By Mark F.M. Clavier

The General Synod of the Church of England is about to convene again and among its business is a draft measure for making provision for women bishops. To say that this is a contentious issue would be both unsurprising and an understatement, considering Anglicanism’s panache for getting itself embroiled in fiery controversy whenever possible. Non-English readers may, however, be more surprised to know that in the Church of England the issue of permitting women to be consecrated has been and remains far more divisive than the ongoing struggles over human sexuality in the Anglican Communion, about which there is little awareness here in England.

Similarly, anyone familiar with the manner in which Anglicans debate will not need to be provided with much background about the forces arrayed. As is typical, the issue is dominated by the rhetoric of advocacy groups committed uncompromisingly to their cause and set implacably against those groups that oppose their cause.

On the one hand, there are those who wish to proceed with the measure with as little as possible yielded to any who find such a development unacceptable. Chief among these organizations is WATCH (Women and the Church) with the support of (among others) Affirming Catholicism, Inclusive Church and the Modern Church People’s Union. Opposed to these groups are Forward in Faith, Reform, Church Society and the Catholic Group in Synod, which advocate for legal measures mandating the provision of male bishops for traditionalist parishes.

Until recently, representatives of these various interest groups have been engaged in two efforts. The first has been a public debate, carried out through statements, the blogosphere, columns in British newspapers, and interviews and debates on the radio, over how the Church of England ought to proceed toward allowing women bishops.

The second effort was joint work on a committee to draft a measure acceptable to both sides. While optimists had hoped that this second course might be successful, in the end the committee failed to reach any substantive compromise other than the recommendation for a legally nonbinding code of practice that places a “duty” on diocesan bishops to provide acceptable episcopal oversight for traditionalist parishes.

As a result, until June 21 all indications were that General Synod would be presented with a measure for proceeding toward allowing for the consecration of women and developing the code of practice to create a nonlegal safeguard for traditionalists. Much to everyone’s surprise, however, on that date the Archbishops of Canterbury and York published a proposed amendment that would restore legal guarantees to the measure.

The archbishops wrote: “The various approaches so far explored have all taken for granted that there is a simple choice between either deriving this authority [for separate episcopal oversight for traditionalists] from the diocesan by way of delegation or removing some part of the diocesan’s jurisdiction so as to confer it on a bishop who then exercises authority (‘ordinary jurisdiction’) in his own right.”

In contrast to this the archbishops “seek to give effect to the idea of a ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction.” In practice, this would mean that both the diocesan and the traditionalist bishops would be “co-ordinaries” of the traditionalist parishes, the former deriving jurisdiction from law and the latter deriving jurisdiction “by virtue of the Measure to the extent provided for in the diocesan scheme.” That this amendment will undoubtedly strike some as utterly confusing and others as a compromise more practical on paper than in reality suggests it is thoroughly Anglican.

The auguries for the acceptance of this amendment, however, are not good. While traditionalist groups have responded with cautious interest, WATCH has criticized the amendment as effectively creating two diocesan bishops in each diocese, one to mind traditionalists and the other to mind everyone else. Even more ominously for the archbishops, Fulcrum, an advocacy group for moderate evangelicals that is normally a very strong supporter of Rowan Williams, has also come out against the amendment by arguing that it would amount to the creation of a “second class of bishops based on gender.” To both voices can be added the almost unanimous derision of religion correspondents writing in the various British newspapers.

How General Synod will respond to the amendment is anyone’s guess. One assumes that the archbishops did not propose the amendments without some indication of support, and it is curious that the response to the archbishops’ proposal has been somewhat muted.

By and large the Church of England, like the rest of the Communion, is not in a mood for compromise; perhaps more fairly, many believe the code of practice itself is a tremendous concession, no matter how unacceptable it may be to those it is intended to protect.

Part of the problem confronted by the archbishops is that neither side has much encouragement to make sacrifices. Strong supporters of the measure believe that traditionalists wish to introduce a “theology of taint” because their rhetoric suggests not only that women bishops are unequal to male bishops but that also male bishops themselves become “tainted” by participating in the consecration of women.

On the other hand, traditionalists have become such a minority and have been so vociferously attacked both in the Church and in the media that they have developed the kind of beleaguered mindset that is ill-disposed toward making concessions. And so, as is typical of Anglican debates in this day and age, ultimately the issue will be decided by legislative strength.

It is almost certain that the Church of England will vote to proceed toward the consecration of women, as this is unquestionably the desire of a strong majority within the Church of England. Many suggest that unless there is some unforeseen delay, the first women may be appointed by 2014, which may indicate the measured (if not ponderous) way that the Church of England goes about its business.

Without legal safeguards many traditional Anglo-Catholics claim that they will in conscience have no recourse but to convert to Rome, a decision recently made easier by Anglicanorum coetibus, which creates an “ordinary” within Roman Catholicism for Anglican converts. Whether this will amount to the great exodus some traditionalists have predicted remains to be seen, but even the loss of a few Forward in Faith congregations will have a potentially serious effect on the income of some dioceses in an already ailing church.

So far, however, Anglicans have again demonstrated an inability to proceed toward difficult decisions in a way that is constructive and charitable. With similarly divisive issues on the horizon, such as the approval of the Anglican Covenant and questions surrounding human sexuality, it seems likely that the church will remain polarized, inwardly focused, and combative.

The great irony of our age may be that the avowedly more tolerant Church of England of today is in practice less compromising than the supposedly less tolerant Church of England of yesterday. As in the Episcopal Church the divide between “liberals” and “conservatives” may therefore prove to be far more unbridgeable than the historical divide between evangelicals and Catholics.

The Rev. Mark F.M. Clavier is a priest in the Church of England, a visiting lecturer in Anglicanism at Cranmer Hall, Durham, and a Ph.D. student at Durham University.