The Lead

UPDATE: From Thinking Anglicans

The Group of Six (the six officers of the General Synod) has determined, by a majority, that the two amendments made by the House of Bishops to the draft Women Bishops Legislation do not alter the substance of the proposals, and so do not require a further reference to the dioceses. Their decision is contained in this press release.

MORE UPDATES:
From The Anglican Journal, Anglican Church of Canada:

Meeting in York on May 21, the House of Bishops of the Church of England concluded its consideration of long-awaited and much-debated draft legislation to permit the consecration of women as bishops. The legislation will go before the General Synod in July for final approval.

But in a move that has many women fuming, the bishops made two cop-out amendments to the draft measure. The first change would allow traditionalist parishes that reject the authority of female bishops to opt out and have recourse to an alternate bishop "consistent with the theological convictions" (code for male).

If, for example, a parish in the diocese of a female bishop does not recognize her authority, upon request, the bishop could delegate her powers to a male colleague to serve that parish.

The amendment is careful to say that although the alternative male bishop derives his legal authority from the diocesan woman bishop who appoints him, the authority to exercise the office of bishop comes from his own ordination.

Those who support women bishops view this as making women second-class bishops. Those opposed believe that a male bishop should not derive his episcopal authority from a woman in any way.

The second alteration concerns a new code of practice for bishops in the event the consecration of women bishops is approved. Guidance will be provided to the diocesan bishop for selecting the male bishops and priests who will minister in parishes whose parochial church councils have requested male-only clergy for theological reasons. The guidance will ensure that the exercise of ministry by bishops and priests appointed to serve in parishes objecting to female bishops will be consistent with those objections.

From Rosa Silverman's article in The Independent:

A female priest has compared the Church of England to an abusive husband following controversial last-minute changes to plans allowing women to be bishops.

The Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, interim principal of Durham University's Ustinov College, branded the Church an "abusive institution" and questioned whether women should stay or flee.

She wrote in a blog post: "The question for women priests today is: do we stay with this abusive institution?

"Do we stay, hoping it will get better? Do we stay, because we feel called by God to be in this marriage? Do we stay, thinking we can continue to try to change it from the inside?

"Or do we flee to the nearest refuge (let's ignore the fact for now that they rarely exist) - leaving home, family, community, and our dreams behind?"

...

Dr Threlfall-Holmes, a member of the General Synod and also a historian, has been outspoken about women's ordination in previous blog posts.

She wrote on Monday: "One of the reasons women's ordination is important is because women's current exclusion from the church hierarchy justifies and entrenches sexist attitudes which have very serious consequences for women around the world.

"Rape, sexual abuse, violence against women and women's political and economic subjugation are repeatedly justified on the basis that it is 'natural' and 'God-given' that women should be below men on some divine hierarchy."

Sally Barnes, from Women and the Church (Watch), said the group fully backed Dr Threlfall-Holmes:

"What Miranda is saying, and what others have also said, is women in the Church are being treated in an abusive way and it contributes to the way some people view women in society and reinforces that negative view."

Men and women, both lay and ordained, had expressed anger over the latest proposed changes to legislation paving the way for women bishops, she said.

The amendments, agreed at a meeting of the House of Bishops, clarify the position of male bishops appointed to minister to objectors and ensure that these bishops also share the same views on women's ordination as those parishes that object.

The changes have been made after a decade of torturous wrangling over how to introduce women bishops within the Church of England while making adequate provision for traditionalists.

The amendments came after 42 out of the 44 dioceses of the Church of England voted to back legislation introducing women bishops.

Comments (12)

I think "abusive" is a poor choice of term to define this current situation.

Posted by Nicole Porter | May 24, 2012 8:05 PM

"Abusive" is the word for it. Relentless, misogynistic, and abusive. And don't anyone quote the Bible at me. There's lots in the Bible we as well as strict readers of the Bible don't follow so there are reasons other than "it's in the scriptures" that cause people to choose a restrictive, misogynistic, abusive reading of scripture. When the abusiveness rears its head once again, I ask myself the same questions as the women in the CofE. I stay for the little girl, 15 years ago, who looked up for the first time at a woman presiding over worship in her church, me, and just beamed! That and the fact I'm very lucky being where I am. Still, my heart falls when, once again, every time this stuff that implies women are not fit matter for ordination crops up.

Posted by Lois Keen | May 24, 2012 8:39 PM

"Lend your voices only to sounds of freedom
No longer lend your strength to that which you
wish to be free from" Jewel, Life Uncommon

Those lines continually remind me of the abusive institutions that we occasionally tie ourselves to.

Threlfall-Holmes' observation and comparison to an abusive marriage is absolutely right on. It comes down to how people are treated and valued, and the fact is that the sausage-fest that is the CofE house of bishops routinely demonstrates that it does not value women at all.

It is perfectly logical to ask whether to invest any more time and effort into an institution that shows no sign of treating women as equals. Especially given that the law of the land is way ahead of the church.

Posted by Dave Paisley | May 25, 2012 12:26 AM

I think comparisons to an abusive relationship is an insult to those who were actually in those types of relationships or had to grow up around it, like myself. Is this situation unfair to women who might be suited for the episcopate? Yes. Abusive? Absolutely not, I resent that to the highest degree.

Posted by Nicole Porter | May 25, 2012 1:45 AM

Why, yes. Not being able to wear a pointy hat on the job is exactly the same as being slapped around by an abusive husband or boyfriend. It's nice to know that the language is not becoming overwrought and people are not becoming overly emotional.

Posted by Christopher Johnson | May 25, 2012 5:01 AM

After getting over the initial frustration I feel every time I read about this, the only thing I'm left with is sheer wonder at the absolute absurdity of it all. It is so Kafkaesque that I want to laugh at it, except I know this is real and these are not characters or actors caught in the unfolding drama. At which point, I am left shaking my head in shame. No wonder we, the Church, are seen as irrelevant by so many.

Lord, have mercy.

Posted by Jeff Mann | May 25, 2012 8:13 AM

@Jeff: Agree. In a day and age when organized faith faces so many challenges, why would we not want to throw open the door wide to all who may be called to serve and get the very best clergy we can. The CoE seems determined to make its own path forward difficult.

Eric Bonetti

Posted by E B | May 25, 2012 8:43 AM

Nicole and Christopher, I strongly disagree. The metaphor does not diminish the injustice perpetrated against women in abusive relationships at all. In fact, it highlights the pervasiveness of such.

You are right. It is not a physical abuse. At least there are laws against such allowing the victim to have some recourse against the perpetrator, though sadly it is hardly the case that they ever receive justice. However, there are many kinds of abuse that are much more subtle, and acceptable by polite society. I find the latter equally horrifying because it is institutionalized and supported by "good" people.

Then again, being forced to use separate bathrooms due to one's color isn't abusive either, I suppose.

Posted by Jeff Mann | May 25, 2012 8:53 AM

It is all of a piece -- from making women second class citizens of any institution to emotional abuse to physical abuse -- once you say women are unequal - the door is opened to using women as objects. Justifying it as somehow "of God" just makes it all the more terrible.

Posted by Ann Fontaine | May 25, 2012 9:00 AM

As one who was abused - verbally and physically - let me say in the strongest of terms that this is abuse. It's systemic abuse - leaving no visible bruises or marks but just as painful and damaging to the heart and soul.

Ultimately, not only women but men suffer from this abuse. And, the church - oh, the church - suffers from the abuse whenever discrimination is enshrined in canon law.

Men of quality are neither intimidated nor lessened by equality for women.

The two amendments are nothing more than a canonical jock strap, protecting men once women are allowed on the purple playing field.

I understand that 'Unity' - trying to keep Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics at the table - is ostensibly the intent of the two amendments. It's a foolish move. Discrimination and prejudice are rarely appeased in this way. It simply opens the door for more discrimination - and more abuse.

How long, O Lord, how long?

Posted by Elizabeth Kaeton | May 25, 2012 9:32 AM

Elizabeth: "Men of quality are neither intimidated nor lessened by equality for women."

Never was a truer word spoken...

Posted by Dave Paisley | May 25, 2012 1:02 PM

So why do they stay? Why did they want to become priests in the first place? Something about the sacraments, and the presence of Jesus Christ?

Posted by Chris Arnold | May 26, 2012 8:20 AM

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