FiF UK
TEA - a further examination
Apr 5, 2006

FORWARD IN FAITH LEGAL WORKING PARTY ON WOMEN BISHOPS

RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS’ WOMEN BISHOPS GROUP

Report to the General Synod from a working group chaired by the Bishop of Guildford (GS 1605) [Available as a download here.]

INTRODUCTION

The Forward in Faith Legal Working Party which produced Part 2 of Consecrated Women? [1] has been re-convened to consider the Report of the House of Bishops’ Women Bishops Group chaired by the Bishop of Guildford.

We believe that the Guildford Report (GS 1605) has the following fundamental defects:

1. It misrepresents our proposals for a new province and thus mistakenly and unfairly rejects them.

2. It fails to deal adequately with the question of collegiality and communion.  This is something on which the Forward in Faith Theological Working Party is doing further work in the light of the General Synod Motion passed in February 2006.

3. It is unclear whether it is jurisdiction or merely functions which would be transferred or delegated under the TEA proposals.

4. It fails to create a jurisdiction for the PRBs. In paragraph 39 it is stated as a disadvantage of the Third Province that it would amount to a competing jurisdiction. If this is not to also be a disadvantage of the TEA proposals it must follow that no new jurisdiction would be created by TEA and this is stated as an advantage of TEA at paragraph 46. But if no new jurisdiction would be created, those under the TEA proposals must come under the existing jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop or archbishop. It is that existing jurisdiction which would be unacceptable to us as soon as either the diocesan bishop or archbishop is female or, if male, is in a college with female bishops.

5. It fails to deal adequately with questions of sacramental assurance as it does not understand that a male priest ordained by a woman bishop would be unacceptable to us.

6. It fails to address the question of how TEA parishes would relate to synodical structures of the Church of England.

7. It fails to provide a mechanism whereby doctrinally unacceptable provisions could not be forced onto TEA parishes.

8. It does not address the question of how future PRBs would be appointed and consecrated and thus gives no guarantee that TEA would work beyond the first generation of PRBs.

9. It fails to consider the risk that a future General Synod (in which those subject to TEA would be a minority) could simply legislate away all TEA provisions.

+   +   +   +   +

We now consider in detail the sections of the Report on the Third Province and the proposals for Transferred Episcopal Arrangements.

 A Third (or Free) Province (page 15)

1.                  It is stated in footnote 33 that those in favour of such an arrangement refer to it variously as Third or Free Province. We would point out that in our publication Consecrated Women? referred to in footnote 35 we do not use these terms but refer to a new or additional province.

2.                  The summary of a Third Province given in the box on page 15 misrepresents the proposals outlined in Consecrated Women?. The new or additional province would not be a body ‘not unlike the Church in Wales’. It is expressly stated at paragraph 5.3 of Consecrated Women? that ‘unlike the formation of the Church in Wales in 1920, when a separate church was created out of parts of the Church of England, the new province would remain part of the Church of England.’

3.                  The new province would not have a defined and distinct geographical identity fixed for all time (as was the case with the Church in Wales). The geographical identity would change as parishes entered or left the new province.

4.                  We would point out that the proposals outlined in Consecrated Women? were intended to a be a contribution to debate and were never intended to be a full and final demand of those who cannot accept women bishops. We do not claim and have never claimed that our proposals are the only way to satisfy the doctrinal needs of those who cannot accept the validity of women bishops. We accept that there may be other ways in which these can be achieved, and have at all times been willing to discuss the essential requirements and how they can be satisfied, either with the Guildford Group or any other group within the Church that may be charged with the responsibility of making proposals for the way forward.  However at present we believe that the proposals set out in Consecrated Women? provide the solution best calculated to satisfy those needs, and thereby prevent the loss to the Church of England of a very substantial number of its adherents.

Paragraph 37

1.                  The theological working party is being re-convened to do more work on the question of communion. We would simply point out that the draft measure in Consecrated Women? states that the new province would be in communion with the See of Canterbury, without stating the degree of communion or the relationship with any particular occupant of the see. Furthermore, we understand that since publication of Consecrated Women? the Church of Nigeria has re-written its constitution to exclude reference to communion with the See of Canterbury, whilst still claiming to be Anglican.

2.                  We cannot see how the creation of a new province for those opposed to women bishops would set precedents for separate jurisdictions on other issues, where very different questions would arise.

3.                  We do not accept that there would not be room for permeable borders and mutual learning in a new province. The draft measure allows for parishes to enter and leave the new province as part of the discernment process as to the rightness or otherwise of the Church of England’s decision to ordain women priests and bishops.

Paragraph 39

1.                  We cannot accept that those who wish to be obedient to scripture and the traditional teachings of the Church Catholic would be in schism. It is the innovators of women bishops who would be in schism. Furthermore, if the Church of England itself sets up a new province that cannot, by definition, be schismatic.

2.                  The new province we envisage does have permeable borders, allowing for the two sides growing together.

3.                  If, which we do not accept, the new province would amount to a competing provincial jurisdiction which runs counter to Lambeth Conference Resolutions, we would point out that this would not be the first time a province has been created to allow for differing views on the question of the ordination of women.[2]

4.                  We do not accept that there would be a risk of a new province becoming another ‘continuing Anglican church.’ Continuing churches are those which have left the parent church. Since the new province would be created by the Church of England, and would remain part of her, it would not be a continuing church. Conversely, if adequate provision is not made within the Church of England for those who cannot accept the consecration of women, then there is a real risk of “continuing churches” forming spontaneously.

5.                  We do not accept that a new province could not meet the needs of those primarily concerned with issues of headship. As long as those with episcopal oversight in the new province teach what has always been believed by all Christians everywhere and fashion their lives in accordance with the established teachings of the Church, they should be equally acceptable to those in both the catholic and evangelical traditions of the Church of England. We would point out that at the moment those from the catholic tradition in the Lewes Episcopal Area accept oversight from the evangelical Bishop of Lewes, and those in the evangelical parish of Knutsford accept extended episcopal care from the catholic Bishop of Beverley.

6.                  We do not see why the new province must necessarily be more costly in terms of administration, particularly now that dioceses are sharing resources. We would point out that the figures in Appendix 7 of the number of parishes petitioning under the Act of Synod are incorrect and that the new province would be comparable in size to the Church in Wales.

7.                  Whilst there may be a political risk that Parliamentary approval might not be forthcoming, there must be an equal or greater risk that Parliamentary approval might not be forthcoming for a ‘single clause measure’ when the Ecclesiastical Committee comes to consider the interests of ‘all Her Majesty’s subjects’. Yet the risk of failing to secure parliamentary approval is not listed as a disadvantage of the one clause measure in paragraph 35. This makes the report unbalanced.

Paragraph 40

We take exception to the use of the phrase ‘the foreseeable future’ which suggests that it is envisaged that only terminal care is required for those who cannot accept women bishops and priests and that in due course a ‘one clause measure’ would be acceptable. This is contrary to the assurances given in 1992 that those who cannot accept the ordination of women would have an honoured place in the Church of England. Since 1992 the number of petitioning parishes under the Act of Synod has grown continually so any provision must be able to cater for growth.

Paragraph 41

We are concerned that the modelling of TEA on the London plan fails to address the question of collegiality. The London plan only works because all the bishops, being male, can recognise each other as bishops in the Church of God and since the Bishop of London ordains no women priests all the bishops can accept his jurisdiction.

Paragraph 42

This paragraph misunderstands our concerns as it fails to address the question of collegiality. It is not just that we need a male bishop, but a male bishop who has not been consecrated by a woman bishop and a male bishop who has not consecrated a woman bishop.

It is not clearly expressed exactly where jurisdiction would lie. In the model outlined in this paragraph, jurisdiction appears to reside with the Archbishop who would delegate his functions to the PRB or diocesan. This view is confirmed by paragraph 116. It would appear, therefore, that if a parish were under Transferred Episcopal Arrangements the Archbishop and diocesan would agree under a statutory arrangement that the archbishop should act as ordinary (see paragraph 61).This, it is suggested, could be seen as an extension of the Archbishop’s metropolitical jurisdiction to take remedial action where difficulties have arisen in the life of a diocese. We find this reference to ‘difficulties’ unfortunate as it is capable of suggesting that the inability to accept a woman bishop or a bishop who consecrates or ordains women priests or bishops as (in the words of paragraph 1 of Canon G5, referred to in paragraph 60) something lacking or something amiss which needs correction.

Paragraph 43

The PRB should have jurisdiction and not simply ‘be authorised to act’ in relation to the matters listed.

The PRB would also need control of finance, budgets and staffing.

The proposals concerning Pastoral Measure issues are unsatisfactory. The PRB should not only have right of consultation and voting, but should have a right of veto.

We note that whilst the PRB would have a duty to co-operate with a diocese, the diocese would have no corresponding duty to co-operate with the PRB. This is unfair.

We do not understand how a TEA parish could be subject to the ‘normal diocesan structures and procedures, including the faculty jurisdiction’ if the ordinary jurisdiction had passed to the Archbishop and disciplinary functions delegated to the PRB. The faculty jurisdiction is based on the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop as exercised in his consistory court.

It is stated in footnote 45 that the group has ‘not had time to consider the detailed relationship between clergy and laity in TEA parishes –and PRBs- to the Synodical structures of the Church of England’. Such matters are crucial and the General Synod could not be expected to vote on proposals which do not deal with such matters in detail.

Paragraph 44

We do not accept the concept of shared episcopal jurisdiction in the Church of England. Episcopal jurisdiction cannot be shared, only episcopal functions can be shared. Shared jurisdiction is not transferred jurisdiction.

We reject the analogy with Area Schemes since in an Area Scheme the diocesan bishop retains his jurisdiction, but delegates some functions. The diocesan retains the right to visit all parishes and the oath of obedience should always be taken to the diocesan bishop. An Area Scheme works because there is collegiality between the bishops, all of whom accept the diocesan as ordinary. An area scheme does not divest the diocesan bishop of his functions.[3]

Paragraph 45

The TEA proposals would have to be enshrined in a Measure in such a way as to ensure that they could not be legislated away by a future General Synod and so that parishes under TEA could not have unacceptable doctrinal legislation forced on them.

We set out in Annexe 1 a suggested way forward concerning legislation.

Paragraph 46

With regard to the advantages of TEA listed we are bound to ask for whom are the points listed advantages? Turning to the listed advantages we would comment

 Paragraph 113

ANNEXE  1

PROPOSALS CONCERNING LEGISLATION