Press release from Number 10
Queen approves nomination of Suffragan Bishop of Jarrow
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Venerable Sarah Elizabeth Clark.Published 20 December 2018
From: Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing StreetThe Queen has approved the nomination of the Venerable Sarah Elizabeth Clark, BA, MA, MBA, Archdeacon of Nottingham, in the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham, to the Suffragan See of Jarrow, in the Diocese of Durham in succession to the Right Reverend Mark Watts Bryant, BA, who resigned on the 8th October 2018.
The Dioceses of Durham and of Southwell and Nottingham have also announced the appointment.
Durham: New Bishop of Jarrow Announced
Southwell and Nottingham: Archdeacon Sarah Clark to be Bishop of Jarrow
The new bishop will be consecrated by the Archbishop of York at 11am on the 27th February in York Minster.
I wonder what the Venerable Bede would make of this appointment?
I expect, Father David, that them venerables stick together!
He will be turning in his cathedral tomb
Why? He wrote warmly of female saints such as Hild. HIld ran a double monastery, as superior to both men and women, and held a rank equal to that of bishop.
“Prior to training for ordination Sarah worked as a civil servant in the Employment Service but gradually came to believe that God was calling her to a different role. While still a member of the Baptist Church she studied for an M.A. in Theology at St John’s College, Bramcote, and during this time she first sensed a call to ordained ministry in the Church of England.” Of all such posts I have read on TA this is the first in which I recall the appointee talking about his/her call. In fact, God is missing entirely in most of them –… Read more »
I don’t think you understand why women diocesans are leapfrogging men into the Lords – it is because that is what parliament and church decided so as to end a gender injustice.
I do understand but it isn’t relevant.
The moral issue – and as Christians that is supposed to matter to us – is whether an individual (either male or female) is willing to accept preferment because of their gender or are they going to stand up for principles.
Sure, because it’s no issue at all when men have got into the House of Lords as bishop’s for, oh, at least 400 years because of the sex they are, while women have been unable to. But once a ten-year, time-limited plan to try to redress this balance just a little happens, oh no, it’s a terrible injustice to the poor men. In case this isn’t clear enough, for all of the history of bishops being in the House of Lords until 2015, every single man appointed was there because of his sex and not one single woman was able… Read more »
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
No, but sometimes exceptional action is necessary in order to avoid continuing to perpetuate historical wrongs.
Kate, you seem to be holding women to a much higher standard than men. Or at least, female bishops to a much higher standard than male bishops. A female bishop who is given (not offered) a seat in the Lords cannot decline it; there is no mechanism for refusing. If she tried it she would create a crisis and deny representation to women and girls across the country. A seat in the Lords is not for the personal benefit of the bishop, it’s so the lords spiritual can serve the Church and the nation. Parliament has decided it needs women… Read more »
Libby Lane could refuse to take the oath, for example And, no, I am not holding female bishops to a higher standard than male bishops. I don’t believe any bishop should accept a seat in the House of Lords on the basis of their sex. Yes, historically that happened to male bishops. That discrimination was an archaicism which has been fixed. If a woman accepts a seat on the basis of her sex under the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 that will be a brand new type of discrimination. There can be no justification for a bishop participating in novel… Read more »
I don’t believe any bishop should accept a seat in the House of Lords. Full stop. Firstly because unelected parliamentary representatives of any kind or gender are undemocratic, and the House of Lords should not exist. Secondly because it is a scandalous anomaly that the UK is the only country apart from Saudi Arabia where religious leaders are ex officio members of the legislature. Even more nonsensical when only one church in one religious tradition in one part of the UK qualifies.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable view to me
The Isle of Man is not part of the UK, nor of Saudi Arabia, and its bishop, the Bishop of Sodor and Man, is an ex officio member of the Legislative Council, the Upper House of Tynwald. Roman Catholic clergy would, in any case, be prohibited from joining the House of Lords. Non-hereditary members of the House of Lords are appointed by the Queen. If leaders of other churches were entitled ex-officio to membership then who would appoint them? .If the Chairman of the Methodist Conference, for example, were ex officio a member, then that creates an electorate of Methodists.… Read more »
It is very much for the individual to define. Bishops are supposed to be moral leaders and to take difficult personal decisions. If the state has an immoral law – eg discrimination on grounds of sex – it is an *essential* part of being a bishop that s/he refuses to be a party to that law.
I agree. At first I wasn’t going to respond to the suggestion that the House of Lords “should not exist”, an extraordinary thing to read on an Anglican website, but the present House of Lords is probably the single most diverse body of people of experience and expertise in this country. Anyone watching the proceedings on television cannot fail to be impressed by the quality of the debates. Isn’t it a good thing that the bishops are there to contribute? There is a Moslem on the Government front bench, and a Sikh peer regularly makes valuable and reasoned contributions. There… Read more »
I’m not suggesting it’s up to individual bishops to decline or accept. Just that this unjust anomaly/privilege/responsibility (however you see it) should be challenged. Revolution or disestablishment: I don’t really mind which comes first.
I ought to clarify that my post above was meant to appear under T Pott’s, agreeing with his reasoned and reasonable defence of the House of Lords, the continued presence there of C of E bishops and that it is not open to candidate bishops, male or female, to try to impose their own terms for accepting office.
Sarah Clark will be the 18th woman bishop in the Church of England, Libby Lane of course being the first. All except Helen-Ann Hartley have been or will be consecrated here. Of these, two have been translated to dioceses, Sarah Mullally from Crediton to London, and Libby Lane from Stockport to Derby. The first vacant diocesan see for which women could be considered was Southwell & Nottingham in 2015. Derby is the 12th, and there are now (or soon to be) five women diocesans. Women have been nominated for 41.6% of these vacancies. Stockport was the first suffragan see for… Read more »
It’s interesting to note that the first female High Court judge was also named Elizabeth Lane: Dame Elizabeth Kathleen Lane, appointed on 13 August 1965 – 50 years before Libby Lane became the first female bishop as suffragan bishop of Stockport. But only this year did the number of female Supreme Court justices increase to three (25%). However, the President of the Supreme Court is a woman (Baroness Hale of Richmond, appointed on 5 September 2017) so, whether or not the next Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman, the law is ahead of the established Church!
I can’t think of any good reason why the Venerable Bede should turn in his grave. But just to clarify two points, Suffragan Bishops do not sit in the House of Lords, and the Bishop of London Sarah Mullaly does so by virtue of her office, not the fact that she is a woman.
If many of those in the North of England want the Lindisfarne Gospels returned from the safe keeping of the British Library (currently on display in the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms exhibition) to the North East shouldn’t the Dean and Chapter of Durham cathedral consider returning the mortal remains of the Venerable Bede to St. Paul’s at Jarrow?
Ah, the redoubtable Mr Westou is now gently rotating in his crypt…….:-)
Agreed, the Bishop of London and Bishop of Derby are in very different positions and the Bishop of London sits in the House of Lords by right.
Here’s a new bishop who actually does have an MBA!
I understand that new Bishop of Bristol has an MBA too.
Am I the only person who feels that recent threads have been dominated by one or two voices posting over and over again? Frankly the repetitious comments are getting very tedious and offputting. Can there please be a limit to how often people can post on TA – whether the limit is self- policed or enforced.
I agree with you. I find the repetitive posting of the same nature very tedious. One might think that every issue in the Anglican Church is solely that of sex and gender.
So not only are LGBTI supposed to put up with being treated as second class citizens, we aren’t supposed to even talk about the unfairness.
Firstly, all posts on TA have to be approved by the moderators. Also, the subject-matter of a thread and names of people contributing posts on it are clear. I probably have to plead guilty as charged in relation to the Christchurch Oxford Statutes and the two threads concerning the position of the Dean. Very simply, people were misunderstanding, and worse, being misled about the Statutes. It was necessary to continue to plug time after time the points that the Statutes and the tribunal procedure had legal force, and that there is an appeal procedure, when the public were being told… Read more »