The Broken Settlement: WATCH Demands Doctrinal Test for Bishops as London and Chichester Approach Succession
The petition advanced by Women and the Church (WATCH), calling for the exclusion of any diocesan bishop who does not accept the ordination of women, arrives at a moment of exceptional consequence within the Church of England. As reported by Church Times, the campaign explicitly demands that “all new diocesan bishops must accept the ordination of women,” and is framed in relation to forthcoming senior appointments within the Church.⁴ The question is therefore no longer theoretical. It is whether the Church will honour the settlement it publicly constructed in 2014—or whether that settlement will now be reinterpreted through the decisive mechanism of appointment control.
The terms of that settlement are not conjectural. The House of Bishops’ Declaration, together with the Five Guiding Principles, formed the binding ecclesial compact that enabled the consecration of women as bishops while retaining those who could not, in conscience, accept that development. The Declaration states:
“Those who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests remain within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion.”¹
And further:
“Pastoral and sacramental provision… will be made without specifying a limit of time… enabling them to flourish within its life and structures.”²
This language was not decorative. It was relied upon explicitly during the General Synod debates. As the then Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby stated during the July 2014 session:
“We are not seeking to exclude anyone… we are seeking a settlement in which all can flourish.”³
The phrase “mutual flourishing” was not an aspiration; it was the condition of consent.
The WATCH petition must therefore be examined with precision. According to Church Times, the group argues that future bishops must be:
“fully supportive of women’s ministry at all levels,”
and that those who do not accept women’s ordination should not be appointed to diocesan office.⁴
This is not a call for inclusion; it is a proposal for doctrinal qualification as a condition of office.
The shift is decisive. Under the 2014 settlement, theological dissent remained compatible with episcopal authority. Under the WATCH proposal, it becomes disqualifying.
This is not an abstract concern. The See of Chichester has long stood as a concrete embodiment of the settlement in practice—a diocese in which traditional Anglo-Catholic theology, including resistance to the ordination of women on sacramental grounds, was not merely tolerated but institutionally represented at episcopal level. That reality gave substance to the promise of a “secure and honoured place.”
With Chichester approaching succession, and London likewise within the foreseeable horizon of episcopal transition, the question becomes immediate: will that theological identity be maintained, or will it be quietly extinguished through the selection process?
These are not peripheral dioceses. Together, they represent a decisive opportunity to reshape the theological profile of the episcopate.
The response from traditionalist constituencies has consistently warned of this trajectory. Forward in Faith has argued in formal submissions that the 2014 settlement depends not merely on delegated provision, but on continued episcopal representation. As Jonathan Baker has stated:
“For the settlement to be credible, it must include a continuing place for those convictions within the Church’s structures of authority, not simply within its pastoral provision.”⁵
This is the crux of the matter. A Church may retain the language of provision while eliminating its substance. If dissenting theological convictions are confined to parochial enclaves while excluded from diocesan leadership, then the settlement is preserved in form but abandoned in reality.
The wider Anglican context underscores the significance. The ordination of women remains contested across the global Communion, and the Church of England’s claim to comprehensiveness has long rested on its ability to hold divergent theological positions within a single ecclesial body. To impose an ideological test for episcopal office is to move away from that model toward a narrower, more confessional structure—defined not by the breadth it sustains, but by the boundaries it enforces.
The mechanism of change is telling. There is no formal repudiation of the 2014 settlement. No declaration that the Five Guiding Principles have been superseded. Instead, the shift is effected through appointment discipline—controlling who may be considered, and thereby determining what positions may continue to exist in practice.
This raises a question not merely of policy, but of integrity.
If assurances of a “secure and honoured place” were relied upon to secure agreement in 2014, but are now effectively withdrawn at the moment when major sees approach transition, then those assurances cannot be regarded as enduring commitments. They appear instead as transitional guarantees—sufficient to achieve structural change, but not intended to bind its long-term trajectory.
With London and Chichester both in view, this is no longer conjecture. It is a live test of whether the Church of England intends to honour its own settlement—or to move beyond it without formally acknowledging that it has done so.
The conclusion follows with clarity.
A settlement that survives only in language, but not in appointments, is not a settlement at all. It is the final stage of a transition—one in which promised coexistence gives way, not to reconciliation, but to resolution by exclusion.
- House of Bishops, Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (GS Misc 1076, 2014), Guiding Principle 4.
- Ibid., Guiding Principle 5.
- Justin Welby, General Synod Official Report, July 2014 (Final Approval Debate).
- Church Times, “All new diocesan bishops must accept the ordination of women, campaign group demands,” 1 May 2026.
- Jonathan Baker, addresses on the implementation of the 2014 settlement within Forward in Faith contexts (2015–2023).
RELATED ARTICLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- 03.05.26 Nuntiatoria CIV: Crux RevelatNuntiatoria CIV examines a civilisation in crisis, where law, governance, and Church authority falter through loss of truth. From free speech battles and safeguarding failures to ecclesial ambiguity and cultural decline, each case reveals systemic incoherence. Framed by the Cross, the edition argues that only recovered truth can restore justice, authority, and meaning.
- 03.05.26 Nuntiatoria CIV: EditorialNuntiatoria CIV therefore positions itself not simply as commentary but as intervention. By exposing the internal contradictions of contemporary governance—civil and ecclesial alike—it seeks to reintroduce the question that modern systems often evade: not merely how authority is exercised, but why it exists at all, and to what end it must ultimately be ordered.
- ORDO w/c 03.05.26The content outlines the liturgical calendar from 3 to 10 May, detailing various saints’ feasts, their significance, and the associated colours of vestments. It highlights themes of martyrdom, prayer, and spiritual reflection, particularly emphasising the connection of these feasts to the Paschal season and the broader context of Christian history and teaching.
- Cantate Domino: The Fourth Sunday after Easter and the Discipline of ResurrectionThe Fourth Sunday after Easter serves as a liturgical examination of whether the Resurrection is internalised within the Christian life. It emphasises that grace necessitates transformation, urging believers to not only acknowledge Christ’s resurrection but to embody it in their conduct and habits, ultimately asking if they reflect a true spiritual conversion.
- The Invention of the Holy Cross: The Hidden Wood and the Unhidden MysteryThe Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross, observed on 3rd May, signifies the Church’s rediscovery of the Cross as the centre of Christian faith. It celebrates the transformative power and mystery of the Cross, urging believers to recognise and embrace its significance beyond mere symbolism, reflecting the profound reality of redemption through sacrifice.
Leave a Reply