Following its decisions in July, it is highly likely that the General Synod will be asking us all to debate the question of the ordination of women to the episcopate not once, but twice, over the next few years . . . and all that when most people have made up their minds on the subject already. That could be a recipe for disaster – or, more likely, boredom – but I think that with a little imagination it could be very creative.
Initially ‘dioceses, deaneries and parishes’ (and, of course, teams and multi-parish benefices) are being asked ‘to continue serious debate and reflection on the theological, practical, ecumenical and missiological aspects of the issue’. It is not simply a matter of ‘are you for or against this development?’. Simultaneously a group is being asked by the Synod to begin the process of drafting the necessary legislation that would allow this to happen, whilst, at the same time, making legal provision ‘consistent with Canon A4’ for arrangements to maintain the highest possible degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.
That legislation, when it comes, will need to command a two-thirds majority in each of the three houses (laity, clergy and bishops) at General Synod, and, assuming that the votes in July provide a true guide to people’s voting intentions, it will receive that from the bishops and clergy but not, narrowly, from the laity.
In other words, the debate is very much alive.
But there is a danger that it will all become too black and white with people simply lining up on one side or the other. Looking at the ‘theological, practical, ecumenical and missiological implications’ will, I hope, enable us to do rather better than this.
I am delighted, therefore, that later this year the DOOR will be carrying a number of articles exploring these areas. The Bishop’s Council hopes that these will inform the debates going on at a local level – and we will be seeking to mirror this pattern at Diocesan Synod as well.
Ten years on from the ordination of women to the priesthood we now have a wealth of evidence about its practical and missiological outworkings, and it will be good to reflect on these. Ecumenically, whilst many of our Free Church colleagues find it very difficult that we do not have women as bishops, the Roman Catholic Church has issued a quite proper warning that it will affect our relationships with them. Theologically the questions become even sharper than in the debates over the ordination of women to the priesthood when we consider the role of a bishop as a focus of unity.
My prayer is that we will seize the opportunity we have been given for plenty of listening both to each other and to the Holy Spirit. Decisions as momentous as this one deserve it.
• Have you made up your mind where you stand on the debate over women bishops? Or are you open to persuasion? The DOOR would be interested to hear your views. You can write to us at The DOOR, Diocesan Church House, North Hinksey Lane, Oxford OX2 0NB, email us or post comments below.
I see that the Roman Catholic Church, “has issued a quite proper warning that it (women Bishops) will affect our relationships with them .” (The Door. Talking point: the debate on women bishops Friday 1st September 2006 by Colin Fletcher) In what sense is it proper? And what sort of relationship do I want to have with them?
My reason for attending an Anglican Church is worth recounting. A sudden conversion led me to seek a home for my spiritual life. The Catholic Church I visited offered no help for the family problems that I was handling. Indeed, when I suggested that the Holy Spirit had been at work in my understanding of what had happened to me, this was discounted and I left feeling insulted. However, an Anglican Church understood my needs and ministered to me. I became an Anglican.
My work as an art therapist has helped me to understand the problems of people who have suffered trauma, particularly those who have been sexually abused. I meet these people and their mothers in churches where offending males, be they clergy or laity, seem to ‘get away with it’. There is an abysmal lack of understanding of survivors and of what it means to them spiritually to have to pray to “God the Father” in such a male-dominated church. Here, where there is a kind of ‘blokey corporate culture’ the official response may be to close ranks. (Thankfully some do not.)
In my experience it is the women within the churches who understand best how to help families who are in pain as a result of sexual abuse. It is to a woman that many wish to turn at such a time. However, women are not found at the highest levels in their Church. This can simply feel like more abuse.
This is compounded when we see, “arrangements to maintain the highest possible degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops”. My advice to those who find it difficult is to indeed receive the ministry of women bishops to demonstrate their sacrificial love – as Jesus did when he allowed Mary Magdalene to minister to Him. It is, after all, what is being demanded of those abused people when they receive communion from the hands of men.
I plead with the Anglican Church to give us hope by giving us representation at the highest levels. I hope the Anglican Church does not become tacitly complicit in abuse simply by doing nothing – ‘not doing those things they ought to have done’. While there are formal protocols in place some try to evade them. We don’t want to receive the type of accusation leveled after the Ferns Report, that in the Church, “institutional corruption still escapes the civil law.” (Joseph G. O'Kane Suing the Pope.
Until the Catholic Church has put its own house in order and is seen to be clear of evasive tactics where sexual offenses against children are concerned, (see the Ferns Report for how the Catholic Church became complicit with abuse) the proper thing for them to do is to stop issuing threats and stay silent. We don’t want cover-ups to continue in the name of a spurious unity. It is here that I see a creative opportunity for a Bishop.
I chose to become an Anglican. I am a woman. I want to be represented by an Anglican Bishop who understands the spiritual and pastoral problems of the families of abused children and is willing to take a proactive stance. This is more likely to be a woman Bishop than a man. You say, “consider the role of a bishop as a focus of unity.” If it is unity you seek, seek it among the families who feel themselves to be outcasts in their own churches, those without a voice.
Christine Standing
I think many misunderstand this issue and view it unwittingly through non-christian secular humanistic ideology.
We learn from scripture the God created us in his image, male & female he created us. So we are created in the image of God who we know to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We learn how we as men and women should relate by the way in which God relates to himself. We know from scripture that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God and it would be heresey to suggest otherwise. Also we learn that they differ in function: the Son submits to the will of the Father, and the Holy Spirit brings glory to the Son. In other words they are equal in status but different in function. The functional hierarchy in the Trinity does not pose a problem for God, likewise it should not do for us created in that same image! But it does because of our rebellion and sinfulness.
When people call for women to be ordained as Bishops they either ignore, gloss over or re-interpret what the Church has taught from scripture over the centuries. Many argue that the New Testament teaching on men & women is culturally bound to the 1st Century and therefore not relevant to today. Rarely do I here people question their own presuppositions and grapple with the effect of a secular non-christian worldview on their thinking.
Ultimately we can quibble about cultral influences on our thinking but we can not escape the nature of God the Holy Trinity in whose image we are created.
Firstly, we have taken the step forward in ordaining women into the priesthood, so it seems only natural that they should progress to higher office.
Secondly, there is no foundation in debating inferiority. Only on physical strength can a man honestly claim he has superiority. In all other respects, I see no reason why man should claim anything other than equality.
It is 2000 years since Jesus was around. He was quite radical as I read it, and managed to change history in a very short period of time. We don't dress the same way as he did, or live the same style of living. We mangaed to move on. But we seem unable to make a simple decision about something which will happen anyway, once the male arogance gives way to common sense.
We are ALL equal in God's eyes.
Leave your comments on this item
More website comments