• It was 30 years ago today…

    It seems extraordinary to me that it is thirty years since I stood with others in Deans Yard in London outside the meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England waiting for news.

    It was a long day and one that many had worked towards tirelessly, for many years.

    It was the day that the Church of England finally decided that women should be ordained to the priesthood.

    Well, I say that people had worked tirelessly towards that day but the reality was that many were extremely tired. Women had been ordained deacons some years before and were waiting to find out whether their vocations to priesthood would be affirmed or rejected simply on the basis of their gender. There were cruelties along the way. There was a great deal of abuse along the way and some people were just plain exhausted by the time the vote came.

    Thias was the only period of my life when I ever was connected with the Church of England for any time. I was working in the chaplaincy of the University of London at Mile End, whilst pursuing ordination in the Scottish Episcopal Church. I was in the Church of England but not of it and the Scottish Episcopal Church was engaged in the very same conversation.

    In England, the Movement for the Ordination of Women was the organisation which was pushing for change. In Scotland it was the Movement for Whole Ministry that was rallying the troops. In theory at least, the Movement for Whole Ministry did not see its purpose as being solely about the ordination of women. The idea at the time was that once it had got that priority out of the way, then attention turn to other matters. In the event, once women were ordained in the Scottish Episcopal Church and the focus moved to issues surrounding same-sex couples, the Movement for Whole Ministry shut itself down rather than take up that cause – the first time that I realised that not all ordained women were going to be helpful on LGBT issues, something that remains strikingly clear in the Church of England even today.

    That’s worth coming back to on another day but today isn’t the day to linger on it, for my mind keeps going back to Dean’s Yard. In any case, progress for LGBT causes would be unimaginable without the fundamental assertion of feminism that people should be treated equally.

    From that day in November in Westminister, I can remember the agony of so many women whom I knew as they were waiting for news. The result when it came was not a foregone conclusion.
    For me, today is a day of rejoicing in the gifts of so many astonishing priests that the churches would not have had if those decisions had not been made in those years. I think of the weddings blessed, the mourners comforted, the hundreds of thousands of communicants who have been fed and nourished by the ministry of women who have been ordained in the years since. These things are impossible to quantify; love and grace in ministry, so wide and broad and deep that it cannot be measured.

    I remember with thanksgiving those who were pioneers. And I remember today that only so many battles have been won. Ordained women often get abuse in the streets when in clerical wear even now, younger women being particularly targetted. And women still don’t have parity of opportunity either in secular environments or in ecclesiastical ones.

    There are battles still to be won. But thank God for progress when it comes. And thank God for the decision made 30 years ago today.

8 responses to “End of Life (aka Death)”

  1. Bob Faser Avatar

    Kelvin, as always, you’ve made some important comments here, particularly given your high-profile stance on marriage equality and related issues. Some ultraconservative types try to convey the impression that all issues related to sex, marriage, families, and bioethics are a “package deal”. One either takes a conservative stance on the lot, or a progressive stance on the lot. Your ability to discern here on an issue-by-issue basis is refreshing.

    Another important thing is your question of “Who would actually benefit from lives being shortened at will? The patient is not the only person affected by a death, nor the only possible person to derive any “benefit” from life being cut short.” I honestly believe that it’s not only in Agatha Christie novels where a desperate person may be led to shorten the life of a old, ill family member for their own material gain.

  2. Beth Routledge Avatar

    I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.

    In medical ethics this is called the Doctrine of Double Effect and is a recognised thing.

  3. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    You show both profound good sense and Christian sensibility here, Kelvin. I hope that attempt at a seat in the British parliament won’t be your last. There is such a great need for your voice in a much more public arena than a blog, or a microphone in a church.

  4. Anne O'Connell Avatar
    Anne O’Connell

    A beautifully nuanced, and well constructed piece on a vexed argument. Thank you.

  5. Bob Chapman Avatar

    “I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.”

    It is all about intent. If the drugs are given to relieve pain, then it is the correct thing to do. If the drugs are given to shorten life, then it is the wrong thing to do.

    At no time should medical people feel compelled to keep a person alive simply to avoid a lawsuit or a criminal charge. There are examples of this happening in the US.

    At no time should treatment be given against the patient’s wishes.

    And, you can’t expect a one-size-fit-all approach to always be satisfying here.

  6. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    This is a sensitive subject. I can understand that people facing a terminal illness and in great pain may want to have control over their predicament. I agree that better quality palliative care would relieve much anxiety over this issue.

    Life is precious and should be treated as such. There’s too much potential for a lessening of the sacredness of life if euthanasia is legalised.

    Agree with your take on this issue Kelvin.

  7. Rosemary Sloan Avatar
    Rosemary Sloan

    It isn’t just about not dying in pain. It is also about living in pain. And about living with no dignity or control or choice. That bothers me just as much.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      And can you imagine that it might be better to tackle the problem of living in pain directly rather than presuming that battle will always be lost and instead giving people the opportunity to die, Rosemary?

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Apologies have consequences too

    The world seems to be full of bishops apologising to LGBT people. However, there seems to be a curious absence in the world of LGBT people freely accepting those apologies and being thus able to take their place as full members of the churches. In the last week we’ve had the latest document on family…

  • Transgender Visibility and the Church

    Today happens to be International Transgender Visibility Day of Visibility. As yet, I’ve heard nothing today from anyone from a faith background. No bishops making statements either positive or negative, no-one threatening to leave a denomination over it, no statements at all really. It seems to me that it is worth me going on record…

  • Easter Sermon 2016

    I never know whether he will rise. Plenty of people who know better than me tell me not to be so stupid. Of course he will rise they say – it is Easter. But there’s a part of me which is never entirely convinced. Before we get to Easter Day you see, I’m just not…