advocating new dioceses. Conservative evos might well prefer transferrred jurisdiction to a complementary bishop. But he did not think a code of practice would work

*************************************

Bishop of Winchester spoke to his amendment as a man who happily ordains priests: 'Only by really going out onto a limb further than many really want to go to hold within us those for whom this is something they don't want to do, will female diocesan bishops be able to exercise a ministry fully equivalent to that of their male diocesan colleagues in the future.'

Gloucester commented: 'In practical terms it takes us almost back to the drawing board.'

****************************************

Robert Key of Salisbury: 'Women have added a whole new dimension to our church's spirituality. We have tapped into the reservoir of half God's human race.' He spoke movingly of Jesus working through the ministry of the cathedral's Dean, June Osborne.

***************************************

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams: 'Let me begin by saying that I approach this from the position of someone who is committed to the ordination of women.' He could not see much case for delahying and was 'very unhappy' that there were priests who could not be bishops.

The core of the difficulty was whether the synod was allowed to take this decision. This disagreement over authority had been part of the Anglican legacy for centuries. 'What I want to underline is that embodying that disagreement over the centuries has in all kinds of ways been good for us .. stopped us drifting into being a complacent folk church... ' 'What is the nature of our answerability to the wider church? What is the nature of our answerability to scripture?' If the effect of legislation was to end this internal conflict, that was not healthy. 'We should have changed profoundly.' He also addressed the promises made. There was a difference between tolerating a minority, and recognising that a certain minority was part of the 'defining characteristics' of a Church. This went beyond pragmatic or emotional considerations. It was a question of what kind of church they wanted to be, and how they do their theology. 'I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up structurally humiliating women who might be nominated to the episcopate... which leaves them struggling in a way that no other bishop has to struggle.' But he was equally unhappy about any solution that marginalised traditionalists.

He came 'not very comfortably to his conclusion. 'If we want to preserve the kind of Anglican entity which embodies this sort of conversations, this sort of accountability, I would want to see a more rather than less robus form of structural provision or accommodation. We are going to find ourselves whatever happens this afternoon or subsequently in a deeply changed CofE. My question is what sort of change it is going to be.' He called for synod to preserve the 'crucial and valuable legacy that exists in our historic tensions.'

*******************************

Elaine Storkey: We are called to do something unique, exciting and wonderful. We are called to welcome, celebrate, honour and rejoice and convey our enormous thanks to those women who have been a role model to all of us, have led people to Christ, have in every way modelled something very exciting about the service of our Lord.' We must not lose the 'excitement' of the 'sheer emancipation, the release' that the  Church can celebrate. But the church is also called to honour the diversity, those who 'do not feel this is where God is leading the Church.' That sense of 'lament' must also be shared. 'This is the most difficult task among us.' Divorce was not inevitable, she said. This was a message that needed to be shared with the rest of society.

************************

Vivienne Goddard, of Blackburn, to be followed by Elaine Storkey and ABC. Vivienne described how last week she presented a petition of more than 8,000 lay anglo-catholic women to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking for a place to be kept for them in the church. 'We do not wish to leave the  CofE. We do not wish to become Roman Catholics.... We have taken your promises to mean what we thought they meant... A code of practice would not allow us to do that.' She said many of them also felt, like women priests, that they had been called by God to exercise a ministry in the Church, but it was a lay ministry. A new diocese need not be a new structure, it could be a 'fresh expression' of diocese. (ha ha....) 'We could stay because we could have bishops to whom we could relate where it is essential.'

*********************************

The Bishop of Gloucester, the Right Rev Michael Perham, opens the debate. He confesses he is doing it with some trepidation. 'I also do it with real conviction, because I believe we must move forward with the ordination of women to the episcopate, without unnecessary delay, and that this complex debate ought to allow us to do it.'

He gave his personal position. 'I believe passionately that we ought now to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of England. I respect and hold in deep affection those who hold a different view, either about the principle or the timing. But because I believe that to delay undermines our mission and our credibility in the nation, and because I believe the priestly ministry of women has brought huge blessing to the Church, and for other reasons also, I stand where I do.'

He explained that his role was to help the process of exploring the amendments, with as much objectivity as possible.

He admitted he could not pretend there was a consensus, and admitted that even the bishops were divided. He went through the four clauses of the main motion. On clause a, 'it remains the clear majority view in the House that women ought to be eligible to be bishops, for the well being of the Church and for the sake of our mission to the nation.' A delay now would 'create a difficult and anxious period of uncertainty, more hurt all round.'

Clause b: could a solution with arrangements but no fresh structures hold as many as possible of those with conscientious difficulties. Arrangements had to be 'consistent with  Anglican ecclesiology' and not create two ecclesial bodies, out of communion with each other, under the umbrella of one church. New dioceses would 'undermine fundamentally the unity of the Church.'

Clause c: code of practice rather than mandatory delegation. A bishop who had to delegate functions 'would not be a bishop in the sense that this Church has understood episcopal ministry.'

'

Mansell categorising amendments. Six propose a different direction, four modify aspects of code of practice, three raise other issues. 'I hope we can all work together and find a way through the debate to the point where we come together to our conclusion.'

Pausing for prayer. It will the last chance to pray before the end, we're being told by the chair, Ven Clive Mansell, Archdeacon of  Tonbridge.

Visitors now in, they are being asked not to boo or applaud, or respond in any way to how the vote goes.

Bell has just rung... debate about to begin.. last few synod members assembling in chamber. I am wondering why the visitors' gallery is totally empty. It is because everyone is queuing in the rain outside, dozens of them, not being allowed in for some reason.

The debate beings at 2.30pm British Summer Time. So many long, complex amendments have been put down that Synod last night decided to extend the debate from 6.15pm today to 10.30pm, with a break for dinner between 6.15 and 8.30. Among the motions are those we wrote about in today's paper. I am going to try live blogging it. I've posted the motion and all the amendments below. As I'll later be changing the post with the live blog, you can also download the motion and amendments here . If the Bishop of Winchester's goes through, the rest will fall automatically and we might get a result much sooner than expected. Voting will be by simple majority, not two-thirds at this stage, although members might well call for voting by houses. Decipher it better if you can, but I think the Bishop of Winchester's motion means women bishops right away with new structures for traditionalists, not just a code of practice. Thinking Anglicans has a full round-up of today's and other reports.

(nb  My live blogging exercise might fail because of the technical difficulties I am having at York. The News International and the University of York wireless networks really do not like each other very much. I'm going to run and take some pics on my Blackberry now to accompany this blog while waiting for the debate to begin. Oh, and here in York, in case you're interested, it is absolutely peeing down.)

Monday 7th July 2007

2.30 p.m. to 6.15 p.m.

8.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.

ORDER PAPER VI

WOMEN BISHOPS:

REPORT OF THE WOMEN BISHOPS LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING GROUP (GS 1685)

REPORT FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS  (GS 1685A)

        The Bishop of Gloucester to move:

20.         ‘That this Synod:

(a)            reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b)            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;

(c)            affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d)            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.’

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

PART I – AMENDMENTS AFFECTING PARAGRAPH (a)

The Bishop of Winchester to move as an amendment:

66.   After “That this Synod” leave out paragraph (a) and insert:

“(a)   anticipating the ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England, and noting the Manchester Group’s assertion in paragraph 22 of GS 1685 that “far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses”,

(i)         affirm the assurances included in paragraphs 67-69 of GS 1685;

(ii)      reaffirm (GS 1685 paragraph 74) Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”;

In paragraph (b) leave out “within the existing structures of the Church of England”; and

In paragraph (c) after “in” insert “legislation and in”.

If item 66 is lost the Revd Prebendary David Houlding (London) to move as an amendment:

67.   Leave out paragraph (a) and insert:

“(a)  affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate”.

PART II – ALL ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTIONS KEPT OPEN

If item 66 is lost the Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) to move as an amendment:

68.           Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and in paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.

PART III – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 1 (SIMPLEST STATUTORY APPROACH)

If items 66 and 68 are lost the Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Universities, York) to move as an amendment:

69.   In paragraph (b) leave out all the words after “affirm its view that” and insert “this should be done with the simplest possible statutory approach, with local diocesan arrangements for pastoral provision and sacramental care;”;

Leave out paragraph (c); and

In paragraph (d) leave out “, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,”.

PART IV – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 3 (NEW STRUCTURES)

If items 66, 68 and 69 are lost the Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) to move as an amendment:

70.   In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;

In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and

In paragraph (d) leave out “accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice,” and insert “by preparing a draft Measure and associated code of practice providing new dioceses for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests,” and after the words “so that” insert the words “, if possible,”.

If items 66, 68, 69 and 70 are lost the Bishop of Exeter to move as an amendment:

71.   In paragraph (b) leave out “the existing structures of”;

In paragraph (c) leave out “national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard” and insert “Measure”; and

In paragraph (d) leave out all the words after “accordingly” and insert “by preparing drafts of possible legislation in accordance with paragraph (c), to include further draft Measures, together with associated codes of practice, based on diocesan structures for those who cannot in conscience receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests, so that, if possible, the Business Committee can include consideration of these options in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.”.

PART V – ‘MANCHESTER’ REPORT OPTION 2 (ARRANGEMENTS WITHIN EXISTING STRUCTURES)

If items 66, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are lost the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds to move as an amendment:

72.   In paragraph (c) after the words “affirm that these should be” insert “either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”; and

In paragraph (d) leave out “complete” and insert “develop” and leave out the words “first consideration of the draft legislation” and insert “further consideration of both alternatives envisaged in paragraph (c)”.

If items 68 and 69 are lost Miss Emma Forward (Exeter) to move as an amendment:

73.   In paragraph (b) leave out “special”.

The Revd Gillian Henwood (York) to move as an amendment:

74.   Insert after paragraph (b):

“(..)  affirm its view that special arrangements should be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction wish to exercise or receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests in episcopal areas where the bishop has stated that he is not able to ordain women;”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 are lost Canon Dr Christina Baxter (Southwell and Nottingham) to move as an amendment:

75.   After paragraph (c) insert as a new paragraph:

“(..)  require that the Measure enabling women to be admitted to the episcopate should require:

(i)              that the Measure should only come into force once the code has been agreed;

(ii)            that in order for the code of practice to come into effect, it must receive the approval of the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House; and

(iii)         that any future changes to the code can only be made by the General Synod with a two-thirds majority in each House;”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 75 are lost Ms Jacqueline Humphreys (Bristol) to move as an amendment:

76.   In paragraph (c) insert “statutory” before the words “national code of practice”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 are lost the Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) to move as an amendment:

77.   Insert as a new paragraph after paragraph (c):

“(..)  agree that the code of practice should relate only to the exercise of episcopal functions and describe a commitment to mutual support and cooperation between members of the House of Bishops to help with pastoral provision and sacramental care when situations arise affecting those with conscientious difficulties relating to ordination to the priesthood and the episcopate; and”.

If items 66, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are lost His Honour Thomas Coningsby QC (ex officio) to move as an amendment:

78.   In paragraph (c) leave out all the words after “national code of practice” and insert “which all concerned would be required to follow”.

Note:  The headings to the Parts of this Order Paper are included solely for ease of reference.

Comments

[Jenny]

Ruth, thank you so much for attempting to blog live. I will be watching with interest and praying the technology doesn't fail you!! Here we go...

[Nelson,]

Ruth, please be careful as you go about this energetic live-blogging / photography experiment. From my days as a student at York University I recall that those press seats are most precarious…

Nelson

[KM]

Oh, thank you Ruth, that will be great. I lurk on here lots but don't often contribute.

[Rev Belinda Searle-Barnes]

Ruth, thank you very much for trying to keep people like me posted live on events as they unfold in York.
It is so helpful to have some idea of what is going on to inform prayer today. I am on tenterhooks waiting to see how things develop and praying that women can become bishops with simply a charitable code of practice....

[Shaun Clarkson]

"Oh, and here in York, in case you're interested, it is absolutely peeing down."

But what risk of divine thunderbolts?

[belinda searle-barnes]

comment cont. please add
and no special provisions for anyone.....

[Fr James McCluskey]

As the Parish Priest of St Luke's, Southend on Sea I want to express my thanks to you Ruth for keeping those of us who are deeply interested in the debate up to speed with the debate. The outcome of which will have determine my future ministry in the Church of England.
Kind regards
Fr James T McCluskey SSC

[Rowena]

It's pretty wet in Wapping, Ruth, come to that. But thank you so much for attempting this - it's a great service.

[Austin Scott]

"Theologyn", attributed to Peter Price, is an excellent coinage for the new religion. Felicitous typo, one presumes.

[dodgyvicar]

Ruth,
good work, thank you.

[Fr Bill Bulloch SSC, Vicar, S. James the Great, Leigh on Sea.]

I would like to add my thanks for your hard work in keeping us informed with such speed and proffesionalism. It is also wonderfully refreshing to find a reporter who reports what is happening rather than looking to interpret, spin or sensationalise.
I will hold my hands up and admit to being one of those bothersome priests who has issues with the ordination of women to the priesthood and their consecration to the Episcopate. I was told by the church that ordained me that this was an accepted, valid and valued theological position to hold and through the Act of Synod and its legally binding protection of that position, I and many like me have felt able to continue to exercise their priestly ministry in the Anglican church.
In other parts of the Anglican communion where 'simple' codes of practice were set up the so called traditionalists have been persecuted, denied preferment and in some cases driven from their livings and homes. This could not happe to me or my brethren because of the legaslitive nature of the Act of Synod.
Whilst I have theological and ecclesiological issues over the ordination and consecration of women I do accept that it seems to be the will of the majority of the Synod that this happens and that there is a strong argument to be made that it is just and right for women priests to have the opportunity to become Bishops.
But before i tell my parishioners that there is still a place for us in the Church of england;before I entrust the future and livelihood of my wife and five children to that church, I want to see a proper legal framework for the protection of that accepted, valid and valued position which we all hold. In a church which says it strives so hard to be inclusive surely that is only just and right too.

Keep up the Good work,

Fr Bill Bulloch SSC, Vicar - S. James the Great, Leigh on Sea

[Fr Ivan Aquilina SSC]

Ruth, many thanks for this service. It is much appreciated!

[Father Luke Miller SSC]

Thanks from me too. I am another SSC priest who has come here for help to inform my prayers and give some help to my worry this afternoon. I am trying to get on with the work that lies on my desk - but it is hard when one's whole future is being decided.

Father Luke Miller SSC S. Mary's Tottenham, AD East Haringey

[Katherine]

An American vote of thanks to you for providing this great service.

[A Renegade Priest]

I trust that in a prayerful spirit, the Synod members will refrain from the consumption of Alcohol during their deliberations; Votes can be won and lost because of hangover-induced no-shows!

[Malcolm+]

"Canon Dr Chris Sugden, of Oxford diocese and Anglican Mainstream . . . C of E was not known for religious absolutism . . . . 'We should have the big tent approach, a generosity of spirit.' "

Really.

But only when he's losing, it seems.

When he thinks he's winning, then the C of E is all about religious absolutism, and generosity of spirit flies out the window.

[Mark Philpott]

Ruth, this is a great thing you are doing, but what does the vote on Ripon and Leeds' amendment mean. Does it have to pass in all three houses or is it the overall total that matters?

[Mark Philpott]

Ruth, this live blog is a great thing. Thank you, but what does the vote on Ripon and Leeds' amendment mean. Does it have to pass in all three houses or is it the overall total that matters?

[Fr Bill Bulloch SSC,]

Agree about the great work Mark but what the votes this afternoon mean is that we (Trads as Ruth so succinctly put it) have been sold out.

This will mean the end of my and many others ministry perhaps not today or tommorrow but almost certainly an end as we decide to move on before we are pushed and driven from a church that has clearly indicated it has no place for us or our outmoded fidelity to Revelation and the Scriptures over temporary and changeable secular views.

I hope you manage to get a break Ruth and rest your weary fingers.

I will keep praying because the one thing I am sure of, perhaps the only one, is that the resurrection is at its most powerful in the midst of disaster and death and what we are witnessing here is the death of the Church of England.

What I wonder will God raise up from the dry bones that are left?

Fr Bill

[KM]

Mark, it has to pass in all three houses, like a bill getting through the House of Lords and Commons to get through parliament.

[Austin Scott]

A great service from Ruth: our thanks are due. Today has been deeply depressing for those of the Catholic party. I am about to telephone the priest of the Roman Catholic parish and ask him to prepare me for reception; in my estimation, the game's over.

[saint]

Well that was a stunning effort Ruth. Live blogging a trainwreck.

(I seriously do congratulate you on the live blog. That was a tough gig you just pulled off)

(rg writes: it is not over yet, another 90 mins to go, just starting up again!)

[Fr Luke Miller]

Thank you for blogging this. I am just going to start the weary business of ringing round my colleagues in the deanery. I reckon more than half our deanery priests will now be thinking what Fr Bill is thinking.

Fr Luke Miller SSC

[Peter Hobday]

So it looks like I received communion in the CofE for the last time at lunchtime today :-(

[Fr. James Mowbray SSC - Vicar St. Mary's Swanley]

Ruth,

You have done a magnificent job today, albeit rather a depressing one for those of us who are Catholic.

Two sad things to note....

1. The lack of theology... all the talk is on discrimination and fair play, never mind Gospel Principles and the tradition revealed to us, I always believed the Church was a spiritual as opposed to a secular place.

2. Following my evening Mass tonight, one of my parishoners, who has only been confirmed this past fortnight, asking 'Father, what are we going to do now?'

My honest answer was 'i dont know....'

Still the Catholic faith is truly universal, so who knows where the Lord may lead us home to.

Fr James

[Michael Gollop SSC]

"Rev Sarah Chapman of Southampton described how when she came to be ordained, her local vicar refused to have her any more in his church. She moved to another parish and was ordained, but after 18 months, when she went to the bishop to ask if she could have a full time job, he told her there was no place for people like her in his diocese. So, sad to leave the parishioners she had served and loved for 15 years, she moved to another diocese and got a job right away. That is the kind of discrimination she wants removed from the Church."
It would be pushing it a bit to describe that as martyrdom - somewhat inconvenient to have to move to another diocese no doubt, but did she expect her parish priest to change his mind on a deeply held theological issue quite so easily. Some of us (Catholics) have been told there is no place to which we can move in an entire province of the Anglican Communion- and,no, that's not martyrdom either but discrimination does work both ways.
As for the future....well, at least the lady has one! Many of us after more than twenty years of priestly ministry feel we do not.

[Fr Bill Bulloch SSC,]

Wow just read the AB's comments and RG's description of mood change. A possible reprieve for tonight then but in essence still only a stay of execution.

what must we do to persuade our brothers and sisters in the church that only a legal solution will be acceptable? No matter how strongly worded codes of practice are unenforceable and with time either fall into disuse or are flouted outrageously.

Look at the tone of the debate and you will see two things the first is no Catholic speaker, as far as I could see is denying the Good work done by women priests or that they should in their own turn be eligible to be Bishops. All we want is something solid to enable us to continue to be faithful anglicans.

From the other side of the debate however there seems to be no concern nor even the basic attempt to understand just how important this issue is to those 1300 priests who signed the letter and, I suspect to many more who didn't as well as many thousands of the laity.

A stronger code of practice is still just that and not enough.

Fr Bill

[Fr Nick De Keyser SSC]

Ruth - very many thanks for this blog, even though it is depressing me more and more on my day off! It is good to have the facts as they happen without any spin or biased interpretation. Wonder if you will be doing the same day by day for Lambeth? -;)
As a priest in the Catholic tradition who loves the Church of England (warts and all) I wonder if Liberals really understand what "inclusive" means - perhaps there is no one that is more "illiberal" than a liberal?
Father Nick De Keyser SSC

[jane stranz]

Thanks so much for all your hard work keeping us up to date, really appreciate it

[KM]

Keep going Ruth. It seems to be a marathon for all involved including you.

On the edge of my seat here.

[Young Anglo-Catholic]

I can only hope the York & Canterbury will step in a do something, other wise I fear we are lost to the Church of England.

This is a sad night.

[Josephine]

Well done Ruth, we are all out here hanging on to your every word and HOLDING OUR BREATH. Keep up the good work!

[Rachel]

Thanks you're helping Revisingreform keep up to date - it's all very exciting - thanks for your hard work.

[Br Augustine Thomas SSF]

Dear Ruth,

Thanks for all you're doing today - it's been good to know what's been happening even though I haven't like what I've heard. Hope you'll be able to get a gin from somewhere tonight!

Br Augustine Thomas SSF

[Catholic in New Jersey]

Welcome home Austin -- we missed you.

[Conchúr]

Sic transit gloria mundi.

[Robert Ian Williams]

What superb coverage...Ruth gledhil alwways the first and the best.

As for inclusive and broad Anglicnism ..tell that to the Catholic martyrs and the Puritans harried out of the land in 1620 and out of the Church in 1662..not to forget the non-jurors in 1690.

[Revd Keith Addenbrooke]

Doubt you have time to review comments at the moment, but just to say a massive thankyou Ruth for the monumental effort you've put into this blog today - for me it has captured the enormity of the occasion for all of us. Thanks.

[Geoff Arnold]

In response to Fr. Bill, I'm puzzled why you and the "trads" weren't "pushed and driven from a church" 16 years ago? Did you feel that the CoE was "just kidding" back then?

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I find myself flashing forward 12 years, to an anguished debate about whether a women can be Archbishop of Canterbury; I imagine that once again there will be "trads" complaining about being pushed out.

[Fr James McCluskey]

Ruth, on the 7th July 2006 I moved to St Luke's Vicarage to prepare for my Induction and Installation as the Vicar of St Luke's, Southend. St Luke's is a growing catholic parish Church in an urban priority area of the Town. Due to the decisions so far, two years further on in my ministry I now am forced to make preparation for a future that will include my resignation!

[Br Augustine Thomas SSF]

Ruth - can you put up what the final motion is?

[Anglo]

I'm a bit depressed at what looks to me like the intolerance of the liberal party, but I will not be leaving the Church of England and I hope that all Anglo-Catholics will remain, rahter than go to a church that does not want us and has denied our beliefs for so long.

[David Warren]

A sad night indeed. We hear much of the pain of women denied (originally) ordination, and now consecration as Bishops. What of the pain that I suffer as a result of these decisions taken tonight? Ultimately forced to leave the church that I have loved for 60 years; nowhere for my grandchildren to go. Ladies, I hope you are proud of yourselves. In my secular life I have done more than most to ensure that women can reach the top levels of management. That is why as soon as women were ordained as Priests, I said that it was inevitable they should become Bishops too. But why cannot they find the good grace to accept that some of us cannot accept their orders as being legitimate and need some provision whereby we are able to remain in the CofE in the honouyured place promised us? Why do you perceive us as such a threat? And now our young priests have to work out what their futures are. Is it Rome? And if so, what about their congregations that simply cannot bring themeselves to make that move. Ladies, you have done yourselves proud tonight. You will ultimately have created thousands of 'spiritually homeless'. Well done indeed.

[Peter Bishop]

Brilliant reporting - many thanks - from a retired (but still relatively young!) archdeacon in France.

[Michael Stevens]

Thanks for your hardf work here Ruth.
Looks like the splintering of a substantial branch of the Church to me.

[Fr. James Mowbray SSC - Vicar St. Mary's Swanley]

Thanks for your coverage today Ruth... if I wasn't married I'd offer to buy you dinner! Failing that you could come to our next Parish Lunch! (Actually that may show them that us 'Trads' aren't all that bad!)

To my brother priests who have posted here, I will remember you all at Mass in the morning and lets all pray for a way forward from the wreckage Synod has left us this evening.

[David Keen]

Thankyou Ruth, this is a superb bit of blogging and has been an immensely valuable way to catch up not just on the votes, but on the arguments and the flow of the debate.

[CHARLIE]

Brilliant Ruth!
You have understood it much better than the guy from the BBC !

[Canon David Robinson]

Many congratulations on your careful, speedy, and technically accomplished live blog: makes me proud to have been a journalist! As the parish priest of a liberal catholic congregation, glad of the ministry women priests, I know we look forward with hope tonight.

[Karen Freeman]

Ruth, thank you so much for this. My heart goes out to all those who are in pain concerning the result. I am pro-women bishops, though this was a surprising result, with the margins so wide.

[Ed Tomlinson]

I was there earlier this week- and those same people who just banished us from the church - drank our wine and peomised they would look after us..it would seem they were lying

Anglo Catholocism died tonight. My future is in the air...it is a sad day. My brothers of the SSC tonight we stand with Jesus when he was betrayed by Judas...

[Fr Gary Waddington SSC]

Dear Ruth,

Thanks for a magnificent job - you must be exhausted. I'm saddened that all the promises made to those of us ordained after 1992 seem to have come to nothing and were simply hollow and empty. Still, at 38, I'm sure that there will be something else I can do.

[Rachel]

I'm so pleased - I've been on such a journey. 18 months ago I started to research the whole theological position for women in ministry. I read many books and articles but was finally convinced and helped hugely by the likes of Ken Bailey and Gilbert Bilezikian. Not only that I had a female curate to look to and was offered a place to study by Christina Baxter at St John's - two Godly women. I'm so pleased that women are here to stay and as a young woman myself, excited about my own development as a Christian, with a passion to offer my giftings to the Church, I can do so in the full assurance that the position I hold is considered very much more than a mere integrity. Thank you Ruth for all your hard work from me here at http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.com

[Alex Hill]

Thanks for keeping people so well informed - much better than official channels. As a former Anglican priest, who swam the Tiber at Christmas, my heart goes out to those left behind, but assure them, that the journey is far easier than expected. The time to go is probably now.

[Fr Bill Bulloch SSC,]

In responjse to Geoff Arnold i would say that I am too am surprised that we trads were not kicked out 16 years ago. However, we were not and it was only with proper legal provisions for those who in good conscience held the traditional view that enabled the vote to pass that allowed women to be priests.

Not only were we not kicked out but we were told our tradition and beliefs were valued by the church and there would be a place for us in the Anlican Church in perpetuity not merely until the reformers and innovators got fed up with us.

I do not seek to make the church in my image but simply remain faithful to that which has been revealed and the faith as it has been practised, and still is practised by the majority of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

So, No I did not think the church was kidding back then and I entrusted my life and the welfare of my family to the Church in trust of those promises made only to find after tonights vote that they were kidding after all about having any intention of keeping their word.

What good is the church hierarchies word to keep to a code of practice when they are already proven to be unable to keep the promises they have already made?

Fr Bill

[Father Timothy Whitwell SSC]

At last! The Church of England has finally become a secular institution and is post-Christian! Jolly good. Jesus weeps!

[Robert Ian Williams]

Notice how Canon Sugden
(One of the leading lights in GAFCON) spoke for the opponents...yet the GAFCON conference carefully side-stepped womens ordination to keep some Americans, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya on board!

Adherence to Biblical truth......!

[supposedly one of THE WOMEN?]

I note that you've just quoted Christina Rees, chair of WATCH as speaking for 'the women'. I'd really like to draw out who 'THE WOMEN' are. WATCH is not a movement of women, but of men and women with particular (and increasingly narrowly defined) concerns. I don't think this is an issue on which it is possible to state that 'the women' have a single mind, just as (as the debate has shown clearly) the church as a whole does not have a single mind. Speaking as an ordained woman who longs to see women bishops, I am not jubilant at this result at all. It isn't one that will work well either for 'the women' or 'the opposed'. It feels to me like we have pushed too hard and too fast and have ended up with something that sounds suspicously like a Measure + Act of Synod. And we all know how well that turned out...

[Anon]

The Church of England has just committed suicide....

The anglo-catholics will now splinter off, followed by the evangelicals and all that will be left is an 'anything goes' mess with no foundation in anything.

[Rachel]

Robert and all those who feel truth has been compromised - There is an adherence to Biblical truth going on you know - read again and try to see how it can be argued from the other side. Women would not want to subvert the will of God - we believe it is the will of God as evidenced by the Bible - that we too take the beautiful message of salvation through His son out to the nations.
Blessings Rachel

[Fr Alex Lane SSC]

Well, we knew this would happen. Maybe not in the way it did though. Its going to be difficult in the months ahead, but we need to remain faithful, even if we feel that the Church of ENgland hasn't been faithful to us. And to my brother priests in SSC we need to remember the words of our founders - No Desertion, no surrender!

[Geoffrey Smith]

With the approaching canonisation of John Henry Newman in mind, may I ask all Catholic observers of this synod to pray to him for his intercession with Our Lord on behalf of his brothers and sisters who are feeling so desolate tonight after this debacle at York?

[Paul Eddy]

Just come out of the Chamber at York. The most depressing day of Geneal Synod I've ever had, even more than 'Gay Wednesday'. There were two Synod's being run in parallel today: those fired up for women bishops no matter what (saying they wanted to honour opponents) and the others, who nobody listened to. The pro-women lobby used every speech to justify their own consciencies by saying a Code Of Practice was the best on offer, and spent six hours debating codes even though the Anglo Catholics made it quite clear from the start that this was unacceptable.

What's intresting is that we have a massive 'Listening Process' going on over views of 'Gays' in the church and yet, no-one suggested Synod members pair off with anglo-catholics and try to understand why they think the way they do!

Hypocritical or what? On Monday Bishops piled into a room to launch Young Vocations to promote younger people wanting to be vicars. They'd summoned up 10 young 'dog-collars' many anglo-catholics under 25 for a photoshoot - I wonder what they are thinking now after the vote - ued I guess?

Throughout the debate Synod was totally divided and the Bishops in turmoil. Their division and lack of leadership has led to synod making very bad decision and eeply dividing the church.

Tom Wright was totally correct to ask for an adjournement because he and most people could see the mess we were in but not for the reason he gacve: to save embarassment before Lambeth), but the liberal pressed on as ever with their agenda, trampling all over faithful traditionalists who stood in the way.

Total respect though for Bishop Stephen Venner who showed leadership, humilty, vulnraity and yet authoritty with his speech sayin how sad and ashamed he felt over how synod had reacted and sat in tears in the chamber.

His interventin like Tom Wright's was to late. Despote all the pain nd division that wa used tonight, Bishop Tom Bi=utler simplky said to fellow librals: "Phew, that was clos". No matter that peope like Sam Philpot, who has served in inner city Plymouh fr 30+ years has beetld by his church tonight that he is no longer wanted or valued!

Yours disgusted.
Paul Eddy
Member of General Synod

[Fr Ian Newton SSC]

So the liberals were in no mood for compromise? Well there's a surprise. Scratch a liberal and find a fascist as they say!

[Richard Doney]

I was in the gallery for the whole thing and can only describe it as a deeply depressing day. Again and again, members of Synod stood to declare that they must give provision to traditionalists; again and again, they ignored what the traditionalists said they needed and voted for the opposite. There's none as deaf as them that won't hear.

[Will]

As an evangelical Anglican, I can only echo some of the comments made by earlier posts that it is particularly sad that the debate has barely focused on the theology and Scriptures at the centre of the issue, and has instead become solely focused on "discrimination" and "equality", as if the church were some kind of secular organisation, rather than the body of Christ. There has been a noticeable lack of liberality from many so-called liberals, and the sad outcome of this debate has seen the Church of England move away even further from the Scriptures and her Articles:
"XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

I hope that there will not be an exodus of orthodox Anglicans; this is a time when the C of E even more needs a strong grass-roots committed to offering the Gospel to our sin-soaked world. And for purely worldly reasons, as it is the parishes of an orthodox tradition that provide much of the C of E's income through their growth, it might prove somewhat damaging financially.

[Malcolm+]

I can respect the consciences of those who scruple at the ordination of women to the three orders of ordained ministry.

I do not respect false witness.

"[T]raditionalists have been persecuted, denied preferment and in some cases driven from their livings and homes."

That is false. It is not true. It is a fiction. It is a myth.

There is a costant appeal to the legand of the masses of persecuted traditionalists. Yet when push comes to shove, the details are usually pretty sketchy.

And when an actual alleged case is provided, there's usually the odd detail left out.

("Fr. Bloggins was deprived for opposing the ordination of women," we hear. Then it turns out that Fr. Bloggins was actually deprived for some reson only tangentially connected to the ordination of women, or possibly not connected at all.)

[Fr Jon Ravensdale SSC]

How in God’s name can the Church of England now continue to claim to be a part of the ‘One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ after tonight’s heartless, unmitigated condemnation of us, so called, “honoured” and “valued” traditionalist Anglicans, clergy and lay, men and women? - Oh how Satan must be rejoicing over the destructive havoc reeked by Synod this black and most miserable night.

[Tom Allen]

What a very creative and helpful coverage - and far better informed than the dear old BBC who seem to think that the traditionalists have been catered for!

If someone called Piggott from the BBC is around perhaps you might explain what really happened - ie the traditionalist integrity did not get what they were promised in 1992-4 or asked for in this round of voting - what confidence might anyone of that integrity have in "code" legal, national or anything else if the leadership (episcopal and synodical) of the Church are prepared to dishonour previous commitments. I am one of those Anglican priests delighted at the prospect of Bishops who are women - but hugely saddened at the way that people of the other integrity have been treated today.

[Charles Elvy]

Let's see how we got here.
First, retired clergy were denied the status of licensed unbeneficed clergy, and only permitted 'permission to officiate', thus removing their voting rights. (Retired clergy were expected to be of a more traditionalist temper.)
Second, as a matter of justice and equality the office of deaconess was abolished and women deacons authorised. (Giving women votes in the House of Clergy.)
Next a measure for the ordination of women priests was passed by General Synod, with compensation provisions for those unable to accept the innovation, to which was added an Act of Synod to give a secure identity to those opposed, acknowledging their 'integrity' - both provisions being necessary to secure Parliamentary approval.
Now a measure is to be brought forward with no compensation and the Act of Synod is to be rescinded. A 'Code of Practice' will do nothing to reassure those who believe that a woman made a bishop would not ordain true priests of either sex.
No wonder many catholic minded members of the Church of England are forced to consider whether they continue to have an acknowledged 'integrity' or any honoured place.

Ruth
many thanks for your superb blogging.. you have done all of us a service, and some of us (yes i do mean more than me...) are not always sure where your articles are intended so from a somtimes sceptic of your work with a big ;o) this is very well done

much emotion in the chamber and in these comments.
your times article of saturday drew heavily on Prudence Daley's comment that actually there was for many no place of compromise and synod had to choose between unity and women's episcopate... i think that was true for many, and that is why the compromises fell. sadly but truly there is no such thing as total inclusivity, something to be rememebered on all sides of such debates, whether here or in deabting GAFCON... you cannot include opposite opinions. what you can do is seek to embrace those you cannot agree with. i believe this vote is right, i think it is the way forward for a church seeking to enable mission,