Support the Café
Search our site

Kicking the can down the road

Kicking the can down the road

Bishop Alan Wilson reflects on the legislative changes that Bishops added to legislation allowing for the ordination of women to the episcopate. He names two lies behind all the machinations: that it is not about sex and this does not regularize discrimination. What the Bishops cannot let go of, Wilson says, is the culture of sexism and sanctioned discrimination.

He writes:

So, where has the C of E got to this week on Ministry and gender?

Assuming Les Six have done their stuff, an amended scheme will go before the General Synod in a few days time.

Down the road leading here two mantras have pullulated behind the discussion:

(1) “This isn’t, of course, about gender. Perish the Thought.”

This assertion is a lie. It is, and it always was. Discriminatory is as discriminatory does. It is not for the discriminator to judge the matter, based on their intentions, but those discriminated against, based on what actually happens. All else is illusion.

(2) “This is about theology not discrimination.”

This assertion is a lie. However you tart it up, Trevor Huddleston showed us years ago, discriminating is actually a theological assertion. Imagine, as I have attempted sincerely to do, that there is a theology that justifies treating women, against their will and calling, as inferior. I can’t conceive of such a thing, but let’s suspend disbelief for a moment. What is the difference between that noble theology and cultural prejudice dressed in voodoo? At no time in the past five years has anyone showed me. All that unites reactionaries in this matter seems to be a cultural prejudice against seeing women in positions of authority, reinforced by a reactionary subculture. It is every bit as much drawn from the contemporary world’s values as progressive aspiration. It’s just drawn from the reactionary quarter of them.

So, for synod members, it’s what one game show used to call make-up-your-mind-time, for the next five years anyway.

If the Church needs a gender-neutral ministry, something the vast majority of people believe to be right, this scheme does not deliver that. It is fundamentally inequitable and discriminatory. The best condoms do not have holes in them, however small. There is no telling what monstrous births may take place in the various caves of Adullam this measure potentially creates. It could be a step in the right direction, but it will retain the Church’s institutional sexism in a way most people outside the bubble find puzzling and, ultimately, morally disgusting.

If what matters most is the lesser matter of allowing women to be bishops, this scheme does finagle that. In itself the eventual presence of women in the house of bishops might be able to achieve what the present set-up couldn’t for the institution, and plug the hole in the bucket. In a down and dirty world this won’t be the first time in human affairs tulips were grown on dung.

As to the leadership of the Church in synod, a lifetime of pretending, whilst trying to set their course on dead reckoning and politics with only an occasional star sight, scarcely prepares them to exercise moral leadership at a critical moment. Most episcopal palaces are emitting a loud and eloquent silence now. Many of our senior men probably thought on Monday that all they were doing was giving the women what they wanted whilst being as nice as possible to the other lot. That’s why you can’t see them for dust now.

It’s Touch and Go, I’d say.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeffrey L. Shy, M.D.

As I have read/re-read and listened to commentary, I think that the most disturbing aspect of this is not just the “delegation” issue but that it is clear that “not just any male” bishop will do. The statement suggest that congregations must be given a bishop who agrees with them on the issue of women’s ordination. There is, therefore, not just the issue of gender of the bishop but of the _beliefs_ of the bishop to be assigned to them.

Obviously, this is disturbing in that it will merely reinforce the isolationism that these parishes are being granted, and will contribute to and perpetuate the cult of the “real” and “orthodox” churches as a special isolate from the rest of the “heterodox” CofE. It will clearly limit these parishes from ever having a chance to meaningfully engage the issue. It is rather like the Pope’s appointment of as many conservative bishops or cardinals as possible during his tenure, which is calculated to continue the “Status quo” at high cost and in perpetuity.

Secondly, it strays dangerously close to Donatism which seems, most of the time, to not concern these so-called “orthodox” churches at all.

If anyone thinks that I am misinterpreting the sense of the “selection recommendations” then they need only read today’s statement from the ABC/ABY on this matter:

” simply providing any male bishop would not do justice to the theological convictions lying behind requests from some parishes.”

In fairness, should this now not work BOTH ways? If a parish is in a diocese where the bishop’s beliefs are against their “theological convictions” (e.g. a church where parishioners are “For” women bishops, LGBT partnerships, etc. in a diocese where the bishop is not), should they not also be able to request “delegation” to someone who can “effectively minister” to their needs?

David Allen

I rise to second the nomination.

Brother David

Ann Fontaine

Alan Wilson for ABC!!

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café