In May the House of Bishops will publish their proposals for the future shape of legislation to admit women to the episcopate, ahead of a debate at the July session of General Synod. The Church Mouse looks forward to what we can expect from this:
1. we can expect a legislative bundle which makes creative use of the instruments available to achieve exactly what we had on the table in November 2012.
The House of Bishops consultation on this matter stated that there was no appetite to return to the previous legislation as a basis for future legislation. Nevertheless the overall principles of what we're trying to achieve have not changed. Whatever we see in May will still constitute the admission of women to the episcopate, the principle of a single bishop in each diocese and a mechanism for alternative oversight for those who cannot accept the authority of women bishops.
That was the deal before, and it remains the only game in town.
Some opponents of women bishops have suggested alternative structures of authority within the Church for opponents - essentially variants on the old argument for a third province - but there are no indications for that this is now a credible way forward. All these options end up with a segregated portion of the church where women are not allowed. This is not acceptable, and has been explicitly ruled out on numerous occasions.
So what we can expect is something that uses some new instruments, such as an Act of Synod or an alternative non-legislative measure, to re-articulate pretty much what we had before.
One key difference is that there will not be a reliance on a future instrument, as we had previously with the infamous 'Code of Conduct'. We can expect to see the whole package in one go.
Those hoping to see some magic formula emerge that nobody thought of before will be disappointed.
2. we should not expect to see the actual draft legislation
We simply are not at that point yet. The process is that General Synod should approve the overall form of the legislation now, then it will be sent to a revision committee to be bashed into shape before we have a proper draft for General Synod to send back to the dioceses for approval. We are a long way from a fully fledged piece of legislation. Whilst there is a clear intention from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the House of Bishops to move on this as quickly as possible, there is a long process ahead. Even if there was complete consensus on this issue, the absolute earliest possible it could clear the required process would be in 2015. More likely, it will run into the next Synod session in 2016 / 17.
3. we can expect a lot of huff and puff from onlookers
If past form is anything to go by, various interest groups will find the things they don't like in there and put out statements saying that it is intolerable and amounts to discrimination or forcing them out of the Church. We must remember that the country will be watching how we handle this issue closely.
A new way?
Justin Welby has commented widely that he hopes to find a new way for us to disagree on some of the key issues of the day, and this is one of them. He has initiated a series of face-to-face discussions between key interested parties, which are reported to have been very positive.
Nevertheless, every statement from the various lobby groups on this issue has been more entrenched than their positions prior to the November vote. WATCH have now said they won't support any alternative provision for those who cannot accept women bishops which is written into the legislation, and want an entirely voluntary scheme. This would be weaker than the 2012 proposal they supported, which included a statutory code of conduct to govern the scheme for alternative oversight. By contrast Reform have said that they will only accept legally binding provisions which require a two thirds majority of Synod to modify. This goes way beyond the current provisions under the 1993 Act of Synod, which contrary to the implication of its name is in fact not a legally binding instrument and can be removed by a simple majority of Synod.
After the November vote which shattered our hopes of having women bishops in the near future, Reform and the Catholic Group who jointly orchestrated opposition in Synod put out a statement saying that they would commit themselves to finding a new way forward. Those of us who believe that it is a simple act of obedience to the clear teaching of the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit that we make this move are equally committed.
So it is this Mouse's hope that reaction to whatever is proposed finds a positive way to express itself. Instead of finding the bits we don't like and stamping our feet with anger at them, let us find a vision for how we can work with the proposals and make it work. Let's express our desire that everyone remain and flourish within our Church.
Most of all, it is essential that groups do not use their opportunity to grab a few column inches in the newspapers to set out their negotiating position in Synod, hardening their public positions to try to strengthen their argument when it comes to Synod for debate. This has happened too often, and has the effect of hardening positions and making compromise impossible.
Perhaps as well as a new legislative proposal, we can listen to our Archbishop and find a new way of discussing it too.
The Church Mouse
1. we can expect a legislative bundle which makes creative use of the instruments available to achieve exactly what we had on the table in November 2012.
The House of Bishops consultation on this matter stated that there was no appetite to return to the previous legislation as a basis for future legislation. Nevertheless the overall principles of what we're trying to achieve have not changed. Whatever we see in May will still constitute the admission of women to the episcopate, the principle of a single bishop in each diocese and a mechanism for alternative oversight for those who cannot accept the authority of women bishops.
That was the deal before, and it remains the only game in town.
Some opponents of women bishops have suggested alternative structures of authority within the Church for opponents - essentially variants on the old argument for a third province - but there are no indications for that this is now a credible way forward. All these options end up with a segregated portion of the church where women are not allowed. This is not acceptable, and has been explicitly ruled out on numerous occasions.
So what we can expect is something that uses some new instruments, such as an Act of Synod or an alternative non-legislative measure, to re-articulate pretty much what we had before.
One key difference is that there will not be a reliance on a future instrument, as we had previously with the infamous 'Code of Conduct'. We can expect to see the whole package in one go.
Those hoping to see some magic formula emerge that nobody thought of before will be disappointed.
2. we should not expect to see the actual draft legislation
We simply are not at that point yet. The process is that General Synod should approve the overall form of the legislation now, then it will be sent to a revision committee to be bashed into shape before we have a proper draft for General Synod to send back to the dioceses for approval. We are a long way from a fully fledged piece of legislation. Whilst there is a clear intention from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the House of Bishops to move on this as quickly as possible, there is a long process ahead. Even if there was complete consensus on this issue, the absolute earliest possible it could clear the required process would be in 2015. More likely, it will run into the next Synod session in 2016 / 17.
3. we can expect a lot of huff and puff from onlookers
If past form is anything to go by, various interest groups will find the things they don't like in there and put out statements saying that it is intolerable and amounts to discrimination or forcing them out of the Church. We must remember that the country will be watching how we handle this issue closely.
A new way?
Justin Welby has commented widely that he hopes to find a new way for us to disagree on some of the key issues of the day, and this is one of them. He has initiated a series of face-to-face discussions between key interested parties, which are reported to have been very positive.
Nevertheless, every statement from the various lobby groups on this issue has been more entrenched than their positions prior to the November vote. WATCH have now said they won't support any alternative provision for those who cannot accept women bishops which is written into the legislation, and want an entirely voluntary scheme. This would be weaker than the 2012 proposal they supported, which included a statutory code of conduct to govern the scheme for alternative oversight. By contrast Reform have said that they will only accept legally binding provisions which require a two thirds majority of Synod to modify. This goes way beyond the current provisions under the 1993 Act of Synod, which contrary to the implication of its name is in fact not a legally binding instrument and can be removed by a simple majority of Synod.
After the November vote which shattered our hopes of having women bishops in the near future, Reform and the Catholic Group who jointly orchestrated opposition in Synod put out a statement saying that they would commit themselves to finding a new way forward. Those of us who believe that it is a simple act of obedience to the clear teaching of the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit that we make this move are equally committed.
So it is this Mouse's hope that reaction to whatever is proposed finds a positive way to express itself. Instead of finding the bits we don't like and stamping our feet with anger at them, let us find a vision for how we can work with the proposals and make it work. Let's express our desire that everyone remain and flourish within our Church.
Most of all, it is essential that groups do not use their opportunity to grab a few column inches in the newspapers to set out their negotiating position in Synod, hardening their public positions to try to strengthen their argument when it comes to Synod for debate. This has happened too often, and has the effect of hardening positions and making compromise impossible.
Perhaps as well as a new legislative proposal, we can listen to our Archbishop and find a new way of discussing it too.
The Church Mouse
Posts
