The decision to postpone the key legislation is a bitter-sweet victory for supporters of women bishops who were almost on the verge of having to vote against the very issue they had been pushing for over the last two decades.
Many felt unable to vote for the legislation after the church's House of Bishops – led by the Archbishop of Canterbury – tabled a last minute amendment which provided stronger safeguards for those who are theologically opposed to female leadership.
Those who wanted to see women bishops suddenly felt the wording would continue to enshrine gender discrimination within the church.
The postponement is a considerable embarrassment for Dr Williams and the senior clerics who backed the last-minute safeguards.
The bishops had hoped that the amendments would avoid the prospect of conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics walking out unless they are given guarantees that they will not have to serve under a woman – or a man who has ordained women.
But even the dissenters looked set to vote against the proposals because in their eyes the safeguards did not go far enough. The impasse left the Church of England confronting the real possibility of women bishops legislation stumbling at the final hurdle.
In an impassioned mea culpa, Dr Williams admitted that the bishops' attempts to find a compromise had clearly failed.
“When there is a reaction of real hurt and offence in the church at large, Christians and Christian pastors particularly cannot afford to ignore it,” he told members of the church's general synod in York.
“The bishops will be aware that they underrated the depth of that sense of hurt and offence. And if other bishops feel as I do they will need to examine themselves and feel appropriate penitence that they did not recognise how difficult that was going to be.”
But he warned that adjourning the issue would be “no panacea”.
Instead, he argued, it would give the church “a chance to lower the temperature” on an issue that had caused deep upset.
In practical terms the women bishops legislation will now return to the House of Bishops who have the thorny task of tweaking the legislation in a way that pleases both supporters and opponents of women bishops.
The House of Bishops will meet in September with the newly worded legislation expected to return to synod in November.
Throughout the two hour debate, impassioned views were heard from all sides of the divide.
Celia Thomson, Canon Pastor of Gloucester cathedral, warned that the church's reputation was being damaged by its inability to push ahead with women bishops.
“Never in my experience has the church been so out of step with the good news and of the people of this country,” she said. “It has been 12 years of agonising process.”
But Lorna Ashworth, a conservative evangelical from Chichester who is opposed to women bishops, defended the bishops' attempts to make further concessions to people like her.
“There is not just one group of women in this church with one voice. There is more than once voice here,” she said. “Let us not insult the House of Bishops by suggesting that they have been sleeping on the job these past few years. They've heard and they have made a valiant effort towards inclusivity. This liberated, God fearing, Jesus loving, conservative evangelical wants to remain within the Church of England.”
James Graham, the Bishop of Norwich, adopted a rather unusual metaphor to describe the impasse that the church had currently reached.
“I'm surprised that the slender arrangements made by the house of bishops is the straw that breaks the camel's back,” he said. “I'm not sure the camel's back can be broken, the camel has already been swallowed. This is more than a gnat we are straining at, our digestion is already severely disturbed.”
But he warned followers that whatever form the women bishops eventually takes it would be virtually impossible to please all sides of the debate.
“I've come to believe that any legislation will be imperfect,” he said. “Perhaps it is bound to be given the different convictions we seek to hold together. Perhaps it's inevitable in an imperfect church with flawed and damaged people like you and me whom Jesus Christ nonetheless counts as his friends.”
Many felt unable to vote for the legislation after the church's House of Bishops – led by the Archbishop of Canterbury – tabled a last minute amendment which provided stronger safeguards for those who are theologically opposed to female leadership.
Those who wanted to see women bishops suddenly felt the wording would continue to enshrine gender discrimination within the church.
The postponement is a considerable embarrassment for Dr Williams and the senior clerics who backed the last-minute safeguards.
The bishops had hoped that the amendments would avoid the prospect of conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics walking out unless they are given guarantees that they will not have to serve under a woman – or a man who has ordained women.
But even the dissenters looked set to vote against the proposals because in their eyes the safeguards did not go far enough. The impasse left the Church of England confronting the real possibility of women bishops legislation stumbling at the final hurdle.
In an impassioned mea culpa, Dr Williams admitted that the bishops' attempts to find a compromise had clearly failed.
“When there is a reaction of real hurt and offence in the church at large, Christians and Christian pastors particularly cannot afford to ignore it,” he told members of the church's general synod in York.
“The bishops will be aware that they underrated the depth of that sense of hurt and offence. And if other bishops feel as I do they will need to examine themselves and feel appropriate penitence that they did not recognise how difficult that was going to be.”
But he warned that adjourning the issue would be “no panacea”.
Instead, he argued, it would give the church “a chance to lower the temperature” on an issue that had caused deep upset.
In practical terms the women bishops legislation will now return to the House of Bishops who have the thorny task of tweaking the legislation in a way that pleases both supporters and opponents of women bishops.
The House of Bishops will meet in September with the newly worded legislation expected to return to synod in November.
Throughout the two hour debate, impassioned views were heard from all sides of the divide.
Celia Thomson, Canon Pastor of Gloucester cathedral, warned that the church's reputation was being damaged by its inability to push ahead with women bishops.
“Never in my experience has the church been so out of step with the good news and of the people of this country,” she said. “It has been 12 years of agonising process.”
But Lorna Ashworth, a conservative evangelical from Chichester who is opposed to women bishops, defended the bishops' attempts to make further concessions to people like her.
“There is not just one group of women in this church with one voice. There is more than once voice here,” she said. “Let us not insult the House of Bishops by suggesting that they have been sleeping on the job these past few years. They've heard and they have made a valiant effort towards inclusivity. This liberated, God fearing, Jesus loving, conservative evangelical wants to remain within the Church of England.”
James Graham, the Bishop of Norwich, adopted a rather unusual metaphor to describe the impasse that the church had currently reached.
“I'm surprised that the slender arrangements made by the house of bishops is the straw that breaks the camel's back,” he said. “I'm not sure the camel's back can be broken, the camel has already been swallowed. This is more than a gnat we are straining at, our digestion is already severely disturbed.”
But he warned followers that whatever form the women bishops eventually takes it would be virtually impossible to please all sides of the debate.
“I've come to believe that any legislation will be imperfect,” he said. “Perhaps it is bound to be given the different convictions we seek to hold together. Perhaps it's inevitable in an imperfect church with flawed and damaged people like you and me whom Jesus Christ nonetheless counts as his friends.”