The relationship between the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure and the Equality Act 2010 was considered during the recent General Synod:
The Church Times reported that
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, said that it would be his task to steer the legislation through the House of Commons. In his constituency, many of the senior posts in the county were held by women. “I see no reason why, when there is a vacancy, the Bishop of Dorchester or the Bishop of Oxford should not be a woman. . . Let’s do it soon.” However, the Church of England was a broad Church.
The vote on the legislation on women bishops which would be presented to Parliament would be a free vote in which the views of individual MPs mattered. The equality agenda now played strongly across all parties, and there were now a record number of women MPs. The difficult task of steering through the legislation would be impossible “if there is a scintilla of a suggestion that women bishops are in some way second-class bishops”.
Robert Key, the former MP, spoke later, and opposed the inclusion of Clause 7 of the Measure.
The Church Times reported as follows:
Mr Tattersall warned that the consequences of not agreeing to Clause 7 (Equality Act exceptions), which had been introduced in order to comply with the Equality Act, would be that the Measure could be found to be in conflict with that legislation, and so would be “legally deficient”. The Equality Act had been drawn more narrowly than the Equality Bill had originally been drawn; so the new legislation was necessary to prevent any possible conflict with the Act, the committee had been advised.
Robert Key (Salisbury) had given notice that he wanted to speak against Clause 7. He said that the Bishop of Durham was, “of course, wholly wrong: the Church of England cannot act wholly in its own interest.” God spoke not just to the Synod, but also to Parliament. The evidence he had seen was that Clause 7 was not a proportionate and reasonable approach and his view was that it would fail in the courts. The law of the land would apply to everyone except Christians.
The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament had to ensure that the Church respected the constitutional rights of all the population.
Mr Key elaborated his position in this video interview with Ruth Gledhill: Should Church of England be exempt from Equality law?
I wrote a news article for the Church Times recently which gave some of the background on this, see Equality Law will affect church appointments.
I am going to write a further and more detailed explanation soon.
I think it’s worth illustrating from examples just what the mood is in some places and why it is that many people were opposed to the Archbishops’ amendment. Those opposed to the ordination of women as priests and bishops have tried to portray themselves as moderate, prayerful and accommodating, and that they’re being pushed out by vicious liberal majority. What’s it really like? Ed Tomlinson has said on his blog: ‘If you profoundly disagree with orthodox Anglo-Catholicism understand that you are nevertheless welcome….But any comment lacking in love and generosity will be scrubbed from now on. You have been warned!’… Read more »
Junius, this is an extreme example and extremes exist on both sides of the spectrum. One could easily point out blog comments, equally un-Christian from the proponents of women bishops. But we are called to live in love and charity with our neighbors.
In a way, I don’t think it matters as long as people are clear and open about what sort of church they are running; if they are opposed to female bishops, let them have something to that effect on their noticeboards, if in support, let’s know about that too; similarly for churches that are welcoming of LGBT folks, or families with children. The CofE website allows you to see which churches have Sunday Schools or are child-friendly, amongst their ‘facilities’. The people will vote with their feet, whether or not Parliament, our vote by proxy, goes this way or that.… Read more »
Junius “These are the voices which seek a ‘permanent, honoured place’ in the Church of England” Actually, they’re not. You have quoted one person, and one who is going through a particularly upsetting and emotional time in his life at the moment. If you can’t cut people some slack and insist on making this kind of sweeping unhelpful statement, you needn’t be surprised if people like Ed aren’t particularly minded to post your comments. If you look at the history of the CoE, it has always had 3 major strands, evangelical, anglo-catholic and middle of the road/liberal. They have never… Read more »
‘As Ed says – you’ve won, isn’t that enough?’ So, as far as Ed Tomlinson is concerned, hearing and following a call from God is a matter of winning or losing. In my view he needs to do some very hard thinking, and some very hard praying, because at the moment there is nothing there which looks like the sort of genuine conviction that the Ordinariate requires. And if Matthew Tomlinson imagines that he will be received with open arms then he too, needs to look at what the Pope has actually said; it is the complete reverse of what… Read more »
Erika: that poster was claiming that he wouldn’t recognize the validity of CofE bishops. How on earth can they want an honored place when they are denying the validity of women’s orders? The church can’t have protected purified lines of succession. There can be but one order of orders and every bishop must be in that same line. I know that you want to be gracious but what they are saying makes no sense. If you want to be an Anglican then recognize all valid Anglican orders. Or find a church whose orders you recognize. No church can survive with… Read more »
Who’s “won,” Erika?
AFAIK, there can’t be any woman consecrated bishop in the CofE until AT LEAST 2014?
I’ll believe that WHEN I see it (and even then—remembering +Gene Robinson on this side of The Pond—not until the *2nd* woman is consecrated bishop will it be the time to talk about having “won”!)
Dennis et all, I think you misunderstand me. The CoE is not a church that started out by one group of right-believers forming their own church that has then grown and diversified and frayed at the edges. There is no “genuine” core, like there is with other denominations or churches. I don’t know all the dates, names, etc., but I know that when the CoE was established and the Roman Catholic church eventually marginalised in England, the Anglo-Catholics saw themselves as the true remnants of what had been the church, and they were the ones who were going to keep… Read more »
…2… It is becoming impossible because what is needed to make it work is no longer just tolerance and live and let live, but is requires structural changes to the church itself. Flying bishops were the first indication of how dramatic this development is. At that time, it was clear that something had to be done to allow one part of the church to move in a dramatically new direction without losing the other parts of itself. It was not and never has been, a case of the progressive ones making concessions to keep the dinosaurs on board. It was… Read more »
Dear Erika, With respect, I am afraid your history is pretty shakey. I recommend the relevant bits of Diarmaid MacCulloch’s Reformation.Anglo-Catholics didnt exist in the C of E before the 19c…the high churchmen before that were very much “protestant ” high churchmen. The papalist strand wasnt even part of the original Tractarian programme…it began to appear post 1845 mostly under the influence of Pusey on the next generation.The C of E since the Reformation hasnt been three churches in one church despite the tensions that have always existed within it.Comprehensiveness in anglican terms only makes sense if you accept a… Read more »
Erika, what you miss out in your long discourse is the idea of communion. I remember, not too long ago, when it was possible to go on holiday and walk into the nearest church on Sunday and receive communion, and, if you were a priest, to be offered the hospitality of the altar, either to concelebrate, or to celebrate a a mass during the week. The style may have been different. North-end, westward-facing, eastward-facing, vestments, scarf and hood, A&M, English Hymnal, all the rest. None of this mattered for a Sunday away. What mattered was a common eucharistic fellowship. The… Read more »
Junius I know, that is a problem, whichever way we structure the church now, we will have lost that cohesion. But we already lost that the moment the first woman was ordained and yet, we’ve managed to keep rubbing along nicely until now. To a large extent, it’s only a theoretical issue anyway, there are only some 1000 FiF parishes (correct me if I’m wrong), and very few of the conservative evangelical parishes celebrate mass during the week or even on Sundays. In practice, you can still do what you’ve always done in well over 90% (uneducated guess) of parishes.… Read more »
Perry, I admitted my grasp of dates, names etc. was shaky. Thank you for your explanation. I do struggle a little with: “Comprehensiveness in anglican terms only makes sense if you accept a distinction between fundamentals and non-fundamentals and see the three tendencies for want of a better word as three emphases on a shared body of divinity enshrined in the Churche’s authorised formularies, liturgical tradition and canon law.” Our liturgical tradition is already lived out completely differently in Anglo-Catholic and evangelical churches and we are able to cope with that quite well. Canon law… yes, of course. But it… Read more »
Junius, though I agree with the substance of your comment, visiting Anglican clergy were not, I think, invited to “concelebrate” in other Anglican churches. Concelebration is a recent appearance from post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. I think visiting Anglican clergy were generally invited to “sit in choir” or be “robed and in the sanctuary” or otherwise assist, but not to concelebrate.
Erika, either that unity returns or there is no church. It’s one of the four essential marks of the church. I’m not the one talking about purity. That’s the language of the objectors.
Fr Mark, I take your point and remember that situation. I only go back to the late 1970s. From then on it was concelebration as well as the options you mention. Either way…..
Erika, perry is correct on Anglo Catrholics.
My question is why can the STATE Church of England secure an opt out , but the Catholic Church can’t get one in other areas. Discrimination.
‘But it is within General Synod’s power to make decisions about how we live together in the future. It is not the case that we are looking at FiF and Reform and say “sorry, can’t do”, what we’re saying is “sorry, won’t do”. I question whether this is truly necessary.’ It is if you want the CoE to survive; we are the established Church and we cannot behave in a manner wholly contrary to our traditions. And Reform is wholly contrary to our traditions; there has never been a time when the Church hid its true beliefs in order to… Read more »
I’m no expert on the history of the CofE/Angliganism either, but I think there’s always been those Anglicans who held a “high” view of the sacraments (e.g., Real Presence—giving only lip-service to those anti-sacremental Articles), but they weren’t known as “Anglo-Catholics” until the Oxford Movement. Just as important, Erika, I want to push back against the oft-cited canard (you seem to be repeating) that “Anglo-Catholics” are of one mind towards women’s (and *honestly* LGBT) ordination: agin’ it. “Affirming Catholics” aren’t some invention of “women dressing up as priests”: no, among the honorable strain of “high churchman”/”Anglo-Catholics”, male and female, there… Read more »
Erika, There are also a lot of evangelicals who have been positive about women’s ministry for a long time and were having women as lay readers, deacons etc even before they could have them as priests. But the evangelical circles I moved in in the early 1980s may have been positive about women, but not about liberals. Our expectation then was that our brand of Christianity would take over the Church of England and liberals would fade away and we were quite happy about that, because they had incorrect beliefs. And I suspect that if you went today to most… Read more »
Oh please – you barely know the history of Anglicanism, let alone understand concepts such as “Classical” Anglicanism, or “Catholicism” in its universally understood use regarding doctrines like the Apostolic Succession and Sacramental validity! Your’e a joke! Your stated understanding of the term “Protestant” betrays the fact you actually have no idea what that term meant when it is was first used, let alone the understanding of that term in Anglicanism prior to the 19C?! Amazing that your “reductive” or “redactive” theories applied to Scriptural exegesis you seem unable – or deliberately refuse – to apply to your own history… Read more »
So, periti, do you have any interest in making a substantive contribution to the discussion, or do you prefer to rant like a pompous *$$?
Even the now long gone NP used to provide better talking points than your vacuous screed.
magistra
“I don’t think they would be telling you that liberalism is an important strand of Anglicanism and you should stay.”
So what? I’m not a liberal in order to be as narrow as other people can be.
Unless there’s real harm in something, I don’t see why it can’t be granted.
But Erika, that’s the problem. There is real harm in having one group of Anglican clergy or bishops who don’t recognize the validity of another group. For example, when Rowan refused to welcome Gene Robinson to Lambeth, it wasn’t just an insult to one person, it was a rejection of the entire Episcopal church. In the same way, if Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals refuse to recognize women bishops it will be a rejection of the entire CofE.
Dennis If we don’t make concessions because Rowan didn’t allow Gene Robinson we get involved in a childish tit for tat game. That might make political sense but I’m not a politician. If some people don’t recognise women priests it is only a rejection of the whole CoE if you want to see it as one. You could equally say that they accept everything about the church apart from this one thing. When women are refused ordination because of FiF or Reform (and I have recently been told of one instance, so I believe we would need to include that… Read more »
I must commend and support Erika Baker for trying so hard to achieve what may be impossible. I appreciate that this is all the more difficult and complex in an Established Church such as the C of E, but even from an Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective I have long been exercised by a fundamental logical and theological dilema. This is present in the debates on the GLB issues and the ordination/consecration of women issues. If I have an inclusive theology and worldview, and you have exclusive ones, then how can I include you? I think I hear Erika insisting that I… Read more »
Absolutely NOT! The Church of England should not be exempt from the Equality Laws and if anything should be carrying the banner FOR such laws! Love and compassion for the disenfranchised and marginalized are the very human beings that Christ stood beside. This is another example of the need for hierarchy REFORM. They must be shepherds and NOT “imperial princes” who decide who is and who is not entitled to basic human rights inside the institutional Church. The People of God must insist on equal rights for every human being, church member or non-believer. We are not suppose to be… Read more »
Erika – if people (such as FiF) don’t recognise the sacramental validity of acts performed by women, I’m prepared to accept that’s not a rejection of the Church of England as a whole. But when people (particularly Reform, but not entirely) see the faithful ministry of women priests in many dioceses, and yet still say women’s ministry is wrong in principle, that seems to me the active denial of good fruit within the church. Our local paper recently carried a letter from the relatives of a murdered man in our parish, thanking our female priest for how she’d taken his… Read more »
magistra I agree, I can’t come to terms with Reform at all. But, again, this is not a case of men oppressing women but of conservative evanglical men and women believing this same thing. What it really comes down to is that there are two increasingly smaller and smaller groups who cannot, for different reason, accept women priests. They identify as part of the CoE, they wish to remain part of the CoE and they wish to continue to do what they always have done, peacefully within their own churches. I don’t have to agree with their theology, I don’t… Read more »
But magistra nobody is questioning the ABILITY of women. She might have taken the best ever pastoral funeral enough to bring tears to the eyes…..but the issue would remain is she an authentic priest with sacramental validity? This is not about a job but an ontological change
And for the record most of us opposed do not say a categorical no so much as we can not be certain.. doubt enters the arena
On a different topic:
“Robert Key (Salisbury) had given notice that he wanted to speak against Clause 7. He said that the Bishop of Durham was, “of course, wholly wrong: the Church of England cannot act wholly in its own interest.” God spoke not just to the Synod, but also to Parliament.”
I remember earlier occasions (in the 1530s, perhaps?) when Ecclesia Anglicana having signally failed to reform itself, it was left to Parliament to reform it. Nice to see the old days coming back…
Ed “But magistra nobody is questioning the ABILITY of women.” Well, from our point of view it’s complicated, because FiF question the possibility while Reform question the propriety and it all gets muddled with liberal belief that most of you hold on to your belief because of (possibly unrecognised) misogyny. And when individuals comment, they don’t always show their affiliation, so in the public domain the arguments of FiF and Reform get muddled together, which is partly responsible for you being perceived as inconsistent, wanting your cake and eating it, and being… well, misogynist. I have spent some time these… Read more »
Once again, the practice of inclusivity is limited to realities of human existence.
You cannot include what tries to destroy. In the ether of thought, absolute inclusivity is possible. In reality, it is *impossible* for any but God. To include those who exclude and demand such exclusion on the part of others is tantamount to a human body including a cyst – it can be included, but causes pain and harm and may eventually cause death.
“orthodox” christians live too much in the belly and “liberal” christians live too much in the head!
“orthodox” christians live too much in the belly and “liberal” christians live too much in the head!
I find that surprising and would put it the other way. Liberals live too much in the belly- placing greater emphasis on feelings but the orthodox sometimes too much in the head, theology trumping experience.
You place too much emphasis on doing and genitalia – flesh, the belly. While liberals refuse to recognize realities of limitation – the head.
Your theology is nothing but how dreadful the earth is, and theirs is how wonderful the brighter day will be. Both are far off.
Ed Tomlinson:
None of us can be certain this side of the grave…but those of us on this side of the issue of women’s ordination prefer to err (if we err) on the side of inclusion. Why do you find it preferable to err on the side of exclusion?
Charlotte said, “I remember earlier occasions (in the 1530s, perhaps?) when Ecclesia Anglicana having signally failed to reform itself, it was left to Parliament to reform it. Nice to see the old days coming back…”
I am again struck by how much of what one might think is the genius of anglicanism-writ-large is actually the result of politics.
We would do well to remember that “no windows on men’s souls” was a politically imposed solution to a religious problem.
Perhaps God does speak to governments!
Perhaps we can hope for the same this time around.
And the overhaul of the C of E in the 1830’s, effectively by parliament, was more far reaching administratively than the changes of the 1530’s….and arguably put the C of E in better shape to face the pastoral challenges of the 19c than it would otherwise have been.In an institution like the C of E it seems to me that God has spoken to the Church through Parliament as much as God has spoken to Parliament through the Church.And that surely has implications for our doctrine of Revelation doesnt it?
As an atheist all this debate seems incredible!! Who wants to join an exclusive club of men in fancy dress anyway? Men who complain that ‘church values’ are being eroded and then alienate half the world’s population on the basis of gender. Extraordinary! What about hunger? War? Genuinely relevant concerns…..