Well, I promised to say which option of the four from GS 1886 I'd choose as the way forward on women in the episcopate, so here it is.
(Though I'd actually prefer to wait, and have much longer to think and talk, and most importantly pray. If Parliament wants to intervene it would be a bad thing, but the dear old Church of England could simply ignore them - you can pass a law saying women can be bishops, but you can't compel the Church to appoint any (look at the Church of Ireland, or the Easter Act 1928) - however, waiting just isn't going to happen)
A reminder of the options, as I summarized them in my last post:
1) women can become bishops, and resolutions A, B, and C disappear; there is a declaration from the House of Bishops or an Act of Synod which set out national standards for the care of those opposed;
2) as option (1), but there would be an Act of Synod which would have to come into force simultaneously with the Measure to permit women bishops; this Act of Synod would be mentioned in the Measure, and could only be amended or repealed with two-thirds majorities in all three houses of General Synod;
3) an Act of Synod would cater for those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops, but at the parish level Resolutions A and B would be retained;
4) provision for opponents would be contained in the Measure itself.
I have strong sympathy for those opposed to the consecration of women who would like legally binding safeguards, such as would be provided by options three and four. They worry, not without reason, that it is hard to trust that whatever provision is made will be followed unless it is enforceable. They point out, quite correctly, that all sorts of areas of Church life (including the appointment of clergy) are governed by ecclesiastical laws.
But it is becoming clear that, after the "best we can offer" provision of the previous draft Measure was rejected in November, groups like WATCH would not allow anything nearly as "generous" to get past Synod. The Bishop of Willesden tweeted this: "Opponents lost their last chance of legislation with Nov debacle. Neither GS nor Parliament will now allow discrimination in law." Whether he's right about the second half of that or not, I think it represents a pretty common attitude.
So if options three and four are unrealistic, what about one and two? As I said in my previous post on this topic, it just doesn't look as if it can create the trust required, and it looks too much like victory for WATCH.
That leaves option two. The House of Bishops don't outright reject it, but they don't think it's simple enough. Well, I think we need to live with a bit more complexity, if we're going to do this properly - after all, it's not hugely more complex. And it does have the benefit of creating far more grounds for trust, because it makes clear that the Act of Synod it calls for can't just be done away with (it's required by the Measure itself) and it can't easily be whittled away by the majority (a fear of the opponents).
But there are two things I'd like to see included in the Act of Synod, in order to give it enough teeth, and make sure that the minority feel they're being taken seriously.
One is that failure to follow its terms, especially by a bishop (given they have the strongest hand in clergy appointments), should be explicitly stated to be capable of being misconduct under the Clergy Discipline Measure as "conduct unbecoming a clerk in Holy Orders". A complainant would still have to demonstrate failure to observe the Act of Synod, and the "capable of being" means that a defence of "no reasonable other option" would be possible. The benefit of this for building trust would be that opponents would have real recourse to a remedy. If a complaint is upheld, one of the options is go for mediation as a first step (and this is always to be preferred). If mediation fails, an injunction can be issued, requiring the respondent to follow the terms of the Act of Synod. This idea has teeth.
The second is rather less important, as it is unlikely to be used, but it would highly symbolic. One of the fears of opponents is that without the support of statutory provision, a parish which refused the appointment of a women priest could be taken to court for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Specifically, the persons responsible for the decision (the incumbent in cases of appointing a curate, the parish representatives in the case of an incumbent) would have to defend the suit at their own cost. They would most likely win (compare Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge, which refuses to accept applications from men for Fellowships), but that's small comfort. So, my suggestion would be the Act of Synod should state that the Church of England should pay the costs of anyone taken to court in such circumstances. This could presumably be done by taking out some kind of insurance policy, and given the very low chances of any suit succeeding, this would cost the Church very little. The symbolic value for the minority would be immense however.
That's my view on what the way forward looks like. I think it should be acceptable to both sides as giving sufficient grounds for trust. I'd really welcome comments from anyone reading this.
Showing posts with label Women bishops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women bishops. Show all posts
Friday, 7 June 2013
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Episcopal doublethink?
Well, further to my promise to myself to try harder at keeping this blog going, there's no time like the present. And given that a great many of my earlier posts have been about the way the Church of England is dealing with getting women into the episcopate, I suppose it's only natural for me to take up with the same topic.
Incidentally, although there might be something trainspotter-ish about coming back to this again, I've dealt with it so much partly because it was the big issue around at the time I started blogging, and partly because it is fairly important to quite a lot of people in the Church.
So, where are we up to? Well. we had the "disastrous" General Synod vote last November, which led to all sorts of recriminations and the setting up of a new working group to find the way forward. This working group met a few times with representatives of the various campaigning groups plus others, and invited submissions from anybody who could be bothered. The working party reported to the House of Bishops, who have published the report along with their own comments and a proposal for the next step - together these are GS1886. Various responses have been forthcoming - from Reform, Forward in Faith, the Catholic Group on Synod and Affirming Catholicism. Doubtless other responses will come.
Here's the first part of mine.
I think it's a pretty good report, and it's probably worth reading if you want to get a flavour of where the Church of England has got to in all this. It sets out five elements of the vision needed to sort this out. They are given on pages 2-3 and 9 of GS1886, but in summary they say that:
1) once legislation is passed the C of E will be fully committed to ordination being open to all without reference to gender;
2) C of E ministers must then acknowledge the Church has made a clear decision on this;
3) this needs to be set within the context that Roman Catholics, Orthodox and some Anglican provinces don't ordain women as priests or bishops [figures are hard to get, but that's probably half of practicing Anglicans];
4) those opposed to women's ordination remain within the spectrum of Anglican teaching, and the C of E remains committed to enabling them to flourish;
5) provision for the minority will be without time limit, and in a way that allows maximum communion and mutual flourishing.
The report also places emphasis on the needs for simplicity, reciprocity, and mutuality (see pages 10 onwards), and wants to get on with things as quickly as possible. It says, and the Bishops agree, that "the way forward is likely to be one which makes it difficult for anyone to claim outright victory." Both say that trust needs to be built.
So there are four options offered by the report:
1) women can become bishops, and resolutions A, B, and C disappear; there is a declaration from the House of Bishops or an Act of Synod which set out national standards for the care of those opposed;
2) as option (1), but there would be an Act of Synod which would have to come into force simultaneously with the Measure to permit women bishops; this Act of Synod would be mentioned in the Measure, and could only be amended or repealed with two-thirds majorities in all three houses of General Synod;
3) an Act of Synod would cater for those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops, but at the parish level Resolutions A and B would be retained;
4) provision for opponents would be contained in the Measure itself.
Now the important point to note is that there is huge difference between an Act of Synod and a Measure. The former is no more than advisory and discretionary, the latter is legally enforceable. Thus options one and two give no enforceable rights to opponents, options three and four do. By the way, a declaration from the House of Bishops would have the same force as an Act of Synod, the difference lies in who is setting out their expectations of how people will behave - and surely it ought to be the whole Church in an Act of Synod.
So far, so good.
But then we need to consider the House of Bishops' recommendation, which is to go for option one. The only thing they add to it is an idea that there should be a mediation process included in the declaration/Act which sets out the expected pastoral arrangements. Now in one sense it's fair enough. This would be the simplest possible arrangement, and it would place more emphasis on trust and grace than law, which is very commendably Christian.
The trouble is that it seems to me to fall short of what's needed on several counts.
Most importantly, it looks like an almost complete victory for those who want to see women bishops without any substantive provision for opponents (like WATCH, for example). The only two differences from what they really wanted in November are that the arrangements would be at a national rather than diocesan level (which makes for relative uniformity across the C of E, not unreasonable), and there would be some process for parishes to seek redress if they felt hard done by: mediation. I'm not the only one who thinks this looks like victory for one side: Andrew Brown writing in Guardian thinks so too. I don't think the Bishops can have been ignorant of this impression, which makes it hard for opponents to feel they can trust the bishops, who appear, doublethink-style to say one thing ("no victories") and propose the opposite.
Quite how that mediation process might work will need a lot of clarification.
Opponents, naturally enough, want the maximum legal provision - clearly they'd favour option four, out of those suggested. They point out, reasonably, that options one and two fall some way short of what was rejected in November and so there is little chance of this present Synod passing them. To move forward quickly with something which looks so deeply flawed to opponents of women in the episcopate hardly seems to accord with respecting them. Again, there is not much room for the creation of trust in this.
To be fair, the bishops are saying that they propose option one as "the natural starting point for the debate," suggesting they'd be happy enough to see a shift - but then they also think it is "what most [Synod] members currently favour," which again might read like a snub to the minority.
Trust will be hard to come by. The Editor if the Church Times also thinks so.
Much prayer is required.
Next time ... which option I'd choose.
Incidentally, although there might be something trainspotter-ish about coming back to this again, I've dealt with it so much partly because it was the big issue around at the time I started blogging, and partly because it is fairly important to quite a lot of people in the Church.
So, where are we up to? Well. we had the "disastrous" General Synod vote last November, which led to all sorts of recriminations and the setting up of a new working group to find the way forward. This working group met a few times with representatives of the various campaigning groups plus others, and invited submissions from anybody who could be bothered. The working party reported to the House of Bishops, who have published the report along with their own comments and a proposal for the next step - together these are GS1886. Various responses have been forthcoming - from Reform, Forward in Faith, the Catholic Group on Synod and Affirming Catholicism. Doubtless other responses will come.
Here's the first part of mine.
I think it's a pretty good report, and it's probably worth reading if you want to get a flavour of where the Church of England has got to in all this. It sets out five elements of the vision needed to sort this out. They are given on pages 2-3 and 9 of GS1886, but in summary they say that:
1) once legislation is passed the C of E will be fully committed to ordination being open to all without reference to gender;
2) C of E ministers must then acknowledge the Church has made a clear decision on this;
3) this needs to be set within the context that Roman Catholics, Orthodox and some Anglican provinces don't ordain women as priests or bishops [figures are hard to get, but that's probably half of practicing Anglicans];
4) those opposed to women's ordination remain within the spectrum of Anglican teaching, and the C of E remains committed to enabling them to flourish;
5) provision for the minority will be without time limit, and in a way that allows maximum communion and mutual flourishing.
The report also places emphasis on the needs for simplicity, reciprocity, and mutuality (see pages 10 onwards), and wants to get on with things as quickly as possible. It says, and the Bishops agree, that "the way forward is likely to be one which makes it difficult for anyone to claim outright victory." Both say that trust needs to be built.
So there are four options offered by the report:
1) women can become bishops, and resolutions A, B, and C disappear; there is a declaration from the House of Bishops or an Act of Synod which set out national standards for the care of those opposed;
2) as option (1), but there would be an Act of Synod which would have to come into force simultaneously with the Measure to permit women bishops; this Act of Synod would be mentioned in the Measure, and could only be amended or repealed with two-thirds majorities in all three houses of General Synod;
3) an Act of Synod would cater for those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops, but at the parish level Resolutions A and B would be retained;
4) provision for opponents would be contained in the Measure itself.
Now the important point to note is that there is huge difference between an Act of Synod and a Measure. The former is no more than advisory and discretionary, the latter is legally enforceable. Thus options one and two give no enforceable rights to opponents, options three and four do. By the way, a declaration from the House of Bishops would have the same force as an Act of Synod, the difference lies in who is setting out their expectations of how people will behave - and surely it ought to be the whole Church in an Act of Synod.
So far, so good.
But then we need to consider the House of Bishops' recommendation, which is to go for option one. The only thing they add to it is an idea that there should be a mediation process included in the declaration/Act which sets out the expected pastoral arrangements. Now in one sense it's fair enough. This would be the simplest possible arrangement, and it would place more emphasis on trust and grace than law, which is very commendably Christian.
The trouble is that it seems to me to fall short of what's needed on several counts.
Most importantly, it looks like an almost complete victory for those who want to see women bishops without any substantive provision for opponents (like WATCH, for example). The only two differences from what they really wanted in November are that the arrangements would be at a national rather than diocesan level (which makes for relative uniformity across the C of E, not unreasonable), and there would be some process for parishes to seek redress if they felt hard done by: mediation. I'm not the only one who thinks this looks like victory for one side: Andrew Brown writing in Guardian thinks so too. I don't think the Bishops can have been ignorant of this impression, which makes it hard for opponents to feel they can trust the bishops, who appear, doublethink-style to say one thing ("no victories") and propose the opposite.
Quite how that mediation process might work will need a lot of clarification.
Opponents, naturally enough, want the maximum legal provision - clearly they'd favour option four, out of those suggested. They point out, reasonably, that options one and two fall some way short of what was rejected in November and so there is little chance of this present Synod passing them. To move forward quickly with something which looks so deeply flawed to opponents of women in the episcopate hardly seems to accord with respecting them. Again, there is not much room for the creation of trust in this.
To be fair, the bishops are saying that they propose option one as "the natural starting point for the debate," suggesting they'd be happy enough to see a shift - but then they also think it is "what most [Synod] members currently favour," which again might read like a snub to the minority.
Trust will be hard to come by. The Editor if the Church Times also thinks so.
Much prayer is required.
Next time ... which option I'd choose.
Thursday, 22 November 2012
Women bishops - Same as it was before
Well, I have to admit to being shaken when I heard the result read out. Literally.
We knew all along it was a possibility, I'd actually predicted it to a couple of people, but actually knowing it had happened was a different thing.
I've given it a couple of days before blogging to let it sink in. And because there's been a huge amount written on the web about it. I said in advance of the vote that we need to look for what the Holy Spirit is doing in all this. I still think that, perhaps even more so - though that implies I wasn't sure before hand.
It seems to me though, that nothing very much has actually changed. The General Synod in particular, and the Church of England in general were discussing how to proceed towards having women as bishops last week; and discussing it on Tuesday; and we're still discussing it now.
Make no mistake - no one is really suggesting that there won't be women as bishops. We're not back to square one. It's just his very specific way of doing it that has been rejected. In a hundred years from now, Tuesday's vote will surely be not much more than a footnote in the pages of history.
But there are various things being said around the web which I think are unhelpful, and I want to respond to a couple of them - but I'll do it in separate posts, to keep tings neater and shorter here.
We knew all along it was a possibility, I'd actually predicted it to a couple of people, but actually knowing it had happened was a different thing.
I've given it a couple of days before blogging to let it sink in. And because there's been a huge amount written on the web about it. I said in advance of the vote that we need to look for what the Holy Spirit is doing in all this. I still think that, perhaps even more so - though that implies I wasn't sure before hand.
It seems to me though, that nothing very much has actually changed. The General Synod in particular, and the Church of England in general were discussing how to proceed towards having women as bishops last week; and discussing it on Tuesday; and we're still discussing it now.
Make no mistake - no one is really suggesting that there won't be women as bishops. We're not back to square one. It's just his very specific way of doing it that has been rejected. In a hundred years from now, Tuesday's vote will surely be not much more than a footnote in the pages of history.
But there are various things being said around the web which I think are unhelpful, and I want to respond to a couple of them - but I'll do it in separate posts, to keep tings neater and shorter here.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Women Bishops - Voting today Part 1
Well, push has come to shove. The vote on women bishops is today.
No-one seems to be pretending they know which way it will go. Everyone thinks it's too close to call.
For what it's worth (nothing), I suspect the Measure will pass, if only because the waverers will have been influenced by the warnings of doom if it doesn't.
For what it's worth (less than nothing(?!)), if I was there and voting, I'd vote no. The clear view of the majority within the Church is that women should be bishops. That ought to be respected. But note that it is not, as some reports have it "an overwhelming majority." By definition if it were an overwhelming majority the minority would be overwhelmed - the vote would not be on a knife-edge. But pedantry aside, a recent set of surveys suggest that opposition runs at about 12-16%, but if you add in those undecided or thinking it's right to wait then you get higher figures: about 25-30%. Obviously we should be careful with statistics and surveys, but I wouldn't call that "overwhelming."
And for the minority opposed, is the provision in the Measure sufficient? Well, I happen to think it's stronger than most opponents allow, but I'm clearly in a minority on that one. And given that the point of having a compromise at all is to help those opposed to stay in the Church, it has a crumbs from the table feel to it. At least the original Clause 5(1)c received a cautious welcome from opponents. Personally, I think a better compromise can be found. Lots of people, urging a yes vote, disagree. They may well be right. It certainly seems that the adversarial style of the debate surrounding the factions in Synod works against compromise.
Perhaps if the vote is "no," rather than looking to bring in a new measure at some point soon, we should be having a debate about how Synod works - or, in this case perhaps, doesn't work.
But he thing which finally decided me that a "no" vote would be my choice, that the Measure is not fit for purpose, is reading this morning of one part of the Q&A session at Synod yesterday. There will be a Code of Practice governing how parishes which want to opt out of ordained women's ministry are to be treated. If a parish doesn't think the Code has been followed properly it has the right to take it to judicial review. Now, I can't really get behind the idea that a secular court should decide these things (1 Corinthians 6.1-7), but what really troubles me is that the Church might pay the legal costs of a bishop, but would definitely not pay the costs of a parish.
This is a huge imbalance of power. What parish could afford to go to judicial review? Almost certainly none. Is the Code therefore enforceable in practice rather than just in theory? Almost certainly not. And this huge imbalance of power is just the sort of thing feminists work against. This is surely a liberation issue. This is surely about opposing kyriarchy. Personally, I think we need something better. I think feminists should vote "no" - not because they oppose women as bishops or don't want to fight patriarchy, but because, far more fundamentally they oppose kyriarchy in all its forms. The Measure is not fit for purpose.
No-one seems to be pretending they know which way it will go. Everyone thinks it's too close to call.
For what it's worth (nothing), I suspect the Measure will pass, if only because the waverers will have been influenced by the warnings of doom if it doesn't.
For what it's worth (less than nothing(?!)), if I was there and voting, I'd vote no. The clear view of the majority within the Church is that women should be bishops. That ought to be respected. But note that it is not, as some reports have it "an overwhelming majority." By definition if it were an overwhelming majority the minority would be overwhelmed - the vote would not be on a knife-edge. But pedantry aside, a recent set of surveys suggest that opposition runs at about 12-16%, but if you add in those undecided or thinking it's right to wait then you get higher figures: about 25-30%. Obviously we should be careful with statistics and surveys, but I wouldn't call that "overwhelming."
And for the minority opposed, is the provision in the Measure sufficient? Well, I happen to think it's stronger than most opponents allow, but I'm clearly in a minority on that one. And given that the point of having a compromise at all is to help those opposed to stay in the Church, it has a crumbs from the table feel to it. At least the original Clause 5(1)c received a cautious welcome from opponents. Personally, I think a better compromise can be found. Lots of people, urging a yes vote, disagree. They may well be right. It certainly seems that the adversarial style of the debate surrounding the factions in Synod works against compromise.
Perhaps if the vote is "no," rather than looking to bring in a new measure at some point soon, we should be having a debate about how Synod works - or, in this case perhaps, doesn't work.
But he thing which finally decided me that a "no" vote would be my choice, that the Measure is not fit for purpose, is reading this morning of one part of the Q&A session at Synod yesterday. There will be a Code of Practice governing how parishes which want to opt out of ordained women's ministry are to be treated. If a parish doesn't think the Code has been followed properly it has the right to take it to judicial review. Now, I can't really get behind the idea that a secular court should decide these things (1 Corinthians 6.1-7), but what really troubles me is that the Church might pay the legal costs of a bishop, but would definitely not pay the costs of a parish.
This is a huge imbalance of power. What parish could afford to go to judicial review? Almost certainly none. Is the Code therefore enforceable in practice rather than just in theory? Almost certainly not. And this huge imbalance of power is just the sort of thing feminists work against. This is surely a liberation issue. This is surely about opposing kyriarchy. Personally, I think we need something better. I think feminists should vote "no" - not because they oppose women as bishops or don't want to fight patriarchy, but because, far more fundamentally they oppose kyriarchy in all its forms. The Measure is not fit for purpose.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Galatians 3.28 Part Two
On Tuesday I blogged about Stephen Cottrell's use of Galatians 3.28 in his video supporting the consecration of women as bishops. I looked at he difficulties of translation, and how this suggest that proof-texting of the kind he employs is rather unsafe.
I suspect he knows better, but you can't go through the entire Biblical debate about the role of women in ministry in a short video. But then I'm puzzled about who exactly is the target for this "Enough Waiting" campaign. The worry one might have is that lots of General Synod members haven't actually worked on the Biblical material very hard. Ho hum.
Now, I think a good Biblical case can be made on both sides of this discussion, but I definitely want to challenge the over-reliance there seems to be on Galatians 3.28, as if it simply closes down the argument. It is treated as if it states in simple terms that women are absolutely equal with men in Christianity, end of any discussion. I happen to think that women and men are absolutely equal - hardly controversial - but there is a real debate to be had about whether they are interchangeable without loss in all aspects of the Christian life. Proponents of women's ordination will say they are interchangeable in ordained ministry with gain - the House of Bishops will be enriched by their presence, it is claimed. I'm not so sure it will make any real difference beyond the obvious "equality of opportunity." I don't think parochial ministry has been enriched (or changed much either way for that matter), but maybe that's just me. And perhaps any changes there have been have been more to do with wider changes in society than the occupants of vicarages. But I digress.
What I'm interested in in this post, and the next one, is whether St Paul's letters think that men and women are interchangeable in Christian life without loss. Does he really mean, what Gal. 3.28 appears to say, that in Christ male and female don't exist? This could mean that he believes in some kind of androgyne humanity - male and female really do cease to exist in the baptized because all sexual differentiation is eradicated.
I don't think Paul can mean this, since there seems to be no hint that he thinks Jesus is not a normal human being, as it happens in this case male, even now after his Resurrection. That leaves open the possibility that he thinks there is not male and female, but just male. Again, I don't think that's likely to be what Paul is saying. I would have though it say it explicitly, if that's what he meant. Both these ideas fly in the face of ordinary perceptions, which is why something more explicit would be required.
Instead we get all sorts of passages which make distinctions between men and women in the Christian community, some more controversial than others. 1 Corinthians 7, where he talks about marriage is a case in point. he describes marriage as able to be "in the Lord" (v.39). If it is "in the Lord" then we have the same situation as Gal.3.28 "in Christ," but the fact of marriage assumes male and female for Paul.
So male and female still exist in some sense for Christians. I say "in some sense" advisedly, for it is clear that Gal 3.28 is making an ontological statement. But it's something along the lines of not existing at the level of being part of the Body of Christ, rather than at the level of daily lives. All very complicated and paradoxical. And this doesn't tell us whether having ordained women is something which is right, because we should be working at that Body of Christ level, or not necessarily right because we must work at the level of daily life.
Which brings me around to Bishop Stephen's argument that
But I also think that worrying about looking bad in the eyes of the world is a terribly bad way of making decisions about how we live our faith - and I think Paul would agree with me. the reason I think that is by reading Galatians.
For Galatians is essentially a rant about the Christians of Galatia succumbing to the desire to conform themselves to the community around them, specifically on the issue of circumcision. Paul is furious that they have been led astray by those who would have them conform to Jewish strictures. Whether this is a small group of teachers or pressure from a large body of Jewish Christians is unclear, but the pressure is coming from outside the churches Paul helped found, and it is trying to change them, to make them conform to the expectations and beliefs of others.
Which could look a lot like the way that secular values have come to have such an influence in terms of equality in the Church. If the argument being used in favour of women bishops is that the world expects it, and won't understand if we do it, I think Paul would say "Well, tell the world to [disappear away]!"
Or perhaps no he wouldn't, even if he was in Galatians-rant mood. I think he'd say "Well, tell the world to come and join in with our way of being."
Is that what the Church is doing over women bishops?
Next time: the very difficult case of 1 Timothy 2.15, or why we should conform to the world.
I suspect he knows better, but you can't go through the entire Biblical debate about the role of women in ministry in a short video. But then I'm puzzled about who exactly is the target for this "Enough Waiting" campaign. The worry one might have is that lots of General Synod members haven't actually worked on the Biblical material very hard. Ho hum.
Now, I think a good Biblical case can be made on both sides of this discussion, but I definitely want to challenge the over-reliance there seems to be on Galatians 3.28, as if it simply closes down the argument. It is treated as if it states in simple terms that women are absolutely equal with men in Christianity, end of any discussion. I happen to think that women and men are absolutely equal - hardly controversial - but there is a real debate to be had about whether they are interchangeable without loss in all aspects of the Christian life. Proponents of women's ordination will say they are interchangeable in ordained ministry with gain - the House of Bishops will be enriched by their presence, it is claimed. I'm not so sure it will make any real difference beyond the obvious "equality of opportunity." I don't think parochial ministry has been enriched (or changed much either way for that matter), but maybe that's just me. And perhaps any changes there have been have been more to do with wider changes in society than the occupants of vicarages. But I digress.
What I'm interested in in this post, and the next one, is whether St Paul's letters think that men and women are interchangeable in Christian life without loss. Does he really mean, what Gal. 3.28 appears to say, that in Christ male and female don't exist? This could mean that he believes in some kind of androgyne humanity - male and female really do cease to exist in the baptized because all sexual differentiation is eradicated.
I don't think Paul can mean this, since there seems to be no hint that he thinks Jesus is not a normal human being, as it happens in this case male, even now after his Resurrection. That leaves open the possibility that he thinks there is not male and female, but just male. Again, I don't think that's likely to be what Paul is saying. I would have though it say it explicitly, if that's what he meant. Both these ideas fly in the face of ordinary perceptions, which is why something more explicit would be required.
Instead we get all sorts of passages which make distinctions between men and women in the Christian community, some more controversial than others. 1 Corinthians 7, where he talks about marriage is a case in point. he describes marriage as able to be "in the Lord" (v.39). If it is "in the Lord" then we have the same situation as Gal.3.28 "in Christ," but the fact of marriage assumes male and female for Paul.
So male and female still exist in some sense for Christians. I say "in some sense" advisedly, for it is clear that Gal 3.28 is making an ontological statement. But it's something along the lines of not existing at the level of being part of the Body of Christ, rather than at the level of daily lives. All very complicated and paradoxical. And this doesn't tell us whether having ordained women is something which is right, because we should be working at that Body of Christ level, or not necessarily right because we must work at the level of daily life.
Which brings me around to Bishop Stephen's argument that
if we don’t pass this it would look terrible in the eyes of the world, would hold back our mission, and would also plunge us into years more debate on this issue.Now, I happen to think that plunging into years more debate on the matter would be a bad thing, since it works against Church unity. That's a good argument for passing the Measure. Of course, it's not clear that it will stop the debate, as we'll then move on to discuss the Code of Practice, and then fight about whether the Code is being properly applied and so on ad nauseam.
But I also think that worrying about looking bad in the eyes of the world is a terribly bad way of making decisions about how we live our faith - and I think Paul would agree with me. the reason I think that is by reading Galatians.
For Galatians is essentially a rant about the Christians of Galatia succumbing to the desire to conform themselves to the community around them, specifically on the issue of circumcision. Paul is furious that they have been led astray by those who would have them conform to Jewish strictures. Whether this is a small group of teachers or pressure from a large body of Jewish Christians is unclear, but the pressure is coming from outside the churches Paul helped found, and it is trying to change them, to make them conform to the expectations and beliefs of others.
Which could look a lot like the way that secular values have come to have such an influence in terms of equality in the Church. If the argument being used in favour of women bishops is that the world expects it, and won't understand if we do it, I think Paul would say "Well, tell the world to [disappear away]!"
Or perhaps no he wouldn't, even if he was in Galatians-rant mood. I think he'd say "Well, tell the world to come and join in with our way of being."
Is that what the Church is doing over women bishops?
Next time: the very difficult case of 1 Timothy 2.15, or why we should conform to the world.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
The women bishops debate again: Galatians 3.28 Part One
I stumbled across the piece by Stephen Cottrell (Bishop of Chelmsford, and generally speaking someone I rather like) for the Archbishop of Canterbury's "Enough Waiting" campaign, which is aiming to get the legislation on the consecration of women as bishops through the General Synod meeting in two weeks time.His main point is to expound Galatian 3.28 as one of the
So here's the first installment.
Bishop Stephen reads Galatians 3.28:
"There is no such thing as Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, for you are all one person in Jesus Christ."
I haven't been able to track down the translation from which he's reading.
[Update 18/6/13: I've just found out that this is the reading of the New English Bible]
Although it's not a bad translation, it's not perfect, so I offer my own, extremely literal translation:
"neither exists Judaean nor Hellene, neither exists slave nor free, not exists male and female; all for you one are in Christ Jesus."
OK, that's pretty much gibberish in English, even if Yoda had been saying it. We need to supply auxiliary verbs, change the double negative construction, use more familiar terms and rearrange some words:
"there does not exist Jew nor Greek, does not exist slave or free, does not exist male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
Which just goes to show what a tricky job translation can be!
But what difference does it make? Well I think a few things stand out.
Firstly, the point that "there is no such thing/does not exist" as these three dualities. the Greek word used is stronger than the simple "there is" of the AV(KJV), and also used by NIV; even the "there is no longer" of NRSV doesn't quite get it. So the vast majority of Anglicans hearing or reading this passage won't appreciate what's going on here. There is an ontological claim being made - i.e. a claim about what does and doesn't exist at the level of true reality. This is reinforced by Bishop Stephen's translation saying, reasonably enough in terms of the Greek, "you are all one person" - in reality, there is only one Christian (i.e. Jesus) and our separateness is just an illusion (!).
Now it should be fairly obvious that in the first Christians' and our daily lives, these dualities and our separateness haven't just evaporated. So Paul isn't making a practical point about daily life here, he's talking about deep theological realities. Thus at the level of secular equality between men and women, this verse gives us no help at all - it is irrelevant. But then let's all hope that the Church is trying to be theological, rather than simply playing at gender politics.
What Gal. 3.28 does relate to is the change made by our baptism, as verse 27 makes clear "... for whoever is baptized into Christ has put on Christ..." Opponents of the consecration of women point out that Galatians 3.28 is about our baptismal status, and therefore says nothing about ordination.
But this depends on your view of what ordination is. For the Archbishop of Canterbury, ordained ministry is derived from the fact that all Christians are a "priestly people" by virtue of their baptism. Thus ordination does relate directly to baptism. This view of what ordained ministry is is a common one, and on this reading Gal. 3.28 is applicable to the debate.
On the other hand, it might be held that the priestly role of Christ is derived from being " a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek." ( Heb 5.6 NRSV, cf v.10). Since Melchizedek was not of Israel (Gen.14.18), this priesthood is independent of the priesthood of all believers. Both priesthoods meet in Christ, but they are not identical. On this understanding of ordained ministry, also widely held, Gal. 3.28 is not applicable to the debate.
See how difficult it is to rely on one verse to back up a theological viewpoint? I'm not the first to make this point (see Bishop Tom Wright on this passage) and doubtless won't be the last.
That's before we even get onto the other point which some translations obscure: the transition from "neither...nor" to "not...and" when it comes to "male and female."
Why this should be the case, I honestly don't know. Tom Wright has an explanation which seems to me plausible. I've seen this change given as grounds for believing that this phrase is a later interpolation (though sadly I can't track this down at the moment). I think that's unlikely (although it is odd that male/female occur nowhere else in Galatians), but in any case, it's in the canonical text, and whenever it was written, by whomever, we must not simply take it out. That would be to re-write the Bible to say what we want, rather than letting the Bible change us.
Whatever the explanation for the change, I think it shows that there is rather more going on in this passage than is imagined in the straightforward proof-texting approach of Bishop Stephen and so many others in favour of the consecration of women. The whole of scripture must be read in the light of the whole - this is the Anglican way: Article XX "it is not lawful for the Church to ... expound one place in Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
Both sides can make arguments from scripture; neither should rely on single verses taken out of context.
To be continued...
climatic passages [of the Bible] – the one through which we then interpret many othersNow this verse came up in the discussion group here in College yesterday evening, and I promised to blog about some of what we discussed, since it seemed pretty interesting and challenging stuff. But, as I come to think of it, there's so much here that it probably needs several blogs to go through it in anything like a thorough manner.
So here's the first installment.
Bishop Stephen reads Galatians 3.28:
"There is no such thing as Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, for you are all one person in Jesus Christ."
I haven't been able to track down the translation from which he's reading.
[Update 18/6/13: I've just found out that this is the reading of the New English Bible]
Although it's not a bad translation, it's not perfect, so I offer my own, extremely literal translation:
"neither exists Judaean nor Hellene, neither exists slave nor free, not exists male and female; all for you one are in Christ Jesus."
OK, that's pretty much gibberish in English, even if Yoda had been saying it. We need to supply auxiliary verbs, change the double negative construction, use more familiar terms and rearrange some words:
"there does not exist Jew nor Greek, does not exist slave or free, does not exist male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
Which just goes to show what a tricky job translation can be!
But what difference does it make? Well I think a few things stand out.
Firstly, the point that "there is no such thing/does not exist" as these three dualities. the Greek word used is stronger than the simple "there is" of the AV(KJV), and also used by NIV; even the "there is no longer" of NRSV doesn't quite get it. So the vast majority of Anglicans hearing or reading this passage won't appreciate what's going on here. There is an ontological claim being made - i.e. a claim about what does and doesn't exist at the level of true reality. This is reinforced by Bishop Stephen's translation saying, reasonably enough in terms of the Greek, "you are all one person" - in reality, there is only one Christian (i.e. Jesus) and our separateness is just an illusion (!).
Now it should be fairly obvious that in the first Christians' and our daily lives, these dualities and our separateness haven't just evaporated. So Paul isn't making a practical point about daily life here, he's talking about deep theological realities. Thus at the level of secular equality between men and women, this verse gives us no help at all - it is irrelevant. But then let's all hope that the Church is trying to be theological, rather than simply playing at gender politics.
What Gal. 3.28 does relate to is the change made by our baptism, as verse 27 makes clear "... for whoever is baptized into Christ has put on Christ..." Opponents of the consecration of women point out that Galatians 3.28 is about our baptismal status, and therefore says nothing about ordination.
But this depends on your view of what ordination is. For the Archbishop of Canterbury, ordained ministry is derived from the fact that all Christians are a "priestly people" by virtue of their baptism. Thus ordination does relate directly to baptism. This view of what ordained ministry is is a common one, and on this reading Gal. 3.28 is applicable to the debate.
On the other hand, it might be held that the priestly role of Christ is derived from being " a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek." ( Heb 5.6 NRSV, cf v.10). Since Melchizedek was not of Israel (Gen.14.18), this priesthood is independent of the priesthood of all believers. Both priesthoods meet in Christ, but they are not identical. On this understanding of ordained ministry, also widely held, Gal. 3.28 is not applicable to the debate.
See how difficult it is to rely on one verse to back up a theological viewpoint? I'm not the first to make this point (see Bishop Tom Wright on this passage) and doubtless won't be the last.
That's before we even get onto the other point which some translations obscure: the transition from "neither...nor" to "not...and" when it comes to "male and female."
Why this should be the case, I honestly don't know. Tom Wright has an explanation which seems to me plausible. I've seen this change given as grounds for believing that this phrase is a later interpolation (though sadly I can't track this down at the moment). I think that's unlikely (although it is odd that male/female occur nowhere else in Galatians), but in any case, it's in the canonical text, and whenever it was written, by whomever, we must not simply take it out. That would be to re-write the Bible to say what we want, rather than letting the Bible change us.
Whatever the explanation for the change, I think it shows that there is rather more going on in this passage than is imagined in the straightforward proof-texting approach of Bishop Stephen and so many others in favour of the consecration of women. The whole of scripture must be read in the light of the whole - this is the Anglican way: Article XX "it is not lawful for the Church to ... expound one place in Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
Both sides can make arguments from scripture; neither should rely on single verses taken out of context.
To be continued...
Monday, 22 October 2012
On Respect; racism, and yet more about women bishops
There has been something of a furore (three syllables) about racism in football of late. Over this last weekend the focus has been over the refusal of a number of black footballers to wear t-shirts supporting the Kick It Out anti-racism campaign (see here, here and here for BBC website pieces relating to this).
The fuss has been caused because many people cannot understand why black players would object to an anti-racism campaign - surely they are undermining it's efforts. Alex Ferguson, manager of Manchester United, was critical of Rio Ferdinand's decision not to wear the T-shirt. Easy for him to say - he's surely never experienced racism (and no, having a go at Scots is not racism, though we all know how ugly nationalism can be), and he's very much part of the establishment. There's something rather reactionary about telling someone how he should or shouldn't protest.*
The point of those players not wearing the T-shirt was precisely that they feel Kick It Out is not an effective force against racism in football. They ask serious questions about how seriously the FA takes racism, given the way the whole John Terry fiasco was handled. Then they look at the fact that the FA is a major funder of Kick It Out, and conclude that the public face of the FA is not in line with its actions. They see those funds as a sop, rather than a serious commitment. So they protest. As is their right. Note that the protest is about the football establishment/FA not Kick It Out per se; I don't think any of them are suggesting that Kick It Out has compromised itself - just that the cause isn't being taken seriously enough.
It just won't do to tell players that they out to stay united and show a common front against racism. If they feel the established mode of opposing racism in football is inadequate or undermined, they need to walk away from it. They are refusing to let the FA say "Look, we've got the Kick It Out campaign, what need is there to change?" The question of whether Lick It Out really is inadequate is beyond my competence but by protesting these players have made people at the highest levels ask the question - or shown themselves up by not being prepared to ask the question.
Whom do we respect more? The FA or the protesting players?
Now, what has this got to do with woman bishops? Well, As Rowan Williams acknowledges in his Church Times article, part of the reason we are having the debate is because of the promptings of secular feminism. And whilst many feminists are having a go at patriarchy, there are many who recognize that it is not just men who can abuse power. Where there is a pyramidal structure of domination and oppression it is better called "kyriarchy" (a term coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza in 1992). This recognizes that rich black women are perfectly able to oppress poor white men, for example.
But we are all bound up in these structures of domination. The western consumer, however poor, dominates the developing-world farmer, however wealthy. It's all down to the powers and dominions of this world (Ephesians 6.12) - or the sin endemic in humanity, if you prefer to put it that way.The answer must involve a liberation theology - we all need to throw off domination, of ourselves and by ourselves. We need to reject an easy satisfaction with the established way of things.
Which is where the Cross comes in, by utterly rejecting power, by embracing total weakness.
The protesting footballers were refusing to go along with the established(/establishment's) way of doing things. Good on'em, I say. But here's a problem I have over the consecration of women. When women join the establishment, will they simply come to fit in, and become totally establishment themselves? Will they just allow the kyriarchy to say "Look, we've got women bishops, what need is there to change?"
Feminism seems to me most powerful as a much-needed critique, as a prophetic voice, against kyriarchy. When women become bishops in the Church of England, that may be a battle won against patriarchy but will kyriarchy notice the difference?
*Let me confess an interest here - I'm a City fan; but I don't think I'd see things differently if some other big-name manager had said the same stuff.
The fuss has been caused because many people cannot understand why black players would object to an anti-racism campaign - surely they are undermining it's efforts. Alex Ferguson, manager of Manchester United, was critical of Rio Ferdinand's decision not to wear the T-shirt. Easy for him to say - he's surely never experienced racism (and no, having a go at Scots is not racism, though we all know how ugly nationalism can be), and he's very much part of the establishment. There's something rather reactionary about telling someone how he should or shouldn't protest.*
The point of those players not wearing the T-shirt was precisely that they feel Kick It Out is not an effective force against racism in football. They ask serious questions about how seriously the FA takes racism, given the way the whole John Terry fiasco was handled. Then they look at the fact that the FA is a major funder of Kick It Out, and conclude that the public face of the FA is not in line with its actions. They see those funds as a sop, rather than a serious commitment. So they protest. As is their right. Note that the protest is about the football establishment/FA not Kick It Out per se; I don't think any of them are suggesting that Kick It Out has compromised itself - just that the cause isn't being taken seriously enough.
It just won't do to tell players that they out to stay united and show a common front against racism. If they feel the established mode of opposing racism in football is inadequate or undermined, they need to walk away from it. They are refusing to let the FA say "Look, we've got the Kick It Out campaign, what need is there to change?" The question of whether Lick It Out really is inadequate is beyond my competence but by protesting these players have made people at the highest levels ask the question - or shown themselves up by not being prepared to ask the question.
Whom do we respect more? The FA or the protesting players?
Now, what has this got to do with woman bishops? Well, As Rowan Williams acknowledges in his Church Times article, part of the reason we are having the debate is because of the promptings of secular feminism. And whilst many feminists are having a go at patriarchy, there are many who recognize that it is not just men who can abuse power. Where there is a pyramidal structure of domination and oppression it is better called "kyriarchy" (a term coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza in 1992). This recognizes that rich black women are perfectly able to oppress poor white men, for example.
But we are all bound up in these structures of domination. The western consumer, however poor, dominates the developing-world farmer, however wealthy. It's all down to the powers and dominions of this world (Ephesians 6.12) - or the sin endemic in humanity, if you prefer to put it that way.The answer must involve a liberation theology - we all need to throw off domination, of ourselves and by ourselves. We need to reject an easy satisfaction with the established way of things.
Which is where the Cross comes in, by utterly rejecting power, by embracing total weakness.
The protesting footballers were refusing to go along with the established(/establishment's) way of doing things. Good on'em, I say. But here's a problem I have over the consecration of women. When women join the establishment, will they simply come to fit in, and become totally establishment themselves? Will they just allow the kyriarchy to say "Look, we've got women bishops, what need is there to change?"
Feminism seems to me most powerful as a much-needed critique, as a prophetic voice, against kyriarchy. When women become bishops in the Church of England, that may be a battle won against patriarchy but will kyriarchy notice the difference?
*Let me confess an interest here - I'm a City fan; but I don't think I'd see things differently if some other big-name manager had said the same stuff.
Friday, 14 September 2012
Concerning the Consecration of Women as Bishops
So the House of Bishops has come out with its revised version of the now infamous Clause 5(1)c. I feel I have to comment - after all, what else is a blog for? And this has to be the biggest thing happening at the moment in the Church of England, of which I am part.
What's interesting to me is that there hasn't been the huge rush to comment that there was when the Bishops introduced the original Clause 5(1)c. At the time of writing WATCH (Women And The CHurch - a campaigning group) didn't have anything o their website, and Google reveals only a few blogs with comments: Nick Baines (the "blogging bishop"), Ancient Briton, Peter Ould, and of course the ever-interesting website Thinking Anglicans. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, always worth reading, is so far silent.
Perhaps this silence is just people taking time to think about it all, which would be good (so why am I not doing that, eh?); perhaps it indicates that on the whole people are going to be happy to move forward with the new wording; perhaps indicates that people just don't know what it means.
Well, here are my thoughts on the new Clause 5(1)c, which states that the Code of Practice accompanying the Measure must provide for:
This is instead of:
But what does this mean? it's not entirely clear - and therein lies the difficulty. If this is deliberately vague as part of a tactic to get the vote passed in November, and open the way to having women as bishops, does it store up problems for the future? I fear it does.
Although "respect" looks like a nice fuzzy alternative to "consistent with," suggesting compromise and openness (not bad things, of course), the Law does not generally like fuzziness (that way lawyers' fees lie), and I'm not sure that it actually means anything different. How does one respect a reason given without actually accepting it and acting on it? Can I respect the grounds on which you've asked for something, but still say "no"? Just possibly; but can my selection of a male bishop respect your grounds for requesting one without giving you what you want? I can't see how it can.
Which makes the other vagueness even more problematic: the replacement of "theological conviction as to the consecration and ordination of women" (which WATCH hated) with "grounds". For "grounds" does not specify that the letter of request should have to do with theological convictions - it might open the door to simple prejudice. I don't think any parish would ask for a male bishop on grounds of prejudice, but who knows?
More importantly, it looks as if the door is wide open for a parish to request a bishop who agrees with their position on women's ordination, male headship, homosexuality or a range of other things. The previous Clause 5(1)c meant only that the bishop or priest's "exercise of ministry" had to be consistent, i.e. that he had to be a genuine bishop/priest as the parish understood it (not ordained by a woman). It didn't mean that they had to agree with the parish's views on anything. After all, when a bishop does a confirmation, if he lays hands and says the words provided by Common Worship, we've no idea whether he believes in male headship or not - but his ministry has been duly and properly exercised.
But if a parish ask for a male bishop because only a male bishop will hold a strong view of male headship, and they want a bishop who holds such views, then the diocesan responding to the Letter of Request must "respect" this and provide just such a bishop, views and all. Or so it seems. And a parish might make a Request on the grounds that only male bishops will have the "right" views on homosexuality, but since the grounds for the Request include views in homosexuality, that would need to be respected.
Now I don't for a moment think that this is what the House of Bishops intended. It will be interesting to get the fuller account of their discussions, and the legal advice about what the new clause means that goes with it. What is put into the new illustrative draft Code of Practice will be highly significant, and it may be here that the next battles are fought. But if my reading is a valid one, where does it leave us for the vote in November?
Well, I would have thought that it does leave the way open for opponents of women's consecration to vote in favour or abstain, because it does seem to give the safeguards they want in the Measure itself, rather than in the Code of Practice (which can be amended relatively easily in the future to get rid of them). But for those in favour of having women as bishops, but not at any cost, this would seem to be a problem. They objected vociferously to the previous Clause 5(1)c; I think they ought to like the current one even less.
Everyone recognizes that a failure to pass the measure in November will be extremely damaging to the Church of England, at least in the short run (in terms of the blame-game and internecine strife). What the longer term implications would be is anyone's guess.
Time for us all to pray even harder for the Holy Spirit to get very, very busy.
What's interesting to me is that there hasn't been the huge rush to comment that there was when the Bishops introduced the original Clause 5(1)c. At the time of writing WATCH (Women And The CHurch - a campaigning group) didn't have anything o their website, and Google reveals only a few blogs with comments: Nick Baines (the "blogging bishop"), Ancient Briton, Peter Ould, and of course the ever-interesting website Thinking Anglicans. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, always worth reading, is so far silent.
Perhaps this silence is just people taking time to think about it all, which would be good (so why am I not doing that, eh?); perhaps it indicates that on the whole people are going to be happy to move forward with the new wording; perhaps indicates that people just don't know what it means.
Well, here are my thoughts on the new Clause 5(1)c, which states that the Code of Practice accompanying the Measure must provide for:
“the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3”
This is instead of:
"the selection of male bishops or male priests the exercise of ministry by whom is consistent with the theological convictions as to the consecration and ordination of women on grounds of which parochial church councils have issued Letters of Request under section 3,"
But what does this mean? it's not entirely clear - and therein lies the difficulty. If this is deliberately vague as part of a tactic to get the vote passed in November, and open the way to having women as bishops, does it store up problems for the future? I fear it does.
Although "respect" looks like a nice fuzzy alternative to "consistent with," suggesting compromise and openness (not bad things, of course), the Law does not generally like fuzziness (that way lawyers' fees lie), and I'm not sure that it actually means anything different. How does one respect a reason given without actually accepting it and acting on it? Can I respect the grounds on which you've asked for something, but still say "no"? Just possibly; but can my selection of a male bishop respect your grounds for requesting one without giving you what you want? I can't see how it can.
Which makes the other vagueness even more problematic: the replacement of "theological conviction as to the consecration and ordination of women" (which WATCH hated) with "grounds". For "grounds" does not specify that the letter of request should have to do with theological convictions - it might open the door to simple prejudice. I don't think any parish would ask for a male bishop on grounds of prejudice, but who knows?
More importantly, it looks as if the door is wide open for a parish to request a bishop who agrees with their position on women's ordination, male headship, homosexuality or a range of other things. The previous Clause 5(1)c meant only that the bishop or priest's "exercise of ministry" had to be consistent, i.e. that he had to be a genuine bishop/priest as the parish understood it (not ordained by a woman). It didn't mean that they had to agree with the parish's views on anything. After all, when a bishop does a confirmation, if he lays hands and says the words provided by Common Worship, we've no idea whether he believes in male headship or not - but his ministry has been duly and properly exercised.
But if a parish ask for a male bishop because only a male bishop will hold a strong view of male headship, and they want a bishop who holds such views, then the diocesan responding to the Letter of Request must "respect" this and provide just such a bishop, views and all. Or so it seems. And a parish might make a Request on the grounds that only male bishops will have the "right" views on homosexuality, but since the grounds for the Request include views in homosexuality, that would need to be respected.
Now I don't for a moment think that this is what the House of Bishops intended. It will be interesting to get the fuller account of their discussions, and the legal advice about what the new clause means that goes with it. What is put into the new illustrative draft Code of Practice will be highly significant, and it may be here that the next battles are fought. But if my reading is a valid one, where does it leave us for the vote in November?
Well, I would have thought that it does leave the way open for opponents of women's consecration to vote in favour or abstain, because it does seem to give the safeguards they want in the Measure itself, rather than in the Code of Practice (which can be amended relatively easily in the future to get rid of them). But for those in favour of having women as bishops, but not at any cost, this would seem to be a problem. They objected vociferously to the previous Clause 5(1)c; I think they ought to like the current one even less.
Everyone recognizes that a failure to pass the measure in November will be extremely damaging to the Church of England, at least in the short run (in terms of the blame-game and internecine strife). What the longer term implications would be is anyone's guess.
Time for us all to pray even harder for the Holy Spirit to get very, very busy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)