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/2013/jul/07/women-bishops-simpler-approach-editorial
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Women bishops: time for a simpler approach | Women bishops: time for a simpler approach |
| (about 20 hours later) | |
| Today, the Church of England's General Synod will return to the subject of women bishops after last November's car-crash of a debate in which the will of the majority of the church to have women bishops was defeated by a Heath Robinson decision-making system easily exploited by a minority dug in against change. The question has always been not whether the C of E will have women bishops but how. Those who are against recognise the writing on the wall but want their opposition to be accepted as conscience-driven and their ability to keep on resisting to be given some statutory protection. Thus they want the right to opt out of a diocese if the bishop in charge is female, a right that no parish can claim if the bishop is male. | Today, the Church of England's General Synod will return to the subject of women bishops after last November's car-crash of a debate in which the will of the majority of the church to have women bishops was defeated by a Heath Robinson decision-making system easily exploited by a minority dug in against change. The question has always been not whether the C of E will have women bishops but how. Those who are against recognise the writing on the wall but want their opposition to be accepted as conscience-driven and their ability to keep on resisting to be given some statutory protection. Thus they want the right to opt out of a diocese if the bishop in charge is female, a right that no parish can claim if the bishop is male. |
| Such is the C of E's desire for unity that it was prepared to countenance the creation of a whole category of second-class bishops reserved specifically for women. Such women would not have had the same authority over their dioceses as their male counterparts, as the legislation would allow parishes not to accept her authority and to pick a male bishop more to their liking. Little wonder some of synod's most enthusiastic supporters of women bishops joined the conservative opposition and voted against the legislation last time round. Statutory provision for opponents was a step too far. | Such is the C of E's desire for unity that it was prepared to countenance the creation of a whole category of second-class bishops reserved specifically for women. Such women would not have had the same authority over their dioceses as their male counterparts, as the legislation would allow parishes not to accept her authority and to pick a male bishop more to their liking. Little wonder some of synod's most enthusiastic supporters of women bishops joined the conservative opposition and voted against the legislation last time round. Statutory provision for opponents was a step too far. |
| Since then, the church has a new archbishop with less sympathy for the idea that unity can be premised on a convoluted fudge. In July last year, in an interview with this newspaper, Justin Welby still subscribed to the Rowan Williams approach. Asked how to square the circle of having women bishops and protecting their opponents, he replied: "Well, you just look at the circle and say it's a circle with sharp bits on it." Since taking office, the thinking has been different. | |
| This time, thankfully, the legislation before the synod is simpler. It's a yes or a no. There is no attempt to translate into legal form the sort of protection that opponents of women bishops feel they need. Last November, those pushing for women bishops made a concession by accepting statutory protection as a price worth paying – yet even this approach didn't satisfy opponents. Following the acrimonious fall-out from the failure of that legislation, there is now very little appetite for a return to such compromises on the part of the progressives. Attitudes have hardened. Squares are squares and circles are circles. | This time, thankfully, the legislation before the synod is simpler. It's a yes or a no. There is no attempt to translate into legal form the sort of protection that opponents of women bishops feel they need. Last November, those pushing for women bishops made a concession by accepting statutory protection as a price worth paying – yet even this approach didn't satisfy opponents. Following the acrimonious fall-out from the failure of that legislation, there is now very little appetite for a return to such compromises on the part of the progressives. Attitudes have hardened. Squares are squares and circles are circles. |
| For all of this, the mathematics of the synod have not changed, nor has its arcane procedures. When the legislation failed in November, the women bishops measure landed on a snake and went back to the beginning. Today is the start of another long two-year process requiring only a simple majority to progress to the next stage of consideration. New elections to the synod will have taken place before we get to that point and one of the new archbishop's priorities is to sort out a synodical structure designed to elect to its number only those who sit on other church committees, thereby favouring ecclesiastical anoraks. If the synod is to reflect the opinions of those who sit on its pews, it needs to find a more direct form of democratic representation and a set of processes that do not inhibit change at every turn. Furthermore, the progressive side of the church, so much more in touch with opinion in wider society, needs to make its presence felt with less hand-wringing and false niceness. In his first speech, the archbishop spelled out that the same-sex marriage bill revealed a sexual revolution that the church ought to take note of. The problem is that the church has yet to take account of a previous revolution in sexual politics that began with the suffragettes a century ago. | For all of this, the mathematics of the synod have not changed, nor has its arcane procedures. When the legislation failed in November, the women bishops measure landed on a snake and went back to the beginning. Today is the start of another long two-year process requiring only a simple majority to progress to the next stage of consideration. New elections to the synod will have taken place before we get to that point and one of the new archbishop's priorities is to sort out a synodical structure designed to elect to its number only those who sit on other church committees, thereby favouring ecclesiastical anoraks. If the synod is to reflect the opinions of those who sit on its pews, it needs to find a more direct form of democratic representation and a set of processes that do not inhibit change at every turn. Furthermore, the progressive side of the church, so much more in touch with opinion in wider society, needs to make its presence felt with less hand-wringing and false niceness. In his first speech, the archbishop spelled out that the same-sex marriage bill revealed a sexual revolution that the church ought to take note of. The problem is that the church has yet to take account of a previous revolution in sexual politics that began with the suffragettes a century ago. |
| Unity within the C of E has become a distraction, encouraging the church to spend all its time thinking about itself and diverting attention away from higher matters. By the time this is sorted out, it's possible that most people will have given up caring what the Church of England decides about anything. | Unity within the C of E has become a distraction, encouraging the church to spend all its time thinking about itself and diverting attention away from higher matters. By the time this is sorted out, it's possible that most people will have given up caring what the Church of England decides about anything. |