TEA would replace the scheme based on the PEV or flying bishop who is responsible to the diocesan bishop for carrying out his ministry. It was widely thought however that the present scheme would be unworkable with a woman in post as a diocesan bishop. TEA would introduce a new type of bishop called the Provincial Regional Visitor or PRV who, though exercising his ministry in one or more dioceses, would be responsible to the appropriate archbishop of a province.

The Guildford scheme was heavily criticised by traditionalists and pro-women bishop activists, though for obviously different reasons. But when it was discussed at the February meeting of General Synod, many members believed that it had a number of merits and could be improved if more work was done on it. Consequently, when it came to a vote, the proposal to develop TEA was passed by a near-unanimous majority of 348 to 1. The Bishop of Gloucester was invited to join the Bishop of Guildford in a working group of two, and the revised TEA scheme was planned to be presented to General Synod at York in the Summer of 2006.

The organisations WATCH and Affirming Catholicism displayed their hostility to TEA, chiefly because as they saw it the proposed scheme would be discriminatory to women bishops. They issued a joint statement which listed several "non negotiable" principles which, if introduced into the proposed scheme, would have wrecked TEA and made it inoperable.

Forward In Faith though hostile to much of TEA (as indicated by remarks made by its reactivated theological and legal teams), took a position that it would be worth seeing if something could emerge from an improved scheme, even though such improvements would inevitably taken it in a diametrically opposite direction from that wanted by WATCH/Affirming Catholicism.

Others in Forward In Faith (including the present writer) took the view that for several important reasons (oaths of obedience, collegiality, validity of orders and sacramental assurance) it would be impossible to make TEA work or indeed improve it.

In the brief length of time at their disposal (four months at most) the two bishops prepared a modified paper on TEA, the purpose of which was to "complement" as they put it the Guildford Report. In the event, their chief contribution was to introduce yet another scheme which they called Special Episcopal Oversight or SEO. This was designed as an alternative to TEA and was intended to deflect the main criticism of TEA, namely that ordinary jurisdiction would be transferred away from the diocesan bishop.

It must be said that from the Forward In Faith perspective, SEO was even worse that TEA, as successfully petitioning parishes and their priests would have to work even more closely with a diocesan ordinary if a woman or a male diocesan who took part in the consecration of women bishops.

At the meeting of the House of Bishops which preceded that of the General Synod in the Summer of 2006, it was apparent that there was disagreement over how matters should be advanced in connection with TEA/SEO, the bishops being unable to decide on what action should be taken.

The agenda papers for the July 2006 meeting of General Synod indicated that the intention was to lay before that body the Guildford/Gloucester revised TEA scheme. But as Jonathan Baker reported in "New Directions", "TEA was nowhere to be seen. Why not? Because ... it had emerged that (despite the overwhelming Synod vote), TEA was not really acceptable to anybody after all". The two Reports were not even on the revised agenda for consideration. They had been wiped from the slate.

So what, we may ask, took their place? There were two motions presented for discussion. The first was on the theological principle of whether women could or should be made bishops. This lasted for a mere two hours and was introduced by the Archbishop of York whose words attracted some negative criticism by Jonathan Baker in "New Directions". It demonstrates how in the aftermath of the publication in November 2004 of the Rochester Report, "Women Bishops in the Church of England?", there has been a reluctance to debate in anything but a perfunctory manner a subject of such magnitude.

In its second debate of the session, Synod went on to discussion how women bishops could be introduced into the Church of England, in other words the process of integration. It was therefore decided to establish a legislative group, charged with "preparing the draft measure and amending canon (sic) necessary to remove the legal obstacles to the consecration of women to the office of bishop". Thus because the bishops could not agree on the way forward, the task was passed to the lawyers. It is they who will have to chart all the possible ways in which women can be made bishops, at the same time maintaining in their schemes the highest possible degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

The normal way of conducting business in General Synod is to discuss and agree on principles, and then to determine how such principles can be achieved. But because there is no agreement or consensus on principles, the extraordinary decision has been take to reverse the order and to try to find agreement on ways and means. The diocese, deaneries and parishes have been invited by Synod to "continue serious debate and reflection on the theological, practical, ecumenical and missiological aspects of the issue". It is almost as if the House of Bishops and General Synod have given up on the task of being able to agree on a rationale for women bishops and have shunted the task down the line!

The legislative drafting group will include a significant representation of women, and it is hoped from a Forward In Faith perspective that the group of women will include some opposed to the notion of women bishops (although cynics wouldn't bet on it). No timescale has been set on the deliberations of the group, and given the difficulty (some would say impossibility) of finding amenable solutions to the problem of satisfying traditionalists and pro-women bishop activists, it could take a very long time. It cannot surprise anyone that the Archdeacon of Pontefract has described the task of the legislative drafting group as "a brief from hell".

Recent voting trends in General Synod, especially in the House of Laity, have suggested that future two thirds majorities might not necessarily be attained. This, and indecision among the bishops, has led some Forward In Faith observers to be more optimistic as to how matters might develop in the immediate future, and to hope that the whole momentum towards the introduction of women bishops might slow down.

Whether women bishops are introduced within the next four or five years or towards the end of the next decade does not really make much difference. There are now two thousand women priests in the Church of England, and will be probably twice that number within the next few years. Such a number will have a profound influence and pressure on the course of events. Returning if only temporarily to the status pro ante is not an option for traditionalists. There is, and there has always only been one solution for those who want to keep the faith once received, and that is a separate province.

---Roland W. Morant is a cradle Anglican who has spent his professional life as a teacher, and latterly as a principal lecturer in education in a college of higher education, training students as teachers and running in-service degree courses.