This is an article from
Theology Wales: the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate
Full contents:
Guest Editor's Introduction
- Rev'd Canon Dr Raymond Bayley
The Admission of Women to the Episcopate
- A Statement by the Bench of Bishops
Women Bishops in the Church in Wales
- Canon Mary Stallard
Learn from the past and build for the future
- Rev'd Joanna Penberthy
Male Episcopacy
- Rev'd Canon Peter Russell Jones
A Noble Task
- Bishop David Thomas
Empirical Theology and Women Bishops
- Rev'd Professor Leslie J Francis
Empirical Theology and Women Bishops: Why listen to local churches?
Professor Leslie J Francis
The report Women Bishops in the Church of England? distinguishes between two crucial but very different questions: one concerning the matter of principle and the other concerning the matter of timing. The present paper examines the contribution which can be made to both questions by the methods of empirical theology. Data are offered relevant to both questions from a large scale survey of Anglican opinion conducted in 2001. It is argued that more up-to-date information is now needed with the focus specifically on the Church in Wales.
Introduction
The report of the House of Bishops working party in the Church of England on women in the episcopate, Women Bishops in the Church of England? (Church of England, 2004), distinguishes between two crucial but very different questions. The first question, articulated especially in chapter three, concerns method in theology: how should we approach the issue of whether women should be ordained as bishops? The second question, articulated especially in chapter six, concerns the issue of timing: do matters determined in principle need, nonetheless, to await ‘the right time’ for implementation? Opinion clearly remains divided both on the answers to these two questions and, more importantly, on the weight that should be given to different perspectives in arriving at answers(1).
The intention of the present paper is to assess what contribution, if any, can be made to formulating answers to these two questions by the perspective taken through ‘empirical theology’, as displayed, for example, by the Nijmegen School (see van der Ven, 1993, 1998) and by the Wales School (see Francis, Robbins and Astley, 2005). Empirical theology provides a distinctive approach for addressing theological problems by bringing them into dialogue with high quality empirical data of the kind generally discussed within the social sciences. In this sense, empirical theology is concerned to integrate the empirical tools of the social sciences within the theologians’ repertoire of methods, and to incorporate good quality empirical evidence within theological debate. The application of empirical theology may, therefore, include listening carefully to what engaged and committed Anglicans within local churches have to say about the ordination of women to the episcopate. Yet what relevance can such data, elicited by social scientific methods, have in resolving the two key questions articulated by the Church of England report?
The Issue of Method
Chapter three of Women Bishops in the Church of England? anticipates naïve arguments which could be mounted on the basis of social scientific data regarding what engaged and committed Anglicans within local churches have to say about the ordination of women to the episcopate. Even though a proper social scientific enquiry were to discover a high level of support for the ordination of women to the episcopate, the bishops’ report asserts that ‘the argument from widespread support does not provide an adequate starting point’ (p 67). Two reasons are cited by the bishops’ report in support of this assertion. The first reason is illustrated in the bishops’ report by the following question from the sixteenth-century Anglican theologian John Jewel.
There was the greatest consent that might be amongst them that worshipped the golden calf, and among them which with one voice jointly cried against our Saviour Jesus Christ ‘Crucify him’ (p 68).
The second reason is framed as follows. If the argument from widespread support is taken to its logical conclusion that ‘something should be considered true because it has popular support’, the bishops’ report maintains that it would lead to the opposite conclusion that ‘if something does not have popular support . . . it should not be considered true’ (p 68).
In a somewhat different context, the bishops’ report voices a third objection which could equally have been marshalled against the argument from widespread support.
In a fallen world in which the minds of human beings are darkened as a result of alienation from God (Romans 1:21) we cannot assume that what seems to be self-evident is in fact in accordance with the will of God’ (p 67).
So far, at least, there seems little point in the empirical theologian drawing attention to what is being said by engaged and committed Anglicans within local churches. Matters of truth seem to be settled elsewhere and by other mechanisms.
In terms of appropriate mechanisms, the bishops’ report proceeds to rehearse the mechanisms that are appropriate for establishing theological normativity within the Anglican Church. Of course, assent is given to the view that Christians down the centuries, Christians of the Church of England included, have insisted on the authority of the biblical witness as the norm for all Christian theology (p 75).
Yet the biblical witness is set within a proper hermeneutical context which admits to variety of interpretation, to development and to change. In other contexts the bishops’ report pointed to changing Christian views on ‘slavery and the opposition of one race by another’ (p 67), but remain strangely silent on the (now) less contested issues of usury and contraception and on the (still) more contested issue of homosexuality. Changing views on women in the episcopate need to be tested carefully against the Bible which ‘functions as the meta narrative through which we hear God speaking to us’ (p 78).
This hermeneutical process of interpreting scripture may be a highly skilled task well left to the hands of professional theologians (nestling in Cardiff, Lampeter, Carmarthen, or even Bangor?). Yet the bishops’ report is nervous of the implications of such a view.
There is sometimes a fear that an insistence on the importance of interpreting Scripture properly disenfranchises ordinary Christians by making the meaning of Scripture accessible only to an elite of trained biblical scholars. This concern needs to be taken seriously and it must always be remembered that God can and does speak through the Bible to Christians who are not biblical scholars (p 79).
If God really does speak in this way to ordinary Christian men and women, perhaps there is value in the empirical theologian listening to such people and helping them to articulate and to give expression to their understanding of the voice of God. Such people may well include the hard-working parish clergy who occupy the pulpits and the equally hard-working laity who occupy the pews. This is the kind of listening theology which Jeff Astley (2002) describes in his book Ordinary Theology, where he shows proper respect for the diverse ways in which the people of God speak about their experience of God. Indeed, such voices may have had a contribution to make on the Church’s re-evaluation of the understanding of usury, contraception, slavery and racial oppression.
After discussing the significance of the bible and interpreting scripture, the bishops’ report goes on to consider the use of tradition and reason. The report argues as follows.
The norm for Anglican theology is the revelation of God in Holy Scripture. However, the help of tradition and reason is required in order to understand Scripture properly and to live appropriately in the light of its teaching (p 84).
Now the door may be opening a little further for the evidence offered by the empirical theologian to be taken into account in the process of discerning theological normativity. Further pushes are given to this opening door when the bishops’ report discussed the two notions of ‘development’ and ‘reception’.
Development
The notion of ‘development’ is central to the discussion of change in Church doctrine or practice. After dismissing the view that innovation means heresy and establishing the view that Christian doctrine has in fact varied and developed over time (for example, the doctrine of the Trinity), the bishops’ report acknowledges the diversity of views among theologians regarding how healthy development may be distinguished from doctrinal corruption. Then the bishops’ report settles on three tests which it would wish to apply in assessing healthy development.
The first test takes us right back to the place of scripture: ‘a permissible development is one that is biblically based’ (p 98). In terms of women and the episcopate, according to the bishops’ report, this test has three components. First, there has to be explicit or implicit support in specific biblical texts. Second, the development has to enable us to make coherent sense of the overall biblical picture of the role of women in the purposes of God. Third, the development has to take the logic of the biblical material relating to women and apply it in a new cultural and historical context.
The second test takes us right back to the place of tradition: ‘a permissible development is one that takes tradition seriously’ (p 100). In terms of women and the episcopate, according to the bishops’ report, this test also has three components. First, there has to be awareness of the witness of all traditions of the Church. Second, there has to be understanding of the reasons for the existence of these traditions. Third, the development has to build on the Church’s existing traditions rather than simply rejecting them.
The third test takes us right back to the place of reason: ‘a permissible development is one that takes reason seriously’ (p 102). In terms of women and the episcopate, the bishops’ report once again identifies three components for the test, although it is the third component which is really important for the present argument. It has to be shown in a rational and coherent fashion that the development is rooted in scripture and tradition. It has to be shown that the development will enable the Church to respond creatively and persuasively to the issues raised by contemporary culture and contemporary Christian experience. The substance of the third component is worth citing in full.
Such a development will be rooted in an exercise in the corporate seeking of wisdom in which the will of God is discerned by the Church as a whole and will not simply be the result of victory of one side of the debate in a synodical discussion.
Now here at last there seems real acknowledgement of the potential role for the evidence offered by empirical theology to contribute effectively and decisively to the debate. Perhaps the voice of God is to be discerned by listening to the people of God (listening to ordinary theology?) as much as by the politically-modelled processes of Synod (or even Governing Body?).
Reception
The notion of ‘reception’ has become pivotal to the Anglican debate on the ordination of women to priesthood and to the episcopacy. The problem with the notion of reception in the Anglican literature is that the word does not quite mean what many would expect it to mean. That great Anglican theologian Humpty Dumpty (‘when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less’: Carroll, 1962, p 274) has been at work modifying this construct. In its more established sense, reception is used to describe the process of assimilation by means of which a development becomes part of the life of the Church.
This usage was originated in legal studies to describe the way in which Roman law came to be assimilated into European, and specifically German, law at the end of the middle ages. The bishops’ report draws careful attention to the distinctive way in which reception is used in the Anglican literature. In the Roman Catholic literature and in the ecumenical literature the emphasis had been placed on a process by which a development came to be accepted. In recent Anglican literature on the ordination of women, reception describes the process of discernment by which a development could be either accepted or rejected. This is sometimes described as an ‘open process of reception’. This understanding is expressed clearly in the first report of the Eames Commission (1998) on the issue of the ordination of women bishops in the Anglican Communion.
Once a synodical decision has been made then that necessarily must be respected on all sides as a considered judgement of that particular representative gathering. However, it has always been recognised that councils not only may, but have, erred. Conciliar and synodical decisions would still have to be received and owned by the whole people of God as consonant with the faith of the Church throughout the ages professed and lived today.
In the continuing and dynamic process of reception, freedom and space must be available until a consensus of opinion one way or the other has been achieved (p 26).
According to this understanding, the process of reception is considered incomplete until the development has been accepted not only by the Church of England, but by the entire Anglican Communion and by the universal Church. The development remains in some senses provisional until a consensus on the matter is reached. In an important essay on ‘Reception: towards an Anglican understanding’, Paul Avis (2004) makes the following point that it is:
clearly implied in the open process of the reception of the decision of the Church of England to provide for the ordination of women that the decision could be reappraised. In other words, it is hypothetically reversible. If the General Synod were so minded, it could change its canons to the status quo ante 1993, with the result that no more women would be ordained priest after that point (p 30).
According to this understanding, the validity of the orders of the individual women ordained as priest (or as bishop) is not open to being called into question. The Anglican Church (within specific Provinces) will have acted on what it believes to be right at any given time, while at the same time remaining open to the possibility that its decision might in the end be judged unacceptable by the universal Church.
Working with this ‘open process of reception’, the bishops’ report suggests that the process is continuing and incomplete ‘while there is still substantial opposition to or hesitation about the ordination of women both within the Church of England and ecumenically’ (p 111). Although no attempt is made in the bishop’s report to define what is meant by ‘substantial’, at this point, the report seems to be getting very close to the view that empirical evidence regarding the extent of opposition or hesitation becomes crucial to the theological process. So perhaps empirical theology has a central part to play in assessing theological normativity after all.
The Issue of Timing
The issue of timing is a very different type of matter from the issue of theological principle. The argument that ‘the time is not yet right’ can be brought into play by two kinds of people: those who have come to the view that the ordination of women to the episcope is in principle correct, but who imagine that the present implementation of the principle would be detrimental rather than beneficial to the Church; and those who have not really formed a view on the matter of principle, but who believe that it is sensible to delay the decision of principle for pragmatic reasons of implementation.
In chapter six the bishops’ report presents a fair and balanced summary both of the arguments for delay and of the arguments against delay. In both groups of arguments a proper distinction is made between those arguments specifically concerned with the Church of England and those arguments of a broader ecumenical nature. Closer inspection, however, of the arguments described as concerned with the Church of England reveal two different categories: some arguments really concerned with the Church of England and some arguments concerned with broader theological principles.
In the broader ecumenical context there is little disagreement over the basic evidence. Currently neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox family of churches ordains women to the priesthood or to the episcopate. On the other hand, the Anglican Church already has ordained women to the priesthood in a number of provinces and to the episcopate in: Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia; Canada; the United States of America. Furthermore, Episcopal ordination is canonically possible in the Anglican Church in Bangladesh, Brazil, Central America, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, North India, Philippines, Scotland, Southern Africa and Sudan. While the basic evidence is not disputed, what remains disputed are the implications for ecumenical relations and, indeed, for relations within the Anglican Communion(2). The decision here must rest as a matter of judgement on just how much diversity (and diversity of what kind) can be sustained within the ecumenical context.
Concerning broader theological issues, the bishops’ report points to the diversity of opinion within theological scholarship concerning some pivotal issues regarding the interpretation of the relevant passages of scripture and the interpretation of the relevant historical evidence from the Early Church. Some, it would seem, argue that it would be prudent to wait until proper scholarly consensus should be achieved. Others, it would seem, argue that complete scholarly agreement is something that is unlikely ever to be achieved. The decision here must rest as a matter of judgement as to just how much consensus is really desirable or achievable. From the point of view of the bishops’ report, however, the more immediate matter involves the main arguments specifically concerned (in their case) with the Church of England (and in our case with the Church in Wales). There are two key aspects to this argument.
The first aspect in its positive form is voiced in the bishops’ report in the following terms.
The first argument that is made for acting now is that there is evidence that there is a widespread desire within the Church of England for such a move as shown, for example, by the growing number of Diocesan Synod Motions that have asked General Synod to take action on the matter. There is still opposition but total agreement is unlikely to be achieved and there is sufficient agreement to proceed, both in terms of the likelihood of getting legislation through the synodical process and in terms of it being possible to say that the Church of England as a whole has a generally agreed mind about the matter (pp 192-3).
In its negative form this same aspect asserts that ‘there are still a large number of people who have conscientious doubts about the matter’ (p 183).
In both its negative and its positive form this aspect of the argument rests on perceptions about the number of people in favour and the number of people not in favour. No precise judgements, however, are offered regarding what evidence might support the view that ‘the Church of England as a whole has a generally agreed mind about the matter’ or what evidence might support the view that ‘there are still large numbers of people who have conscientious doubts about the matter’. At this level at least, evidence produced by empirical theology might be able to clarify the weight of the two opposing interpretations.
The second aspect of the argument concerns the level of respect that has been shown to those who disagree with the majority decision. Particular attention is drawn to Pauline teaching in Romans 14:13-23 and in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. On this basis, the argument for delay maintains that, just as the principle of love for all members of the Church meant that Christians in Rome and Corinth should refrain from eating certain foods if this caused offence to other Christians, so those in favour of the episcopal ordination of women should hold back while there are still members of the Church for whom this would create problems of conscience. The argument against delay argues that:
the theological imperative to ordain women as bishops makes it necessary to take this step, particularly if some kind of arrangements can be made to ensure that the consciences of those opposed to it are respected (p 193).
In many ways, this aspect of the argument seems simple, benign and harmless. All that seems to be needed is a good-natured Christian judgement of give-and-take: how many people will suffer and how much that really matters. It is on naïve assessments of such factors as these that the Church of England so often founders and from which the Church in Wales has so much to learn.
The Anglican Church is committed to the three grounding principles of scripture, tradition and reason. Reason has played a pre-eminent role in the bishops’ report. Yet it might be a mistake to assume that (even Christian) men and women are ruled by reason alone. Human beings, created in the image of God, corrupted by the fall, redeemed by Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, are more complex than that. On many issues, perhaps especially issues concerned with religion and faith, feelings run high, and commitments run deep. In such areas matters of teaching, doctrine and practice are not changed overnight. So is the timing right, and how can we find out?
In our recent book, Fragmented Faith: exploring the fault-lines in the Church of England (Francis, Robbins and Astley, 2005), we examine different strategies for assessing the issue of timing, irrespective of the issue of principle. Whether we judge the principle right or wrong is irrelevant to this aspect of the debate. What is at stake is trying to assess whether those advocating change are likely to be successful in their advocacy or whether the fault-lines surrounding the issue are such that premature advocacy would be likely to set the clock back rather than forward.
At the stage when we were contemplating the structure of the analysis presented in Fragmented Faith, the issue of principle facing the Church of England was once again concerned with determining who can properly be ordained to the episcopacy. At that point the debate concerned sexual orientation, not gender. The report Women Bishops in the Church of England? is very clear that, as issues of principles, the matters of gender and of sexual orientation are very different. As issues of timing, however, we believe that the one experience may be able to learn from the other.
At the beginning of Fragmented Faith we introduced the debate in the following way.
In the summer of 2003 the Bishop of Oxford conducted a courageous experiment to test the strength of the bonds which maintain the consensus Anglicanus amid the creative diversities which comprise the Church of England. To fill the vacancy created by the translation of the Right Reverend Dominic Walker from being Bishop of Reading to becoming Bishop of Monmouth, he nominated the Reverend Canon Jeffrey John. Jeffrey John possessed, in the eyes of the Bishop of Oxford (and in the eyes of many other committed members of the Church of England), all the personal and professional qualities to qualify him for consecration to the episcopacy. The potentially controversial aspect of the nomination, however, was the fact that Canon John had publicly acknowledged his homosexual orientation and had publicly owned his long-term stable (and now celibate) same-sex relationship.
Those bonds which maintain the consensus Anglicanus quickly split under the experiment. The apparent split within the Church of England received detailed coverage from both the religious and the secular media, both at home and across the world. In the denouement, the Bishop of Oxford lost his candidate and the Archbishop of Canterbury lost some of the respect and admiration which so many from different sectors of the Anglican Church had invested in him. In all probability Jeffrey John did not survive unscathed either. The experiment clearly uncovered deep fault-lines in the Church of England.
There are, of course, other ways in which to test the fragility of the fault-lines within the Church of England, and the professional expertise is clearly available to the Church of England to try these other ways. The tools of empirical theology offer one such route (Francis, Robbins and Astley, 2005, p 1).
Listening to Engaged and Committed Anglicans
Our book Fragmented Faith was based on a major survey conducted among readers of the Church Times during the end of March and the beginning of April 2001. Within a matter of weeks over 9,000 envelopes carried replies from across the world. Our analyses, however, were based on the 7,611 individuals who lived in England and who attended an Anglican Church at least twice a month, giving information from 5,762 laity and 1,849 clergy.
We recognise that these data are now five years old, that Church Times readers may provide only a partial insight into Anglican opinion and that our analyses are based on England and not on Wales. All that said, we also recognise that this survey provides the best insight into Anglican opinion that is currently available. Had the results of this survey been available to the Bishop of Oxford in 2003, he might have been better able to anticipate the response to the nomination of the post of Bishop of Reading.
More importantly from the perspective of the present debate, however, the Church Times Survey also included key questions on the ordination of women both as priests and as bishops. The ordination of women as priests was supported by just over three-quarters of the engaged and committed Anglicans who responded to the Church Times Survey: 77% voted in favour, compared with 15% who voted against and 8% who were still sitting on the fence.
On one interpretation the 77% vote in favour of the ordination of women as priests might be interpreted as indicating ‘that the Church of England as a whole has a generally agreed mind about the matter’ (to use a turn of phrase employed by the bishops’ report (p 193), but left there without any discussion of what might count as a reliable and robust indication of ‘a generally agreed mind’). On another interpretation, the 23% who did not vote positively in favour of the ordination of women as priests might be interpreted as a significant basis to heed the Pauline note of caution voiced in Romans 14:13-32 and in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 (to use a reference also cited in the bishops’ report (p 193)).
Clear inspection of the data revealed some further (statistically) significant trends in the ways in which opinions differed in the Church of England between clearly identifiable groups on the issue of the ordination of women as priests. Overall, clergy were marginally more in favour than laity (80% compared with 77%). Larger differences, however, were associated with sex, age and church orientation. Among the laity, 80% of women were in favour of the ordination of women as priests, compared with 73% of the men. Among the clergy, 95% of the women were in favour, compared with 77% of the men. Among the clergy, 80% of those under the age of sixty were in favour of the ordination of women as priests, compared with 76% of those in their sixties and 72% of those aged seventy and over. Among the laity, 84% of those under the age of sixty were in favour, compared with 77% of those in their sixties and 75% of those aged seventy and over. Among the clergy, 80% of the evangelicals were in favour of the ordination of women as priests, compared with 65% of the catholics. Among the laity, 81% of the evangelicals were in favour, compared with 73% of the catholics. Such statistics allow some projection regarding future trends in Anglicanism. If younger Anglicans are more open to the ordination of women as priests than older Anglicans, we might expect growing support for the ordination of women as priests as the older generation passes away. If the trends identified in the 1980s continue, with the growth of the evangelical wing of the Church of England (Saward, 1987) and the decline of the catholic wing of the Church of England (Penhale, 1986), we might expect growing support for the ordination of women as priests as the balance of power in the Church of England may progress in favour of the kind of evangelicals who support the ordination of women as priests.
While the statistics on the ordination of women as priests provided by the Church Times Survey may be interpreted as showing widespread support, with 77% voting in favour, a somewhat more cautious picture is generated by the statistics concerning the ordination of women as bishops: 64% voted in favour, compared with 21% who voted against and 16% who were still sitting on the fence. The comparison between the two sets of figures is illuminating. The biggest difference concerns those who have not yet made up their minds. While just 8% were undecided about the ordination of women as priests, the proportion doubled to 16% who were undecided about the ordination of women as bishops. On one account, such indecision may be seen as a strength; at least it indicates a lack of prejudice one way or the other. On another account, such indication may be seen as a weakness; surely informed Anglicans should know where they stand on such issues?
At present, with less than two-thirds of engaged and committed Anglicans (64%) in favour of the ordination of women as bishops, it is difficult to argue ‘that the Church of England as a whole has a generally agreed mind about the matter’. With only one-fifth of engaged and committed Anglicans (21%) clearly against, should the consciences of those protected by the Pauline note of caution voiced in Romans 14:13-23 and in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 really be grounds for suppressing the views of the 64%? Could not the Pauline injunction be turned on its head and the grounds be challenged for refusing to eat the meat offered to idols?
Closer inspection of the evidence offered by the Church Times Survey shows that Anglican opinion remains as divided over the ordination of women as bishops as over the ordination of women as priests. To begin with, the gap between clergy and laity is quite small. Thus 66% of the clergy are in favour of the ordination of women as bishops and so are 63% of the laity. Where the gap widens, however, is in connection with differences associated with sex, age, and church ordination. Among the laity, 59% of the men are in favour of the ordination of women as bishops, compared with 66% of the women. Among the clergy, 60% of the men are in favour, compared with 89% of the women. Among the laity, 70% of those under the age of sixty are in favour of the ordination of women as bishops, compared with 63% of those in their sixties and 53% of those aged seventy or over. Among the clergy, 70% of those under the age of sixty are in favour, compared with 63% of those in their sixties and 57% of those aged seventy or over. Among the clergy, 65% of the evangelicals are in favour of the ordination of women as bishops, compared with 52% of the catholics. Among the laity, 58% of the evangelicals are in favour, but so are 60% of the catholics.
Conclusion
The present paper has focused on the two crucial but very different questions posed by the report Women Bishops in the Church of England? One issue concerned the matter of principle and the other issue concerned the matter of timing. It has been argued that the kind of evidence generated by empirical theology is irrelevant to neither issue. Regarding the first issue, listening to the people of God may help us to hear the voice of God. Regarding the second issue, listening to the people of God may help us to predict the ways in which developments and changes (however secure in principle) may be received in practice.
The empirical evidence offered has been provided by Anglicans living in another country (England and not Wales) in another age (2001 and not 2006), and by a partial sampling framework (readers of the Church Times and not a thorough cross-section of Anglicans, whatever that may mean). The evidence needs to be interpreted with these caveats in mind. Nonetheless local churches in Wales may benefit from reflecting on these data.
Questions for discussion:
- May God be saying anything to the Church in Wales through the voices of the people of
God concerning the principle of the ordination of women as bishops? - Does the existing survey data help the Church in Wales to assess whether the timing would be right for the ordination of women as bishops?
- Are there reasons to be concerned about the high proportion of engaged and committed Anglicans reported in the survey as not having made up their minds about the ordination of women as bishops?
- Would the Church in Wales benefit fromhaving accurate information about the views of clergy and laity in Wales concerning the ordination of women as bishops?
- The Anglican notion of reception would give the Church in Wales the opportunity to learn from the experience of ordaining women as bishops and to assess whether this experience was affirmed or rejected. Would there be benefit in dioceses being enabled to ordain women (in the first instance) as an ‘assistant bishop’ (supported, say, as a part-time incumbent or as a diocesan appointment) in order to allow this principle of reception to be properly tested?
References
- Astley, J. (2002), Ordinary Theology: looking listening and learning theology, Aldershot, Ashgate.
- Avis, P. (2004), Reception: towards an Anglican understanding, in P. Avis (ed.), Seeking the Truth of Chance in the Church: reception, communion and the ordination of women, pp 19-39, London, T. and T. Clark International.
- Carroll, L. (1962), Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, Harmondsworth, Puffin Books (first published 1872).
- Church of England (2004), Women Bishops in the Church of England? A report of the House of Bishops’ working party on women in the episcopate, London, Church House Publishing.
- Eames Commission (1998), Women in the Anglican Episcopate, Toronto, Anglican Book Centre.
- Francis, L.J. and Robbins, M. and Astley, J. (2005), Fragmented Faith? Exposing the fault-lines in the Church of England, Carlisle, Paternoster.
- Penhale, F. (1986), Catholics in Crisis, London, Mowbray.
- Saward, M. (1987), Evangelicals on the Move, London, Mowbray.
- van der Ven, J. A. (1993), Practical Theology: an empirical approach, Kampen, Kok Pharos.
- van der Ven, J. A. (1998), Education for Reflective Ministry, Louvain, Peeters.
1 These two questions (concerning the matter of principle and concerning the matter of timing), although fundamental to the debate about women bishops in the Anglican Church, are not the only questions raised by the bishops' report, Women Bishops in the Church of England? In particular, there is a third question (or set of questions) concerning implementation. It is not the intention of the present paper to engage with these further issues.
2 The bishops' report makes the following point:
The question of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury is particularly significant here. Being in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is a defining mark of an Anglican church. If provinces could no longer be in communion with the Archbishop... then the unity of the Communion as a whole could be threatened (p187)