PROTECT ME, PLEASE, FROM FEMALE MINISTRY!

From Riazat Butt at the Observer:

The Church of England was facing a fresh crisis tonight after the archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to win enough support for a compromise over women bishops at the Church's General Synod.

New concessions to traditionalists in the church, proposed by Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, were rejected by the Anglican clergy, although most bishops and laity at the Synod voted in favour. In dramatic scenes at York, shocked members of the Synod pleaded for time to pray and reflect on the vote and to consider the implications of the rebellion against the two most senior figures in the church.
....

The archbishops' amendment would have given traditionalists the protection they wanted from female ministry, averting a schism over the ordination of women as bishops. (My emphasis) Sentamu and Williams had proposed a special class of bishop to look after parishes who do not wish to have female bishops. The idea angered supporters of women clergy, who wrote to ask the archbishops to withdraw the amendment.

Dear me, yes! The traditionalists need protection from female ministry. What are we, every single one of us, but black widow spiders gone wild devouring not just our mates, but any male in sight? We are beyond dangerous.

Had the amendment been passed, it might have minimised the numbers of clergy converting to Roman Catholicism under an initiative launched by the Vatican last year. A meeting was held in Leicester for those Church of England clergy interested in taking up the Catholic offer.

I doubt passing the amendment would have changed the numbers of those who will leave all that much. If traditionalists depart for Rome in great numbers, I'll be surprised. The Holy Orders of the clergy amongst them will be null and void, and that can't be a pleasant prospect.

The arrangements under which the dioceses would have operated, had the amendments passed, would have been a complicated tangle. And what if either of the two archbishops participated in the ordination of a woman bishop? They would be tainted by the process, and would not the whole line of episcopal succession in the Church of England be put to ruin?

My heart is with the women in the Church of England and their supporters. Even as I write about these matters from a distance, I feel the anger rise within me. I stand in solidarity with the women who have to hear the insulting crap over and over. And I stand in solidarity with LGTB persons who endure listening to the same insulting crap and worse from people who call themselves Christians. Tell me what any of these shenanigans have to do with the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

And I would not put it past the archbishops and their supporters to attempt another 11th hour scheme to have their way and possibly succeed. But, at the very least, the archbishops now know that they have lost the support of a good many bishops, priests and lay folk in their own church.

Thanks to Cathy for the link to the article.


UPDATE: And the wall erected around Ruth Gledhill's blog seems to have been breached as Thinking Anglicans posts her latest entry:

Canon Celia Thomson of Gloucester gave one of the best speeches illustrating the problems with what the Archbishops proposed:

‘This is the source of such sadness, such dismay among the ordained women at all stages of their ministry. The effect would be to legislate for the automatic transfer of episcopal authority in law in a way that would not only damage the authority of a woman bishop but also undermine the whole nature of episcopacy in the Church of England.’ She said the nominated bishops were ‘flying bishops’ by another name and that concept had not worked, in particular for women. It could also open up demands for alternative episcopal oversight in other areas where people did not agree with the diocesan bishop.

But even worse, it would send out a ‘damaging message’ about the Church to the wider world.

‘If the Church is seen to discriminate against women by law, not only will it compromise the ministry of women bishops in future and by default of all its women priests, but more fatally, the mission of the Church in the 21st century. Many people will de sair of the Church. Most people under 40 simply cannot understand it and so dismiss our beloved Church as irrelevant in our life and in attitudes towards the world.

Brava, Canon Thomson!

Ruth adds:

Synod is chastened right now. But it shouldn’t be. It should be celebrating.

Well done the clergy. There is a God, it seems.

Amen, and amen, and amen!

Thanks to Lapin in the comments.