Reform response to legislative proposals on women bishops
As the House of Bishops gathers to consider a number of important issues within the Church we recognise that the discussion concerning the proposed legislation relating to Women Bishops will have particular significance. We are grateful for the work of the Revision Committee and fully recognise what is said at para. 433 that the members did not find their task easy as they tried to listen and hold together a wide variety of viewpoints. Members of Reform have sought to be involved in this process in as constructive a way as possible through making submissions and addressing the Committee when appropriate and we sincerely hope that our input has always been measured and gracious. However, after a careful reading of the Report of the Revision Committee, we have come to the conclusion, partially recognised at para. 449, that the provision enshrined within the Draft Measure is not adequate for the needs of conservative evangelicals such as the members of Reform.
You will of course be aware that our position concerning Women Bishops is based on our understanding of the teaching of the New Testament especially as it relates to issues such as headship and teaching roles within the church. Our position is partially set out in the Rochester Report GS1557 and especially paras. 5.2.30-52. We feel that it is much to be regretted that this Report has not been more fully discussed and considered within Synod in recent years as we do not feel that these arguments resting on the New Testament documents have ever been properly refuted.
Basing our views therefore on the New Testament we find ourselves in great difficulty relating to the idea of a female Diocesan Bishop delegating authority to another Bishop as intended in Section 2 (1) of the Draft Measure. Such delegation would not address the issue of the headship of the female Diocesan and it would still remain that oaths of obedience would be made to her. It is of course for these reasons that we have consistently argued that any suitable provision for conservative evangelicals would require a transfer or vesting of jurisdiction to another Bishop which we are aware was discussed by the Committee at paras.120,121. As mentioned at para. 120 such provision would enable as many as possible to remain within the Church of England. For this reason we were extremely disappointed that such an approach failed to find sufficient support within the Committee (para.151).
While we welcome the efforts made to reassure parishes that a desire for a male incumbent will be respected, we are conscious that the proposed arrangements are very much a matter for delegation by the diocesan bishop and that as currently drafted Clause 3 (8) gives no guarantee that about how a parish's wishes might be respected. Nor is there any guarantee that when a Diocesan Bishop draws up a Scheme under Clause 2, that key areas such as selection for training and clergy discipline would be included as ‘the provision of pastoral care’ by a male bishop under Clause 2(1)(b).
Compounding the difficulties we face concerning delegation is the whole issue of living with a Code of Practice. Looking at the discussion recorded at paras. 287-311 we are extremely concerned that the Code will not be uniformly followed and could of course even be rescinded. It provides very little comfort or assurance that conservative evangelicals remain valued members of the Church of England.
Beyond all these concerns, which flow directly from the proposed legislation, we are also exercised about the effect of such a Measure on conservative evangelicals more generally within the Church. We are already aware of discrimination against potential Ordinands who hold conservative evangelical views and we fear that this will only increase if the Draft Measure and accompanying Code of Practice are adopted. From being in a position since 1993 where it was clearly stated that we were to be considered as loyal members of the Church of England we fear that continuing to hold our Biblical views in good conscience will result in increasing marginalisation within the Church.
In summary therefore, we hold our position on grounds of theological conviction - one that we have always been told will be respected by the Church; we seek legislation that assures us of our place and ministry within the Church; such assurance needs to include a clear vesting of episcopal authority in a male bishop not just for certain services and forms of pastoral care but also for appointments and selection for training; and we feel a clear statement is needed that those responsible for selection and training shall not treat a person who holds to male headship less favourably than any other.
In the light of all these concerns we would hope that even at this relatively late stage the House of Bishops could consider supporting an amendment which would have the effect of keeping as many as possible within the Church of England through permitting some appropriate vesting of jurisdiction. Such are the considerable likely repercussions of passing this Draft Measure for both Conservative Evangelicals and Traditional Catholics that we feel it is vital that you consider taking such an approach at this stage.
We will be praying for your meetings and deliberations.