Saturday 14 July 2012

What wording might do in place of Clause 5(1)c?

Someone who is a supporter of women bishops, but who also wants to see effective provision for those who cannot accept this, emailed me recently asking if I could suggest any alternative wording for Clause 5(1)c.
I also see that the Thinking Anglicans website is intending to run a discussion, with invited contributions, on the same issue.
I await the outcome of the latter with interest since, as I said to my correspondent, I am actually at a loss to know what to suggest.
Part of the problem is that Clause 5(1)c is barely good enough for Traditionalists. Contrary to what was being said on all sides when it was first announced, it does not ensure the provision of bishops or clergy with particular theological convictions.
All it requires is that the Code of Practice contain guidance as to the selection of the clergy who will minister to petitioning parishes so that “the exercise of ministry” by them is “consistent with the theological convictions” of petitioning parishes.
In other words, the way in which Clause 5(1)c will be put into effect has yet to be seen, and will itself be subject to the Synodical process involved in drawing up the Code of Practice. This particular horse is a long way from the water, let alone drinking it.
Then you have to ask another question. Is the proposed rewording primarily aimed at satisfying Traditionalists or assuaging Revisionists?
Frankly, if 5(1)c doesn’t suffice, then I find it hard to conceive of a form of words which will do both.
Of course, it is relatively easy to think in terms of proposals that would satisfy one party or the other. But that is not the point. We are where we are as a result of literally years of pleas, arguments and even negotiations (though I suspect there have been too few of the latter).
The proposed Measure presented to the dioceses was the result of that process, and the House of Bishops’s amendment was intended to be the final ‘tweak’ needed to get it past the Traditionalists.
In this, it almost succeeded. I can say, without breaching confidences, that (despite various public statements) there were serious discussions amongst Traditionalists as to whether the Measure might be acceptable, even whilst it fell a long way short of being desirable. (For those who are wondering, there are a number of other elements in the Measure which still give grounds for dissent.)
For this reason, however, I would also suggest that the withdrawal of Clause 5(1)c with nothing similar (or anything weaker) in its place would lead to a very clear “No in November”. This is one reason why I have gone to the effort of posting the petition to ‘Keep Clause 5(1)c’.
So if anyone has any suggestions they might be able to make — actual wording that they think would do the trick — please do post as a comment.
Without anything as a suitable alternative, I personally think the best thing is for the bishops to re-present the Measure with the Clause still there, on the grounds that this might, just, be enough after all for those who are willing to compromise, and then let the Synod decide.
Short of that, I think the Measure will fall. And I do not want to spend the next five years discussing this matter when the crying need is for the Church’s agenda to be the conversion of England.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

15 comments:

  1. Andrew Godsall14 July 2012 at 15:50

    "Without anything as a suitable alternative, I personally think the best thing is for the bishops to re-present the Measure with the Clause still there, on the grounds that this might, just, be enough after all for those who are willing to compromise, and then let the Synod decide. "

    John you still seem to be missing the whole point of what happened last Monday. The House of Bishops are clear that the measure must get through synod. Synod was persuaded that the C of E will be holed below the water line if we can't get this measure through. Once the bishops realised that 5.1c was going to have the opposite effect to the one they wanted, they were quite happy for the adjournment. Representing it will not be an option. That is why Archbishop Rowan talked off repentance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andrew Godsall wrote ...

    Representing it will not be an option.

    Which means that nothing can be presented that could be construed as allowing the indefinite perpetuation in the CoE of a theology that opposes WO. It doesn't matter what is or is not presented. The words are irrelevant because the hearts behind the matter have been exposed. What formulation could possibly satisfy an opponent's desire for indefinite access to sympathetic leadership when it has now been revealed beyond all reasonable doubt that proponents have no intention of providing opponents perpetual access to sympathetic leadership?

    At this point, the choice is stark. If there is no statutory protection, and the current proposal is not defeated, then opponents will have no other choice but to leave. They must consign the CoE to a future written by Thinking Anglicans. Because there will no longer be a future in the CoE for opponents of WO.

    carl

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrew Godsall15 July 2012 at 07:54

    Carl: whilst the bishops are clear the measure has to get through they are also clear that there has to be provision for loyal Anglicans who can not yet accept the development. I am hopeful that we can find a way forward. What is needed for that is conversation and consultation with those who disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andrew, the problem is that those who are against 5c seem intent on removing the possibility of a theology against WO being continued within the CofE. This has been particularly clear from the like of Christina Rees, who have been prone to saying that it is "misogyny" and "has no place in a modern church", both of which show that they do not consider a theological objection as a valid reason to be against WO AND in completely the wrong frame of mind to look to the formation of the Church.
    As I have repeatedly said, I believe that the Bible very clearly speaks to women being a part of God's plan for the leadership of His Church. But I believe this on theological grounds, rather than trying to keep up with society, as this in the ONLY way the Church should look to how it should be run.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The House of Bishops are clear that the measure must get through synod. Synod was persuaded that the C of E will be holed below the water line if we can't get this measure through."

    Why?

    How has the CoE come to this pickle, that it imagines that its very survival depends on a thing like this?

    Come on, everyone should be able to think of a dozen things worse than the non-passage of this measure.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why does Andrew Godsall (07:54) insert the word 'yet' in his reply to Carl?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Why does Andrew Godsall (07:54) insert the word 'yet' in his reply to Carl?"

    And there, maybe, we see the misunderstanding of many, particularly on the more fervent wing, of those in favour of women bishops as regards their views on people taking a theological view against WO.
    Nicely spotted!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Possibly Canon Andrew holds a quasi-Marxist doctrine of historical inevitability as regards Anglican acceptance of WO/WB?

    Nobody really knows the distant future on that score.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  9. Could I just remind people posting comments, the idea was not to discuss the rights and wrongs of having provision but the wording that might satisfy the constituency of General Synod at this point.

    It is easy to comment on the former - very difficult indeed, in my view, to come up with something to fulfil the latter.

    Some of the regulars here might like to try!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I may be wrong, but it seems to me the amendment is more about meeting the need for a bishop who hasn't been ordained by a woman, rather than any problems regarding male headship.

    I think this means that it won't be possible to satisfy the proponents of women's consecration with any variant, because it is designed to give a permanent place to "taint" as they call it, or "sacramental assurance" as traditionalists would have it.

    However, I wonder whether it would help to change "the exercise of ministry by whom" to "the nature of whose ordination."

    This would at least make explicit what is intended to be covered, and exclude some of the wilder claims of proponents of women's consecration. Such as that any theological objection however bizarre could be used by a petitioning parish, or that the opinions of the bishop (on this and other matters) would need to be the same as those of the petitioning parish.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John, I am not sure the clause can be made any more appealing to WATCH without opening up the door to the potential abuse of the measure in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Andrew Godsall18 July 2012 at 12:39

    What is now clear from the electronic voting at GS is that House of Bishops voted with the largest majority of all the three houses to adjourn the debate and therefore look at the wording again. So it can no longer be claimed that this was something Synod did to the House of Bishops - it was something they were very clearly in favour of doing themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But was this because they saw that people were against it or because they wanted to change it before the uproar?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Andrew Godsall18 July 2012 at 20:38

    I think it was a realisation that the proposed legislation wold not succeed unless they re-considered.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So it could still be said that Synod forced HoB hand.

    ReplyDelete