Search the Episcopal Press and News

Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Communion and Women in the Episcopate

Episcopal News Service. May 10, 1990 [90033_Z]

1. Introduction

The fourth meeting of the commission took place at the Office of the Anglican Consultative Council Partnership House in London from March 20 to March 22, 1990.

In the period since the third meeting in October 1989, the Rev. Dr. Penelope Jamieson had been elected diocesan bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand. At the request of the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Peter Carnley visited New Zealand and met the Primate, bishops, clergy, and laity, and in particular, groups of women priests. He made a full report of his visit to the commission.

In addition, the Archbishop of Armagh visited the provincial clergy meeting of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East in February 1990 to introduce the original report of the commission. An invitation has also been received from the Province of the Indian Ocean to introduce the report to its Provincial Synod at its meeting in Madagascar in September 1990. At the invitation of the Presiding Bishop Dr. Mary Tanner (England) and the Rt. Rev. Mark Dyer (ECUSA) presented the guidelines of the 1989 Report to the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America at Philadelphia in September 1989.

The Archbishop of Canterbury visited the commission during its fourth meeting. He expressed the wish that while no further formal meetings should be planned for the time being, the members should be ready to come together again at his request, if and when developments made this desirable.

The following report should be read in conjunction with the original report presented to the Primates' meeting of the Anglican Communion in Larnaca 1989 and the supplemental report produced following the commissions's meeting in October 1989. At this meeting our major task has been to address the specific issues raised by the election of a woman to be a diocesan bishop in a province of the Anglican Communion. We have paid particular attention to the role of the diocesan bishop as a personal focus and the instrument of unity and communion at the local level and within and between provinces.

2. A diocese proceeding to elect a woman bishop should have reached such a decision:
  • (a) following the appropriate provincial process for taking decisions on women priests and bishops;
  • (b) after the experience of a number of years of women exercising presbyterial ministry;
  • (c) after consultation within the interdependence of the provinces of the Anglican Communion and in the context of the Lambeth Conference Resolution No. I to maintain the highest degree of communion possible allowing for the fact that it remains a recognizable position to be against such an action. [Cf. Primates' Meeting, Toronto 1983, Report of the Working Party appointed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion on Women and the Episcopate to aid discussion for the Lambeth Conference 1988, Report of the Lambeth Conference 1988.]

3. We are gratified that in New Zealand the degree of unanimity that is apparent following upon the election of a woman diocesan bishop means that the Church of the Province of New Zealand will continue its inner life in the highest possible degree of communion.

We recognize that this is not necessarily the case elsewhere and that guidelines need to be formulated that cover situations where there are significant dissenting minorities. In order that the highest possible degree of communion might be achieved in these circumstances, in the context of serious theological anomalies, it may be necessary to frame special pastoral guidelines until there is an ultimate resolution of this issue.

4. Koinonia and Reception

In charting a way of living in the highest degree of communion while the development is being tested in an open process of reception certain theological and pastoral issues are crucial:

(a) The Diocese, the Province, and Communion

While the diocese, with its bishop, has usually been regarded as a focus of communion, Christians are also related to each other within the wider communion of the province and of the worldwide communion of churches. During the process of reception, congregations and clergy that cannot accept the sacramental and teaching ministry of their woman diocesan bishop, may, nevertheless, continue to regard themselves as being in communion with the rest of the province, with its house of bishops and the woman diocesan concerned (without, for the time being, accepting her episcopal ministry), and with the worldwide communion of churches. The province, and particularly its house of bishops, might then have the responsibility of providing episcopal ministry to such congregations and clergy, possibly under the jurisdiction of the Primate.

(b) Episcope, Episcopacy, and Communion

Since the apostles' time, the term episcope has been used to describe the ministry of oversight of a presiding elder in the church. From the earliest time the term was used to describe the ministry of the local bishop as well as the ministry of the college of bishops. The episcopacy of a diocesan bishop is the embodiment of this authority of oversight, which is received from Christ within and through the church as a whole. This oversight is shared collegially both at the international and the provincial level and with the presbyters and deacons on the diocesan level.

5. The Diocese

Given that a minority within a diocese, and within a province, could remain opposed, with differing degrees of opposition, and given that it is possible for a minority to bear witness to truth and that only a lengthy process of testing finally yields an answer, the following provisions might be considered in order to hold the minority in communion, even though that communion be restricted.

  • (a) Dissenting priests and congregations would need to be willing to recognize and maximize all that they continue to share at the level of faith, common history, and ethos with other Anglicans in the diocese, province, and communion.
  • (b) The congregation and priest could, in the first instance, request the diocesan bishop to ask the Primate of the province, in consultation with the college of bishops, to provide alternative episcopal care in the form of episcopal visitors. [Cf. paragraph 42 of the Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Communion and Women in the Episcopate, March 1989.] Oversight could then be exercised by a visiting bishop with the authority of the Primate and the college of bishops. This process would provide for the continuance of oversight in the diocese for those who could not accept a woman diocesan bishop.
  • (c) In agreeing to the provision of alternative episcopal care for a congregation in the diocese, the woman bishop could still be recognized as exercising a ministry of episcope through her place in the provincial college of bishops.
  • (d) Visiting bishops would have authority from the Primate within the collegiality of the house of bishops; they would therefore remain in collegial fellowship.
  • (e) The dissenting congregation and priest would continue to take part in all levels of the life of the diocese: for example, synodical consultation, central diocesan agencies, and financial support.
  • (f) The woman diocesan bishop would respect the decision of the congregation to live with its recognized and accepted position and would make provision for subsequent clergy appointments to be in sympathy with the mind of the congregation
  • . (g) The congregation and priest would, for their part, not actively oppose the episcopal ministry of the woman bishop; in accordance with paragraph 42 of our March 1989 report, such congregations and clergy would not go as far as to say that a woman could never be a bishop. Their position might simply be that of uncertainty in the matter or of waiting for a consensus either way to emerge in the Anglican Communion or ecumenically.
  • (h) Candidates for holy orders opposed to a woman diocesan would need to be respected by the diocesan herself. Such candidates should also show respect for the diocesan concerned and, if otherwise recommended as suitable for training for the priesthood, should proceed through the existing diocesan structures.
6. Provincial Collegiality

The election and consecration of a diocesan bishop also touches the collegiality of bishops in a province. Where there is a unanimous ratification of the election of a woman bishop within a province, as we understand there to be in the Province of New Zealand, she will be fully recognized and accepted into the collegiality of the bishops of that province.

In a province where there already exists significant dissent, and consensus has not yet been achieved, then it is likely that the provincial communion and collegiality of the bishops will be restricted at least to some extent. We note, however, that where such a situation obtains, as for example in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America where a woman is a member of the college of bishops, those who are unable to recognize her sacramental ministrations nevertheless remain as members with her of the same episcopal college, thus manifesting the degree of communion and collegiality that continues to exist among them.

7. Interchangeability of Ministries

There is concern that the consecration of a woman bishop will have a negative effect upon relationships between provinces of the Anglican Communion insofar as some Anglicans will be unable or unwilling to recognize the authenticity of the holy orders conferred by her.

The loss of the universal acceptance of ordained ministers and of their interchangeability across provincial boundaries is seen as a difficulty that will seriously affect the texture of interprovincial relationships.

While ordinations performed by a woman bishop will add a new category of ministry with restricted interchangeability, this problem is itself not new. Complete interchangeability of ministries within the Anglican Communion has been restricted since the ordination of women to the priesthood, even though until now it has been the gender of the ordinand rather than the gender of the minister of the sacrament of holy orders that has been cited as the reason for nonrecognition.

The exercise of individual episcopal discretion in a bishop's refusal to license a person from elsewhere in the Anglican Communion is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, in the past it has been exercised for a wide churchmanship and theological stance, the temperamental unsuitability of a person for a particular role and, at worst, reasons such as race or social prejudice. We recognize that in the present difficulty the reasons for exercising such a discretion are based upon sincerely held convictions about the eligibility of a woman to receive holy orders.

The interchangeability of ministries is only one aspect of communion. Our communion is always imperfect this side of the eschaton; we must work and pray for its transfiguration by the grace of God as we grow in love and deepening fellowship together.

When bishops feel impelled to say that they do not recognize the orders of a minister, they should do so with charity and pastoral care, being fully cognizant of the hurt and distress that this would cause both to the ordaining bishop and the ordained person concerned. By the same token, the pain of the bishop withholding recognition ought not to be underestimated. Indeed, given the sensitivities of those involved, the commission wishes to counsel prudent reticence in the making of public declarations of this kind so that the highest possible degree of communion may be maintained even in this circumstance.

Moreover, we would continue to discourage individual statements about the breaking of communion. Statements about ecclesial communion are, in contemporary Anglicanism, the responsibility of the province or, in some circumstances, the Primate. No province has declared itself to be out of communion with another over the ordination of women to the episcopate. This is not to deny that a real diminishing of communion between provinces has already occurred, to the extent that ministries are not interchangeable, both in regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood and now to the episcopate.

8. Canonical Form and Intention

Those who have reservations about the ordinations of a woman bishop should at least acknowledge that in such ordinations the correct canonical procedures have been followed. Furthermore, they are asked to acknowledge that such provinces, in using their respective ordinals, have publicly declared their intention of consecrating a woman as "a bishop in the Church of God" and admitting her to the fullness of the threefold order of apostolic ministry.

9. Visits

When bishops visit a province that differs from their own in respect to the ordination of women, the courtesy and respect to the ordination of women, the courtesy and respect called for by the Lambeth Conference, should be exhibited by all parties concerned. Visiting bishops (whether male or female) should conform as far as possible to the practice of the province being visited; nevertheless, they should not be expected to act in such a manner as to jeopardize their role as personal and sacramental focus of unity and communion within their own diocese and province.

Members of the Commission

Chairman:

  • The Most Rev. Robert H.A. Eames, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland and Metropolitan.

    Members:

  • The Most Rev. Joseph Adetiloye, Primate of All Nigeria, Bishop of Lagos and Metropolitan.;
  • The Most Rev. Peter F. Carnley, Archbishop of Perth and Metropolitan of the Province of Western Australia;
  • The Rt. Rev. Mark Dyer, Bishop of Bethlehem, Episcopal Church of the United States of America.;
  • The Rev. Dr. Julia Gatta, Lecturer in Spirituality, Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, Episcopal Church of the United States of America.;
  • The Rt. Rev. David M. Hope, Bishop of Wakefield, Church of England.;
  • The Rev. Dr. E. James Reed, Director of the Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada (not able to be present at the March 1990 meeting).;
  • Dr. Mary E. Tanner, Theological Secretary, Board for Mission and Unity of the Church of England.;
  • The Most Rev. Amos Waiaru, Archbishop of Melanesia (not able to be present at the March 1990 meeting) .

Co-Secretaries:

  • The Rev. Canon Christopher Hill, Canon of St. Paul's Cathedral, London.;
  • The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, General Secretary, Church Missionary Society, London.

    Administrative Secretary:

  • Miss Deirdre Hoban, Anglican Consultative Council.