Viewpoints: Women bishops - where next?
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his successor Justin Welby were dismayed after the Church of England's synod rejected women bishops
As soon as the Church of England's general synod narrowly rejected the law allowing women bishops, there were calls for fresh discussions to enable it to be altered and passed.
Most opponents accept the CofE will have women bishops - but they want those who cannot accept them to still have a place in the Church.
Many supporters of women bishops say they have made enough - and possibly too many - concessions already.
BBC News asked some of those involved in the debate what their core beliefs are - and what they don't want to compromise on.
“Start Quote
End QuoteThe media and politicians may be impatient for a quick fix but the Church must not be bounced”
After 12 years of discussion and consultation, the proposal we had before us at General Synod on 20 November was the best possible, given the incompatibility between the beliefs of those on opposite sides of the debate - that women can be bishops or that they can't.
A good outcome would be if we reconsidered our procedures. In particular a careful assessment of how, and by whom, the various decisions were made at several points this year might help us to avoid such a debacle in future.
Sufficient consensus needs to be established beforehand so that a final debate doesn't end up on a knife edge.
We also need to look carefully at the theology and ecclesiology underlying the whole debate.
Janet Appleby
- Vicar in Willington team ministry
- Author of the "respect" amendment adopted by the House of Bishops
The media and politicians may be impatient for a quick fix, but the Church of England must not be bounced into cobbling something together which creates more problems than it solves.
We need to remember the unintended consequences of hasty arrangements made through the 'Act of Synod' in 1993 (which made provision for parishes who would not accept woman priests to be overseen by alternative bishops).
Fortunately, God can always bring astonishing and creative good out of the mess we get ourselves into, so I do still hope for a future in which all God's people, of whatever gender, can flourish equally.
“Start Quote
End QuoteTraditionalists need the ministry of appropriate bishops”
The vote in General Synod was an entirely avoidable disaster - had the compromise amendment proposed by the two Archbishops in 2010 been included, the legislation would have passed.
That vote was not against women bishops; it was against legislation which failed to provide for the consciences of those who cannot, on religious grounds, receive the ministry of women bishops - a very different matter in a broad and diverse Church.
We need round-table talks now between representatives with differing convictions to reach agreement on fresh legislation which is capable of commanding consensus.
Traditionalists need the ministry of appropriate bishops guaranteed by law, not dependent on a Code of Practice.
Canon Simon Killwick
- Vicar of Christ Church, Moss Side
- Leader of the Catholic Group, general synod
These bishops must work in partnership with women bishops, but they must be able to minister in their own right, rather than under delegation.
Fresh legislation could helpfully follow the example of the Church in Wales, comprising two measures, one to provide for women bishops, and the other to provide bishops for traditionalists.
“Start Quote
End QuoteWomen must become bishops on the same terms as men ”
This must not be allowed to drag on for another five to 10 years.
I am made slightly more hopeful by the outcry the vote has raised, which shows that the people of England do still care what the Church of England thinks and does.
Those speaking against the legislation called for more provisions for those who want to insulate themselves from women's ministry. But I can't see any way in which more provisions could be made without fatally undermining both the women who became bishops, and the whole office of bishop.
The bottom line in any future negotiations remains the same: women must become bishops on exactly the same terms as men. There must be no suggestion in the law that the Church of England remains ambivalent about the validity of women's ministry or full equality before God.
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes
- Chair of Watch in the north-east
- Former chaplain, Durham University
But my feeling now is that, since the compromise package has been rejected, those opposed have demonstrated that they won't in fact accept any compromise. We should now bring forward a single clause measure, simply saying that women can be bishops.
Dr Threlfall-Holmes can be followed on Twitter @MirandaTHolmes
The Rev Dr Hannah Cleugh, Oxford dioceseOn 20 November, many speakers called for "more provision" or "better provision" for those who oppose the ordination of women to the episcopate. Almost no-one said they didn't accept that the Church of England should now have women bishops.
So, how do we write law that will allow women to be bishops on an equal footing as their male colleagues, but also make provision for those who cannot accept their authority or ministry? There is a theological circle which cannot be squared.
The measure that fell six votes short on 20 November was a painful attempt at a compromise, and had received approval in 42 out of the 44 dioceses.
It is hard to see now what compromise might command a consensus with the current Synod, or how it might be "improved" in a way that would not be rejected as too discriminatory.
And many supporters of women bishops are now wondering whether there was ever any point at all in trying to compromise, and are calling instead for a return to a single clause measure that would simply allow women to be bishops.
“Start Quote
End QuoteThe authority of women bishops would not be diminished by sharing with a male bishop”
People did not vote against women bishops, but against this particular measure.
The real question is whether a bishop is a monarch or whether there can be plural and collaborative leadership. All bishops have equal authority in their own sphere of ministry.
The authority of women bishops would not be diminished by sharing their authority with a male bishop, since all would have to so share.
We have offered varieties of this solution many times. People need one where in conscience they can accept the authority of the male bishop in whose jurisdiction they serve and they need some such conservative bishops to be appointed following an agreement.
Canon Chris Sugden
- General synod member for Oxford diocese
- Secretary of traditionalist Anglican Mainstream
Traditional progressives, rather than slavishly following tradition, hold that faithfulness to the Biblical teaching is the only ground for challenging injustice, poverty and oppression.
They look for an arrangement which secures their future in the Church of England as a legitimate Anglican position and which provides a regular supply of ordinands accepted for training, ordination, deployment and appointment to senior posts and the office of bishop.
“Start Quote
End QuoteThere cannot be further concessions to opponents”
What happens now is difficult.
The House of Laity is clearly unrepresentative of those it is meant to represent, with lay members of the Church of England being, like its bishops and clergy, overwhelmingly in favour of women bishops.
The next elections for General Synod in three years' time may well turn into a virtual referendum on the issue, meaning that a very different House of Laity will surely be elected.
It is vital for lay people in the Church of England to wake up to their responsibility to get people elected to General Synod who will properly represent them.
The Rev Stephen Kuhrt
- Chair of evangelical group Fulcrum, which supports women bishops
What there cannot be is any further concessions to opponents beyond those contained in the measure just rejected.
It is impossible to go further than the legal requirement for respect to be shown to opponent's convictions without ending up with women being established as semi-bishops rather than full ones.
Opponents of women bishops need to wise up to this if they are not to end up with the single measure that many now want and which may well be best.
“Start Quote
End QuoteMonarchical style bishops could become team ministries”
Parishes could opt in for oversight from an alternative bishop with authority in his own right. Or through some kind of 'society' monarchical style bishops could become team ministries, a change already introduced at the parish level.
Like the majority of Anglicans worldwide, we believe Jesus positively affirmed the distinct identities of men and women in the church.
But in the spirit of charity and compromise, evangelicals and Catholics were prepared to say "yes" to women bishops at least twice in the last two synods.
And there were many other helpful avenues that were shut down early.
Pete Myers
- Council member of evangelical Church Society
- Co-ordinator of Together 4ward campaign
The legislation was stalled by a minority group unhappy with any provision at all for traditionalists.
The vast majority of the Church of England want women bishops, but also want fair provision for us. So if we must change a 2,000 year old institution by introducing female bishops, please can we do so in a way that still allows classical Christianity to flourish?
Pete Myers can be followed on Twitter @PeterDMyers
“Start Quote
End QuoteI am heartened that the Church has stepped aside from the path of the US Episcopal Church”
Although I realise many will be very frustrated that the Church of England's General Synod failed to pass legislation to admit women to the episcopate by such a narrow margin, I believe that this result will come to be seen as a positive turning point.
The key issue at this stage was the maintenance of proper safeguards for those who as a matter of theological principle could not accept such a fundamental change.
I am therefore heartened that the Church of England has stepped aside from following the path of the Episcopal Church of the United States which has progressively marginalised and excluded those who seek to hold to historic Anglican faith and order in good conscience.
Now that legislative pressure has been removed, it is my prayer that there can be a period of calm reflection in which the biblical understanding of calling, for both men and women, will be prominent."
The Most Rev Eliud Wabukala chairs the Primates Council of the worldwide Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (Gafcon)
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)


Bank governor in Help to Buy warning
Pakistani politician is shot dead
Patience of Job
Tweets of the week
Clocking out
The real Sir Alex
Story of the S-Class
Fast Track
Comment number 335.
Theophane27th November 2012 - 17:02
The C of E has sent out an important message that it will not always be dictated to by secular society. Authentic British culture holds that 'men are men' and 'women are women'. It is only an artificially contrived counterfeit version that says that 'women are men' and 'men are women'.
Link to this (Comment number 335)
Comment number 318.
Dan W27th November 2012 - 16:42
Until women bishops are allowed all Anglican bishops should be barred from sitting in the House of Lords, it is ridculous that people whose organisation does not allow women to rise to top positions has a role in law-making. Currently 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. I am aware that the House of Bishops voted overwhilmingly for women bishops (44 for, 3 against).
Link to this (Comment number 318)
Comment number 298.
paul27th November 2012 - 16:10
No wonder the church is less and less relevant in today's society.
I discarded the church many years ago and just try to live a good and decent life.
Why women want to be a part of this sexist monolith is a mystery.
You can come, you can take part up to a certain level then you are not fit for office, old men making up rules to keep old men in positions.
Link to this (Comment number 298)
Comment number 294.
eprice201027th November 2012 - 15:59
I think this is a major setback for CofE and I'm disappointed by the result. It'll be interesting to see their next move. They tried to make provisions for those who had different beliefs to their own (sounds fair) only to have them rejected. If those who are anti-women bishops can't accept the measures then the only outcome is a divided church.
Link to this (Comment number 294)
Comment number 291.
Michael Lloyd27th November 2012 - 15:52
It seems the basic argumet here is that an organisation is allowed to disregard the law because of the "beliefs" of those running it.
If this is allowed to continue, then men-only clubs can return because their members "believe" this is right, and the argument can be extended indefinitely.
Either we have equality laws applied fairly and without favour, or not.
It's that simple.
Link to this (Comment number 291)
Comments 5 of 9