• 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?

10 responses to “Guest Post: At Home Among the Dissenters – John McLuckie”

  1. tom donald Avatar

    Are you really PAID by the NHS? Money that could pay for a nurse or a physiotherapist? You must be tremendously confident that your faith is meaningful if you are! I’m not sure if I envy that or not…

    1. Beth Avatar

      In most hospitals, there are hospital chapels and hospital chaplains. It isn’t a new or shocking thing. My experience has been that most of them do very good work, and are available for anyone from any religion who wishes to speak to them and don’t force themselves on the ones who prefer not to. The practice of medicine is about a lot more than just the physical, especially in a cancer hospital, and unless you want doctors to be the ones offering spiritual support (I don’t think I’d be that good at it, I don’t have enough hours in the day as it is, and, as my patients have to see me whether they subscribe to my religion or not, I think it can be inappropriate and intrusive), I’m quite happy for the NHS to pay someone who specialises in the area of spiritual support to fulfill that very real need.

      – Beth, who works for the NHS

      1. Ruth Avatar
        Ruth

        Thank you Beth. I couldn’t have put it better.

        – Ruth, whose sister died in hospital not all that long ago

    2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      Agree with Beth, and …
      is this really a world where the big ideas about birth, death, love, hate, forgiveness, suffering should not be discussed? Where one can live and suffer and give birth and die without thinking about them? does not the very suggestion this should be so impoverish us every bit as much as as suffering and death can? And is certainty in any way necessary to enter such a discussion?

      1. tom donald Avatar

        Interesting! My original question was about confidence… here’s one to test it a little more, today there’s a headline in the Guardian:
        ” NHS to axe cancer and heart experts. Charities and doctors warn that treatment of killer diseases will suffer as number of teams is cut”
        Yet according to the BBC the NHS is spending £40 million per annum on chaplains!
        Which means that chaplains must be VERY confident that this money is better spent on talk than treatment, or I’m sure they wouldn’t take it. Would they?
        By the way I was a nurse at Gartnavel Royal for many years. Never saw hide nor hair of the chaplain up there, although apparently, there was one!

  2. John MacBrayne Avatar
    John MacBrayne

    What an excellent blog John has. Most interesting. Thanks for the link.

  3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Um – as one with friends and family in the NHS I wonder how much of the money spent in the last weeks of a terminally-ill person’s life is well spent. Sometimes a great deal is spent on treatments which are hugely unpleasant and prolong life by weeks or months at best. I made a decision years ago that when (and given family history when is more likely than if) I find myself there I will ask very searching questions.

    I won’t answer for John, but for myself… I am ‘tremendously confident’ that examining the questions around my faith is ‘meaningful’ and indeed essential. That is not at all the same thing as being sure my beliefs are right.

    We have what is supposed to be a Health Service – something which promotes well-being. People are more complex than their conditions – and we all die one day. A great deal of money is spend on all kinds of things which make the lives of those in hospital better, because people cannot get through life-crises on medicine alone.

  4. tom donald Avatar

    I think that characterising cancer and heart disease treatment as terminal care is extremely depressing, and perhaps fifty years out of date. And the health service is there to promote well-being? I don’t think so, I think it’s to provide medical and para-medical care during illness..
    Not that I don’t love chatting to a minister of religion, anytime. I do! But not on the NHS budget please! UNLESS…
    Unless it’s been demonstrated in properly designed clinical trials that a visit from the chaplain is worth the cash. That’s the test for all the other expensive treatments we’re paying for!

  5. rosemary hannah Avatar
    rosemary hannah

    I did not describe cancer and heart conditions as terminal. However I do expect to die one day.

  6. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    I’m not sure that the benefits to a patient from a visit from the chaplain could be usefully or accurately measured by ‘properly designed clinical trials’…. from a personal viewpoint I know that the last twelve weeks of my sister’s life (a young 62 year old with cancer and desperate to live) were made more bearable by the chaplain’s ability to help her cope with the sullen, spitefulness of too many of her nurses.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Epiphany

    I was in Dundee this week, which proudly proclaims itself to be the City of Discovery. That is really the theme of Epiphany. The Magi arrive in the city of Bethlehem and make their own great discovery and in doing so invite us to start the same quest that they have been on. What dark…

  • 101st thing

    Here is another thing about me. As of today, I’m in Who’s Who. See this article in today’s Scotsperson.

  • Collaboration of the Month

    The Scottish Episcopal Church article is the collaboration of the month of the Anglicanism Project on Wikipedia. If you can improve the page, please do so.

  • 100 Things

    Chris tagged me to tell you 5 things that you didn’t know about me. However, 5 things is for wimps. I’ve updated my list of 100 things and amongst them I’m sure you’ll find five or more that you did not know already. Here we go…. 100 things about me 1. Born 1966 2. Born…