Proposed legislation on women bishops falls short

October 13, 2009

threlfall-holmes

- Reverend Dr. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes is Chaplain and Solway Fellow of University College, Durham. The opinions expressed are her own. -

A controversial decision by a committee drawing up legislation to allow women bishops has been met with criticism from women who are seeking equal representation at the highest levels in the Church of England.

Women have been ordained as priests in the Church of England since 1994, but cannot currently become bishops.

Since 2006, the Church of England has been preparing draft legislation to remove the legal obstacles to women bishops. In 2008, the General Synod voted to reject a range of options which set up separate structures within the church for those who could not accept women’s ordination, and instead asked the  Revision Committee to draw up simple legislation without discrimination, alongside a separate code of practice to “protect” those who objected to women’s ministry.

But last Thursday, the Revision Committee issued a statement saying that they had decided to reject this route. Instead, they propose to prepare legislation which would  enforce the transfer of powers from the diocesan bishop to a special anti-woman bishop, if the diocesan bishop were either a woman, or a man who agreed with the ordination of women.

I am deeply concerned about this decision. In the first place, the remit of the revision committee based on the synod debates last year was to prepare simple legislation with a code of practice, and I fail to see any justification for the revision committee taking it upon themselves to reject the will of synod in this way. I, along with many of my colleagues on Synod, feel betrayed by this disregard for the hard work and serious thought which was put in by us all in that debate.

Apart from the issue of process, there are very serious concerns about the substance of the proposed way forward. To set up legislation in which powers are transferred to bishops selected purely on the basis of their views on the ordination of women is invidious and unsustainable.

Were such legislation to be prepared, the Church of England would then be in the position of asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which was inherently discriminatory, which would be to put both them and us in an invidious position. And for members of Synod, the vast majority of members of the Church of England generally, and especially for ordained women, such legislation would be an affront, since it returns to the idea of having male and female bishops who are not bishops on equal terms.

At the base of the desire for such discrimination is the discredited and discreditable idea that women are inherently less in the image of God than men, and the Church of England must stand firm against any such suggestion.

The fact that some members of our church believe wholeheartedly that women cannot be ordained does not make them right in that belief. And it does not mean that as a church we should undermine the very thing we are legislating for by framing the legislation in such a way as to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the new women bishops and to make the remit of their ministry less comprehensive than that of their male colleagues.

I have heard it said in recent days that this proposal for the new legislation is not discriminatory because men who agreed with women’s ordination would also be affected by the transfer of powers. This is such a disingenuous argument that I am astounded it can be made with a straight face.

It is of course discriminatory on grounds of gender to discriminate between individuals either on their own gender or on their views about gender. Furthermore, the precedent of allowing individuals or churches to pick and choose their bishop based on their theological opinions is an extremely dangerous one.

It goes against the fundamental principle, expressed in the 39 Articles, that the worthiness of the minister does not affect the validity of their ministry, and it opens the door wide to a complete fragmentation of the church, at a time when unity and division are real and urgent questions not just for us in the Church of England but for the whole Anglican communion.

In this context, this proposal is to make the question of gender the key defining question for the Church of England. Theological opinion on the gender of ordained ministers would be enshrined in our legislation as the one opinion the holding of which is legally sufficient to render a bishop unacceptable to certain parishes, and for which an alternative bishop would be officially provided. Is this really the intention of the revision committee?

Comments

It is not only women who oppose the decision of the commitee. I, and I am sure many men like me, are against it. We have beem blessed with great ministry of priests over the last few years both men and women. I want to start a campaign. You don’t need a ***** to be a bishop!

Posted by Charles Walmsley | Report as abusive
 

I fail to see why those Liberals pushing for the office of Bishopess are so determined to discriminate and impose their own fanciful will against Traditional Anglican’s who remain faithful to the faith recieved from their parents and grandparents.

 

A bishop is a bishop there is no (ess) about it!

To limit the order of bishop, on the basis of gender (or anything else), is far more damaging to the tradition of the church.

Posted by Jon Goode | Report as abusive
 

Br John Stevenson manages to be offensive, igonrant and illiterate all in the space of a single sentence. No small achievement. ‘Bishopess’ is offensive. The idea that traditional anglicans must be bound by the conventions of the past is ignorant, given that traditional anlgicanism has been characterised by its ability to embrace the development of doctrine and its willingness to understand the gospel in the present day. To give an apostrophe to the plural form of anglican is illiterate.

 

I totally agree with Miranda’s comments. And I can assure Brother Stevenson that nowhere in the faith that I received from my parents and grand parents was there any mention that a women should not or could not be a priest or bishop.

Posted by Peter Elliott | Report as abusive
 

Thank you for making my contribution ‘best comment’, but, oh, the shame. A typo in the word ‘ignorant’ – ‘igonrant’. I’ll never live it down, and hoisted up there for all to see and daws to peck at.

 

“The fact that some members of our church believe wholeheartedly that women cannot be ordained does not make them right in that belief.” But Miranda, neither do those who wholeheartdly believe in the ordination and consecration of women have a monopoly on truth. That’s the point.

Posted by Chappers | Report as abusive
 

I’m an atheist in the USA, but hear me out. Women are different! The question is, are they worse? Question everything (evil laughter)! Question yourself. Question others. With any luck, you’ll get a lot of data before anything really bad happens, whatever “really bad” may be.

Posted by Pete Cann | Report as abusive
 

Throughout my adult life I’ve wholeheartedly supported the ordination of women and feel it to be intrinsically right. Cpnsecaration of women as bishops when it happens will surely be a natural development of their existing ministry as deacons and priests. That said, I have a number of friends in Forward in Faith and similar organisations who have a deeply rooted conviction that women cannot validly receive holy orders and that the church lacks the right to confer such orders upon them. I think a way forward must be found which allows women to become bishops in accordance with the common consent of most Church of England people whilst respectfully making sensitive provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the development.

Posted by Adrian | Report as abusive
 
  •