I only did a brief and rather disconnected speech in the debate on women bishops at the Church of England's General Synod last Tuesday. In it I reminded Synod that when we think of the ecumenical impact of our decision we needed to consider not only the Roman Catholic Church, but also the other churches (particularly) in Europe. I didn't have time to expand, but would like to have done.
However, I did ask the Synod to get real when making silly statements about the Church of England “not having the authority” to do what we were doing. (a) If the Synod and Church has no authority, what are they doing sitting on the Synod in the first place? (b) if I really believed this, I couldn't be an Anglican in the first place. Despite all the fantasy special pleading, our orders are not recognised by Rome and our 'church' is a mere 'ecclesial community'. That's the inescapable bottom line. (c) If those who say they truly believe in 'headship' actually do so, then why didn't they do what the male heads of the Church were leading them to do?
OK, not exactly knock-down arguments for the consecration of women as bishops, but they open up arguments that were not properly aired during the debate itself. Sometimes we are just too polite.
This morning, having spent yesterday doing what the Church of England does every day – in parishes, in local communities, in meetings that don't lose focus on what we are here for – I returned to a quick scan of the media.
Naturally, politicians are shouting loudly about how to sort the Church of England out. Apparently, we shouldn't be listened to any longer on moral issues because of this. And we should be disestablished.
Well, there are good arguments to be had about both those matters, but the sheer illogicality of some of the stuff would, in any other context, be screamingly funny. For a start, we have politicians elected (in some cases) by a fraction of the electorate indignantly telling the Church off for only managing to muster 90%+ of the bishops, nearly 80% of the clergy, 64% of the laity, and 42 out of 44 dioceses behind the cause of women bishops.
How about, before we listen to another politician, we couple – in any political discussion – potential disestablishment of the Church of England with a demand that every MP can only sit in Parliament if positively elected by 50% (I am feeling generous) of the electorate in his other constituency. Electoral legitimacy in a democracy also needs attention paid to it.
The point is basically this: the Church of England has not rejected women bishops – the House of Laity of the General Synod has. The Church of England has massively and overwhelmingly approved not only the principle, but the process. The only question now is how to find the right wording to make law that makes this a reality.
We failed this time, but I hope those who are bitterly disappointed and disillusioned will (a) aim at the right target, (b) turn disappointment (and, in some cases, exhaustion) into determination, and (c) be clear and boringly repetitive, especially with other politicians and journalists/commentators, that the Church has not rejected women bishops.
After all, it isn't just the Church that needs to get real.
(On the good news front, the General Synod looks positively coherent in comparison with Chelsea FC who yesterday hired a Liverpool reject as their latest messiah. Ahem…)
Posted with Blogsy
Nick Baines's Blog 
November 23, 2012 at 11:19 am
Bishop Mike, despite what you say about percentage of people in favour the synod did reject women Bishops They did not overwhelmingly approve. True the majority were in favour but we do not accept that we insist on 2.3rds in each house before we can say we accepted. I believe we should change the system to a simple majority. I know this next bit will sound hard but if the church really believes it is God’s will that women should be Priests and Bishops. we should not be making provision for those who cannot accept God’s will, to make provision implies we do not really fully believe in the ministry of women. If that is so we should not be doing it.
I and Carolyn are now retired so we have no vote, no say, no voice in our own church. Retired Priests don’t. But I urge the Bishops to consecrate a woman Bishop this year.
November 23, 2012 at 11:27 am
Stephen, not sure who Bishop Mike is, but happy to respond. Your point is taken. However, we must not consecrate a woman just in order to have a woman bishop. There is an argument that two should be appointed at the same time in order to ensure no isolation in the House of Bishops, but this also ignores the process for appointment. I think things will get tougher going forward.
November 23, 2012 at 11:32 am
sorry Bishop Nick I don’t know how I got you mixed up with Bristol 🙂 I do value you blogs and accept what you say, I just feel so sad for the church
November 23, 2012 at 11:41 am
Dear Bishop Nick
As an Archdeacon pointed out in the Times yesterday, the house of laity DID NOT reject women bishops. It rejected the particular legislation put before it. In 2010 the majority of General Synod voted for a set of proposals put forward by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York providing provision to keep members of Forward in Faith and Reform in the Church of England. The majority of Synod voted for it – but the house of clergy voted it down. Had the house of clergy gone with the mind of Synod as a whole in 2010, the house of laity would have voted for the women bishops that so many of us want.
You question the democratic legitimacy of the process – and I agree with you. General Synod is undemocratic in two ways.
1) You and I may not understand them but the majority of people who oppose the ordination of women are women. For obvious reasons, women opposed to the ordination of women are not represented in the house of clergy. They are only represented in the house of laity.
2)General Synod is not elected democratically. Every parish however small gets at least one deanery synod member, but the church representation rules cap the number of deanery synod members that larger churches get. This means if you worship in a larger church, your views are under represented on General Synod. Since the smallest parishes tend (not exclusively but tend) to be liberal, and the largest parishes tend (not exclusively but tend) to be evangelical, a more democratic Synod would probably have had a greater vote AGAINST the measure.
At the moment many in Forward in Faith seem to be willing to come back to the table and negotiate a speedy reintroduction of legislation on the 2010 basis. Then we can quickly have the women bishops we want. But if we demonise them, will they be so willing to negotiate? Without negotiation we will have an awfully long time to wait….
November 23, 2012 at 11:43 am
I have just been talking to a reporter from our local paper to try to explain what happened. The hysterical reaction from some people in the church has not helped to make things clearer, and has offered politicians and others a chance to give us a good kicking.
I told the reporter that 95% of people in the church have no problem with the idea of having women as bishops, the issue is how to allow people who don’t agree to remain whilst not undermining the position of women as bishops. The church doesn’t have the answer to that yet.
Those who voted in favour of the measure believed that everything had been done that could be done to find an answer, some of those who voted against (maybe only six people) were still not convinced that a better solution could not be found.
Yes, it made the church look silly. Yes, the church appears out of date and out of touch. The church, though, will always be out of date and out of touch; it is an inevitable consequence of having two thousand years of history and experience to deal with every time we want to change something important. Slowness to change is a handicap, but it has also been one of the church’s strength down the centuries.
The church is not General Synod, the house of bishops or the Archbishop of Canterbury. People who know their local church and have experience of its ministry do know what is real.
November 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm
If Diocesan Synods had the same two-thirds in three houses rules as General Synod, 11 would have rejected the measure. Still only 25%, but much closer to the votes of clergy and laity in General Synod than the bishops were.
A survey in the summer had 31% of Anglican church-goers saying no to women bishops, either until consensus reached with other churches or ever, The House of Laity was closest to this.
Many feel that if the bishops had stuck to their original Clause 5(1)(c) it might have passed. Instead the opposition of WATCH and similar groups scuppered that.
The House of Clergy rejected the Archbishops’ amendment in 2010, which also would have had a good chance of passing – or perhaps today we’d be blaming the House of Clergy for it not doing so.
Who knows? So many what ifs. What we do know is that the picture of how the views of the Church are known and decided is horrendously complicated.
Perhaps the way forward would be to return with much the same measure, but with a clause saying that the Code of Practice could only be passed and amended with a two-thirds majority. This would give it the sense of relative permanence that many of those opposed seemed worried about.
Even better if the Code specifies that failure to follow it would be a matter of Clergy Discipline, to avoid the difficulty of Judicial Review proceedings.
November 23, 2012 at 1:05 pm
I’ve said this elsewhere but, if I may, I’ll say it here too: it’s not difficult to fix this; we just need to revisit the GS voting system: 2/3 overall majority backed by a simple majority in all three houses. That retains the 2/3 majority protocol but ensures that a minority can’t hold the whole of Synod hostage yet still allows for a majority objection in any single house to veto a motion.
Until such time as something like that is set up, Synod is broken and I for one have no confidence in it. Petition here: No Confidence in General Synod: Calling for an Urgent Review
… and it’s addressed to you, your Bishopness, as a member of the House of Bishops 🙂
November 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm
But the bottom line Nick is that women can still not be Bishops in the Church of England and I am not going to condemn any politician who stands up and points out that this is blatant discrimination. Let’s not miss the point. And 5 years is too long to get this wrong righted.
November 23, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Those of us who minister in he C of E can point to the huge support at grass roots for women in the episcopacy, and indicate the overwhelming majorities in the house of bishops and house of clergy (and the large, but insufficient majority in the house of laity). I am at present working to the best of my ability to put that across in my parish. But until legislation is actually passed allowing women to become bishops the sad fact remains that we are a discrimatory organisation open to the charge of institutional sexism. What “the world” needs to see from us, more than anything else, is some kind of humble institutional penitence – although I do not know what the modern equivalent of sackcloth and ashes might be!
It would be very helpful to hear, Nick, what you mean by proponents of women bishops (as you are yourself) “aiming at the right target” and “turning disappointment into determination”. I would very much appreciate it if you could expand on those suggestions, as pain and anger inevitably mean that we can either lash out wildly or lapse into a shocked despondency, neither of which are helpful, even if understandable.
November 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Thank you for saying what needs to be heard. Do you believe that when women are admitted to the episcopacy it will be more confident and no longer compromised?
November 23, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I think while we wait for a lead on this on how to move forward, the Vacancy in See Committees in Diocese should be asked to agree not to appoint Bishops in the immediate future as vacancies arise. It will be inconvenient but might sharpen the resolve to find a way to having women as bishops as soon as possible.
November 23, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Thanks +Nick, heard your speech before the time limit conspired against you! I absolutely agree that the GS has not rejected women bishops, but the House of Laity has; and don’t let anyone be fooled into thinking that it was only really to so with the protections being offered. The ConEvos never wanted women priests in the first place and now find that they have the majority that eluded them in 1992 to block women bishops, whatever the terms. Actually the game was up in 2010 when Reform and FiF worked out that they had the majority; so all the so called good faith negotiating was a sham. They knew that they could push to the limit and beyond, enshrining discrimination without a care in the world, as when the measure was finally worked through by the HoB they would simply vote against it. The House of Laity has some hard thinking to do over its leadership. In the meantime, we will all calm down in the end and allow a more representative GS in 2015 to do the job properly. A women priest in St Albans, who I had a good conversation with on Wednesday, told me that she did not feel her ministry was any less affirmed as a result, but always found it wearisome to defend the CofE and now that task has just got harder.
November 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I think Anthony is very unfair to Reform/FiF. They were always likely to vote against, but I honestly believe (based on my knowledge of the Catholic side at least) they have the integrity to say “We know we’re in the minority; it will be bad for the Church to carry on a civil-war for ever; give us enough to live with and we won’t block it.”
They didn’t feel there was enough to live with in this Measure. They said they could have lived with other drafts. I believe them. We can still get it right as Church.
November 23, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Quoting comment 4 above … the majority of people who oppose the ordination of women are women. For obvious reasons, women opposed to the ordination of women are not represented in the house of clergy. They are only represented in the house of laity.
It’s an interesting point … any comment?
November 23, 2012 at 5:21 pm
[…] does have close links, which already have women in the episcopate or equivalent leadership roles. Bishop Nick Baines hinted at this, but by the time he spoke, speeches were limited to one minute, and there was not […]
November 23, 2012 at 6:41 pm
No, Anthony, no: the House of Laity did not and has not rejected women bishops. On the contrary, they voted for the measure; and those within the house who voted against did so in blatant opposition to the dioceses they are supposed to represent. Synod is broken by its arcane voting system, and betrayed by a group who choose to use their votes personally rather than representationally, abusing an inequitable system to maintain an inequitable status quo.
November 23, 2012 at 6:46 pm
How good of you Bishop Baines to tell the Church of England to get real. But how sad that we only hear your voice on such a popularise issue as women in the episcopate. Where was your voice when the House of Bishops, to which you belong, took a ‘discreet’ decision to block the consideration of any honest and open gay priest for consideration for episcopal office?
I know my question is a little off line from the main thread, but you answer could strengthen or weaken YOUR credibility in the same way as some are saying about the Church of England.
November 23, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Dear +Nick a little surprised by your comments as I have to agree with those that point out that Synod did not reject women bishops they reject a piece of legislation that did not offer enough space for traditionalists. I have to agree with Tom Sutcliff’s reasoning. Having sat through some of Southwark Diocesan Synods in the the past and listening to the debate then I would not feel safe or welcome in the CofE as a traditionalist based on what was offered. Not that many in the church let alone MPs or the press seem to grasp, or possibly care about any of that.
November 23, 2012 at 7:08 pm
One of the more sensible issues raised by politicians is that of bishops belonging to the House of Lords. It is correct to argue that the state should not interfere with the internal workings of the church, even if established. That would be gross erastianism. But why should a, exclusively male body of people, such as Bishops as presently constituted, participate as of right in the secular government? (Why should there be bishops in the House of Lords at all? But that is another argument). I wonder if, as one of the signs of repentance the church as a whole must make, those Bishops legally entitled to sit in the Lords might voluntarity renounce that right until they do not have to seek exemption from equality laws. The disadvantage of being unable to contribute their wisdom would be outweighed by a public recognition that their position in the Lords, as a result of the vote, is widely (and justly) held to be untenable. This is not to in any way to suggest that the Bishops bear responsibility for this debacle, but might provide a measure of healing. Just a suggestion!
November 23, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Good Stuff Nick. Here’s something I wrote to a friend this morning. (I feel you’re a friend too. ……..) …………….what can we say? I have just received my copy of the Church Times with the Old Archbishop weeping on the shoulder of the Young Archbishop and wondering “what can I say?” Some years ago, I interviewed a member of the General Synod (for the radio) – Joan Collinson, it was – and I asked her, “how important is prayer in meetings of the Synod?” “Oh, most important,” came the reply. “So, that must help you if things go against you?” “Yes, of course”. “Like the question of women priests?” “Ah,” she replied, “the question of women priests is different. That’s gone beyond prayer. That’s to do with politics now.”
So, I wonder if we’re getting this all wrong. There are bits of Synod business which are not a question of praying but of politics. I used to try to bring comfort to people who said that their prayers were not answered. They could be as distressed as the Old Archbishop. I replied by saying, “Ah, well. You see, God can answer your prayers in three ways. He can say, “Yes.” Or “No”. Or “Wait”. Why doesn’t someone tell the good Rowan that perhaps God is saying “wait”? Dry your tears Rowan. You’ve been thinking this is politics when all God is saying is, “it’s just Me saying “don’t rush things” all the time. You’ve got the clergymen and clergywomen behind you”. This is God saying that the lay people are also quite important. So come on now, let’s drink to that.
Tell you what. I’m just sick of the whole thing. I’ve going back to my G and T. Cheers. Thine for ever. FRANCIS
November 23, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Ecumenism vis-a-vis non-Roman Europe – absolutely (but why not expand when you do have the chance, +Nick?)! We are, after all, though I’m not sure this is much valued (or even known) in the CofE, formal partners under the Porvoo agreement with a number of Scandivanian and Baltic Lutheran churches. The Church of Sweden, to which we are in several respects particularly close, first ordained women as priests over half a century ago and has moved fairly painlessly to women bishops. It has also moved to an acceptance of same-sex marriage – with quite a lot of pain, to be sure (some of it inflicted by our offical comments on the matter), but it’s not going to split the Church. That’s more impressive still than Zlatan’s fourth goal, even if in neither case you like the result. This is a Church we should be getting to know better and even, perhaps, consulting over the avoidance of car-crashes.
November 23, 2012 at 9:34 pm
I fear that part of the problem lies with the democratic deficit arising from old election rules making it difficult to have vigorous debate or any real accountability. In Rochester, which was in favour at deanery level, we managed to elect three implacable opponents on a relatively low turnout partly because the issues were scarcely debated.
One A4 piece of paper to introduce candidates biography, and one evening attended by maybe 30 people in the Church where the opposition was at its strongest. That was the extent of the campaign under current rules and you may be sure nobody campaigned on the platform of outright opposition despite the most vociferous priest having asserted publicly that no woman should answer a question if her husband were present to answer on her behalf ( I kid you not)
Until the congregations understand how they have been let down by these processes we shall not see Synod reflecting the folk in the pews so completely.
November 23, 2012 at 11:59 pm
On a lighter note, I speculate that, in your heart of hearts, you are pleased that the rumours about Nick Baines Esq as the next ABC turned out to be just speculation.
November 24, 2012 at 9:21 am
Hugh, the point I intended to make in the debate was that our ecumenical relationships go way beyond the Vatican and that they also have an interest in our decision. I don’t quite agree that the Church in Sweden has not been ‘split’ over the sexuality issues; I don’t think a church exists that doesn’t struggle here.
November 24, 2012 at 9:25 am
Grant, are you serious? Have you ever read this blog? Or anything else I have written or done in the media or anywhere else? If you are going to patronise me, at least check some facts first. I wasn’t in the House of Bishops at the time you mention – but I did say on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, if he were to be appointed Bishop of Southwark, I would serve with him. So, drop your patronising block capitals?
November 24, 2012 at 9:27 am
John Hillman, the danger now is that there will be less readiness for compromise, not more. What we had might turn out to have offered Traditionalists the best protection. As I have said, we shall see…
November 24, 2012 at 9:33 am
mattwardman2000, nice to hear from you. You are right. I am sure I was only in the frame because journalists know me. So, even though I knew it was nonsense, it was still a long-lasting pain – despite the funnier moments. We have got the right man for the right job at the right time.
November 24, 2012 at 11:33 am
Bernard Randall – can you (or anyone else reading this) give me a link to the survey in which 31% of Anglican churchgoers were against women bishops? A google search only yields people quoting it, and no details of the survey itself, and I’d like a look at the question that were asked and the demographic of respondents to check out what this actually tells us.
For example, when ‘Anglican’ is used in this context it’s easy to assume that the Anglicans in question are all C of E, but if they weren’t it would make a big difference in how much this survey tells us about feelings in the wider C of E on the issue.
Thanks.
November 24, 2012 at 6:37 pm
By the same token, could John Bennett kindly document the claim that 95% of churchpeople are okay with women bishops? I’d have thought more like 75% – which BTW is close enough to the 69% implied above.
November 25, 2012 at 11:39 am
Pam,
I found the research discussed here:
http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/women-bishops/
It was produced by this organization:
http://www.christian-research.org/
but I can’t find the exact details online. The organization looks reputable enough, but of course and poll can contain bias based on the way questions are asked, so I’m not going to say this is exactly what Anglicans think.
BUT, as far as I know, there’s no other survey which has aimed to ask the question of church-goers, so if these figures aren’t about right, how can we claim to know any better what the real figures are?
November 25, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Thank you Bernard – that’s really interesting – as far as I can see there are 3 different surveys reported there and I can’t get the 31% figure from any of them. I’m not particularly good with tables of figures though so I’ll run them past my resident statistician when he gets home!
November 25, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Unbelievable!. The Anglican Church still does not get it! No one out there cares about votes in Synods, just go and do mission. Half the world is unreached for Christ, and the Anglican Church argues about the deck chairs, oops Lady Bishops.
November 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Unbelievable! Some people think that because the media obsesses about one issue, that’s all thenAnglicans are doing. How stupid can you get? Discussion of one issue does not mean the rest of what we do isn’t getting done. Just think, John.
November 25, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Only a man — and a man disconnected from the other half of the human race — could regard this as a non-issue. Wake up, John: we’re talking about a church that has institutionalised sex discrimination, that has ruled that only its male leaders can sit in the House of Lords. We’re talking about an institution with a governing body that has allowed itself to be crippled by a minority who have abused their positions of trust within that governing body.
This situation impinges on all areas of the Church of England’s work and mission: on what basis do we expect people to pay attention when we raise issues of justice and inequity when we have institutionalised injustice and inequity; and if you think no one cares about this, why, exactly, do you suppose the media is having a feeding frenzy over it? Why do you think thousands of people have signed petitions calling for the situation to be dealt with?
Lord, have mercy.
November 25, 2012 at 7:50 pm
And for anyone unaware of those petitions:
Thinking Anglicans: Women Bishops: online petitions
November 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Hear Hear Phil Groom. This all needs resolving and expediting ASAP. And not simply because of media pressure, but because the CoE is crippled without doing so. Whole mission and wonderful work of so many in CoE – bishops, clergy and laity undermined. We cannot witness and stand for justice whilst we sit in the squalor of such injustice within our own organisation.
November 25, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Phil it is a real shame that Thinking Anglicans cant seem to do what they say on tin. This is typical of secular liberal politics in that if they don’t get a vote they like ignore it and just keep coming back again and again. I am still inclined to think that Synod got it right. I think there is a real lack of grace being shown over the result. While the outcome might not be popular the way Synod debated and voted was lot more reasoned and respectful than the House of Commons can manage.
Why should Bishops not sit in the House of Lords when they can have very real and valuable contribution to debates on many far more important issues. Hillsborough and Banking being recent and notable. This one non-issue (the vote about the protection not about if there will be women Bishops) doesn’t trump everything else.
+Nick. Yes, I fear you may well be correct about what was defeated being might the best that will ever be offered. If it is though that will be very sad end.
Let us pray that when the hysteria has died down there will be some more reason and love shown on all sides. It seem to me that both sides are locked in fight idolising their own views. More justice and mercy please.
November 27, 2012 at 10:00 am
John – where is the justice and mercy in a minority undermining synodical process in order to pursue their own agendas? Upon what basis do those who wish to deny equity to half the human race demand special provision for themselves?
You are right when you say Synod got it right, for Synod voted overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation; unfortunately that was scuppered by a flawed synodical process, and now we have to pick up the pieces.
The naysayers have spoken: they have rejected the provision offered to them; they have not rejected women bishops, however, as they have neither the power nor the mandate to do that. The Church must now move on, pursue what it is minded to implement, and those who object must like it or lump it. They don’t need to leave: whilst a few strident voices may be crying out for them to go, they remain as much a part of Christ’s broken and bleeding body as any; but they must accept that the Church of which they are a part isn’t going to dance to their tune… and their way forward is simple: they must dance widdershins around the rest of us, much as many of us do every day in the C of E. Space doesn’t allow me to list all the things I dislike about the C of E, but I’ll mention one: marriage equality, of which I’m in favour. Do I walk away because the Church refuses to comply with my wishes? Of course not: where would I go? This is my home; and because it is my home, I’m not going to hide in the cupboard under the stairs either!
Let those who say no stand firm; but let them stand firm in the acknowledgement and acceptance of the fact that the Church at large is not minded to agree with them.
November 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm
[…] Það er meirihluti fyrir málinu á kirkjuþinginu og í kirkjunni líka. Hann er bara ekki nógu stór. Nick Baines, biskup í Bradford, orðar þetta svona: […]
November 28, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Thank you for responding to my contribution (17). I have indeed read this blog before and much that you have written elsewhere. But you point that “if he were appointed Bishop of Southwark I would be prepared to serve with him” sounds rather more pragmatic than principled. It does not ring with the “get real” sentiment that you express in relation to the General Synod’s failure to carry the Measure for the admission of women to the episcopate. – You did bother to make the point that there were no candidates, favoured or otherwise, merely names being considered. This was at least disingenuous as the nomination of candidates by standing members of the CNC obliges the consideration of their names. If you were not aware of the names in general discussion around the Diocese of Southwark, then I am amazed.
As to you not being a member of the HoB at the time it put in place its discreet ‘ban’ on honest, open, and/or civilly partnered gay clergy. Point taken. But you are now and it is your official position (please note the absence of “patronising” capitals). Your voice has not been heard asking that the House of Bishops “get real” on this issue. Thus I do feel that it is legitimate for me to ask that you “get real” on this particular issue and ‘dare to be a Daniel’.
November 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Whilst we’re crying “Get real” perhaps the House of Bishops would care to get real about the meaning of the word “urgent”, please, and encourage the Archbishops’ Council to wake up? I find myself thoroughly bemused by yesterday’s statement; they say…
… only to then indicate that they’re going to essentially park it until Synod meets in July next year; and even then the statement is unclear: will a new measure be placed before Synod, or only “legislative proposals” for a new measure?
This, my Lord Bishops, is not dealing with the fiasco “as a matter of urgency”!
I’ve said this before, I say it again: there is a simple way forward that does not involve doing away with the 2/3 majority principle or, indeed, any of the other radical changes to Synod that I’ve seen bandied about — namely that a vote should be carried by a 2/3 overall majority backed by a simple majority in all three houses. That prevents a minority in any one house from blocking synodical process but allows for a majority of objectors in any one house to do so.
November 29, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Phil
I take it from your comment then that you see no place or quarter from those of a genuine traditional conviction within the church. The vote was about provision not about allowing women bishops and interestingly looks to have been lost now by tolerant liberals voting against it because they felt it broke promises and did not offer sufficient to those unable to accept a women bishops authority,
Now you appear to advocating ignoring due democratic process and those peoples right to vote as their conscience dictates. Equality appears to have become a liberal idol trumping all else.
November 29, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Please don’t abuse the word “traditional”, John: I too am a traditional Anglican, committed to the liturgy, diversity and richness of the Church of England. As you say, however, the vote was indeed about provision, and the provision offered has been rejected by those to whom it was offered; and as for those unwilling to accept a woman bishop’s authority — as +Nick has pointed out, there’s an irony here, for they have comprehensively rejected the leadership of the male bishops to whom they claim allegiance.
As for due democratic process: that was set aside by those who chose to vote as private individuals in pursuit of their own agendas rather than as representatives of the laity in their dioceses. No: I do not advocate ignoring due democratic process; I advocate introducing it. From my point of view, this isn’t so much about equality as equity: as things stand, Synod is broken by an inequitable voting system that undermines democracy; I propose a simple fix that respects Synod’s commitment to giving a strong voice to significant minorities, but which does not allow lesser minorities to trump or hijack synodical process.
It’s unfortunate that it was this particular issue that revealed the flawed nature of Synod’s voting system; but my hope is that a greater good will now emerge as Synod revisits that system and facilitates a way forward — forward in faith, I hope, rather than backward in disbelief.
December 5, 2012 at 8:56 am
Dear Bishop Nick, It has taken some thought as to whether I would comment but as time goes by I feel that not to would be to do what we so often do just get on and make good.
I very much agree with your comments that followed the vote of the General synod on the 20th November; the sun rose on Wednesday and world did not end. I am glad that as the sun rose over my house I was not facing a day of violence or pain or hunger and I have, as many others did, got on and did what the Church does well.
However, I cannot help think that as a result of the vote it has made it harder for those in parishes to do what they do. I have faced questions from young people as to how can the church speak of social justice if it is not just itself, it will become a distraction to many as they seek to find a way forward, it seems to have demoralised many who feel that they are unable to do anything to effect change and above all we are not making the most of the fullness of the body of Christ. I hope that when the House of Bishops meets later this month they will not just get on with business as usual.
So what made me comment now? I have been approached by my daughter who is at Bristol University about the recent actions of the Christian Union there. You may have seen that they have gained national attention because they, if I understand it correctly, agreed to allow women to teach in their meetings, then a significant member of the executive publicly resigned over the issue and encouraged others to do the same, so they reversed their policy and allowed women to teach only under certain circumstances. The issue nationally has been raised in the context of the general synod vote. My daughter approached me to ask me to speak to her friends on the issue. I wonder what the House of Bishops would say if asked?
Sarah
December 5, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Sarah, I take your point about it being harder, but we still have to start from where we are and not from where we would like to have been. It is the task of clergy and leaders to give confidence, not only in interpreting the vote/process/polity and the overall support of the Church of England for opening all ministries to women, but also in keeping the focus. Yes, there is damage, but that is also the challenge.
The situation at Bristol University is not new. I bet of you went around all the CUs, you would probably find similar situations. Indeed, this was the case decades ago when I was a student. What it demonstrates is that some circles cannot easily be squared and that the attempt to do so is tortuous – whether in the General Synod or a university.
I cannot speak for the House of Bishops, but I cannot think of a single bishop in the House who would think the Bristol situation anything other than absurd.
[See UCCF statement just issued.]
December 5, 2012 at 8:00 pm
A thought for what it’s worth: although it’s pretty well impossible to square a circle, we can always circle a square — if we’re willing to increase the circumference…