At this week’s Church of England General Synod, the issue over women bishops has been brought to the forefront of discussions once again.

|PIC1|The Church’s plans to allow women bishops were criticised as discriminatory by a series of speakers. Current proposals would allow parishes to take advantage of an opt-out scheme, deciding whether or not they would like the parish would like to be put under the care of women bishops.

The plans have been created in the way they have, in the hope that they are satisfactory to both sides of the debate, and so can be used as a way of maintaining in the strained Church body.

The Church of England’s General Synod is taking place in Central London over this week, and members that have voiced their support for female bishops have also now said that the ‘opt-out’ plans would devalue the role of bishops.

Originally, the ‘opt-out’ plans were laid down in the Guildford Report for the House of Bishops, and they would mean all bishop appointments would be legally opened to women. Although no exact date was set, it was thought that women bishops were a possibility as early as 2012.

The proposals continued discussing that parishes rejecting female bishops would be able to instead opt for the care of a group of male bishops under a plan known as Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (TEA).

|TOP|However, a number of speakers spoke out against this scheme. Christina Rees, of Royston, Hertfordshire, a synod member from the St Albans diocese, urged the church to "do better".

Rees said, “For the past two years, there have been equal numbers of men and women being selected for ordination training, and it won't be that long before it becomes visibly and damagingly apparent that the church has one rule for clergy who are male and another for clergy who are female,” according to the Guardian newspaper.

“Pretty soon, we won't be able to promote the mission-shaped church with any integrity. How would we like to explain the TEA proposals to the young people we are trying to draw into our churches?” she continued.

In addition, Rev Mary Bide, of Christ Church, Oxford, said there was “a need to work with sensitivity to provide for those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ministry of women as bishops or indeed as priests.”

She added, “The way in which this is done should not undermine the authority of any bishop, regardless of whether they are male or female.”

|AD|Representing Stoke Newington in North London, the Rev Jonathan Clark criticised the proposals as a "smoke and mirrors" attempt to hide the fact of female ordination.

Rev Graham James, the Bishop of Norwich, commented that he wanted to welcome the ordination of women as bishops, but feared the proposals would bring increased disunity within the Church of England.

“I do not find it theologically tolerable, and I do not think the sort of arrangement episcopally would result as one in which women or men would flourish in their ministry,” he said.

“A divided episcopate actually creates a divided church when some bishops do not recognise those who are in that fellowship as fellow bishops.”

One member of the Synod that gave stern opposition to women bishops was Jane Bisson from Grouville, Jersey. She said, “The sacraments will be brought into disrepute and disrespect, and the communion of the church will be annihilated.”

She continued, “It is enough to bring you to tears to see the church that I have loved for a very long time tearing itself apart, all for the sake of the female of the species.”

However, despite this, the proposals were given full backing by a number of traditionalists, that argued it appeared that the plans were the best way forward in light of the “unwelcome” introduction of women bishops.

Rev Paul Benfield, from the Diocese of Blackburn, said the report offered a “useful starting point” for ensuring the correct provision for those who could not accept women bishops.

The synod is due to tackle the issue again today, Thursday Feb. 9th, in a debate led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. He warned the Synod earlier this week that, whatever happened, they would be “moving into a new place over the issue”.