Women Bishops

I have received the following question:

"I am looking through the election addresses of the candidates for General Synod. I note you refer to the debate on women bishops but no mention of the code of practise for those opposed to this. This has still to be resolved but you give no indication of how you would approach this.

Will you be insistent on, to the point of voting for, the provisions for allowing the needs of those so opposed ?

I hope you will represent those in the church who are against women bishops to the point that suitable provisions will be made by General Synod.

If you will do this, I most certainly will support you and I would be grateful for your comments."
 
My reply has been:
 
"Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my election address.

Firstly, I need to make it clear that I have for several decades been in favour of ordaining women in the Church of England. In ecumenical contexts I have, as a lay person, worked with many ordained women (from different churches) and valued their ministry - and I have found that, given practical experience, most people overcome any misgivings they might have had. For me to deny those views would be wrong.

However:

I have over many years worked with those whose disquiet about women priests extends beyond a practical level to a genuine principled inability to accept that such a move is consistent with their interpretation of Hooker's three components of Anglicanism: namely Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

In my own parish in our recent long vacancy, as churchwarden I had to take into account the views of a minority who cannot accept a priestly ministry from women - just as there are those fundamentally in favour of it (in my experience, most people adopt views that are pragmatic rather than fundamental) As a result - since we legally could not restrict ourselves to male priests to celebrate Holy Communion - I made it clear that I could not guarantee a male celebrant on every occasion. But, we made sure that arrangements were made sufficiently well in advance (typically well over a month) so that we could give out details and those who needed to know could make alternative arrangements and, most especially, not arrive and be embarrassed by being compromised. This approach was, I believe, well-respected and meant that we kept 'on board' those with this particular view.

Elsewhere, especially when chairing Diocesan Synod, I have tried very hard to find means of keeping a wide variety of opinion and well-founded beliefs within the broad church that makes the Church of England so distinctive. In my view, if we start to go down a road that seeks to exclude one or other group of the church then we forfeit our particular place within English society, heritage and tradition. As the established church, we have a duty to speak for everyone - in the same way that our parish role is for the whole population, not just our members.

Of course, I recognise that there is a real danger that in seeking to 'please' everyone, the church may stand accused of being unable to determine what actions in life are acceptable in God's sight and those which are not. However, I am firmly of the view that none of us humans has a monopoly on truth.

I accept that there remains at the very least a suspicion in some quarters that the position reached at the last session of General Synod will not be honoured. I do not share that suspicion - not least because the matter will have to come back to General Synod in perhaps two years' time after it has been out for consultation in the dioceses, deaneries and parishes. As Diocesan Lay Chair during this time I will work very hard indeed to ensure that the debate is open and allows all shades of opinion to be heard and recorded.

Unless the final proposal is able to convince two thirds of each house in General Synod that it makes proper provision to enable sufficient people like yourself to stay within the church then it will fall. Given that a significant majority are enthusiastic for change then such an outcome would itself be highly divisive and I do not expect the church to be willing to allow that. Hence, I am confident that a reasonable provision will be made that allows all those who represent some form of Anglicanism to support it and work effectively within it.

As I have already indicated, I believe that - notwithstanding how important this matter is to some, even many, people within the church - it is ultimately a distraction from where our minds ought really to be focused: on mission and the presentation of God's gospel message to everyone. The two years we now have, will give Synod an opportunity to begin to do just that and, with God's help, it will re-orientate the way in which Synod works on a long term basis.

That is why, even given my own convictions, I am very keen to see proper provision for that broad variety of churchmanship which we accept as the Anglican tradition of what, ultimately, is the Christian church."
"