New Norms New Beginning - Diocese of Sheffield€¦ · Atthe#very#beginning#of#the#Ministry#Provision#Advisory#Group’s#Reportwe#place#these#Five#Guiding# Principles.# # When#General#Synod#began#considering#draftlegislation#for#the#consecration#of#women#to#the#

Report of the Bishop of Sheffield’s Ministry Provision Advisory Group 1

NEW NORMS

NEW BEGINNING

House of Bishops’ Declaration On the Ministry of Bishops and Priests

Including

The Five Guiding Principles

Report of the Bishop of Sheffield’s Ministry Provision Advisory Group

March 2015


Contents Introduction 3

1. House of Bishops’ Five Guiding Principles 4

2. Aims and Direction of Travel 6

3. Scriptural Framing 7

4. Terminology 10

5. Buzz Words 12

6. Consultations 13

7. Issues Relating to the PCC Resolution 18

8. Flow Chart 20

9. The Appointed Bishop 22

10. Appointed Bishop – Role Description 24

11. Mutual Flourishing – Declaration 27

12. Mutual Flourishing – Particular Steps 28

13. Ongoing Matters For The Bishop of Sheffield 30

14. Personal Contributions: 32

Conservative Evangelical

Traditional Catholic

Ordained Women

15. Summary of Recommendations 36

Appendices:

A) Aims and Terms of Reference 38

B) Documents 39

C) House of Bishops’ Five Guiding Principles 40

D) Terminology Checklist 41

E) Buzz Words Checklist 42

F) Meeting with the Bishop of Beverley 43


Introduction

The Ministry Provision Advisory Group (MPAG) was set up by the Bishop of Sheffield in October 2014 with Aims and Terms of Reference set out by him (See Appendix A). It was charged to report on two areas:

• Advice about the provision of ordained and consecrated men for parishes not able to receive women’s ministry as priests or bishops.

• Advice about how the Diocese of Sheffield should be pro-‐active in shaping a common life of mutual flourishing for all, whilst recognizing and making secure provision for those holding different views over gender and ordained ministry.

Its proposals were to be set within the principles and provisions of the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests, its Guidance Note, and Disputes Procedure – with the Five Guiding Principles at the heart of this documentation (See Appendix B). Those appointed to serve on the Group were:

- The Rt.Revd.David Hawtin, Assistant Bishop (and formerly Bishop of Repton) – Chair - The Venerable Malcolm Chamberlain, Archdeacon of Sheffield and Rotherham – Secretary - The Revd.Canon Mary Gregory, Dean of Women’s Ministry - The Revd Andy Brewerton, Area Dean of Wath - Fr. Jeffrey Stokoe, Dean of the Hickleton Chapter, General Synod Member - Dr. Jackie Butcher, Lay Chair of Ecclesall Deanery Synod, General Synod Member - In attendance as required: Mr.Andrew Vidler, Diocesan Registrar, Consultant to the Group. We have worked together well, effectively and in a good spirit, and I am grateful to members of the Group for their companionship, hard work and good humour – enabling us to handle general issues and specific details, some of which have been quite challenging. The contribution of the Registrar has been very significant, as has that of the Church of England’s Legal Adviser, Stephen Slack – we thank them both for their assistance.

I would also like to thank those who shared in our three Consultations, which have contributed greatly to our work and recommendations, and Bishop Glyn Webster, Bishop of Beverley, for our informative meeting with him (See Appendix E).

Our first meeting in October was with the Bishop of Sheffield. There have been nine meetings – with much work done between meetings. We are grateful to those who welcomed us as we gathered at Church House and at the Cathedral. In what we have written, it is important to read the titles “Bishop of Sheffield”, “The Bishop”, and “The Bishop of Doncaster” as referring to holders of that office male or female, not just to those currently in post. With the exception of the London Plan 2014, we have found no sign of work such as ours being done in other Dioceses.

We hope that what is set out in this Report enables the looked-‐for “flourishing” and “mutual flourishing” of all who are together in this Diocese of Sheffield. (Bp. David Hawtin, Chair)


At the very beginning of the Ministry Provision Advisory Group’s Report we place these Five Guiding Principles. When General Synod began considering draft legislation for the consecration of women to the episcopate (November 2013), they were already in place alongside those proposals. They accompanied and informed all the detailed debate that culminated in the November 2014 agreement. They have accompanied and informed our work too, and they were the first item presented at all the Consultations.

1. House of Bishops’ Five Guiding Principles • Now that legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the Church of

England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and holds that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience;

• Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must be prepared to acknowledge that

the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter; • Since it continues to share the historic episcopate with other Churches, including the Roman

Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and those provinces of the Anglican Communion which continue to ordain only men as priests or bishops, the Church of England acknowledges that its own clear decision on ministry and gender is set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God;

• Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are

unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures; and

• Pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of England will be

made without specifying a limit of time and in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England

These five guiding principles need to be read one with the other and held together in tension, rather than being applied selectively. They are reproduced as Appendix C for ease of copying. Appendices C, D and E can together provide a clear introduction to the House of Bishops’ Declaration.


These “Five Guiding Principles” are the life blood of all the material that comes from the House of Bishops and of all that we propose. They have been the first item presented at the three Consultations. R.1a We recommend that the Five Guiding Principles be kept visible, studied and promoted in all parishes, and through the Diocesan Synod and Bishop’s Council. R1b We recommend that the Bishop writes an Ad Clerum, setting out this intention.


2. Aim and Direction of Travel OUR AIM The aim of our work has been to make recommendations that deliver a secure and confidence-‐building process, which reduces the number of occasions when the Disputes Procedure is brought into effect, whilst being absolutely clear that that provision should be known about and made available to those PCCs that request it. The House of Bishops’ Declaration seeks to establish a blending of two requirements – a consistency of practice across the dioceses of the Church of England, and arrangements that suit the texture of a particular diocese. Our task has been to focus on the Diocese of Sheffield, whilst studying carefully the House of Bishops’ material, so that the two do indeed blend THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS’ DECLARATION, GUIDANCE NOTE, DISPUTES PROCEDURE The House of Bishops Declaration (GS Misc 1076) is a detailed document and all that we propose should be read in relation to it. We are not reproducing it within our Report. Arrangements for parishes are set out in Paras 16 – 29; for cathedrals in Paras 31 and 32; for non-‐parochial places in Para 33. Other relevant sections are: Oaths – Paras 34 – 36; Grievances and mediation – Para 37; Transitional provisions – Paras 41 – 43. The relevant sections of the Guidance Note ( (GS Misc 1077) are the Introduction – Paras 1 – 5; Passing a resolution – Paras 6 – 12; Conversations between the bishop and the PCC – Paras 13 – 21; Review – Para 22; Disputes – Paras 23 – 25. And the relevant sections of the Resolution of Disputes Procedure (GS Misc 1087) are : Bringing a grievance – Paras 9 – 15; Consideration of grievances by the Independent Reviewer – Paras 16 – 21; Raising of concerns about the operation of the House of Bishops’ Declaration – Para 27. OUR DIRECTION OF TRAVEL In this we have been greatly helped by the Bishop Steven’s Presidential Address to the Diocesan Synod on July 19th, 2014 in providing the scriptural framing for what we offer in this Report. Its themes and over-‐arching spirit have informed our work. We believe that it should continue to shape a process which he sees as one for the next twenty years.

R.2 We recommend that the Bishop’s Presidential Address, in a form that he approves, accompanies the Five Guiding Principles in any programme promoting the House of Bishops’ Declaration. Our Report then moves to a number of specifics, including material from our three Consultations. Personal contributions from three of our members follow, along with material on our “mutual flourishing” as a Diocese. We then address further points of detail, provide a Summary of Recommendations and end with several Appendices, all of which are an integral part of our Report.


3. Scriptural Framing Shortly after the General Synod had given Final Approval to the legislation and accepted the related documents, making provision for the consecration of women as bishops, and arrangements for those not able to receive women’s priestly and Episcopal ministry, Bishop Steven gave a Presidential Address to the Diocesan Synod. Its themes were: Compassion, Kindness, Humility, Meekness and Patience EXTRACTS from that Address follow. These extracts have been made solely for the purposes of this Report. The full version has been circulated widely throughout the Diocese, and is available via the Bishop’s Office.

Colossians 3, especially verses 1-‐2; 8-‐10; 11; 12-‐15. A context in Colossians

It’s clear from the New Testament that conflict and disagreement were part of the life of the Church from the very beginning. The Epistles describe these conflicts in sharp relief: we catch something of the passion and anger and pain involved for those who have gone before us in the faith, especially in the writings of St. Paul. Yet we also find in those same Epistles the strongest commendation of peace, of grace, of reconciliation: urgent pleas to these early, vulnerable Christian communities to put aside their differences, to be reconciled to one another, to let their common life be filled with grace, with the fragrance of Christ, for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of their common witness. Together we need to hear St. Paul’s appeal today and to reflect on it carefully in the coming months. Our Church has now come, at great length, to a decision. All will recognize, I hope, the need to move on, to change the tone of the conversation, to do our best to embrace one another again in new ways, to focus again on our common responsibility to witness to the love of God in our communities and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ with fresh imagination and commitment. There are many places where St. Paul appeals for reconciliation but no passage is more compelling or more beautiful than Colossians 3: “So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on things that are on earth for you have died and your mind is hidden with Christ in God” We are directed to the risen Christ, above, and also to the future, to that moment when Christ who is our life will be revealed. Paul urges us to take a new perspective, a fresh vision. But a new perspective is not enough. Paul encourages us next to be changed and transformed. And then comes one of the most striking and beautiful list of qualities in the New Testament:


“As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against one another, forgive each other; just as the LORD has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.” Compassion, kindness, humility, meekness and patience are the virtues we need in this present moment, in this place. The challenge facing this Diocese

We face a particular challenge to reconciliation here. The voting figures from the different Diocesan Synod debates are very revealing. In more than 30 dioceses, less than ten people voted against the Measure in its final form, combining the votes in the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. In around ten dioceses, the numbers of votes against are relatively much larger. In 1 in 4 dioceses there continues to be a significant number of clergy and lay people who are not able in conscience to accept the ministry of women as bishops. Sheffield is one of those Dioceses, as was pointed out in the debate on Monday. As we know, we have in Sheffield a significant number of ordained women in ministry and many, many clergy and lay people who accept and support their ministry. We have significant numbers also of those who opposed the Measure both from a traditionalist catholic and from a conservative evangelical perspective. We are a medium sized diocese, which makes dispute and disagreement more painful and pastoral re-‐organisation more challenging. We are also a diocese in a more challenging mission situation. We cannot afford not to work together in God’s mission. The House of Bishops declaration

For all of these reasons, as a Diocese, we should welcome the principles and the provision outlined in the House of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests. (Quoted and explained in full.) The ministry of ordained women in this Diocese

In the light of the House of Bishops declaration I want to comment on the future ministry of ordained women and then on our attitude to and provision for those unable to receive their ministry. First, we acknowledge that many will rejoice this week inside and outside the Church at the decision which has been made and at the affirmation given to the ordained ministry of women across the Church of England. This will be for many a moment of genuine celebration and affirmation of their own ministries or the affirmation of priests whom they respect and love. This is not because these individual women aspire to become bishops themselves. It is because the admission of women to the episcopate is a powerful symbol of the equality of the genders within the life of the Church and therefore of God’s grace to them. I have been particularly struck by the powerful testimony of many lay women about what this vote means to them. Second, I hope we will all be committed to ensuring that the ordained women in this Diocese can flourish into the future and that their ministries should be free from hurtful, inappropriate and carelessly made comments.


We all need to be proactive in building a different, more gentle and more positive culture. Two weeks ago I wrote to all ordained women in the Diocese advising them that they should challenge such remarks in the future and also discuss them in confidence with a senior colleague should they receive them so that, where necessary, appropriate challenge can be given and change encouraged. The ministry of traditionalist catholics

In the light of the same House of Bishops declaration, I also want to recognize and affirm the ongoing ministry of the traditionalist catholics within this Diocese who are unable to receive the ministry of ordained women on ecumenical grounds, as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have not yet made a decision on the matter, or on the grounds of the historic tradition of the Churches. As a Diocese, we recognize that these views are responsibly held in good conscience and for good theological reasons. They are neither misogynist nor prejudiced. They represent an appropriate theological position within the spectrum of Anglicanism. The ministry of conservative evangelicals

Thirdly, in the light of the same declaration I want to recognize and affirm the ongoing ministry of conservative evangelicals within this Diocese who are unable to receive the leadership of ordained women on the grounds of their reading of the Scriptures and on the grounds of a complementarian understanding of gender in the family and in the life of the Church. Again, as a Diocese, we recognize that these views are also held responsibly, in good conscience and for good theological reasons. They are neither misogynist nor prejudiced. They represent an appropriate theological position within the spectrum of Anglicanism and indeed, a significant position in the context of the Anglican communion worldwide. Continuing indaba conversations

I hope that, especially, those who hold very different and strongly held views will have the courage and the willingness to explore these conversations not in order to change each other’s minds but in order better to understand one another’s positions. And finally…..

It is now time to move on. The way in which we move on together is vital. God’s call to us all is to engage in mission. God’s call to each of us and to this Diocese is to grow a sustainable network of Christ-‐like, lively and diverse Christian communities in every place which are effective in making disciples and in transforming our society and God’s world. We are called to do that together with joy, as men and women, as those who receive the ministry of women as priests and bishops and those who cannot, seeking mutual flourishing and in the highest possible degree of communion. +Steven Sheffield 19th July, 2014


4. Terminology Words are important. They convey meaning. Sometimes they also convey feelings, some of which can be positive – feelings of acceptance, peace or joy. Yet they can also convey feelings of unease, awkwardness and actual hostility. Words are a means of communication, so we need to be alert to what they are communicating -‐ both the meaning and the feeling. It therefore matters what words we use as we talk together about the provisions outlined in the House of Bishops’ Declaration. We will want to use the language of that Declaration – and when no suitable words are provided by that Declaration, we need to find ones that will deliver meaning in a way that is neutral – free of unease, awkwardness or hostility. They need to be words which can be used and owned equally by all in the Diocese, not just by particular groups. That’s not easy and old habits die hard.

The right words promote unity. The wrong words divide.

As a consequence of the General Synod decision in 2014 to open the episcopate to women so that they are included in all three expressions of ordained ministry, the Canons of the Church of England are no longer gender specific. This is new. One result is that it is no longer right to imply that “bishops, priests and deacons” refer to men, whilst ordained women need that qualifying word – “women priests”, “women bishops”.

In the course of its meetings, the Group has developed – not without difficulty and often after abandoning earlier attempts – words that can be used by all. If they can become established in this Diocese, we shall have a sense of speaking the same language. That will be a modest contribution to a new sense of belonging together in unity. Our list of such words follows: Bishops/Priests/Deacons – for those ordained to the three orders of ordained ministry, when no gender distinction is required. Traditional Catholic – to indicate those who are unable to receive the ministry of ordained women on ecumenical grounds, relating to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and/or on the grounds of the historic tradition of the Churches – recognizing that some people, who do not take that position, might wish to claim to be both “Traditional” and “Catholic”. Conservative Evangelical – to indicate those who are unable to receive the leadership of ordained women on the grounds of their reading of the Scriptures and/or on the grounds of a complementarian understanding of gender in the family and in the life of the Church – recognising that some people, who do not take that position, might wish to claim to be both “Conservative” and “Evangelical”. Strictly speaking, neither of the terms “Traditional Catholic” nor “Conservative Evangelical” is “water-‐tight”, but they are treated as such for the purposes of this Report.


Supporters of Women’s Ordained Ministry – to indicate those accepting of women as deacons, priests and bishops. Ordained Men/Ordained Women – for priests when it is necessary to make a gender reference – as is the case in situations covered by the House of Bishops’ Declaration. Consecrated Men/Consecrated Women – as above for bishops. This was preferred to Male Bishop/Female Bishop. Requesting PCC – for a PCC which has passed the motion requesting special provision for ministry “on grounds of theological conviction”. Resolution Parish – for a parish receiving such provision in accordance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration. Appointed Bishop – for the Bishop appointed by the Diocesan Bishop to provide “ pastoral and sacramental ministry” to a parish whose PCC has requested it. We believe that this matter of a terminology which can be used by all is important. If any of the above are judged inadequate, we would like to see an alternative put in place. R.3 We recommend the widespread use of the Terminology as listed in this Report. These terms are reproduced as Appendix D for ease of copying.


5. BUZZ WORDS As our work has developed, we have identified a number of phrases which are central planks in the provision outlined in the House of Bishops’ Declaration and our reflection on it.

Together, they provide a sense of the new provision.

• Simplicity, Reciprocity and Mutuality – characteristics of the special arrangements made for parishes requesting them, and the spirit in which they are to be received by all.

• Pastoral and Sacramental Provision – what is to be arranged by the Diocesan Bishop.

• Grounds of Theological Conviction – there has to be a theological basis to the PCCs request

for special arrangements – other motivations do not apply.

• Gender and Ordained Ministry -‐ the theological conviction relates to this one area alone – other areas of dispute do not apply.

• Co-‐operation between the two bishops for the parish’s welfare, resourcing and mission,

and its relationship with the diocese – there is a shared commitment to the parish by the Diocesan Bishop and the Appointed Bishop – not an episcopal divide.

• Suffragan mode – describing the nature of the working relationship the Diocesan Bishop

establishes with the Appointed Bishop.

• Flourishing and Mutual Flourishing – individually a tradition needs to feel secure enough to flourish – and each tradition needs to have a concern for the flourishing of all – a re-‐discovering of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England.

• Highest Possible Degree of Communion – seeking the greatest degree of unity possible

within the Diocese, whilst being clear that not everything is possible.

• Climate of Trust – the result of good practice and outcomes, in the delivery of ministry All of the above feature in the House of Bishops’ Declaration – to them we would add:

• Our Diocese as a Diverse Fellowship – this expresses the legitimacy of difference, with the sense of being together.

R.4 We recommend that the 10 Buzz Words, with the possible addition of others, are promoted alongside the House of Bishops’ Declaration. These are reproduced as Appendix D for ease of copying.


6. CONSULTATIONS

Our approach Our Terms of Reference required us to consult – particularly with those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of women as priests and bishops We therefore held consultations with Conservative Evangelical and Traditional Catholic parishes. We also arranged a similar consultation with the ordained women of the Diocese – as the ones who are directly affected by the House of Bishops’ provision, which will have the effect of restricting their ministry. This consultation also included others supportive of women’s ordained ministry. These were all valuable occasions, though varying in the number of those present, and provided a key opportunity for us to listen. The House of Bishops’ Declaration, including the Five Guiding Principles, was presented. An hour of the two hour meeting was spent in groups, and there was discussion in plenary. There were four questions for discussion:

• What provision do you need to flourish in the Church of England? • How might this affect the flourishing of others? • In the light of this, what might deliver “the highest possible degree of communion”? • “Pastoral and Sacramental Provision” – in practical terms what would you be

wanting? For the consultation with the ordained women, the same questions were asked, except for a re-‐wording of the fourth:

• “Pastoral and Sacramental Provision” provided for those churches which do not accept women’s priestly and/or Episcopal ministry – what specifics cause you concern for the exercise of your ministry and for the well-‐being of the Diocese.

These questions worked well. The responses have been kept and were considered in detail by the Group. A book could be written considering the detail. In this Report, we have aimed to record that detail in an accessible way, and also to convey some of the feelings. R.5 We recommend that the four questions used at the Consultations continue to receive wide-‐ranging attention, and be a possible resource to consultation with the Requesting PCC and PCC representatives.


Two different groupings It is important to recognize that the two “requesting traditions”, Traditional Catholic and Conservative Evangelical, are different kinds of groups with a different dynamic, each with their own diversity of emphasis.

• The Traditional Catholic is familiar with special provision relating to the ministry of both bishops and priests – bishops (through the Petition/Resolution C) and priests (through Resolution A and B) – since 1994.

• The Conservative Evangelical has experience only of special provision for priests. It has not sought special Episcopal ministry through the 1993 Act of Synod.

The two “requesting traditions” are not the same just because they are “requesting” – not least because their internal relating is quite different.

Conservative Evangelical PCCs In response to the four questions at this Consultation, some of the issues raised were outside our remit eg – Church Planting arrangements; the absence of bishops of their tradition; the inability to recognize the Synod’s decision; expectations of the role of an Appointed Bishop beyond what is permitted by the House of Bishops’ Declaration. These issues have to be recognized, because the details of providing ordained ministry are not sealed off from other concerns. Commitment to the “flourishing” of a tradition brings in a wide range of issues. Issues raised within our remit included:

• Continuing provision for male incumbents • Access to all diocesan posts • Our theology and practice being understood, accepted and respected • Provision of worship true to our tradition • Clear and consistent understanding of provision arrangement • Avoiding friction between different theological positions • Building mutual trust • Sensitivity to women whose ministry is being excluded – their possible undermining • No sense that provision for us affects others • “Not us that changed 2000+ years of church doctrine and the sweep of scripture” • Recognizing what we share in common • Be open about differences, and seek mutual understanding • A sense of security might make it easier to relate to those of different views • Graciousness • Church Schools a “joint” mission • An Appointed Bishop who has a good, understanding relationship with our local church,

understands what our mission is, “what makes us tick”, and is supportive of our understanding of flourishing

• Concern about Canonical Obedience and taking the Oath


There were feelings of unfairness and of being poorly valued – hence the desire to feel secure. NOTE: At this consultation, there was discussion about the role of the Bishop of Maidstone, and uncertainty about how this post might relate to that of a Conservative Evangelical Appointed Bishop in this Diocese. The role of the Bishop of Maidstone is:

• to provide a voice within the College of Bishops for those within the Church of England who cannot on theological grounds of headship accept the priestly or Episcopal ministry of women;

• to act as an advocate for those who hold that position; • to be available to diocesan bishops in the Southern and Northern provinces to support

ministry in churches in this category as requested. It is theoretically possible that the Bishop of Maidstone could be an Appointed Bishop in this diocese, but more likely that he would serve in this way in dioceses near to where he is living.

Traditional Catholic PCCs Again some of the issues raised were outside our remit, and looked for arrangements beyond what the House of Bishops’ Declaration permits, especially with its emphasis on diocesan provision, rather than separate entities, and the desire for an Appointed Bishop to be independent of the Diocesan. Issues beyond our remit included: the provision of a priest for eash congregation; shorter parochial vacancies; the continuity of Bishops compatible with our tradition; an adequate supply of Bishops for the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda. Issues raised within our remit included;

• Clear communication about provisions and monitoring of how things work out • Provisions without time limit • We need to feel a sense of belonging, and to be valued as a constituency within the life

of the Diocese • Being listened to • Nurturing of vocations and ordinands from our tradition • Care during vacancies • Receiving the Sacrament in hospital • To continue to practise the ancient faith of the Church Catholic and Reformed • To sharpen up on evangelism and stewardship • Study of the Scriptures • The appointed Bishop to be respected by all • To not have ministry we cannot receive foisted on us • Access to the Disputes Resolution procedure • It would be difficult to respect the flourishing of others due to the intransigence of

others • Shared pain caused by the divisions


• Implications for women in our parishes wishing to explore a vocation • Arguing amongst ourselves is a barrier to evangelism • If Christian unity is upheld, we all should flourish • Do what we can together • Learning from one another across differences • More in common than what divides • Rejection is not pleasant for anyone • Involvement of priests and lay people on Diocesan Committees etc • Mutual support and respect between parishes • A change of mind-‐set • Remember the lay people in our parishes • A deanery forum for lay participation – and a formal place for the Hickleton Chapter • Accept that this is happening, and then others can hopefully accept our ways

As with Conservative Evangelicals, there were feelings of unfairness and of being poorly valued – with the accompanying desire for security.

Ordained Women The invitation to this Consultation included others supportive of women’s ordained ministry. Issues raised included:

• Clarity of theology • The need for affirmation of ministry by the Bishop • Women presiding at Diocesan occasions • Visibility of women in senior positions • Monitoring of numbers • A sense of belonging • A group of encouragers • We need a culture of discernment which recognizes the best everywhere • Culture change • The next big issue (human sexuality) will challenge any degree of communion, unless

that communion is on solid ground • Opportunities to be together: parish, deanery, diocese • Resistance to separatism and becoming entrenched

And in answer to the question: How might the sacramental and pastoral provision that others request affect your flourishing?

• There needs to be a recognition of the impact of these provisions on ordained men who are in favour of the ordination of women

• The provision may bring to the fore deep-‐seated prejudices and expose polarised positions


Engaging with input from consultations The above lists from the three Consultations contain both specifics and generalities. Our intention is to provide enough information to indicate both positives and negatives, which need to be addressed in conversations and further consultation. It would be true to say: “This matter is not done and dusted. We are not there yet. There is still a lot to do.” Much of our response to what we heard is provided in our proposed Role Description for an Appointed Bishop, and our suggestions for Diocesan Mutual Flourishing. The Group has carefully ordered the input from the three Consultations, and these summaries are with the Bishop of Sheffield. These summaries would benefit from further study. R.6 We recommend that the Summaries of Consultations be given further consideration, as a significant step towards mutual understanding.


7. Issues relating to the PCC Resolution “This PCC requests, on the grounds of theological conviction, that arrangements be made for it in accordance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests.” (Recommended Wording)

In the Flow Chart which follows, we have set out what needs to happen in order to deliver these arrangements. The Flow Chart is intended to stand alone, but the extra detailed comments here will assist:

• Arrangements relate to both priestly and episcopal ministry. • For the appointment of incumbents/priests-‐in-‐charge, this process replaces the

passing of Resolutions A and B. And for Bishops, it replaces the Petition/Resolution C. It is important to be clear that there is a new process.

• For parishes that have passed Resolutions A and B, and those that have added the Petition/Resolution C relating to Episcopal ministry, there is a Two Year Transitional Provision, carrying over the old provision into the new. This period operates between November 2014 and November 2016. Once the Transitional Process has run out, over 25 Parishes are likely to be involved in the new process, which will be initiated with the PCC passing the Resolution.

• We favour use of the recommended wording of the PCC Resolution, whilst recognizing that it cannot be mandatory, and believe it would be helpful to the PCC to append an explanation of the theological conviction about “gender and ordained ministry”, prompting the request.

• Apart from the reference in the Flow Chart to the PCC’s “seeking advice as appropriate”, we do not favour any “informal preliminary” prior to debating the Resolution. Initiative lies with the PCC. It is the passing of the Resolution which starts the process of consultation with the Diocesan Bishop.

• The Guidance Note from the House of Bishops speaks of one or more of its members to represent the particular needs of the parish (Para 13 Guidance). We favour at least two, so that no one person feels isolated in an exposed position.

• The Legal Office of the General Synod has confirmed that, provided suitable authority is given, a commissary can be appointed to conduct the consultations. The Registrar advises that this could be done in the form of a letter.

• The Bishop’s representative, normally the Archdeacon, will meet with the PCC representatives on receipt of the Resolution to explain the process; to resource discussion on the nature of the “theological conviction”; and to discuss issues of flourishing and mutual flourishing. In addition, the Diocesan Bishop may choose to invite the PCC representatives to meet directly.

• We understand the role of the PCC representatives to be twofold – to articulate on the PCCs’ behalf the theological conviction underlying its resolution, and the particular needs of the parish in the light of that conviction.


• Parishes which have passed the Resolution may rescind it at any time, and should review it from time to time, especially when a vacancy in a benefice arises (Para 21 Declaration)

• During a vacancy in the diocesan see, the Bishop’s role is carried out by the Suffragan Bishop.

The Bishop’s Office has kept a list of Parishes passing Resolutions A and B, and the Petition/Resolution C.

R.7 We recommend that the Bishop’s Office keeps a list of “Resolution Parishes, where arrangements have been made in accordance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (2014)”

8. Process for the PCC Request, on the grounds of theological conviction, that arrangements be made for it in accordance with the House of Bishops' Declaration

The PCC, ideally in conversation with members of the wider church community1 and taking advice as appropriate, discusses its theological grounds for requesting that the Bishop makes arrangements for it.

‘It is for each PCC member to consider what weight to give to his or her own theological conviction as against the conviction of others in the church community.’ (GS Misc 1077, para 11)

Once the PCC is agreed that it wishes to vote on a resolution requesting that the Bishop make arrangements for it, the PCC secretary must give members four weeks notice of the date, time and place of the meeting,2 and of the motion to be considered.

The recommended form of the resolution is ‘This PCC requests, on grounds of theological conviction, that arrangements be made for it in accordance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests.’ (GS Misc 1077, para 8)

At the PCC (or section 11) meeting, the PCC discusses the motion and votes on it. 3

The PCC nominates one or more4 of its members to articulate on is behalf to the Bishop (or, normally, their representative) the particular needs of the parish in the light of the theological convictions that underlies the resolution. 5

The PCC sends a copy of any resolution passed to the diocesan bishop, archdeacon, diocesan registrar and registered patron, ideally accompanied by an explanation of the theological convictions that underlie the resolution.

In relation to episcopal ministry, the Bishop’s representative, normally the Archdeacon, meets with the PCC’s representatives to discuss what provision needs to put in place, before making a recommendation to the Bishop.6 The Bishop may also choose to meet representatives of the PCC personally.

In relation to priestly ministry, those responsible for appointments must do ‘everything possible’ (GS Misc 1077, paragraph 18) to make an appointment that does not conflict with the nature of the theological conviction underlying the PCC’s resolution.

Where a PCC that has a passed a Resolution considers that the diocesan bishop has not responded consistently with the terms of the House of Bishops’ Declaration, it may bring a grievance to the Independent Reviewer appointed under the Regulations for the Resolution of Disputes. In addition it is open to any person to raise a concern in writing with the Independent Reviewer in relation to any aspect of the operation of the Declaration.

If a patron is minded to offer an appointment inconsistent with a resolution, the parish representatives are entitled to look to the diocesan bishop to use his or her powers under the Patronages (Benefices) Measure 1986 to withhold his or her consent.


Explanatory notes 1. GS Misc 1077 paragraph 7 notes that it is ‘good practice’ that the views of the wider church

community are sought. 2. Voting on a resolution to request the Bishop to make arrangements for a PCC can also take place at

a meeting held under section 11 of the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986. 3. The resolution must have the support of either (a) a majority of those present at the meeting at

which at least two-‐thirds of the members of the PCC who are entitled to attend are present or (b) a majority of all the members of the PCC (GS Misc 1077, para 9).

4. It is recommended that at least two members of the PCC are charged with representing the PCC’s views to the Bishop or the Bishop’s representative.

5. GS Misc 1077 paragraph 10 notes that ‘It is important that the resolution be founded on theological conviction in relation to gender and ordained ministry.’

6. The bishop decides who will offer episcopal ministry and the extent of this ministry with the aim of maintaining the highest possible degree of communion and contributing to mutual flourishing.

R.8 We recommend the use of the Flow Chart.


9. The Appointed Bishop

For parishes which have passed the Resolution, the Diocesan Bishop should, after appropriate consultation and deliberation, make such arrangements for episcopal ministry within the parish as he or she believes will provide and maintain “the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to mutual flourishing” (para. 14 Guidance Note for Bishops and Parishes) For this purpose, the Diocesan Bishop will appoint a serving bishop to minister to the parish in accordance with parameters discussed between the Diocesan and Appointed Bishops but determined by the former in the light of the Five Guiding Principles. The expectation is, that, subject to the pattern of episcopal ministry in the diocese and the Appointed Bishop’s other commitments, there will be “many similarities with the range of responsibilities carried by any suffragan bishop within a diocese” (Para 29 Declaration). The position of the Diocesan Bishop as Ordinary and Chief Pastor is unaltered by the fact that the Appointed Bishop will be exercising certain functions in relation to the parish.

Para 26 of the Declaration contains important detail: “The choice of a bishop to undertake ministry in respect of a parish which has passed a resolution is for the relevant Diocesan Bishop to make, again with a view to avoiding conflict with the theological conviction on this issue underlying its resolution. In all cases the choice should be made from among male bishops who are members of the House of Bishops of the Diocesan Synod of that or another diocese of the Church of England.”

Our Consultations have made it clear that Resolution Parishes will be looking for personal ministry from their Appointed Bishop, somebody able to share in its life – of course in a way compatible with that bishop’s other responsibilities. If the Appointed Bishop is not a suffragan of this Diocese, he is likely to have as his major role responsibilities in another diocese. The hope expressed to us is that the Appointed Bishop would come from a diocese readily accessible to ours.

For Conservative Evangelicals in this diocese the role is a new one. The House of Bishops’ Declaration sees the Appointed Bishop’s role in terms of providing “pastoral and sacramental ministry” in the parish, with co-‐operation between the two bishops “to contribute to its welfare, resourcing and mission and in its relationship with the diocese” (Para 28)”. This applies whether the Appointed Bishop is the one serving Conservative Evangelical or Traditional Catholic parishes.

We asked the Registrar a series of questions relating to the Appointed Bishop’s ministry in this Diocese. His preliminary response to all our enquiries needs to be kept clearly in mind: “It is important to remember that there is not much “law” in this area; to a large extent it is guidance.”

The questions and responses follow:


The Diocesan Bishop as Ordinary and Chief Pastor? – as is provided by Canon C18 “Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy”. Furthermore, “Every bishop has within his diocese jurisdiction as Ordinary except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom” and “Every bishop is, within his diocese, the principal minister”.

These terms mean different things and Canon C18 sets out the rights and duties of the Diocesan Bishop as Chief Pastor, Ordinary and Principal Minister.

The Appointed Bishop would have delegated pastoral responsibility, but the Diocesan Bishop (male or female) would remain Chief Pastor, Ordinary and Principal Minister. The theological position of the proposed Appointed Bishop – the Diocesan Bishop would be wise to consult on this matter with the House of Bishops and its advisers. What would happen if the Requesting PCC declined to accept the bishop nominated by the Diocesan Bishop? – It’s not a nomination; it’s an appointment and the Appointed Bishop’s authority to provide episcopal ministry to the parish in question stems from and would commence with effect from the appointment. However, the Diocesan Bishop’s responsibility is to make that appointment in accordance with the Five Guiding Principles and the Declaration as a whole – were a Requesting PCC of the view that the appointment made failed to fulfil that responsibility, it would be open to the PCC to consider raising a grievance under the Disputes Procedure. In a United Benefice, what happens when parishes differ in their stance? – See Para 25 of the Declaration and Paras 19-‐21 of the Guidance Note. It is not a one size fits all – the Diocesan will need to make arrangements that are appropriate for the particular benefice. It would make sense for the Diocesan to consult the Appointed Bishop. What would happen if the Appointed Bishop and the Diocesan Bishop disagreed on a course of action affecting a church in the Appointed Bishop’s care? – Paras 28-‐29 of the Declaration deal with this – it’s a matter for the Diocesan, and para 27 of the Disputes Procedure gives a route for parishes and/or the Appointed Bishop who feel the Diocesan is not acting consistently with the Declaration. Only a PCC can bring a grievance to the Independent Reviewer; all others can “raise a concern” with him/her, and it is then for the Independent Reviewer to decide whether or not to embark on an enquiry. What are the issues and procedures when there is a female suffragan bishop and a male Diocesan Bishop? – Same procedures apply. The parish would need to pass a resolution to ensure that the suffragan is not providing ministry there, but the hope is that the male Diocesan and the female suffragan would approach this with pastoral sensitivity anyway. Oath of Canonical Obedience – does it have to be face to face? – Canon C14 – the Diocesan can always appoint a Commissary so it doesn’t have to be face to face. However the first Guiding Principle should be honoured and be given weight. Paras 34-‐36 of the Declaration deal with this and uphold the important principle of making the Oath. Current practice should continue although it is acknowledged that this may be difficult for some. The duty of obedience referred to in Canon C14.3 is owed to the bishop of the diocese in right of his or her office. The Oath of Canonical Obedience acknowledges that, by referring to canonical obedience to ‘the Lord Bishop of Sheffield and his successors’.


10. Appointed Bishop – Role Description

Diocese of Sheffield The following document, drawn from a number of sources including the London Plan 2014, is intended to form an outline for the initial conversations between the Diocesan Bishop and the bishop whose role as Appointed Bishop is being considered. It is intended as an ongoing reference point for both bishops as their episcopal partnership develops, and as a document that can be available to others in the Diocese, especially those whose work is affected by the role. The detailed outcomes in relation to particular areas of ministry will need to be recorded in a separate document.

Terminology Appointed Bishop – Bishop appointed by the Diocesan Bishop to have special responsibility for parishes where provision for pastoral and sacramental ministry is made, in accordance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration (2014), incorporating the Five Guiding Principles. Resolution Parish(es) – Parishes where such provision is made by the Diocesan Bishop. Constituency Conservative Evangelical/Traditional Catholic Source documents House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (2014) Guidance Note from the House of Bishops (2014) (Resolution of Disputes Procedure) Regulations (2014) Context

The provision of additional Episcopal ministry on the basis of “theological conviction regarding gender and ordained ministry” does not exist in isolation from other issues of controversy and dissent, nor from the development of diocesan strategies and programmes. The Appointed Bishop’s pastoral and sacramental relationship with his Resolution Parishes is set within this wider context, requiring close Episcopal partnership. “All bishops have a shared responsibility for the welfare of the whole Church of England.” (Para 13, House of Bishops’ Declaration) Style

1. The role of the Appointed Bishop is to be developed in a way that is consistent with the House

of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (2014), incorporating the Five Guiding Principles, with a particular focus on the flourishing of the particular constituency for which that Bishop has responsibility, and the mutual flourishing of the Diocese as a whole.


2. Responsibilities and expectations of the Appointed Bishop’s role in the Diocese of Sheffield will need to be worked out in relation to his other Episcopal roles elsewhere.

3. In partnership with the Diocesan Bishop, he is to explore and keep under review how best they can co-‐operate in a variety of ways to contribute to the welfare, resourcing and mission of Resolution Parishes, and their relationship with the Diocese ( Declaration, Para 28).

4. The anticipated style of working will be similar to that of a Suffragan Bishop within a Diocese (Declaration, Para 29 )

5. He will have as a colleague the Suffragan Bishop of Doncaster, with whom he will be expected to develop effective working arrangements.

6. He is also likely to have as a colleague in the Diocese another Appointed Bishop, and will need to establish good lines of communication with him.

7. He is charged with ensuring for his designated Resolution Parishes the provision of pastoral and sacramental ministry, with the Diocesan Bishop holding overall responsibility.

Areas of responsibility 8. The Diocese:

• He will serve as an Assistant Bishop, sharing in the regular episcopal ministry of the Diocese and, with the agreement of the Diocesan Bishop, participate in meetings of the Diocesan Synod, and the Bishop’s Council -‐ insofar as this is practically and legally possible.

• He will engage with existing and developing diocesan strategies and processes affecting his designated Resolution Parishes.

Items 9, 10 and 11 – there is deliberate overlap in these. Item 9 gathers material in a way that can shared with Resolution Parishes – “a parochial understanding”; Items 10 and 11 focusses on what is agreed in discussion between the Appointed and Diocesan Bishops – “an Episcopal understanding”. 9. Resolution Parishes – as agreed with the Diocesan Bishop:

• He will serve as spokesman and adviser for his parishes, with the Diocesan Bishop being his primary point of reference.

• He will build an Episcopal relationship with his parishes and clergy, focussing on their welfare, resourcing and mission, and their relationship with the Diocese.

• He will determine arrangements for Episcopal services in his parishes, especially Confirmations (incl Confirmation Returns), and Collations/Institutions/Licensings (with the Bishop’s Chaplain on behalf of the Diocesan Bishop, and the Archdeacon).

• He will promote vocations, lay and ordained, in accordance with diocesan processes • He will be directly involved in the Appointment processes for Incumbents (or

equivalents), Assistant Ordained Staff -‐ and for any other staff, where this is agreed with the Diocesan Bishop.

• He will carry out Ministerial Development Reviews, as designated by the Diocesan Bishop.


10. Vocations, Title Posts, Licensed Lay Ministry:

• He will foster lay and clerical vocations, particularly within his designated Resolution Parishes – working within the diocesan processes for vocational discernment.

• He will meet with ordinands belonging to or likely to serve in his Resolution Parishes. • He will relate to the Director of Ordinands, Assistant Directors, and the Director of IME

4-‐7, in their shared work with Ordinands and Curates. • He will be involved in the process for placing ordinands in title posts, especially in

Resolution Parishes. • Clear arrangements with Officers will be set in place for lay ministry – for training, and

licensing/commissioning. • In all these matters, he will establish secure channels of consultation and decision-‐

making with the Diocesan Bishop and the Sponsoring Bishop ( if this is other than the Diocesan).

11 . Episcopal Services and Authorisations in relation to Resolution Parishes:

• Ordinations • Confirmations (incl Confirmation Returns) • Admissions to Communion, prior to Confirmation • Chrism Eucharists • Appointments • Collations, Institutions, Licensings – including the Archdeacon’s role. • Parish disputes

In accordance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration, including the Five Guiding Principles, the Diocesan Bishop and the Appointed Bishop will agree arrangements for the above areas of work, keeping these under review. Such arrangements will be published as appropriate. The same pattern will operate for other areas of ministry, as they emerge. 12. Diocesan Services and Events:

• He will seek opportunities to be present at some Diocesan Services and Events, indicating that his ministry is part of the total and unified episcopal ministry of the Diocese.

• He will therefore receive invitations, on the understanding that he has commitments beyond this Diocese.

Expenses – as agreed with the Diocesan Bishop R.9 We recommend that this Role Description is used as an outline for the initial conversations between the Diocesan Bishop and the Bishop whose role as Appointed Bishop is being considered.


11. Mutual Flourishing In the House of Bishops’ Five Guiding Principles, the fourth refers to the flourishing of those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests, and the fifth speaks of provision for these parishes “in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England”. The flourishing of one and the mutual flourishing of all belong together. They shouldn’t really be separated, but the latter cannot happen without the former

In the Group’s three Consultations, there was ready discussion about “flourishing”, since it so clearly linked with the need to feel secure and valued – whether as Conservative Evangelicals, Traditional Catholics or Ordained Women. We were told that much needed to be done in order to ensure that such “flourishing” happened. Some contributions from all three positions spoke of feeling insecure and undervalued. “Flourishing” won’t come quickly or easily.

“Mutual flourishing” will not come quickly or easily either. Where people and churches feel insecure, it is very hard for them to look beyond their own concerns – though some did this movingly – but there is no doubt about the expectation of a flourishing which is mutual – where the needs of one are recognized by others, and there is a sense of being creatively united. That’s why the Group favours the phrase “diverse fellowship” as an expression of our relating as a Diocese.

There is much more to “flourishing/mutual flourishing” than the reliability and effectiveness of administrative provisions and structures – the call is a spiritual and relational one. Without steady and gracious commitment to this way, people and churches may feel they have a place within particular groupings, but not within the wider fellowship of the Diocese. The House of Bishops’ Guiding Principles do not want to settle for that more modest goal.

To take us forward, we offer this “Mutual Flourishing Declaration”, as something not to be imposed, enforced, or made a matter of policy, but to be honoured and wrapped in prayer:

• Each of us accepts that now “we see through a glass darkly” and only in eternity will we see clearly. We remain open to the Spirit’s guidance of the Church.

• Each of us recognises that we have reached our own position on the issue of gender and ordained ministry, after sustained prayer, Bible Study and, we believe, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We understand that those who hold a view that differs from our own have also reached their position after sustained prayer, Bible Study and, they believe, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

• Because we recognise the above, we undertake to do our best to fairly represent the views of those with whom we disagree on the question of gender and ordained ministry, to our congregations, on social media, and in all areas of public life.

• We commit ourselves to be involved in deanery and diocesan structures, which will themselves be open to people of all traditions.

• We will pray regularly with those with whom we disagree. • We will do all that we can do together to move forward in mission. • We will engage openly with insights offered from across the Church.

R.10 We recommend that Bishop’s Council considers how this Mutual Flourishing Declaration might be promoted within its own working and elsewhere.


12. Mutual Flourishing – Possible Steps We offer some specific suggestions to Bishop’s Council as a way of earthing good intent. They are for consideration, and to encourage further ideas and proposals. We have identified three distinct groupings, each different and each needing attention: 1. Traditional Catholic; 2. Conservative Evangelical; 3. Ordained Women as directly affected by provisions restricting their Ministry, and

recognising also that some ordained men and lay men and women, who are supportive of women’s ordination, may also experience feelings of loss and pain that women’s ordained ministry is not universally accepted

• Bishop’s Council will need to be proactive in developing inclusion as an expression of

mutual flourishing. It is a serious error to think that it will just “happen” • Special arrangements for inclusion of those not holding the majority view on “gender

and ministry” should exist alongside vigilance for including other special or “missing” groups, such as ethnic minorities.

• Bishop’s Council therefore needs to be vigilant on two fronts – firstly to ensure that “gender and ministry” special constituencies are given a secure voice in diocesan issues and strategies – that they flourish – and secondly to ensure that other constituencies flourish equally. The two strands belong together.

• A lot of diocesan and parochial life goes on in its own distinctive way, regardless of the “ministry issue” and “strategies” to address it. Despite that, it is important to engage with constituencies that feel excluded, whether or not they have other channels of support within the diocese or beyond. We seek to be a “diverse fellowship”. Mutual flourishing does not happen if there is inadequate provision for the flourishing of diverse constituencies.

• Central diocesan groups will therefore need to be credibly inclusive, through the electoral process and the ability to co-‐opt. Where a person is co-‐opted, there should be an expectation that he/she will develop ways of being a representative contributor – in touch with that particular constituency.

• Bishop’s Council should identify which Diocesan Groups/Councils/Strategies are priorities for special vigilance to ensure mutual flourishing and, where necessary, take action to deliver it.

• Whilst it is true that, under the Church Representation Rules, at Deanery level all parishes and their clergy are directly represented, the challenge is to get proper commitment and participation from all parishes and clergy for Chapter and Synod.

• The position of Appointed Bishops should be made clear in relation to Bishop’s Council and Diocesan Synod. Current legislation does not allow them to be members of either body, unless they occupy a see within the Diocese, But they can receive papers, be in attendance, and be invited to speak. Bishop’s Council may give permission for an Appointed Bishop to nominate a substitute for occasions when he is not able to be present.


• Opportunities should be sought for Appointed Bishops to contribute to the full range of diocesan life and strategy. They are part of the episcopal team.

• In relation to Bishop’s Council and Diocesan Synod, equivalent arrangements, should be made for the Dean of Women’s Ministry, as the representative of ordained women in the Diocese – if that Dean has not been elected in the usual way to either body.

• Bishop’s Council might consider setting up a “monitoring group”, which keeps the “Mutual Flourishing” agenda under review.

Appointed Bishops – and their inclusion in Diocesan Occasions Whilst this is not directly an issue for Bishop’s Council, we offer three comments:

• The work load of any “Appointed Bishop” serving “Resolution Parishes” is likely to be great, and involving more than one Diocese. A balance has to be struck between that reality and the need for visibility within the life of this Diocese.

• It is important that, whenever possible, Appointed Bishops are present at significant diocesan occasions, so that the Bishops are seen together as one group ministering in the Diocese. Walking together in procession is a visible witness to shared ministry. On occasions a suitable deputy might be appointed.

• Visible presence is more creative than visible absence

R.11 We recommend that Bishop’s Council, in consultation with the Bishop, sets up a working group to consider the Report’s particular suggestions for promoting mutual flourishing. Earlier recommendations are relevant to the work of Bishop’s Council: R.1a We recommend that the Five Guiding Principles be kept visible, studied and promoted in all parishes, and through the Diocesan Synod and Bishop’s Council. R.1b We recommend that the Bishop’s Presidential Address (July 2014), in a form that he approves, accompanies the Five Guiding Principles in any programme promoting the House of Bishops’ Declaration. The Church of England’s Decision The Church of England has decided that women can be priests and bishops and also that provision be made for those who cannot receive that ministry. Neither the ordained or consecrated women nor those unable to receive their ministry should be regarded as “the problem”. The call is to be together in “the highest possible degree of communion”. In that spirit, we make this recommendation: R.12 We recommend that Bishop’s Council engage with this Report and its Recommendations, as advised by the Bishop.


13. Ongoing Matters For The Bishop of Sheffield THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD AND RESOLUTION PARISHES

• As declared at their Consecration, all bishops are “called to serve and care for the flock of Christ… knowing their people and being known by them”. This applies to the Bishop of Sheffield just as much as it applies to all episcopal colleagues in the diocese.

• As part of seeking to fulfil this charge, the Diocesan Bishop will therefore expect to relate to the laity and clergy of Resolution Parishes – knowing and being known by them. A Bishop of Sheffield, especially when newly appointed, may well want to visit their clergy at home, or meet with them in some other relaxed setting.

• Both the Bishop of Sheffield and the Bishop of Doncaster exercise a ministry for all the parishes of the Diocese. In the case of Resolution Parishes, this will be in partnership with the Appointed Bishop. We set out below ways in which they can continue to engage with those parishes, in order to express diocesan fellowship.

• Traditional Catholic: It is envisaged that current practice will continue – with understandings being developed about the Bishop’s role in the Eucharist; arrangements in place for Institutions and Licensings; invitations to them from parishes; and other opportunities for ministry will be explored, with initiatives coming from either Parish or Bishop.

• Conservative Evangelical: It is expected that a male Diocesan or Suffragan Bishop will be welcome to lead Holy Communion and to preach on the Scriptures; invitations to them from parishes; and other opportunities for ministry will be explored, with initiatives coming from either Parish or Bishop.

• There will be a proper expectation that Resolution Parishes, like all other parishes, will play as full a part as possible in the life of Deanery and Diocese.

• We asked the question: Where there is a church school in a Resolution Parish, can a female Diocesan or Suffragan Bishop exercise a ministry there? Both Diocesan and Suffragan Bishops can exercise episcopal ministry in such a church school. However, there is potential for conflict here that would need to be worked through in the specific situation. Prior consultation and discussion between the Diocesan and the Appointed Bishop would be essential to ensure that the Diocesan Bishop was complying with the terms of the Declaration and the theological conviction of the PCC concerned. The Diocesan Director of Education should be kept informed by the Diocesan Bishop and have the opportunity to advise.

AREA DEANS – THEOLOGICAL CONVICTION

• It would be contrary to mutual flourishing if Conservative Evangelical and Traditional Catholic clergy were excluded from consideration as Area Deans. If matters of theological conviction about gender and ordained ministry seem likely to affect the exercise of that role, it would be wise for this to be resolved beforehand by the Bishop, with whatever consultation he felt appropriate.


ONGOING ADVICE FOR THE BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD IN IMPLEMENTING THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS’ DECLARATION

• We believe there has been great benefit in bringing together the different perspectives represented by the members of this Advisory Group. We believe it has completed its work, and we are unconvinced about the need for a distinct ongoing group. But we do believe there should be provision for bringing together those who are partners with the Bishop in the outworking of provisions and strategies – other than what Bishop’s Council might set in place. In addition to general monitoring, the likely focus would be on issues of Episcopal ministry.

R.13 We recommend that on a regular basis the Diocesan Bishop meets with the Appointed Bishops and the Dean of Women’s Ministry – along with the Bishop of Doncaster and a lay representative.


14. PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS Expressing Conservative Evangelical and Traditional Catholic Understandings And Reflecting on Women’s Experience of Ordained Ministry The Group asked three of its members to make a personal contribution from their own particular perspective as a way of promoting understanding and encounter. We believe these provide important insights Conservative Evangelical The Revd Andy Brewerton A conservative evangelical biblical theology of gender and role (sometimes called ‘complementarian’ or ‘headship’ theology) would be formed along the following lines: 1. The Bible affirms that men and women are of equal value in God’s eyes and in particular celebrates

their equality of status in the gospel as God’s children, co-‐heirs of the promise, and belonging to God through faith in Christ (e.g. Gal 3:28).

2. The Bible also presents a consistent pattern that men and women are to have different, complementary roles within marriage and family life and in the leadership of the church.

3. These different roles are rooted in God’s good purposes in creation, and furthermore, the nature of the relationships between men and women is designed to reflect something of the complementary nature of the relationships found between the members of the Trinity.

4. The Genesis accounts reveal a deliberate ordering in creation, in that the man was formed before the woman, with each made to complement the other. St Paul picks up this creation order in terms of role and responsibility in his New Testament letters (e.g. 1 Co. 11 and 1 Tim. 2).

5. These differences in role are expressed in God’s good pattern for Christian marriage: the husband is to sacrificially love his wife in the same way that Christ loves the church; the wife is to submit herself to her husband’s love in the same way she submits herself to the Lord’s love. In St Paul’s language, the husband is the ‘head’ of the wife (e.g. Eph 5), not lording it over her but offering to her a form of servant leadership after the pattern of Christ.

6. In the life of the family, the husband is to sacrificially love his wife and children by protecting them and providing for their needs, leading them into faith and godliness and teaching them the scriptures. The role of the wife is as collaborative helper, sharing the management of the household and family whilst respecting the husbands’ overall responsibility.

7. St Paul extends these themes in his teaching on the life of the leadership of the local congregation, seeing the church as a ‘household’ or family of faith, where the appointed ‘head’ of the congregation should be male rather than female. His role is to take the lead in protecting the congregation from error, providing for their needs, leading them into faith and godliness and teaching them the scriptures. St Paul does not exclude the ministry of women within the local congregation, but he does assert male headship, especially when talking about elders, overseers and deacons.

8. The headship pattern is further modelled within the relationships of the members of Trinity. St Paul writes that, ‘the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.’ (1 Cor. 11). Within the Trinity there is at the same time equality and submission. Father, Son and Spirit are all equally and fully God, yet the Father is the head of Christ. Furthermore, the members of the Trinity have complementary roles: for example, only the Son has the role of God Incarnate whilst only the Father has the role as the sender of the saviour; likewise, the Son demonstrates loving and willing submission to the headship of his Father in saying, ‘not my


will but yours be done.’ Within their equality, each member of the Trinity has a different and complementary role.

9. In terms of practical church ministry, a complementarian theology would usually entail: • the appointed leader of the local congregation being male, supported by both men and women

in his ministry team; many complementarians would welcome the ministry of permanent female deacons.

• mixed congregations being taught the scriptures primarily by male preachers. • those who hold this view being unable in good conscience to receive the ministry of ordained

women priests or bishops, either as a visiting minister or local incumbent. • celebrating and encouraging (as many / most already do) the ministry of women in many

different spheres of church life and teaching, except that of head of the local church or presiding bishop.

• the desire therefore to be served by a male bishop, ideally one who both understands and shares this same complementarian theology.

Traditional Catholic Fr Jeffrey Stokoe While it is recognised that women have always exercised various ministries in the life of the Church, those who are unable to receive the sacramental ministry of women as bishops and priests have consistently understood that neither Scripture nor apostolic Tradition are able to endorse the ordination of women as priests and bishops. While there are those who have always seen this issue as one of impossibility with regard to the ordination of women as bishops and priests there is also a view that people do not know the answer with regard to the question. While accepting that nothing is impossible for God, those unable to receive the sacramental ministry of women as bishops and priests would argue that only the whole church can be theologically able to make a change of such fundamental importance. There are still a good number of provinces of the Anglican communion, along with the greater churches of East and West who themselves cannot endorse the changes the Church of England has made. In making these changes the church has also created theological difficulties with those churches who cannot make them and puts obstacles in the way of ecumenical relations particularly with regard to any mutual recognition of orders. In passing resolutions A,B&C under the women priests legislation and in also passing the new resolution under the women bishops measure PCC’s are making a particular claim, namely that they are unable to accept the ministry of those so ordained. And, while they recognise the legal right of the CofE and its bishops to ordain women they want to seek episcopal pastoral and sacramental ministry from Bishops who do not take part in those ordinations. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the ordaining male bishop’s orders or any suggestion of what has been called in the past in some places ‘taint’. I personally believe that in ordaining women to the priesthood and now the episcopate something of the Koinonia (fellowship or sharing together) in the Priesthood is broken between an ordaining Bishop and those who are not able to accept the changes. So for example, many deny themselves the Body and Blood of Christ, when present, on those occasions in the life of a diocese when a Bishop who ordains women celebrates the Eucharist. There is also the consideration that in asking for the


sacramental ministry of an alternative Bishop it might be thought casuistic to then receive that ministry from Bishops who do ordain women.

An outline and analysis of the views of ordained women and of those supportive of their ministry

As a member of the Group, Canon Mary Gregory, Dean of Women’s Ministry, was asked to provide, from her perspective, this Outline and Analysis, following her gathering of material from the Consultation with ordained women and those supportive of theit ministry A place to flourish? 1. Whilst welcoming the clear and unambiguous statement within the Guiding Principles that

‘the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender’ there was a perceived gap between this statement and ordained women’s experience. General Synod’s adoption of these Guiding Principles had given women a measure of assurance, but many were still left with deeply felt questions of whether there is a really a place for them within the Church of England. There was a strong sense that the articulation and adoption of the Guiding Principles is just the beginning of a long process of acceptance and that real change, where mutual flourishing is a felt reality, will take a generation or more.

2. Those at the consultation expressed a longing for and deep commitment to working

towards a church where everyone across the theological and ecclesiological spectrums is enabled to flourish. There was a sense that such flourishing meant far more than merely socialising together and that it needed to be more deeply rooted in theology and in liturgical practice. There was some encouragement here: women spoke of their pleased surprise at being welcomed by and of finding ways of working with those who cannot accept their ordination.

3. However, women also reported contemporary instances of where they have not even been

extended the most basic courtesy from those opposed to their ordination. Their response has been to bear with the resultant hurt, but it has undermined their confidence in the Church of England’s commitment to their flourishing. Several women said they would not agree to be considered for episcopal ministry because of their serious doubts about the church’s actual reception of women’s leadership.

4. Concerns were also expressed about the potential for any woman Bishop of Sheffield to

flourish within the diocese as things currently stand. Those consulted felt that people’s commitment to the highest possible degree of communion was difficult with a concecrated man, but would be put under considerable strain if there was a consecrated woman.


Analysis 5. Whilst those consulted expressed a fear that there was a gap between the Church of

England’s stated position on women’s ordained and episcopal ministry and the behaviour of those who continue to be opposed to it, there was also a sense in which it seemed that ordained women themselves need to learn to accept that ‘the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed’ to their ministry. This is particularly challenging for the generation of ordained women who had to wait several years to be ordained priests and who fought for this to be possible. It is very difficult for them to set aside decades of campaigning and rejection and immediately to live in the light of the new reality. It will take time and affirmation for them to feel secure within the Church of England.

6. Working towards a diocese where all can flourish and enjoy the highest possible degree of

communion will take a significant commitment from every member of the church and will rely on clear and consistent leadership. It will be important for the diocese to explore ways of embedding the Guiding Principles within our culture through teaching, worship (taking such liturgical opportunities as the Chrism Eucharist, for example) and conversations like in daba. It will be important to find periodic ways of auditing where we are as a diocese against the Guiding Principles and to hold one another to account on our fulfilment of them.

7. With painful and pointed rejection of ordained women continuing, it will also be important

to continue to point one another to the Bishop’s Presidential Address given at the July 2014 Diocesan Synod and its articulation of what it means to work for the highest possible degree of communion.

R.14 We recommend that these Personal Contributions be made available, along with others that the Bishop believes helpful, as a way of enabling others to understand and engage with their position as it relates to Ordained Ministry. We believe it is also helpful to set these contributions within a wider context. That wider context is the full range of perspectives on gender and how it relates to ordained ministry within the life of the Church. Also, the Church of England has decided it is right for women to be included fully within ordained ministry – it is proper to expect that the theological case for that is presented and understood, not merely assumed. R.15 We recommend that consideration is given to ways of bringing a wide range of perspectives on gender into dialogue with each other.


15. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS R.1a We recommend that the Five Guiding Principles be kept visible, studied and promoted in all parishes, and through the Diocesan Synod and Bishop’s Council. (page 5) R.1b We recommend that the Bishop writes an Ad Clerum, setting out this intention. (page 5) R.2 We recommend that the Bishop’s Presidential Address, in a form that he approves, accompanies the Five Guiding Principles in any programme promoting the House of Bishops’ Declaration. (page 6) R.3 We recommend the widespread use of the Terminology as listed in this Report. (page 11) R.4 We recommend that the 10 Buzz Words, with the possible addition of others, are promoted alongside the House of Bishops’ Declaration. (page 12) R.5 We recommend that the four questions used at the Consultations continue to receive wide-‐ranging attention, and be a possible resource to consultation with the Requesting PCC and PCC representatives. (page 13) R.6 We recommend that the Summaries of Consultations be given further consideration, as a significant step towards mutual understanding. (page 17) R.7 We recommend that the Bishop’s Office keeps a list of “Resolution Parishes, where arrangements have been made in accordance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (2014)” (page 19) R.8 We recommend the use of the Flow Chart. (page 21) R.9 We recommend that this Role Description is used as an outline for the initial conversations between the Diocesan Bishop and the Bishop whose role as Appointed Bishop is being considered. (page 26) R.10 We recommend that Bishop’s Council considers how this Mutual Flourishing Declaration might be promoted within its own working and elsewhere. (page 27) R.11 We recommend that Bishop’s Council, in consultation with the Bishop, sets up a working group to consider the Report’s particular suggestions for promoting mutual flourishing. (page 29) R.12 We recommend that Bishop’s Council engage with this Report and its Recommendations, as advised by the Bishop. (page 29) R.13 We recommend that on a regular basis the Diocesan Bishop meets with the Appointed Bishops and the Dean of Women’s Ministry – along with the Bishop of Doncaster and a lay representative. (page 31)


R.14 We recommend that these Personal Contributions be made available, along with others that the Bishop believes helpful, as a way of enabling others to understand and engage with their position as it relates to Ordained Ministry. (page 35) R.15 We recommend that consideration is given to ways of bringing a wide range of perspectives on gender into dialogue with each other. (page 35)


Appendix A

Aims and Terms of Reference The role of the Ministry Provision Advisory Group is to consult and develop protocols and recommendations to the Bishop of Sheffield and to the Bishop’s Council about how the new provision might operate across the Diocese of Sheffield. The Advisory Group will pay due regard and careful attention to the House of Bishops’ Declaration and in particular the five principles enunciated there. The Advisory Group will consult people of differing views across the Diocese and in particular those who cannot in conscience accept the ministry of women as priests and bishops. The Advisory Group will call on the Registrar for legal advice and interpretation as required and will consult with other Dioceses, particularly those with a similar breadth of traditions. The Advisory Group will aim to report to the Bishop and the Bishop’s Council by the early 2015.


Appendix B

Documents The General Synod Documents relating to Ministry (2014 Measure), and available via the Church of England Website are as follows; • Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure – GS

1925A • Amending Canon No. 33 – GS 1926A • Draft Act of Synod

Rescinding the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993 -‐ GS 1934 • WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE – House of Bishops’ DECLARATION on the

Ministry of Bishops and Priests – including Statement of the Five Guiding Principles -‐ GS Misc 1076

• House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests –

GUIDANCE NOTE from the House – including Statement of the Five Guiding Principles -‐ GS Misc 1077

• The Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (RESOLUTION OF

DISPUTES PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2014 – GS Misc 1087


Appendix C House of Bishops’ Five Guiding Principles • Now that legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the

Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and holds that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience;

• Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must be prepared to

acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter;

• Since it continues to share the historic episcopate with other Churches,

including the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and those provinces of the Anglican Communion which continue to ordain only men as priests or bishops, the Church of England acknowledges that its own clear decision on ministry and gender is set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God;

• Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological

conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures; and

• Pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of

England will be made without specifying a limit of time and in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England

These five guiding principles need to be read one with the other and held together in tension, rather than being applied selectively.


Appendix D

Terminology Checklist BISHOPS, PRIESTS, DEACONS – for those ordained to the three orders of ordained ministry, when no gender distinction is required TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC – to indicate those who are unable to receive the ministry of ordained women on ecumenical grounds, relating to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and/or on the grounds of the historic tradition of the Churches – recognizing that some people, who do not take that position, might wish to claim to be both “Traditional” and “Catholic”.

CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL – to indicate those who are unable to receive the leadership of ordained women on the grounds of their reading of the Scriptures, and/or on the grounds of a complementarian understanding of gender in the family and in the life if the Church – recognizing that some people, who do not take that position might wish to claim to be both “Conservative” and “Evangelical”. Strictly speaking, neither of the terms “Traditional Catholic” nor “Conservative Evangelical” is “water-‐tight”, but they are treated as such for the purposes of this Report.

SUPPORTERS OF WOMEN’S ORDAINED MINISTRY – to indicate those accepting of women as deacons, priests and bishops.

ORDAINED MEN/ORDAINED WOMEN – for priests when it is necessary to make a gender reference – as is the case in situations covered by the House of Bishops’ Declaration.

CONSECRATED MEN/CONSECRATED WOMEN – as above for bishops. This was preferred to Male Bishop/Female Bishop. REQUESTING PCC – for a PCC which has passed the motion requesting special provision for ministry “on grounds of theological conviction”.

RESOLUTION PARISH – for a parish receiving such provision in accordance with the House of Bishops’Declaration.

APPOINTED BISHOP – for the Bishop appointed by the Diocesan Bishop to provide “pastoral and sacramental ministry” to a parish whose PCC has requested it.


Appendix E

Buzz Words Checklist SIMPLICITY, RECIPROCITY, AND MUTUALITY – characteristics of the special arrangements made for parishes requesting them, and the spirit in which they are to be received by all.

PASTORAL AND SACRAMENTAL PROVISION – what is to be arranged by the Diocesan Bishop.

GROUNDS OF THEOLOGICAL CONVICTION – there has to be a theological basis to the PCC’s request for special arrangements – other motivations do not apply. GENDER AND ORDAINED MINISTRY – the theological conviction relates to this one area alone – other areas of dispute do not apply. CO-‐OPERATION BETWEEN THE TWO BISHOPS FOR THE PARISH’S WELFARE, RESOURCING AND MISSION, AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIOCESE – there is a shared commitment to the parish by the Diocesan Bishop and the Appointed Bishop.

SUFFRAGAN MODE – describing the nature of the working relationship the Diocesan Bishop establishes with the Appointed Bishop.

FLOURISHING AND MUTUAL FLOURISHING – individually a tradition needs to feel secure enough to flourish – and each tradition needs to have a concern for the flourishing of all – a re-‐discovering of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England.

HIGHEST POSSIBLE DEGREE OF COMMUNION – seeking the greatest degree of unity possible within the Diocese, whilst being clear that not everything is possible.

CLIMATE OF TRUST – the result of good practice and outcomes in the delivery of ministry.

DIOCESE AS A DIVERSE FELLOWSHIP – this expresses the legitimacy of difference, with the sense of being together.


Appendix F

Meeting With the Bishop of Beverley Meeting with Bishop Glyn Webster, Bishop Of Beverley, Assistant Bishop of this Diocese

The Traditional Catholic expression of this kind of episcopal ministry is a familiar one in this Diocese through the ministries of the various Bishops of Beverley, established under the 1993 Act of Synod (now withdrawn). The Bishop of Beverley is a Provincial Episcopal Visitor for the Province of York (PEV), and exercises his ministry in this Diocese at the request of the Diocesan Bishop.

As a Group, we wanted to know what his kind of ministry felt like and also to get the benefit of his experience. We are most grateful to Bishop Glyn for all that he shared with us. Amongst the topics covered, he spoke about: the Appointed Bishop Role; When things go off the rails; and What’s New. About the Appointed Bishop Role:

• Leave room for flexibility • Much depends on the character of the Diocesan Bishop and the Appointed Bishop – and

on the quality and practicalities of their relationship • Look for a sense of being part of the Episcopal team – there is only one episcopate • The over-‐riding priority is the relational • Go where invited

When things go off the rails:

• When somebody takes an extreme stance – denying the worth of others within the Body of Christ – there is a level of disunity, but this needs to be held within the diocesan fellowship

• Through a lack of communication – especially in long parochial vacancies, when people feel isolated – and especially in the relationship between the Diocesan and PEV/Appointed Bishop

• Misunderstanding over the Vow of Canonical Obedience – a legal not spiritual matter • Where there is no adequate provision for clergy and laity who are in parishes other

than those with special provision • Where there is a failure to address issues early on • Where the Five Guiding Principles are absent – are they Read? Understood? And do

people Live By Them? • Where parishes have a sense of insecurity

The Diocesan Bishop has a key role in setting the tone of relationships. What’s New?

• The settlement offers something for everybody – Supporters – Traditional Catholics – Conservative Evangelicals

• There is a new spirit – a new determination


• There is a focus on the relational • The Five Guiding Principles provide a balance • The settlement offers a Call for Renewal, celebrating God’s faithfulness – a move from

Tolerate to Respect to Glad You’re Here (endorsing Andy’s words) Bishop Glyn wishes to say how glad and grateful he is to serve with Bishops Steven and Peter and the Staff Team at Sheffield.