Women Bishops - what the House of Bishops amendments mean

There's a fair amount going round the Twittersphere analysing the House of Bishops' amendments to the Women Bishops Measure. The debate at the last Synod asked the House not to make substantial amendments to the Measure (but didn't rule out tweaking the Measure). I think we've been faithful to the remit Synod gave us.


The House rejected amendments to ensconce Mission Societies in the Measure. It also rejected changes that would have removed delegation from the Measure.


Two amendments were passed. 


The first is to Clause  5. It inserts one of the three principles that the House of Bishops enunciated  in December. It would require the Code of Practice to make sure that, when Bishops are drawing up Diocesan schemes, they delegate, not just to any old male bishop, but to a bishop who shares the theological principles of the parish that is asking for delegated ministry. Put simply, if a female Bishop of London asked me, as a male bishop, to look after a traditionalist catholic parish which is currently under the oversight of the Bishop of Fulham, it wouldn't work! My sacramental ministry isn't acceptable to them. That's how it is. I ordain and champion women in leadership as priests - and, pray God, I'll be participating in the ordination and consecration of women bishops. So we need the Code to take seriously the integrity of parishes who are submitting a letter of request. Any old male bishop won't do, and it's better that the Measure says so. Being explicit about this is honest.


The second amendment is to clause 8 (the notes at the end of the Measure) and makes clear that the authority of Bishops that they receive in delegation is distinct from the authority inherent in the Bishop's office and ordination. (Which is the daily reality that Area Bishops live in day by day). And it also says that delegation doesn't divest a diocesan bishop of his/her authority or functions, thus preserving the integrity of the ministry of women bishops.


So I think what we've done is send out a message to opponents that they're still part of the CofE, but without undermining the ministry of women bishops. Others are free to disagree. The important thing is to get this legislation through and get to the next stage.

Policy Framework for Missional Communities

This policy is under development. Comments from those with expertise and theological insights would be welcome...

Ordained Pioneer Ministry, Fresh Expressions & Missional Communities

In Policy Paper 1, we committed ourselves to a mixed economy of expressions of Church. Alongside the inherited model of parish church and chaplaincy, we are committed to Church Planting (see Policy Paper 2) and to the development of Fresh Expressions. One manifestation of Fresh Expressions is the Missional Community. As part of the Church of England’s strategy for producing leaders for these new forms of Church, a training route has been developed within the Church of England which trains priests as Ordained Pioneer Ministers. The aim of this paper is to set out the policy framework within which the Diocese of London understands these new manifestations of church and ministry, and how we will seek to develop them.

Fresh Expressions are defined as “a form of church for our changing culture, established primarily for the benefit of people who are not yet members of any church.” We commend the web page of Fresh Expressions at http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/  where there are useful resources, stories and ideas. The Diocese of London has not sought to badge or define fresh expressions. Parishes and others are free to develop their own innovative approaches to mission and discipling, and some fresh expressions are being funded through the Bishop of London’s Mission Fund http://www.london.anglican.org/BLMF

A helpful forthcoming paper from the Faith & Order Commission: Fresh Expressions and the Church: Mission and Communion provides a framework for evaluating the ecclesiological questions that arise from the burgeoning of fresh expressions within the Church of England.

Ordained Pioneer Ministers are usually identified and sponsored as such as part of the selection process for ordination training. Candidates are required inter alia to have:

·         a realistic and informed vocation to plant fresh expressions of church within contemporary culture

·         a clear vision of the place of their envisaged ministry within the wider church's response to God's mission to the world

·         demonstrable maturity and robustness to face the demands of pioneering mission and ministry

·         a demonstrable track record of innovation and initiative

·         the capacity to evangelise beyond the culture of the Church

Despite sponsoring candidates to train for OPM, the Diocese of London has not hitherto provided many places where those trained for this work can easily be deployed. We will need to explore how opportunities and funds can be released to develop this ministry – and that will depend partly on our strategy for missional communities.

Missional Communities are defined as communities constituted by a specific missional purpose in relation to a network or a place. These will normally be communities without buildings, defined by relationship, meeting inter alia in homes, cafes and pubs; designed to be places where those who would be highly unlikely to join institutional church might find faith and be discipled. Missional Communities will normally operate under a Bishop’s Mission Order, and may inhabit a number of localities.

The exploration of missional communities is at an early stage in the Diocese of London. There are key questions about ecclesiology, sacramental life, word and prayer, and discipleship which will need to be worked out as we develop missional communities. One practitioner has set out the process of developing such communities as a six stage process:

1.       Prayerful listening for God's lead to whom and where a group are being sent

2.       Loving service amongst that community

3.       Building relationships amongst the host community and seeking to hear, see and respond to what God is already doing in them and modelling discipleship

4.       Exploring discipleship

5.       Church forming

6.       Doing it all over again!

In order to develop missional communities, we will need to address issues of

·         strategic location (where might missional communities develop?)

·         leadership (usually by an OPM);

·         resources (should finance and housing be made available for the OPM, and from what source?)

·         oversight, accountability and relationship to the Bishop(s);

·         relationship to inherited Church in the localities in which missional communities are situated. 

More specifically, this will require us to ask questions similar to those set out in the Church Planting Policy in Strategy Paper 2, including:

1.       What is your strategy? Please produce a written statement.

2.       What is your desired location or network for the missional community?

3.       Has there been adequate investment in prayer in relation to the initiative?

4.       Where does your strategy fit within the London Challenge?

5.       What are the objectives of this particular missional community?

6.       Who will be involved? (Leadership, lay members of the community, etc.)

7.       When will you be ready to go? Timescale, critical path analysis

8.       How are you proposing to fund and resource the missional community?

9.       What preliminary consultation is needed with existing Church of England parishes and structures? Bishop; Archdeacon; Deanery; parishes; Area Council.

10.    What legalities will be required?

o   Bishop’s Mission Order

o   Licences and Lay Commissions

o   Charitable status

11.    What support do you need from the Diocese to help you achieve your objectives?  (These may not be deliverable, but we want expectations to be clear on both sides.)

In developing the missional community policy, we wish to operate in partnership with other agencies that also see the priority of this form of ministry as a way of reaching the non-churched in our society. We intend to explore working with:

[under negotiation]

We will aim for synergies with these and other agencies, which are likely to include:

1.       Sources of expertise on the development of such communities, drawing on experience in other parts of the world

2.       Exploration of funding proposals to enable housing for missional communities

3.       Enabling short-term involvement from those who wish to explore life in community (for example, developing the existing Lee Abbey vision in a number of London locations)

4.       Intentional discipleship training in situ (including a facility for the training of OPMs)

5.       Exploration of whether missional communities in London might be constituted into an Order of Mission

[Discussions with partner organisations are just beginning, and this paper will be refined during the process as decisions are taken about partnerships]

 A policy paper on lay ministries and how we handle them...

PERMISSIONS, COMMISSIONS and LICENCES

BISHOP’S PERMISSION

This is restricted to a particular parish and is for specific function/s.  The person needs the support of his/her parish priest and PCC, who recommend to the Bishop.  The Bishop’s agreement is required.  Permissions are renewable every three years at the initiation of the Bishop’s office.

There is a range of possible permissions: to distribute Holy Communion; to preach and lead worship; to take communion to the sick/housebound; to lead services of extended communion; to take funerals.  All these permissions, and particularly the authorisation of lay people to take funerals, require specific approval from the Bishop and an agreed training framework.

BISHOP’S COMMISSION

This is restricted to a particular parish/chaplaincy.  The person needs the support of his/her parish priest and PCC or Chaplain, and then goes through a screening process by the Warden for Commissioned Ministers (which may or may not require completion of a training course e.g. for pastoral assistants). The Warden recommends to the Bishop.  The Bishop’s agreement is required.

A Commission is specific to the parish (e.g. pastoral assistant, youth leader) and to a bishop.  It is time limited for as long as the Bishop thinks fit (usually up to five years). Commissioned Ministers are part of the biennial Lay Ministerial Development Review scheme, and the outcomes and recommendations from the review will be a major factor in decisions about Recommissioning.

A Commission has specific Permissions attached to it (see above), according to the job description and work agreement agreed between the PCC and the Bishop.

Lay Hospital Chaplains also hold Bishop’s Commissions.

BISHOP’S LICENCE

This is held by Accredited Lay Ministers and Readers.

Accredited Lay Ministers:  The licence is legal, nationally recognised and transferable.  The person needs the support of his/her parish priest and PCC and then goes through the national selection process for training of the Ministry Division of the Archbishop’s Council.  There is no time limit for holding the licence.  The licence ceases by resignation, retirement or licence being removed for inappropriate behaviour.  There is periodic ministerial review. The office of ALM is likely to be discontinued by the House of Bishops in the near future.

Readers/Licensed Lay Ministers:  The licence is legal, nationally recognised and transferable.  The person needs the support of his/her parish priest and PCC and then goes through a Diocesan selection process for training.  Usually the licence is issued for up to five years and must be submitted for renewal prior to the Quinquennial Re-licensing of Readers. There are Diocesan Regulations for Reader Ministry. Readers are part of the biennial Lay Ministerial Development Review scheme, and the outcomes and recommendations from the review will be a major factor in decisions about Relicensing.

John 1:14

Christmas poem 2011

John 1:14

In the contradiction of the gods of Mammon and the lords of Misrule

In the pavement legalities of occupation and assertion, injunction and counterclaim

At the interface of tourist and worshipper, occupier and passer-by

He pitched his tent among us.

In another place and time, where the Eagle standard spreads its wings

In the tyrant rule of Herod, toying with Magi and butchering children

At the Royal City – subject today to another occupation

He pitched his tent among us.

In a culture where “reality” is pathos and everything has a price

In the lives of poor and privileged, Pharisee and refugee

At the cusp of history, at this time and at all times

He pitched his tent among us.

Come, transforming Christ, manger born and Spirit led

Take hold of what is tawdry and bring your kingdom’s joy

Take lives which ache for vision and instil eternal hope

And pitch your tent among us.

Open Evangelicalism

I've found several people asking what they think the terminology of Open Evangelical means. Here's an attempt at definition that I wrote some time ago...

Towards a definition of "Open Evangelical"

"Open evangelical" is a term that has emerged in the context of evangelical Anglicanism in the UK. Broadly speaking it is those who see themselves as heirs of the Keele Congress of 1967, when evangelical Anglicans committed themselves to work in the mainstream of the Church of England, who would want to wear that label. "Open evangelical" is usually defined over against "conservative evangelical", although open evangelicals would claim to be conservative on scripture and radical on everything else.

What are open evangelicals in the Church of England open to ?

1.         Biblical scholarship

(Believing scripture to be inspired, but not wishing to wear the inerrantist label, and content to accept that theology is a positive gift to the church, and that hermeneutics are essential to the task of understanding an inspired scripture).

2.         Cultural change

An unchanging gospel must be proclaimed in a variety of cultural contexts, and to be open is to be culturally aware and adaptable.

3.         Other theological traditions

Open evangelicals would accept that others not owning the evangelical label are also Christians, and would want to learn from them.

4.         Holistic mission

Most open evangelicals are convinced that evangelism and social action go hand in hand, and that the motivation for social and political engagement is God's activity and calling to people and churches, and not merely a means of pre-evangelism.

5.         The Church of England

A majority of evangelical Anglicans would want to wear the label that way round, with "evangelical" as the adjective that defines "Anglican". This entails a commitment to the structures and ecclesiology of the Church of England.

6.         The full ministry of women in the church

Open evangelicals supported the ordination of women to the priesthood (the conservatives didn't), and would argue from scripture that women can be both priests and bishops, and take their full part in the Church of England's ministry.

7.         Evangelism

To be an open evangelical is to believe that every structure in the church must pass the acid test "does this further the mission of God?" There is no point in the church being there for its own sake. It is only there as sign of the Kingdom.

8.         The World

Open evangelicals are basically world affirming. They believe that the role of the Church of England is to be the church for the whole country, and that to be committed to that view entails working with the grain of society rather than against it.

9.         New patterns of worship, prayer, and liturgy

Experiment in the area of worship is a hallmark of open evangelical Anglicanism. They have been in the forefront of devising new liturgy, writing new songs, and encouraging new patterns of worship.

10.        God

It is probably the case that open evangelicals have a view of God that sees him more as an agent of change than as a defender of the status quo...

On Chairing the Business Committee

Synod has got itself into a terrible mess about the next chair of the Business Committee. The Bishop of Dover, who would be an admirable person to do the job, fit and proper in every sense and in a way that Rebekah and Rupert and Andy are not, has withdrawn his nomination. The Archbishop of Canterbury attempted, in a rather manipulative way, to chastise Synod for opposing his nomination. But of course the issues aren't about the personal - though they contain the personal.

The impasse came about because the National Institutions Measure (which I helped steer through Synod) stipulates that the Chair of the Business Committee should be chosen from the 6 elected members of the Archbishops' Council (2 clergy, 2 lay, 2 bishops). Actually it was never intended that the 2 bishops should be considered as candidates for the post. In those days, the 2 bishops chaired the two major committees - education and ministry. We never thought that they should be candidates for chairing the business committee or the appointments committee - and they never have. With hindsight, we should have written that convention into the standing orders of Synod, but at the time it seemed so obvious that a bishop should not undertake these synodical roles that we didn't do so.

The point is that the Chair of the Business Committee has to be independent and be seen to be independent. They have to steer the business of Synod. They have to defend the rights of "back-bench" members.They have to say "no" to Church House, the House of Bishops, the Archbishops' Council - and to retain control of what comes on the Synod agenda - something they have lamentably failed to do of late, leading to a creeping centralisation and a number of very thin Synod agendas.
They have to ensure that people are heard and listened to and their contributions enabled. They have to be approachable and democrats to their fingertips. It's a hard job. I did it for several years, and I hope I managed to do some of that. I'm sure that the Bishop of Dover would have done and been all those things better than I did. But that's not the point.

Having a bishop chairing the Business Committee when the House and its Standing Committee meet in secret, when the Bishop has the ear of his fellow bishops, when a bishop is perceived as a person of power, and when people are rightly suspicious of bishops (there's nothing wrong with a bit of hermeneutical and ideological suspicion!) would be entirely wrong. We should change the Standing Orders to exclude the possibility of any bishop chairing the Business Committee. If the 2 clergy and 2 laity on Archbishops' Council are seen as unsuitable persons (a bit of a rude conclusion to have reached), then allow the Business Committee to elect its own chair from among its membership (excluding Bishops, of course). But it must be a competent clergyperson or lay person. Not a Bishop.

General Synod Election Address

General Synod: House of Bishops Southern Suffragan Elections 2010

Election Address from Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden & Acting Bishop of Stepney

I confess that I still quite enjoy General Synod, having served on it, with one break caused by consecration, on and off since 1985. You were kind enough to elect me to represent you in 2004 in a by-election, and again in 2005. Synodical structures in the Church of England are creaking – and are probably not fit for purpose – but we need to ensure that they serve the mission of God and can reflect our concerns as bishops and leaders in that mission.

Here are some matters to which I would want to give attention if elected:

·         Mission is top of my agenda. I have no desire to serve as a bishop in a dying institution, and will work for all that will help the Church of England to flourish in re-evangelising England and continuing to serve every community in pastoral and social care. To that end, I believe that we need to take radical steps to renew ordained and lay ministry (and undo the damage that has been done in that area by the bureaucratisation of ministerial training through the Hind Report); to revitalise inherited church and plant new missional communities; and to ensure that the National Church Institutions serve the dioceses and parishes through the legislation and policy that General Synod devises.

·         I’m absolutely committed to the consecration of women as Bishops, and hope to see it happen during the next quinquennium. Having sat on the Revision Committee, I know that what we have produced thus far does not meet the expressed concerns of those opposed, and believe that we have more work to do together as we devise a Code of Practice to see whether we can better provide for them while not trammelling the episcopal leadership of women.

·         If elected, I will work hard on your behalf to press the case for a better theology and practice of episcopacy. The role of suffragan bishops is one which is still not clearly understood, even by some of our diocesan colleagues! If our collegiality in the College and in the House is to make sense, we have to find better ways of working together, both in Dioceses and at a National level.

·         The Anglican Communion will continue to exercise us. We should give maximum support to Rowan in his attempts to hold things together, but this may well entail reinventing the ways in which we relate to Anglicans in other parts of the world. The instruments of communion are looking pretty threadbare! What is most important to sustain is our solidarity with those Churches in the two thirds world who are under the greatest pressure from poverty, persecution and political structures.

·         We shall have to work together as Bishops on the way in which we express our role in the nation in the face of increasing demands for the UK to become a more secular post-Christendom country.  This will entail ensuring that Synod understands the context in which we, as Bishops, operate. I’m privileged to be bishop in the most multi-faith and multi-cultural areas of the country (Willesden and currently Acting Bishop of Stepney). Articulating the importance of faith to Government, national and local, and engaging critically with the Coalition agendas such as the “Big Society” and education and housing reform will form a major part of our concerns both as a House and as a Synod. We will also have to help Government better understand the distinctiveness of the major world faiths and our role in the public sphere.

·         There are great challenges to be faced in relation to clergy “recruitment” and deployment; the number and shape of dioceses; and a realistic appraisal of our church buildings and whether we can continue to sustain them. I want to encourage episcopal colleagues to become much less risk-averse, more entrepreneurial, and to take the radical decisions that will ensure that, ten years hence, there is still a Church of England serving the whole country. The situation is probably more serious than the House of Bishops and the NCIs have yet acknowledged, and we cannot continue to sleepwalk into the future.

·         There will be some major questions to be faced in relation to those groups of conservative catholics and evangelicals who feel disenfranchised in the current Church of England (not merely in relation to the ordination of women to the episcopate). I have been working with other episcopal colleagues on how we might make provision for them going forward – I’d like to think that they can continue to have a life in the CofE, rather than seceding from the Church to which they have always belonged. This may make for some uncomfortable ecclesiological reshaping and necessitate some robust debate between us as to what might be possible.

Previous Form (which can be held against me!)

General Synod (Proctor in Convocation, London) 1985 – 2001

General Synod (Southern Suffragans)                    2004 – date

Chair, Vacancy in See Committees Regulation Working Party                       1991 – 1993

General Synod Standing Committee                                                                       1992 – 1998

General Synod Appointments Sub Committee                                                   1992 – 1995

Member of Archbishops' Advisory Group                                                             1993 – 1998

Chair, General Synod Business Sub Committee                                                  1996 – 1998

Chair, General Synod Elections Review Group                                                    1996 – 2000

Steering Committee for National Institutions Measure                                   1997

Member of Archbishops' Council                                                  1999 – 2000

Chair, Business Committee                                                            1999 – 2000

In the rest of life, I serve on the Urban Bishops Panel, and have just finished as Chair of St John’s College Nottingham Council. I’m also a Trustee of the Church Urban Fund. One major sign of hope that I enjoy being involved with is Spring Harvest, where I chair the Board of Management which organises our annual Easter event (attended by 35,000 Christians, 40% of whom are Anglicans), and our other work to equip the Church.

I hope that you’ll consider giving me your first preference vote, please. Do be in contact if you have any questions about anything I’ve written here.

Telephone: +44 208451 0189

Email: bishop.willesden@btinternet.com

Thank you for reading all this!