CONSECRATED WOMEN?

Study Day on Thursday 19th April 2007 at Dinton

The Church militant – navigating Parliament

With

Robert Key

Member of Parliament for Salisbury

1. Church and State – a broad and living way?
2. Legal procedures
3. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament
4. Conclusions

1. Church and State – a broad and living way? ‘

…an Establishment that has a broad and living way open to it, into the hearts of the people…’ W.E.Gladstone – A Chapter of Autobiography (1868)

Should anyone be in any doubt at all, I am not a theologian. I was born into and raised at the heart of our Established Church. For three generations the eldest Key has been an ordained minister in the Church of England. Ordained ancestors were at work in Durham diocese in the Eighteenth Century. I was born in Plymouth in 1945 at 1 Penlee Way, temporary shelter for my family from the blitzed dockyard parish Rectory. We moved to Salisbury Close in 1947 when my father was consecrated Bishop of Sherborne. In 1960 he was translated to Truro and he served his time in The House of Lords. I sang my way to Clare College Cambridge – whose Dean would later be Rowan Williams.

My first teaching job was in Edinburgh, where I was a Lay Clerk in St Giles Cathedral where I learned to loath the metrical psalms. I married into the Scottish Episcopal Church. My father-in-law was Dean of the Diocese of St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dublane. To my amazement, I discovered that Deans and Bishops are elected up there – proper democratic elections, I mean!

Then it was back for fourteen years at the establishment chalk face of Harrow School – with compulsory daily chapel for all faiths including Muslims and Hindus – except Roman Catholics who were excused.

Returning to live and worship in Salisbury and to represent it in Parliament led me naturally towards relations between Church and State. When Margaret Thatcher appointed me to her Government in 1990, with responsibility for the Poll Tax and Inner Cities she agreed I should found the Inner Cities Religious Council to bring together Faith Community Leaders from our great cities. This I did with the help of Tom Butler, then Bishop of Leicester.

More recently I was appointed to the Ecclesiastical Committee and was elected to the General Synod.

I mention all this to make it clear that when I say I believe very strongly in the significance and importance of our Established Church, it is not from a theological point of view, but from deep practical experience over some 40 years.

The Venerable Bede wrote, in his “Historiam Gentis Anglorum Ecclesisaticum” that there was, in the sixth century, an awareness of England and of the English without parallel in other parts of Europe, and that the English nation was the child of the Church. The Church gave its authority to Kingship, to law and to the unity of the nation. It provided the Kings chief officer-holders and was, effectively, the civil service. The State granted the Church privileges and gave it land and money.

England was never part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Normans drew England closer to the Papacy, but still the English Church fought for independence. The Magna Carta of 1215 asserted: “ut ecclesia Anglicana libera sit” – thus the English Church will be free.

In 1393 Richard II declared in his Statute of Praemunire, ‘that the Crown of England should be made subject to the Pope, to the utter destruction of the sovereignty of our Lord the King, his crown and royalty, and his whole kingdom, God forbid”. This was too much for the Pope who forced Richard to withdraw it on pain of excommunication…

That expression of the independence of the Church in England bore fruit in the Reformation Statutes of the 1530s. The Tudor reformation was about far, far more than Henry VIII’s marital problems. It was about the relation of the Papacy to the English Head of State and about the meaning of sovereignty in a nation state.

The triumph of Elizabeth I’s Reformation settlement was that our Church firmly rejected the excesses of both Rome and Geneva, squarely and rationally embracing the challenges of new knowledge, science and technology – all of which are God-given but requiring man’s wisdom and moral judgment to separate use from abuse. The private patronage of livings and the parson’s freehold, both reasserted at the Reformation, were expressions of both independence and co-existence.

On 6th February 2001 the Bishop of Durham spoke in the House of Lords on the Wakeham Report on Lords Reform. He said, ‘Through the Dioceses and parishes, through a small army of clergy and licensed lay ministers, through church schools and chaplaincies to many kinds of institutions, the Church of England has a vast constituency of pastoral contact which extends far beyond the core of committed churchgoers. The expression ‘national church’ is not an anachronism’.

There is a golden thread running through the history of our Church in England, intertwined with our people (often against oppressive rulers, spiritual or temporal) and given expression in the continuing and special relationship we have with our State. There is something understood between the English people and their Church - an unwritten contract.

So it is with our Armed Forces, whose Chief is the Queen not the Prime Minister. On the other hand, our Government can sign international treaties and even go to war, in the name of the Crown and without the consent of Parliament, under authority of the Royal Prerogative. And that is why our Bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister with the authority of the Crown. All this may change. Many argue that in going to war in Iraq the Prime Minister abused the Royal Prerogative, and that will change everything. He nearly broke that golden thread. The Crown in parliament has had enough of Executive Government.

If we were to vote to accept a written constitution – such as a European Constitution - there would be consequences for the Established Church. I refer you to the book ‘Christianity in a Changing World’ and to Julian Rivers’ Chapter on ‘Disestablishment and The Church of England’. I agree with his analysis that we can give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s (Matthew 22:21) since the State in Western Christian tradition is an authority established by God (Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1). Whilst the State is capable of great evil, its purpose is to be subjected to the highest authority of Christ (Ephesians 1:20; 1 Peter 3:22).

However I disagree with Julian Rivers that Parliament is an obstacle to change desired by the Church. In the 21st Century the boot is on the other foot. For example, I believe that both Houses of Parliament would vote for women bishops tomorrow – given the chance. But they are not. It is the Church that is hesitating. Similarly, the representatives in Parliament of the Church’s constituency would help the Church get over its introspective obsession with homosexuality.

I find it an irony that the Churches have been arguing against equality and Parliament in favour, when it comes to discrimination on grounds of sexuality in the provision of goods and services. In the long history of our constitutional arrangements between Church and State it was not the first time, and it will not be the last, that Parliament has dragged the Church forward in step with the English people. And let us never forget, it is only by a specific exemption in the law of the land that the Church of England is permitted to discriminate against women when it comes to the appointment of bishops.

If the Church gets too far out of step with the people it serves, it will shrivel and its influence diminish. We have avoided that in England. So far other countries and churches have not. To fulfil its ministry the church needs priests. Consider these figures and ask yourselves what is going on.

Ordinations in 2003 (Source H of C Library & UN)

Church of England (men & women) 493
Roman Catholic Churches in:
Poland 501
Italy 456
France 103
GB 52
Ireland 17

2 .Legal Procedures

On 5th November 1993 (!) the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 received Royal assent. This permitted the ordination of women priests and prevented them from becoming bishops in the Church of England.

• It shall be lawful for the General Synod to make provision by Canon for enabling a woman to be ordained to the office of priest if she otherwise satisfies the requirements of Canon Law as to the persons who may be ordained as priests.
• Nothing in this Measure shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop.

The Measure’s Royal Assent came five years after it was first introduced to General Synod in July 1988 but 20 years after the question of whether women should be admitted to the priesthood was first debated by the Synod.

Church of England Measures are the instrument by which changes are made to the government and organisation of the Church.

Each Measure approved by Synod must go through the following stages.

• First consideration, by full Synod
• Consideration by the Revision Committee (all members of Synod are able to propose amendments)
• Revision in full Synod
• Final Drafting (consideration by full Synod, however, amendments can only be proposed by a steering committee that was appointed to steer the particular Measure through Synod)
• Final approval (by full Synod)

Once the full Synod has given approval to a Measure, the Legislative Committee of Synod submits it to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament (The Ecclesiastical Committee) which considers whether the Measure is ‘expedient’. If it considers it to be expedient, both Houses are required to approve the Measure before it can receive Royal Assent. This usually follows a debate in both Houses.

As well as introducing Measures, Synod may also make Canons which are mainly to do with the work of the Clergy, and which are not subject to Parliamentary procedure; they are submitted to the Queen via the Home Secretary.

What approach is the Ecclesiastical Committee likely to take if asked to consider a new Measure permitting the consecration of women bishops?

In 1993 the Committee summarised the arguments in favour and against women’s ordination:

“The nub of the case advanced in favour of women priests is that women will enrich the priesthood, and that without women the priesthood is incomplete. Women will bring distinct gifts to the priestly ministry, and their inclusion within it will ensure that it fully reflects the richness and diversity of humanity created in the image of God”.

The Ecclesiastical Committee then outlined the three main objections to the ordination of women. The first objection was ‘representative’ – the priest represented Christ, who was male, and, secondly, the apostles were all male and to allow women to be ordained would “compromise the apostolic continuity”. The second objection was scriptural – it cited a number of texts highlighting the different roles of men and women. The third objection was a “wider church” argument, related to the Church of England’s position within the universal church and the implications for unity with Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches, who opposed the ordination of women.

The Committee said the Measure was a compromise which sought to protect those in the Church who were opposed to the ordination of women as priests.

Since then we have had the Rochester Report (2002) that recommended that Synod “consider the process for removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate …” This was followed by the Guildford Group report in 2006 which suggested a ‘single clause’ measure with a code of practice; transferred Episcopal arrangements; and a third province of the Church.

We now have the Legislative Working Group chaired by the Bishop of Manchester, which is to produce a way forward and suggest new legislation.

To consider a future response of the Ecclesiastical Committee, it would be wise to consider the nature of that Committee.

3. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament

In 1852 the Convocations of Canterbury and York were re-established as representative bodies of Clergy alone. But they were short-lived and ended with the dissolution of that Parliament.

In 1919, the Convocations of Canterbury and York proposed that the legislative role of Parliament be revised. Church legislation was often held up through lack of Parliamentary time. Introducing the National Assembly Bill in The Lords on 3rd June 1919, the Archbishop of Canterbury cited the example of a Bill on patronage and tenure of benefices that took 12 years to get through. In the Commons, Sir Edward Beauchamp, who introduced the Bill, said that only 33 out of 217 Church Bills between 1880 and 1913 had been successful.

Thus emerged the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 – known as the “Enabling Act”. For the first time the laity were represented. When the Church Assembly had approved a Measure it was to be presented to the new Ecclesiastical Committee.

Our General Synod, with three Houses, was set up by the Synodical Government Measure which received Royal Assent on 25th July 1969. (In practice, Royal Assent is normally granted by a Committee of Privy Counsellors.)

The Ecclesiastical Committee is composed of fifteen Members of the House of Lords, nominated by the Lord Chancellor, and fifteen Members of the House of Commons, nominated by the Speaker. The Committee appoints its own Chairman, who has always been a Peer. Members serve for a whole Parliament.

Parliamentary consideration of a Church of England Measure begins when the Legislative Committee submits a Draft Measure for consideration and approval. The Ecclesiastical Committee generally invite General Synod representatives to discuss the proposals with the Committee, and then make a report back to Synod.

The 1919 Act provides that a conference may be arranged between the Legislative Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee at the request of either; such conferences are held in public and transcripts of the proceedings are published with the Committee report. The Committee does not have the power to take oral evidence in public from other individuals or bodies.

The Committee must report on “the nature and legal effect of the Measure and its views as to the expediency thereof, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His majesty’s subjects”.

Ecclesiastical Committee reports are sent in draft to the Legislative Committee. While the report may recommend the amendment of the draft Measure, the Committee itself cannot amend it. A Report is not laid before the two Houses of Parliament until the Legislative Committee has signified its wish that it should be.

Both Houses consider a Measure on motions that it should be presented for Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament. Neither House can amend it. It is all or nothing.

Usually Measures receive little opposition – and votes are rare. They also receive little interest, with few Members attending the Chamber. Usually the Measures, which are treated like Statutory Instruments, must be argued in full for up to one and a half hours. The Government’s business managers (the whips) often tag Measures on to the end of a day’s business, sometimes late at night.

Controversial Measures may be subject to Divisions. The Prayer Book Measure of 1927 was negatived in the Commons by 247 votes to 205. The Clergy (Ordination) Measure was rejected by the Commons by 51 votes to 45 on 17 July 1989, but subsequently agreed by 228 votes to 106 0n 20 February 1990. Note the numbers of MPs voting. A few enthusiasts may win the first skirmish but the battle is won when reinforcements arrive.

Once passed by both Houses, Measures, like Acts of Parliament, have the full force or Statute Law and apply generally throughout England.

Current Members of the Ecclesiastical Committee

Lord Davies of Coity (Labour)
Lord Elton (Conservative)
Lord Judd (Labour)
Lord Laming (Cross Bench)
Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Chairman) (Cross Bench)
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Labour)
Lord Newby (L/D)
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Conservative)
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford (Conservative)
Baroness Rendell of Babergh (Labour)
Lord Shaw of Northstead (Conservative)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (L/D)
Lord Walpole (Cross Bench)
Baroness Wilcox (Conservative)
Lord Williams of Elvel (Labour)

Sir Stuart Bell MP (Second Church Estates Commissioner) (Middlesbrough) (Labour)
Peter Bottomley MP (Worthing West) (Conservative)
Ben Chapman MP (Wirral South) (Labour)
Sir Patrick Cormack MP (South Staffordshire) (Conservative)
David Drew MP (Stroud) (Labour)
Gwyneth Dunwoody MP (Crew and Nantwich) (Labour)
Frank Field MP (Birkenhead) (Labour)
John Gummer MP (Suffolk Coastal) (Conservative)
Sharon Hodgson MP (Gateshead East & Washington West) (Labour)
Simon Hughes MP (Southwark & Bermondsey) (L/D)
Robert Key MP (Salisbury) (Conservative)
Gordon Marsden MP (Blackpool South) (Labour)
Desmond Swayne MP (New Forest West) (Conservative)
David Taylor MP (North West Leicestershire) (Labour)
Steve Webb MP (Northavon) (L/D)

Because the 1919 Act refers to the ‘constitutional rights of all His Majesty’s subjects’, it has always been the practice in both Houses not to restrict membership of the Ecclesiastical Committee to communicant members of the Church of England.

4. Conclusions

It would be speculation to attempt to anticipate the individual or collective views of members of the Ecclesiastical Committee in advance of a proposal from the General Synod – not least because it would depend on the substance of the draft Measure.

However, a very great deal has changed since the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993. So much has changed that it would be unwise to anticipate a similar response to any new draft Measure. English society and attitudes have changed. Both Houses of Parliament have changed. Most of the hereditary peers have gone – and they might have been expected to hold more traditional views than the current peers. About half the membership of the Commons has changed – with nearly twice as many women MPs. Membership of the Ecclesiastical Committee has changed correspondingly, too.

There has been a substantial change in the appreciation of the contribution of women to our national life. The glass ceiling is cracking.

There has been an over-reaction to the Human Rights Act, but there is undoubtedly a new realisation – at least in political circles – of the relationship between the private individual and the state, in law and in life. This includes attitudes to discrimination in most if not all of its forms.

In 1993 the Ecclesiastical Committee recognised the gifts women would bring to the priesthood and acknowledged the objections, concluding the Measure was a compromise. Fourteen years on I suspect that in the climate of today the Committee would be pleased to learn that a compromise would no longer be necessary. They are also less likely to impressed by arguments that statutory provision should be made for priests and for parishes to opt out of the pastoral oversight of their lawful diocesan bishop.

They will have noted the strictly time-limited concessions granted to the Roman Catholic Church (supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury) in the Sexual Orientation Regulations which outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, in respect of child adoption agencies I am sure the General Synod will have seen the writing on the wall. The people of England have accepted that we cannot pick and chose when we want to discriminate on grounds of sex.

If push comes to shove in a Commons vote (and I suspect in a Lords vote, too), the Established Church will have to recognise that under the 1919 Act the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty’s subjects include the right of women priests to be accorded equal rights with men when it comes to the appointment of Bishops. That is how those Commons voting lobby reinforcements will see it, whatever the theologians say. Queen Elizabeth I would have approved. I suspect Queen Elizabeth II will, too.