A group of influential MPs will tomorrow call for Parliament to intervene over the historic reform as fears grow that the Church will reject plans allowing female bishops.
The cross-party group, including former ministers Frank Field and Stephen Timms, and Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, is concerned that the General Synod, the Church's parliament, may not pass legislation designed to end the glass ceiling for women clergy.
Traditionalists believe that a rise in the number of opponents of female priests to the Synod has improved their chances of blocking the law, which can only pass if it receives a two-thirds majority in the houses of laity, clergy and bishops.
Many of them feel that the current legislation does not provide sufficient concessions to those who cannot accept women as bishops.
However, Mr Field has tabled an early day motion, which could abolish the Church's current exemption from equality laws relating to gender discrimination and ultimately force it to consecrate women.
Go for it, MPs! Nudge the church over line into something closer to equality for women.
Unlike the US:
In the United Kingdom and the rest of the English-speaking world, a motion to place upon the table (or motion to place on the table) is a proposal to begin consideration of a proposal.
While I would normally welcome any moves to make the Church of England more equal, I think that unless such moves come in through the Church itself they are very risky in terms of establishment. (Simon Hughes, by the way, is my MP. His sister is a priest and was a Canon of Chelmsford Cathedral at one time).
ReplyDeleteIf, for example, some MP decided that the Church of England ought to give communion to everyone, rather than limiting it to Christians, a Parliament could try to pass a law requiring the Church to give communion to everyone who attended church, not just to Christians who attend church.
As was the case in Queen Elizabeth's time (the first one, not the current one) the law might require that all marriages be solemnised in an Anglican Church, or that everyone in England be required to attend an Anglican Church on Easter and Christmas.
If the law required the Church of England to consecrate women as bishops before the canons were changed to permit this, I can foresee women who are in high positions (such as Archdeacons or Deans of cathedrals) suing to force the Church to appoint them as bishops of dioceses. This might be good (in the case of some women priests and Archdeacons whom I know) or it might be bad (not every Archdeacon or Cathedral Dean has it in her or him to be a bishop).
I think that the process as currently managed by General Synod will end up with women bishops here. It will take longer than most thought (2014 is somewhat unrealistic now--2016 is much more realistic) but the Church will end up accepting women bishops, some people will be sour about the terms, and some will be sour about the length of the process, but it will happen. I do my best to play my part to urge it on (I voted for General Synod candidates who were favourable to women bishops). That includes prayer.
Chris, you know I always welcome your comments, for you know far more than I about the Church of England. For starters, it's my humble opinion, speaking as a foreigner, of course, that the Church of England should be disestablished.
ReplyDeleteAs to the open communion, that would not disturb me greatly, either, because I've thought myself that since communion is the Lord's body and blood and is not the property of any church or any individual, that it might be a good thing if no one was turned away from the communion table.
A lot of "what ifs" are connected to any change of policy, but for the church to be exempt from the equality laws is very wrong. 2014 is far enough in the future. To push the date further would be also be very wrong. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Dearest Mimi:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I agree about disestablishment.
Second: would it be just for the Cof E to be subject to equality law while the Romans are not?
Third: Do you think that the Romans would ordain women if they were subject to the equality law?
Fourth: I'm really happy that the C of E is finally grasping the nettle of the consecration of women bishops. I don't think the process itself is working tremendously well, but it is working. The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. I am impatient as well, but I am very concerned about any interference by the secular arm into the inner workings of a church--any church.
I also suspect that if the secular arm should decree that the equality laws apply to ministry in the Church of England, the Church would bring a lawsuit and would eventually win it. This would look tremendously bad not only for the government but for the Church as well.
And none of these activities would endear the Anglo-Catholic troglodytes to the Government. In fact, some of those who are happy with women bishops might be turned off by the brute force way in which the government is trying to change the worship and doctrine of the Church of England without actually consulting its members and putting it through its synodical government body.
It's all complicated. In 10 years, after the first women bishops have been consecrated in the CofE, everyone will heave a sigh of relief and try to get on with proclaiming the Good News. I hope, anyway.
Second: would it be just for the Cof E to be subject to equality law while the Romans are not?
ReplyDeleteNo Chris, no it would not be just, but it would be. And Rome would not ordain women, but the Church of England would, thus making just the practice of the C of E.
I realize that removing the exemption for the Church of England from the equality laws would result in complications, but unless the C of E is disestablished, the church should meet the requirements of the equality laws. Perhaps the threat of legislation will spur the Church of England to do the right thing on its own. That is my hope.
I expect that the C of E would send some bishops to jail if it came to that.
ReplyDeleteI realise that it is difficult all round to discuss and come to any satisfactory conclusion about this subject while the C of E still dithers about it. However, any moves by Parliament to unilaterally change the worship and doctrine of the C of E will not succeed and will just make a laughing stock of the MPs (including, sadly, my own) who have proposed it.
It is actually a publicity move, possibly to try to force the Church to move faster. Of course, if we are talking about equality, how about changing the law so that the eldest child of the monarch, male or female, inherits the throne? You won't find the MPs trying very hard to change that (there's occasionally talk about it, but as the sparrow said about the horse, it's all fart and no sh*t.). So perhaps the government ought to get its own house in order before it tries to get ours in order. After all, if we ourselves can't get it in order, how will outsiders be able to do it?
Chris, how about getting rid of royalty altogether? ;-)
ReplyDeleteYou and I are not likely to agree, and I concede that perhaps you're right. You certainly know more than I, and I have no power to move ordaining women bishops forward in the Church of England. The polity of the church seems strange and difficult to understand in so many ways, thus I'll let the discussion rest for now.
Dear Mimi: I'd love to be shut of the monarchy; most of them (the Queen excepted) are useless louts who would find it difficult to make their ways in the world without butlers and footmen. Prince Charles has a valet load up his toothbrush with toothpaste each morning, and requires 7 eggs for breakfast done to varied points of doneness, out of which he selects one for his toast.
ReplyDeleteDisestablishment is not very popular among the clergy at the moment, unfortunately. It would make our voice so much more powerful in the country, but the clergy bleat on about how being established means that they serve all the people of England, not just their parishioners. I wonder what would stop them serving everyone if the Church were disestablished? I certainly wouldn't stand in their way.
You are right that your position on the state forcing the church to ordain women through unilateral legislation and mine are not very congruent. I feel bad, as I have the same desire for women in the episcopate that you do. It is unjust in the extreme. We differ on strategy, I guess.
No response is necessary on your part; I have read your post about taking a sabbatical and I think that's often a good idea at various points in one's career. I'm hoping you return sometime soon refreshed and ready for the fray once again.
Chris, I'm taking a sabbatical from the trivial and moving on to really important matters, such as what I would do if I won a date with Justin Bieber. I had to do it. :-)
ReplyDeleteI know how you feel. I am taking a sabbatical from the trivial (such as losing almost a month of emails through a power supply that helpfully fried my network storage box and two hard disks) and going on to the really important, like making guacamole tomorrow with the last, very ripe, avocado. Dates with Justin Bieber are out as I am married and he is (I thinik) much too young.
ReplyDelete