What is in Kelvin's Head?

Reforming Canon 4

07/03/2023

The Scottish Episcopal Church has a curious hobby and that hobby is reforming Canon 4.

Now, Canon 4 is the set of rules by which we choose new bishops and from time to time the cry goes up that it is time to reform Canon 4.

There are a limited number of reasons why anyone would want to reform Canon 4. Broadly speaking there’s two reasons – the first of which is that for some reason there’s a feeling held by some people within the church that the wrong person has been elected as a bishop somewhere. The second reason is the feeling that an election process has not gone smoothly and things have been very difficult along the pathway to chosing someone to be the bishop of a diocese.

It has been quite a while since we’ve engaged in trying to reform Canon 4 but right now, we are slap bang in the middle of it. There’s a strong view that the current Canon isn’t working as well as it might. Some, I suspect, do think that the wrong people are ending up as bishops, and few who have had anything to do with the process in recent years would describe it running smoothly in all cases. Indeed, the dioceses where it has seemed to run smoothly have been in the minority.

Last Saturday, the diocese that I’m in carefully considered the latest proposals for Reforming Canon 4 that are on the table at the moment and rejected them by quite decisive majorities.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the process stops here. The freshly proposed canon will still be presented at General Synod in June and be voted on. It will need more than two thirds to agree with it in each of the three houses – clergy, laity and bishops. Last year when it was first read, it didn’t achieve that. It would be fair to say that there is quite some risk that this will not get through its second reading. If that is the case, it will cause quite some upset because a lot of work goes into these things, for which everyone in the church should be grateful.

However, I was pleased that the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway said no last week as I don’t think that what is proposed at the moment is fit for purpose and if we say yes to it, we could be stuck with it for 20 years.

What we decided we wanted to happen was the Faith and Order Board to take another look at it in the light of the concerns that people still have and propose something else next year, building on the work that has already been done.

One big problem in the process being proposed is the idea of confidentiality. It has been proposed that we return to a system where elections are carried out in which the names of those who are being considered are not published and are held in confidence by all those who are involved in the process.

It is a fine idea. However, I’ve not come across anyone at all who thinks that dozens of Scottish Episcopalians (around 150 people in some dioceses) can actually keep such a confidence for weeks on end. One of the reasons for this is that we used to have a closed system and the news of who was being considered always did leak out into the wider church. This is not particularly surprising, for after all, the wider church does have a legitimate interest in who is being considered. Something called the internet has been widely adopted, even by Episcopalians, since then too, making it even more likely that word would get around now about who was being considered.

Many candidates have found it very hard to be named as candidates for the Episcopacy publicly and found the weeks between being named and the election taking place quite tortuous. I’m one of those people. It is horrible to have everyone talking about you.

The cry has gone up that we must keep everything confidential in order to protect the candidates.

This has the best of motives but lots of us think it unrealistic.

From my point of view this could have been sorted out by looking at the election timetable and significantly changing it rather than trying to impose a confidentiality that I don’t think can ever be kept.

Some people (I am amongst them) think that the process of chosing a new bishop should be done by a much smaller group of people than is currently the case. If a smaller “electoral college” was doing the work, I could imagine it being much more likely to be able to keep the confidentiality that we are looking for.

However, if a whole diocesan synod of people are involved, then this seems unrealistic.

The idea of a smaller group of people making the choice does not seem to have widespread support at the moment, which I think is a shame.

From my point of view, it would be better to have either a smaller group which was able to keep confidences or alternatively to have the larger diocesan synod doing it, but that process to be made more rather than less transparent. I think if the diocesan synod is involved this should be a public piece of business. (This is what happens in some other parts of the Anglican Communion – eg the US based Episcopal Church).

I think members of electoral synods would probably behave significantly better than some have done if it was a public meeting that the candidates were present at. I also think that those who are candidates who come from a diocese should retain a vote in the process. It is a strange thing to take away a vote from someone simply because they are a candidate.

The current proposal we have before us is trying to use rules suitable for a small gathering for a bigger gathering and it just won’t work.

The consequence of this for candidates could be even worse than the situation that we currently have. Should an election take place and the names leak out, or even be printed in a newspaper or appear online in a social media post, the only people who would be unable to speak about this – either publicly or privately, would be the candidates. This could result in new cruelties in a system which is already problematic.

There are other things that trouble me about the proposed canon 4 process too. In particular, I’m concerned that the Personnel Committee still have no involvement in the running of the elections.

I have the feeling that the Personnel Committe would manage the interview and election processes significantly more professionally than the current combination of the College of Bishops and local members of the diocese concerned.

Some Episcopal elections have in recent years been conducted incompetently. The church needs to hear that those responsible for these processes will never have anything to do with the election of bishops again. There also needs to be a clear complaints process and all involved need to deal with complaints properly. (This has not always happened).

Incompetently conducted elections have meant candidates being treated cruelly. We need to make that stop and if that means doing some more work on Canon 4 before agreeing a new process then I think we should make the effort to make that happen.

I am aware that the problems that we have seen are not all caused by the current text of the canon. However, any attempt to change the canon should do whatever can be done to make things better.

Canon 4 needs to be revised. What is currently being proposed would probably be an improvement, but only if the electorate was composed of the House of Angels and the House of Saints who could, to the very last cherub, keep schtum when they needed to.

However, we live in the real world and I think we need a real world electoral process that will work properly.

Lots of work has been done already.

However, we’re not there yet.

The current proposals are not yet fit for purpose and should be rejected.

10 responses to “The Church of England and its Bishops”

Joan H Craig

20/11/2012

You put it well, and I agree with all that you say. In one sense it is a very sad day for priests who are women. In another, parity is crucial 🙁

Reply
Patrick Smith

20/11/2012

I am not a regular C of E communicant now but have been so in my life and I unequivocally support the proper human rights entitlement of women to serve equally as Bishops.I think that the women priests appear to have been too inclined, cap in hand, to compromise that would still have deemed women bishops, as second class.This Vote, according to some of their spokespersons was as far as the talented women priests could get, amongst the conservative antis, in the C of E.

Surely,that in our enlightened world men do not hold a monopoly on either the aspiration to achieve good in their work or to eclipse human goodness in prayer,mission and faith in the ranks of the C of E? The Bishops and Clergy have seen that women are now do one third of active work in the C of E but do not have parity at the top table.

Why is it the case that women are ordained in the US and NZ and have served their communities equally, as men, over 20 years? Whereas, in the C of E at home, the vision of the Laity Synod threatens to derrogate the status of women, as if the clock had been turned back into Victorian times and before the Suffragettes had started their quest for universal suffrage and equality in work for women.

Reply
Duncan MacLaren

20/11/2012

Nigel McCulloch said in the debate, “If you wait for the perfect piece of legislation, you’ll be waiting for ever.”
I can understand the principled position that you don’t want to pass flawed and discriminatory legislation: but I can’t help thinking this would be better than acquiescing for another 5 years in an even more discriminatory status quo.
Had women bishops been voted in, they would have had five years to demonstrate practically to their opponents that they were competent, valuable, indispensable, talented and undeniably called leaders in the church. Instead, we now have the task of creating legislation the opponents will like even less (because it won’t make space for their position), and then trying to get it voted through. And five years of practical experience – perhaps the best argument – wasted.
If there were six lay liberals (the margin of votes) who voted ‘no’ on principle this evening, I wonder how long before they will rue the day? Principle is all very well, but possession is nine-tenths of the law. Had women been granted this possession, we could have spent the next five years chasing down the discriminatory clauses: as it is, we are back to square one. Barren theological argument now prevails over the witness and example of flesh and blood women.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  20/11/2012
  
  I understand that view, Duncan. I’d agree with it if there was any evidence in the last 20 years of anyone either trying or succeeding to eliminate the flying bishops that were created last time around. It is much, much easier to create good legislation than to repeal, tinker and undo bad legislation.
  
  Reply
2. Augur Pearce
  
  21/11/2012
  
  As I see it part of the problem was the large number of Synod members who wanted to see women bishops but thought that unity was more important than principle, and were therefore prepared to compromise. The ideal scenario would not have been rejection of the Measure, but an amendment to get rid of the discriminatory clauses. That wasn’t possible because the ‘unity party’ (for want of a better name) would have allied with the fundamentalists to defeat it. I hope that those who made up this ‘unity party’ will now realise the time for compromise is past and support legislation which, as you say, the opponents will like even less because it wonâ€™t make space for their position. I believe such legislation would pass, but would lead the fundamentalists to dissent from the C of E and form their own conventicles (as many have done before them, for better reasons). There would then be some hope of the General Synod addressing other equality issues, such as marriage…
  
  Reply
Tim

20/11/2012

Could it be said that it spent too long cooking?

The impression I get is that the SEC was quite decisive in dealing with the Covenant earlier.
What I’ve seen with the CoE looks like internalized via-media meeting a half-open door – and no wonder some people use the word “irrelevant”. As such, I’m wondering if it shouldn’t have simply been “women bishops, yes or no?” a while ago and then there wouldn’t have been such clumsy inaccuracy of reporting, at least…

Reply
Ritualist Robert

21/11/2012

I have to say, regretfully, that I am relieved it didn’t pass because, imho, it allowed for far too many ‘provisions’ for so-called traditionalists. Their arguments seem to be based on one of the most vile theological concepts ever invented – ‘taint’ – though, of course, nobody admits to it. I understand the Evangelicals’ objections (though I disagree with them), but I am flummoxed by things like the ‘traditionalist’ catholics’ demand for ‘flying bishops’ (a concept which fails any test for catholicity) and attacks the very basis of Anglican Church structure and order – that of a bishop acting as the Ordinary in his/her diocese. Choosing one’s bishop based on whether one likes their theological outlook is quite a novelty, but it’s one that the so-called traditionalists insist on being allowed. Moreover, to claim to be catholic surely means to support the Church. When the Church of England ordained women for the first time surely it was up to those catholics who disagreed to either (a) conform their minds to the mind of the Church – surely the duty of anyone who calls themselves catholic – or (b) to have enough integrity to part with the Church and find another spiritual home.

Instead we have so-called traditionalists promoting what are essentially congregationalist novelties whilst claiming – falsely, I believe – to be catholics, all the while arguing for a distinctly non-catholic version of the Church.

Reply
Justin Reynolds

22/11/2012

If politics is ‘the art of the possible’ then surely all liberals should have backed the measure, whatever its flaws. The notion that one day we will all be marching hand in hand towards the sunlit progressive uplands is somewhat fantastic, I think.

Everyone who joins the C of E, or indeed the SEC, knows what kind of church it is: essentially progressive (as witnessed by the Synod vote) but with significant minorities opposed to change. And it isn’t like a political party where arguments are conducted in the field of political philosophy and politics with a realistic hope that the mind of the party might change decisively over time in one direction or other. In the case of the church disputes are necessarily more intransigent, concerned with the interpretation of revelation and long standing traditions. These disagreements take decades, indeed centuries, to resolve, in so far as they can be resolved at all.

Perhaps those who can’t live with compromise, be they conservative or liberal, should consider whether they are actually in the right denomination at all, rather than hoping that one day – sooner rather than later – everyone will agree with them. It’s often noted that conservatives can go Orthodox or Roman Catholic, as indeed some have. It’s less often suggested that liberals might consider Unitarianism or Quakerism. I say that as a liberal who has at various times wavered between those two – and others – and Episcopalianism. I’ve ended up as an Episcopalian, but I did so knowing full well the intractable nature of the disagreements besetting the denomination, and that I had to live with them or simply go elsewhere. It seems to me that Christians are far too sentimental and attached to particular denominations.

Also, with respect Rowan Williams’ tenure can hardly be seen as an ‘abject failure’. Everyone knew he believed in conciliation and compromise when he was selected. His liberalism on a number of issues only formed a component of his theology. And his intellectual contribution over the past decade to British national life has been significant, particularly in regard to political and economic issues. His archepiscopate has gone some way towards restoring Anglicanism’s intellectual credibility: witness the tributes from secular as well as religious quarters on news of his retirement.

Reply
Seph

22/11/2012

Apparently Diana Johnson MP (Lab., Hull North) is planning to bring a ten-minute rule bill in the new year which will include a clause calling for women bishops. Parliament could succeed here where General Synod failed.

Reply
Rosie Bates

02/12/2012

Check out Bristol Diocese action re Vote of No Confidence in Synod! How lovely on the mountains are the feet of Him who brings Good News! Hope the rest take note and follow a fine example. Hope in this Advent message. Bishop Mike was an Area Bishop in Oxford Diocese and likely to be very clued up to certain of their Synod Reps games which cannot be stopped before July without reform or, at the very least, tough love.

Reply