Six years ago, in 2014, the Church of England finally passed legislation to make it possible for women to be appointed as bishops. The church and the country breathed a sigh of relief that women were at last regarded as equal to men in the church. Except that was not completely true. A majority of members of General Synod were very anxious that no one felt “forced out” of the Church of England by this decision. Provisions were made which allowed anyone uncomfortable with priests and bishops who are women to avoid their ministry. The package of legislation passed in July 2014 therefore makes it very clear that the Church of England continues to be willing to discriminate on the grounds of gender. Yet these provisions, which permit discrimination, are very often spoken of as an example of the breadth of the church, and as a demonstration of how to disagree well.However, what has become clear to many over recent years, including WATCH, is that women, particularly ordained women, still frequently experience discrimination and behaviour which demeans them. There is a continuing, or even growing, undercurrent of unease, frustration, pain and anger, particularly among ordained women, whenever the Five Guiding Principles or the phrase “Mutual flourishing” are invoked. For women, the “Five Guiding Principles” are frequently experienced more as a wound than as a framework for living together with grace.”Mutual flourishing means women are expected to be grateful and to keep quiet”, was a sentiment expressed by nearly all the Anglicans involved in research by Dr Gabrielle Thomas in 2018-9 (Church Times 28 June 2019). However, in common with so many examples of discrimination and harassment, these feelings remain suppressed, and women feel silenced, being asked to believe that it is their fault for not being gracious enough, and it is their responsibility to put up with these feelings because this was how they are told the Five Guiding Principles say they “should” behave, or that the decision is “in line with the Five Guiding principles”. What no one with power seems to admit, is that because the Five Guiding Principles are by their origin and nature internally contradictory, there is never one simple decision which is “in line with the Five Guiding Principles”.WATCH also began to be contacted by parishes where a significant majority of church members wanted to be able to welcome ordained women, but either senior staff in the diocese or small groups on the PCC prevented them, including passing resolutions to achieve this. We even learned of a training institution, considered supportive of women, which used material produced by Forward in Faith as its only resource when introducing teaching and discussion on gender in the Church of England.In response to this, WATCH has now published a guide to the Five Guiding Principles in the form of a booklet which looks at their original purpose. This was to create a framework for forging legislation to enable women to be appointed a bishop for which a majority of members of General Synod would be willing to vote. The guide reminds us of the “new way of working” that grew out of the conversations in Synod enabled by the use of the Five Guiding Principles. These were based on listening to each other, and building relationships of trust rather than engaging in polarised debate.In the guide, WATCH considers how this “new way of working” could play a more significant part in the process of dealing with conflicts and decision in parishes and the wider church. WATCH reflects on how taking time to listen, and preferring decisions and ways forward which have the potential to lead to a greater and deeper degree of communion, have much more potential for working together successfully than continuing to create and defend boundaries. WATCH considers how listening and relationships could be prioritised when a parish is considering whether to use the provisions in the House of Bishops’ Declaration (the document issued in 2014 to set out how to protect the views and beliefs of those who do not wish to work with women or receive their ministry). The guide to the Five Guiding Principles is complemented by a second publication discussing in more depth how these principles may successfully be put into practice.
The third important publication, offered alongside the guide and the discussion paper, is a code of behaviour. This addresses the way in which women, particularly, are still treated in ways which demean and degrade them, both in-person and on social media. Much of this behaviour is akin harassment but the fact that it is regarded by too many as acceptable or “banter” is another example of the extent to which the Church of England can be a very difficult and at times, toxic, place for women.
WATCH is offering these resources as a contribution to discovering ways in which the 2014 legislation might lead to better working together, seeking ways of achieving the greatest degree of communion while continuing to identify and challenge discriminatory behaviour. We hope that these resources will help clergy, PCC members and others to ask constructive questions about how the Five Guiding principles and the linked legislation are being used and whether they are leading to a greater degree of communion. We will be interested to hear how useful they are and how they might be improved or made more helpful. Above all, we hope that all three resources will play a part in increasing gender equality in the Church of England.
At least WATCH is consistent in that it continues to pursue its agenda of destroying any prospect that those unable to embrace the innovation of womens ordination have any place in the CofE.
The documents fall somewhat in the category of TLDR. Far, far too much time is spent justifying the WATCH position. That even WATCH considers this necessary illuminates how the 5GP and “mutual flourishing” have become just another framework to discriminate against women.
A far more robust document is really called for. Separate ordinations, consecrations or chrism masses for example should neither be considered acceptable nor consistent with 5GP and this should be plainly stated.
but you’re always going to need some part of e.g. an ordination to be separate though aren’t you? Even if not a separate service? Otherwise if it’s an ordination taken by a bishop who happens to be a woman and you have the Trad belief, then you’re going to come out the other side of the service not believing that you’ve been ordained…Which would seem to be a bit of an issue in a church which says it’s ok for you to believe that and still be part of that church. On the other hand, the quickest way to end… Read more »
The 5 GPs make it clear that women have been ordained and also that Church of England folk need to accept that. You can think that we should not have done it but you cannot say women are not ordained. This means that anyone ordained by a female bishop has to be accounted as ordained. Now the Society has argued they are canonically but not sacramentally ordained but I think that is a bit of mental gymnastics and was certainly not in the mind of Synod when we worked through all this. Separate ordinations are problematic because they might reinforce… Read more »
I am really suprised most? members of Synod did not realise that those who reject women’s ordination would not draw a distinction between the legal and the sacramental. I would have thought it would have been obvious. It shows the traditions in the C of E are now so separate that they simply talk past each other .
I have to agree, I’m staggered that we’re in 2020 and still seem to be going round the houses because the argument hasn’t been understood. I’m both surprised, and if it is really the case appalled that Synod members at the time didn’t see this one coming or have it in mind. The Society’s line on this is hardly new, it’s what FiF were saying before women were even ordained to the priesthood, let alone the episcopate. I’m tempted (but slightly scared) to ask therefore what was in the mind of Synod, because anyone even slightly engaged with the debates… Read more »
My opinion is of little worth, but I understand the position of (a) the majority, (b) SSWSH, and (c) ReNew or whatever it calls itself these days. But the last two are based on ignorance of sex determination, to say nothing of the possibility of ambiguous genitalia (Harris’s Conclave demolished such silliness). What I don’t like is WATCH and Deans of Women’s Ministry. Look at diocesan websites, especially vocations teams. You’d wonder if men were welcome.
“Separate ordinations are problematic because they might reinforce the idea that some are truly ordained while others are not.” I might have been on another planet for the past 30-odd years because I thought that was the whole point? Everyone has accepted the legal reality of ordained women – the whole argument has been about what if any provision to make for those who don’t accept the sacramental reality? If that wasn’t the argument that both sides have been having, then what on earth was it? I can only agree with Perry Butler on this one that this has got… Read more »
I largely agree with you Kate, although I had to look up the meaning of TLDR (‘too long, didn’t read’ for any similarly challenged social media refuseniks like me). I think that’s a bit harsh, and it’s certainly shameful that the application of the 5GPs has been so unsatisfactory that WATCH found it necessary to issue this. Being blunter and more direct (and probably thereby failing the first test of being gracious), it has seemed to me that ‘the highest possible degree of communion’ has turned out to be precisely zero and that ‘mutual flourishing’ has been taken to mean… Read more »
“Unless we can do away with separate consecrations, ordinations and chrism masses, discrimination will be seen to be being endorsed”
That’s the thing. It isn’t just the WATCH document which is TLDR, practically everything published is. What matters is the visible and that’s a Church of England which allows some churchmen to demand services which exclude ordained and consecrated women.
The views of those who have assented to the 5GPs (all those ordained since they were introduced) are of crucial importance. They are the present and future ordained leadership of the Church of England and as such will set much of the tone for mutual flourishing in the years to come. DDOs and ordination training institutions ensure the issue is not dodged. The working relationships modelled by the suffragan bishops in, say, Blackburn Diocese and Chichester Diocese, and by, say, +Maidstone and the diocesan bishops he works with, are more likely to influence attitudes to mutual flourishing than further detailed… Read more »
Well, this will ensure that the divisive issue will rumble on for at least another six years. Meanwhile, congregations get smaller and smaller. In many parishes it is a question of asking the last person to leave to turn off the lights.
Paul Waddington points out the heavy irony in the concept of ‘mutual flourishing’: all the objective evidence is that the poor old CofE is in a moribund state and anything but flourishing. Those with the power are unwilling to address the clear evidence that the CofE is deeply unattractive to the English people; so the bishops flirt with gimmicky mission initiatives instead and spend all their time in cul-de-sacs wringing their hands over issues most of the population have moved on from years ago. I used to think that the CofE’s problems were due to its sexism, racism and homophobia;… Read more »
I have to say that WATCH brings to mind Unionism in Northern Ireland: they’ve had their day and no longer represent a majority; they’re only reason for contributing to debate is to stoke the fires of division among an ever-receding section of the population; they cannot move on from past battles – even though pretty much everyone else has done so; and they’re scared stiff of a newly emerging situation in which difference is valued and celebrated, where a different polity will take people in a completely new and unknown direction, and those who once ruled the roost will have… Read more »
Spot on, Michael.
Are you sure you meant WATCH, Michael? When I read it, I thought you must be referring to SSWSH, to whom all your strictures seem more relevant.
I didn’t think the same as Malcolm, but I did have (and still have) difficulty understanding Michael’s comments. Since Stanley agrees, perhaps he can explain?
Too long it may be but I DID read it and it makes a desperately sorry tale of all the ways in which many ordained women feel demeaned and not fully accepted, 7 years after the 5GPs were laid down. I took exception to the view that the passage ‘those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience’ from the first GP was not intended to separate the legal and sacramental functions. It has always seemed to me that it… Read more »
There is no ‘mutual flourishing’ to be found in a church in which 100% of the clergy recognise the orders of the others, but only x% of clergy (where x is less than 100) recognise the orders of the others. It’s a fraud, and it’s a disgrace that ordinands are obliged to consent to it before they may be ordained. It puts an exclusionary permit on a level with the Book of Common Prayer, and the creeds.
My memory is fading with age – or more likely too much time on ZoooooooooM. However, I don’t think we voted on the 5GPs in General Synod and they were certainly not amendable so people’s comments here – with which I sympathize – about ‘did we not see this coming?’ are not entirely a valid criticism. In Synod speeches several of us warned about separate consecrations of bishops (which we knew Forward in Faith had been petitioning for behind the scenes) and the need for the acceptance of women’s ordination to be more than mere canonical acceptance. I made a… Read more »
If members of Synod were ignored on such an important matter Charles it surely raises questions about how GS operates. It seems to me that as we see more women diocesan bishops more “headship “bishops may be asked for.
Thanks for pointing out this valid distinction, Charles. So it’s not so much ‘what were Synod thinking?’ but rather ‘what were the HoB thinking?’, not an infrequent lament in these pages!
I suppose the only alternative for synod was to reject the proposed legislation, dependent as it was on the flawed and unamendable 5GPs, but that wouldn’t have looked good and would have been portrayed as a victory for the naysayers.
My Private Member’s Motion (PMM) on the 5GPs (see below), which I tabled in March 2017, immediately following Bishop Philip North’s decision to withdraw acceptance of his nomination to the See of Sheffield, has the necessary 100 supporting signatures but has yet to be included in an agenda for debate at General Synod. The Business Committee report to Synod in February 2020 [GS 2151] indicated (at page 10) that it was an item of forecast business for the group of sessions in July 2020. That was before the coronavirus pandemic led to the cancellation of the July Synod at York.… Read more »
David, have you considered a measure providing for women, and especially ordained women, in a diocese whose diocesan does not recognise the validity of women’s orders? Such women, and their parishes, are at a distinct disadvantage in such a situation. For many years provision in the form of flying bishops has been made for those objecting to women’s ordination, but no equivalent is in place for women and supporters of women’s ordination if their bishop is an opponent. I would suggest that they have an option of coming under the oversight of a flying bishop who supports women’s ministry, or… Read more »
Indeed. I am afraid I cannot sign David’s PMM as it is predicated on assumptions which I think are plain wrong. We need to revisit the 5GPs for sure, but not on the basis of this PMM. There was no answer given to those Sheffield women clergy who asked how a bishop who could not say if they were ordained or not would actually support them. Further, they were then labelled as awkward women. This is what Janet and others are pointing to in terms of lack of flourishing.
I heard from women who were at the meeting Philip North had with Sheffield female priests, that he didn’t answer any of the questions they put to him. It seems he hadn’t thought through the issues himself – as he clearly hadn’t when appointed as suffragan Bishop of Whitby. As the Archdeacon of Cleveland said at the time, “He hadn’t thought himself into his next post.’
Thank you, Janet. Those are some of the issues that ought to be discussed in the light of the experience in Sheffield, and why Synod ought to have that debate.
Thank you David for your reply and for drawing attention to your PMM. I’m afraid that I don’t share the regret expressed therein at the withdrawal of +North from Sheffield, since his appointment there would have made the situation of all the many women priests in that diocese intolerable. I was grateful to him for graciously withdrawing, although I think it was more because of the impact on him rather than of the potential impact on the women priests of Sheffield.
Janet makes a good point in her reply.
I hardly think it’s the failure of some of us to accept the sacramental ministry of women that is responsible for the Church of England’s decline. Every pronouncement of our ridiculous HoB hammers another nail in the coffin. I have no doubt we shall be forced out eventually and to be honest, if it were not for my parish church and priest, I would leave now. It will be a tragedy – I was baptised into the Church of England and have been a faithful Anglican along with my family all my life – but I hate this bitterness as… Read more »
Would I be ‘prolonging the bitterness’ if I pointed out that, in the 33 years of my ordained ministry in the C of E, I have been discriminated against and humiliated repeatedly? I’ll cite just 2 of the many examples: 1) being told I couldn’t robe or take part in a combined service of the joint benefice in which I was a team vicar; 2) having the bishop who installed me in a new parish refuse to use the word ‘priest’ in any part of the service. I don’t want anyone to be excluded from the Church of England, but… Read more »
I see many complaining that WATCH are trying too hard to undermine the 2014 settlement. Though a WATCH member, I dissent: IMHO, we are not doing enough to undermine it. The current circumstances are so fundamentally untenable that they ought to be ended, as they ought never to have been put in place to start with. Expecting my sister-priests to minister in church where opposition to their very ontological being is officially sanctioned is abusive; and I think, in the end, it’s cruel to their opponents too.
Women in science have had it tough too, though not perhaps as tough as in the church. From Matthew Gardner’s FB page: Since her death in 1979, the woman who discovered what the universe is made of has not so much as received a memorial plaque. Her newspaper obituaries do not mention her greatest discovery. … when it comes to the composition of our universe, the textbooks simply say that the most abundant atom in the universe is hydrogen. And no one ever wonders how we know. Cecilia Payne’s mother refused to spend money on her college education, so she… Read more »
Thank you, Stanley. I didn’t know about Cecilia Payne and am glad you brought her to our attention.
Two more pioneering women whom I knew personally: https://ramblingrector.me/2013/08/26/pioneering-women-in-langwathby/