I clearly remember sitting in my parents’ front room cheering on the vote in favour of women’s ordination to the priesthood. At the time I was a member of the Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland, and women had been accepted as clergy in that denomination for a couple of decades before this momentous vote in the General Synod of the Church of England.
And that was that, I thought.
So I was somewhat shocked, on becoming a member of the Church of England, to find that being a Priest meant that the path of a woman could take her no higher than Archdeacon, and that the vote for priesthood did not automatically include progression to Bishops or Archbishops. That just felt completely wrong.
So how do we understand the situation that arose on Tuesday 21st November?
Let’s begin by looking a little bit at the situation of women priests.
When is a priest not a priest?
When the voting on whether or not to admit women to the priesthood was happening there was what became known, jokingly, as the Unholy Alliance. This comprised clergy and laity (any member of the Church who is not ordained as a Deacon, Priest, or higher) from the opposite ends of the theological spectrum in the Church of England uniting in opposition to the proposal. At one end of the spectrum are members of the clergy and laity who see themselves as still trying to complete the work of the 16th Century Reformation; at the other, those who would quite happily live as if that period of history had never happened and who would seek to reunite with the Roman Catholic expression of Christianity.
The former have no generic title, but are normally from the Conservative Evangelical end of the spectrum, and may belong to groups such as Reform. The latter are generically known as Anglo-Catholic and see themselves as following in the footsteps of such as Archbishop Laud (17th Century, Archbishop to King Charles I), or the more recent 19th Century Oxford (or Tractarian) Movement, whose most notable luminary is Cardinal John Henry Newman.
As part of passing the Measure (legislation) in General Synod (which would then pass to Parliament before going on for Royal Assent, as with any civil law in the UK), provision was made for those whose theological convictions meant that they couldn’t work with a woman priest (and that’s not just the men, by the way).
This meant that a Parochial Church Council (the governing body of a parish church) could pass up to three resolutions:
A) That this parochial church council would not accept a woman as the minister who presides at or celebrates the Holy Communion or pronounces the Absolution in the parish.
B) That this parochial church council would not accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice.
C) Where the parochial church council (PCC) of any parish has passed one or both of the resolutions set out in Schedule 1 to the Measure, a decision may be taken jointly by the minister and the council to petition the Diocesan Bishop concerned to the effect that appropriate episcopal duties in the parish should be carried out in accordance with this Act of Synod.
In effect, A) means that no woman may substitute or cover for a priest who is ill or on holiday; B) means that no woman will ever be accepted as the priest in charge of the parish; and C) means that the PCC may seek and have appointed a Bishop in sympathy with their views and theology – what have jokingly been called Flying Bishops – so that the ruling Bishop of the Diocese (area of legal and pastoral responsibility for the Bishop) is no longer the Bishop of that parish, but this alternative, and more sympathetic, Bishop is. To date most Flying Bishops have been from the Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum.
It’s a very sticky piece of legislation, but one in which, however the majority of the members of the clergy and laity of the Anglican Church may feel, the responsibility to meet the pastoral needs of this minority have been met. Something which the Church of England thinks is one of its strengths, and I do believe that it is one of its strengths, even if I think that the Measure creates a very mixed message.
For me, either you’re a priest or you’re not.
How does this apply to the vote on Women Bishops?
When it came to Women Bishops, the General Synod voted in principle for this to happen over a decade ago. In principle means that this will happen. There will be women bishops in the Church of England, what has caused the delay and the wrangling has been attempting an accommodating Measure which allows for the theological convictions of those who opposed women priests.
It has been a long and, at times, torturous debate whilst various ways were looked for in ensuring that the Measure could pass, and that women would, therefore, no longer have a ‘glass ceiling’ over their heads.
Everything from a separate ‘Province’ of those who don’t accept women’s ministry, to a similar compromise to the one for women priests was discussed and debated.
The vote on Tuesday simply contained an amendment which allowed the selection and ordination of priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which a PCC issues a Letter of Request for respect of their position and pastoral oversight. A piece of legislation which, essentially, would pass Women Bishops, but allow some to refuse their ‘oversight’ (as it is called) in a Diocese.
So, what happened? How did it not pass?
That, as they say, is the mystery.
Some information which may help:
- When the Measure was sent round the 44 Dioceses which make up the Church of England, 42 Diocesan Synods passed it, and 2 refused it. On that basis alone, there should have been no problems with this Measure.
- But, when it comes to such a momentous piece of legislation, only General Synod has the power to pass any Measure, and only then if a majority of 66% is achieved.
- General Synod is made up of 3 houses: Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The Laity come from those who sit on the local or Diocesan Synod.
When it came to the vote, the results were:
- Bishops: 44 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions. Passed in House of Bishops
- Clergy: 148 for, 45 against, no abstentions. Passed in House of Clergy.
- Laity: 132 for, 74 against, no abstentions. Rejected in the House of Laity… by a mere 6 votes.
By the rules of the Church of England, this means that the Measure does not pass.
Although 72% of the votes in the General Synod were for, because of this way of doing it, the Measure has been sent back for further discussion.
The future?
Whatever the feelings of those who favour Women Bishops, there is a great deal of Fall Out to take account of.
there will be Women Bishops (the current attempt at legislation has been rejected – NOT Women Bishops per se) the Church of England has the difficult task of rallying around and supporting its women colleagues, and working through the hurt and rejection with them.
It is incomprehensible to me that we can say to women, “You are great as a priest, but (*patronising pat on the head*) you just aren’t up to the ‘big’ job, so don’t worry about it.”
And I also fail to understand how the Lay representatives of the Diocesan Synods have, essentially, failed to follow through in voting for the Measure. But, then, we do live in a Democracy, and, occasionally, a Democracy throws these curve balls.
However, the ball is now firmly in the court of those who oppose Women Bishops, with one simple task: We’ve tried a number of different alternatives suggested by you, none have been acceptable. What do you suggest now?
The will of the Church of England is to welcome Women Bishops.
May it not be too much longer before I can say to one of the wonderful women colleagues with whom I have worked, “Your Grace”.
That is a day that is long overdue.
