Response to GS
Misc 1042
Women in the
Episcopate: A New Way Forward
Thank you for the discussion paper GS Misc 1042, and for the
time and energy that has been put into restarting the process towards removing
the legal obstacles to women becoming bishops. I shall group my responses
firstly in relation to the four propositions, and then give some more general
observations.
1.1 I agree with the first proposition, that there is no
scope for further tweaking of the measure that was defeated in November.
1.2 I am
very relieved to see that this conclusion has been reached as a result of the
consultations this month. I, and the many other women (both lay and ordained)
who have been in touch with me as Chair of WATCH NE, feel that we had in fact
compromised too much in that measure. We were fearful that ‘further tweaks’ would be proposed,
compromising the purpose of the legislation even further. I cannot see any way
in which the defeated legislation can be further adapted in a way that would be
acceptable to both those who do and don’t wish to see women admitted
to the episcopate.
1.3
Whilst I would like to see women admitted to the episcopate as soon as
possible, my main concern at this point is that the sense of urgency should not
mean we rush into unwise legislation.
2. 1 I also endorse the second proposition, that questions
around jurisdiction should not be re-opened.
2.2 Having women as bishops is not an end in
itself. It is a necessary but not sufficient means to the end of
demonstrating, by our ordering of our church, that the Church of England
believes men and women to be equally and jointly made in the image of God, and
to be theologically in the same category.There is, therefore, simply no point
in allowing women to be bishops on different terms to men, or in redefining
what a bishop is in order to let women in. That would not be 'removing the
legal obstacles to women becoming bishops', it would be only allowing women to
dress up like bishops whilst retaining a separate class of 'real' bishops. I
would prefer us not to enact any legislation at all than to enshrine
discrimination in law, which is why I would have voted against the proposals
that were before Synod in July 2012.
3.1 I also think there is a good deal of wisdom in the
third proposition, that the whole 'deal' should be on the table at one time. I
hope very much that this will in fact be a simple matter, as a single clause or
similar measure (as has been used in every other Province of the Anglican
Communion) should be all that is needed.
3.2 But
whether or not that point is accepted, I do agree that the uncertainty
surrounding the prospect of an unseen Code of Practice was very unhelpful in debating
the defeated legislation. Certainly in my experience of going to Deanery Synod
debates about the legislation, with Sr. Anne Williams, we found that this
uncertainty about the Code caused the most disquiet, regardless of people’s views on the substance of the proposals.
4. 1 I am instinctively drawn to the first part of the
final proposition, suggesting shorter, simpler legislation. Anything other than a simple
statement that both women and men can have a vocation to the episcopate
inevitably clouds the statement of equality before God that is the primary
purpose of this legislation. However, brevity is a means rather than an end. I
would prefer lengthier legislation that spelled out equality, to a brief
measure that enshrined discrimination.
4.1.1 I
also note that several years ago, simple legislation (popularly known as a ‘single clause measure’) was the preferred option of
Forward in Faith as well as groups such as WATCH. I remember being asked by New
Directions to write an article explaining why I supported a Single Clause
Measure, just as they did, but for different reasons. At the time I recall
suggesting that perhaps they wanted a Single Clause Measure because they
thought it would be more easily defeated, but I was assured that it was because
it was the only theologically coherent way forward. I hope, therefore, that
such support for this proposition is reflected in the responses you receive to
this consultation.
4.2 The second part of the fourth proposition is less clear
than the others, and there are two elements of it which I think are dangerous:
the references to ‘a sense of
security’, and to no ‘new
elements of compromise’.
4.2.1 First, whilst I accept that 'a greater
sense of security....[of] an accepted and valued place in the Church of
England' for those who do not accept the ordination of women is desirable, I do
not agree that this is a viable aim for this legislation. There are three
reasons for this.
4.2.2 How can we measure a 'sense of security', or whether
it has been achieved?
It can only
ever be measured by whether those involved say it has been given. This raises
several subsequent concerns.
4.2.3 Those
opposed to the ordination of women are by no means a homogenous group, so does
every individual need to feel more secure? Or just a majority of the minority?
4.2.4 More fundamentally, at least some people
demonstrably oppose women's ordination on theological grounds that are at best
mistaken, and at worst heretical. I refer you, for example, to the speech
in November's debate which argued that women should be subordinate to men based
on a supposed inherent subordination within the Trinity: a view clearly beyond
the bounds of orthodox Christian belief. So if we are to aim for a 'sense of
security' of being 'accepted and valued' within the Church of England, we need
to be very clear indeed that it is the people
who hold these views who are 'accepted and valued', not the views themselves. Or, if certain views contrary to the
mainstream doctrine of the Church are to be declared 'accepted and valued',
then we need to be very clear indeed which ones these are. Surely the purpose
of this legislation cannot be to assure everyone, whatever their idiosyncratic views
on creation, the Trinity, the Bible, or whatever else underlies their belief
that women cannot be ordained, that those views are all necessarily 'accepted
and valued'?
4.2.5 It
is also perhaps worth saying that we, as women clergy, would also value a sense
of security. The debate so far has consistently given the impression that the emotions
of those pained by our ordination are privileged above our emotions. We are
apparently meant to be so grateful to be allowed to be ordained, that should be
enough. Yet the majority of women will not, of course, become bishops: most do
not have that vocation. Simply allowing
a few women, grudgingly, to be bishops will not of itself make all lay and
ordained women feel fully 'accepted and valued' within the Church of England.
We would like our theological worth and equal status as children of God to be
fully affirmed. It may be that this is fundamentally incompatible with those
who do not agree that this is the case also feeling fully affirmed. If so, the
Church will have to choose which is the more important statement to make.
4.2.6 Furthermore, in saying that we want to
achieve a 'sense of security', we are reliant entirely on those who do not want this legislation to be
passed to inform us of what they deem to be acceptable. A personal
anecdote may illustrate why I think this is a foolish way to proceed. Last
autumn, when the 'Appleby Amendment' was published, I spoke with many members
of Synod, both for and against the principle of women's ordination. In one long
conversation with a member of the Catholic Group in Synod, he told me that the
Group had discussed the legislation and had agreed that they could neither vote
for the legislation, nor abstain, because the first clause said that women
could be bishops. They could, however, live with it if passed, he said. Others will
have heard similar comments.
Yet none
of the Catholic Group in Synod ever said publicly that they could live with
this legislation if passed, despite intending to vote against it, a statement
which may well have influenced some uncertain voters to vote in favour. Nor did
they make it clear that whatever the
'provisions', they would vote against the legislation because it said women
could be ordained. I cannot see how it would ever be in the interests of those
who genuinely do not believe that women can or should be ordained to admit that
yes, they have been given a 'greater sense of security' by new proposals. Simply by saying that they don’t
feel secure, the status quo of the current impasse would be maintained.
I therefore think that this is an illusory goal for this
legislation to aim at.
4.3. I am deeply concerned about the final part of
proposition 4b, 'not involving...any new elements
of compromise on matters of principle' (my emphasis). The members of WATCH NE who
have been in touch with me about this matter have been unanimous that they now
feel that the defeated legislation went too far in compromising the essential
matters of principle involved. All of them, and the vast majority of other
clergy and laity in this diocese with whom I have spoken, feel that since the
compromise offered in November was rejected, only the simplest possible
legislation will now do. I would be deeply disturbed to think that elements of
compromise offered last year in the spirit of a bilateral stretching a hand
over the abyss were to be taken as the basis on which new legislation could be
built.
Again and
again in recent months, clergy and laity have said to me that, after the first
shock of the legislation being defeated, they felt their eyes had been opened
to just how much of a dirty compromise it had been. 'Appeasement' is a word
that has been used. Since we were not met half way – those opposed to
women’s
ordination have made no compromises, in the final outcome - the mood is no longer to
offer those compromises that were rejected. So I would be minded to accept this
element of the proposition only with the deletion of the word 'new', italicised
in my quotation above.
5.1 Following on from point 4.3.5 above, I wonder if the
only way to resolve the current impasse is to destabilise it. Those who are fundamentally
opposed to the ordination of women are currently relatively happy with the
status quo, and have no incentive to change it. One creative way forward,
therefore, would be to change the status quo.
5.2 This could most simply be achieved by allowing General
Synod to debate, in July, the currently ‘parked’
Diocesan Synod motions asking General Synod to rescind the 1993 Episcopal
Ministry Act of Synod.
This
would test the mind of Synod on whether the Act of Synod is still fit for
purpose. If it were rescinded, we would then be able to live out the experiment
of how we get on as a church without what is widely perceived to be a ‘legislative safeguard’. It would be a relatively
low-risk experiment, as it would be fairly straightforward for the Synod to
reenact a similar piece of legislation if it were in fact found to be
necessary. But if we were able to find ways of living and working together
without such a Code of Practice, that would put us in a much better position to
find a new way forward together.
5.2.1 At the same time, allowing these motions to be
debated would go some way to restoring trust in the synodical process among
Diocesan Synods.
One of the most damaging side effects of the stalling of the legislative
process in November was the fact that the Diocesan Synods felt ignored and
sidelined by the process, having been asked their opinions and then ignored.
Rushing to start another central process and telling those Diocesan Synods who
have been waiting patiently for years for their motion to be debated that they
are once again to be ignored, would be both rude and a lost opportunity.
5.3 One other solution that has been canvassed has been
rescinding the relevant clauses of the 1992 Measure, and leaving some parts of
it intact. I do not believe this is a good way forward.
5.3.1 I
have spent some time analysing the initially attractive ‘simply delete clause 1.2 of the 1992 measure’ option. (‘Nothing in this Measure shall
make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop’). At first glance this possibility has the advantage of
simplicity, and of leaving largely intact a package of provisions that those
who are opposed can manifestly already live with. However, it is more complex than it at first appears.
5.3.2 In
the first place, it would not be enough to simply delete clause 1.2 of the
Measure. Clause 2 would also need to be deleted (this clause has never in fact
been used, and is a dead letter since it deals with dioceses being officially
free of women clergy, which none now are).
5.3.3
Clause 3, allowing parishes to pass either Resolutions A or B, could in theory
be retained. However, whilst this might satisfy congregationally-minded
parishes who simply wish to avoid having a woman incumbent, it would, when
there was a female diocesan bishop, be meaningless for those whose objection to
women bishops is based on an ecclesiology in which the local priest’s ministry is derived from that of the bishop. It would
also not cater for those who wish to ensure they have a male priest with a male
‘pedigree’ (i.e., not ordained by a
bishop who is a woman). So in fact this would presumably need to be re-written,
and we would end up with something not dissimilar to the legislation that was
defeated in November (which proposition 1 says is not workable).
5.3.4
Clause 6 of the Measure, which covers the ‘discriminatory discharge of
certain functions’, would also need to be
removed. Clause 6 explicitly says that sex discrimination against a woman in
respect of ordination, licensing or appointments is legal. This is of
questionable legality following the most recent Equality Act. It is also
inconsistent with the various pronouncements of the House of Bishops that the
appointments processes will be blind to people’s views on this matter.
5.3.5.
Even if all these changes were made to the Measure, and it simply said that
women could be ordained and that parishes could choose to opt out of having us
as their priest (but not their bishop), the question remains what would happen
with the Act of Synod. It would not work in its current form, but it is hard to
believe that tweaking it would lead to a better result than the legislation
that was rejected in November (which was essentially an attempt at just this).
So essentially this route is ruled out if we accept the first proposition of GS
Misc 1042.
5.4 Moreover, my experience of the process so
far has made it much clearer, to my mind, that this is the time for the Church
of England to say that any notion that women’s orders are
still in some sense provisional (the notion of ‘a period of
reception’) is at an end.
Ordination
is ordination. Whatever individual people may believe about the desirability,
or validity, of women’s ordination, the Church of
England, by ordaining women, has made a public statement that it is a church
that ordains women. As a church we enact as much as declare our theology, and
in ordaining women we have made clear that is our orthopraxy, our orthodoxy.
5.5 There is no integrity in a Church ordaining
women and then trying to hold together, at an institutional level, the belief
that we both are and are not ordained. This is Schrodinger’s
Cat theology:
are women both ordained and not ordained simultaneously until someone lifts the
lid of the box to see? And is our state of ordination then determined by the
beliefs of the beholder?
Individuals
are free to believe that I am not ordained. And an individual believing that is
of course as accepted and valued by God, and by the Church of England, as
anyone else. But the Church of England has ordained me, and can’t therefore enact with integrity the view that I might not
be ordained.
5.6 I believe that much of our current impasse
is a result of the muddled theology that led to the hasty passing of the Act of
Synod, without anything like the scrutiny and consultation that every other
step of this journey has undergone. The Act of Synod opened the way to
rejecting the ministry of your diocesan bishop based on his beliefs, and that
was a profoundly un-Anglican and certainly un-Catholic innovation. There must
be no repetition of this in any new way forward.
5.7 Finally, I reiterate the point made above,
that simple legislation opening the episcopate to women and men without any
qualification or formal arrangements for those opposed to this move has been
enacted in every relevant province of the Anglican Communion. I cannot see
any reason why the case of the Church of England need be more complicated or
more compromised. There is considerable experience among Anglican bishops
overseas in managing the resulting tensions carefully and gracefully, and the
group would do well to consult this body of available expertise.
