5. All the things listed in 4. were things clergy agreed to abide by, as part of the 2014 Settlement on #womenbishops. It was agreed that trust would play a big part in how arrangements would work. @churchofengland.org clergy were trusted by Parliament to ensure these things.
That trust is destroyed

4. When was their PCC Resolution to exclude women from various roles passed?
When has it been reviewed?
Was the wider church community consulted before each meeting about it?
Has the PCC accurately ‘signalled the wish of the parish’ on this (not their own wish), as required?

3.Here’s an example for this week of no #TransparencyAboutPCCResolutions: see the website of Holy Cross #Felsted.
Do you see any indication of their policy on women?
Yet they’re listed as a parish overseen by the #BishopofEbbsfleet.

www.felstedchurch.org.uk

@watch-notequalyet.bsky.social

2. It’s all part of the bigger picture of church leaders continuing to condone the information being kept under the radar from the churchgoers, who are at the same time asked pay £ towards their @churchofengland.org church’s ministry.
#NotEqualYet @watch-notequalyet.bsky.social

Worth also noting that those ‘answering’ @churchofengland.org #Synod written Questions, require precise wording for submitted questions.
Then, here for example, they do not accurately answer the precisely-worded question they’ve been asked.

Who is responsible for approving these ‘answers’?

I wish I was hopeful of that.
There’ve been several iterations of ‘guidance’ so far, e.g. the ‘Maidstone Commitments’.
Until there’s a firm requirement for clarity on church websites, just as there is for the Safeguarding statements, it’ll be brazen business as usual for the dissemblers.

The whole "if we want more working class vocations, we need to offer less academic pathways" thing makes me furious. We need to make all our various more/less academic pathways more accessible to people from a range of educational backgrounds. Which Queens does well, but many other TEIs do not.