What is in Kelvin's Head?

Mixed feelings about the Church of England vote on bishops

14/07/2014

I’ve very mixed feelings about the vote that has just taken place in the Church of England Synod regarding the question of whether that church should allow women to be able to made bishops.

On the one hand, I know some of the women who are likely to be made bishops and I know the joy and the thrill that will be theirs in taking on this role which previously was denied them. They will make fantastic leaders.

However I also know that the C of E has fallen a long way short of equality. It will still be the case that people will be able to behave in that church as though women are not really bishops at all.

Here in Scotland we’ve been able to have women as candidates in Episcopal elections for some years now however we’ve not elected anyone who happens to be a woman yet.

However if a bishop is ordained in Scotland then she is a bishop. Should someone not accept that, she may take whatever action she needs to take in order to facilitate the governance of the diocese. (She might invite another bishop to work with her or she might not, as she judges appropriately). In England, it will still be possible for someone unable to accept that a women can be a bishop (or even a priest) to simply request a male one.

It is a profoundly different state of affairs and this will embed into the Church of England the notion that the ordination that women receive, whether to the presbyterate or the episcopate can be accepted or rejected by anyone who choses to do so. The same doesn’t apply to men who are ordained.

For that reason, whilst wanting to get all excited about the new opportunities that lie ahead for friends down south who will make brilliant leaders, my fear is that in due course, women and men alike will regret the decisions that led to women being appointed as bishops on these terms.

A single measure clause which simply allowed women to be candidates for the Episcopate would have been just and right. This solution feels far from that.

I know women and men in England who know that this is a vote in favour of allowing women to become second-class bishops.

I have to admit that my sympathies largely lie with them today.

bishops who happen to be women, Church of England, women bishops

8 responses to “What is a wiki?”

Chris

31/07/2007

I wanted to comment on your wiki post, but there is a gremlin preventing me – no box to write in, so no writing!
[Comment now moved]

This is what I’d have said:
Great clip! A really clear description – can we get it incorporated into an educational package for the church? See http://scotedublogs.wikispaces.com/ for a good example of a wiki in use for over a year.

Reply
Tim

31/07/2007

Yeah. Wikis have huge potential. When I was setting up my church website I sat down and thought:
a) lots of pages
b) easy editing
c) uniform appearance across pages
d) ability to allow some people to (not) edit certain pages

End result was dokuwiki.

The real trouble is still persuading people that they’re capable of contributing…

Reply
kelvin

31/07/2007

Yes, it is odd getting people to post on a wiki is very much harder than getting them to post a comment on a blog. Something about a fear of being the authorial voice.

I think that it is fear of being contradicted and corrected, which is a shame, as whenever I post to a wiki, I’m hoping that someone can improve on what I’ve written.

Reply
Kimberly

31/07/2007

Fabulous video. Thanks for linking it.

I wonder if this is one of the ways we should be trying to respond to the Draft Anglican Covenant.

Reply
Stewart

31/07/2007

Wikis are great – look forward to seeing the St Mary’s Wiki developing (and adding to it!)

Reply
jimmux

05/08/2007

Thanks for a very clear explanation! Now that I understand how they work, I’ll be raising a discussion on how we might be able to use them on the National Postgraduate Committee of the United Kingdom. They seem a very useful tool for sub-committees which do a lot of work by e-mail.

Reply
Kennedy

08/08/2007

I had a look at Tim’s church website and looked at the bit with the contributions from the congregation and saw this statement:

‘Please note: the content in this section is contributed by members of the congregation and should not be considered official statements by the Church.’

I am a great fan of wikis for collaborative work, but I think this indicates one of the issues with ‘public’ wikis. These problems tend not occur when wikis are being used for internal usage or for a closed group. Open editing is very attractive but you need some form of management to ensure that defacement doesn’t occur or statements which might be damaging are published.

Also, how do I tell the difference between ‘the Church’ and ‘ members of the congregation’? Are they not the same thing?

Kennedy

Reply
Repeat post – wiki video | What’s in Kelvin’s Head

20/02/2009

[…] First posted quite a while ago here. […]

Reply