Across the pond, the Mother Church engages in another round of kick the can

If there is one thing that unites all Anglicans, regardless of theological persuasion, it is an insatiable desire to avoid making a firm decision. It is a reticence that is embodied perfectly in the current Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr Rowan Williams, titular head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. On his home turf, he has had to put out more than his share of brush fires of late over the meddlesome issue of female episcopacy. The Church of England is of two minds on the issue, at the very least. ++Rowan and the Archbishop of York, the Most Reverend Dr John Sentamu, have literally twisted themselves in a pretzel knot trying to avoid a complete meltdown in several recent sessions of the Church of England General Synod.

If you read the headline in The Guardian today, "Church of England reaches compromise on women bishops," you might think ++Rowan and ++John have finally laid the issue to rest. The headline, however, is misleading. Victory is never the objective when the game is kick the can.

The archbishops of Canterbury and York has avoided humiliation in the Church of England's law-making body, the General Synod, by putting off a split over the ordination of women bishops.

The synod voted against measures that would have given traditionalists the legal right to ignore the leadership of women bishops. The proposal by the Manchester diocesan synod would have accepted that parishes opposed to female diocesan bishops could be ministered by male bishops.

But the synod also rejected an attempt by the Southwark diocese in London to ensure bishops press on with legislation to introduce women bishops.

In spite of four days of tortuous debate, the synod agreed that its bishops could instead tinker with legislation that would allow the ordination of women as bishops, before returning it to the synod for final approval in July. If that legislation is passed, women bishops could be ordained in 2014.

It is still possible that either side could block the legislation this summer, setting back the process of ordaining women as bishops by at least five years.

The synod accepted a call from Dr Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, who asked the synod to "leave the door open" for some "bits of fine tuning".

The archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, who supported the Manchester motion, called for the synod to hold together. "The only way we can do this is by inviting the bishops to look at it. Whether it's doable I don't know, but give us another chance to see whether we can do it."

A spokesman for the traditionalist group Forward in Faith told the Guardian: "It was a complete waste of time. But we're better off than we were. It is not as good as it could have been and it's not as bad as it could have been. It's up to the bishops now. They can sort this out, but do they have the balls to? If they don't, it won't get final approval."

Fears that the legislation could fall in July were also voiced by the bishop of Gloucester, Michael Perham. In a passionate speech, which aroused sustained applause, he said: "Bishops do not dissent lightly from the views of their archbishops. The draft legislation represents a huge sacrifice for supporters of women bishops. It is the middle way. The worst possible outcome would be for the legislation to go down at final approval in July. There would be a haemorrhaging of women from the church."

At the heart of the debate is whether there should be any accommodation in law for people opposed to women bishops. The church decided five years ago that there was no legal obstacle for women becoming bishops. Traditionalists – Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals – have repeatedly asked for access to male leadership to be incorporated into legislation. Supporters of women bishops argued that such a move would create a two-tier system.

What the synod agreed to appears to have appeased both sides and brought a rare moment of unity. Synod member Christina Rees said she was delighted by the outcome because it avoided the "legalisation of discrimination". But a spokeswoman for the campaign group Women and the Church was more circumspect. Sally Barnes said: "It still leaves wiggle room for the bishops to get something in that would be discriminatory."When asked if she thought the vote was a snub to the archbishops she replied: "It is Synod saying be careful, we're not going to accept what you say."

However narrow the victory – there was hefty resistance from the clergy and laity – the archbishops cannot guarantee the legislation will get the votes it needs this summer in order to be sent to parliament.

The meeting of Synod concludes on Thursday. It will discuss House of Lords reform among other things.

At this point, of course, it is useless to try to convince the esteemed leaders of the Mother Church of the utter folly of debating the issue under the rubrics of "discrimination" and "equality." Questions of ecclesiology, catholicity, and apostolicity far outweigh such secular concerns. If there can be unanimous agreement that the introduction of female bishops does not alter the nature and mission of the church, well and good. Absent such unanimity, however, attempts to appease all sides are a mild amusement and a major scandal.