House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests
Submission by Women and the Church (WATCH)
regarding the appointment of Diocesan Bishops
Report by the Independent Reviewer
PREAMBLE
1.

Before setting out the matters raised with me, the evidence I have gathered,
my reflection on the evidence, my recommendations and conclusions, I would
like to set some parameters within which I have undertaken the task.

2.

This inquiry has not been undertaken with a view to searching out errors in thenomination process and apportioning blame for them. Rather, I haveendeavoured to look dispassionately at the evidence put before me and tooffer reflections and make recommendations based on that review in several
areas, some of which strictly fall outside the parameters of the House of
Bishops Declaration. These are offered for consideration and in recognition
that Church of England processes cannot be driven solely by the outworkingof the Declaration and associated matters.

3.

It became apparent very early on in my conversations that the perceptions ofevents and meetings vary, in some cases significantly. I have no reason tothink that any of the parties is not telling the truth as they experienced it, but
as all narratives are affected by the experiences individuals bring to the eventthe accounts of the same meetings will inevitably differ.

4.

I would also like to express my regret that this review could not be completedsooner. Unfortunately, events outside my control resulted in my having to takeup significant additional, though temporary, responsibilities shortly after
beginning my inquiries and the process of final checking with contributors took
longer than anticipated.

INTRODUCTION
5.

On 11 April 2023 I received correspondence (the submission) from the Revd
Martine Oborne, Chair of Women and the Church (WATCH) referring a
concern regarding the appointment of Diocesan Bishops who do not fully
affirm the ministry of women. The statement issued by WATCH on theirwebsite summarising the full submission is attached at Appendix 1.

6.

On 25 May WATCH received an anonymous letter which was forwarded tome and on 28 May a further communication was received from WATCH
indicating that others wished to contribute to the inquiry. A deadline of 10
June was given for these further contributions, and they were forwarded,
together with an additional covering document, by the WATCH Chair on

1

9 June 2023. The 9 June submission from WATCH included a further
evidence document described as ‘supplementary’ to the 11 April document.
7.

The initial submission contends that recommendations made by one of mypredecessors, Sir Philip Mawer, in his report Review of the nomination to thesee of Sheffield (the Sheffield Report) had not been taken forward and also
outlined specific issues in relation to the process leading to the nomination of
the Rt Revd Philip North as Bishop of Blackburn.

8.

The submission also raised a number of issues which are of a wider naturethan the main question but relate to the ‘nomination, announcement andsubsequent events in the diocese’.

APPLICATION OF THE REGULATIONS
9.

The WATCH submission requests that I undertake inquiries under
Regulations 28 and 29. Such inquiries are undertaken in relation to concerns
which can be raised under Regulation 27. The Independent Reviewer has
discretion whether to conduct such inquiries or not, and then how any suchinquiries are undertaken. My first consideration, therefore, has been whether
it is appropriate to consider this matter and to undertake the requested
inquiries.

10.

Given that the concern relates directly to the report by a former Independent
Reviewer and to the wider process for the nomination of bishops to diocesansees, I have concluded that it is appropriate for me to consider the matterand I communicated this decision to Revd Oborne. Had the submission not
drawn heavily on the work of my predecessor, my decision would haverequired further reflection because, as observed by Sir Philip Mawer in his
Annual Report for 2017, ‘the House of Bishops’ Declaration essentiallyconcerns the making of arrangements for those who, on theological grounds,
cannot accept the ministry of women as bishops and priests, rather thanarrangements for those who are happy to receive such ministry’1.

THE ROLE OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWER
11.

Before I outline the concerns expressed in the submission and myconsideration of those concerns, I think it would be helpful to outline theparameters of my role as the Independent Reviewer.

12.

Having agreed to undertake a review for the reasons outlined in paragraph
10, I am following the precedent of my predecessors in examining all thematters pertinent to the operation of the Declaration and the Five Guiding
Principles as they apply to this particular situation. My report therefore

1 Report of the Independent Reviewer for 2017 to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York2

makes comments and recommendations in relation to the whole process forthe appointment of a diocesan bishop in the Church of England.
13.

However, it is not the role of the Independent Reviewer to comment
positively or negatively on the theological convictions of those who make or
are referred to in submissions, or indeed those who are consulted as part ofthe inquiry process. The Five Guiding Principles make it clear that 'sincethose within the Church of England who, on grounds of theologicalconviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests
continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican
Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them toflourish within its life and structures’2.

THE CONCERNS
14.

In their initial submission WATCH identified concerns under five headings.
These are summarised below using the headings and terminology adopted
by WATCH in that submission and website summary and without commentor expression of view by me on those concerns.

The relationship between a diocesan and their clergy.
15.

The submission raises two areas of concern under this heading, the first ofwhich is the effect of Bishop Philip’s beliefs and whether it is possible for adiocesan bishop holding those beliefs to properly fulfil the role of a diocesan
bishop. The submission specifically cites his unwillingness to ordain womenor to receive communion from them. It goes on to say that the Bishop of
Lancaster would carry out ordinations which would mitigate some of theconsequences of his position but the proportion of clergy in the diocese withwhom the diocesan bishop would not be in full communion would increase.

16.

The second concern raised by WATCH in their submission under thisheading relates to the oath of canonical obedience. The focus of thesubmission is the reciprocal nature of the oath, which is both given andreceived, but WATCH suggest the oath will be differently received by Bishop
Philip.

17.

The submission concludes that Bishop Philip has indicated in advance that
he won’t do all that you expect of diocesan in relation to ordination or have afull and mutual relationship as expected between priest and a diocesan
bishop. It contends that this would be the case for any diocesan who did not‘fully affirm and support the ordained ministry of women’. Furthermore, itsuggests that Bishop Philip would not be in full communion with anincreasing number of his clergy.

2 Five Guiding Principles

3

18.

In their submission, WATCH acknowledge that, although this situation ispossible under the Declaration, it does not regard this position as acceptable
and contends that, had the work recommended in the Sheffield report been
undertaken, that work would have led to the same conclusion.

Sacramental assurance and support for the clergy and laity
19.

WATCH question whether a bishop can serve the needs of their clergy if they
are not confident in the ordination of those clergy, and how a bishop who
does not recognise the ministry of their clergy can be assured thatcongregations were in receipt of ‘efficacious priestly ministry’.

20.

They cite Bishop Philip’s belief that the Church of England did not have theauthority to decide unilaterally to ordain women as priests or bishops, andhis involvement and membership of a number of bodies which support histheological position in relation to the ordination of women. They assert that
this involvement ‘goes significantly beyond’ merely holding the view that, forreasons of church unity, the Church of England should not have taken thedecision to ordain women.

21.

The submission suggests that these considerations bring into question thebishop as a focus for unity, a phrase used in the Blackburn DioceseStatement of Needs, particularly when that bishop holds a view which is notheld by the majority of the Church of England. The submission also draws
attention to the theological positions of other traditionalists and conservativeevangelicals.

22.

In its summary, the submission highlights that the concerns expressed in thisarea by my predecessor in the Sheffield Report have not been addressed
and goes on to invite me to recommend that no further nominations of
traditionalist Catholics or conservative evangelicals be made to diocesan
sees.

Statement of Needs and Secretaries’ Memorandum
23.

In this section of the submission WATCH set out their concerns about theprocess which led to Bishop Philip’s nomination to the See of Blackburn.
Specifically WATCH suggest that the process ‘may not have been inaccordance with the procedures laid down, either in letter or spirit’ and thatthe nomination is therefore flawed. WATCH based the submission on
information made available to them, most of which was anonymised in thesubmission document. They also highlight the failure to follow through the
Sheffield Report’s recommendations here.

24.

The first concern set out by WATCH is that the Statement of Needs preparedby the Vacancy in See Committee was silent on whether the new diocesan
bishop will or will not ordain women. They go on to say that, where a view isexpressed, this should reflect the views of the diocese not just the Vacancy
in See Committee and note that the Declaration states that dioceses can4express a view on this matter, but the Blackburn Statement of Needs did not
do so. The submission suggests that the consultation process in the diocese
did not actively canvas views on the matter from clergy, laity or the wider
community.
25.

The WATCH submission goes on to question whether the Secretaries'
consultation included direct questions on the new bishop’s position on
women.

26.

Finally the submission questions whether the Crown Nominations
Commission can be fully informed about a diocese without explicit
assurance, through the Statement and/or the Memorandum, that direct
canvassing has been undertaken and recorded concerning the possibility of
nominating a non-affirming bishop.

Flaws in the process that did take place
27.

The penultimate section of WATCH’s concerns focuses on ‘flaws in theprocess that did take place’3. Specifically the submission suggests there
were issues with conflict of interest within the process and with who was andwas not consulted as part of the nomination process. It considers that theactual consultation process undertaken by the Vacancy in See Committee
was not fair and truly independent. The submission concludes that theprocess of nomination should not continue through to appointment.
WATCH’s concerns are summarised as:• Insufficient independence in the leadership and process of consultation.
• Space for safe expression of views among the clergy was compromised.
• The mechanism for wider consultation was flawed.
• Not all those who should have been consulted were.
• The overall process of consultation was not independent or fair.

The likely effect of the proposed appointment on the diocese

3

28.

The final section of the WATCH document returns to matters identified by Sir
Philip Mawer in the Sheffield Report which, it suggests, have not been
appropriately followed up. The submission presents statistical informationfrom across the Church of England in relation to ordained women in ministry
holding stipendiary incumbent or incumbent status posts, comparing
percentages of women in ministry in dioceses which have a diocesan who
does not ordain women with those which do. This information has not beenverified by me.

29.

A key element of this concern is that, whilst there is ‘generous provision’ forthose who do not believe that women should be ordained or who believe thatwomen’s ministry should be restricted, there is no complimentary provision

Heading used in the original WATCH submission

5

their ministry. The submission, again, invites me to recommend that nonomination of a non-affirming diocesan should take place until the Sheffield
Report recommendations have been fully implemented.

REVIEW PROCESS
30.

As is evident from the summary of the five areas of concern raised by
WATCH, this inquiry focuses on the implementation of the Sheffield Reportand on the process which led to the nomination of Rt Revd Philip North tothe see of Blackburn, both the Vacancy in See Committee and its work andthe work of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC).

31.

As was the case during the inquiry which led to the Sheffield Report, I haveinterviewed individuals who were closely involved in one or both of those
processes. Some approached me and I approached others. Some had also
contributed to the Sheffield Report for which they had been given anassurance of confidentiality.

32.

In addition to those who I have contacted or have contacted me directly,
early in the process WATCH invited contributions from interested parties tobe sent to them. These were forwarded to me on 9 June in the form of‘Referral to the IR - Further evidence’ with a covering letter from the Chair inwhich the question of confidentiality was raised in relation to thesubmissions. She noted that the contributions to the further evidence
document had been anonymised.

33.

In order to ensure that I was given a full picture of the nomination process
and that all interviewees or contributors were treated equally and were able
to speak freely, I adopted the same approach to confidentiality as was taken
by Sir Philip Mawer. I have therefore treated all contributions, whether inwriting as part of the submission or the further evidence documents orverbally as part of my inquiries, as confidential.

34.

In its conclusion paragraph, the 9 June WATCH further evidence document
invited me to make their Referral of Concern document public in order toencourage more witnesses to come forward. I have not done so as the 9June submission includes a number of further submissions which, taken
alongside the original referral, provide a substantial evidence base fromwhich to undertake my inquiry.

35.

In relation to the specific concerns about the implementation of therecommendations of the Sheffield Report, I have studied both the Sheffield
Report itself and GS 2225 Update arising from the work of the
Implementation and Dialogue Group. I have also met with the Chair andVice-chair of the House of Bishops Standing Commission on the House of
Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests as it begins its
work to discuss how the roles of the Standing Commission and Independent

6

Reviewer interface with one another. I then met with the Commission itself in
November to discuss further how recommendations arising from the
Independent Reviewer’s work might inform the work of the Commission andbe taken forward.

THE DIOCESE
36.

37.

Each diocese within the Church of England holds its own vision, developedfor its own particular circumstances. The Statement of Needs sets out that
context and vision. Some key features are noted below as part of the context
for the nomination process:•

The diocese covers 930 square miles with a population of 1.37 million.

•

It is divided into 14 deaneries in two archdeaconries with 173
benefices, 235 parishes and 272 churches.

•

It has parishes of all traditions and is ‘strongly committed to theprinciple of mutual flourishing’.

•

13 parishes have a population which is over 40% of Asian heritage.

•

The diocese has 164 Licenced clergy, 119 Licenced Lay Ministers and
114 Authorised Lay ministers.

While the Statement of Needs did indicate the total numbers of clergy andlicenced lay ministers in the diocese at the time of preparation of the
document, the numerical split between male and female was detailed
graphically only. It was notable that female self-supporting ministers
outnumbered male self-supporting ministers.

ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
38.

The evidence presented and available to me comes from:• The original referral from WATCH (the submission) (Website summary inAppendix 1)• The Further Evidence document (further evidence) sent by WATCH• 4 April 2022 Letter sent by Bishop Jill Duff in her role as Chair of the
Vacancy in See Committee to all contacts on the contact management
database (Appendix 2)• 20 April 2022 Letter sent by Bishop Jill Duff to those on the contact
management database (Appendix 3)• Interviews with individuals, including ordained women inside and outside
the diocese, the Acting Diocesan Secretary, the Appointments and Prime
Ministers’ Appointments Secretaries, members of the Vacancy in See

7

Committee, Bishop’s Council and Crown Nominations Commission (CNC)
and correspondence received• Minutes and other documents requested from Blackburn Diocese• The Review of the Nomination to the See of Sheffield and RelatedConcerns Report (the Sheffield Report)• GS 2225 Report of the Implementation and Dialogue Group (IDG) on theHouse of Bishops’ Declaration (GS 2225)• Statements of Needs for diocesan vacancies for vacancies from 2017 to
December 2023.
• The Vacancy in See Committees Regulation and Briefing for Members of
Vacancy in See Committees (January 2020)
39.

I will address the matters raised in the submission and further evidence
document in two groups, those that relate specifically to the Blackburn
nomination process and then those that link this process to the Sheffield
Report and the work of the IDG.

THE NOMINATION PROCESS
40.

This tranche of concerns relates to the process leading to the nomination of
the Rt Revd Philip North as Bishop of Blackburn and then the announcementof that nomination in the Diocese of Blackburn. The concerns centre on thetimetable, the operation and membership of the Vacancy in See Committee
and the consultation process which culminated in the preparation of both theStatement of Needs and the Secretaries’ Memorandum.

41.

I have considered this aspect of the concerns in the order presented in the
WATCH further evidence document.

Timetable and consultation timescale for the Vacancy in See Process
42.

The timeline below has been assembled from information provided to me
during my enquiries.
1 February
2022

Bishop’s Council elects Rt Revd Jill Duff to Chair
the Vacancy in See Committee and agrees 4
additional members of the Committee

30 March
2022

First meeting of the Vacancy in See Committee

4 April(Appendix 2)

Bishop Jill wrote to the Diocese in her capacity as
Chair of the Vacancy in See Committee. This
communication was sent to all those on the
diocesan contacts management system. This8

includes as follows: all priests and office holders,
PCC Secretaries and Churchwardens. The letter
was also posted on the diocesan website.
The letter:
Reported on the first meeting of the Vacancy in See
Committee
Set out the dates for the CNC and noted that thiswas ‘faster than we expected….We have jumped
the queue for CNC dates over Lincoln &Winchester’4
Set out the consultation timetable
Provided links to the Jotforms for feedback. Thissection suggested the form would take 5 mins tocomplete and noted that the closure date for receiptof the forms was 17 April 2022 ‘if at all possible’.
Noted the opportunity to suggest names would
arise after the Statement of Needs was signed off
on 24 May 2022, the final meeting of the Vacancy in
See Committee.
20 April

Invitation from Bishop Jill, to the online open
consultation meeting with the Appointments
Secretaries scheduled to take place on 28 April
2022.
The QR codes for the Jotforms were circulated aspart of the invitation with a completion deadline of
29 April 2022.

20 April to 24
May

Further consultation period including the meetings
with the Appointments Secretaries

26 April

Second meeting of the Vacancy in See Committee

28 AprilZoom Open Consultation Meeting

24 MayThird and final meeting of the Vacancy in See
Committee which was attended by Stephen Knott(Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary and Helen
Dimmock (Prime Minister’s appointments
secretary/Ecclesiastical Secretary to the Crown andLord Chancellor)

4 Appendix 2 Letter from Bishop Jill Duff

9

25 May

Website update following the final Vacancy in See
meeting.
Attention drawn to the date of the Church Times
advertisement and opportunity to submit names.

27 MayChurch Times advertisement inviting comments
and names

End May

Archbishop’s advisers draw up the Secretaries
Memorandum

June & July

In her 4 April 2022 letter Bishop Jill advised thatduring this period of time names could besuggested.
WATCH advise that this period was shortened to
end on 12 June.

End JulyLonglist of candidates drawn up by the CNC

21
September

CNC Shortlisting meeting

8&9
November

CNC meets and interviews candidates.

43.

The timing of the CNC meeting for each episcopal vacancy is determined by
the availability of the Archbishops and the timing of the various episcopal
retirements and resignations. A number of sets of dates are agreed anddioceses allocated to those dates as vacancies arise.

44.

In the case of Blackburn, both the letter from Bishop Jill and the submission
from WATCH suggest that Blackburn ‘jumped the queue’. It is true to say that
Blackburn was considered ‘out of order’ by the CNC however, they did notjump the queue, rather they ‘moved up’ the queue due the dioceses ofLincoln and Winchester needing to delay, for their own particular reasons.
Blackburn was then next in line to fill the CNC meeting dates which had
become available. This was, as Bishop Jill noted, a surprise to the diocese.
The submission suggests that the time available for the Vacancy in See
process, including consultation, was unduly curtailed as a result.

45.

Neither the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation nor the Briefing
document set out any timescale or expected timescales for a vacancy
process to be completed. The time from first meeting of the Vacancy in See
Committee to its final meeting therefore varies, as does the time from then to
the first CNC meeting, the final meeting and the arrival of the Bishop in the
diocese.

10

46.

As part of my inquiry I consulted with the Appointments Secretaries and also,
separately, reviewed the timeframes for a number of other recent
appointment processes. The timescales vary significantly, though some ofthe variation is due to inconsistency in terminology between dioceses inrelation to what they define as the consultation process. Some include that
period after the final Vacancy in See meeting during which there is still theopportunity to suggest names and others only use consultation for the preStatement of Needs consultation undertaken by the Vacancy in See
Committee and Appointments Secretaries.

47.

In spite of that variation, both the correspondence I received and theconversations I had with individuals involved in the diocese, some withexperience of Vacancy in See processes in several other dioceses, suggestthat there was an actual or perceived sense of time pressure. It is possiblethat some of the perceived pressure was exacerbated by the language of‘jumping the queue’, what some interviewees understood from comments inmeetings, and the Jotform completion time messaging and deadline. I will
return to this later when looking at the consultation process.

Election of the Chair and membership of the Vacancy in See Committee
48.

The concerns raised in relation to the membership of the Vacancy in See
Committee centre on the election of the Chair, the membership of theCommittee and the involvement of Bishop Philip in the Vacancy in See
process.

49.

Bishop Philip was involved in both the election of the Chair and theappointment of additional members of the Committee. Evidence presented
by WATCH suggests that Bishop Philip was expected to be interested in
becoming the new Bishop of Blackburn. This is perhaps not surprising giventhat his nomination to the see of Sheffield is evidence that he has thequalities which would be looked for in a diocesan bishop. The submission
questions whether, if that was the case, it was appropriate for Bishop Philip
to be involved in the promotion of Bishop Jill Duff as Chair of the Vacancy in
See Committee. The submission goes on to suggest that Bishop Philipremained a member of the Vacancy in See Committee, in spite of theinevitable conflict of interest in him doing so if he hoped to be a candidate.
My inquiries indicate that, although technically a member of the Vacancy in
See Committee according to the website, Bishop Philip did not attend any
meetings of the Committee.

50.

The election of Bishop Jill as Chair of the Committee took place on 1
February 2022. At that time Bishop Julian was absent due to illness. The
information provided by WATCH, including from a member of both the
Bishop’s Council and Vacancy in See Committee , indicates that the meeting
concerned was an extraordinary meeting. This was confirmed by the minutes
provided by the diocese. The submission suggests that the meeting was

11called in the expectation that the see would be declared vacant in the spring
but that the meeting did not need to be called with the apparent haste that itwas called, and that Bishop Philip advocated strongly for the election of
Bishop Jill as Chair.
51.

I reviewed the minutes of the Bishop’s Council meeting concerned and also
received oral evidence from individuals at the meeting. I noted that:• Bishop Jill was not present at the meeting.
• Three nominations had been received for Chair of the Vacancy in See
Committee, all duly nominated and seconded. No candidate had been
nominated or seconded by Bishop Philip. Oral evidence presented
suggested that the number of candidates was influenced by the ineligibilityof the Chair of the Vacancy in See Committee to stand as a diocesan
representative of the CNC. Bishop Jill was already ineligible as she was abishop in the diocese. The two of the candidates who were members of
the Bishop’s Council and present at the meeting left while thosenominating candidates explained why they had nominated theircandidates. They returned for the vote.
• Bishop Jill was elected on the first round of voting.

52.

The submission also states that Bishop Philip brought forward the additional
names for nomination to the Vacancy in See Committee, appointments which
are allowed within the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation as amechanism for addressing questions of balance and diversity. The focus of
the question raised in the submission is that others did not have theopportunity to suggest candidates for appointment and, therefore, in making
these appointments Bishop Philip was making nominations to the body which
would be an ‘integral part of the process that might lead to his appointment’
as Bishop of Blackburn. Again the submission suggests that there was noneed for this action to be taken at that time.

53.

Whilst it is unusual for either of these events to take place at an Extraordinary
Meeting of the Bishop’s Council, the timing of both the election and theappointments is consistent with the life cycle of the Vacancy in See
Committee. Elections to the Diocesan Synod took place in Blackburn in 2021
and the newly elected Vacancy in See Committee therefore began its term ofoffice in January 20225. Knowing that Bishop Julian was planning toannounce his retirement it is understandable that any vacancies or
imbalances in the Vacancy in See Committee might be addressed promptly inorder that, at the imminent announcement date, the Committee was at fullstrength as no appointments can be made to the Committee once a Bishop
formally announces their retirement or they vacate the See for any other5 S2a Vacancy in See Committees Regulation 1993 as amended, in effect from 13 July 2021

12

reason. At the time of the meeting the Committee was carrying one casualvacancy for an elected representative from the Lancaster Archdeaconry.
54.

The minutes of the meeting report that that the additional names weresuggested with a view to addressing diversity balances. The balance being
addressed was identified in relation to each proposed candidate and thesewere set in the context of the overall balance of elected and ex officio
members on the Committee, as set out for the Council at the meeting by theActing Diocesan Secretary. The minutes also indicate that other candidates
were proposed or suggested during the meeting though some names werewithdrawn during discussion because they did not address any of thediversity gaps. The identified gaps were: UKME community representation,
gender balance, youth and disability. The Council also noted that
representation from the Education sector would be beneficial. One memberof the Council did suggest a delay to gather more nominations, but theCouncil declined this request. Two candidates, one man and one woman,from the UKME community were elected. The Committee then received
information in relation to 4 other female candidates and an election took
place. Two were elected, the Dean of Women’s Ministry and a headteacher.

Conflict of Interest on the Vacancy in See Committee
55.

The initial submission suggests that Bishop Jill had a conflict of interest in
her role as Chair of the Vacancy in See Committee as she was the remaining
suffragan in a diocese where her colleague suffragan might be appointed as
her diocesan, ie she might be chairing a group which was an integral part of
the appointment process for someone who would have authority over her.

56.

Whilst it is permissible for a suffragan bishop to chair the Vacancy in See
Committee under the Regulation, it is clear from the evidence I received, that
there are pros and cons to having a suffragan in the Chair of the Vacancy in
See Committee, whether they are the only suffragan in the diocese or one ofseveral. The submission suggests that:• Unconscious bias was a possibility, particularly in this situation as Bishop
Jill was known to be supportive of Bishop Philip.
• Bishop Jill would be under the authority of Bishop Philip during thevacancy.
• These factors could lead to a lack of independence in the consultation
process.
• Clergy in the diocese might feel under duress to toe a particular line in
relation to the appointment of a new diocesan as a result of Bishop Jill
chairing a process in which both she and Bishop Philip had a significant
interest.

13

57.

Whilst a potential conflict of interest will always arise when a suffraganbishop, or indeed any member of the senior team in a diocese, is involved inappointing what will be their superior, this has to be balanced against theirknowledge of the diocese and its needs, and the expectation that theyshould have the necessary skills to chair the meeting well, fairly and in theinterests of the whole diocese.

58.

Similar conflict of interest issues were identified by Sir Philip Mawer in the
Sheffield report in relation to the presence of Suffragan Bishops and the
Bishop’s Chaplain among the six diocesan representatives on the CNC. That
matter was addressed by changes to the Regulation such that episcopal
members and Vacancy in See Committee chairs are now precluded fromstanding for election to represent the diocese on the CNC. The principle of
who chairs a Vacancy in See Committee would benefit from review in light ofthe potential conflicts of interest which have been identified here.

The timing, nature and scope of the consultation process
59.

A number of questions were raised about the timing, nature and scope of theconsultation process in the submission and the further evidence documents:• Was the leadership, within the diocese, sufficiently independent given therelationship between Bishop Jill and Bishop Philip and the conflict ofinterest addressed above?
• Was the consultation conducive to free and safe expression of views byclergy who might wish to present a view contrary to that expressed bythose in senior posts?
• How was the consultation period publicised across the diocese?
• Was the consultation sufficiently wide to give a rounded view of the
diocese?
• Who was formally consulted, and were there serious omissions?
• Should those being consulted have been asked, specifically, whether theywould be willing to accept a bishop that did not ordain women?
• Whether the use of Zoom contributed to uncertainty about the safety of
the consultation space because consultees were unable to know whether
others were listening in, off camera, or whether sessions were being
recorded and listened to by others at a later date?
• Was sufficient time allowed for the consultation process and completion of
the Jotforms?

60.

The initial submission from WATCH considers that these issues were notappropriately dealt with and that, as a result, the consultation process wasflawed. In addition to considering the questions in the submission, it is also
reasonable to question whether this consultation process was ‘normal’ when

14

compared to other dioceses, and therefore whether there is wider learning tobe applied in respect of any flaws identified in the process.
61.

Turning to timing, the process of consulting interested parties in the diocese
took place between 20 April and the final sign off of the Statement of Needs
at the Vacancy in See meeting on 24 May. This included both the Vacancy in
See consultation process and the wider consultation undertaken by the
Appointments Secretaries which resulted in their Memorandum.

62.

From the evidence presented, in the communication from Bishop Jill andfrom the actions noted at the first meeting of the Vacancy in See Committee,
the following can be established:• Bishop Jill wrote to the Diocese on 4 April to launch the consultation within
the Diocese. She highlighted the opportunity to contribute through theonline form. The deadline for completion of the forms was 17 April but she
also highlighted the opportunity to make comments and submit names
after the sign off of the Statement of Needs.
• This message was reinforced in a further communication on 20 April 2022
which detailed the Zoom consultation scheduled for 28 April 2022 at 7pm.
The QR codes for the Jotforms were included again, this time with acompletion deadline of 29 April 2022.
• The Jotform does not specifically ask whether the new bishop should besomeone who would ordain women.

63.

As indicated by the timetable, two different completion dates were given for
the Jotforms. The later date of the end of 29 April gives a total time of 25days for completion of the forms, the response from which would be fed into
the preparation of the Statement of Needs.

64.

From my conversations with those in the diocese, the evidence presented in
the submission and the further evidence documents, a sense of haste wasevident in respect of the consultation. This sense was triggered or
exacerbated by a number of factors:• The two different Jotform return dates, the first of which appeared to giveless than 2 weeks for completion.
• The language in respect of completing the forms. ‘It only takes a fiveminutes to prayerfully complete’6 is intended to suggest the form is notlong and difficult to complete, but risks trivialising the input as it does notindicate the importance of reflection in advance and the seriousness of theprocess being undertaken.
• The language of ‘jumping the queue’ may well have generated a sense ofpushiness on behalf of the diocese, suggesting rush and ill-preparedness,

6 Letter from Bishop Jill dated 4 April 2022

15

when in fact the diocese moved up the list and did not jump others, rather
they moved for their own reasons.
• One of those who spoke with me and had significant experience in otherdioceses said the process felt more rushed than they had experienced in
the past and this sense was supported by the further evidence andconversations with others, who had not experienced similar processes
before.
• Another I spoke to suggested that there would be a significant, 12-24
month, delay in having a new diocesan bishop in post if the diocese chose
not to take the slot they were offered, again creating a sense of pressurearound the appointment. This was replicated in one of the written
contributions.
65.

Although individuals in the diocese felt that the consultation for theStatement of Needs was rushed, this does not mean that there was a breachof the Regulation as there is no set period or minimum period defined for the
consultation.

66.

In order to assess whether the time allowed for consultation was unduly
short, or shorter than other processes, I reviewed the consultation
timescales of a number of other dioceses in relation to their Statements ofNeeds ie the time window allowed for input to the Statement of Needs
process through the completion of online forms or sending correspondence
to the relevant Vacancy in See Committee. Overall there was approximately
25 days in Blackburn. This was not atypical among those I researched,though as I have noted above there are factors which were likely to make thetime feel more pressured.

67.

With regard to the second consultation period, that from the final meeting
and agreement of the Statement of Needs (24 May 2022 in Blackburn) to theclosing date for comments and names to be submitted (12 June 2022 inBlackburn), the period varies but Blackburn is not the shortest in more recent
years, with many having 2-4 weeks. I must, however, emphasise that there isnot consistency of terminology in relation to these timescales with somedioceses reporting only the dates for comment feeding into their Statementof Needs and others taking that period to the time window referenced in the
Church Times advertisement.

68.

Greater clarity about a minimum expected consultation window, prior to thecompletion of the Statement of Needs and Secretaries Memorandum might
go some way to averting perceptions of pressure, or indeed inaction, in
future.

69.

In this particular situation, a consistency about the Jotform dates, with thelater one being consistently reported and more moderate language inrespect of the ‘moving up’ of Blackburn to an earlier set of CNC dates, would

16

probably have eased some of the sense of urgency and pressure which wasundoubtedly felt by some.
How was the consultation process communicated?
70.

The communications from Bishop Jill on both 4 April and 20 April were sent
to all on the diocesan contact management system (CMS). This included allpriests, PCC Secretaries and Churchwardens. They were also referenced on
the website and could be downloaded from there. An update was also
posted on the website (Appendix 4) following the final Vacancy in See
Committee meeting which signalled the publication of the advertisement in
the Church Times and the opportunity to comment and submit names
directly to the Secretaries.

71.

That being said, evidence from conversations with individuals in the dioceseand in the submissions from WATCH suggest that the communications had
not been particularly effective in generating awareness or understanding of
the process. Blackburn diocese is unlikely to be unique in this regard but,with the other factors already noted, this was probably more keenly felt.

Who was consulted?
72.

Two areas of concern were raised which will be reviewed under this heading.
The list of consultees, and whether there were explicit questions about
whether the new bishop should be someone who would ordain women.

73.

The consultation for the Statement of Needs was undertaken by the Vacancy
in See Committee. As Chair of the Committee, Bishop Jill made contact withother dioceses (Chester, Newcastle and Liverpool) to get advice andlearning on how to undertake the consultation in a way which enabled
access from across the diocese and more widely. The Jotforms used werepart of the product of this process. The forms did not include a directquestion eliciting views on the future bishop’s position on the ordination of
women. This is similar to the approach taken by others.

74.

As indicated in the above, the letters of 4 April and 20 April were circulated
widely within the diocese through the CMS and should therefore havereached officers from each parish and all ordained ministers, though as
already noted not all communications are effective in engaging theirrecipients and prompting action.

75.

The process of assembling those to be involved in the formal consultations
undertaken by the Secretaries, as opposed to the consultation by the
Vacancy in See Committee for the Statement of Needs, is that the
Appointments Secretaries reach out to the diocese for a list of those tocontact. The list includes all traditions within the diocese, people at different
stages of their ministry and people representing the wider community. Thoseon the list are invited to be part of the consultations. The list of those who
accepted invitations to attend was provided as part of the inquiry process. A

17number of individuals fell under several categories but did not necessarily
attend under each. The meetings with the Secretaries took place over 3
dates and the timetables show that the consultation was comprehensive inrespect of various voices across the diocese, though some individuals wereconcerned that the individuals on the invitation list had been hand-picked inorder to provide a consistency of view. Bishop Jill and other senior staff fromthe diocese were not present in these consultation meetings, most of whichwere conducted online.
76.

Consultees were, as is the usual custom, invited to suggest names and while
there was support for a bishop who would ordain women, Bishop Philip’s
name was the one most commonly mentioned in the consultations, eventhough people were aware of his position on the ordination of women.

77.

The Secretaries and Diocese also arranged a public meeting, conducted
over Zoom and chaired by Bishop Jill. This was publicised through the 20
April letter from Bishop Jill who also went on local radio to encourage
participation. Most of those who attended were clergy. The general direction
from the meeting was a desire to continue the vision and to encourage
mutual flourishing. There is no record of participants being invited to express
a view on whether a non-ordaining bishop would be welcomed and no small
group discussion as part of the meeting.

78.

Comments were, as is part of the standard process, invited nationally via the
Church Times advertisement which was published 27 May 2022.

79.

Alongside the general consultations, members of the Vacancy in See
Committee reported that the Committee had formed a sub-group to prepare
the Statement of Needs and that the sub-group had taken soundings fromaround the diocese.

80.

The processes outlined should have given the opportunity for participation
by:
•
•
•
•

Parishes
Clergy in the diocese
The public
The wider church

81.

The further evidence document does report that at least one parish
promoted the consultation, drawing attention to the Jotform, and discussed
the nomination, formulating a submission from the parish as part of theconsultation process.

82.

However this does not mean all those who wished to participate in the
consultation process will have felt able to express their views fully, inparticular in the open meeting as the same considerations in relation to18

conflict of interest and potential career and ministry impact of expressing
views contrary to the perceived ‘line’ apply.
83.

The submission also noted that neither they (WATCH) nor the National
Association of Diocesan Advisers in Women’s Ministry (NADAWM) wereconsulted in relation to this nomination. This was raised with the
Appointments Secretaries in order to establish if this was the usual process
and how it had been applied. The process in Blackburn was no different toother nomination processes. No campaigning groups are formally consulted
in CNC nomination processes but any and all are able to contribute throughthe Church Times consultation invitation, and indeed from time to time such
submissions are received by the Secretaries.

The Consultation process
84.

A number of questions were raised in respect of how the consultations were
undertaken. The first of these was whether individuals could be honest in
their contribution to the consultation because of the position they were in
relative to Bishop Jill. The second was whether the use of online consultation
mechanisms impacted negatively on the sense of confidentiality and safety
experienced by consultees. The third was whether consultees were asked
about the possibility of having a non-ordaining bishop as their new diocesan.

85.

My assessment of the evidence from the submissions and one to one
conversations has already raised concerns about the potential impact of
having Bishop Jill, a suffragan bishop in the diocese, as Chair of the Vacancy
in See Committee. These concerns also apply to her chairing the only formal
consultation meeting scheduled as part of the consultation process. It is
logical that the open meeting be chaired by the Chair of the Vacancy in See
Committee as the contributions in that meeting would be used to inform theStatement of Needs. Nevertheless, my conversations leave me in little doubtthat the presence of a person who is, in effect, line manager of ordained andsome lay attendees and who has an interest in the appointment process,because the new bishop will have authority over them, will probably stifle
open contribution from those individuals and does not make for a ‘safe’
space. This is unlikely to be the intention behind the process but, from myexperience in other consultations of this nature, it is very likely to be theoutcome.

86.

I turn now to the second question, whether the use of online consultation
mechanisms might have a negative impact on the openness of thecontributions from consultees. The submission and further evidence
documents suggest that aspects of online meetings leave participants lessassured than a face to face meeting. The grounds for this view are that in an
online meeting it is not possible to see who else might be in the room offcamera, meetings are often openly recorded but can easily be covertly
recorded and that those recordings or information gleaned by off-camera

19

individuals could be prejudicial to the career or appointment prospects ofmeeting participants. Whilst this view is understandable, it is also the casethat covert recordings have been made in face to face meetings and any
information shared in a meeting can be passed on to others and used toinfluence careers or appointments in the future. The key to open contribution
is clarity of meeting purpose and agreement to confidentiality from theoutset. The appointments secretaries conduct their meetings under the ruleof confidentiality which overlays the whole nomination process and there isprovision for any comments not made in meetings with them to be made inwriting to them as part of the Church Times advertisement process or tocontact them during the consultation process to express a written view orrequest a meeting as they operate separately from the Vacancy in See
Committee in the preparation of their Memorandum.
87.

The third question relates directly back to the Sheffield Report and inparticular whether the consultation process elicited wide views on whether
the diocese would welcome a non-ordaining bishop or not, how this wasreflected in the information put to the CNC through the Secretaries
Memorandum, and how the decision not to express a view on the matter in
the Statement of Needs was made. I will return to the contents of theStatement of Needs but at this point would reflect that Bishop Philip’s namehad come up frequently during the consultation process but that it had notbeen in the context of general acceptance of a non-ordaining bishop andsome dis-ease had been expressed at the prospect of appointing a different
non-ordaining bishop.

88.

While the Jotform and covering letter do not specifically ask the question,
they were not unusual in this regard. Other dioceses used questions similar
to those asked in Blackburn, indeed, as already noted, Blackburn had
consulted others on this aspect of the consultation. There is no evidence ofextensive discussion of the possibility as part of the Statement of Needs
consultation process.

89.

The Vacancy in See Committee made the decision not to express a view as
to whether their next diocesan bishop should be someone ‘who will or will
not ordain women’ at its second meeting. Prior to the meeting Bishop Jill had
consulted with two dioceses, Chester who had not expressed a view and
Newcastle who had. As is habitual, this meeting, not being the final meetingat which elections would take place, was not attended by the Appointments
Secretaries. There was a short discussion and a significant majority voted toleave the matter open in the Statement of Needs. One of the three who took
a contrary view was later elected as one of the diocesan representatives.

90.

A question for further consideration arising from this aspect of the process iswhether dioceses should explain the rationale behind their decision not to
express a view.

20

Statement of Needs Contents
91.

Both the initial submission and the further evidence raised questions about
the silence of the Statement of Needs on whether the incoming bishop
should be willing to ordain women. In commenting on this content, it must beborne in mind that the contents of the Statement of Needs and theSecretaries Memorandum do not bind the CNC, rather they seek to inform it.

92.

The further evidence document provided quotes from a number ofStatements of Needs from other dioceses. In order to confirm the evidence
provided and to provide a fully complete picture in relation to dioceses since2017, ie after the nomination of Rt Revd Philip North to Sheffield, I obtained
and reviewed all Statements of Needs published as of the end of October
2023. In my review I specifically identified what, if anything, was said about
the ministry of ordained women and whether the diocese had made any
statement on the incoming bishop’s willingness to ordain women or not. The
outcomes of my review are set out in Appendix 4.

93.

Of the 24 Statements reviewed, 6 were silent on the matter of ordination,
though only 2 made no reference to the ministry of ordained women andmen. The further evidence cites the 2023 Truro Statement. However this has
not, at the time of writing, been agreed by the diocese and the source of thetext provided cannot be confirmed. The Statement of Needs from Truro for its
previous nomination process fell within the review window and is included in
the appendix.

94.

While the Statement of Needs is a public document which tells the diocese
and wider church what has been said to the CNC, it is important toremember that the Statement of Need and Secretaries Memorandum do notbind the CNC but are part of the process of informing the nomination
process and consideration of potential nominees by the CNC.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOMINATION TO THE SEE OF SHEFFIELD AND
RELATED CONCERNS REPORT (THE SHEFFIELD REPORT)95.

In the background to the concerns, the submission states thatrecommendations from the Sheffield Report have not been fully
implemented. The submission and further evidence offer a great many linked
questions in relation to the Sheffield Report and its recommendations. I havetherefore reviewed the recommendations articulated in that report,addressing the principles raised in the submission and further evidence.
Some of my reflections here have been considered in more detail in myreview of the nomination process generally.

96.

While I am able to express views on some of the matters raised in relation to
the implementation of the recommendations in the report, I cannot, as isrequested in the submission, require that there should be no further

21

nominations of non-ordaining bishops until the recommendations are fully
implemented. I can, as part of my liaison with the Standing Commission,
draw matters to the attention of the Commission via the Archbishop of
Canterbury as Chair of the House of Bishops, the body which refers mattersto the Commission.
97.

The concerns set out in the submission highlight matters that relate to boththe Blackburn nomination and the implementation of the four Sheffield
Report recommendations7. The concerns, as they relate to the Sheffieldreport are considered with the relevant recommendations, which are quoted
as they appear in the report.

98.

Recommendation 1: I recommend that the House of Bishops
commissions a group with balanced membership to review what has
been done; distil examples of good practice within dioceses; andprovide resources to help dioceses, deaneries and parishes, andtheological training institutions to engage in further consideration of
the issues.

99.

In introducing this recommendation, Sir Philip posed the question ‘What has
been done in the Church…... to inform and educate clergy and laity about
the Settlement agreed in 2014, and the effect of the House of Bishops’
Declaration within that settlement’. That question remains relevant when
considering whether the recommendation has been, or has not been,
implemented.

100.

He went on to articulate two key challenges posed to the 2014 Settlement in
the course of the nomination to the See of Sheffield, which required further
attention by the House of Bishops and noted that, if the process he outlined
was to be successful, attention needed to be paid to them. The first related
to the underlying theology of the settlement and the need to answer thecriticism of the Declaration expressed by a number of academics andtheologians. The second, which he described as ‘as much pastoral as
theological’ is particularly pertinent in the context of the nomination of Bishop
Philp to Blackburn. It had been posed by women clergy and lay ministers in
Sheffield and questioned what the nomination of a non-ordaining bishop
implied for their ministry in practice. He noted that the pastoral relationship ofmale clergy, who are unable to accept the orders of ordained women, with adiocesan bishop who was female, also needed addressing.

101.

The IDG was established as that ‘group with balanced membership’ with theremit to ‘review how the House of Bishops’ Declaration and the five guiding
principles……is being understood, implemented and received in the
Church’8. It reported back on its work in July 20209 and made twenty-one

7 Part 5 of Review of Nomination to the See of Sheffield and Related Concerns

8 ibid9 Implementation and Dialogue Group Report GS2225

22

recommendations reflecting the 2014 settlement, how is had beencommunicated and how it is being lived out. The IDG sought statisticalinformation from across the Church of England and, from that informationbase, drew the following conclusions:• The settlement has broadly worked but this has required hard work, good
behaviours, good dialogue, good practice, forbearance and love fromthose of all viewpoints.
• The tone of discussion has generally improved and there has been
implementation but not dialogue.
• Those from the traditional catholic or complementarian evangelicalpositions are concerned that their positions are tolerated at best, rather
than being encouraged to flourish.
• There is concern about whether someone in a senior position who does
not support women’s ordination can genuinely support the vocations andministry of female clergy.
• There is a need for more theological consideration of the concepts ofmutuality and reciprocity.
102.

The IDG recommended the establishment of a Standing Commission on theHouse of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests. The
Commission is now in place and is positively engaging with the me in myrole as Independent Reviewer. However, it is not tasked with the further
theological reflection which the IDG noted was still needed and which relates
to the two challenges raised by Sir Philip in relation to Recommendation 1 of
the Sheffield Report. This need for further theological reflection will be pickedup further in consideration of Recommendation 3.

103.

The next recommendation related to the process leading to the nominationof Bishop Philip North to the See of Sheffield. Sir Philip noted that theprocess had been conducted in accordance with the relevant procedures butthat improvements could be made in that process. These were set out inparagraphs 112-124 of his report. This gave rise to Recommendation 2:
Since some of them (the shortcomings in the process) go well beyond thescope of my enquiry and it would, in any event, be wrong to makechanges based solely on what happened in relation to the vacancy in
Sheffield without further consideration of the issues in the round, I
recommend that the matters I have identified are considered alongside
the outcome of the review of the Crown Nominations Commission led
by Professor Oliver O’Donovan, the report of which is I understand to
be received shortly. These should include the issue of the extent towhich the cloak of confidentiality currently surrounding the work of theCommission can be relaxed in order to ensure the degree of23

preparation for the announcement of a nomination commensurate withthe controversy it is likely to arouse10.
104.

A number of the issues identified by Sir Philip in relation to the nomination to
the See of Sheffield would appear to have resonance with some of thoseraised in the submission relating to the See of Blackburn:• The Vacancy in See Committee did, as the guidance indicates, consider
whether to express a view on ‘whether the next bishop should besomeone who will or will not ordain women’, though I will return to thedepth of that discussion under my consideration of how recommendation
4 has been implemented. However, those with whom I spoke did notprovide assurance that the Committee had given consideration to theimplications for the diocese of appointing a non-ordaining bishop.
• A number of those on the Vacancy in See Committee felt that more timeshould have been allowed for their part of the process. This has been
discussed in greater depth under my earlier section on the nomination
process itself.
• As with the nomination to Sheffield, the six elected to the CNC as the
diocesan members for Blackburn did not include an ordained woman,though the Vacancy in See Committee was encouraged to think about
diversity at the time of the election of the six. This remains unusual. Sir
Philip considered the possibility of ring-fencing a place within the six for an
ordained woman. He noted this would raise the question which otherconstituencies or groups might contest that a similar arrangement should
be made for them. Indeed some constituencies might have a morepressing case for representation on the six from the diocese, especially iftheir voice is also absent from the elected central membership, forexample those with disabilities, young people or those from a global
majority heritage.

105.

Whilst these issues appear to continue within the Vacancy in See and Crown
Nominations Commission processes, none of the members of either part ofthe process with whom I spoke suggested that the process had not been
conducted fully in accordance with the Regulation in place at that time.
However, my consideration of the process has led me to suggest that some
aspects of the Vacancy in See process might benefit from review. These aresummarised in my recommendations.

106.

Recommendation 3: I recommend that the House invites the Faith andOrder Commission to examine the theological challenge which has
been posed to the 2014 Settlement and that the results of this work,
together with the House’s response to the pastoral challenge I have

10 Para 124

24

identified in paragraph 192, inform the ongoing process of discussion
and education about the Settlement for which I have also called.
107.

In the Sheffield Report paragraphs 125-130, Sir Philip affirms that thenomination of a non-ordaining bishop, Bishop Philip, to the See of Sheffield
was consistent with the House of Bishops’ Declaration. In the intervening
years nothing has changed to challenge that position. The nomination of anon-ordaining bishop to a diocese in the Church of England remains apossibility and remains consistent with the Declaration.

108.

However, he went on to note the tension between consistency and thedeclaration and being able to fulfil all the requirements of a diocesan bishop.
The questions he raised are raised again in the submission:• What are the consequences for the reciprocal nature of the oath ofcanonical obedience when it is impaired because the bishop receiving theoath does not recognise the orders of the priest giving the oath?
• How can a non-ordaining bishop serve the needs of their priests or be
assured of their ‘efficacious priestly ministry’ in parishes and communities
if they are not assured of the ordination of the priest concerned?
• How can a bishop be a focus for unity if they do not recognise the priestly
orders of all their clergy and do not hold a view shared by the majority intheir diocese or the Church of England?

109.

Although the Faith and Order Commission has produced a study resourceon the Five Guiding Principles, the submission notes that therecommendation has not been fully implemented as the work stopped shortof addressing the theological and pastoral consequences of the appointmentof a non-ordaining bishop. I concur with the submission in its view that this
aspect of the recommendation has yet to be completed and that
responsibility for this rests with the House as the guardians of the 2014
Settlement. This task is outside the remit of the new Standing Commission.

110.

Recommendation 4: I recommend that, together with his colleagues in
the National Church Institutions, and those involved in the dioceses of
Sheffield and Blackburn, the Secretary General reviews the lessons tobe learned from what happened in order to avoid a similar lacuna
occurring in future.

111.

This recommendation arose from the consideration of the reaction to Bishop
Philip’s appointment in the church and beyond and the response of thechurch institutionally to the nomination. The two reactions, he noted, werevery different. Those institutionally a part of the nomination process, theAppointments Secretaries, Crown Nominations Commission members andthe national elements of the ‘National Church Institutions’ were ‘familiar withthe terms of the 2014 settlement’ and understood that the nomination to the25See of Sheffield was consistent with that settlement. In the diocese andcommunity, that familiarity was not widespread and the possibility of thenomination of a bishop who would not ordain women had not been openly
discussed.
112.

The Report notes that the Guidance Notes and Code of Practice for Vacancy
in See Committees incorporates paragraph 12 of the Declaration whichstates that dioceses ‘are entitled to express a view, in the Statement ofNeeds prepared during a vacancy in see, as to whether the diocesan bishop
should be someone who will or will not ordain women’, in the section on
Statement of Needs. The guidance states that one of the matters the
Vacancy in See Committee will ‘need to decide is whether it wishes toexpress a view as to whether the new bishop should be someone who will, or
will not, ordain women’. As indicated in Appendix 4, the majority of dioceses
have chosen to express such a view, though some have not.

113.

While such a view can be expressed in a Statement of Needs, theDeclaration expects that all, whether or not they will ordain women, areequally entitled to be considered for diocesan sees. On this basis, Sir Philipstates that any expression of a view should ‘come only at the end of theconversation in a diocese conducted during a vacancy in see’11. It is not, hesays ‘sufficient simply to put the question without discussing it first’12.

114.

The question in the case of Blackburn is whether the diocese was involved in
the conversation, and the extent to which the Vacancy in See Committee
itself had a conversation which aired the range of views present in the churchand in the diocese before making the decision not to express a view in theStatement of Needs.

115.

The other relevant finding in the Sheffield Report which lead to thisrecommendation was the failure to plan sufficiently for the announcement of
the nomination. This was picked up in the Lessons Learned review13
undertaken by the Secretary General as part of the implementation of
Recommendation 4 of the Sheffield Report. In the case of Blackburn, there
was a much clearer plan developed by a planning group which included bothdiocesan and national membership with the relevant expertise. Key
individuals were briefed in advance of the announcement.

116.

Sir Philip’s recommendation to learn and apply lessons is useful andapplicable in any contested, or potentially contested, nomination whether it
be of a woman bishop or a non-ordaining male bishop. He also noted thatconsideration should be given to providing personal support to the bishop or

11 Paragraph 200 ibid.
12 ibid.
13 Nomination to the See of Sheffield: Lessons Learned for the National Church Institutions in

supporting nominees to diocesan sees

26

bishop-designate concerned as this had not been available to Bishop Philip
in the wake of the Sheffield nomination.
117.

In the interviews and documents received, this recommendation from theSheffield Report has been at least partially implemented in regard to theplanning surrounding the announcement.

118.

Whilst most dioceses do now express a view on whether they would
welcome a bishop who will ordain women, or one who will not, it is not clear
whether the ‘conversation in the diocese’ is evidenced. As noted under myconsideration of the nomination process, the guidance offered in relation to a
Vacancy in See Committee reaching a decision about whether to express
view under paragraph 12 of the Declaration would benefit from review.

MY RECOMMENDATIONS
119.

Having reviewed the information submitted to me and the information I havesought in documentary form and through conversations with individuals
inside and outside the diocese, the Acting Diocesan Secretary of BlackburnDiocese and the Appointments Secretaries, I have a number ofrecommendations to offer. Some fall within the remit of the Standing
Commission, some to the House of Bishops and the Faith and Order
Commission and some to those with responsibility for the Vacancy in See
Committees Regulation and guidance.

120.

I must, however, preface my recommendations with a reminder that:• The nomination of a bishop who will not ordain women is consonant with
the House of Bishops’ Declaration. This was examined in detail in the
Sheffield Report, and nothing has changed in this regard since that report.
• The election of the Chair of the Vacancy in See Committee and theappointment of additional members, as documented in the minutes of the
Bishop’s Council was undertaken within the process set out in the
Vacancy in See Committees Regulation.
• Once the vacancy was announced, the processes within the diocese andthe Vacancy in See Committee were undertaken in accordance with theRegulation. This included the consultation timing as there is no set
timescale in the Regulation and the timescale was not out of line withthose in other dioceses.
• The consultation process for the Statement of Needs included
communications to all clergy and parishes in accordance with the
instructions noted at the first meeting of the Committee, thus providing
opportunity for them to respond.

27• The usual processes were followed by the Appointments Secretaries inrelation to the consultation for the Secretaries Memorandum and included
the opportunity for individuals and groups to respond to the Church Times
notice.
121.

Concerns were expressed in relation to conflict of interest and whether
participants felt able to speak freely if they did not agree with the perceived‘party’ line of the diocese. Some of these factors may be unique to Blackburn
but others would appear to have wider application and I therefore
recommend that, in relation to the Vacancy in See Committee and its
work, the following matters should be considered:
1. Who should be eligible to chair the Committee. There are pros and consin having a suffragan bishop in the role.
a. They should have the skills to undertake the role and have a goodknowledge of the diocese butb. the chair also oversees the diocesan part of the processes for theappointment of the bishop who will have authority over them, on behalfof the Committee, which is a conflict of interest, though in practice thearrangements tend to be made by the Diocesan office, andc. because of the line management responsibility they hold it could
potentially be difficult for clergy in the process to contribute to thediscussion openly for fear of career consequences if they express aview contrary to that of the bishop
2. Whether a neutral party should chair any open consultation meeting forthe reasons set out in 1 above.
3. How to ensure there is a conversation in the diocese, not just in the
Vacancy in See Committee, to ascertain whether the diocese would
welcome a bishop who will ordain women or one who will not, and how
the outcome of that conversation, and similar discussion within the
Vacancy in See Committee should be evidenced in the records of the
Vacancy in See meetings.
4. Guidance should be made available for consultation meetings held online.
This should advise that participants are informed who will be using any
recording and that, where possible, all participants are ‘visible’ to otherparticipants ie they are on the participant list or, when several individuals
are participating from one location, names are listed in the chat or theindividuals are physically visible..

122.

The written and oral evidence from within the diocese expressed a sense oftime pressure for completion of the Statement of Needs and Secretaries
consultation. Whilst the consultation period for Blackburn was not out of thenorm, I recommend consideration of a minimum consultation timescale28

for the Statement of Needs as this would have been helpful in allaying
time anxiety in this case and could be similarly helpful more generally.
123.

Although there has been progress in relation to the implementation of therecommendations in the Sheffield Report, a number of matters remain
outstanding. Significantly these include theological and pastoral challenges
identified in that report. These are at the heart of the submission from
WATCH, and I recommend that resource is identified to take thenecessary theological work forward alongside the theologicalreflection requested in the report of the Implementation and Dialogue
Group.

124.

Whilst it is, and it remains, the case that the Declaration leaves open thepossibility of the nomination of a non-ordaining diocesan bishop, theconsequences of so doing in terms of the exercising of the role within the
diocese were not explicitly discussed and planned for. The arrangements
articulated in the Declaration relate only to those who are unable, on
theological grounds, to accept women as priests and bishops. In the context
of a diocesan bishop who does not accept such ministry, it would not be
unreasonable to expect that some review mechanism should be available tothose whose ministry the bishop does not accept. Such a mechanism should
not isolate female clergy from the life of the diocese but should provide forthem in a reciprocal manner to the review arrangements already articulated
in the Declaration.

125.

As I noted in paragraph 10, Sir Philip Mawer, in his 2017 Annual Report,
highlighted that the role of the Independent Reviewer, as currently describedessentially only applies to the making of arrangements for those unable, on
theological grounds, to accept the ministry of women as bishops and priests.
It does not incorporate the review of situations relating to the Declaration, butwhich are affecting those who are happy to receive or offer such ministry. He
suggested that the scope of the role be examined in light of his observation.
In paragraph 10, I noted that I have made these inquiries because they havetheir foundation in his report. Had that not been the case, it is arguable
whether this submission would have fallen within my remit.

126.

I therefore recommend that, alongside the implementations of the
Sheffield Report, consideration is given to re-examining the scope of
the Independent Reviewer’s jurisdiction in light of that review and thecomments and recommendation made by Sir Philip in his 2017 Annual
Report.

MY CONCLUSIONS
127.

The WATCH submission invited me to be bold in my recommendations.
Whether they will be judged as bold or not will be for others to determine. I

29

suspect that, in spite of requests at several points in the submission, there
will be disappointment that I have not recommended that further
appointments of non-ordaining bishops be halted until the recommendationsof the Sheffield Report are fully implemented. I have not done so for two
reasons. The first is that I believe it to be outside the remit of the
Independent Reviewer. Secondly, and more importantly, the Declaration stillenvisages that all orders of ministry are equally open to all, whether or notthey are able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests . The
logical conclusion would therefore be a freeze on all CNC processes for thetime being. I believe this would be highly detrimental to the church and, more
importantly, to those put in the position of Acting Diocesans during
vacancies. Over the winter of 2020/21 I was privileged to meet with Bishops
in small groups and one to one as part of another piece of work. During
those conversations I gained a new appreciation of the pressure placed on
diocesan bishops. It also became clear that acting diocesan bishops haveadded pressure because of the capacity reduction in the diocese and it
would be unfair to extend or exacerbate that pressure for what might be aconsiderable period of time if the theological reflection needed is to beundertaken thoroughly, which I believe it must be.
128.

As I bring this report to a close, I would offer some final thoughts:• The submission, and some of my conversations with those in Blackburn
diocese, raise the question of the future of women’s ordained ministry inthe diocese as a consequence of this appointment. It is inevitable that a
diocesan bishop will attract to their diocese like-minded people – whether
that be church tradition or views on a particular area of debate within the
church. It is beholden, therefore, on the senior staff within the diocese, toproactively seek to maintain the breadth of ministry experience. This might
be challenging but is not something that can be delivered by regulation,measure or central action, convenient though that would be. Current
statistical information suggests that Blackburn Diocese is aware of theneed to take action in this regard.
• Doubtless, there was disappointment, anger and anxiety among some at
the outcome of this nomination process, as is evident from the submission
and the further evidence. While some of the evidence I have heard orread suggests that this process had flaws, that has not been theconsistent message and the documentary evidence demonstrates that therequired processes were followed.
• the anxiety about timing of the process does appear to have been
exacerbated by the language and tone issues which I outlined and is areminder that that great care needs to be taken with communications
throughout the nomination process.

30

129.

Finally I would like to come back to the preamble and particularly mycomments on the variety of accounts of the process. Each person who has
contributed has, I am sure, done so with positive intentions and from their
particular experience and expertise and I would like to thank all those who
sent information to WATCH or to me, including the various Diocesan
Secretaries who dug out their Statements of Needs, and those with whom I
spoke who offered their time and who I hope felt able to speak freely about
their experiences.

130.

It is my desire that the learning from this experience will prove valuable intaking the Church of England forward in a way that recognises andappreciates the ministry of all for the sake of the Kingdom.

Maggie Swinson
March 2024

31

Appendix 1

Women and the Church (https://womenandthechurch.org)
Transparency Accountability Justice()(https://womenandthechurch.org)

Women and the Church (https://womenandthechurch.org)
Transparency ✧ Accountability ✧ Justice(https://twitter.com/watch_act)(https://www.facebook.com/WomenAndTheChurch(mailto:admin@womenandthechurch.org)« All News (https://womenandthechurch.org/news/)
The Nomination of The Rt Rev’d Philip North as the next diocesan
Bishop of Blackburn (https://womenandthechurch.org/news/thenomination-of-the-rt-revd-philip-north-as-the-next-diocesan-bishopof-blackburn/)
March 10th, 2023

Women and the Church (WATCH), a national campaign group for gender equality
in the Church of England, notes the nomination of The Right Reverend Philip
North, Suffragan Bishop of Burnley, as the next diocesan Bishop of Blackburn.
32

We recognise Bishop Philip’s many gifts and are aware that he has been
supportive of women in a range of ministerial posts in the Church, some at seniorlevels.
Nonetheless, Bishop Philip does not recognise the ordination of women as priests
and bishops and will be the first diocesan bishop to be appointed with histheological position on the ordination of women since women were permitted tobe bishops in 2014.
In that light, WATCH cannot support the nomination and has the following
concerns:
1. A diocesan bishop oversees all clergy in their diocese, both women and men andso, appointing a diocesan bishop who does not personally recognise theordination of women, could mean that some female clergy would struggle toflourish under his oversight. Unlike male clergy who do not fully accept women’s
ministry, female clergy (and their parishes) do not have the right to extended
episcopal oversight by a bishop who affirms their ministries – both in theirauthority and ability to carry out priestly roles.
2. There are non-ordaining bishops who are supportive of women in the Church,
as is Bishop Philip, and have encouraged them in their ministries andrecommended them to senior roles but, because these bishops do not fullyrecognise the priesthood of their female clergy, they do not ordain women in
their diocese.
3. Questions arise as to how non-ordaining bishops can authorise female clergy tocelebrate the Eucharist, baptise, give blessings and absolve people of their sins.
When a priest is licensed to a parish role, such as vicar, the diocesan bishop
shares with him or her ‘the cure of souls’ to do these things, and usually does
this in a public service so that all the parishioners can hear and see this authority
being shared with their new vicar. Parishioners need to know that their priest isaffirmed by their diocesan bishop as being able to carry out priestly duties
without question, and all priests need to know this too. When parishioners
come to understand that their bishop is not personally confident that female
priests can undertake priestly roles, such as consecrating the bread and wine,
this undermines the authority of their vicar, if she is a woman.
4. Church of England ministry statistics indicate that dioceses with diocesan
bishops who do not accept the ordination of women, or which have a history of33

senior leaders who do not fully accept women’s ministry, have a significantly
lower percentage of women holding stipendiary posts than men. At the bottomof the table is the Diocese of Chichester, which has always had a bishop who
does not ordain women, with the lowest at 16%, compared to Ely at the top of
the table with 43%.[1] The reasons for women’s ministry continuing not toflourish in many dioceses need urgently to be analysed, understood andresponded to by Ministry Divisions in the Church of England.
5. Bishop Philip is a member of and on the Council of The Society of St Wilfrid and
St Hilda (SSWSH), which is a network of clergy who do not share in the
Eucharist when it is presided over by any female priest, any male priest ordainedby a female bishop, and by any bishop, male or female, who has ordained
women. Appointing a diocesan bishop who does not share in the Eucharist withthe whole of the House of Bishops is a challenge to the unity of that body andthe Church’s teaching on this matter.
Rev Martine Oborne, Chair of WATCH, says ‘I personally struggled when mydiocesan bishop was the Right Reverend and Right Honourable Richard Chartres
KCVO. I was ordained by him as a deacon in St Paul’s Cathedral in 2009, but he did
not go on to ordain me or any other deacon, male or female, the following year.
This was a position he had adopted since it became possible for women to bepriests some fifteen years earlier. Instead, he delegated priestings to his Area
Bishops. In the case of my priesting, my Area Bishop was on compassionate leavein 2010 and so I wrote to Bishop Richard and asked if would make an exception to
his rule and ordain me and the rest of the orphaned ‘Stepney Seven’ of male andfemale deacons who were due to be priested. He refused, and I was ordained by
the Bishop of Sodor and Man, a delightful man, but someone I’d never met before
or since.
Fortunately today, both my diocesan and Area bishops recognise my orders, but I
don’t think I could personally flourish in my ministry if they did not. Even in mypresent situation, I find it undermining to explain to members of my congregationthat some of my clergy colleagues, including bishops, would not receive bread andwine that I had consecrated. So I tend not to say anything about the situation.
Nonetheless, this is a heavy burden to carry and makes me feel that I am a second-34

class priest. And I fear some female clergy with diocesan bishops who don’t
recognise their ordinations, no matter how supportive they are, may feel this evenmore.’

Other notes on Bishop Philip North
1. North is a member of the Council of Bishops of The Society of St Wilfrid and St
Hilda. The Society was created in 2010 by a group of bishops of the Church of
England who do not ordain women to the priesthood. One of the stated main
purposes of The Society is to guarantee a ministry in the historic apostolic
succession in which our people can have confidence – in other words, to offer‘sacramental assurance.’ Only male priests and, among them, only those whohave not been ordained by a women can provide such ‘sacramental assurance.’
This means that The Society does not recognise that bread and wine
consecrated by female clergy have that sacramental assurance.
2. He is a priest administrator of the Anglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, anational shrine which does not permit female clergy to preside over communion
there.
3. He was consecrated at York Minster on 2 February 2015. The laying on ofhands was restricted to three bishops “who share his theological conviction
regarding the ordination of women”; the other bishops at the service, including
the only woman then consecrated as a bishop, Libby Lane, and John Sentamu,
Archbishop of York, gathered around him during the consecration prayer instead.

[1] https://womenandthechurch.org/resources/a-report-on-the-developments-inwomens-ministry-in-2021/ (https://womenandthechurch.org/resources/a-reporton-the-developments-in-womens-ministry-in-2021/)

35

Appendix 2

The Bishop of Lancaster
The Rt Revd Dr Jill Duff
The Diocese of Blackburn
4th April 2022
Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ,
Vacancy-in-See – Prayer and Consultation
I am writing to invite your prayers for the Diocese of Blackburn and the Vacancy process.
We are sad to see +Julian and Heather retire, after bringing so much faith and hope toLancashire. We look again in faith and hope to God to provide in this next season.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways
submit to him and he will make straight your paths (Proverbs 3.5-6)
We now know that interview dates for the next Bishop of Blackburn will be 8-9th
November, with the announcement in January 2023. This would mean a new Diocesan
Bishop in place by July 2023.
This is much faster than we expected, but it is good news for our Diocese because thissignificantly shortens our vacancy compared to usual expectations. Every year the
Archbishops’ allocate a certain number of dates in their diary for the Crown Nomination
Commission (CNC) whose role is to appoint Diocesan Bishops. We have jumped the queue
for CNC dates over Lincoln & Winchester.
I was elected by Bishop’s Council to Chair the Vacancy in See Committee which oversees
the production of the Diocesan Statement of Needs and elects six CNC reps from our
Committee (at least three lay) to serve on the CNC. In case you wonder, suffragan bishops
are not eligible to serve as one of these six. Our first meeting, last Wednesday at Whalley
Abbey, was positive in building relationships both within the Committee and with ourArchbishops’ Appointment Secretaries, all within an atmosphere of prayer and faith for the
future.
Key dates to pray are:26th April
24th May
June & July
End July

Vacancy in See: Comments on draft documents in view of Diocesan feedback
Vacancy in See: Signing off documents & Election of the six CNC Reps
This is when you will be able to suggest names of who you would like as thenext Bishop of Blackburn
CNC draw up Long List of candidates (8-15)
Diocesan Offices, Clayton House, Walker Office Park, Blackburn. BB1 2QE
Tel: 01254 503099 | Email: bishop.lancaster@blackburn.anglican.org

36

21st Sept
8-9th Nov

CNC meet in York to shortlist five candidates
CNC interview candidates in YorkWe would love to hear your views on our next Bishop of Blackburn:
To collect views as widely as possible in this shortened timescale, we are using jotforms
accessed by the QR code. It only takes a five minutes to prayerfully complete.

There’s an alternative for Children here:

Please complete this jot form by 17th April, if at all possible. This can be done in groups orindividuals. For those without easy internet access, the Word version is attached
Note that there will be plenty of opportunity to suggest names after the Statement of Needs
has been signed off on 24th May.
Latest news
Throughout this period, for up-to-date information, please go this page on our website:www.blackburn.anglican.org/vacancy-in-see
May God continue this time of favour in the Diocese of Blackburn where the harvest fields
are still plentiful, and the workers are still few.
With my thanks and prayers+Jill
Chair of Vacancy-in-See Committee

37

Appendix 3

The Bishop of Lancaster
The Rt Revd Dr Jill Duff
The Diocese of Blackburn
20th April 2022
Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ,
Vacancy-in-See – Zoom Consultation
Happy Easter! Christ is Risen. We hope last weekend was an encouragement to you all.
This is to notify you of the Zoom Consultation with the Archbishops’ Appointment
Advisers which will take place next Thursday 28th April at 7pm.
https://churchofenglandorg.zoom.us/j/94114694303?pwd=VXlxT1VXU3JheFFBSnlrWEVWNXZKdz09
Meeting ID: 941 1469 4303
Passcode: 829880
The meeting will be chaired by Bishop Jill. The purpose is for our Appointment Advisers,
Stephen Knott and Helen Dimmock, to hear first-hand feedback from anyone living in
Lancashire on their views about our next Bishop of Blackburn and the needs of the Dioceseof Blackburn. This is in addition to their individual consultations (in person and by Zoom)
which they are holding over the next month, before our final Vacancy in See meeting on 24thMay.
This comes on top of our own Diocesan consultation. Bishop Jill wrote about this on 4th April,
but here’s a reminder of the QR codes:
We would love to hear your views on our next Bishop of Blackburn:
To collect views as widely as possible in this shortened timescale, we are using jotforms
accessed by the QR code. It only takes a five minutes to prayerfully complete.

Diocesan Offices, Clayton House, Walker Office Park, Blackburn. BB1 2QE
Tel: 01254 503099 | Email: bishop.lancaster@blackburn.anglican.org

38

There’s an alternative for Children here:

Please complete this jot form by 29th April, if at all possible. This can be done in groups orindividuals. For those without easy internet access, the Word version is attached
Note that there will be plenty of opportunity to suggest names after the Statement of Needs
has been signed off on 24th May.
Latest news
Throughout this period, for up-to-date information, please go this page on our website:www.blackburn.anglican.org/vacancy-in-see
May God continue this time of favour in the Diocese of Blackburn where the harvest fields
are still plentiful, and the workers are still few.
With our thanks and prayers+Jill and Stephen Whittaker
Chair & Secretary of Vacancy-in-See Committee

39

Appendix 4

25th May 2022

Diocesan ‘Vacancy in See’ - importantannouncements re next steps••••

Crown Nomination Commission representatives
Statement of Needs
Proposing candidates
Prayer for the next Bishop of BlackburnOur final meeting of the Vacancy-in-See Committee was held on
Tuesday, May 24 at Blackburn Cathedral, writes Rt Rev. Dr Jill Duff, Chair of
the Committee.
We were delighted to welcome Stephen Knott (Archbishops’ Appointment
Secretary) and Helen Dimmock (Prime Minister’s Appointment Secretary) tomeet with us over a buffet supper.
They had appreciated spending time in the Diocese and the time spent in all the
consultations. We then prayer time in the Jesus Chapel before our meeting.
A song used in our prayer time at the Cathedral which resonated with many was'Be still for the presence of the Lord'. May we all know His stillness, presence andleading in the coming months.”
At the meeting which followed prayer we ...
••... signed off the Statement of Needs (see below)... elected our six Crown Nomination Commission (CNC)
representatives, from of a total of 12 who stood for nomination (seebelow for the six names)

Crown Nomination Commission representatives
The following six people were elected to the Crown Nominations
Commission and will interview potential candidates on November 8 and 9.

40

Please keep them especially in your prayers ...
•
•
•
•
•
•

Rev Paul Benfield
Rev Munawar Din
Dr Laura Oliver
Mrs Jacqueline Stamper
Mr Sam Walmsley
Rev Dr Tom Woolford

Statement of Needs
The Statement of Needs document is available to view here via an 'Issuu
flipbook' which allows you to view the whole document online without theneed to download.
Click below and you will be taken to the document on Issuu where the best way
to view is to click either 'larger view' or 'full screen' and follow the arrows at rightto travel through the document.

Proposing candidates
The Church Times will publish notification of the Vacancy in the See ofBlackburn this Friday.
Anyone wishing to comment on the needs of the Diocese or the wider church, or
who wishes to propose candidates, should write before June 12, and via email,to:••

Mr Stephen Knott (Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments):
aaad.office@churchofengland.org
Mrs Helen Dimmock (Ecclesiastical Secretary to the Crown and Lord
Chancellor): helen.dimmock@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

Prayer for the next Bishop of Blackburn
Please continue to keep this discernment process for our next Bishop ofBlackburn in your prayers and particulary using this prayer ...

41

Heavenly Father, we pray for a bishop full of your Holy Spirit:a disciple who makes disciples,a bold witness to Jesus,
and a Christ-like leader,able to inspire children and young people with the transforming message ofyour Gospel.
We ask this in the name of your Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen
We have produced a prayer card with this prayer and the Vision
prayer. Download here.

Ronnie Semley, May 2022

42

Appendix 5
Statements of Needs since the Sheffield Appointment Derby to date
DioceseStatement of Needs text

Truro

Still in preparation

Women’s Ordainer
ministry/
specified
5 GuidingPrinciples

Further Evidence cited: Our new bishop, who may be female
or male, must be willing to ordain women. This was not fromthe Statement of needs as it is not due to be finalised until
early 2024
Elywill ordain women and men and will personally fully affirm andsupport the ministry of both, and may themselves be male orfemaleExeterExeter looks for a bishop who will ordain women and men
and accepts and implements the 5 Guiding Principles that aim
to encourage mutual flourishing.
Sodor & Man No mention of ordination or the Five Guiding Principles
Carlisle
No mention of ordination or the Five Guiding Principles
Peterborough Wholeheartedly ordains men and women and upholds theFive Guiding Principles for mutual flourishing.
Birmingham
We are seeking a diocesan bishop who is willing to ordain
women. Our bishop needs to be fully and warmly committed
both to the ministry of women, ordained and lay, and to theongoing extended contribution of the bishops who offer
extended episcopal oversight, as framed within the Five
Guiding Principles, and our clear commitment to Mutual
Flourishing.
Blackburn
We are committed to living out mutual flourishing. We strongly
support women’s ministry, both lay and ordained, and wehave 30 Resolution parishes (including 18 Society parishes).
We hope the Diocese operates as a family where theologicaldifference does not diminish relationships and the sharing of
the Gospel.
Portsmouth
We value the ministry of men and women clergy as integral toour diocese and so our next bishop must be someone who iswilling to ordain both.
Newcastle
is welcoming to all, committed to the Five Guiding Principles
and affirms both the ministry of women and the contribution of
all the diverse traditions in the Diocese.
is willing to ordain women and men.
Salisbury
The ordained (and episcopal) leadership of women iswelcomed. We believe that our new Bishop will ordain
women. At the same time, we are committed to honouring theFive Guiding Principles, and to the flourishing of the small
number of parishes with alternative episcopal oversight.
Liverpool
The ministry of women is warmly accepted in the diocese.
We would wish to continue to have a diocesan bishop who
will ordained both men and women to all orders of ministry.
Lincoln
Our new Bishop, who may be female or male, must be willingto ordain women.

43

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Rochester

The ministry of women clergy, until recently including one of
our archdeacons, is welcomed unreservedly and they play afull part in the life of the Diocese.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

yes

It is likely that our next diocesan bishop will be someone who
is willing to ordain women.

Winchester

Chelmsford

Bath & Wells

ChesterYork

NorwichHereford
Bristol

Derby

At the same time, our Bishop needs to be fully and warmly
committed both to the ministry of women at every level and tothe ongoing contribution of the Bishops of Maidstone andRichborough within the Diocese, as framed within the Five
Guiding Principles and our clear commitment to Mutual
Flourishing.
We also seek a bishop who will ordain women and men, while
maintaining good relationships with all expressions of
Anglicanism in the diocese, in line with the Five Guiding
Principles.
The ministry of women clergy, including three of ourarchdeacons, is welcomed unreservedly and they play a fullpart in the life of the diocese.
It is likely that our next diocesan bishop will be someone who
is willing to ordain women.
As a diocese we are not particularly polarised between
different church traditions and want to ensure that all continue
to be valued. We seek a bishop who is: welcoming to all andreaches out to all; is an advocate of racial justice, is fullycommitted to the Living in Love and Faith process; isrespectful of the Five Guiding Principles; and who ordains
women and men.
the diocese in which the first woman bishop in the Church of
England was appointed.
The priestly and episcopal ministry of women is widely
accepted and welcomed.
We seek the person, male or female, whom God is calling tothe office of Archbishop of York, and who is:
An ordainer of both men and women who is committed to theFive Guiding Principles
A unifier committed to the five guiding principles who willordain men and womenable to unite us in love while holding the tensions in belief andpractice
We seek therefore a new Bishop who will ordain women to
the priesthood, but be understanding of those who cannot
accept such ministry.
The Diocese of Bristol was the first diocese to ordain womenas priests in 1994 and its Diocesan Synod voted unopposed
to approve the proposals for women bishops in 2011. We feelthat the Bishop of Bristol should be someone who will ordain
women.
We don’t mind whether they are a man or a woman, but wewould want them to be willing to ordain women themselves,as well as being committed to the Five Guiding Principles ofmutual flourishing for the whole Church.

44

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

TruroLondonCornwall has a strong spirit of tolerance and in our church thishas meant that there has been a positive welcome to theordination of women and to clergy in same-sex relationships,
as well as encouraging responses to liturgical evolution, whileat the same time maintaining respect for those with different
views.
We would like our new diocesan bishop to continue topromote wholeheartedly the role of women in ministry within
the diocese, including their ordination, but simultaneously
respect the position of those who wish to retain, under current
national agreements, a ministry preference for male clergy.
affirms the priestly and episcopal ministry of women, andassures those who on the grounds of theological conviction
are unable to receive it that they have an honoured place inthe Diocese, so that all traditions can thrive.
A bishop who is committed to affirming women in theirordained roles as priests and bishops in the church byappointing, supporting, pastoring and enabling their ministry
and fostering their vocations (irrespective of the bishop's own
theological position on Holy Orders);

45

Yes

Yes