Sunday 25 November 2012

Women bishops: what concessions were made?

One of the things I have heard and read frequently in the wake of the failure of the women bishops Measure is that supporters, as one Tweet put it, ‘bent over backwards’ to accommodate Traditionalists.
On this blog, one person wrote “we compromised, we put aside our own desires, our own theological convictions, our very sense of identity in Christ to accommodate those opposed in a spirit of love”.
Now my problem is this. From where I am sitting, it simply didn’t look like that. Sorry, but that is the case. I remember too well the public tears of the Bishop of Dover (who was also ‘ashamed’ then to be part of the Church of England) at the Synod in July 2008.
This was the same occasion on which the Bishop of Durham reportedly called for the debate to be abandoned — a debate during which thirteen proposals, most of them intended to strengthen provision for Traditionalists, were voted down.
Sadly, I remember it all too well, and my feeling that the writing was very clearly on the wall. At that point I was personally convinced that nothing except a bare minimum of provision would be offered. The ‘train crash’ of last Tuesday started, as far as I am concerned, with the ‘derailment’ four years ago.
So here is my question, and I ask respondents PLEASE to keep their replies brief and to the point.
I am looking for specific examples where what Traditionalists requested was either approved or strengthened through the decision-making processes of the General Synod. For example, you could say, “The House of Bishop’s Clause 5(1)c amendment was not completely removed and a form of words to satisfy Traditionalists was attempted.” (Only don’t, because I’ve got that one down.
I would genuinely welcome contributions as I feel progress can only be made in an atmosphere of honesty, which includes correcting the historical record.

As a PS, please don't write and tell me no concessions were made — I want to hear from those who can tell me about what was done, not what wasn't.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

38 comments:

  1. Well the initial aim was a single clause measure. This was conceded very early. After that, the alternative provision was intended to be a voluntary code of conduct, so there was no discrimination enshrined in law. This was also conceded, and the code became statutory with the face of the measure itself specifying the contents of the code in certain areas. The initial intention was for alternative oversight to be from an alternative male bishop, but this too was rejected and it became oversight by a bishop in a manner which respected the reasons for requesting alternative oversight, further enshrining discrimination through the implication that bishops who had been ordained by women when priested are not truly priests or bishops, and hinting at the theology of taint.

    Surprised this is difficult to see. One could ask in return what concessions were made from opponents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isn't there really just one, the overarching one of provision being made? Others might pick out bits of the legislation or process here or there, but this is the thing that matters, because it meant women were prepared to be bishops-who-are-not-quite-bishops for the sake of the consciences of others. In the context, that is an absolutely enormous concession, but I never heard anyone on the traditionalists side mention the grace it took for that concession to be made. Whatever view an individual might make of the quality of the provision offered, that is one enormous compromise. I think the challenge traditionalists now face is getting the concession they have just rejected to stay on the table next time round. I cannot imagine anything more coming. This has been an entirely pyrrhic victory, I fear.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Traditionalists were forced to concede that what is written in the Bible and what our fathers in faith taught us for 2,000 years was in fact erroneous. They made that massive concession and simply asked for a place in the Church that would allow them to be faithful. We need a third province so that both sides can live a full expression of their faith with no barriers on either view.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for these comments (though the third is VERY off-topic - and anonymous, which I don't like. Sorry.)

    Remember, I was asking for concessions "approved or strengthened through the decision-making processes of the General Synod." This is to avoid people saying things like "People were willing to talk". It is the processes of Synod I am specifically after.

    On the first post, if I've understood it correctly there are three concessions identified, two of which I've rewritten in 'Synodical' terms:

    1. The rejection of a single-clause Measure.

    2. The introduction of a statutory, rather than voluntary, Code of Conduct with the Measure specifying the contents of the code in certain areas.

    My apologies, but I'm not clear about the third point, which I understand as being the following:

    3. The initial intention was for alternative oversight to be from an alternative male bishop, but this too was rejected ...

    Whose initial intention was this, where was it expressed and by whom was it rejected? I am not being obtuse - I just don't understand!

    The second contribution is really making the first point of the first: the rejection of single clause Measure.

    Now I seem to remember that was actually looked at in the Synodical process. Can anyone remind me how and when?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Third point refers to 5.1c, the final version of which was accepted by supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for the clarification. So if I've got this right, the list should be:

    1. The rejection of a single-clause Measure.

    2. The introduction of a statutory, rather than voluntary, Code of Practice, with the Measure specifying the contents of the code in certain areas.

    3. The proposal of the revised Clause 5(1)c, accepted and added as an amendment by the House of Bishops.

    I'm clear on the synodical process regarding point three. Can ANYONE out there remind me of the process regarding (1) and (2)?

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a PS, I suppose it would be right to say that point 2 is "the introduction of a statutory element to the Code of Practice" by the Measure specifying the content in certain areas".

    My understanding is that a Code of Practice does not itself have to be 'statutory' in order for it to be given due regard.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hmmm. Don't know. But you asked for things that were "approved ... during the decision-making processes of the General Synod"; I would have thought the approval of something other than a single clause Measure would readily sit within that description. Anyway, I expect if you search all the possible options examined by the Revision Committee someone will have suggested it, only for it to be rejected. But even if that is not the case, the more complex Measure put forward seems to me to entail rejection of a single clause Measure and approval of something undeniably more favourable to traditionalists, even if it is not all they wanted. Why the nit-picking?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Simon, please believe me I'm not nit-picking, just trying to get the basic facts related to these issues. My knowledge of synod business is not comprehensive!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ok, sorry. It looked like it, but of course I accept that was not your intention.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John

    Not an entirely comprehensive answer, but the single clause measure was evaluated in the Guildford report, which was brought to Synod in the Feb 2006 session. Yes it really has been that long!! In a sense the code has always been 'statutory' in nature to some degree, but it wasn't made explicit until the illustrative code was published, and the introduction contained legal advice that 'have regard to' had specific legal meaning and could not simply be ignored. This came to synod in Feb 2012.

    In addition, it is worth pointing out that all of these issues were considered by the Revision Committee, which exhaustively considered all the issues and options, so in a sense when the draft measure came to Synod all these issues were on the table and were part of Synod's decision to pass the measure on to the Dioceses in the form it was then, and again when the draft measure was returned to the House of Bishops for further revision.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The work of the Revision Committee was largely overlooked by those who called for more time and more work to be put into finding a solution. Archdeacon Clive Mansell and his team (from all groups within Synod) really did look at hundreds of possible options people suggested, with a fine tooth comb.

    ReplyDelete
  13. John,
    Have I misunderstood something here? Surely all these concessions noted here were voted down, and thus were not concessions. There seem to have been a lot of attempts at 'bending over backwards', but no actual bending.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So you've paraphrased the Church Mouse's comments, but could we get a response to them. Seems like they are substantial proof against a rather insubstantial argument in the initial blog. You quote emotional language, then ask for evidence of hard actions. If you just want dramatic language voicing the pain being felt by Synod members, you could find plenty on both sides- unlike that by the Bishop of Durham, which doesn't seem to necessarily support your point.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous, I don't really like or encourage anonymous blogging or commenting, particularly when it comes to dialogue between Christians on important and difficult topics, so no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is off topic, so I'll understand if John wants to delete it.
      Has anyone noticed how many liberals post anonymously on the Ugley Vicar, and in comparison how many conservative evangelicals and catholics post anonymously?
      I wonder what that says about the trustworthiness of those who were saying "trust us" before last Tuesday?
      Stephen Walton
      Marbury
      (To be fair, there are honourable exceptions to this, such as Andrew Godsal)

      Delete
    2. Just a minute John - your very first post in this thread included replies to CM's points, despite his anonymity. So - do you respond to anon. comments or don't you? Which?

      Dan [Baynes
      Barton Seagrave]

      Delete
  16. If I can summarize what proponents of women bishops are saying here:
    1. We originally intended to give no provision, and kill off traditionalists quickly (Single-Clause measure).
    2. Under pressure, we grudgingly decided to give pathetically inadequate (Code of Practise) and kill you off slowly.
    3. We would have promised to respect you, even though events of the last week have shown that we don’t have an ounce of respect for you
    4. We hate you so much that this concession would have caused us great pain.
    5. We think we are very gracious.

    Stephen Walton
    Marbury

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephen that is absolutely brilliant! Defo one for the Carl Awards. Not holding my breath for any liberal to respond, lol

      Dan

      Delete
  17. Numbers 3 and 4 are rather uncharitable Stephen - many proponents of women bishops thought respect was adequate because they themselves fully intended to give respect, and some thought respect wasn't adequate* and voted against the measure. The latter really showed why the CofE is far from dead (others may have had those motives but events meant that they didn't get to show this inclusion, the love for those they disagreed with, this desire for unity over what they want - all of those things are church at its best).

    The status quo wrt women's ordination would be flying bishops - and that is a traditionalist compromise (going from a "we don't think women should be bishops" position to a "you can have women bishops, but we need some sort of opt out so we don't have the embarrassing position that we don't see our bishop as having authority as a bishop"). Yet the weaker (I'm no expert, but it was weaker than simply having flying bishops, right?) Clause 1(C) was still a compromise too far for some pro-women Bishops people and so we ended up with a vague 'respect'.

    Si Hollett
    Amersham

    *and looking at the small, media-savvy and vocal minority for whom your 3 and 4 is pretty close to the mark, they were quite right to say "respect isn't enough" (though I haven't seen any reference to this minority in why people who want women bishops voted no). At least one of this vocal minority wears purple, refused to have theological debate on this and other important secondary issues (as, apparently, there isn't one), dismissed opponents as straw men heretics. There's things that current bishops do that is far more disqualifying for the office than being female, yet there's no real way to request alternate provision when you are under a bishop like that. As such, while I am convinced of the conservative evangelical view on women bishops, I view ending up being under the ministry of a female bishop to be simply to be an occupational hazard of the CofE - like ending up under the ministry of an intolerant liberal bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan, like it or not, the Churchmouse is a significant blogger. Also he was 'on topic', insofar as I was looking for information and he's the only one who has supplied it.

    I do, moreover, put a clear warning about anonymous posting. Occasionally - very occasionally - I act on it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't see why "Churchmouse" is any more anonymous than "Dan"; they are both names and can provide a continuous identity for the purpose of blog posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan has provided his full name and location in one of the posts above. We have no idea who "Church Mouse" is or who you are.

      And "a continuous identity for the purpose of blog posts" isn't very helpful because it becomes a mask for people to hide behind. Honesty requires identity. How can I trust someone if they won't tell me who they are?

      Stephen Walton
      Marbury

      Delete
    2. Indeed Stephen - you can find me in the phonebook and even in the sermon archive of my parish church website!

      Meanwhile, yes, how come LBS doesn't share even a Christian name?

      Dan

      Delete
    3. "Honesty requires identity."
      Well, if you say so, of course!
      Perhaps I should just be Sambo.

      Delete
  20. An interesting discussion can be seen on

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pfqhq/The_Big_Questions_Series_5_Episode_20/

    (If you are overseas you will need to use Expat Shield or similar to get access)

    I am just full of admiration for those in the Church like John who are willing to argue on our behalf. My wife and I feel so blessed that we have been able to bring our family up in a quiet corner of the world where these sorts of excesses exemplified by WATCH have not reached our even touched our Church. (Anglican)

    When you play the clip is interesting to contrast the countenance of Christina Rees and her supporters and Zoe Ham and others on the opposite bench. It is not fashionable to say this but we are looking at the faces of good and evil. I used to think we were all “living stones” (1 Peter) in the Cof E, now I am not so sure.

    Even if you did not know anything about the issues, you can see evil sprits in the faces of many on the left of the camera.

    John, I did not understand what is the driving force behind this and what is truly at stake here. Let us all pray for John and others who willing speak up for God and I can see now confront evil on a daily basis.

    God bless you John take a well earned break, our prayers are with you and you family

    Phil



    ReplyDelete
  21. "Even if you did not know anything about the issues, you can see evil sprits in the faces of many on the left of the camera."

    Really? Describe what you see that points to that conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well, Simon, there was a bit of irony about who was call who nasty with regards to tone, anger, misleading rhetoric etc. You here about how nasty the group on the right are, but generally, they do seem nicer (even if you hold their ideas to be outdated & bonkers... like all Christian ideas). Nicky Campbell even pointed out that they don't respect traditionalists. You can't say, "I respect your view... you misogynistic, homophobic, backwards nasty person" - or do they mean something different from respect?

    Darren Moore
    Chelmsford

    ReplyDelete
  23. None of that is what Phil seems to be referring to, Darren. He is talking about good and evil, and, very specifically, evil spirits, which he says can be detected by looking at this video. That sounds like an odd claim to me, but I would be glad to hear what he thinks can be seen.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Actually, I can see where Phil is coming from. I am 11 minutes in and already Christina Rees has attempted to interrupt everyone she disagrees with and George Pitcher has referred to CEs as "toxic". Peter Hitchens has just destroyed them by taking their attitudes to task and so far my opinions about those who, on this issue, I agree with are sadly confirmed. They speak in nothing but negative terms about their opponents and they are getting nothing but respect back from the lady fromy the Church Society and the synod chap next to her.
    If those in favour can't even be civil when the spotlight is on them, how can they be trusted to be so when it is not?
    This is hard for me to say, as someone who is theologically in favour of women bishops, but unless Christina Rees, George Pitcher and their ilk allow their hearts to be changed by the Spirit (not their minds on women bishops) I can only hope and pray that we do not see women bishops in their lifetimes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ok, and now 18 minutes in the Speaker's chaplain comes in and follows on from Christina Rees and refuses to allow people to be heard.
    The only one who is able to stand up to these arrogant people is Peter Hitchens (no surprises there) because he refuses to be steamrollered!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Simon,
    Oh, OK, I get where you're coming from. I wouldn't have worded that the same as Phil... but in Ephesians before we get to the Armour of God & all that spiritual warfare stuff, we see that the battle ground is relationships, in home, church etc. So, anger, interrupting, showing lack of respect are spiritual conditions, that's certainly the case in Colossians 3 & Galatians 5. Oh, as a PS to mine, the Vicar who turned up late, due to leading a service, also said those who opposed her were misogynists & Biblically illiterate. I.e. as well as being rather shouty, were actually trying to provoke a shouty response. Angry man in the dog collar also made a number of false correlations to dismiss those with whom he disagreed, that is underhand. It is an issue of Christian maturity & it is Spiritual.

    &, I have to see this isn't isolated. I've had this treatment regularly. In fact, it was reported back to me when I've spoken on this issue, that one lady said afterwards, "You know, I assumed Darren would be the nasty one, but I cannot believe how he was spoken to & how he put up with it."

    It is interesting that Peter Hitchens on the show & Youthpasta here, both pro-women bishops, but pro-staying together sorts. & I guess where people like that are concerned is that they can see through the "respect" thing.

    Now, before people say, "well they're very upset & angry". Of course & it doesn't take a large amount of empathy to put oneself in the others shoes on this. But, this is how it feels to be a traditionalist all the time! That's how it felt in '92, it's how it felt last year when the very minimal provision was rejected, when TEA was rejected, when all the other things were rejected. Every time a bishop is appointed who doesn't represent traditionalist views on this since the mid-90s. But it would still be wrong for "conservatives" to resort to underhand false correlation, abusive name calling & accusing people of being, basically stupid.

    On, John's original question, people here have been working towards explaining the provision thing. On that show, it was basically, "well, we haven't burned you". So, as more progress was made here, better go back to it, before John comes back & tells us all off for straying from the home work he set.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sometimes in the last week, I've wished that we had lost the vote in synod. Then we could have shown the world what grace looks like- how Christians behave in these circumstances. Instead of what we've actually seen. The poison and hatred hasn't scared me. It's just made me feel slightly sick.

    Stephen Walton, Marbury

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure about that Steve.

      Not that you wouldn't have been gracious. But you've lost loads of votes and being gracious gets you ignored. Of course it's the godly way to behave, but it isn't the world's way to be noticed.

      & don't worry, there will be lots more votes to loose & demonstrate how magnanimous you are, which you are. But I suspect you know that.

      Darren
      Chelmsford

      Delete
    2. sorry just re-read that... suspect that you know that you'll loose more votes, not that you know how magnanimous you are!

      (imagine that BBC thing, with the opposite side shouting - what would have been said/done?)

      Delete
  28. Every 'concession' offered was predicated upon the assumption of its transience. Consider the following thought-experiment. Assume that a statutory provision had been offered for a period of 25 years. Would that have been acceptable? Of course it wouldn't have been. The traditionalists were looking for a permanent provision that would protect the existence of complementary theology in perpetuity. But that is the one condition that the majority was never prepared to concede.

    carl

    ReplyDelete
  29. Doug Wilson is always good for a think & a laugh. He wrote 4 short pieces in the past few days, starting by responding to NT Wright's comments. But, the last 2 paragraphs of "Serious Scholars" he talks about why Traditionalist Anglicans will always loose (more opportunity for grace there Steve)

    http://www.dougwils.com/Table/N.T.-Wrights-and-Wrongs/
    (warning, this content is American & not for people without humour or overly peachy)

    ReplyDelete
  30. What the World or Clergy wants, has nothing to do with what the Church should do, but God's Word dictates all. For it is by God's Word that we are sanctified from the ways, lifestyles and deeds of the World.

    John 17:17
    Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

    Paul is clearly seen to command that a believing women should neither teach or exercise authority over a believing man, in both Church and home. He points the truthful seeker to the Creation Account and the events of The Fall to validate his ‘seemingly’ bigoted commands.

    It is there that we discover that the order of our creation has left a vulnerability within Mankind, that an enemy had once exploited. A vulnerability that can only be remedied by our adherence to God’s authoritative order.

    However, after nearly 2000 years of adherence to God’s protective order, we see once again the same rebellion that led to the first apostasy repeated.

    Better expounded here:
    http://esculent.co.uk/blog/articles/women_bishops/index.html

    ReplyDelete