Crunch time for the Church of England

It is make your mind up time for the Church of England this week on the question of whether to move to open the Episcopate to female candidates. Somehow or another the synodical process in England has reached what seems to be a very unfortunate place. After many compromises to ensure that those who are opposed to the change could remain more easily in the C of E, legislation was drafted and send around their dioceses for approval – 42 out of 44 agreed to it. It was then sent to their House of Bishops who had a go at tinkering with it. It is that tinkering which has caused all kinds of bother. In short, the bishops made more explicit in the legislation some of the compromises that had been made earlier. Now their synod can only choose whether or not to return the legislation to the bishops to ask them to think again or agree to it and implicitly accept something that many, including many senior women clergy (and Lucy Winkett) find unacceptable.

Looking on from outside, I think I feel that too many compromises have been made of over this already and I hope I’d have the courage to vote no if I was on a synod that had to made its mind up. Better, I think, to wait for a more equitable way forward, than to enshrine inequality in legislation that will be almost impossible to undo later on.

The central problem is that the C of E managed to develop this system whereby some people within an Episcopal church could think that some bishops do not have the power that real bishops really have and that some priests may not really be priests at all.

We don’t have the same issues in Scotland. You can think your bishop is not a real bishop all you like, but our canons don’t allow you to behave as though that it true. In England, that’s much less clear.

At the centre of it all is this idea of “taint”, surely one of the most unpleasant theological concepts doing the rounds. Everyone says they don’t believe in it – however, the idea that a parish could require the supply of an alternative bishop who shares their theological convictions against the ordination of women, has never ordained women himself and has not been himself consecrated by someone who has consecrated or ordained women himself does rather look like a system which regards some people as tainted.

Why should we care about this in the Scottish Episcopal Church? After all, we believe in the autonomy of other Provinces, don’t we? Well, the implications for us are quite serious.

At one of our Episcopal consecrations not that long ago, we had a female co-consecrator from Sweden. (I tried to teach her the Gay Gordons at the party afterwards). The bishop whom she helped to consecrate has himself joined in, with all our other bishops, in the consecration of two more bishops.   And our Primus joined in, on our behalf, in consecrating the new female bishop in Iceland just a few weeks ago.

Now, where does this leave us. I’ve an uncomfortable feeling that right now, those signs which hang outside some of our churches proclaiming us to be in full communion with the Church of England make a statement which, if tested, might actually be found to be untrue.

With regard to the Church of England, this idea that you can choose your bishop according to your own theological peccadillos has done untold damage to the Anglican Communion. Its theology lies behind so very much of our recent sad history.

I believe in Anglican Churches being broad churches. However, I can’t see how one can really have a church which legislates for people who don’t believe that some of its bishops are bishops.

So, hoping and praying that someone manages to pull a rabbit out of an ecclesiastical mitre. Otherwise, sisters and brothers – Just Say No!

Comments

  1. Emlyn Williams says

    Dear Rosemary et al,

    What is happening in our world-wide church is about sex and the expression thereof. For far too many, anything other than a man and woman together in missionary position is an abomination that cannot be tolerated. Anything else is seen as against the norm and so not worthy of affection by the Almighty. Now who are we to know the Almighty’s mind? I am not prepared to put myself in that category; I’ll let Him do any judging that is required of His creatures. He made us as we are; I’ll let Him do the balancing.

    On the subject of Lay-Presidency, if we are Anglicans, we have some concept of order within the Church. I have tried without joy to put myself forward for consideration for selection, having had a number of clergy recommend me. Until such time as HMC (Holy Mother Church) sees fit to put me along that path, the last thing I would want is to suspend the Church’s historic view on discernment and ordination. [The reader in my congregation said awhile ago that she thought I was even more of a “priest” than she herself. If somehow we were removed from any normality and there was no priest at all, perhaps then in that extremis, I would consider presiding but only with the support of all those in that situation and on the understanding of all that any celebration was deficient of ultimate authority.] If we are to be Anglicans, then authority (power) has a source and that is the Church itself.

  2. Rosemary Hannah says

    You miss my point Ross. I don’t want to be anything … other than the author I am.

    But to say somebody cannot be something just because she is a woman, demeans all women. Plenty of Rectors are male.

  3. Rosie Bates says

    The Church of England has been prevented from carrying toxic baggage by those who represent Wisdom. It is beyond argument that Wisdom was manifest in opposing sexual identity terms as the decision was arrived at faithfully by many thoughtful and well informed souls. We have continued reason to call ourselves a people Holy to the Lord as we have respected our eternal DNA. Thia cannot be removed from our mouths or shoved in an amendment or a cupboard forever and I am laughing and rejoicing at this thought. Alleluia!

Speak Your Mind

*