Thursday, 6 December 2012

Mark Chapman: Don't blame the laity

Once again we have permission from the Editor of The Tablet to reproduce two articles from last week’s issue, dealing with the General Synod’s failure to approve legislation allowing women to become bishops. The first one by Mark Chapman is reproduced below. The second one by Linda Woodhead will follow soon.

Don’t blame the laity

Most observers inside and outside the Church of England have concluded that last week’s failure by the General Synod to vote through legislation allowing women bishops has left it in turmoil. Here, a member of the synod claims that the problem is a lack of trust by the bishops

Seldom do the decisions of the General Synod of the Church of England make much of an impact outside the somewhat closeted world of ecclesiastical enthusiasts. But last week the Church’s governing body voted to reject the legislation to allow women to become bishops – and the media is still reeling. Although there was an overwhelming majority in favour, the necessary two-thirds majority was not achieved in the House of Laity, and the motion fell. I felt a sense of bewilderment and anger, and shared tears with my women colleagues. After all, the Church of England has ordained women as priests for 20 years, and it seemed a logical progression to move to women bishops. Church people have quickly criticised the House of Laity as unrepresentative of opinion, calling for a reform of the electoral system on the grounds that electors frequently know virtually nothing about the candidates.

But I am not sure that the House of Laity was really to blame. What was being voted on was not simply the principle of women bishops, but the safeguards offered to those opposed to women’s ministry. When women were ordained priests, a mechanism was created so that parishes could refuse their ministrations, and could also ask for “extended episcopal oversight” from bishops who did not ordain women. With this precedent, virtually everybody in the Church thought something similar would be needed if women were to be ordained as bishops.

Consequently after the principle of women bishops was accepted, a series of drafting groups took soundings over a number of years to produce proposals that were carefully crafted. The basic idea was that women bishops should have the same legal jurisdiction as all other bishops, but that pastoral care and celebration of the sacraments would be delegated to male bishops for those parishes unwilling to accept episcopal oversight from a woman or even from a man who had ordained a woman. This measure was presented for consideration to the General Synod in July 2010.

What happened then was unprecedented: no doubt with good intentions, the Archbishops of both Canterbury and York – in an act which rode roughshod over the hard work of the drafting committees – introduced an amendment that would have created parallel legal jurisdictions, and which had the support of the majority of bishops. This would have meant that the diocesan bishop would not have been legally responsible for the diocese, which could have resulted in incoherence or even conflict between bishops in matters of clergy discipline. The rejection of this amendment by the synod spelt the end of the credibility of the House of Bishops. The archbishops did not seem to realise that a blatant refusal to listen to the formal mechanisms of synod would be disastrous for efforts at building the sort of trust needed to move the measure through the legislative process.

In the new General Synod, to which I was elected and which met in November 2010, it was clear that there was a poisonous relationship between the House of Bishops and the Houses of Clergy and Laity. In what was supposed to be a straightforward piece of rubber-stamping, the synod rejected a bishop, who was a suffragan to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as chairman of the business committee. The other two houses simply did not trust the impartiality of a member of the House of Bishops being in charge of synod business.

In the subsequent months, the Anglican Communion Covenant, which was supposed to offer a mechanism for conflict resolution among the worldwide Churches, was rejected in the dioceses, despite – or perhaps because of – the support of most of the bishops for the covenant. The dioceses were also asked to vote on the women-bishops’ legislation – and 42 out of 44 voted decisively in favour. The matter returned in February 2012 for discussion – amendments were discussed, and firmly rejected. Instead, synod asked the bishops not to change anything substantial at the final stage of scrutiny. But having failed to learn from July 2010, the bishops introduced a last-minute and ill-drafted amendment which seemed to allow parishes to choose their own bishops on the basis of “theological convictions” which would have gone against one of the cardinal principles of church government since the time of Augustine’s conflicts with the Donatists.

Some bishops – most notably the Bishop of Liverpool – broke ranks and recognised their own folly. Not surprisingly, most of those in favour of women bishops firmly rejected the amendment – and since it couldn’t be changed at this stage, the measure was returned to the bishops for further amendment. It was obvious to most of us that circles cannot be squared, and there has to be a limit to compromise for the sake of coherence. Synod was consequently forced to meet again in November. Finally, it discussed a measure that was substantially unchanged from that first proposed in July 2010.

What was clear in the run-up to the synod and in the debate itself was that the significant minority who did not support women bishops and their sympathisers did not have sufficient trust that those responsible for the provisions – the bishops – would make them work unless they were forced to by law. The bishops had failed to trust the mechanisms of synod. For those who are likely to be suspicious of bishops anyway, and who certainly feel beleaguered by the dominant liberalism of the Church, it meant little that the bishops rallied behind the measure on Tuesday. The damage had already been done in July 2010.

The measure will no doubt return soon – and perhaps next time the bishops will work with synod rather than against it and realise that it is synod that provides the mechanism for listening to the mind of the Church, and not the loud-mouthed lobbyists who can easily bend bishops’ ears. Synods can work, but they have to be trusted. And in an Established Church it is to the House of Laity that the Royal Supremacy – which had previously been exercised by Parliament – has been delegated. Chastened bishops might do well to remember that – and then the Church of England might have the leaders it so richly deserves, men and women.

  • Mark Chapman is vice principal of Ripon College Cuddesdon, Oxford, and reader in modern theology in the University of Oxford. His books include Anglicanism: a very short introduction (OUP, 2006), and Anglican Theology (T&T Clark, 2012). He is a member of the General Synod’s House of Clergy.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 10:18pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod
Comments

A lot of this analysis is exactly correct. Although +Rowan has always been consistent in making the case for women bishops, he never really seemed to back the detailed legislation enthusiastically. Well, maybe finally in the last weeks before the disaster he did, but much damage had been done by then. As a friend of mine commented a couple of days ago, “Rowan just doesn’t do politics.”

For +Rowan, for +Sentamu, and for the House of Bishops generally – with a few honourable exceptions – the WBM was always a ‘work in progress’ which still presented opportunities for fine tuning. And the signals the Bishops sent kept encouraging traditionalists to push for yet more concessions and then left them feeling betrayed when Synod quite rightly felt unable to give them what they wanted.

However, I still do (mostly) blame the traditionalist faction in the House of Laity. Like the citizens of Jerusalem in Luke 19:42 they couldn’t recognise the moment. The package they rejected on 20 November was absolutely the most favourable compromise that was ever going to be offered.

Posted by: William Raines on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 1:43am GMT

What does the penultimate sentence actually mean, please?

Posted by: Edna on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 1:49am GMT

How does William Raines know that 'The package they rejected on 20 November was absolutely the most favourable compromise that was ever going to be offered'. Does he not believe that negotiations between the majority and minority (possibly chaired or brokered by Bishop Welby) will undoubtedly occur before July 2013 so that the measure can pass against a background note of harmony in the GS?

Posted by: Nigel Aston on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 8:26am GMT

Mark Chapman omits to mention that the Archbishops' amendment in 2010 won a numerical majority in the General Synod but failed through losing in the house of CLERGY when such a vote by houses was not strictly required. But that denial of the will of the majority was, of course , in a good cause.

Posted by: peter bostock on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 9:01am GMT

Nigel Aston: the place for such negotiations is in the synodical process, not in noises off.

Peter Bostock: as I recall, a call for a vote by Houses was voted on % accepted by GS so it was then 'strictly required'.

Posted by: Charles Read on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 9:24am GMT

I agree with Nigel Aston - a great many seem to 'know for certain' that the existing provision will be withdrawn and that a single clause measure is inevitable. Quite how they 'know' this is not clear, especially as they do not have the power to bring it about.

Posted by: Original Observer on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 9:40am GMT

There has been a huge amount of negotiation and a lot of compromise from those who were clearly in favour of the single clause measure. If negotiations are to begin again then it should be with a clean slate from a single clause perspective so that all parties involved have room for offering compromises.

Posted by: commentator on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 10:36am GMT

When the "archbishops' amendment" was rejected by the house of Clergy nearly every single one of the ordained women voted against it. It was a strange "compromise" as it had been drafted without consulting women clergy (nor tested by a revision committee) . I realise some of those who comment on this board will use this as an argument to say that women were not prepared to compromise - but they did - they did not try to get a single clause measure through. However, since they did not force the debate at this point, others still do not realise how great the compromise was.

Posted by: RosalindR on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 11:15am GMT

Does he not believe that negotiations between the majority and minority (possibly chaired or brokered by Bishop Welby) will undoubtedly occur before July 2013 so that the measure can pass against a background note of harmony in the GS?

YES & NO - no doubt negotiations will be proposed and may even happy - will the legislation pass against a background note of harmony. I really can't imagine that happening, no - previous negotiations have clearly not ended thus, The Act of Synod has not exactly improved relations during the past decades - certainly not promoting the unity we'd hoped for. and yes I really do think that in terms of provision for those opposed that was the best compromise.
I do not 'know' if there will be a single clause measure - although I do hope for it and for provision not to be set in law. But I think it is unlikely that any more concessions will be made, and I don't know that I could live with a Church of England willing to go down that route. At that point I think I will be asking someone to stop the bus so I can get off as 'in conscience' I can no longer support this level of discrimination embedded in the structures of the Church I serve.

Posted by: Lindsay Southern on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 12:55pm GMT

William Raines may blame traditionalist laity in synod. I also blame liberal congregations which have not bothered to get off their backsides and engage with the process, but instead have sniped at traditionalists.

For example, when this issue was discussed at deanery synod in one deanery close to Manchester city centre representatives from a liberal catholic congregation did not even bother to attend the debate.

If such congregations had successfully put forward laity to talk in synods at different levels the situation might be different to what it is now.

Interestingly the congregation in Manchester was led by a priest called William Raines.

Posted by: Jennifer Bray on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 7:31pm GMT

Hmm. I think we're forgetting that time moves on. Things have changed in twenty years. The guys who really couldn't cope with a church that ordains women have largely left or retired. Some haven't, but there are now more new young men who joined the church after it ordained women. And yet they're allowed to form a fifth column which works against women all the time, and the women who are affected by this are totally unprotected. We need to draw a distinction between men who find themselves in this position and those who put themselves in this position. The latter should not have "protection". In five years, there will be still less men who found the church moved and left them, but more and more men who don't believe in ordaining women, or even lay ministers. We need to stop ordaining men who can't cope with women's ministry now. We should have done so twenty years ago.

Posted by: English Athena on Friday, 7 December 2012 at 8:50pm GMT

I, Ignorant Yank, give up. The analysis above appears entirely INCOHERENT to me. The Measure failed because it was too conservative (anti-*equal*-WB), or because it was too liberal (pro-*equal*-WB)? "Yes" (Argh!)

Posted by: JCF on Sunday, 9 December 2012 at 4:13am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.