Full text here

What do all those words mean?

A Short guide to Resolutions, Letters of Request,

bishops and parishes

1. Who is this guide intended for?

Anyone who is part of a Church of England church, both clergy and laity. Members of PCCs particularly should be aware of what a “Letter of Request" is and its implications for the ministry of women in a parish which passes a resolution to submit such a letter.

2. Why do we need to know about this when our parish accepts ordained women and there is a woman bishop in our diocese?

It is true that most congregations welcome ordained women, including women who are bishops and in other leadership positions. What most do not realise is that the additional legislation passed in 2014 to offer a continuing place in the Church of England to those who do not accept the full ministry of women, enshrines discrimination on the grounds of sex within the Church of England and is not balanced legislation. In other words, the legislation provides for those who want to avoid the ministry of women, but does not provide support or protection for a congregation who wishes to welcome the ministry of ordained women.

Since 2015, there have been continuing reports of parishes where a PCC has passed a Resolution to prevent the ministry of ordained women in that church, and to separate the parish from the full oversight of the diocesan bishop, but where a significant proportion of the congregation are happy to accept ordained women. In several cases, this has created significant pain and division within the parish. In many cases, after the Resolution has been passed, congregation members say that they did not realise that this could happen.

3. Our bishop is a man, so we don’t have a problem

Many of those in the Church of England who do not believe women can be ordained as priests or bishops, or should not lead a church or diocese, often also believe that any bishop who has ordained a woman has broken his collegiality with other bishops by doing this. Those who believe this often request a bishop who can prove that he has neither ordained women nor been ordained by a woman, should be the bishop they relate to.

4. What are Resolutions and Letters of Request?

These are the terms used to describe what a PCC has to do to make it legal to refuse to allow a woman to preach or preside in their church, and to ask for oversight from another male bishop rather than the parish’s diocesan bishop, whether they are male or female.

If a PCC wishes to invoke the provisions created in 2014 to be able to avoid the ministry of ordained women, the PCC must pass a Resolution by a simple majority (as long as at least 2/3 of the members were at the meeting) to send a Letter of Request to their bishop requesting that arrangements be made for the parish in line with its theological position on the ordination of women.

When the Bishop receives the Letter of Request, she or he must agree on which bishop will act as a bishop in that parish, for events such as confirmations, and services to which a bishop might normally be invited. It becomes legal to advertise for male clergy only. A curate coming to this church might be one who has requested that he is not ordained by the diocesan bishop or suffragan bishop, but by a Provincial Episcopal Visitor (a bishop who has not ordained any women and whose role is to support parishes who have passed Resolutions and sent  Letters of Request).

5. How do we know that a PCC plans to pass this Resolution? If we don‘t agree, what can we do?

One of the weaknesses of the process set out in the document agreed in Synod and by the Bishops (Declaration of the House of Bishops, and Guide to the Declaration) is that although it puts the emphasis on the theological views of the parish, rather than the incumbent or Church Wardens, there is no means of ensuring that any decision is based on the views of the majority of the parish or congregation. Nor is it mandatory for the PCC to tell the congregation that they plan to discuss this, although it is, of course, good practice.

6. Good Practice within a parish planning to discuss a Resolution

The advice given is to “consult widely” before the PCC discusses the proposal, and it is important for any parish where such a Resolution and Letter of Request is being considered, to explain: 

·       Why this is being suggested (encouraged)

·       What would be the results of the PCC voting for a Resolution, for the church congregation and links to the wider diocese

·       What would be the impact of the PCC voting for a Resolution on ecumenical cooperation.

Consultation can happen in an open meeting, and through smaller groups, articles in any parish magazine or similar. Ideally, more than one means of communication will be used for this.

It is good practice to consult everyone on the electoral roll, and also to offer an opportunity to those who come to any regular services to give their views. Such views should be recorded and available to PCC members, and it is also good practice to let the diocese know how the wider parish thinks.

Anyone may collate the results of such a consultation.

The views of the majority of the parish should be made known to all PCC members and the wider church community before any formal meeting of the PCC. PCC members should be strongly encouraged to take the views of church members seriously. However, the PCC does not have to vote in line with the results of any wider consultation. There have been cases where the parish-wide consultation is clearly in favour of not limiting the ministry of women, but the PCC has voted in favour of a Resolution. In several cases this has led to loyal congregation members leaving the church and divisions in the congregation.

7. Can we appeal to anyone?

In 2014, the role of Independent Reviewer was created to act as a kind of “ombudsman" to receive and adjudicate if any parish or individual with a valid interest in the particular situation, felt that the provisions in the Declaration had not been applied properly. However, because the Declaration does not include anything to protect the rights and theological views of those who want to be able to receive the ministry of women, there is no way of appealing to the Independent Reviewer if this is what is wanted. It is still very important to let your diocesan bishop know that this Resolution was passed despite the majority of parish members not being in favour. The bishop may not be able to change anything, but it does matter that these examples of bad practice are not hidden and ignored.

If you and your parish feel strongly about this, you can still contact the Independent Reviewer and your complaint will be noted and recorded, but it is very unlikely that any action will be taken.

8. Our parish is currently in vacancy (without a vicar or rector)

It is important to make sure that, unless your parish has passed a Resolution, the parish profile and person specification for a new vicar states clearly that your parish welcomes ordained women. There are plenty of examples of a new vicar being appointed who, even if he does not try to pass a Resolution, still limits the ministry of women, both ordained and lay. Even if the profile states the parish supports the ministry of women, make sure that at least one of the parish representatives asks any interviewees specific questions about their views on women leading worship, both preaching and leading sacramental worship,  and the role of ordained women.

If your parish has passed a Resolution, then a vacancy can offer a helpful opportunity to discuss this in the parish again, without the influence of a vicar who does not agree with the ordination of women. If your PCC agrees to this, then ask your Archdeacon or diocesan parish support staff to help you find a good facilitator to lead such discussions.

9. What are the main reasons why some people continue to refuse to accept ordained women?

There are two main groups of those who do not think the Church of England should ordain women as priests or bishops.

a) Conservative Evangelicals believe that the bible teaches that men should take the lead in marriages, families and the church. They do not object to women being ordained as priests, but do not let them preach or lead mixed study groups in their churches if the group members are adults. They do not believe a woman should be the incumbent of any church, and similarly, they do not believe that a woman should take the leadership role of a bishop. The Bishop who normally gives oversight to this group, if requested, was the Bishop of Maidstone (up to October 2022). The bishop who provides oversight to this group now, is the Bishop of Ebbsfleet.

b) Traditional Anglo-Catholics do not consider that the Church of England has the authority to decide to ordain women unless the Roman Catholic Church has made a decision to allow this. Sacraments and church order are very important to this group and they will not receive communion from a woman, nor will they receive communion from a bishop who has ordained a woman.

We have heard of some parishes where the congregation think that they need to pass a Resolution to ensure that the style of their worship is protected. A Resolution has nothing to do with this.

The bishops appointed to give oversight to these churches are: the Bishops of Richborough, Beverley and Fulham. Until 2022, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet was also a bishop for these churches, but the Bishop of Oswestry is the title of the replacement for Ebbsfleet.

This group are sometimes linked to the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda and/or Forward in Faith

Further Information and links

What are the Five Guiding principles? How do they help to remove or lessen conflict in the Church of England over the ordination of women?

These are five statements created by a working group in 2013 to be an accepted basis for any future legislation to enable women to be appointed as bishops. The view was that as these statements had helped Synod to draft legislation that Synod could support, they should be retained and all ordinands, and sometimes others, are asked to affirm that they support them. The difficulty is that because they were created to be a negotiating base, they contain contradictory statements. In our experience so far, they have been used more often to protect the rights of a church or individual to continue to discriminate against women, than to search for new ways of working together.

You can read the text of the five principles, and some explanation of them,  here:

 https://womenandthechurch.org/resources/five-guiding-principles-an-introduction-and-guide/

Where can we find out more?

WATCH has a much more detailed Guide to the Five Guiding Principles and what they might mean in practice on its website, referenced in the paragraphs above.

A copy of this paper is on the WATCH website:

 https://womenandthechurch.org/resources/a-short-guide-to-resolutions-letters-of-request-bishops-and-parishes.

If your parish is in vacancy or you think that some people are trying to pass a Resolution, you might find it helpful to contact the Dean or Adviser for Women’s Ministry in your diocese for local advice and support.

If you decide you want to read the original documents, then go to GS Misc 1076 House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests:

https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/gs-misc-1076-women-in-the-episcopate.pdf

and the published Guidance on the Declaration GS Misc 1077

Full text here

Is equality for women in the Church really a priority when there are other arguably more pressing issues that we need to focus on?

This is something that women have been asked on many occasions in the past as we have struggled to be treated equally with men. There is always something else that is deemed more important.

Women make up half of the population and two thirds of our congregations. Making us feel second-class and restricting our God-given ministries has a high price both on women ourselves and on the mission of the Church. Ordained women tend to put up with the situation, because they have no other choice, but lay people – when they become aware of the inequality for women in the Church – are dismayed by it and find it unacceptable. The way that the Church discriminates against women and other groups is a reason often cited by people when asked why they have stopped going to Church or are not interested in attending Church.

Do the arrangements actually cause anyone any harm?

Being on the receiving end of discrimination is harmful, whether or not we accept it. It diminishes and degrades us, often in a slow and steady process. At a NADAWM conference recently, someone described the wounding that women experience discrimination in the Church a bit like how a bed sore develops – with one tiny abrasion adding to another until it is a really painful sore.  Dr Gabriella Thomas in her research, For the Good of the Church, comes to a similar conclusion – referring to mutual flourishing, as experienced by Anglican women, as ‘an open wound’ in the Church.

When we look at mental health statistics, we see that all groups that experience discrimination, whether by sex, sexuality, race, class or disability, typically have poorer mental health than white able-bodied heterosexual middleclass men. 

Ordained women

Ordained women face the most obvious and direct discrimination. Doctoral Researcher at the University of Birmingham, Sarah Schofield, has conducted recent research (comprising interviews with a range of ordained women in the Church of England), that evidences the discrimination that ordained women experience and its impact.  One of her interviewees says, ‘To be in an institution which has said that it is alright for people to hold office who have the view that women are not able to be priests is for me to be in an institution which appears completely half-hearted in its support for my ministry and for the ministry of other women.’ Bishop Rose Hudson-Wilkin has spoken of the daily humiliation that the arrangements bring. Being expected to attend events where you are not allowed to preach or preside over communion and yet are expected to smile and say this is acceptable.

Rev Jeremy Clines, Chaplain at Sheffield University, speaks about the moral injury that is caused to ordained women when they are expected to be silent about the injustice that they experience and yet represent a Church that is called to proclaim a gospel of justice for all people.

Ordained women are forced to keep their concerns and experiences of discrimination to themselves. To speak out means that they are labelled as difficult and will preclude them getting promotions in the Church. I myself, for example, have been told that I am blacklisted from getting any form of promotion because I have spoken out publicly about discrimination against women in the Church. I know Deans of Women’s ministry who have been advised to resign their membership of WATCH if they want to continue in their positions. All this means that not only are women experiencing costly discrimination and diminishment, but also they are coerced into silence about this.

The discrimination that ordained women experience means that there are certain parishes where they cannot apply for posts. And, in the case of bishops, there are parishes for whom female bishops need to make arrangements for extended oversight by an acceptable male bishop.

But, perhaps more importantly, this institutional discrimination legitimises all kinds of sexism. And although we have a good percentage of priests and bishops who are now female, the top jobs are still largely given to men. Statistics show that, as a female priest, you are more likely to be serving in rural ministry looking after seven or more parishes with no support, while male priests occupy almost all of the senior posts at large city churches with big staff teams. Furthermore, about 25% of bishops are now female, but only eight out of 42 Diocesan Bishops are female. This is because the system of appointment through the CNC is skewed against female candidates who effectively need to get 10 out of 10 possible votes rather than 10 out of 14.  As a result, only three in the last thirteen appointments of Diocesans have been women.

Lay women

Most lay women and men are unaware of the ongoing discrimination against women in the Church. There is a deliberate policy of covering up and disguising the current arrangements. Despite WATCH, the SCM and others calling for transparency, almost nothing has been done to make it easy for lay people to see whether their church puts any limits on women’s ministries. And this is deliberate because churches who limit women’s ministries know that to explain this clearly would be problematic from a missional perspective. So, either nothing is said or wording is cloaked in jargon so that people cannot understand it. When people do find out that their church has a policy of limiting women’s ministries (usually when a vacancy arises), they are frequently upset about this.  They may feel betrayed and almost defrauded, especially if they have been members of the church for a long time and have given sacrificially with their own ministries and their money.

A lay woman may also be in a church which limits women’s ministry and find that, if she has a vocation to ordained ministry, then this is either unrecognised or discouraged. All priests are supposed to pass on potential female candidates for ordination to other priests to help them in the discernment process, if they cannot themselves. Nonetheless, this does not always happen, and sometimes a woman does not recognise her calling herself when she sees no women leading, preaching or presiding in the church she attends.

As an ADO myself in recent years, I have observed how some vicars will give men in their congregations, who are discerning a calling, opportunities like preaching or leading a small group to help them explore their calling.  But deny the same opportunities to women who have also told them they are discerning a calling. All this makes it harder for a woman to get a true sense of whether she is being called to ministry or not.

Women have been treated as second-class in the Church for many, many years and have been constrained to lowly positions. Their gifts have often not been recognised. Continuing with arrangements that still put women in a special category where they may or may not be accepted and their gifts may or may not be fully received by the Church, is to continue to diminish women who are equally made in the image of God as men are. Dr Sharon Jagger, senior lecturer in religion at York St John University, has done some recent research with lay women in the Church of England which she has published in a report called Rock the Boat and gives evidence of the impact of discrimination on lay women in the Church today.

Children and young people

Our children and young people are being taught, in some churches, theology that is frankly bad and potentially harmful. There is a clear and proven correlation between understandings of male privilege and violence against women and girls. (See almost anything written by Kevin Giles on this subject.) 

I was in a Church of England school last year and taking a class of sixth formers and one young man put up his hand and said that his church taught that women need to be under the authority of men.  This was a difficult thing to hear with half the class being 16-year-old girls. I was personally, of course, in a position to rebut the interpretations of scripture that he had been taught, but they were not. One girl rather meekly said, but isn’t it Eve’s fault as she ate the apple first?

We have to take seriously the theology that our children are being taught. Just because we call something theology does not make it good. Some theology is bad. With hindsight, we can easily look at the theologies that underpinned apartheid in South Africa or the Ku Klux Klan in the US and say this was bad theology – but we need to recognise it in our own midst. And I (and many practical theologians like Leah Robinson, for example) would say that a clear red flag when it comes to discerning if theology is good or bad is whether it actually harms people.

There is a lot of domestic violence in our culture and most of it is directed at women and girls and is often justified by an understanding that women need to do what men tell them. I would have liked to have said to the young people in that classroom that, in the Church of England, we treat women and men equally and we believe that this is what Christ calls to do. Full stop. Sadly, I was unable to do this.  I could not even say that the Church is working towards greater gender justice because it isn’t. We have (thankfully) a Church of England Head of Racial Justice but no Head of Gender Justice.

Women in cultures where they experience oppression because of their sex

The injustice and violence that women and girls experience around our world is caused, perpetuated and justified, in many instances, by an understanding that women should do what men tell them to do and, if they don’t, they should be punished.  The practices of these oppressive cultures are often underpinned and justified by theology – whether Christian, Muslim or of other faiths. Correcting this bad theology is really important. And it is hard for us to do this with any authenticity if we ourselves, as a Church, still discriminate against women.

How do we respect individual theological conscience?

Before addressing this question, it is important to point out the work of social scientists, like Dr Alex D J Fry of Bournemouth University, who show that so-called theological conscience, of those in the Church of England who seek to limit women’s ministries, is mostly from social factors – that is, it is indistinguishable from what we understand as prejudice. Furthermore, Fry has done some interesting work on how the arguments that those who seek to limit women’s ministries use map onto what sociologists call System Justification Theory. That is to say that people who enjoy privilege often seek arguments that will preserve that privilege. And that is what appears to be happening in the Church.

Bringing the 2014 arrangements to an end would mean that we put an end to discrimination institutionally. It would not mean that anyone needs to be evicted from the Church. No one would be forced to receive communion from a female priest if they did not want to. People who did not want to receive preaching or teaching from women could seek out churches with exclusively male leadership. So, there would be the ability to continue as individuals to believe that women’s ministries should be restricted – but the Church would not see this as theology that it condoned as an institution.

The Church of England is a broad church which is a good thing, but even the broadest churches have to have some walls. We do not, for example, allow those who believe God created one race to be superior to another to teach that ‘theology’ in our Church, and quite rightly.

Every other Anglican province which has allowed women to be priests and bishops has managed to create a culture in which theological difference of opinion on the ordination of women is accepted as a reality, but is not enshrined in law. The Church of England is the only Anglican province that has female priests and bishops and has legislation that says it is acceptable to not accept them and those who don’t accept them should flourish.  As you can imagine, these provinces had a good number of male priests who did not welcome female priests but those male priests have neither flounced off in any substantial numbers nor do they feel unwelcome in their churches.

Furthermore, as we continue to worry that there may be a small number of people who say they cannot stay in the Church of England if we bring the 2014 arrangements to an end, we seem to take no account of the many people who cannot join the Church of England or have left it because of its discrimination against women.

How is it most people know next to nothing about the 5GPs and Declaration?

Admitting to discrimination and using exemptions that the Church of England has under the Equality Act 2010 to administer this discrimination is publicly embarrassing, so the Church goes out of its way to cover all this up.  Senior clergy are completely against raising awareness about the arrangements, whatever they may say. Bishops have made it a requirement for church websites to make a statement about safeguarding on their homepage and they could do the same about churches’ positions on women’s ministry. But we have been told that discrimination by sex is a ‘secondary issue’ and not something that churches should be required to be transparent about.

If you speak to people who have recently been ordained, they will tell you that they received hardly any information about the Declaration and the background to women’s ministry in the Church when they did their theological training. They will tell you that they were required to sign to say that they accepted the 5 guiding principles and the Declaration and ADOs very often would tell them not to worry about it, if they had any concerns, but just to sign because they have to – otherwise they would not be allowed to train for ministry. Countless women and men have told me that they had concerns about the arrangements, but were told they had no choice if they wanted to continue with their calling.

The current exhibition at the Lambeth Palace Library on Women in the Church of England is an example of how the Church is seeking to sanitise the story of how women came to be priests and bishops and the conditionality of their acceptance into the Church.

Only by doing what WATCH is doing and trying to speak out about the situation can create some awareness. But it is difficult and costly to do this.

I would say that a young ordained woman, who supports WATCH, is jeopardising her future in the Church because she will be branded as unsuitable for a lot of positions, simply because she has the courage to say that she wants women and men to be treated equally.

Last year the Church of England appointed a Diocesan Bishop, who does not believe that the Church of England has the authority to ordain women as priests, with oversight over female clergy. It ignored the recommendation of Independent Reveiwer, Sir Phillip Mawer, in the Sheffield report he published in 2017 which said that work should be done by the Church, before making such an appointment, to consider the consequences of appointing a Diocesan who has reservations about women’s ordination insofar as this impacts female clergy.  But this work has not been done or even started, despite the current Independent Reviewer, Canon Maggie Swinson, calling for it again this year.

On the other hand, someone like myself, a woman who is a feminist simply wanting women and men to be treated equally, is automatically blacklisted. I myself have been told that I could never be considered an appropriate candidate as a bishop because I am open in saying I want equality for women.

Won’t calling for an end to the Declaration damage the LLF campaign?

With hindsight, many women believe that it would have been better to have waited until the Church of England was willing to ordain women as priests and bishops on equal terms with men rather than going down the route that we have taken. And which leaves us in this state of acceptance which is really only a semi-acceptance or a conditional acceptance i.e. that we are accepted but we have to show gracious restraint where our services are not wanted and keep quiet about the ongoing discrimination.

We used to have a Church where a bishop was a bishop. You almost certainly would not agree with your bishop on every theological matter but nonetheless he was your Bishop and you just had to get on with that. In the past, we have had bishops who have said that they don’t even believe in the resurrection but no one had the right to have extended oversight from another bishop who did believe in the resurrection.

Scandalously, it is only over the matter of the ordination of women, that churches have the right to seek oversight from a bishop who concurs with them theologically on this matter. (And incidentally the cost of four PEV bishops is £497,000pa plus housing costs.)  I personally think it will be a disaster if we have some similar arrangement for people who want to insist that their bishop agrees with them theologically on LLF matters.

The Declaration is not fit for perpetuity and yet we are stuck with it and in a position where it is going to be difficult to dismantle it. In the meantime, yes, women get on with their ministries but at a huge cost – to themselves and to the whole Church, which is not living out the true Gospel by treating women and men equally. And is unlikely to flourish while it is effectively being complicit with theology that harms and diminishes.

Isn’t calling for an end to the Declaration going back on our word?

Although the Declaration does not provide for a review, it recognises that it might be amended in the future. And of course it is the prerogative of Synod and the House of Bishop to bring it to an end if they choose. The Declaration was entered into in good faith and reading it you can see that it is all about protecting a minority who is expected to see their position in the Church diminish over time. This has led to some kind of insurgency - with tribal churches now existing within the Church insisting on having equal rights to flourish, including the right to be Diocesan bishops, their own theological college (a new one has just been opened in Lancashire for Traditionalist Anglo-Catholic ordinands with funding from the CofE), separate Chrism masses, separate ordination services and restrictions on who can lay hands on people during the consecration of bishops.

There are many aspects of the Declaration that are being abused and there is no policing of it by the Church. For example:

• Some Traditionalist Anglo Catholic parishes are being told (by Forward in Faith) that they can pass resolutions to avoid having a female vicar not only because of theological conscience (the only legally valid reason) but also ‘for unity’ and because, if they have a female vicar, then this will spoil the way the liturgy and worship is conducted. As an Area Dean myself, when I have heard this, I have pushed back but nothing seems to be being done to remedy this sort of thing happening.

• Some Conservative Evangelical churches, that have not passed resolutions asking for extended oversight because of theological convictions on male headship, practise what they sometimes refer to as ‘soft complementarianism.’ This means that, although they have not passed a resolution, they don’t really think women make very good leaders and have a quiet policy of keeping to male leadership.

• Although PCCs are required under the Declaration to reflect the theological convictions of the parish regarding women’s ministry, we have seen PCCs pass Resolutions with minimal consultation and where the majority view – in favour of women’s full ministry – has been overridden.

• We have asked bishops to encourage parishes that have Resolutions to review these regularly, but this is generally not happening.

• We have brought to the attention of bishops ‘Guidance’ about passing Resolutions that has been published by third parties, and commended for use by churches, which is misapplying the Declaration – but the Church has not commented on or corrected this ‘Guidance.’

• We have come across churches who do not have Resolutions, and do not want to limit women’s ministry in any way, being pressured by some patrons and bishops to accept clergy who limit women’s roles.

Isn’t it all just too difficult?

Obviously it will not be easy to bring the Declaration to an end and I understand that it will require majorities in all three houses of two thirds. Nonetheless, simply bringing the situation back to Synod will greatly increase awareness of the issues and I believe that lay people up and down the country very much would like to get rid of discrimination by sex in the Church, and also most clergy would too. It was interesting to see in The Times survey last year that 67% of the 1,500 clergy who were interviewed said that it was time for the arrangements to come to an end. Of course, we do have more of a problem with the bishops who are, on the whole, becoming increasingly conservative.

Nonetheless, behind the scenes there may be more support for unravelling the legislation than might be perceived. One of the first things that Bishop Sarah said to me, when I first visited her as the new Chair of WATCH, about 18 months ago, was that we need to find a way to get a motion before Synod again that allows a conversation about the Declaration and five guiding principles. I couldn’t really understand what she meant or how on earth one could achieve that, at the time. But I think something is astir and there Is increasing recognition that the Declaration needs to come to an end and, possibly, it is better to address this sooner rather than later.