Martine Oborne’s clarification is a measured response about a sunset clause for, rather than an immediate repudiation of, the Five Guiding Principles. I hope and suspect it will turn out to be the considered view of the majority of parishes.
And what does that say to the large number of young traditionalist clergy who have committed 40 years of service to the church. Are our vocations and ministry unwanted and excluded?
Isn’t the answer to allow churches to request that their ministers must be women?
That way the CofE can remain faithful to those with a catholic view of male priesthood, allowing their churches to require male ministers. But that could be done while achieving an equitable balance between women’s and men’s ministries, since churches could choose to be led by women alone, men alone or women and men.
That wouldn’t ensure parity unless dioceses and archdioceses could also stipulate women-only shortlists; and priests and parishes in dioceses where the bishop doesn’t ordain women could opt for alternative episcopal oversight.
In any case, I don’t think the answer to sex discrimination is more sex discrimination.
However, given the way our system works, General Synod may very well not reflect such a view. Also, I have feeling that many folk, while in theory think one way, in day to day practical terms, they don’t rate it so important? somewhere below ” keeping the show on the road.”
it depends on local context a bit. I can think of some parishes in y diocese where people have become more radical / concerned when they realise how their female clergy are sometimes treated by other clergy (and indeed laity).
Pax
1 month ago
Bell: ‘I absolutely do believe that sacramental marriage should be opened to all couples. I absolutely do believe that God is already at work in queer marriages and that the church is doing itself a disservice in refusing to recognise this. I am absolutely committed to seeing the doctrine of marriage enlarged and – in being enlarged – enriched. All of that is no surprise. … clergy entering into something the church does not call marriage is not going to change any of that – it cannot. In other words, whilst clergy might enter into a covenant that the state calls marriage,… Read more »
But if clergy enter an estate which they and the state call ‘marriage’, but the church does not, they are making an enacted claim about what ‘marriage’ is.
If I read Charlie Bell correctly, it’s more about [to paraphrase retired American footballer Marshawn Lynch] “they’re just trying to not get fired.” Is that really too much to ask, while the church DEBATES its doctrine of marriage?
Rural Liberal
1 month ago
From WATCH: ‘Women are two thirds of our congregations and frankly deserve to be treated equally with men.’
Totally agree, although it struck me that in any other walk of life urgent questions would be being asked about the first bit and what the church intends to do about/is doing about the gender imbalance in the pews/why this is the case and whether it is a problem or not.
I do wonder what the figures look like if you correct for women being overrepresented among older people. I suspect that, while there might still be a discrepancy, it’s not as large as it first appears.
FearandTremolo
1 month ago
I get Charlie’s point and I certainly don’t disagree, but after four years of doctoral study on the theology of marriage all whilst LLF has been going on, it would also be nice if we could start to do some actual theology.
Not partisan Bible quoting, not running out the same old slogans, but some actual scientific theology that would stand up to peer review.
Because my undergrads have a better understanding of the relevant theology than some LLF documents, and I say that as someone who’s very affirming.
Adrian Clarke
1 month ago
I don’t think the theology is difficult, it just needs to be clearly stated. We can then all have a row about it and everyone can then move on. We have had enough muddying the waters with women priests and trans rights, trying not to upset people only to find out years later that trying to keep the lid on things is not the answer. Charle Bell chooses action over theology, which may be why Welby came out with the statement he did on The Rest is Politics Podcast. Bishops could have published their legal advice but haven’t, they could… Read more »
So the decades of dedicated service thousands of women have given to the C of E is just ‘muddying the waters’? The people we have served and loved see it differently. So does the God we serve, who called a woman to be the apostle to the apostles.
‘We can “then’ all have a row about it and e everyone can then move on’. Isn’t ‘the row” precisely what we’re in the middle of at the moment and it’s solution is delayed because one side of the argument seem intent on doing everything but ‘move on”
Perry Butler
1 month ago
I seem to remember a sunset clause was debated in Synod. Opposition was led by David Hope then Bp of London and Preb Pearce ( conservative evangelical) . Twenty five years from memory. It was defeated.
We tried a sunset clause when we debated women bishops too. It too was defeated. But context is everything. Would it be defeated today? Because the first vote about women bishops was defeated in the House of laity due to the 2/3 majority rule there was a lot of anxiety to get the next form of the legislation through. Hence all the details were left out of the legislation and there was quite a lot of us being told from the front that we should just trust the bishops to sort out the details. In my view that has not… Read more »
The question of separate ordinations with traditionalist Episcopal candidates only being ordained by other traditionalist bishops and not by the archbishops was raised in Synod and we were given the impression that this would not be the scenario that developed. In the Canterbury province this is exactly what developed, though it is now stopped. When did it stop? What now happens when there is a ‘traditionalist Episcopal candidate? Or are there no longer any of these? At the moment, I think that Sarah, Bishop of London, is acting ‘in loco’ ……. during the Canterbury vacancy. Is it still happening in… Read more »
My genuine apologies, if I’m mistaken but when you say:
“In the Canterbury province this is exactly what developed, though it is now stopped.”
Are you referring to the Covid practice? If so, is it not fundamentally dishonest too not mention that?
I do not think Synod were thinking “What if there is a pandemic and the Archbishop is consecrating two bishops at a single event: one who believes in male ordination and one who hold be put out if there were no women.”
it was not entirely due to COVID. It was pretty clear it was providing separate consecrations.
Nigel Aston
1 month ago
Martine Oborne wants to dismantle a settlement that is barely a decade old. The timing of her initiative is interesting. It comes just when there is a pragmatic realisation that for LLF to proceed, there must be episcopal provision for those who cannot in conscience subscribe to its likely provisions. Interestingly, even Charlie Bell in his essay recognises as much with his reference to ‘living with doctrinal differences’ and ‘delegated episcopacy’. Cold comfort for them if the WATCH prescription is adopted and traditional Catholics and conservative Evangelicals are now discountenanced by a ‘sunset clause’ or such like. On this showing,… Read more »
“It comes just when there is a pragmatic realisation that for LLF to proceed, there must be episcopal provision for those who cannot in conscience subscribe to its likely provisions.”
There may be a realisation that this is what the homophobic contingent are demanding. It is not at all clear *why* it is deemed necessary, when the far more biblically contentious remarriage of divorcees required no such provision. It looks, once again, like a theology of “taint”, a fear of being contaminated with “the gay” merely by episcopal association.
That doesn’t actually address the question. Jesus explicitly calls remarriage after divorce adultery, which by the logic of your post would make blessing such remarriage affirming sin, just as you claim is the case with PLF. Yet somehow an individual opt-out from conducting these blessings is sufficient but PLF merits an entire new province. There are two explanations here: one is that those opposed to remarriage after divorce didn’t have the numbers to block it so accepted it, which means that the “necessity” is negotiable, or somehow same-sex relationships are worse than persistent, unrepentant adultery, which is not supported by… Read more »
If a church actually believed that adultery should be affirmed and should be blessed then I would agree with you. That would be expressly against the teaching of Christ. I also think some of it comes down to Matthew 5:32 which suggests that divorce may be in cases of marital unfaithfulness. However if a church verbatim taught and suggested that adultery was acceptable and people shouldn’t repent of adultery I think I’d agree that would be an issue where I’d expect some form of church discipline to be applied. Sin shouldn’t be affirmed period, it should be repented of for… Read more »
By a plaintext reading of scripture (so beloved by evangelicals in other circumstances) remarriage after divorce *is* adultery, and churches blessing such marriages are affirming it. My view is that divorce is forbidden by Jesus in the context of the law allowing men to dispose of their wives at will, leaving the wife destitute, and at the same time offered no escape for an abused wife. Jesus is saying that if you trade in your spouse for a younger model, or otherwise abandon them, you’re still committing adultery when you shack up with someone else even if you do the… Read more »
Gareth, My comment appeared some way adrift from the comment I was responding to. To summarise – significant numbers of evangelicals do not think same sex relationship are a ‘red line’ to separate over at all. This includes folk holding conservative views like you but who are willing to work alongside people and churches who bless such relationships even if they do not. They are very unhappy with those pushing the red line one argument in their name. As am I. Gareth you have indeed posted your views on TA a number of times. But you ignore that others have… Read more »
The Bible also teaches that important decisions can be made by casting lots, but I don’t see many evangelicals suggesting we should make appointments in this way now.
God 'elp us all
1 month ago
Regarding women priests. Is there data regarding trends in CofE parishes not being open to the appointment or officiating of women priests- perhaps Ken Eames can advise? Resolutions this or that?
IIRC, parishes need to review, and reaffirm if so, their resulution to that effect? If so, such a ‘one-way valve’ will extinguish such illiberality in the fullness of time? A kind of recognition of ‘sunset’ (to use our earth-based way of describing that routine event?)
Oh dear- the tenor of many of these discussions gets more and more rancorous … maybe the only hope is for a fleet of fiery chariots to descend from the heavens and spirit away those Prophets who are entirely right leaving those who are flawed to struggle away upon earth?
Why would you think it is a one-way valve? One of the jobs of the flying bishops is to help parishes thinking “hang on our male vicar is just about to retire!” (Or otherwise move away)
It didn’t work with St Barnabas, Jericho and St Thomas, Oxford, which are still listed on the Bishop of Oswestry’s website as belonging to his ‘See’, even though women have celebrated mass at both churches in the past two years.
Francis James
1 month ago
Key battleground is fast approaching as Martin Warner reaches retirement age in 2028, assuming he does not retire earlier. Chi has been ultra-high church stronghold since 1974, but it is unlikely to be an easy pushover for them when he goes.
It is The Society status that will not be so easy to enforce once again. Too many have found out that they can be high church without being anti-female.
Martine Oborne’s clarification is a measured response about a sunset clause for, rather than an immediate repudiation of, the Five Guiding Principles. I hope and suspect it will turn out to be the considered view of the majority of parishes.
And what does that say to the large number of young traditionalist clergy who have committed 40 years of service to the church. Are our vocations and ministry unwanted and excluded?
What does the present system say to the women who have already given 40 years of service to the Church, and to those who are thinking of doing so?
Isn’t the answer to allow churches to request that their ministers must be women?
That way the CofE can remain faithful to those with a catholic view of male priesthood, allowing their churches to require male ministers. But that could be done while achieving an equitable balance between women’s and men’s ministries, since churches could choose to be led by women alone, men alone or women and men.
That wouldn’t ensure parity unless dioceses and archdioceses could also stipulate women-only shortlists; and priests and parishes in dioceses where the bishop doesn’t ordain women could opt for alternative episcopal oversight.
In any case, I don’t think the answer to sex discrimination is more sex discrimination.
Interesting. How many young traditionalist priests under 40 are there? How many in training?
However, given the way our system works, General Synod may very well not reflect such a view. Also, I have feeling that many folk, while in theory think one way, in day to day practical terms, they don’t rate it so important? somewhere below ” keeping the show on the road.”
Graeme
it depends on local context a bit. I can think of some parishes in y diocese where people have become more radical / concerned when they realise how their female clergy are sometimes treated by other clergy (and indeed laity).
Bell: ‘I absolutely do believe that sacramental marriage should be opened to all couples. I absolutely do believe that God is already at work in queer marriages and that the church is doing itself a disservice in refusing to recognise this. I am absolutely committed to seeing the doctrine of marriage enlarged and – in being enlarged – enriched. All of that is no surprise. … clergy entering into something the church does not call marriage is not going to change any of that – it cannot. In other words, whilst clergy might enter into a covenant that the state calls marriage,… Read more »
If I read Charlie Bell correctly, it’s more about [to paraphrase retired American footballer Marshawn Lynch] “they’re just trying to not get fired.” Is that really too much to ask, while the church DEBATES its doctrine of marriage?
From WATCH:
‘Women are two thirds of our congregations and frankly deserve to be treated equally with men.’
Totally agree, although it struck me that in any other walk of life urgent questions would be being asked about the first bit and what the church intends to do about/is doing about the gender imbalance in the pews/why this is the case and whether it is a problem or not.
I do wonder what the figures look like if you correct for women being overrepresented among older people. I suspect that, while there might still be a discrepancy, it’s not as large as it first appears.
I get Charlie’s point and I certainly don’t disagree, but after four years of doctoral study on the theology of marriage all whilst LLF has been going on, it would also be nice if we could start to do some actual theology.
Not partisan Bible quoting, not running out the same old slogans, but some actual scientific theology that would stand up to peer review.
Because my undergrads have a better understanding of the relevant theology than some LLF documents, and I say that as someone who’s very affirming.
I don’t think the theology is difficult, it just needs to be clearly stated. We can then all have a row about it and everyone can then move on. We have had enough muddying the waters with women priests and trans rights, trying not to upset people only to find out years later that trying to keep the lid on things is not the answer. Charle Bell chooses action over theology, which may be why Welby came out with the statement he did on The Rest is Politics Podcast. Bishops could have published their legal advice but haven’t, they could… Read more »
So the decades of dedicated service thousands of women have given to the C of E is just ‘muddying the waters’? The people we have served and loved see it differently. So does the God we serve, who called a woman to be the apostle to the apostles.
‘We can “then’ all have a row about it and e everyone can then move on’. Isn’t ‘the row” precisely what we’re in the middle of at the moment and it’s solution is delayed because one side of the argument seem intent on doing everything but ‘move on”
I seem to remember a sunset clause was debated in Synod. Opposition was led by David Hope then Bp of London and Preb Pearce ( conservative evangelical) . Twenty five years from memory. It was defeated.
We tried a sunset clause when we debated women bishops too. It too was defeated. But context is everything. Would it be defeated today? Because the first vote about women bishops was defeated in the House of laity due to the 2/3 majority rule there was a lot of anxiety to get the next form of the legislation through. Hence all the details were left out of the legislation and there was quite a lot of us being told from the front that we should just trust the bishops to sort out the details. In my view that has not… Read more »
The question of separate ordinations with traditionalist Episcopal candidates only being ordained by other traditionalist bishops and not by the archbishops was raised in Synod and we were given the impression that this would not be the scenario that developed. In the Canterbury province this is exactly what developed, though it is now stopped. When did it stop? What now happens when there is a ‘traditionalist Episcopal candidate? Or are there no longer any of these? At the moment, I think that Sarah, Bishop of London, is acting ‘in loco’ ……. during the Canterbury vacancy. Is it still happening in… Read more »
My genuine apologies, if I’m mistaken but when you say:
“In the Canterbury province this is exactly what developed, though it is now stopped.”
Are you referring to the Covid practice? If so, is it not fundamentally dishonest too not mention that?
I do not think Synod were thinking “What if there is a pandemic and the Archbishop is consecrating two bishops at a single event: one who believes in male ordination and one who hold be put out if there were no women.”
it was not entirely due to COVID. It was pretty clear it was providing separate consecrations.
Martine Oborne wants to dismantle a settlement that is barely a decade old. The timing of her initiative is interesting. It comes just when there is a pragmatic realisation that for LLF to proceed, there must be episcopal provision for those who cannot in conscience subscribe to its likely provisions. Interestingly, even Charlie Bell in his essay recognises as much with his reference to ‘living with doctrinal differences’ and ‘delegated episcopacy’. Cold comfort for them if the WATCH prescription is adopted and traditional Catholics and conservative Evangelicals are now discountenanced by a ‘sunset clause’ or such like. On this showing,… Read more »
“It comes just when there is a pragmatic realisation that for LLF to proceed, there must be episcopal provision for those who cannot in conscience subscribe to its likely provisions.”
There may be a realisation that this is what the homophobic contingent are demanding. It is not at all clear *why* it is deemed necessary, when the far more biblically contentious remarriage of divorcees required no such provision. It looks, once again, like a theology of “taint”, a fear of being contaminated with “the gay” merely by episcopal association.
I did explain this in some depth here:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/opinion-16-april-2025/#comment-483795
It’s because evangelicals consider this a first order salvation issue.
Why?
In short because of what the Bible teaches.
That doesn’t actually address the question. Jesus explicitly calls remarriage after divorce adultery, which by the logic of your post would make blessing such remarriage affirming sin, just as you claim is the case with PLF. Yet somehow an individual opt-out from conducting these blessings is sufficient but PLF merits an entire new province. There are two explanations here: one is that those opposed to remarriage after divorce didn’t have the numbers to block it so accepted it, which means that the “necessity” is negotiable, or somehow same-sex relationships are worse than persistent, unrepentant adultery, which is not supported by… Read more »
If a church actually believed that adultery should be affirmed and should be blessed then I would agree with you. That would be expressly against the teaching of Christ. I also think some of it comes down to Matthew 5:32 which suggests that divorce may be in cases of marital unfaithfulness. However if a church verbatim taught and suggested that adultery was acceptable and people shouldn’t repent of adultery I think I’d agree that would be an issue where I’d expect some form of church discipline to be applied. Sin shouldn’t be affirmed period, it should be repented of for… Read more »
By a plaintext reading of scripture (so beloved by evangelicals in other circumstances) remarriage after divorce *is* adultery, and churches blessing such marriages are affirming it. My view is that divorce is forbidden by Jesus in the context of the law allowing men to dispose of their wives at will, leaving the wife destitute, and at the same time offered no escape for an abused wife. Jesus is saying that if you trade in your spouse for a younger model, or otherwise abandon them, you’re still committing adultery when you shack up with someone else even if you do the… Read more »
“In short because of what the Bible teaches.”
Can I just help with that.
‘IN short, because of what [some conservative evangelicals think] the Bible teaches’
No. Not all evangelicals do – even not all the holding conservative views.
Gareth, My comment appeared some way adrift from the comment I was responding to. To summarise – significant numbers of evangelicals do not think same sex relationship are a ‘red line’ to separate over at all. This includes folk holding conservative views like you but who are willing to work alongside people and churches who bless such relationships even if they do not. They are very unhappy with those pushing the red line one argument in their name. As am I. Gareth you have indeed posted your views on TA a number of times. But you ignore that others have… Read more »
The Bible also teaches that important decisions can be made by casting lots, but I don’t see many evangelicals suggesting we should make appointments in this way now.
Regarding women priests. Is there data regarding trends in CofE parishes not being open to the appointment or officiating of women priests- perhaps Ken Eames can advise? Resolutions this or that?
IIRC, parishes need to review, and reaffirm if so, their resulution to that effect? If so, such a ‘one-way valve’ will extinguish such illiberality in the fullness of time? A kind of recognition of ‘sunset’ (to use our earth-based way of describing that routine event?)
Oh dear- the tenor of many of these discussions gets more and more rancorous … maybe the only hope is for a fleet of fiery chariots to descend from the heavens and spirit away those Prophets who are entirely right leaving those who are flawed to struggle away upon earth?
Why would you think it is a one-way valve? One of the jobs of the flying bishops is to help parishes thinking “hang on our male vicar is just about to retire!” (Or otherwise move away)
It didn’t work with St Barnabas, Jericho and St Thomas, Oxford, which are still listed on the Bishop of Oswestry’s website as belonging to his ‘See’, even though women have celebrated mass at both churches in the past two years.
Key battleground is fast approaching as Martin Warner reaches retirement age in 2028, assuming he does not retire earlier. Chi has been ultra-high church stronghold since 1974, but it is unlikely to be an easy pushover for them when he goes.
Why do you think its continuing high church status is in doubt?
It is The Society status that will not be so easy to enforce once again. Too many have found out that they can be high church without being anti-female.
That sounds like good news.