Charlie Bell The Wheel Journal Power Struggles and Proxy Wars at the Church of England’s General Synod
Andrew Goddard Psephizo How will the next Archbishop of Canterbury be chosen?
Liz Shercliff Women and the Church Not Equal Yet – and how we can tell
Charlie Bell describes the Bishop of London being reduced to tears by the misogyny she encountered at GS. What sort of men could take pleasure in doing that and in a synod meeting of all things? Not gentlemen certainly. By their fruits ye shall know them.
I cannot comment on the feelings of the bishop of London. We did, however, see another woman who almost became bishop of London reduced to tears quite recently – the Rev. Paula Vennells. I suspect that by her fruits she will also be known. Looking from outside, it seems to me that what we are seeing in the CofE at present is above all else a crisis of leadership. The managerial solution to the problems of the church has been tried and failed. Perhaps a little more calm – and prayerful – reflection on the way ahead is called for,… Read more »
Although I wasn’t in the room with Mrs Vennells her tears lacked congruence. She was on oath and under cross examination; a rather different situation from that which Dame Sarah found herself in. It is of course only tittle tattle that Mrs Vennells was in the running for London.
Is it?
The BBC state it as fact, but provide no sources.
She was also, in a grim irony, appointed as an advisor on ethical business.
I was wondering when someone would seek to discredit Sarah Mullally’s emotions at GS as she tried to explain impact of misogyny, but equating her to Paula Vennells was not on my bingo card.
I am struggling to understand the connection between the Post Office scandal and misogyny in the church as experienced by the Bishop of London (among many others).
And so beautifully illustrated by Tom Kitten above …. Tabitha Twitchit needs to have firm words with him, or return him to Samuel Whiskers and Anna Maria to finish making into their roly poly pudding
I don’t see any parallel between the Bishop of London and Paula Vennells. I’m not clear what you’re trying to say, nor who is being accused of ‘fashionable rhetoric’.
However, as one of the first women ordained in the C of E, I can attest that many of us have experienced not only micro aggressions, but also macro aggressions.
When David Penman became Archbishop of Melbourne in 1984, he said in his enthronement sermon that he had wept over the recent plight of the people of Afghanistan. He had previously worked with CMS on the Indian subcontinent.
David died of a heart attack at 53.
What a fascinating non sequitur.
Francis James in this thread says ‘I was wondering when someone would seek to discredit Sarah Mullally’s emotions at GS as she tried to explain impact of misogyny . . . ‘. David Penman was obviously of the view that to weep is not a sign of weakness, and that is the point I was making.
David Penman was in fact a very courageous man. He lived (with a wife and family) under dangerous circumstances during his time as a CMS missionary in the Middle East. In the mid-1980s during the famine in Ethiopia he went there personally.
We need to be so careful when linking together the actions of Prelates. I fail to see how a possibly performative remarks of a historical Australian Prelate has any relevance to micro aggressions towards women. In the future it is likely that an Independent review of safeguarding cases commences into the Diocese of Melbourne. It is highly likely that unless destroyed or as was the culture of the time written safeguarding records were not made, that AB Penman may feature in this review. We find sadly that many of the old school Australian members of the House of Bishops 1960… Read more »
I am about to set off by car to do some lecturing at a university where I am a visiting professor, and will not have time to respond to this until towards the end of the week.
I am not minded to prepare a detailed response to this. Let readers of TA evaluate it for themselves.
David Penman’s widow Jean Penman was ordained a few years after David died. She had a ministry in Melbourne, for which she received from the Australian Government the decoration AM, Member of the Order of Australia.
My own view of the Synod was that the 2 key debates about Makin and safeguarding were conducted in an appropriate manner. The conclusion of the safeguarding debate was a majority vote to proceed with model 3 but with development of model 4 in parallel to explore its practical feasibility. I dont feel this was a partisan debate in any way. The 2 papers introduced by the Bishop of London were strongly debated. The debate on voting proposals for CNCs was a robust debate but the 4 proposals that were rejected because they were felt to be unduly meddling with… Read more »
Simon, you are right in what you say about “much wider consultation” prior to the Synod meeting. Not only that, but the debate on the proposed amendments to the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation, with some of the unintended (or unappreciated) consequences mentioned in speeches, showed the need for a revision stage when they could be given further, unhurried, consideration, with the regulation not being proposed for final approval in the same group of sessions, especially with the debate being conducted under pressure of time. It was a pity, not only in hindsight, that the motion to adjourn the debate… Read more »
Thanks for this contrasting view. I wasn’t there, so I won’t offer an opinion on much of this. The thing that concerns me out of it is representation by quota, and here I proceed very warily indeed, as I could very easily unwittingly create an impression of being against greater diversity on such panels, which is most definitely not the case. Why I’m cautious of such things is they can unintentionally create a knock-on effect of disadvantaging other underrepresented people. In this case, introducing an expectation of gender diversity offers a positive step in one direction. But what about ethnicity,… Read more »
Some can be prejudiced against disrupters.
Simon, I don’t think the result is as discriminatory as you suggest. No one believes that men cannot be valid priests, so no one on the panel is going to block the appointment of a well-qualified man simply on the grounds of his sex. But that can and does happen to female clergy, all the time. The proposal was an attempt to balance this inequity, but the inclusion of a lay woman on the panel does not of course guarantee that she will be in favour of women’s ordination.
Thank you very much for your comment Janet. I want to be absolutely clear that I fully support the appropriate presence of women both lay and clergy at every level of our Church. However my fear is that in attempting to tweak things to make things more balanced you can create other problems in this case creating legislation that could potentially be illegal which is frankly in nobody’s interests. What we need to be seeking is genuine equality for everyone regardless of gender ethnicity disability when it comes to these kind of elections by having an electoral process that encourages… Read more »
I’m not sure how it would be illegal, when political parties are allowed to have all-women shortlists.
But you are right, what we really need is to ensure that there is equality at every level, and to have open elections for bishoprics. It’s wrong that discrimination against women is built into the C of E, in the Newspeak. name of mutual flourishing.
Liz Truss, Maggie Thatcher, Suella Bravernan, Priti Patel, Kemi Badenough….. let us not ape political parties.
Let us seek the right person regardless of genital arrangement.Do we still believe that God can guide us?
There does seem to be a bit of a spiritual Faraday cage around the ethos of the General Synod.
The problem is that ‘genital arrangement’ is very much a factor for some influential people, when choosing bishops. What we ought to do is ensure that women are fully equal to men in the C of E.
I don’t know what your list of female politicians is meant to signify. But, Queen Elizabeth II, Mo Mowlam, Betty Boothroyd, Shirley Williams, Mary Robinson, Yvette Cooper…
A very predictable response ,if I may say so! I suspect you have a clue at what my slightly, only slightly, tongue in cheek list was about! Very few, if any, of the women you cite were chosen with all women shortlists, which is significant? I support the ordination and equality of women. However, from my perspective many able men who would be very fine bishops, are being passed over because of the oft heard mantra ‘we must have a woman’. I am well out of the ‘race’ for preferment, not that I was ever in it, but see too… Read more »
No, I didn’t have a clue what your list was about – unless it might be female leaders you disagreed with. They were all Tories.
Queen Elizabeth was chosen from an all-women shortlist – if there had been an eligible man he would have been preferred. As happened with Princess Anne and Prince Charles.
There are far fewer female diocesans than male. And many able women, who would make fine bishops, are being passed over because they are women. Or just because only the mediocre tend, who won’t rock the boat, get preferment.
Enough pointless sparring I think.
There are differing perceptions….rather like theology itself.
The clash of ideologies we see in the National Synod seem expressly designed to increase division. I wonder if a single member of the Synod had their minds changed as a result of the LLF debate ? I seriously doubt if a single person changed their mind. Those of us who favour greater inclusion need to look over the border into Wales and find out why the Church in Wales has two openly gay bishops who are loved and respected but England has not a single one. Most of us in the Church of England are not intellectuals and many… Read more »
All three articles are about power and process. There is anxiety about who has control and all have valid points. Charlie and Liz write about the manipulation of power by conservative groups silencing opposition. Andrew writes about the lack of transparency in the search for the membership of the CNC. He is particularly critical of the process for selecting the Anglican Communion Representatives, perhaps anxiety prompted by my article where I suggest that they may be more progressive than those from the C of E. Where I think they are all right is that we always need to consider how… Read more »
I wonder who is trying to manipulate who? Charlie insists that PLF is a modest proposal, but this is really about SSM and everyone knows it. PLF supposedly is about individuals, but the pastoral guidance makes clear that is also about couples. The master of power and process in this case is the Bishop of Leicester and up to Synod was insisting there was only one way, Charlie’s way, when actually there are 3. Canon 5, Canon 5 + structural differentiation, Canon B2. One person is misunderstood or doesn’t feel listened to or feels slighted in someway and this becomes… Read more »
“this is really about SSM and everyone knows it.” Really, Adrian? I help out in a CPAS type church and in an Anglo-Catholic one. Discussions over post-service coffee show much support for PLF while still wishing to uphold the traditional view of marriage.
I fear we have process that leads to everyone feeling silenced. Something is wrong.
Among those complaining are working class people, UKME(GM) people, neurodivergent people, disabled people, deaf people, LGBTIQ+ people, survivors of abuse, and – as Liz says – women.
Something is wrong and it is a key thing.
I know the Society of the Sacred Mission but what is this new SSM you speak of?