Women bishops fail in Wales

The Church in Wales has a few minutes ago voted not to consecrate women bishops. The motion, proposed by Archbishop Dr Barry Morgan, fell by three votes. In the laity it was 52-19, in the clergy 27-18. It fell after the amendments that would have offered alternative oversight for the clergy opponents also failed. Canon Mary Stallard, chaplain to the bishop of St Asaph and pictured on the far right of this picture, said: 'The moment will come back. We are very disappointed. It is not totally unexpected. But we are looking forward to bringing it back. This issue will not be ignored.' See Margaret Duggan's full report of the debate in the Church Times, ht Thinking Anglicans.

The bill, unanimous in the bishops, needed a two-thirds majority in all three houses.

Dr Morgan said: 'I am deeply disappointed, especially since it was lost with a very low margin in the house of clergy. It was just three votes. The same thing happened over the ordination of women to the priesthood 11 years ago. That later went through at the second attempt. It is an issue that is not going to go away or be ignored. The Church in Wales will have to grapple with it. I am sad that we have to go through the whole process again.' Inclusive ChurchPutney Vicar Giles Fraser told me: 'It's an absolute disgrace. If women are good enough to be priests they are good enough to be bishops. Anything other than this is a theological nonsense.'

Canon Mary Stallard, chaplain to the bishop of St Asaph and pictured on the far right of the picture above, said: 'The moment will come back. We are very disappointed. It is not totally unexpected. But we are looking forward to bringing it back. This issue will not be ignored.' The picture was taken at a service to celebrate ten years of women priests in Wales.

Comments

[Dr Alan Marsh]

A little more generosity by way of passing amendments, and the Church in Wales could have proceeded with women bishops.

There is a lesson there for the rest of the Anglican Communion, including the Church of England.

[Stephen Marsden]

Ruth, there are many things in this world which are a disgrace, but the fact that the pinprick in Western Christendom which is the Church in Wales has decided not to ordain women as bishops isn't one of them.

But as that comment was from Giles Fraser, whose biggest single achievement to date has been to re-write the English language so that the word 'inclusive' has the meaning of the word 'exclusive', I guess that when he uses the word 'disgrace' he means something entirely different from the rest of us!

[Chris Gillibrand]

The Revd Fraser is wrong. The difference between bishops and priests (albeit putative holders of both offices since Apostolicae Curae) is that Bishops have jurisdiction. The Roman position is that ecumenism must have as a goal juridical union, otherwise the movement is but sentiment or feeling. Attempted episcopal ordination of women therefore constitutes an enormous barrier to ecumenism and leads one to think that elements of the Church of Wales cannot be taken seriously when they speak of such matters.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The Archbishop of Wales saved the Church in Wales from being permanently divided by allowing the so called traditionalists institutionalised schism, in creating a permanent flying bishop. The pressure on him was intense at the Debate , but he remained resolute.

THe Welsh bishops have not bought women bishops by bribing the opponents, and giving them a Church within a church. A very wise move.
Otherwise woman bishops would have been permanently second class citizens, and the discrimination extending to males ordained by them.

[John Richardson]

What I find worrying about the comments of the supporters of women bishops is the lack of any sense that there is a process of 'discernment' at work. For them, this seems to be a foregone conclusion, and the only question is how to get it voted through. The decision of the Synod is seen as an unfair and unjustifiable obstacle to the progress of the truth, not a collective, and valid, decision of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - which, if things had gone the other way, it would doubtless have been hailed as!

[Robbo]

Good! Women need to be kept in their place.
Next they will be wanting a woman Pope or even saying God was a woman.
Whatever next.

[Peter Farrington]

So what they are saying is that the mind of the Church is irrelevant. They will keep coming back and coming back and will do all they can to make sure that THEIR opinion trumps the will of the Church and the substance of the Catholic Faith.

[John Richardson]

I can't understand what the proponents of women bishops (quoted above) think the Synod of the Church in Wales is actually for. From their comments, it would appear it is only there to 'vote through' the 'right' decision, not to make up its own collective mind. Clearly, they think the Synod ought to have agreed with them, and clearly they are angry it did not.

One suspects, though, that had the vote gone the other way, it would have been hailed as a 'discernment of the Spirit', or some such.

Perhaps what the Church in Wales needs to do is have a debate about this topic. If the decisions of the Synod are not acceptable whichever way they go, then the Synod is a waste of time and energy, and episcopal unilateralism should, perhaps, be considered instead.

[andrew holden]

Inclusiveness, like tolerance, must have its limits or it means nothing at all. There can be no place in a modern church for those who refuse to recognise women, gays, racial or ethnic groups, those with skin of various hues, the disabled, or any other human group, as full members of the body of Christ as laity, clergy and bishops.

Those who insisit on retaining such such prejudices will no doubt find themselves welcome in the emerging Taliban Anglicana led by people like Akinola and Jenson. We'll just have to see how long that group manages to maintain some semblance of unity before it fragments under the burden of the obsessive pursuit of doctrinal purity and the interminable arguments over the infinitely detailed interpretation of scripture.

[peterNW1]

As a Catholic, I must say that (on this matter at least) the vicar of Putney's logic is sound. Surely, if it is right to have women priests then there can be no logical objection to women bishops.

Of course where I would differ with the good vicar is over the ordination of women full-stop.

If Christ was wrong in instituting a male priesthood, then not only was this a huge injustice to 60 generations of Christian women, it must also call Jesus's divinity into question. But institute a male priesthood is what he did, and the Church has imitated Christ ever since.

[George Parr]

Traditionally, bishops are all men, along with doctors and solicitors. Of course women cannot expect to be bishops; it's bad enough allowing them to be priests. The next step we should be very afraid of is in giving them sufficient self-esteem and importance that they imagine that they are the equals of men. Women should remain in the private space, obviously, and not take an active part in politics or society. Can we not invent some sort of Christian dress code in which they are covered from head to foot? Then perhaps they will all go away, or fade into the background, only surfacing to present their more intelligent husbands with a nice, home-cooked meal. No, Christian women should know their limits, which are mainly concerned with listening to men and providing their husbands of long standing with certain services on demand based on nothing racier than the missionary position.

[andrew holden]

"But institute a male priesthood is what he(Christ) did, and the Church has imitated Christ ever since."

To the contrary Jesus didn't institute ANY sort of priesthood let alone a male one. Dear David Ould chastises Giles Fraser for not having a biblical basis for the consecration of women when in fact there is no New Testament basis for the ordination to the priesthood of anyone let alone Anglican or Roman Catholic clergy.

[J Pearce]

If I may compliment George Parr's analysis, with this link to a documentary study of current Church attitudes towards women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

[Chris Gillibrand]

A priesthood of some of the believers is infinitely preferable to a priesthood of all of the believers.

Christ's intention in this matter depends on the interpretation put on the Last Supper, which was also the institution of the priesthood in Catholic theology.

[Tom Jackson]

While I welcome George's contribution which highlight's the archaic attitude where the possible appointment of women Bishops is concerned - and, indeed, J Pearce's endorsement of those sentiments - I am bemused by the fact that someone with no Christian faith or any belief in God can have a meaningful perspective on the issue!

Now, if it was to do with woman atheists becoming Bishops in the Church of Atheism, that I would understand. But, of course, there is no church of atheism or any other organisation in which such positions of authority and guardians of the tenet of disbelief can exist.

If there was, I don't think I would have any meaningful opinion to offer.

[George Parr]

You make the mistake Tom of seeing the world only in relation to religion. You are in short a relativist.

I cannot speak for atheists, but for me these sorts of issues ably describe the type of thinking which serves to justify separating the Church from the State. As far as I am concerned, a fundamental human right is to treat women equally and, so far, the Catholic Church, the Church of England and Islam are able wholly unable to demonstrate that they acknowledge it.

There is no 'Church of Atheism', but you might find that those who are not religious actually belong to the rest of the world and have a perspective on the general social issues it proposes; particularly the ones that faith groups seek to devalue by either not taking them seriously, or through prejudice.

[J Pearce]

Tom,

It’s a fair point, but what this issue highlights for me is the fact that the Church - and religions in general - treat women as second class citizens. Its this perception of women within religious circles that informs much of the wider sexism in society - in much the same way that religious homophobia forms a wellsping for wider societal prejudice.

I find it interesting that a man such as you, who has forcefully argued the point many times that our culture is imbued with Christianity (its "bedrock", as you call it), chooses not to see the potential ramifications of this issue.

To the casual observer, it may be a matter purely for the religious; but if religious belief informs society in the way you claim it does, then this issue is an important test of how relevant the Church is to modern society - i.e., whether the Church can or does reflect the times we live in.

The fact that there is still such a huge, hand-wringing fuss made about this, seems proof of the fact that the Church continues to become increasingly irrelevant. We had a female PM 30 years ago (who transformed this country from a shambles into something reasonable); women have capably performed in business for years, breaking many glass ceilings in the process; the author of this very blog is female - why on earth does the Church choose to be so detached from attitudes prevailing in wider society?

For many people, women are seen as equal to men in most spheres these days. Only an organisation like the Church could continue to promote such antediluvian attitudes, on the flimsiest of pretexts. Its like the Vicar of Dibley never happened...

[andrew holden]

"There is no 'Church of Atheism', but you might find that those who are not religious actually belong to the rest of the world and have a perspective on the general social issues it proposes"

George you are constantly making outrageous claims such as this one. The religious have no monopoly on prejudice and in my experience the most violently racist or homophobic people have often been non-religious and often aggressively atheist. There are bad people who believe and bad people who don't believe - religion is not the issue.

[andrew holden]

Chris wrote:

"A priesthood of some of the believers is infinitely preferable to a priesthood of all of the believers.

Christ's intention in this matter depends on the interpretation put on the Last Supper, which was also the institution of the priesthood in Catholic theology."

So we'll ditch those doctrines which are clearly taught in scripture (the priesthood of all believers) in favour of those which have to be read back by relying on interpretation? Having a functional priesthood may be a legitimate development in Catholic Ecclesiology but we can at least be honest and say that that is what it is rather than pretending it was there in scripture all along.

[Peter Bishop]

Chris Gillibrand claims that the Lasrt Supper was the point which marked the institution of the priesthood in (Roman) Catholic theology. By what process of Biblical interpretation is that the case. Is not the command to 'do this' given to the community of believers as a whole? Surely the nearest we come to a commissioning for ministry is in the post-Resurrection appearances.

[A Renegade Priest]

To this, one can only say Amen, thank God, albeit in a sense of genuine heaviness and charity to those who think otherwise.

Secular premises about 'career development' are irrelevant here, and unlike in the case of priests, women cannot claim as individuals that their 'sense of vocation' is being frustrated. Even the most driven, Cuddesdon-trained ambitious male dare not ever claim they 'feel called' to Episcopate - Such a call comes from the wider Church, as St Ambrose of Milan knew well!

One of the problems, as i see it, with women bishops (I agree that once priests are allowed, episcopacy cannot be denied-I'd simply also argue for a free province-anything less would be tyrranising refuseniks into submission) is that we will still have the same sort of people becoming bishops, only they'll be "affirming catholic/open evangelical/liberal people who have come to appreciate the riches of the tradition other than which I come from" WOMEN as well as MEN.

Will there be a critique of establishment, an assertion of the independence of the Church from the middle class consensus? I fear not. What I've seen is that many of our trendiest 'renegades' are in fact deeply conformist to a particular English middle class oxbridge 'liberal' ecclesial hegemony. Maybe the real radicals are the PEV's who have had the audacity simply to hold on to tradition - in its fullest and most positive Christian sense of that word.

Let's have women bishops, but let's also have a third province, for England and Wales. That way, we can put an end to this acrimony. Admittedly Anglicans in the UK would be more like cousins, than brothers and sisters, but hey, we'll still be family! We'll still love the same Lord, we'll still have one Baptism for the remission of sins, and we'll see what happens between now and the eschaton.

[George Parr]

Andrew, my point was an extension of Tom's post in which he points out that there is no 'Church of Atheism'. This arose from my tongue-in-cheek account of gender strereotypes, which was an attempt at levity. He could not understand why, as a humanist I would write concerning matters he clearly regards as internal to the church. I answered on the basis that issues affecting faith groups also impact on the rest of us; i.e. it should be no surprise than those other than the religious have a view on such matters.

Where, in my post, do you read an outrageous claim which suggests that the religious have a monopoly on prejudice, or anything concerning racism or homophobia?

The issue was that some factions within Christianity and other faiths are discriminatory to women, which I think it fair to say is as issue that is being addressed in the wider sense, including in some areas of Anglicanism.

[Tom Jackson]

Although women have always had a very important and influential part to play where the development, administration and ministry of the Church is concerned, society as a whole was not historically ready to formalise that contribution - as was reflected in many other areas in which women played a major role.

And, personally, it is obvious to me that these social factors were a major reason 2,000 years ago why Christianity developed with men taking a predominant role. Of course, there are other considerations but it is only in recent times that our community has accepted men and women as equals (although many would dispute this even today).

I find the argument to prevent women from being appointed as Bishops indefensible. I agree that it casts the Church in a bad light, that it stinks of chauvinism, of Golf clubs or Piccadilly gentlemen's clubs exclusion policy where women are concerned.

Although I happen to believe that Margaret Thatcher was the worst thing to happen to this country since Hitler decided to walk into Poland, I take J Pearce's point. While I am certain that reversing decisions such as that taken in Wales will not encourage George or J Pearce to embrace a faith, I am just as certain that appointing women into more positions of authority and influence in our Church is something God now demands of us.

[andrew holden]

"Where, in my post, do you read an outrageous claim which suggests that the religious have a monopoly on prejudice, or anything concerning racism or homophobia?"

The outrageous claim implied (though I may have misunderstood the context) is that the non-religious somehow have a "perspective on the general social issues (the world) proposes" and are therefore less inclined to medieval attitudes. That would certainly fit with pasts posts which do regularly a demolition job on religious people whilst at the same time tending to overlook the evils done by the non-religious.

My point is that if we don't, as you admit, have a monopoly on these things then it's hardly fair to keep on lambasting religion for them. Of course we should, and do, know better but we also know why we don't - it's called sin and contrary to what some self-righteous folk may pretend the church is full of sinners.

That all said I don't believe that most of those opposed to the ordination/consecration of women are actually prejudiced against them (though some are undoubtedly just chauvinistic and sexist). They oppose these issues because they believe women have different roles not a different status. I don't agree that physical differences to do with reproduction are relevant in a modern society even in church - and I certainly do find the evangelical talk about male headship and female submission to be totally oppressive.

[Tom Jackson]

“Of course we should, and do, know better but we also know why we don't …”

George, you really should take note and give a great deal of consideration to the point that Andrew makes here.

As Christians, we have a faith and a belief in something that is perfect. But we accept that we are far from perfect, that we are no different in this respect from people with no faith.

The difference is, we know when and how we fall down; we call it sin but don’t get confused. It is the same failure of human nature that you, Andrew, J Pearce, myself and everyone else who tries to live a decent life suffers from.

Andrew makes the point that you sometimes appear to castigate “religious” people for all the ills of the world while not recognizing or admitting the contribution made by “ordinary” people such as yourself.

I agree that religion has a lot to answer for and that it is an easy target for you and fellow unbelievers to attack (and after all, this is a religious blog).

But when you substantiate your point of view with continual reference to religious failings without relating these to failings of human nature generally, it appears unbalanced, unconvincing and prejudiced to the point of obsession.

[George Parr]

Sin, Tom, as a transgression of divine laws or divine principles of morality is a guilt-ridden concept not recognised by everyone. Even Christians doing their best with what they presume their God has given them seem unable to allow themselves to escape from it. You might reconsider and see that it really is a homage to negativity.

And I wouldn't say 'we' if I were you, TJ or Andrew. It is quite clear that as Christians discrimination towards women is not in your psyche. It is a shame that under the general umbrella of Christianity, the Catholic Church and others do not share your views. Through some misinterpretation of my post, I seem to be on the receiving end of an issue that you, Andrew and I agree about.

However, 'failings' in human nature - discrimination, biase, prejudice, are not generally expressed through a collective designed to promote goodness and tolerance. And since there is no generally agreed upon human ideal, behavioural 'failure' is often subjective.

I have not suggested, in recent posts, that the non-religious have a perspective on the world because they are unlikely to embrace medieval theories, although that sounds fairly accurate to me. And I certainly have not suggested that the non-religious are excluded from perpetrating the 'evils of the world'. Where did Andrew get that from? If anything I was emphasising an entitlement to understand religious discrimination, in answer to charges that my perspective was non-religious.

As you say, this forum is about religion and (presumably) its place in the world. If you thought that it was about a world outside of religion which claimed peace, tolerance, morality and probity, you might be tempted to argue that the world was violent and immoral, drawing attention to religion's place in it.

I agree that the activities of faith groups have a lot to answer for and, with respect, since you appear to acknowledge institutional 'failings' through sin, your attitude might be seen as apologist, although I am very sure you, like me, are sincere in your beliefs.

[Rick Beekman]

Robbo;

Your Remark; "Next they'll be saying God was a Woman"

People already think of God as a Woman...Why is the term "Mother Nature" used Instead of Father God?

This Whole thread reminds me of an Old Laurel And Hardy famous saying; "Well..here's another fine Mess"!!

[Peter Bishop]

It would be so good to have some theological discussion on this issue rather than - at best, conflicting statements of ecclesiology - and at worst, statements which do nothing more then indicate that the authors are more interested in name-calling than attempting to discover truth. Please let's have an intelligent discussion.