What is in Kelvin's Head?

Taint

The Church of England has a problem. Well, the Church of England has many problems, but the one that it is waking up to at the moment is that women bishops are getting closer and closer to it and it hasn’t quite worked out what to do.

Why does it have to do anything?

Ah, well there exists a settlement in the Church of England whereby the Church of England does not fully recognise as bishops those bishops in the Anglican communion who have been consecrated in other parts of the Anglican world who happen to be women.

Now this means that priests who have been ordained by such bishops cannot serve in the Church of England. All those claims that churches which allow the consecration of women as bishops make about being in full communion with the Church of England are deeply compromised by this.

The election of a female candidate to the episcopacy in Ireland is a joyful thing. It is right, I think, that all positions in the church should be open to both men and women equally. I long for this to have become normal so that we can then get on with talking about what kind of episcopacy we think the church needs. We’ve got so hung up on gender that we’ve not really been able to talk much about episcopacy itself. I’m one of those pesky people who is a passionate advocate of equality in this area who also thinks that it will make very little difference to the leadership that the church receives. My belief that women and men can lead the church equally is founded in a belief that women and men have the same capacity for both glory and despair as one another. My training convinced me precisely that women and men in the church need equal opportunities because I saw that women in leadership positions in the church are capable of exactly the same cruelty as men.

However I digress.

I find today an excellent post has been published from Will Adam, editor of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal and Vicar of St Paul’s, Winchmore Hill in the Diocese of London on the recognition of orders. I was unaware that the Scottish Episcopal Church had a different legal position with regards to the Church of England to the churches in Ireland and Wales, but it is so. A Church of England bishop can apparently refuse to receive the orders of someone ordained in Scotland for any reason but not those from Ireland and Wales.

However there also appears to be an argument in the same post (which  I have to admit I don’t understand with respect to Scotland) saying that there is be no way that a Church of England bishop could automatically refuse to receive the orders of someone ordained by a bishop who happens to be a women provided they come from within the British Isles, though they could be refused from elsewhere. (If I read that right).

All of which must make Church of England legal types sit up and take notice.

I’m interested in this not simply from a legal point of view though. Some people in Anglicanism believe that women cannot be ordained and refuse to receive their ministry. I don’t think I  very often encounter such people and in Scotland, our legislation on ordaining bishops is a done deal. If a diocese chooses a female candidate for the episcopate then that is that. If she has any problem ministering to anyone in her diocese then she can, if she thinks it will help, ask a colleague from the college of bishops to help her out. However, that is her choice and not anyone else’s. We don’t have legal “protection” for those who can’t accept women as bishops and we are not going to. And we thank God we don’t.

Amongst those who can’t accept women there has developed this peculiar mentality which people refer to as a theology of taint. It is sometimes denied to be such, but the fact remains that there are some who won’t recognise the ministry of those who have been ordained by women, never mind the women themselves. It looks like a theology of taint and it sounds like a theology of taint and frankly to me it is precisely a theology of taint.

What I’m interested in is that with respect of our current bishops in Scotland, all of them have either had a female co-consecrator present at their consecration, joined in consecrating someone with a female co-consecrator present or have been consecrated by someone who has had a female co-consecrator present at their own consecration.

What I wonder is whether those who apply the theology of taint believe that anyone at all (bishops, priests or deacons) now ordained in Scotland is legit.

Oh, and by the way an English bishop was present and joining in when this situation began. I was there – I saw it with my own eyes.

Where does this leave the Scottish Episcopal Church in relation to those who would deny the legitimacy of women to act as bishops?

(The bishop who happens to be a women who joined the SEC for a consecration was a delight and I attempted to teach her the gay gordons).

Do we, or do we not, remain in full communion with [all of] the Church of England?

Comments

27 responses to “Taint”

  1. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Erika,
    Do you actually agree with ‘most people’ that the opponents of women bishops are motivated by misogyny? I hope not! After all the vast majority of those opposed to women’s ordination are in fact women. Moreover a survey taken before the the vote indicated that approximately three quarters of the members of the C of E were in favour of women bishops. Given that the worshiping community in the C of E is around one million that leaves something in the region of nearly 250,000 who are either opposed or uneasy about the measure – hardly a tiny minority.

    The attitude seems to be – accept it, or lump it, or leave, and that I find sad.
    The fact is that women will be consecrated as bishops in the Church of England – even the opponents accept that. The Measure would certainly have been passed if the proponents had been but willing to assure those who are against female bishops that there is still a place for them in the C of E. After all do we not claim to be a broad church?

    Reply
  2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    For me, the problems to do with lay presidency are more practical than they are theoretic. The practical problem is this. Ordination is open to ANYBODY who is of suitable character, and prepared to learn enough about their faith. Do we REALLY want people leading the church who are NOT suitable?
    In one church I attended years ago, somebody would have been more than willing to become a leader. Popular in the church, and with a confident speaking voice, used to leading ceremonies he would have been a lay president if such things were allowed. Indeed, he was suggested for further training. He dropped out of this because they expected people to pray, and he could not see the point of that. Do we REALLY want people like that taking the Eucharist, because they can. and IF we limit it to people who ARE appropriate, and we vet them, and train them, why are we not ordaining them? Why can they not be ordained? What are they lacking?

    Reply
  3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    @ Ross – anybody who believes women CANNOT be ordained does, by their very belief, think they are in some way not enough like Christ. That is quite different from saying that an individual does not have the very special and particular abilities needed to run a church. It may not be a dislike of women, but it is certainly the belief they are not quite fully human. Such beliefs do make things more than a tad difficult.

    Reply
  4. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Rosemary,
    The sad truth is that there are already individuals in leadership positions in the Church who are unsuitable for the work, either through a lack of personal faith, holding heretical views or an inability to relate to people – to name but three reasons. I have witnessed the serious damage they do to the Body of Christ. Of course, this is inevitable simply because the Church is made up of fallible human beings and too often makes the wrong choices.

    Conversely, I have known very well suited candidates for ministry who were rejected simply because they expressed too conservative views on theology or ethics.

    On the issue of lay presidency I recognize and accept that in the Anglican Church it is a matter of Order that determines who should preside at the Eucharist rather than theology.
    FinalIy I cannot accept your argument that ‘anybody who believes women CANNOT be ordained does, by their very belief, think they are in some way not enough like Christ’ or that they have a ‘ belief they are not quite fully human.’ To be honest I think you are being somewhat unfair to the other side.

    Reply
  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Well, Ross, what else? If no woman can stand in for Christ at the Eucharist, then what else?

    Review criteria for ordination? Always possible, probably good. Abandon selection due to some mistakes? probably a bad idea.

    Reply
  6. Kelvin Avatar
    Kelvin

    I could cope with Lay Presidency if the church agreed that celebrants would be chosen by lot each Sunday and the worship would reflect their abilities and competence.

    If we can’t accept that and prefer any kind of selection criteria whatsoever other than a roll of the dice then I think the best thing to do is to stick to something like the present system. That isn’t to say I don’t think we might improve it, but Lay Presidency for its own sake seems to me to solve little and would invent a new clerical class of people who were not regarded as members of the laos – the people of God. That seems to me to be a lot to lose.

    Reply
  7. Erika Baker Avatar
    Erika Baker

    And we should not forget that that the one diocese experimenting with lay presidency, Sydney, has also firmly rejected women priests. Lay presidency does not automatically solve all your problems.

    Reply
Older Comments
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *