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 “taintâ€, 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!
Leave a Reply