Women clergy react outside Church House after the Church of England's governing body, the General Synod, voted against the appointment of women bishops. Photograph: FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA/EPA Photograph: FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA/EPA
Women clergy react outside Church House after the Church of England's governing body, the General Synod, voted against the appointment of women bishops. Photograph: FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA/EPA Photograph: FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA/EPA
Lizzy Davies, who has been covering today's synod vote for the Guardian, has filed a piece which will be going on Wednesday's Guardian front page.
Before we wrap up the blog, here is a snatch of her report, which will be also be online in full shortly:
The Church of England has been plunged into its gravest crisis in decades after legislation that would have allowed female clergy to become bishops and swept away centuries of entrenched sexism was rejected by just six votes.
In dramatic scenes at Church House in Westminster, a long-awaited measure that was the result of 12 torturous years of debate and more than three decades of campaigning was defeated by lay-members, prompting one bishop to warn that the established church risked becoming “a national embarrassment”.
The legislation had needed a two-thirds majority in each house of synod to pass, but, despite comfortably managing that in both the houses of bishops and clergy, it was dealt a fatal blow in the laity where lay-members voted 132 votes in favour and 74 against.
The result - a huge disappointment for campaigners who warned that the church’s image in the eyes of parliament and the public had been severely damaged- was also a bitter blow to Rowan Williams, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury whose time at Lambeth has been dominated by the issue and who had campaigned personally for a ‘yes’ vote.
The Catholic Group on the General Synod, which backed a no vote, has issued this statement:
We regret the Synod was put in the position whereby draft legislation failed at final approval because it was unclear and unfair in its provision for those who, in conscience, are unable to accept the ministry of women as bishops or priests.
The Catholic Group calls on the House of Bishops to reconvene the talks started in the summer between representatives of different groups, chaired by Bishop Justin Welby.
The campaigning group Women and the Church has said today's result was a "devastating blow" for the Church of England.
The Press Association reports:
The Rev Rachel Weir, Watch chairman, said: "This is a tragic day for the Church of England after so many years of debate and after all our attempts at compromise.
"Despite this disappointing setback, Watch will continue to campaign for the full acceptance of women's gifts of leadership in the Church's life."
Some more quotes now from that pooled broadcast interview (see here) with Rowan Williams (pictured below following the vote), who said:
This vote of course isn't the end of the story, this is not an issue that is going to go away.
About three quarters of the total membership of Synod voted for this, the dioceses voted for it, there is still the will for this to happen and so what the Church of England now has to do is find a way forward.
Adding that "nobody wants to go on talking about this indefinitely," he said:
I think one of the things that is most sobering, most saddening about today is that it does commit us to a long process of focusing on this question when so many people would like to be talking about something else and doing something else.
Asked for his message to women who were thinking of leaving the ministry following the vote, he said:
I would say first of all that I can well understand that feeling of rejection and unhappiness and deep perhaps disillusion with the institutional Church that many women may be feeling.
I would also say it is still your Church and your voice matters and always will be heard and it is important therefore not to give up.
It is easy for me to say that, I don't have to carry it in the same deeply personal way that these women particularly will but I still want to say it is your Church, not mine and not Synod's."
So what happens next time? Zoe Ham of the conservative evangelical group, Church Society, has told the BBC that she and others who voted against the proposals today would like to see "greater clarity"
She and others voted as they did today because they felt that the legislation did not give "proper provision to those of us who hold a biblical view that men and women have to play a different role in the church."
Asked what might result in a different outcome during a future vote, she suggested "very clear provision and an alternative oversight" for those who did not agreement with women bishops.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has been talking of his "deep personal sadness" after the General Synod failed to give final approval to legislation introducing the first women bishops.
Dr Rowan Williams, who leaves his post at the end of this year after a decade in office, said he wished the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury the Rt Rev Justin Welby, "every blessing" with resolving the issue.
In a pooled broadcast interview, Dr Williams added:
Of course I hoped and prayed that this particular business would be at another stage before I left, and course it is a personal sadness, a deep personal sadness that that is not the case.
I can only wish the Synod and the archbishop all good things and every blessing with resolving this in the shortest possible time.
He describes today's debate, which ended with the church voting against women bishops, as "a ghastly mixture of tedium and bad faith", adding:
Again and again, opponents claimed they longed to see women bishops accepted by the whole church.
Each time this happened, I had to pinch myself to remember that they were the bit of the church that didn't and don't accept women as bishops. If they want to see women bishops accepted by the whole church, all they need do is accept them.
This was the reality. Everyone in the chamber understood it very well. But no one would admit to it. The synod was bound within invisible pews, sitting in circles, gazing only at itself.
Susie Leafe, a member of the Synod from Truro diocese and an opponent of women bishops, has been giving her reaction to the BBC.
Shaking her head after the interviewer said that she and others had emerged "triumphant", she said that it was a matter of "wanting to move together as a church" and that 23 percent of the laity had said no.
Asked if bishops were out of touch with a significant proportion of the church, she replied:
To some extent you could say that. The bishops have a very difficult role to play and they obviously are appointed by a particular group of people and I think that we have perhaps seen the last conservative evangelical bishops who didn't ordain women retire this Summer.
Leafe, who organised a petition by than 2,200 Anglican women who oppose women bishops, was also asked what today's outcome meant for Justin Welby. She replied:
It shows how much we trust Welby. He is a good man and he is just the sort of man to lead us ... to allow us all to thrive in the Church of England
You the media come to us for women bishops. We talk about all sorts of other things and tomorrow we will be here talking about unemployment, about how we can help deprived areas of our church...
Graham James, the bishop of Norwich, has been speaking to journalists about what happens next.
The bishop (pictured below) said that the House of Bishops tomorrow would be meeting "to take counsel, to pray together and to see how we can go forward as a church".
He added that the proposals were lost "by a few votes in the house of laity" but there remains "a willingness on the part of many people in this synod to find the legislation to enable this to come about".
The Bishop of Norwich, Graham James. Photograph: Luke MacGregor/Reuters Photograph: LUKE MACGREGOR/Reuters
Christopher Lowson, the Bishop of Lincoln, has described today as "a very dark day for the church". In a statement posted online, he said:
The proposal had the overwhelming support of most of the Diocesan Synods, and this raises very serious questions about the representation of General Synod, and calls for a broad review of how General Synod members are elected.
The Church has suffered a serious credibility problem while it worked on the legislation, and this is a set-back that could cement the Church's reputation as being outdated and out-of-touch.
In the same online post, the most senior woman in the Diocese of Lincoln, Jan Sinclair, said:
This is of course a very sad day. A lot of people have worked very hard to make the proposed legislation fair and it took seriously the concerns of those in conscience who could not accept the ministry of women.
They are very much the minority in the Church, as the recent results from Diocesan Synods showed, and the result is certainly not representative of the Church as a whole.
There's a startling first line in a reaction piece just filed by the Guardian's Andrew Brown, editor of Cif belief:
I think I have just watched the Church of England commit suicide.
It was a very long and very boring process. But at the end of nine hours rehearsal of stale arguments made in bad faith the general synod took a decisive turn into fantasy, or stumbled over its own rules, and failed, by a very small margin, to gain the complicated majorities required to make women bishops.
You'll be able to read that piece in full when it goes online in a little while.
An emergency meeting of the House of Bishops will take place at 8.30am tomorrow morning in the light of the result, according to a spokesperson for the Church of England.
Disappointment and shock at the vote seems to be in the ascendant on Twitter for now (though admittedly not an empirical gauge of sentiment in the Church of England) but I'll try to bring you another perspective as soon as I can.
Sarah Hodges, an economics graduate, meanwhile directs her feelings at the Church of England's own twitter feed:
C'mon @c_of_e you're already losing my generation. This won't help. Would have thought majority vote means win? Disappointed. #synod
Mike Hill, the Bishop of Bristol, is also quick on the draw with a statement in response to the decision. In a statement posted on the website of the Diocese of Bristol, he says:
I regard the outcome of today’s debate as disastrous. Whilst I have never believed it necessary for anyone to leave the Church on the basis of the Measure before us today, others clearly took another view.
It will be very difficult for those of us who have supported the ordination of women bishops to process our disappointment in the days ahead. My prayers are with the many people who are hurting, particularly women in our churches and those within and outside the Church who are bemused and disillusioned by such a failure.
It is amazing to me that the decision to ordain women as bishops that the Church of England agreed in principle several years ago has now been undermined for the foreseeable future. In a culture that celebrates democracy, it does seem strange that a clear minority has managed to influence the debate and elected representatives in such a way.
However, we will have to come to terms with where we now are and somehow learn to live together with the serious ramifications this failure to move forward creates.
That’s it. The Church of England has voted not to introduce female bishops – its biggest decision for 20 years.
It was a long day of debate, with over 100 speeches made and some points of view repeated a number of times. Broadly, speakers for the motion wanted women to be treated equally in the church and wanted Anglicans to set an example to the secular world in overcoming their differences. Those against felt the concept of female bishops could not be reconciled with scripture, and felt that compromise, for that reason, was not a Christian value.
Some on both sides felt the compromise measure before the General Synod – under which women would become bishops but could delegate authority to a male bishop if their parish requested it – meant the motion was fatally flawed. Others, such as Justin Welby, who will take over from Rowan Williams as Archishop of Canterbury in the new year, said the compromise was “as good as we can get”. He urged the synod to vote for the motion. Earlier, Williams, also in favour, had said he wanted the world to look at the Church today and say: “That looks like Jesus Christ."
McCulloch says they have discussed this for a very long time. They have not agreed - but not for the want of time.
He does not agree that the legislation will lead to a lot of litigation.
To portray the measure as something that is begrudgingly half-hearted in reaching out to a minority "won't do".
No one is being asked to sign a blank cheque regarding the code of practice, he says – the code will have to be approved by this synod.
Defeat this legislation and we will be ensuring all the tensions and arguments will continue unabated for several years, he says.
Approve it and we can get down to the hard but more rewarding challenge of making it work and release the Church of England to reach out and make the love of Christ known to all, he says.
Angus MacLeay of Rochester sums up for the anti-female bishops faction.
He says it's not true that both sides have compromised.
The scriptures show male and female ministry in the New Testament, and he rejoices in that in his own parish.
But he cannot accept removing the concept of "headship" from Biblical teaching. There is a divine order and complementarity, not equality and sameness, he says.
Whatever outcome, there is no victory in the coming vote. It is a train crash, he says.
But if the vote fails he wants to sit down with the pro-women faction to dfind a siolution.
Tim Stevens, the Bishop of Leicester, says they are not hearing the voices of the young unemployed or displace children. What would they think of this gathering?
He wants the synod to back the measure "to speak for millions who want to see us do this" and to speak for millions who feel the Church of England is not a voice for them.
Sentamu says he sees no one still standing, getting a round of applause.
He gives four more people permission to speak, for three and a half minutes each.
Philip North of London is up first. He says he's most worried about the reaction of female priests if the Church rejects the measure. But he has to vote no because allowing it to pass would be worse news. He simply does not accept the role of the church to make this decision.
Charlotte Cook of the CofE youth council says she is a 22-year-old ordinand – "apparently a rare breed". If she had a vote she would vote yes today, but she is committed to keeping both sides happy in the church.
John Sentamu says there have now been 100 speeches. He says many people are still standing to speak, but he asks if people feel there is anything new to say.
That gets a hear, hear.
He asks people to continue to stand if they have still got something to say. Five or six people seem to remain. He gives them 30 seconds each.
Andrew Nunn of Southwark says he is envious of the 1992 synod members who voted for female priests. He's delighted to have the "privilege" of voting for female bishops today.
Emma Forward of Exeter says she is going to be brave enough to vote no. "Will you be?"
Canon Susan Booys of Oxford invites synod members to "come and dance with me", in a dance called "strip the willow". You have to trust the rules and the steps, she says. "Sisters and brothers, dance with me."
It is noticeable how strong the applause is for people speaking on both sides #synod - looking very tight #womenbishops
Canon Jane Charman (Salisbury) says "this has been one of the most inward looking debates I can remember". She says the spin doctor does not exist who can make excluding women sound like good news to the outside world. "Synod, we need to pass this legisaltion."
Philip Rice of London says they are doing something beautiful for God today: meeting as a synod elected by single transferable vote.
(Perhaps he could have been enlisted by the campaign for the alternative vote last year.)
It would have been better to have had the code of practice within the measure, but "this is not good law", he says.
Helen Leathard of Blackburn says on the walk here from Russell Square her legs complained – but they didn't tear themselves off. Similarly the synod is one body, she says.
The Venerable Robert Key of Jersey says it matters not that the provisions are acceptable to the host, it matters that they're acceptable to the guest.
Mr Robert Key is next. A different one. He supports the measure.
Janet Perrett of Ely points out that attitudes to women have changed over the years. She backs the legislation.
Susan Cooper of London urges the synod to support the measure for the sake of the mission of the church. Back in the first century, Paul travelled to Jerusalem to drop circumcision for pragmatic reasons, she says; it was putting people off converting.
Bishop Peter Forster of Chester says he has gladly ordained female priests, but he feels uncomfortable with this new step.
To vote for this legislation is to vote to allow parishes to choose their own bishops, and bishops "will not be in eucharistic communion with one another".
He warns against the law of unintended consequences, and says they have not got this sufficiently right.
Canon Dagmar Winter of Newcastle quotes Leonard Cohen ("There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in") and Barack Obama ("Yes we can").
Cohen: what would Leonard do? Photograph: PR
Charles Hanson of Carlisle says no one has seen the final version of the code of practice in the measure. That's a "blank cheque". He's signed thousands of cheques in his life, but never a blank one. That "risks bankruptcy".
Janet Kearton of Ripon and Leeds says the differences between the two sides haven't collapsed, but her hope is that by the end of the debate they'll be able to show they can come to a point of deep mutual respect.
That will give them a glimpse of "the completeness that will become ours when God becomes all in all".
Colin Fletcher, Bishop of Dorchester, gets a big laugh by referring to the New Testament book Romans – "Rome is our model," he says.
He claims when he goes to primary schools every child asks him: "Can women be bishops?" Not yet, he tells them, but "you will be", and that little girl who asked the question gives a "huge grin", he says.
Jacqueline Stober of Liverpool says the amended measure is "good enough".
It's no accident that this debate hinges on the word respect, she says. Let's show people out there it's possible to disagree profoundly yet continue to serve Christ and one another.
Rowan Williams said earlier that if the church got this issue out of the way it wouldn't have to expend time and energy on it for the next 10 years. On Twitter Colin Coward suggests a future problem they could move on to:
Fantasy speeches over & over again from those who haven't begun to think ahead to LGB&T inclusion following women bishops #synod
John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, tells the synod members off for clapping for too long. He asks them to give short, vigorous claps instead.
Sam Margrave of Coventry says the church has already decided to admit female bishops. What they are trying to do today is make provision for those who disagree. Do those opponents feel they have been made provision for? No, he says. So we should listen to them.
He urges the synod to reject the legislation.
This certainly is a house divided against itself ...
Jan McFarlane of Norwich says she has listened and listened, but for the last year or so she hasn't heard anything new. "Are we really going to keep on talking?" Now is the time to act, she says.
We'll never find legislation that will be right for everyone, she says.
This involves big compromise for each and every one of us, she says. Wouldn't that be a model for a "broken and divided world"?
This is not the church bowing to secular pressure, it's doing theology in context. Theology doesn't exist in a vacuum, she says. A church so out of step with the world around us becomes an irrelevance.
Kathleen Playle of Chelmsford says that she does not think the expression "enough waiting" is a Biblical expression. The church should wait until they have got this right.
Rosemary Lyon of Blackburn says she is not a misogynist - she just believes "we need to stick with scripture". Is there a place for her in the Church of England? She respects those who have come to a different decision. She mentions a psalm "when we are told to wait on the Lord". "Twenty years is nothing. So please vote against this. There is a better way."
Williams says there is a good Anglican tradition of acting on reasonable probabilities.
This is what we've come up with after an intensely detailed process.
There is no compromise over the equality of male and female bishops, he says.
The grounds for dissent are so varied it is not a good idea to spell out how opponents will be accommodated, he says.
What is needed is "the small but strong hook on which to hang the fuller discussion".
He mentions the message to wider society.
If people think this is against God's will, this question does not come into it, he says.
A no vote would not do anything positive for our mission, Williams says.
And there remains the question of how much time and energy we want to spend on this in the next decade, and how much we want the new archbishop to spend on it. Williams wants the church to "liberate" itself from this issue.
Thomas Seville of York takes issue with the Indiana Jones parable. The image of the leap of faith is a very dangerous one, he says. At the end of the film all the things of beauty get destroyed.
Christina Rees of St Albans says the motion is not a compromise - it represents "who we are".
It's good because it does the main thing they wanted to do - open the episcopate to women.
If you don't believe we have the authority to decide on matters like this, I have to ask: why did you stand for synod?
She gives what I think should be called the Parable of Indiana Jones. Dr Jones comes out of a mountain to a terrifying chasm. He has to go over it. He takes a step and steps into the void. But there is an invisible bridge there. "He had to take that step in faith."
The Bishop of Willesden, Peter Broadbent, speaks next. He says he can't understand the idea the church needs more time to accept this. They've been arguing about it for 20 years, he says. He could make the opposing argument just as well as the opponents.
The Church of England has begun debating whether or not to allow women to become bishops – its most important decision for 20 years.
Those for and against the measure have spoken in a morning of mostly polite and respectful debate. Justin Welby, who will take over from Rowan Williams as Archishop of Canterbury in the new year, said the compromise measure before them – under which women would become bishops but could delegate authority to a male bishop if their parish requested it – was “as good as we can get”. He urged the General Synod to vote for the motion. Earlier, Williams had said he wanted the world to look at the Church today and say: “That looks like Jesus Christ.”
Other spoke against the measure.Canon Rebecca Swyer of Chichester said she felt the church did not have the authority to make this decision. Rod Thomas of Exeter said the compromise would still mean recognising the authority of female bishops – something he said was not accepted in scripture. Meanwhile Rosie Harper of Oxford said a no vote would be seen as “an act of a dying church”.
The Press Association has put together these profiles of six of the women who might become the Church of England's first female bishops if today's measure passes.
Rose Hudson-Wilkin walking to the General Synod yesterday. She could be a contender to become a bishop if the pro-women measure passes today. Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images Photograph: CARL COURT/AFP/Getty Images
The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who has been leading proceedings, told the synod members off for trying to rush off to lunch. First they have to practice using the voting machines.
She is instinctively in favour of being as inclusive as possible, she says – but not to the point of undermining the church itself. "All now hangs on how the code of practice flushes - fleshes everything out." To laughter, she adds: "Freudian slip ... "
However, she will vote in favour because she believes the theological principle that women should be bishops is "right and just and true and of the gospel".
Last night in prayer she had a vision of a little mouse running along a treadmill. "My friends, it is time to get off the treadmill." Christ would encourage us to "leap" off the treadmill, she says.
Justin Welby, the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, speaks next.
It is time to finish the job and vote for this measure, he says.
The church is above all those who are drawn into being a new people by the work of Christ, he says. We are reconciled to God and one another not by our choice but by his.
For this testimony to be convincing, we must demonstrate it in lived reality, Welby says.
The approach before us today is "as good as we can get", he says. Our will and intention are far more important than the rules.
I am personally deeply committed ... to ensuring as far as I am able that what we promise today and later in the code of conduct is carried out faithfully in spirit as well as in letter.
Respecting and loving one another is a foundation stone for our mission, he says.
We cannot get trapped into thinking this is a zero-sum decision. That is not a theology of grace, he says.
#synod has been trending on Twitter for the last couple of hours, meaning that hashtag has been flooded with semi-pornographic spam messages. But some of them are unintentionally appropriate to today's debate (I'm not going to put up the tweets themselves because they all include suspicious-looking links):
#synod Now this will take myself back in history
#synod I can't believe this... Is the real deal?
#synod this made me cry for real :( stupid people....
Sarah Finch of London asks: can it be right in God's eyes to pass this form of legislation? It will have a devastating effect on unity in the Church of England, she says. We can find a better way. We should vote down this legislation and start afresh, she says.
Meanwhile some tweeters following the debate are starting to enjoy themselves:
Fairly smashing speech by Mallett. (I'm here all day.) #synod
Rosemary Mallett of Southwark says: "It's time." We can't keep going on like this, again and again, she says. Are some people waiting for the "Bishop of Rome" to decide for us?
Let's vote for women bishops now and put our trust in the grace of our Lord, she says.
A female member of the clergy talks on the phone outside Church House today. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
Mary Judkins of Wakefield says she is unhappy about voting yes, because she feels the church is accepting second best. "Is this the best we can do?"
Unlike the Olympics, where everyone was welcome, the church is not being inclusive.
The legislation still does not provide the provision that was promised, she says.
And equal does not mean the same, she says. We're different. We have different roles. Women are not just there to make tea – "although that is a deaconal role", she adds.
This is not to say no to women bishops, this is a plea to get it right, she says.
Martin Gorick of Coventry quotes Shakespeare, saying he is buried in his church – although, he quickly adds, "Jesus Christ is lord and we never forget that ... "
Brothers and sisters, we need clarity, he says. We are "that radical wing of the Catholic Church able to reform and lead the way" and are here to vote in favour of female bishops, he says.
He has seen a poster that said: "Just when the caterpillar thought the end had come, it turned into a butterfly."
Edward Armitstead of Bath and Wells says it's a great pity today's measure is so unsatisfactory.
The views of those opposed to female bishops have not really been listened to, he says.
This measure as it stands is discriminatory and does not offer reassurance to the almost a third of members who cannot accept female headship.
He says it has been suggested that if this measure fails, "the church will be mocked and ridiculed throughout the land". He does not believe that is the case, but so what if it is?
That would give the church the chance to explain it does not follow the values of the day, but its own theological teachings.
He urges the synod to vote against the measure, and start again on a different footing to achieve inclusivity.
Rod Thomas of Exeter says the compromise whereby a female bishop would delegate authority to a male bishop in some cases would still mean the parish in question would have to recognise the authority of female bishops – something he says is not accepted in scripture. He asks the synod to vote against the motion.
Rosie Harper of Oxford says a no vote would mean the mission of the church would be seriously compromised, and so would the authority of the new archbishop. And female priests will be unsure of their position in the church. It would be seen as "an act of a dying church". "Please abstain or vote yes."
The Bishop of Salisbury, Nick Holtam, says he would have voted no in 1992 when the synod backed female priests. He would have felt that a clear decision was needed – "and I would have been wrong".
Female priests have been a success, he says.
Female bishops are wanted by the church at large. We must vote yes even if we feel there are doubts and the legislation is "hedged around", he says. "The compromise is a good one for all of us."
Canon Rebecca Swyer of Chichester says she has to be true to her theological convictions and vote no, because she does not believe the Church of England has the authority to make this decision.
What we've ended up with, I think, are words that no one seems particularly keen on ...
This is not about who we like and who we trust, but the nature of the church ... If it is to happen let's make sure that the measure is right.
Canon David Holding says that Rowan Williams taught him a long time ago that "there is no right answer - we are all right".
Holding says "a code of practice will not do". A code of practice cannot enshrine theological conviction. The legislation has to be clear, or a code of practice won't work, he says. "We have reached an impasse ... but we are where we are."
We need to pray that God will bring us to a consensus, he says.
Shouldn't we wait instead of rushing to vote on divisive legislation that purports to offer provision to a minority, but does not satisfy "one member" of that minority, he asks.
Jones says the truth is that without women in leadership we are no longer able to serve the parishes of England.
He has sought to honour the place of Catholics and evangelicals, he says. But he now believes it is right for women to take their place "in this house of bishops sitting before you now".
The Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, speaks next. He says if the future of the Church of England is at stake, the future of England is at stake too.
He says the church would collapse if all the female priests in place now were to be somehow removed.
But he understands the theological position barring women from any leadership roles in the church - even from being part of the General Synod.
He used to believe this himself, according to 1 Corinthians 11:3:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
But he came to realise he was wrong. After all, the Queen is head of the Church of England, he says.
And a woman first fed the body of Christ, he says. "If a woman can feed the body of Christ in the flesh, she can surely feed the body of Christ in the spirit."
Rachel Treweek, the Archdeacon of Hackney, says the measure as it stands is "not perfect for any of us. It's a compromise for all. And that's how it should be."
The debate has begun. Nigel McCulloch, the Bishop of Manchester, spoke said that rejecting the idea of female bishops would be a "devastating blow to the morale of many, not least our female clergy".
Anglo-Catholic Simon Kilwick spoke to say he thought the measure would be bad for the Church of England, Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals.
He said "proper provision for traditionalists has to be an essential ingredient of a new measure" and said this measure was "not fit for purpose".
The opening paragraph of the Associated Press's story on the synod vote today perhaps sums up why the Anglican church is often accused of dithering and delay:
The Church of England's governing body is voting on whether it will permit women to serve as bishops or continue debating the issue for several more years.
Lizzy Davies writes from the press gallery above the packed chamber at Church House in Westminster, where the General Synod is praying and singing hymns ahead of today's crucial debate:
The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has urged people to speak "from the centre" and notes: "By the end of today, whether the world will look at the General Synod and the Church of England and say 'That looks like Jesus Christ' is a large prayer to ask. But it is the prayer we have to be asking because there's probably no other prayer worth praying."
Fittingly enough, some of the prayers were led by a female cleric, Canon Rebecca Swyer.
My colleagues Lizzy Davies and Andrew Brown are at Church House, and I’ll be covering events live on this blog all day. We're expecting a full day of debate, followed by the crucial vote between 5 and 6pm.
Lizzy has written this excellent piece for today’s paper running through the key issues.
And regular readers of the Guardian may not be surprised to find the paper comes down in favour of female bishops in its leader column today.
The 470-strong synod is voting on whether to give final approval to legislation paving the way for the first female bishops in the Church of England.
The legislation needs a two-third majority in all three houses of the General Synod to pass: bishops, clergy and laity.
Those in the know think it will clear the bishops and the clergy, but the vote among lay members may be close. Forty-two of the 44 Church of England dioceses have already backed the measure, but in 1992 the laity backed female priests by only two votes.
The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has urged the synod to back the legislation, saying he is "deeply committed" to the ordination of women to the episcopate. Losing the vote would be a blow to the current archbishop, Rowan Williams, who has staked his authority on the move but is due to retire at the end of the year.
The vote comes after years of negotiations.
Under the legislation up for the vote today, GS1708D, if a parish objected to a female bishop she would delegate to a stand-in male bishop.
But (perhaps characteristically) the church’s compromise has annoyed both sides: many Anglo-Catholics and conservatives think it goes too far by allowing female bishops in the first place, while for many pro-women campaigners it revolves around an insulting concession to their opponents.
The worldwide Anglican community remains deeply divided over the measure, as it is on many issues related to gender or sexuality.
Sister churches of the Anglican Communion in Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa and the United States already have women serving as bishops.
If the legislation is approved it will go to parliament before receiving royal assent, meaning the first female bishops could be ordained in 2014.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion