We must recognise that the ‘vote against’ was not primarily a vote against women bishops but a vote against women bishops this way. Many, if not most, of the opponents to this measure recognise that the Church has already decided to consecrate women bishops and it will happen – but want some measure of safeguarding of their traditional position. The real issue has been around the provision of ‘alternative episcopal oversight’ on terms acceptable to those who cannot accept the oversight of a woman (or a man consecrated by a woman) and acceptable to those who do not want to diminish the authority of the women bishops (or those consecrated by women).
This is not a vote against the quality of ministry that women offer – whether ordained or lay. This vote is not directly saying anything about the strength of women’s ministry or the courage they have had to minister in a male dominated organisation. I have served in staff teams with women, and collaborated closely with other women clergy. It would be foolish to deny that women such as these have not enriched the ministry of the Church bringing distinctive experiences and their own particular strengths.
It is clear to me that those gifted by God for any ministry should serve in the capacities enabled by their gift, and human arrangements should facilitate their service and provide them the opportunities to serve. The Church should be asking (and is) how can (women) best minister – and in the case of episcopacy, making arrangements for that to happen. (For it is undoubtedly true that women can be able and successful leaders.)
It is also clear to me that the language of rights and equality is not sufficient to create a proper understanding of leadership in the church. This should not be the main consideration. In the NT we are obliged to serve – arising out of the grace (gifts) given to us. If we use too quickly the language of rights and equality we are in danger of using a primarily secular model and reducing leadership in the body of Christ to a level that omits God’s grace-giving and power.
We must recognise that this vote was the outcome of a democratic process. It is of course baffling that when 42 out of 44 dioceses voted for the measure, it was defeated by a slim majority in one of the three houses of General Synod. On the other hand it is odd that preliminary stages go through on a simple majority but that the final vote has to be a 2/3 majority in the General Synod.
But nevertheless clergy and laity synod members were only elected in 2010; in most of the candidates’ election material were references to his/her position re women bishops. The hesitant movement towards the final vote on 20 November began when Deanery Synod members elected this General Synod. We may find that voting against this legislation the Synod was voting against its existence again, in this form.
There are some who have lost patience with trying to accommodate the refusniks – and have only grudgingly given ground, preferring a simpler ‘one size fits all’ solution and ‘out with the rest’. The Archbishops and the House of Bishops, I believe, took the bolder path of trying to accommodate the different traditions. However they have not been able to find a solution that provided enough for everyone. It remains to be seen whether there is yet another configuration that will fit the bill. There may come a time when it is clearer that not everyone can be accommodated. But make no mistake the Church is definitely, if slowly, moving forward to consecrating women as bishops. This will happen.
In the meantime let us continue to pray for women clergy feeling under-valued ... and the House of Bishops and the Archbishops as they listen to the Spirit and seek to lead the Church forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment