This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/nov/06/female-bishops-vote-fiasco

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Female bishops vote: heading for a full dress fiasco? Female bishops vote: heading for a full dress fiasco?
(35 minutes later)
This autumn sees a decisive democratic vote – it is of course the decision of the church's General Synod to approve the final legislation on female bishops. What makes it poignant is two things – first that the process has been so very slow that I suspect I used the very same jokey intro four years ago at the time of the last presidential election. Second, there are still smart people who think the vote may be lost.This autumn sees a decisive democratic vote – it is of course the decision of the church's General Synod to approve the final legislation on female bishops. What makes it poignant is two things – first that the process has been so very slow that I suspect I used the very same jokey intro four years ago at the time of the last presidential election. Second, there are still smart people who think the vote may be lost.
There are not enough dedicated opponents of female bishops to muster a blocking third in any of the three "houses" of synod – although it is close in the House of Laity. But their ranks may be swelled by the dedicated supporters, who feel that the present legislation is an unacceptable compromise that enshrines discrimination.There are not enough dedicated opponents of female bishops to muster a blocking third in any of the three "houses" of synod – although it is close in the House of Laity. But their ranks may be swelled by the dedicated supporters, who feel that the present legislation is an unacceptable compromise that enshrines discrimination.
The legislation that the synod will be asked to vote on is an attempt to do justice to two utterly irreconcilable groups – those who believe women must be bishops, and those who believe they can't be. The compromise on offer, as with female priests, is to allow opponents to carry on with their parish life as if there were no female bishops – they can demand to be served only by men, and more particularly, only by men who will not themselves ordain women. This is a small minority of the bishops, so the opponents also want guarantees that there will always be a supply of new bishops and priests who reject the ordination of women.The legislation that the synod will be asked to vote on is an attempt to do justice to two utterly irreconcilable groups – those who believe women must be bishops, and those who believe they can't be. The compromise on offer, as with female priests, is to allow opponents to carry on with their parish life as if there were no female bishops – they can demand to be served only by men, and more particularly, only by men who will not themselves ordain women. This is a small minority of the bishops, so the opponents also want guarantees that there will always be a supply of new bishops and priests who reject the ordination of women.
Something like that is more or less what they were promised in the convulsive panic that overtook the Church of England in 1992 when it realised that the synod had actually made a decision. No one had planned for that. There was talk of thousands of priests leaving. In the event, several hundred did leave for Rome and most of them stayed . The real resistance came from conservative evangelicals, committed to the position that the Bible forbids women to teach men doctrine. Something like that is more or less what they were promised in the convulsive panic that overtook the Church of England in 1992 when it realised that the synod had actually made a decision. No one had planned for that. There was talk of thousands of priests leaving. In the event, several hundred did leave for Rome and most of them stayed. The real resistance came from conservative evangelicals, committed to the position that the Bible forbids women to teach men doctrine.
So a compromise was assembled, promising the opponents "an honoured place" within the Church of England. This was not a promise made entirely in good faith. It was assumed that resistance would simply wither away, as large parts of it have. There's no doubt that an overwhelming majority of the laity can't now see what the fuss was all about. But within the clergy, and among conservative evangelicals, a hard core of resistance remained. They are determined that their theology, and their bishops, will survive. For this to happen, they have to concentrate their forces within particular parishes, served by bishops who have never laid hands on a woman to ordain her.So a compromise was assembled, promising the opponents "an honoured place" within the Church of England. This was not a promise made entirely in good faith. It was assumed that resistance would simply wither away, as large parts of it have. There's no doubt that an overwhelming majority of the laity can't now see what the fuss was all about. But within the clergy, and among conservative evangelicals, a hard core of resistance remained. They are determined that their theology, and their bishops, will survive. For this to happen, they have to concentrate their forces within particular parishes, served by bishops who have never laid hands on a woman to ordain her.
They want the right to do this to be enshrined in law.They want the right to do this to be enshrined in law.
The management of the synod, the archbishops and a majority of the bishops, were prepared to offer this. But the synod as a whole rejected it. It's not clear, either, that parliament, which must approve the final legislation, would vote through any law so clearly discriminatory. So the bishops tried again. This time, they came up with a "code of practice": the law will specify this must exist, but not specify its content. For opponents it's too little. For many supporters, it's too much. But it still seemed impossible that the compromise could fail. Not even the Church of England could spend so long lumbering up to jump a hurdle, and then collapse in a twitching heap at the decisive moment. If this church were a horse, the owner would shoot it.The management of the synod, the archbishops and a majority of the bishops, were prepared to offer this. But the synod as a whole rejected it. It's not clear, either, that parliament, which must approve the final legislation, would vote through any law so clearly discriminatory. So the bishops tried again. This time, they came up with a "code of practice": the law will specify this must exist, but not specify its content. For opponents it's too little. For many supporters, it's too much. But it still seemed impossible that the compromise could fail. Not even the Church of England could spend so long lumbering up to jump a hurdle, and then collapse in a twitching heap at the decisive moment. If this church were a horse, the owner would shoot it.
Yet, suddenly, a full dress fiasco looks possible. Over the weekend, you could hear the sound of gears shifting in panic, as the majority in favour of female bishops realised that the legislation might actually fail when the synod votes on it later this month. Watch, the main pressure group campaigning for female bishops, issued a statement which almost endorsed the legislation. Earlier, it had refused to do so. A campaign on Twitter and Facebook was organised by the Church Mouse, an influential blogger and occasional contributor here: Mouse wants ordinary church members to put pressure on their synod representatives to vote.Yet, suddenly, a full dress fiasco looks possible. Over the weekend, you could hear the sound of gears shifting in panic, as the majority in favour of female bishops realised that the legislation might actually fail when the synod votes on it later this month. Watch, the main pressure group campaigning for female bishops, issued a statement which almost endorsed the legislation. Earlier, it had refused to do so. A campaign on Twitter and Facebook was organised by the Church Mouse, an influential blogger and occasional contributor here: Mouse wants ordinary church members to put pressure on their synod representatives to vote.
If the legislation fails, it could be another seven years before the synod votes again on female bishops, according to its secretary general, William Fittall. But some of the most determined campaigners for equality think they could bring in a new measure in two years' time. This one would have no place at all for opponents. And the temptation to go for broke in this way may prove enough to scuttle the compromise that Rowan Williams worked so hard to broker; to end his time in office with an absurd and humiliating defeat; and to leave the question in limbo and church politics in purgatory.If the legislation fails, it could be another seven years before the synod votes again on female bishops, according to its secretary general, William Fittall. But some of the most determined campaigners for equality think they could bring in a new measure in two years' time. This one would have no place at all for opponents. And the temptation to go for broke in this way may prove enough to scuttle the compromise that Rowan Williams worked so hard to broker; to end his time in office with an absurd and humiliating defeat; and to leave the question in limbo and church politics in purgatory.