<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Miranda Threlfall-Holmes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes</link>
	<description>Miranda Threlfall-Holmes's Profile</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:50:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pragmatism beats idealism in fight for women bishops</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/07/14/pragmatism-beats-idealism-in-fight-for-women-bishops/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes/2010/07/14/pragmatism-beats-idealism-in-fight-for-women-bishops/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Miranda Threlfall-Holmes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes/2010/07/14/pragmatism-beats-idealism-in-fight-for-women-bishops/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[- Reverend Dr. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes is Chaplain and Solway Fellow of University College, Durham. The opinions expressed are her own. - The Church of England’s governing body, General Synod, has over the past few days given the green light to women bishops once again. Now each diocese in the Church of England will discuss the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left"><span><img class="size-full wp-image-8201 aligncenter" src="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/files/2010/07/RTR28B8V.jpg" alt="" width="510" height="376" /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: left"><span>- <em>Reverend Dr. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes is Chaplain and Solway Fellow of <a title="University College, " href="http://www.dur.ac.uk/university.college/" target="_blank">University College, Durham</a>. The opinions expressed are her own</em>. -</span></p>
<p>The Church of England’s governing body, General Synod, has over the past few days given the green light to women bishops once again.</p>
<p>Now each diocese in the Church of England will discuss the proposed legislation, and a final vote is expected to take place in two years time. If all goes to plan, the first woman bishop in the Church of England could be consecrated in early 2014.</p>
<p>There is no shortage of good candidates. The Church of England now has four female Deans of cathedrals, 17 female Archdeacons, and many other senior women such as Canons and staff in theological colleges, all as able and as gifted as the men who get made bishops.</p>
<p>I can’t wait to attend the consecration of the first woman bishop. It will be a great joy to see the Church visibly valuing women and men equally, as Jesus did.</p>
<p>The process by which the Church of England changes it rules can be frustratingly slow, but it does have the advantage that it listens to everyone and tries very hard indeed to accommodate everyone.</p>
<p>It is now 35 years since General Synod voted, in 1975, that there was no theological objection to women’s ordination. In 1992, women were allowed to become priests but not bishops.</p>
<p>In 2006, Synod voted for legislation to be prepared to remove the legal barrier to women becoming bishops. The debate since then has not really been about whether to have women bishops, but about how, if at all,  the church can both have women bishops and also accommodate those who remain opposed in principle to women’s ordination.</p>
<p>A Revision Committee has spent the last two years preparing legislation to set out a compromise. Those who don’t want women bishops have spent the last two years saying that only a structural division – a men-only ‘church within a church’ -  will suit them.</p>
<p>On the other hand, those of us who are longing to see women bishops in our church have been hoping and praying that we can avoid anything that sets up a two-tier system in which women bishops are second-class bishops.</p>
<p>Last weekend,  Synod voted on draft legislation which represented a major compromise on all sides. Women bishops will be proper bishops, but will have to be prepared to delegate all their functions to male bishops when a parish votes to be a male-only church.</p>
<p>Apart from a few minor amendments, we on Synod voted overwhelmingly to send that compromise legislation to the dioceses.</p>
<p>Originally, I and many others had intended to try to remove the complex arrangements for those opposed to women bishops from the measure.</p>
<p>We wanted the simplest possible legislation,  simply saying that women could be bishops. However, as the debate proceeded most of us decided to give way on this, and to allow the compromise hammered out by the Revision Committee to stand.</p>
<p>This was a difficult decision, but we felt that we had reached the point where idealism needed to give way to pragmatism, and that this was the best possible compromise for all parties.</p>
<p>Many of those who are opposed in principle to the ordination of women have repeatedly claimed that they would have to leave if each successive amendment were lost.</p>
<p>This gets less and less convincing as time goes on. And by the second day of debate many of them were engaging with the detail of the compromise arrangements, suggesting minor amendments to the voting systems proposed for parishes and so on.</p>
<p>Tacitly accepting, in other words, that we have  indeed come up with a solution that many parishes with reservations about women’s ministry will work with.</p>
<p>So here’s looking forward to 2014: the year the Church of England will fully and visibly demonstrate that it values women as much as men.</p>
<p>Picture Credit: <em>Canterbury Cathedral in Canterbury is shown in this file picture. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes/2010/07/14/pragmatism-beats-idealism-in-fight-for-women-bishops/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed legislation on women bishops falls short</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Miranda Threlfall-Holmes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[- 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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="threlfall-holmes" rel="lightbox[pics3652]" href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/files/2009/10/threlfall-holmes.jpg"><img class="attachment wp-att-3658 alignleft" src="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/files/2009/10/threlfall-holmes.jpg" alt="threlfall-holmes" width="123" height="150" /></a>- Reverend Dr. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes is Chaplain and Solway Fellow of <a title="University College, " href="http://www.dur.ac.uk/university.college/" target="_blank">University College, Durham</a>. 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 &#8220;protect&#8221; 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&#8217;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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.reuters.com/miranda-threlfall-holmes/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
