Ok, so let's try and make this a more reasoned, less impassioned response to this weeks vote in General Synod on the issue of women Bishops....and, in true Trinitarian tradition, it'll be in 3 parts!
The Show Must Go On...
First thing to say is that obviously I was gutted and sobbed after the result, and still sometimes cry now when I think about it.
[and cue random rant on stereotypes......'oh that's typical of a woman, crying!'...ermmmmm, many men shed a tear on the result, Archbishop Rowan Williams looked totally destroyed, and when Jesus was on earth He too wept at times (John 11.35) which is just typical isn't it of that Jesus and His 'caring' way (oh hang on, isn't caring a feminine attribute, oh yes so it is, maybe His followers and those who lead His flock should be like him and be feminine too?!....). Note:I don't agree with ANY of these or other stereotypes, I was just having a rant to show the hypocrisy of it! The fact that gender stereotypes are so outdated in today's modern Western society and therefore too is the idea that a woman's place is in the quiet and background and underneath a male, was noted wonderfully by Andrew Brown in The Guardian on Tuesday, when he spoke on the result of General Synod's vote: "One speaker said, as if it mattered: 'I don't believe that this is legislation that will allow the world to look at the church tonight and see Jesus Christ'; and no one pointed out that back on planet earth, the world will look at the church today and say: 'Jesus Christ!'" To re-state what I said in my last post, I do not feel a need in the slightest to argue for women Bishops, purely because it is so clear that in today's culture, it is necessary. Indeed, it was necessary 20 years ago!..at least!! Instead I will simply make 3 points -we currently have a Queen who rules our country (not a male King), we've had a female Prime Minister and it's a certainty that we will again at some stage, and, as Reverend Richard Coles (yes also from The Communards of 1980's 'Don't Leave Me This Way' fame!) facebook statused, "Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, said Mary Magdalene, the first person Jesus entrusted with the news of the resurrection, and the rest of us are still running to catch up with her."].
Anyway, where was I?! Yes, it was a sad day indeed, not just for me personally, but for the whole of The Church and Christianity in today's society. A few individuals might have been happy with the result, but for the Church as a whole, it was, in the words of Bishop Christopher Lowson (Bishop of Lincoln), "a very dark day for the church" indeed.
The second thing to say is that today I am feeling much better than I was Tuesday evening, mainly because of all the messages expressing sorrow for the result, understanding on how much of a huge personal blow it is to many female Priests, and encouragement, support and affirmation of women's callings and ministry within the Church..and many of these messages, it has to be said, were from senior male clergy in the Church. For instance, Bishop Christopher (and I'm sure Bishops in other dioceses did similar) sent an email to all female Priests within Lincoln Diocese to express his "deep sadness and disappointment in the wake of" the vote; to inform us that he shared with the "profound sense of shock and bewilderment felt on the floor of General Synod when the result of the vote was announced"; to reassure us that the vote was "not representative of the whole Synod nor of the will of the Church of England" (I will come on to this later); to note that he is "committed to doing all that" he can to help "work for the day when those women who are called to be bishops in the Church of England can fulfil that calling"; and to affirm that "God has called you to his service" and, in his words, "I want to assure you of my prayers and my gratitude for your ministry in the Diocese of Lincoln. Without the ministry of women here, the church would be much the poorer and our mission diminished." It makes sense for me to write most about Bishop Christopher's response as he is 'my' Bishop, but many, many other people, both ordained and not, both religious and not, have expressed similar sentiments in the press and/or privately to individual female Priests, and I for one have been very thankful for that. I was also grateful for these simple, yet profound, thoughts from Archbishop Rowan, following the result in Synod: "God remains God, our call remains our call, and our church remains our church."
With all this in mind yesterday, I came home from visiting someone unwell who hugged and kissed me and thanked me so much for coming, I looked at the cards around my lounge expressing thanks for weddings and funerals conducted in just the last couple of months, I logged onto my emails to receive one asking for my address so school children can post their letters of thanks they've written to me for coming to their school, and picked up an answer machine message from someone asking to see me so they can give me a thank you gift, so, in the words of classic rock band Queen, I thought, "The show must go on, yeah, the show must go on, yeah, I'll face it with a grin, I'm never giving in!! On with the show!......."
So, I put on my dog collar, went to work, and changed my facebook status to "A woman's place is in The House of Bishops...hope all female clergy are wearing purple today" -following my friend Reverend Gillian Barrow's suggestion to wear purple, which I saw others later suggesting too. And I was pleased that many female clergy, lay members of the church, and even non-religious females, did indeed wear purple for the day (I hate to be patronising, but someone asked me 'why purple' so just to tell people who are unsure, purple is the colour of a Bishop's shirt).
Don't Stop Believin'...
Right then, on to the issue I really want to discuss, and that's to explain to those that don't know, that Tuesdays vote in Synod was NOT the Church of England saying no to women Bishops. Sadly this is how the mainstream media has advertised it, and this is how many (even some in Synod themselves!) perceive it. But that's not actually the case.
Firstly, to re-state what I said in my previous post, 42 out of 44 dioceses in The Church of England voted in favour of women Bishops. Then at General Synod, The House of Bishops voted 93.6% in favour of women Bishop, and The House of Clergy voted 76.7% in favour, but the House of Laity only voted 64.1% in favour. In order for a notion to be passed in General Synod, there needs to be two thirds majority in favour of the notion, in each individual 'house'. Clearly there was much more than two thirds majority in the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy, but sadly the House was Laity was just 1% short of having the two thirds majority (in other words, 6 individual votes).
The main thing I want to say is that the failing seems to be with the voting system:
a) IF a majority (i.e. more than half) in each house was needed, the notion would be passed.
b) IF two thirds majority of all General Synod members was needed, the notion would be passed -'adding' the 'houses' together, shows that there is a total of 78.1% of members of General Synod in favour of women Bishops (I hope I've done the maths right!).
c) IF we relied on those who are meant to lead us, and guide us to what we should do, then the notion would be passed (as nearly all Bishops agreed to it, and then a vast majority of clergy agreed to it too).
Therefore, I, like many others in the C of E, think the real failing is of the current decision making process that exists in the C of E.
I want to unpack statement 'c)' more though...There are many Biblical references I could point to in the discussion of female Bishops and the decision making in the Church, but the only one I wish to point to today is Romans 12.4-8, particularly verses 4-6a: "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us." You do not have to be a Christian to know that we all have different gifts or abilities, things we are good at and things we are more naturally able to do as opposed to other things -whether that's remembering facts, people skills, music, cookery, maths, whatever, etc etc. Now Bishops, they have proven to be able and good pastors, administrators, leaders and managers of churches or other Christian bodies, and prayerful people, who, after a lengthy process of discernment (including prayerfully listening to what the Holy Spirit is saying), have been appointed in the role of Bishop. They have been placed in those roles for a reason, and that reason is because they can do that 'job'. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't speak with laity and ask their opinion, of course we should, they make up a huge chunk of the church, and clergy, like Bishops, are serving them after all. I mean, personally, I minister for God and His people. But what I am saying is, have they all the same skills, knowledge and experience as Bishops?! No, clearly not. Think of it this way...when making an important decision about a school, would you ask the children??..Clearly you would be very unwise not to gauge their opinion and talk with them about why they might prefer one thing to another, but ultimately, would you think it wise for them to make the final decision? Of course you wouldn't. You would want the teachers, and much more so, the head teacher to make a major decision about the future way forward of the nation's children. The children simply don't have the same skills, knowledge and experience as a head teacher to make such decisions. Similarly, it just makes sense to place more weight on the opinion and decisions of Bishops, over and above the laity.
Finally, on this matter, voting in General Synod this week, there were just 49 members of the House of Bishops, with 193 in the House of Clergy, and an overwhelming 206 in the House of Laity, which clearly gives more weight to the laities decision making powers than the Bishops, which I have just suggested is perhaps misguided (at best).
Also, something I don't personally have great knowledge on, I must confess, but I'm sure General Synod were not voting on simply 'whether women should be allowed to be Bishops or not'. That vote has happened previously, and been voted in favour that women should be Bishops. The recent vote was on HOW that was to become a reality, and for a long time a certain number of individuals have been working on a piece of legislation that will make that possible (while trying to 'please' as many as were originally against it as possible). This current vote was about that specific piece of legislation, which was, as we know, voted against. Therefore this is not a 'no' to women Bishops on the whole, but a 'no' to women Bishops being a reality in that particular way. Sadly, the mainstream media, the general public, and most people, including some members of General Synod, failed to notice that! I think it's clear that several members of the House of Laity in General Synod failed (either deliberately or not) to notice that they were voting against this particular piece of legislation as they acted as if they were voting on something that had already been passed, which was demonstrated in the talks given in Synod (I wasn't there personally, so am going on reports here). Sadly, this shows a profound lack of understating. To overly simplify the matter, I'll explain with an uncomplicated and therefore unsophisticated example...it's as if one of the churches I work in were to vote on whether they wanted to continue to have their Eucharist service at 10:30 or move it to 9:30. Imagine there were more in favour of moving it to 9:30, and then we had another vote about whether we were to have an informal family service at 9:30 or not. Those who voted not to have an informal family service at 9:30, not because they didn't want a family service, but because they still wanted a 10:30 service, are like those who voted no to this piece of legislation not because they didn't want this legislation but because they didn't want what had previously been decided in a former vote which happened to link to this current piece of legislation. So you see, the few against were trying to argue against something that had already been agreed on. Now I don't have a problem with people not understanding this and recognised this themselves, though I think the British media could have easily clarified this point (but that would have drawn away from the radical headlines of a sexist church). But, I do have a problem with this, if you were on General Synod! No, it's not their fault if they didn't comprehend the actual matter at task, but if they are lacking in cognitive abilities why would they allow themselves to be nominated and voted into Synod?!..where we assume a certain amount of cognitive ability and rationality. It would be like me allowing myself to be nominated and voted into a choir, when I clearly lack the abilities to sing! If you don't understand what's going on at General Synod, sit back, stay at home, and let those who do, do!
And on another matter, don't anyone try to argue to me about unity...
1) Some things are more important than unity (love, peace, etc).
2) If 4 out of 5 people wanted to rob a bank, would you let the 4 people go ahead and rob the bank so to keep 'unity' between the more people the better?! I most certainly hope not!
3) 72.6% of Synod members, and 96.6% of C of E dioceses (that percentage should be the results of 42 out of 44 diocese, if I've done it right!) simply do want women Bishops! So surely unity/keeping the Church together, would be better achieved if we did allow women to be Bishops.
I wanna live, I wanna love, but it's a long hard road, out of hell...
So, what next?! Where are we left now?? Well, there isn't an easy answer, sadly. Clearly the decision not to ordain woman as Bishops needs to be overturned as soon as possible. This is not going to be achieved by resigning, and I think I wrongly used the word 'resign' in my previous post, leading to all sorts of speculation on my position! The word I should have used was 'strike'. The sad thing about striking, or even resigning, is that the very people you are seeking to serve, and actually who uphold and value your ministry, are the very people who would be let down -something I clearly wish to avoid. They would be let down, simply because you would not be able to minister to them should you down tools, so to speak, and I actually have no desire to down tools, since I do enjoy my job/ministry. But, where does that leave our conscience?? If we continue to work for an organisation that refuses to wholly and fully accept our ministry, is it morally and spiritually right to continue working for such a group?? These are the questions I find myself faced with. And the answer is no, clearly it is not right to bury our heads in the sand and continue as if nothing has happened. Instead we need to work towards the day when women's ministry will be fully and wholly accepted by humanity (since it is clearly already accepted by God, and by ordaining women as Bishop's we'll just be running to catch up with God!..and even then will only be half way there, with our next stop needing to be gay, lesbian and bisexual Bishops, followed by transgendered Bishops, gay marriage, and a whole heap of other things that we are sadly yet to achieve).
How do we seek to achieve this though?!? A few suggestions, which are not endless.....
a) Seeking to work towards the next time the vote happens on women Bishops that it will get voted through -through education, prayer, publicity, actually getting of our bottoms and doing something, etc!
b) Similar to a), working to change the current decision making process in the Church of England. Basically, reform General Synod.
c) Another thing I have contemplated is not wearing my dog collar until such time comes as women are, finally, allowed in the episcopate, and encouraging others to do the same. This might not achieve much other than raising awareness, but that in itself would be a positive thing. However, I've decided against this (unless someone can convince me otherwise, which I'm still fairly open to!), since women are still Priests and we don't want that 'sign' of our office taken away.
d) Striking and getting as many other female clergy to strike as possible.
e) Chaining myself to Church House in London, until the decision is over turned. And I would of course try to encourage others to do the same, both clergy and laity. Hopefully this would provide a certain amount of media coverage and show how committed we are to this cause.
The idea of chaining myself to Church House, London, is one that I am, worryingly, growing ever nearer too. I had just 2 concerns with it, and 1 has already been sorted. My first concern was how you'd go to the toilet!..you have to think of these things after all..and thankfully my very good, and possibly closest, friend, Laura Rawlins, suggested I got a small pop up tent to go to the loo in and a chain long enough to let me get into this tent! Thanks mate! Sorted! :) My second concern is my actual work! The only thing I can think is that next week I'm due off anyway and have some time booked off for after Christmas, so maybe I could move the time to put it all together and take it as time off work while I'm chained to Church House instead. The main problem with this, is, what would I do after the couple of weeks was up if women were still in the likely position that they cannot be Bishops?! Would I stay chained there and hope, or sulk back to work like a looser??? Then again, clearly this cause if part of my work, so could I try to stay there anyway?! This, chaining myself to Church House in London, is something I am seriously considering so please let me know if anyone is considering joining me or would even give it some thought, or if anyone has any thoughts, or messages from above, about this!!
My final remark is to assure people that there will be women as Bishops in the Church of England soon. That is not a dream, not an ideal that will never be achieved, but look at the statistics I point to in the second part of this post.., women will be Bishops, it is coming soon, how it happens and when it happens is up to us..the future is exciting, yes?! The future is ours! :)
I really hope I've got all the maths right here folks!!..I mean the percentages stuff,..well I tried my best!
ReplyDelete