Well, today the General Synod finally voted to make it possible for women to be made bishops. Which means that before too long we should be able to stop talking about “women bishops” and just talk about “bishops”.
Not everyone will be welcoming this development tonight, even if they knew it had to happen. The debate in York lasted nearly five hours and only a few speeches were off the mark (or manipulative).
The bottom line is simply that the Church of England has practised what it preaches and taken the time (lots of it…) to make a decision that keeps people together despite disagreement. It offers a model of how there is an alternative to simply cutting and running when conflict occurs.
My post-vote statement reads as follows:
I’m delighted that the General Synod has today voted in favour of the legislation that will allow women to be consecrated as bishops.
It’s been a long time coming, but that’s because the Church of England has worked hard to hold together those of contrasting views, even when those opposed were in the minority. But the wrestling has paid off and we have upheld our commitment to being a broad church.
With the guiding principles the bishops have set out, we have a process that will both fully support women bishops while providing for the flourishing of those who are still opposed, and we can now move forward in a spirit of reconciliation and trust.
I believe women bishops will have a hugely positive impact on the Church of England, and I look forward to the first consecration.
Real credit goes to the Archbishop of Canterbury who brought in a radically new way of doing Synod business and working the relationships. I am not naive – this must have involved more wrangling and diplomacy than most of us have any idea about. But, he set a new course and made possible what looked utterly impossible only twelve months ago.
The other real credit goes to the Bishop of Rochester who chaired the group that had come up with this process and solution. He exudes calm, reasonable, gracious authority, and I wonder just how vital his personality and skill have been to getting us this far so quickly and effectively.
The Archbishop of York chaired the debate with great skill and lightness of touch.
So, now the hard work begins. We have to make this work. (And we have to be patient while the legalities are worked through until the winter when action might begin to be possible.)
But, for now we can sleep in peace, knowing that today the Church did something remarkable.
July 15, 2014 at 7:15 am
Real credit goes to the Archbishop of Canterbury who brought in a radically new way of doing Synod business and working the relationships.
One is tempted to be very cynical and say that telling folk that you will vote it through, or else Parliament will take Synod’s power away doesn’t say much about keeping people together!
From my perspective as a Channel Islander, the matter isn’t over anyway. The legislation is going to have to be integrated into local canon laws in Jersey and Guernsey. With the islands’ current uncertain status (part of Winchester, under pastoral supervision of +Dover) and unwillingness to play by English rules, resistance here could throw a sizeable handful of grit into the mechanism.
July 15, 2014 at 9:02 am
Indeed what a great day, even if long in coming!
However concern must remain at the assumption that the current crop of women Deans should be seen as the obvious prelates. There is a distinction in office and ministry: Deans need to effect a rigour and occasional ruthlessness in the execution of their work (they are, after all responsible for the fabric and investments of a cathedral!) and a bishop whose ministry is the care of souls. Deans could not suffer fools gladly while it is part of the episcopal calling to do that, after all the faith depends on holy fools !
July 15, 2014 at 3:25 pm
James, the threat came not from the ABC, but from the reality that was presented to him/us. Anyway, the consensus had changed substantially this time round.
The Channel Islands are a different country (as it were)…
July 15, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Angusian, I don’t think this assumption is held anywhere other than in the media! They go for the usual suspects, but it is entirely possible that the first women bishops will be the next generation (as it were).
July 16, 2014 at 12:37 am
And Cameron’s put three women into his Cabinet as well – hurray for that too!
July 17, 2014 at 12:26 pm
I don’t disagree with anything you say here … but I wonder how you would answer those who might suggest that your different response to this modernistic updating of bible-based thinking when compared to your response to George Carey’s modernistic updating of bible-based thinking on life and death is a bit … umm … random??
July 17, 2014 at 12:40 pm
A great result for which many should be thanked. Phil North’s and John Spence’s contribution were both very helpful in helping us move forward. After all we are all in one Church working matters out together.
July 18, 2014 at 10:48 pm
I am not or ever have been affiliated to any church but have always had a keen interest in the scriptures.Over the years I have read all of the Bible (missing out the begats) and have done quite a bit of research.I am currently doing a degree in philosophy and in upcoming essays intend to use religion/beliefs as counter arguments to some philosophical statements.Firstly let me say I don’t care whether there are women bishops or not but I am rather confused.In Co1:14-34 and Timothy1:2-12Jesus quite forcefully instructs that “women must not lead the congregation”,this instruction seems quite clear and in no way obscure.Therefore,if as a Christian one believes that the Bible was written by men who were directed/inspired by God and it’s there to instruct and teach how to be a Christian how does one justify approving something that is a direct contradiction to what Jesus teaches.I would be very interested in what yourself or readers of your blog have to say on this.
July 19, 2014 at 2:04 pm
Huge moment for the CofE and yes profound contibutions to the process of late from the ++Abps, +Rochester and many others. Great that there are a good number of vacant suffragan sees, including in your new super-diocese. No pressure then!
July 19, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Now how about openly gay bishops? Isn’t this the next step.
July 19, 2014 at 9:40 pm
laodice, I don’t know which Bible you are reading, but in mine it is Paul (not Jesus) who says what you are quoting. And hermeneutics apply to all interpretation of the Bible – even the bits that look ‘plain’.
July 20, 2014 at 9:01 am
@laodice1 : I think this is where the lived reality question comes to the fore … And which bits of lived reality we like and don’t like … Especially where it conflicts with the lived realities of 2000 or more (if you include the more radical bits of the OT in your studies) years of writings …
July 20, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Oops showed my lack of knowledge there,you are of course quite right,it was Paul who says those words.Nevertheless the Bible says that Paul is an apostle of Christ Jesus under command of God so I think it’s fair to say that what he says is approved of God.I’m not sure I agree with you about the science of interpretation of the Bible.After all Jesus didn’t pick the learned men of his time to become disciples but ordinary and probably uneducated people for the most part.Mt 11:25…..you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.Anyway I understand what you are saying and that’s what I want to know.How did yourself and the Synod inerpret what Paul said to mean completely opposite .
July 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Gill:Wish you guys would elaborate a bit more.It seems that what you’re saying is that now it’s the 21st century some things in the scriptures no longer apply just as things were different after Jesus death so many things that God allowed/instructed to do in the O.T. no longer applied.That to me is a very dangerous premise because we were given new teachings by Jesus whereas it seems that you are saying that it’s now okay for new teachings to be given by man.What you say is what the churches seem to be doing i.e. ignoring some scripture that don’t fit in with their own belief system.
July 21, 2014 at 7:10 pm
I think that there should be more discussion about how those who cannot accept women bishops will be treated and what alternatives are open to them.
July 22, 2014 at 10:04 am
laodice1 : actually, I think we are in danger of agreeing 🙂 My original observation was based on comments regarding George Carey’s change of position on assisted dying, the justification for which was changes in ‘lived reality’ and that this went counter to the apparently immovable attachment to the sanctity of human life. While he was berated in a number of fora for this change of mind, I couldn’t help but think that the changed attitude to women’s ministry and women in the episcopate also reflected our response to changes in ‘lived reality’. I’m no expert but it seemed to me that the NT moved away from the legalistic prescriptions of the OT towards a new era of love and acceptance – all the reasons why the scribes and pharisees despised and feared Jesus and his teachings.
I also understand your point that if everything just changes because society changes then there are no more distinctives left for the Chuch or for Christians more widely – for what it’s worth my personal view is that somewhere between following the biblical rules / injunctions / teachings and living life today in a manner of which God and his Son might just approve, there is room for a little gentleness and compassion where principles-based faith wins over a rules-based approach – I hope, otherwise I may be in trouble when I come to give the account of my life when it’s over 🙂
July 22, 2014 at 9:04 pm
It’s quite surprising by how much information you can glean by someone not answering a question which was quite simple,why did the synod vote for women bishops when the scriptures teach otherwise.The response was a lot of double talk,I believe nearly everyone that voted yes knew quite well that they were going against scrptural teachings but decided to follow their own agenda,after all Nick aren’t women bishops just as much a ‘lived reality’ as gay marriages,legalisation of drugs and abortion on demand.I do wonder sometimes if many of our churchman even believe in God as I would be too afraid to do what they have done because they will have to pay a price.If I decide to join a church I will never be part of a congregation led by a woman,and no I’m not a man but a strong minded independent woman.
July 30, 2014 at 8:14 pm
Gill:I hear what you’re saying but I’m not so sure.When you think of all the different religions in the world there must be billions of people who profess to believe in God and consider themselves good,decent people but there’s a scripture that makes me believe that this is not the case.Mt7:13-14″Go in through the narrow gate because broad and spacious is the road going off into destruction,and many are the ones going through it;whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life and few are the ones finding it.”
July 31, 2014 at 10:55 am
I’m probably in trouble then … especially as I probably count as lapsed – I’m so lapsed I can’t even find the verse to quote back, but I seem to remember an especially difficult eternity will be meted out to those who were believers but who’ve struggled to keep the faith 😦