The Lead

In American football, a desperate long forward pass when the clock is running out is called a "Hail Mary." The Church Times doesn't use that language, of course, but in a lead editorial they call the Archbishop's proposal to have traditionalist parishes have their own bishops while still under the jurisdiction of women bishops a last minute plan "to save the day."

LAWYER’S TRICK or work of theological insight? Probably the former. Cutting the Gordian knot, or teasing out enough of a thread for people to cling on to? Probably the latter. Whatever the verdict, it was a good sign that the Archbishops’ intervention in the women-bishops saga on Monday was met, in the main, by puzzled silence. The debate has been going on so long that all the players are adept at spotting hidden agendas, sometimes even when there isn’t one: yes, this sounds concessionary, but where’s the beef? Well, in this instance, the Archbishops claim to have served a generous portion to the traditionalists without taking anything off the plate of the women bishops. Is this true?
There is no doubt that, under the Archbishops’ proposal, discrimination will persist within the Church of England. There will continue to be parishes where only men may minister. At the same time, traditionalist parishes have to swallow the fact that they will be under the direct authority of the diocesan bishop, whether man or woman. In this respect, the new solution seems no solution....

The editors of the Church Times hopes that the Archbishop's proposal will pass in some form. They believe that the current legislation now before the Synod will, as it stands, shift discrimination that is now experienced by women to traditionalists.

As we have said, discrimination will continue; but it is a fiction to suppose that it might be ended by the unamended legislation at present before the Synod. The discrimination would just shift from one group to another. What the Archbishops have constructed is another fiction — that all can exist constructively within the one body despite opposing views. But, arguably, this is a fiction that accords more closely with the Anglican project, at least, as we have understood it hitherto — much more Anglican, we would suggest, than wrangles about jurisdiction. Nor is this a romantic fiction, in that it tampers very little with the grit of the draft Measure and the Code of Practice. But if it manages to re-introduce good will into the debate, it has a chance to succeed.

Their hope is that the Archbishop's "hail Mary" will somehow end all discrimination is also fiction. The Archbishop's propose to regulate discrimination, not end it, by somehow being both for and against women's ordination at they very same time.

Comments (6)

Oh poor babies - going to be discriminated against - guess that's what 2000 years of oppression gets for you. They should be so oppressed as women have been over the centuries. I know they think they stand on theological ground but it is a house of built on sand.

Posted by Ann Fontaine | June 25, 2010 8:51 AM

It is completely unclear to me how the traditionalists will be discriminated against. Will they lose jobs? There is no sign that they will. Will they lose Episcopates? Only in Dioceses that would not have had them anyway.

Is the discrimination that they will no longer be allowed to discriminate? That their theological ecclesiastical position will not rule the day?

The Episcopal Church has moved beyond the hegemony of those who hold their breath if they don't get what they want. They response to them on both sides of the puddle should simply be, "This is not a matter pertaining to salvation, it is too bad you do not like it or agree with it, but this is the position the Church has adopted. We are sad that you cannot be flexible enough to live within such a church, but that is your problem, not ours."

Of course the real key here is money, but at least when they leave all those nice building will still belong to the C of E.

Posted by Michael Russell | June 25, 2010 10:52 AM

It's pretty obvious that the Archbishop's highest priority is keeping things together, at least as far as the "conservative/traditionalists" are concerned. I am dismayed at his willingness and even his insistance that women and LGBT folks continue to pay for the comfort of those who refuse to allow that God might be doing a new thing in some places. Saddest of all, he doesn't seem to be acheiving his goal because it's falling apart anyway. He does not challenge the selective Biblical interpretation of those who are screaming for faithfulness to scripture. He allows himself to be bullied by some of the renegades and publically insults others (like us). Perhaps this as good as it gets for now. I'd hate to have his job.

Posted by Peter Pearson | June 25, 2010 11:04 AM

Sacrificing justice on the altar of unity is to worship a False God.

Posted by Elizabeth Kaeton | June 25, 2010 11:14 AM

In addition to the Hail Mary tactic, the archbishop's are using another sports tactic holding onto the ball until the last minute to run out the clock:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=96685

The amendment has not yet been formally submitted; so it is not known precisely how the Archbishops propose to change the draft legislation. They are expected to table the amendment at the last possible moment, 5.30 p.m. next Wednesday (30 June), in order to prevent its being further amended.

Posted by John B. Chilton | June 25, 2010 12:53 PM

But if it manages to re-introduce good will into the debate, it has a chance to succeed.

That's an awfully big if. Whose good will? The traditionalists' good will? Women and those who support equality in the Church of England?

Once again, women are being asked to sacrifice themselves on the altar of submission to the patriarchy.

June Butler

Posted by GrandmèreMimi | June 25, 2010 7:46 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations