As a PS to my earlier article, someone e-mailed me a link to Hansard for 1st November 1993, prior to the final parliamentary debate which approved the 1992 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, which records the answer from Mr Michael Alison to a question put by Harry Greenway MP.
This makes it quite clear that without the Act of Synod, Parliament would "insist" that the Synod put in place a further Measure, "to create a statutory provision" for those opposed to the ordination of women and requiring appropriate episcopal provision. The necessary linkage between the 1992 Measure and the 1993 Act is thus, I believe, firmly established, as is the "moral authority" of the Act.
Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : The Act of Synod will provide for the appointment of up to three new suffragan bishops to act as provincial episcopal visitors. Their remuneration will be the same as that of other suffragan bishops. Housing and a car will be provided and working expenses will be reimbursed.
Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Church Commissioners will bear in mind the great concern expressed by the House in last Friday's debate that priests and congregations committed to a male priesthood be properly looked after when females--ladies--are ordained as priests in a few months' time? Will he give an assurance that the Act of Synod measure which deals with the matter will give proper moral and real authority to those bishops committed to protecting those congregations and to serving them?
Mr. Alison : I am delighted that my hon. Friend has underscored the need for the co-called Act of Synod to have real teeth and real moral authority. I shall convey the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed to the General Synod when it meets at Church house next week to discuss the very point that my hon. Friend has raised. The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.
There is absolutely no way you can move from the words quoted in the House to the conclusion:
ReplyDelete'This makes it quite clear that without the Act of Synod, Parliament would "insist" that the Synod put in place a further Measure, "to create a statutory provision" for those opposed to the ordination of women and requiring appropriate episcopal provision. The necessary linkage between the 1992 Measure and the 1993 Act is thus, I believe, firmly established, as is the "moral authority" of the Act.'
Mr Greenaway gives his opinion of the mind of the House, and he expresses his own views. That's all. No vote was taken. No formal opinion of the House expressed. To move from that statement to your conclusion is nonsense.
Frank, Merseyside.
"...sexuality is, precisely like the ordination and consecration of women, a ‘second order’ issue..."
ReplyDeleteBut who has decided this is the case? Since when did something mandated in Scripture (male headship and authority within the Christian church) become "second order"?
Dominic, not all Anglicans consider the Bible to be the sole or ultimate authority on spiritual matters. Scripture can be equivocal. Often it gives us no guidance whatsoever. It is a book written by, copied by and translated by fallible human beings.
ReplyDeleteMany of the arguments that separate Christian from Christian are fuelled by reference and counter-reference from the Bible. It's a spectacle I've seen far too often and frankly, those who engage in such arguments might do just as well if they were literally hitting each other around the head with a hefty, hardback copy of the Good Book itself.
I say put your faith in the Living Word, not the written word. On Easter Sunday, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and charged her with the task of spreading the most important piece of news in human history. That was in a time when a woman's testimony in court could be discounted simply because she was a woman. It was a shocking thing to do, and he didn't need to do it. He could have appeared anywhere - the other side of the world, and yes, even behind the barred and bolted doors behind which the 11 were hiding. But no, he chose a woman. What clearer evidence for the role of women can you ask for?
Frank. Can I gently ask you to reread the extract. Michael Allison gave an answer to Harry Greenway’s question? Asked to give an assurance he said “The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.” Assurances given to Parliament are not to be taken lightly. Promoters of Private Bills are required to perform them (yes, I am a lawyer and I do practice in this area). I haven’t looked up the position on Synod and Measures, but I’d be surprised if it was different and in any case it’s clearly analogous. You point out that no vote was taken. However not all debates end in a vote and assurances enable the House to dispense with votes.
ReplyDeleteBut we seem to have a genuine difference of opinion over what the word of the Lord means on this issue. Having differed we have agreed to make provision for both views. So can’t we maintain that accommodation? John isn’t asking everyone to agree with his interpretation, though I had better come clean with my view which is that the Bible looks pretty clear on it and that John is right. The consecration of women bishops obviously exacerbates the difficulties and all that John and about a hundred other clergy (see this link http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/press/media/incumbentsletter5.5.10.php ) are asking for is that their reading of scripture is respected and accommodated in any changes the Church of England makes about Bishops.
David Brock
David, may I gently remind you that the House is not and never was Mr Allison's poodle? Until such a measure is put before them there is no knowing how they will vote. It's called democracy, and the promises and assurances of many Members have fallen under its wheels. I would no more expect the House to uphold such misogyny than I would expect it to bring back capital punishment or the criminalisation of homosexual acts.
ReplyDeleteMay I also point out that we differ not only on what the Word of the Lord means on this issue, but what the Word of the Lord is. You shouldn't start a discussion until you have agreed the terms.
Frank, Merseyside.
James67
ReplyDeleteHow do you know Jesus appeared to Mary? How do you know he charged her with any task? How do you know the 11 were hiding? Because the written word tells us. But it is that same written word which apparently is "equivocal, often gives us no guidance whatsoever, and was written by fallible human beings."
Whenever you seek to divide the Living Word from His Written Word, you encounter the same problem. How can we encounter Jesus apart from his word? Either we have some unchallengable direct encounter, in which case there are as many Jesuses as people in the world, all saying mutually exclusive and contradictory things; or we meet Jesus as we pick and choose which bits of the written word we like. Either way, Jesus becomes a convenient prop for our existing prejudices and worldview.
Or, we can submit ourselves to the whole written word, being challenged by and obedient to the whole as the expression of Jesus' will, whether we like it or not.
Incidentally, all Anglicans SHOULD consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority, not only from Article 6, but also Canon A2 (upholding the goodness and truth of the 39 Articles) and A5. I know lots don't, but that's because they're only pretending to be Anglicans!