Reform News February 2009

From Rod Thomas, Chairman of the Reform Council

(This is an abridged newsletter of the one sent to Reform members)

An Urgent Need To Pray And Contact Bishops

As you know, a drafting group under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Manchester has produced legislative proposals for the General Synod’s meeting in a week’s time which pave the way for women bishops. What has been produced provides insufficient safeguards for the future ministry of evangelicals opposed to the episcopal consecration of women. If the proposals are eventually voted through by General Synod in more or less their present form (which cannot happen this February), then we believe that potential ordinands will be put off ministering in the Church of England and the whole appointments process for vicars will become increasingly discriminatory against those who hold to male headship.

Some members of Reform will feel more strongly about this issue than others. However, it is important that we act now to defend each other’s place in the Church. Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes and a member of the Reform Council has put the point this way:

‘It is very important to say to all who profess to be ‘evangelicals’ that Gospel commitment … means that we should seek to defend one another’s place in the Church. The Gospel has our prime loyalty, therefore we stand with Gospel brothers and sisters. This is not an issue about whether the Church of England decides to consecrate women bishops or not – on that it seems the majority wish to do so and should not be hindered from so doing. No, rather, what is at issue is whether provision for those of the older traditional integrity, be it Catholic or Evangelical, will be provided. If some evangelicals are content to see fellow evangelicals effectively driven out of the Church through lack of provision that is adequate to meet conscientious problems, then something other than the Gospel has claimed their first loyalty. Credally and morally orthodox believers cannot afford to lose Gospel allies at a time like this!’

The Proposals

What is proposed is legislation to permit the consecration of women bishops and to require all diocesan bishops to ‘have regard’ to a Code of Practice in dealing with situations where ‘petitioning parishes’ or particular ministers or workers request male oversight.

The draft legislation provides for ‘complementary bishops’ to whom diocesan bishops could choose to delegate some of their jurisdictional powers. This means that activities such as sponsoring candidates for ordination training, making appointments of clergy, exercising discipline and providing pastoral care could be delegated by a female diocesan bishop to a male ‘complementary bishop.’ However, it would be up to that diocesan bishop to decide which of these activities should be delegated – and indeed whether any should be delegated. All that would be required of them is that they have regard to the Code of Practice in making their decision.

The illustrative Code before Synod says that in making these decisions, bishops should consider a parish’s theological convictions and put in place arrangements that enable them to be expressed. There should then be an ‘instrument of delegation’ which specifies who does what. The Code also sets out what parishes should do to express their wishes to a diocesan bishop and how this would apply to multi-parish benefices and to individuals.

The Manchester Group felt that any new legislation would also require an amendment to Canon A4 which deals with the ordination of clergy and the consecration of bishops. As a result the proposal is to provide both that the legal status of women bishops should be unquestioned and that Church of England members ‘may with good conscience, hold theological convictions which render them unable to receive the ministry of female bishops or priests.’ However, the proposed Canon then states that in making special arrangements for those with these theological convictions it nevertheless regards those ordained or consecrated (ie including women) as ‘truly’ bishops, priests or deacons.’

The Problems with a Code of Practice

The reasons why a Code of Practice provides inadequate safeguards are:

It makes the authority of complementary bishops dependent on women who are in a position of ‘headship’
It allows diocesan bishops discretion about how far to meet congregational needs – and can be easily resiled from
A Code can be changed at any time in the future by a simple majority of General Synod (whereas a legislative provision requires a two thirds majority in each of the three Houses)
It seems to undermine assurances that were given to ‘traditionalists’ prior to the Act of Synod being passed in 1993
However much goodwill there is at the present, over time a new generation of bishops might feel less strongly about accommodating the provisions of a Code

Support for Stronger Protective Legislation

The proposals before Synod do suggest that it might be possible for some of the Code’s provisions to be enshrined in primary legislation (which is less easy to alter or put to one side), but they do not set out how this could be done. Nevertheless, there is a genuine and fairly widespread concern, not least in the House of Bishops, about the position that ‘traditionalist’ catholics and evangelicals find themselves in. Some who favour women bishops are nevertheless unhappy with proposals which would effectively exclude ‘traditionalists’ from the Church. They are very open to proposals which would give congregations the statutory right to have alternative arrangements for oversight (ie which would remove the discretionary power of bishops over whether to delegate some of their jurisdiction).

The Church of England Evangelical Council has also recently issued a statement which ‘reaffirms its view that both integrities on this matter can and should be represented within authentic Anglicanism in accordance with assurances made and undertakings given in 1992. The Council believes that legislative safeguards are required if the conscientious objections of many evangelicals and others to the consecration of women as bishops are to be taken seriously and we urge the General Synod to make such provision.’

General Synod starts its next set of sessions on 9th February and the debate on this issue is scheduled for 11th. It is unlikely that anything dramatic will be decided: the proposals will simply be debated and then sent on to the Revision Committee. However, the significance of next week’s debate is that if there are a good number of strong speeches – especially from bishops – arguing that primary legislation should require that jurisdiction be passed from a diocesan bishop to a complementary bishop in the case of petitioning parishes, then the Revision Committee would be much more likely to introduce these essential changes when the draft legislation next comes back to Synod. In short, we must encourage bishops to act now.

Summary

Even although time is very short, we ask members to make these issues a matter for urgent prayer.

The proposals for women bishops will, if they become law, cause great difficulty for those who believe that church order should reflect family order where the Bible advocates male headship (Ephesians 5: 22-33 and 1 Timothy 3)
A Code will not be an adequate safeguard for the ministry of those with a ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ integrity, since its provisions are discretionary rather than mandatory
What we seek is a statutory guarantee that parishes should have access to a form of alternative oversight where the bishops concerned are able to exercise jurisdiction over all the issues mentioned in Clause 4(1) of the draft Measure (ie issues like appointments, parish reorganisations, sponsorship for ordination training etc)
We trust that the House of bishops will show their care for us by speaking in favour of enhanced provision so that proper safeguards are provided.