THE SUBMISSION BY WATCH (WOMEN AND THE CHURCH) TO THE BLACKBURN COMMITTEE, 1999 (abbreviated version).

WATCH thanks the Bishop of Blackburn for this opportunity to contribute to the review. WATCH notes that the review body does not enter the review with a preconception that it will result in proposals to rescind the Act, and this is as it should be. However, we believe the facts will speak for themselves, and lead inevitably to that result. We are sure that the review body would not exclude that outcome either. WATCH believes that the practical and pastoral considerations cannot be divorced from the theological ones; it is the fact that the Act was hastily prepared and is not founded on sound theological considerations that lead to the practical and pastoral failures and objections. The Act was prepared almost exclusively by bishops (men) and in haste, with discussion severely limited, in contrast to the rigorous examination of the decision to ordain women. WATCH is an organisation which ‘has a vision of the Church of England as a community of God’s people where, regardless of their gender, justice and equality prevail.’ The organisation has many members, both men and women, priest and lay. You will particularly note that we not a ‘women’s organisation’, although the pastoral effects of the Act bear most obviously on women. We have ample evidence that many men object to its effects and feel disadvantaged by and ashamed of them. To quote one obvious example there are Dioceses where men (and, of course, women) are rarely selected for posts or promotion if they support the ordination of women.

Ever since the Act was introduced WATCH has consulted with many of its members, and with others interested in this matter, while MOW did the same during the steps that led to the ordination of women. We have received’ a number of comments from members since your advertisement of 17th July 1998, in some cases these were copies of remarks sent to you. All these confirm our previous knowledge. Particularly interesting is that we have received several letters from bishops who prefer not to make their views public through your enquiry, but confidentially through WATCH. Over the years WATCH has not only received comments, its leading members have also had to counsel and support people who have been horribly treated by those very people whom the Act protects. It would be pointless to rehearse all these incidents of abuse, insult, mistreatment, and disadvantage that in a secular situation would certainly be actionable under the laws of civilized society dealing with race, age, gender, and so on. it is astonishing that the Church of England accepts such discrimination. Some of the more extreme cases reach the press and receive widespread public condemnation, to the shame of the Church. In this submission we shall use certain cases as illustrations but we do not suggest that we cover every case of which we are aware.

WHO IS PROTECTED? The first point that must be made is that the whole thrust of the Act is to ‘protect’ those who are opposed to the ordination of women. From whom? No protection whatsoever is offered to those who take the opposite view, and the Act was developed and drafted in haste and in a wholly one-sided manner.

THE EXPERIENCE OF BISHOPS One bishops tells us that, despite having early on come to a formal arrangement with the local PEV, that arrangement has been absolutely disregarded by the PEV who has operated as an independent bishop directly in contact with the parishes. The position exactly corresponds to that of the local RC bishop and his flock. Those parishes have disregarded their appointed bishop and operate as an independent church under the PEV.

In effect a separate Diocese has been formed with no allegiance to the established church, nor its councils and disciplines. Offers to discuss a way forward have been ignored by the PEV.

The same bishop was concerned that men were being trained in certain colleges, and in their training curacies, with no discussion of the matter of the ordination of women. He had two who came to be ordained by him who, when questioned, disclosed that they had simply followed the pronouncements of their mentors opposing women’s ordination without discussion. They had been taught that this was a matter of unquestioned and unquestionable dogma in the Church.

The same bishop was very concerned at the failure of the Act to provide protection for those who supported the ordination of women and who were discriminated against. There were such individuals, sometimes a majority of the congregation, in parishes led by Forward in Faith priests. In other cases one parish was ‘protected’ whilst several

parishes in the group had to bend to their will; the greater part of the group had to accept a Forward in Faith priest, willy nilly. Lastly, where a bishop was against the ordination of women it could and did happen that a majority of people and parishes in his diocese were of the other persuasion; he knew that in some cases bishops had used their powers unfairly. The Act had no mechanism to redress such discrimination.

Another bishop was concerned by the suggestion that PEVs, and assistant bishops acting as PEVs (such as those returning from overseas) were suggesting that they might continue to operate without territorial limits after retirement. It is a long- standing tradition that on retirement a bishop ceases to function as such. This is in order to maintain the authority of each bishop in his diocese. The proposal is unacceptable.

A bishop points out that already one may question the provision that serving bishops and suffragans may operate outside their own diocese in order to service parishes that object to their own bishop. The effect of this is to dispute the authority of the appointed bishop. This is particularly so when the arrangement is made directly with the visitor, and without the involvement of the appointed bishop, as has happened.

We must report that another bishop had found little difficulty, since those very few clergy who had objectd initially to the ordination of women had failed to persuade their congregations to follow that line. In nearly every case these priests had accepted their congregation’s verdict, even if reluctantly. This bishop was aware of the distress that the few Forward in Faith individuals (priests and laity) felt. With his blessing the local PEV had visited them and celebrated with them from time to time. In one or two cases clergy had presented candidates to the PEV for confirmation without explaining this to the families. This had caused problems but has now ceased. There remained a minuscule number of parishes in his diocese where a PEV operated. The fact that the situation was so exceptional made the Act operable. The bishop said he was aware of the problems faced by bishops with many such parishes.

The Act established a form of discrimination amounting to a suggestion from those opposed to women that some bishops are ‘pure’ and others are not, even that some are tainted by contact with ordained women at one or more removes. This amounts to setting up a form of apartheid. From it follows:

The loss of the role of the bishop as the focus of unity in his diocese. A diminution in the authority and policy making function of the Diocesan bishop. It is a fudge to say that the PEV only operates with the Diocesan’s permission; the Diocesan cannot in practice refuse, and we have reported above that some PEV’s disregard the Diocesan’s authority and do not even consult him. The opportunith arises for other cases for ‘dissent of conscience.’ Other groups may, and do, demand ‘their own’- bishop. This is congregationalism and has occurred already in Newcastle. Why should not those who support the ordination of women reject bishops who espouse Forward in Faith or Third Province status? It is difficult for them to relate to such bishops, especially when these bishops set the example of division. The Act has denigrated the very clear decision of the General Synod, taken after many years of discussion and prayer, to ordain women.

The action of those who have persuaded people and parishes to reject the ministry of women has prevented them from experiencing this ministry and has forced them to receive an unwelcome ministry or to leave the parish. Further, they are prevented from receiving the ministry of their Diocesan unless they go to another parish. Finally, other parishes in a group benefice may be forced to accept both priests and bishops whom they cannot love and respect. These effects have important outcomes on the pastoral and practical worship and life of the individuals and parishes. They also affect those who reject the ministry of women; they can easily become an embattled and resentful minority. This is bad for the Church and for thern.

RESOLUTIONS A, B and C and their consequences We would draw attention to the way in which Resolutions A, B and C are sometimes in practice arrived at in a parish, and the consequences, not only for the congregation but also for the wider parish population. We have support for these remarks from at least one of the bishops with whom we talked, as well as from individual cases reported to us by priests and laity. How widespread the problem is we cannot tell: there should be a study to find out.

In most parishes that have signed the resolutions it is the priest, or his predecessors, who have led the people to that conclusion. Some congregations have neither had the relevant theology explained to them nor understood it. In other cases the explanation given to them has been partial or biased. (We note that where the attempt to influence them did not always succeed, the priest may have felt alienated from his congregation). The Act does not provide, as it should, for an independent check on such misdirection. We realise that this will be seen by some as interference with the autonomy of a parish priest, but that autonomy can only rest upon trustworthiness.

Some congregations are not actually concerned with theology; they simply want tradition, King James’s Bible and the BCP, and for nothing to change. This understandable, though maybe wrong-headed, view has been used to introduce the resolutions. Once again there is no check, as there should be. We are aware that some priests have tried to change such attitudes unsuccessfully.

Some congregations (PCCs) that sign the resolution do not have their roots in the local community. They have gathered, and sometimes have deliberately been selected, from far and wide to reflect a particular view. At the same time those of the other persuasion have been discouraged, sometimes by deliberate offensiveness. Often it is ‘leaders’ that are deliberately targeted and that have left – the remainder are then easier to influence. Others have left because they do not care for the argument. Once again there should be safeguards against manipulation. Examples of each of these malpractices have been reported to us. Without the division of the Church into ‘two integrities’such malpractices would not have arisen.

We wish to comment too about the method of deciding Resolutions A, B and C. Effectively the PCC does so, and the way in which the PCC does so has been discussed above. Further the decision effectively takes away the church from the local population. They may rarely go to the church but it is theirs and an important part of the local culture and scene. The argument for having so many parish churches revolves about this sense of belonging. The decision to vote on the resolutions should be taken by all those entitled to vote for the churchwardens. This would be particularly important if the day ever comes when a Third Province, or its like, is seriously considered.

SOME MORE GENERAL PROBLEMS We have a report of one parish in which the parish newsletter mentioned the Bishop of Beverley (PEV) and his activities, but did not refer to the Diocese of Southwell in which the parish lies, or its Bishop Patrick
We have reports of cases where priests have manipulated their parish and PCC to achieve their desired result, for example by introducing written items into a mass of PCC papers at the PCC so that it would be impossible to examine these papers and find these items. Also a habit of calling PCC meetings at very short notice when those supporting the ordination of women were away, or others ‘must have forgotten’ when the meeting was to be.

We do not suggest that such practices are common, but that they do occur and should be noted. More frequently such techniques have not succeeded. Maybe, of course, some enthusiasts for the ordination of women have committed similar excesses. In either case it is unacceptable, and only arises because the Church is divided and some want to achieve that division on their own terms. This is pastorally very upsetting to those involved.

Finally, there is in practice little chance of a community reversing a decision to vote A, B and C, let alone if it joins another ‘integrity.’ There should be a regular confirmation of the decision.

ECUMENICAL ARRANGEMENTS Several of our correspondents said how distressed they were that the effect of the Act is to rule out any serious rapprochement with those other churches that do ordain women. This is particularly so in the case of the Methodist Church. Our Church seems to be rejecting the Porvoo Agreement, at least in an important part. We recognise, of course, that the Roman Catholic Church is of the other persuasion, but two wrongs cannot make a right.

‘When women were ordained priest, we expected that the Church would welcome and affirm us. We were prepared to be charitable and recognised the need for a time of reception – giving parishes and individuals the chance to come to terms with the new situation. We nevertheless believed that the Church of England had made a decision by which it would stand. Instead we discover that the acceptance is half- hearted, grudging, reluctant and based on the premise that the Church might, in fact, be wrong and all we women priests can be disposed of, dispensed with and wiped off the face of history as a temporary aberration! Meanwhile great care is being shown to the needs, feelings and sensitivities of young men opposed to the priesting of women who are preparing for ordination….What is the justification for going on ordaining young men who will not accept women priests? It is one thing to show compassion and concern for older priests who were ordained before the Church of England accepted women priests. It is quite another to perpetuate opposition. . .’

The Rev. Jean Mayland writing in Ontlook, the magazine of WATCH, Spring 2001.

The WATCH response to GS Misc 1042

Women in the episcopate: a new way forward

(1) Preliminary comments:

1. In light of the failure of the Measure before General Synod last November, WATCH appreciates the urgency with which the House of Bishops seeks to address the question of the ordination of women to the episcopate. We applaud the efforts being led by Archbishop Justin to seek a way forward and were pleased to participate in discussions to that end on 5/6 February.

2. We endorse strongly the analysis presented in para. 8 of GS Misc 1042, that ‘the outcome of that day [20 November 2012] has left the Church of England in a profoundly unsatisfactory and unsustainable position.’

3. This document is the WATCH Committee’s response to the invitation laid out in para. 53. Individual members will be submitting their own responses. Although there may be some diversity in our general constituency over the spectrum of possibilities sketched out in paragraphs 37-50, we have to report that those who have been in touch with us since November and those who were present at our AGM last month were absolutely unanimous in viewing ‘simplest possible’ legislation as the only acceptable way forward now.

4. For the sake of the gospel, and of our witness to the nation, we believe that it is now imperative that the Church of England should address its institutional discrimination against women, not only by consecrating women as bishops, but also by finding more creative and collaborative ways to deal with our internal differences than were found in 1992/3. As you will see from the detailed responses below, we believe that the 1992/3 provisions have sadly increased our divisions and perpetuated a culture of discrimination which has undermined both the priestly ministry of women and the overall integrity of the Church. We call on the Working Party and the House of Bishops to find ways forward that will bring us more fully into relationship with one another so that mutual trust and respect can grow.

“After November…”

Comments, stories and experiences from WATCH members and supporters

4th Feb 2013

“…I am beginning to look for a job outside of the church after 16 years of ordination” “…I have felt very cast down … I wonder whether to quit and go and work in a bookshop”

“…the vote has been a rude awakening and has knocked me right off course spiritually – I find it hard even to go to church, let alone to exercise my ministry”

“I felt that my authority to preside at the Eucharist was suddenly in question”

“The next day I was surprised at how hurt I felt – really hurt physically. My chest seemed sore with the weight of the pain of it”

“On what basis can I challenge injustice when my Church has institutionalised it?”

Promises – kept, broken or never made?

A reading of General Synod debates from 1993

by Rosalind Rutherford

1. Introduction
2. What were the Bishops trying to do in 1993 by proposing the Act of Synod?
3. What did other members of Synod think they were voting for?
4. How permanent was the Act of Synod intended to be?
5. What did General synod understand about the purpose of PEVs?
6. How did Resolution C parishes and PEVs put the Act of Synod into practice?
7. Lambeth Resolution III.2 (1998)
8. The promise that was not kept
9. Conclusion
10. Glossary
11. Timeline

1. Introduction

At various points in the debate over legislation to permit women to become bishops, much has been made by the legislation’s opponents of promises that they claim were made in 1993 when the Act of Synod was being debated.

However, we always tend to remember selectively, and usually select those remarks which support our views. “Proof-texting” is subject to as many shortcomings in discussing recent history as when it is used to support a theological position. I decided I wanted to find out what was actually said and promised, rather than rely on the reports of others, so I went back to the records of the debates in General Synod in July and November 1993 when the Act of Synod was proposed and debated.

The overwhelming impression I had from reading the debates was of the House of Bishops trying to persuade General Synod members into being as generous as possible to those who had been shocked by the decision taken in November 1992, and members of Synod responding with some uncertainty about what they were doing and why, but with similar generosity. The debates are charged with emotion, but it is also clear from questions left unanswered that there had been no detailed scrutiny of the measure and how it might work in practice (the summing up speech from the final debate reiterates points made, but barely answers any questions raised). We have to bear this context in mind when reading what was said.

2. What were the Bishops trying to do in 1993 by proposing the Act of Synod?

In considering what promises may have been made when the ordination of women was passing through the legislative process, I have concentrated on what was said when the Act of Synod was debated in General Synod. The Act of Synod, which created the office of Pastoral Episcopal Visitor (PEV), was the response of the House of Bishops to the outcry after November 1992 from those who still opposed the ordination of women, and in particular the conservative elements of the Anglo- Catholic wing of the Church of England.

Bishops’ hopes and aspirations were expressed at the time, albeit without any authority other than the individual’s personal views, and without any scrutiny by Synod Committees. But the important question, when seeking to discover whether or not there has been a great betrayal, is what did the bishops and Synod think they were doing and think they were putting into place; and has this intention been upheld?

The document on which the legislation was based was Bonds of Peace which is often quoted by those seeking ways of being “protected” from the ministry of women. Bonds of Peace is the document produced by the House of Bishops (not a Synod Committee) after the vote on women priests was passed in November 1992, which came as a great shock to some opponents, and it included such commitments as:

Paragraph 3: 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 while the whole Church seeks to come to a common mind.

The following paragraph continued likewise:

Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained as priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England.

This may seem totally clear, and indeed is frequently quoted today. However, we also need to look at what the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey said. He did not speak in either of the debates, so his presidential address to General Synod in July 1993 is the clearest indication of his views. In this address, he tried to set out the purposes of the legislation:

“In the commitment (of the House of Bishops) to maintain the unity of the church…the House of Bishops has been guided by three principles: first our determination to maintain the ecclesial integrity of the church of England as a whole and of each diocese under the pastoral authority of its bishop; second our determination to respect and uphold the place of all loyal members of the church of England, irrespective of their view on this issue; third, our rejection of the notion that bishops and priest who participate in the ordination of women thereby invalidate their … sacramental ministries

As a result (of these arrangements) we will give space to those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood so that while remaining under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop they will, if they wish, be able to receive extended Episcopal care from another bishop”

July 1993 [p392] (my emphases)

It seems from this that Archbishop Carey, at least, imagined that the Act of Synod would produce a system which worked in a way very similar to that envisaged in the legislation approved by Synod in July 2010 (which is currently being debates in dioceses). The main reason that this legislation is challenged by some clergy, particularly by those who claim Sacramental Assurance, is that they do believe the very thing Carey and the House of Bishops rejected – that bishops and priests who participate in the ordination of women invalidate their sacramental ministries. However, looking at this statement, it is very clear that Carey at least had no concept that the Act of Synod would be used to set up what would become, in effect, parallel jurisdictions under the PEVs.

It also means that promises made by George Carey about maintaining a position in the Church of England “in perpetuity” should be taken in the context of this statement. It could be argued that, if the current proposals are agreed, the very provisions which the House of Bishops was trying to put into place in 1993 will become part of legislation.

3. What did other members of Synod think they were voting for?

In the speeches made in Synod in July and November 1993, there is no detailed discussion about how these additional provisions might work in practice, and they were never scrutinised by any Synod committee. However, various themes emerge in the speeches.

The overwhelming theme is that of trying to be as generous as possible to those who were finding the idea of women ordained to the priesthood difficult and to create a “space” for them. Precisely what this space might be or how it might work was not explained or discussed.

“We must never break communion with each other unless we believe that the Gospel itself is at stake. …We must leave space for each other and not drive one another into corners. We must not build walls or dig ditches that people find they cannot cross.” 

The Bishop of Birmingham (Mark Santer) July 1993 [p692]

Another theme which emerges strongly is that the Act is seen as a “pastoral” response to the particular context of 1993. Most speakers were very concerned to be clear that they did not expect PEVs to set up separate groups within the Church of England but to enable unity between those of different beliefs to be retained.

For example:

“I want to underline the extent to which the House of Bishops has worked to ensure the continuing openness of the Church of England. The legislation before your Lordships is, I submit, pastoral in intent and generous in spirit, making detailed provision for those who cannot support the decision that has been made. …The arrangements in the draft Act of Synod are not suitable for legislation. They are more about style and method than about rights and duties…”

The Bishop of Guildford (Michael Adie) in the House of Lords 2 Nov 1993

“What we seek to provide are opportunities and safeguards, which we hope will be used in a pastoral rather than in a legalistic way, so that none of us is trapped in unnecessarily rigid divisions…
One of the important safeguards lies in the role of the provincial episcopal visitors….My personal hope is that they will not rush round conducting services here, there, everywhere,…My hope is that they will act more as friends and advisers for clergy and parishes, I a position to bring their concerns to diocesan bishops…”

The Archbishop of York (John Habgood), General Synod Nov 1993 [p718-9]

It is also clear that Synod did not want to tie the church down to strict permanent rules.

“what I hope is that , if the Synod can agree to a broad framework within which we work, people will use their common sense. You cannot legislate in detail for what will happen in every little parish”

The Archbishop of York Nov 1993 [p739]

“Yes, this act is in many ways illogical. Yes, it is untidy, but is not goodwill, is not love, illogical and untidy….”

Paul Rippon, Nov 1993 [p990]

4. How permanent was the Act of Synod intended to be?

Much is being made at the moment of “promises” that the Act of Synod would be permanent, or last as long as it was needed (though this not the same as lasting as long as an individual might personally wish for). No such unambiguous promises were made in General Synod when the Act was debated there. In fact, there was clearly a good deal of uncertainty and ambiguity about this. Although statements and aspirations from the debates are quoted as definite, clear and predictable commitments, the reality is that there was a sense of provisionality about the legislation and uncertainty over how things would develop.

“…if he reads the act of Synod carefully he will see that there is built into it a high degree of flexibility. The Archbishops say that they shall ordain from time to time and the ‘shall’ represents a commitment; ‘from time to time’ recognises that times may change. One has heard voices on one side saying, ‘We do not know what the future is.’ We have to live with those kinds of uncertainties. This is why we must not set proposals in concrete. We must make a commitment, give an assurance and go ahead in faith, not knowing what the future is going to bring.”

Archbishop of York July 1993 [p 701 –2]

“The Archbishop was right to talk about this being a pastoral, not a legalistic, arrangement… For me the greatest principle of all is that we need time to decide and to test whether what we have done is right.”

Canon John Sentamu Nov 1993 [p735]

“To begin with, however, I imagine that we shall not be appointing men who could be there for 40 years or men, who if the need was no longer felt, could not move anywhere else. Clearly there must be a flexibility in this depending on need.”

Archbishop of York Nov 1993 [p998-9]

The background paper for the current debate on women in the episcopate issued by General Synod offices (A8 (WE)) also includes a quotation from George Carey in relation to the Act of Synod which is much used to argue for transferred jurisdiction in the current legislation:

“it is our intention for this to be permanent and we are not thinking of rescinding it.”

203rd and 204th Reports of the Ecclesiastical Committee [p134]

However, this remark was not made to Synod, and had been made before the key debates of November 1993. More importantly, it referred to the whole Act of Synod, including the understanding that

1. (a)  the Church of England could lawfully ordain women,
2. (b)  that taking part in such ordinations would not call into question the orders of

   other bishops and priests, and

3. (c)  that PEVs would not be expected to take over jurisdiction from the diocesan

   bishop.

Within this context, the 2010 measure keeps the sort of “space” in the Church of England that Carey was talking about. I think this makes it clear that what was promised for “as long as is needed” was episcopal oversight clearly exercised in full cooperation with the Diocesan who would retain jurisdiction, not a totally separate oversight defined by being uncorrupted by having ordained women. It could be argued that the current legislation is making good that commitment, and that what has been practised by PEVs in the past 15 years has gone well beyond what General Synod and the archbishops thought was being offered.

5. What did General synod understand about the purpose of PEVs?

Similarly, it is quite clear that the general understanding of the role of the PEVs who were to be created by this legislation was that they would support pastorally those who found it difficult to accept women as priests.
For example:

“Let us be absolutely sure that we are passing a pastoral act for pastoral purposes – a very different thing from passing legislation which could tie the church into further complications. I believe the act is needed for pastoral purposes and that we must vote for it, but we must be sure it is not legislation.”

Canon Ruth Wintle, General Synod July 1993 [p 690] (after making the point that similar support was never provided for women deacons)

With hindsight, those Anglo-Catholics for whom sacramental assurance was more important than any other mark of Catholicity will probably have interpreted “pastoral” to mean “sacramental” because this was the sticking point for them. However, almost certainly most of the rest of Synod did not even know that such a concept existed. Most people thought that what was being objected to was having to deal with ordained women, not that if a bishop ordained a woman priest he would be seen as having invalidated his orders. Financial compensation was being offered to those who felt they had to leave the church because of the decision to ordain women, so it seemed logical that those who were remaining accepted that women were fully priests, even if they did not want to worship with them.

Statements and remarks made by both archbishops at the time also emphasised that the proposals in the Act of synod were not intended to set up parallel Episcopal jurisdictions:

“The arrangements the House envisages are designed to ensure that appropriate pastoral Episcopal care is provided for those in favour and those opposed to the legislation, without undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey) in the House of Lords 2 Nov1993

“..The visitors *PEVs+ are intended to provide an extended ministry in certain agreed places, working with and through the diocesan bishops concerned…

The importance of lending them out and placing them strategically is so that they can do some ordinary episcopal work and be part of a diocesan team..”

The Archbishop of York (John Habgood) to General Synod July 1993 [p674]

This is what was said about the working of the legislation:

“The arrangements the House envisages are designed to ensure that appropriate pastoral episcopal care is provided for those in favour and those opposed to the legislation, without undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop. Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury to the House of Lords 2 Nov 1993 This theme was echoed by many speakers in the debates in Synod.

6. How did Resolution C parishes and PEVs put the Act of Synod into practice?

It is worth, in this context, noting what was actually allowed to develop. This is an extract from an interview given recently by Andrew Burnham, former Bishop of Ebbsfleet, after had had resigned his office in the Anglican church:

I took the view that what we were aiming to be was a diocese, an orthodox diocese: bishop, priests, deacons, and laypeople. And therefore that, even though we weren’t an actual diocese, we should organise ourselves as if we were. So I wrote a pastoral letter to the people every month, more or less every month for 10 years. I had a council of priests. This was before anyone else was doing this sort of thing. I had a lay council and a lay congress. I had deaneries, with clergy organised in deaneries for pastoral care.

We did all this as if we were setting out to be a diocese, which irritated people no end. It was done in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury because it was all about how best to care for people. And the apologia I gave was that of the Apostolic District, which was the term in canon law to describe a group that is not yet a diocese but might become so and has an apostolic administrator. Of course an administration, a jurisdiction, was the one thing we weren’t. We didn’t have the legal authority to do any of it. But that was what we were in search of becoming.

Catholic Herald 13 Jan 2011 (my emphasis)

It could be argued that what has been practised by PEVs in the past 15 years has gone well beyond what General Synod and most of the bishops thought was being offered or were willing to agree to, and that the current legislation is making good the original commitment and intention of the archbishops and the House of Bishops.

7. Lambeth Resolution III.2 (1998)

Although the Lambeth Conference was held five years after the Synod debates on provision for those who could not accept the November 1992 decision, a section from one of the resolutions passed by the 1998 Lambeth Conference is frequently quoted by those who want separate legislative provision for those who cannot accept the ordination of women. However, it was never a promise made to any group in the Church of England – it is a statement from the Lambeth Conference of 1998 (and so 5 years later than the debates when the Act of Synod was proposed) drafted by a group which had been considering issues around the unity of the whole Anglican Communion. The third sub-clause of this resolution

…calls upon the provinces of the Anglican Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans…

This is not particularly surprising because the Lambeth Conference is the meeting of bishops from all over the Anglican Communion – and it was a fact that some Provinces were ordaining women and some were not. So unless the Conference was to define some of the Provinces as more Anglican than others, the reality was and is that both views on the ordination of women are held by different Provinces and different individuals, and the conference accepted this. What this Resolution does not say (and has no need or right to say) is what this should mean for differences of opinion within a Province.

However, the introductory clause to this resolution is significant for the current debates:

This Conference, committed to maintaining the overall unity of the Anglican Communion, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop:
a) believes such unity is essential to the overall effectiveness of the Church’s mission to bring the Gospel of Christ to all people…

(my emphasis)

What the resolution does say is that it expects each diocese to be united under the jurisdiction of its diocesan bishop – exactly the basis for the legislation for women in the episcopacy currently being discussed in the dioceses. It could therefore be argued that this proposed legislation is in line with this Lambeth Resolution.

It is worth noting that the background paper issued by General Synod Office for the current debate on women and the episcopacy quotes clauses from this resolution, but ignores the all-important preamble [GSA8 (WE) point 13, p3].