A very thorough primer on evangelical concerns in relation to the debate on women bishops

Evangelical opponents of women bishops: What is sought and required? by Andrew Goddard.

1. Introduction: Trying to square the circle

The decision of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to offer their own proposal for solving the problem of provision for those opposed to women bishops has, inevitably, caused quite a storm. It seeks to find an original and satisfactory way of squaring the following circle: how can the church give sufficient assurances and space to those who cannot in conscience recognise women as bishops while not undermining the equal standing of female bishops alongside their male counterparts?

Its proposed solution of co-ordinate jurisdiction does not, in law, remove opponents from the jurisdiction of any women bishops. Instead, it establishes nominated bishops alongside the diocesan, hence the name “concurrent” or, the Archbishops’ preference, “co-ordinate” jurisdiction. This “jurisdiction” (the amendments do not actually use this term but the Archbishops’ initial statement said “the nominated bishop would have jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure to the extent provided for in the diocesan scheme – in effect holding jurisdiction by the decision of the Church as a whole, as expressed in the Measure”) is not to be granted by delegation from a bishop (as opponents would not recognise a woman bishop as the source of the nominated bishop’s authority). Instead, the jurisdiction is granted by means of the Measure itself.

Read the rest on the Fulcrum website.