PORTSMOUTH DIOCESAN SYNOD
Minutes of a meeting held on Saturday 12 November 2011 in Cathedral House. The Synod
Eucharist was celebrated in the Cathedral at 12.15 pm.
PRESENT: The Rt Revd Christopher Foster (Bishop of Portsmouth), some 40 members of
the House of Clergy and 43 members of the House of Laity. The Revd Canon Jane Hedges
and Prebendary David Houlding were also in attendance. Apologies had been received from
14 clergy and 4 lay members.
THE BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH IN THE CHAIR
968
WELCOME AND NOTICES
Bishop Christopher welcomed everyone to the November Synod and opened with prayer.
969
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 11 June 2011
The minutes were agreed as a true record and signed.
970
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
Bishop Christopher addressed Synod: the text of his address is included as Appendix 1.
LUCY DOCHERTY IN THE CHAIR
971
Stewardship and mission Cycle – 2012 budget
Lucy Docherty welcomed the Director of Finance, Stephen Collyer, to address Synod about the
proposed Diocesan Budget for 2012. Stephen opened by offering a resume of the 2011 year to date
position and highlighted that the after firm commitments had been taken into account, cash reserves
available stood at £419,999 at year end which represented slightly less than the Board of Finance’s
target of 6 weeks’ free reserves. He advised that during 2011 so far two new properties for clergy use
had been purchased, and that £150,000 was set aside for investment in the installation of solar panels
on Diocesan properties.
Synod members were advised that during 2011 parish share receipts against total planned income
were running some 2% behind 2010 rate. The current Management accounts forecast indicated a
year end small surplus of £46,000.
Stephen Collyer’s presentation is included at Appendix 2. He reported on the consultation process
and outcome that had informed the budget put before Synod. The Bishop’s Council proposed a
budget which would involve an overall Parish Share increase of 1.5%. He reminded Synod that in
2012 clergy numbers funded through the budget would reduce in line with the decision of the
November 2010 Synod.
Finally, Stephen drew attention to the forward projections offered in the papers before Synod 2013 to
2015, stressing that these were projections based upon certain assumptions, so at best were only
indicative.
Lucy Docherty thanked Stephen Collyer for the presentation and thanked all who had been involved in
the process to being the budget before Synod.
1
The following members spoke in the debate: Tim Jessiman (Havant), Stephen Girling (Fareham),
June Hanan (Havant), Ian Johnston (Petersfield), Michael Oakley (Petersfield), and Bob White
(Portsmouth).
Points made in debate included:
- Attention was drawn to the fact that keeping parish share increase low and reducing clergy
numbers would result in a reliance on lay and retired clergy.
- The consultation debates had centred on the use of the transition fund rather than on the
amount people ought to give.
- A request was made to remove the exclusion of existing work from the proposed Mission
Opportunity Fund criteria.
- There was a lack of options offered and the information provided to parishes and deaneries. - The consultation involved discussing options for paying parish share rather than looking at
the whole budget and what we are spending and where we are spending it.
- Concern over the potential administration costs for the Mission Opportunities Fund, which
recycled parish money.
- Bob White, Chair of the House of Clergy stated that Bishops Council had listened to many
voices who had said that the increase was too much and others that more should be raised.
Parishes able to raise and contribute more the mission.
John Gwynn, Chair of the Diocesan Finance Committee moved the motion:


‘This Synod approves the budget submitted by the Diocesan Board of Finance for the
year ended 31 December 2012’
‘This Synod authorizes the Board to seek to raise the sum of £4,623,678 in parish
share from parishes for the year ended 31 December 2012’
Seconded by Eugene Organ:
The motion was passed by a large majority with 5 votes against and 2 abstentions.
BOB WHITE IN CHAIR
972: Ghana Presentation by Bishop Christopher and Terry Louden:
Bishop Christopher opened the presentation and stressed the importance of the Ghana link, indicating
his own personal commitment to that. He noted that for unavoidable reasons this was the first trip by
the Bishop of Portsmouth for many years. They had received an enormously warm welcome and had
strengthened friendships. The Bishop had seen the seminary and the retreat centre that had been
supported by Lent Appeal and other contributions from Portsmouth, and was pleased to see the
library of theological books transported from Portsmouth had found a good home. He and Sally
Davenport had preached, and the Bishop had given a talk at a large celebration and ordination
service. The Bishop set out his hopes for the future development of the Ghana link at diocesan level
and particularly of his hope to offer skills transference and training through sending people to Ghana
for periods. He stated that the trip had been both challenging and tiring and that he planned to return
to Ghana to visit link areas they had not reached during the visit this time. Bishop Christopher paid
tribute to the effort and commitment put into the link by Terry Louden over many years. The Bishop
informed Synod that both Terry Louden and Tom Kennar had been made Canons of Christchurch
Cathedral, Cape Coast. The Bishop also highlighted the commitment of Graham Morris who had been
made a Canon in May at Bishop Aglionby Cathedral, Tamale. The Bishop congratulated all three.
The presentation slides are at Appendix 3. Terry Louden spoke to these.
973: Diocesan Synod Elections 2012.
The proposal for Synod elections was passed nem.com.
2
974: General Synod Report.
There were no questions or queries were raised with regard to the written General Synod Report. It
was confirmed that the Article 8 reference on the Anglican Covenant would be debated in Portsmouth
at the February 2012 meeting.
THE BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH IN THE CHAIR
975: Women in the Episcopate:
Bishop Christopher introduced the debate from General Synod with regard to women in the
episcopate. Bishop Christopher reminded members that the votes from Deanery Synods reported in
the papers before them were indicative only and that members had a free vote. Participation in the
debate was for Synod members only. The Bishop then introduced and welcomed Canon Jane Hedges
and Prebendary David Houlding and opened the floor for them to make their speeches to Synod.
Canon Jane Hedges:
Cannon Jane Hedges indicated that the issue to hand is not whether women should be permitted into
the Episcopate but how it should happened. The question was therefore how this should be done
without creating second class Bishops or undermining their authority. It was crucial that the Church of
England finds a way forward in this.
The question now was have we found a way forward in this proposal? Jane said she believed that we
had. Arrangements would be made for those unable to accept the authority of women bishops through
the proposed Code of Practice.
Prebendary David Houlding:
Prebendary David Houlding said he was pleased for the invitation to speak and that this is not a
personal matter but a matter of conscience and also a matter of biblical evidence, tradition and the
Incarnation of the Lord himself. Nevertheless this issue before us was about the way women should
enter into the Episcopate rather than whether they should be allowed into it.
So David asked should women be in the Episcopate and does the legislation provide for this to
happen? The answer with regard to the legislation was no, but that the time was right to have women
Bishops and indeed women must be included to allow the mission of the church to flourish.
The current proposal however was he believed a recipe for greater division because it depends on a
Code of Practice and a Diocesan Bishop having regard to that.
Following a short time for questions of clarification, the debate was opened.
Hugh Wright (East Wight): Observed that it was strange and worrying that the issue of women
Bishops seems to be more divisive than the diverse understanding within the Church of England of
the Lord’s Supper. He agreed that of course there should be provision for opponents but not for the
creation of separate enclaves. He therefore urged synod to vote for the amendment and not to water
down the main vote.
Will Hughes (Petersfield): Stated that we should vote for women Bishops and believed it would
happen. It was however important how it would happen for those that will find this difficult and for
whom we must care. One problem with the proposed provision was that those who must object for
theological reasons and cannot accept the authority of a woman bishop must nevertheless go to her
and put themselves under her authority in order to be released from it.
June Hanan, Havant Deanery: June indicated that what is important is how we cope with this
situation and stressed the importance of men and women working together. The Church of England
needed to work together and would in the end appoint women Bishops without too much trouble.
3
Nick Ralph, Portsmouth Deanery: spoke in favour of the motion and legislation and said the
problem is if we revise the legislation we delay it. This would send a bad message to the world if the
result is say a two year delay.
The Dean, David Brindley urged support of the motion and not the following motion and would have
preferred a single clause motion. The time is right to move forward and to do so as quickly as at
present we are perceived to be only talking to ourselves.
Philip Cochrane, Fareham Deanery: Philip indicated he was in favour of women Bishops but not at
any cost and would rather wait and get it right. How the issue is handled is vital and that means
speaking to those who disagree with us. Whatever the result of this issue Philip indicated that all
members of the Church need to in effect continue to eat with one another.
Motion to vote:
“That this Synod approve the proposals embodied in the draft Bishops
and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and in
draft Amending Canon No 30.”
Result by houses
Bishop: For 1
Clergy: For 36 Against 2
Laity:
For 36 Against 6
First following motion proposed by Philip Cochrane on behalf of Fareham Deanery and seconded by
Stephen Girling:
“This Synod
1. Thanks all those that have enabled the draft Measure to be considered by the dioceses for
their commitment and contribution.
2. Recognises that the draft legislation is a compromise for all who have deeply held convictions
about the ordination of women.
3. Urges the House of Bishops and the General Synod to move as swiftly as possible to pass
draft legislation unamended with a Code of Practice that undergirds its aims so that mission
and evangelism can be focussed more fully.”
Bob White, Portsmouth Deanery: Bob White indicated that his voting at General Synod had
changed and that his voting pattern had been somewhat erratic. However he believed the legislation
to be inadequate and as such there was a danger it might not pass. The challenge therefore was to
bridge the gap between those that accept women Bishops with those that cannot and are unable to
use the code of practice that is proposed.
In favour 13, Against 58, Abstentions 11 (for those who spoke in debate see addendum to these
minutes)
Second following motion proposed by Mark Whiting (on his own account) and seconded by Bob
White:
‘This Synod,
1. desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England; and
therefore
4
2. calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and
Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on
theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive Episcopal
oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure
rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.’
Mark Whiting, Portsmouth Deanery: explained he was the chairman of the local Forward in Faith
group and as an Anglo-catholic believes they are part of the one Holy Catholic and apostolic church
linked and shared with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church. This motion had however originated
in the Evangelical wing of the church. He stated that what is needed is something more substantial
than a code of practice.
There followed contributions from 9 members in favour of the motion and three against. There being
no other members wishing to speak, the Bishop invited comments on this following motion from the
guest speakers.
David Houlding: David concluded by saying that if you are in favour of women Bishops then you can
vote for this and that any delay would be small say 3 to 6 months. This following motion helps us get
this right.
Jane Hedges: Jane concluded by saying it would be a disaster to vote for this following motion and
that if you take away Diocesan Bishop Authority it undermines them. Jane also went on to say that it
matters if we delay as this sends out a message to the world. Ultimately a vote for this following
motion will undermine the original vote.
The meeting then moved to a vote on the following motion:
In favour 13, against 66 and Abstentions 1 (for others who spoke in this debate see addendum to
these minutes)
Bishop Christopher thanked everyone in attendance and closed the Synod with prayer at 3:40PM.
5
Addendum to Portsmouth Diocesan Synod minute 975 (Saturday 12
November 2011) as agreed at Synod on 18 February 2012
Women in the Episcopate
Record of those who spoke in following motion debates
First following motion (Fareham deanery):
Lay
Geoffrey Barwick
David Bennison
Clergy
Philip Cochrane
Annis Fessey
Bob White
Mark Whiting
Robin Coutts
Second following motion (Mark Whiting):
Lay
Stuart Forster
Lucy Docherty
Amber Vincent-Prior
Ian Johnston
Hugh Mason
Debbie Sutton
Clergy
Mark Whiting
David Brindley
Hugh Wright
Bob White
Will Hughes
Gavin Collins
Graham Morris
6
Appendix 1
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO THE PORTSMOUTH DIOCESAN SYNOD
ON SATURDAY 12TH NOVEMBER 2011
I need first to apologise to the Synod. It had been my intention, informally trailed in a few conversations, to
offer today some thoughts after a year as your bishop, some pointers and possibilities for the future based on
reflecting on a year’s ministry among you and the community and people we serve in this diocese. Rightly you
should expect that from one now involved, up to my neck and happily so, in the ministry for mission we share;
one of you and with you, yet still new enough to offer the perspective of first encounters, fresh discoveries and
initial impressions of the opportunities and challenges.
But such a task, with the raising, potentially, of strategic issues and the consideration of priorities would add
unhelpfully to an already necessarily weighty agenda. It is also better suited to the next Synod which falls
nearer the start of the budget setting cycle which today reaches its conclusion. Next time will give Bishop’s
Council, charged with holding together policy and resourcing for recommendation to this Synod, opportunity for
reviewing options and advising both you and me. Those are its roles, and I want to place on record my
gratitude to the Bishop’s Council for its work over the past year. It has a very heavy workload as Bishop’s
Council, Standing Committee of this Synod, Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee, Diocesan Board of
Finance and much more. You and I owe its members, so well supported by Wendy Kennedy and her colleagues
in our Diocesan Office, our thanks for their service to the people and parishes of the diocese. I shall next time
use the Presidential Address for review and reflection.
I venture that two of today’s agenda items are more likely than most to lead to individual frustration and
perhaps to some strong feeling. Money, first, focuses our attention on something we would prefer not to
discuss – or most of us at least some of the time. It is, as some of you will have gathered, a matter of some
surprise to me that as Diocesan Bishop I chair the Board of Finance. Yet, in the discomfort I sometimes feel as,
for instance, the employer of Wendy and her colleagues, I am reminded of my frequent call to clergy and lay
people over many years that the generosity of heart, purse and pocket go together, and that money and
stewardship is not just a challenge for them but for us, and so for us all – all clergy as well as all laity. Is it so
bad that the Bishop chairs the Board of Finance? If the Bishop is called to be the focus of unity in the diocese
then perhaps he ought to be chair of the DBF. We are called to seek a unity even in the most contested areas
with grace and generosity.
Those qualities should mark this afternoon’s debate on the Ordination of Women as Bishops, a proposal on
which many feel strongly. As President of Synod I shall myself be chairing the debate. Nevertheless you and
our diocese need to know my intentions when we reach a vote. Back in July 2010, legally in post as Bishop of
Portsmouth but not yet formally enthroned, inaugurated or installed, I attended my first ever meeting of
General Synod after thirty years and two weeks of ordained ministry. I didn’t rush into it. The public record
shows that my first recorded vote was in favour of this motion being put for decision in our church. You may
know too that, after much deliberation and heart searching, I voted in favour of the amendment of Archbishops
Rowan and Sentamu adding a proposal for so called co-ordinate jurisdiction to be considered.
My commitment to the Ordination of Women as Bishops is clear and I shall today vote in favour. As far as
following motions are concerned, and again you ought to know my thinking, I doubt if they help us at this stage
fearing the delay and the mixed messages that one might give, and that the other might provoke though
adding little to the substantive motion before us. Over the last decade, and especially the last five years, our
church has considered a range of frameworks in which to consider ordaining women as Bishops; from a simple
single clause measure – women can be bishops – to the creation of new structures, even new non-geographic
dioceses, for male clergy and male bishops drawn from a separate line of ordination and succession, along with
many others along the continuum between these. Earlier this year Canon Dr Dennis Stamps helped many of us
in two public meetings to engage with the issues and understand them better. Today two guests, both admired
and respected by me and many of us, will present the issues as they see them For and Against the motion.
What is before us today is a compromise. It does not find favour as the first best approach for very many
either For or Against. The compromise of the provision for delegated episcopacy and for Letters of Request are
too accommodating for some who think it might prove to make women bishops somehow demeaned by
requiring them to cede pastoral and liturgical duties. The statutory Code of Practice and delegated male
7
Episcopal provision is not reassuring enough for some who believe they can be secure in our church only with
more specific guarantees.
This is a compromise, with a Code of Practice about which there will be much debate, discussion and decision.
I will use the Measure and the Code, if the Church of England proceeds as this motion asks, with precision and
determined to be principled and generous to those of us, my friends and colleagues, people of God, who are
anxious for the future. I am committed to working with this change, and to use the Measure and Code with the
same force as I use the other Codes which regulate our ministry.
I end with the words of Canon Stamps in his analysis of the proposal and situation. “Whatever our position on
Women Bishops”, he said, “we are brothers and sisters in Christ …Our witness to the world will not primarily be
what we decide on this issue, but how we decide it and how we treat one another with whom we disagree.”
That should be true today, and tomorrow.
+Christopher
8