THERE ARE, of course, no women bishops in the Church of England; nor will there be for several years. This means that there is a long time in which to reflect on the outcome of Monday’s vote in the General Synod. It is clear that the mind of the majority in Synod was against introducing a legally separate body for those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops, and who is to say that this does not reflect the mind of the Church at large? Apart from the wish to represent generally the view of those in the pews, it is probable that last week’s talks of splits relating to the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) made the Synod even warier than it might formerly have been of anything that looked as if it encouraged formal division. At issue now is whether the manner in which women bishops will be introduced will lead to just such a division in any case.
In their disappointment at the rejection of any structural provision, traditionalists must take comfort from the clear rejection of a naked, single-clause Measure. In one sense, the Bishop of Durham’s plea for an adjournment was heeded; for the outcome of Monday’s vote cannot be fully known until a code is drafted. The content of the code is, of course, important; but even more important is a clearer idea of how firmly it will be adhered to. Much rests on the interpretation of the word “statutory” inserted into Monday’s motion. As the Manchester report records, the legal status of a code is unclear. To insist that bishops “have regard to” it does not make it enforceable. On the other hand, legal challenges may be permissible if they deviate from it.
It was interesting that GAFCON suggested that the issue of women’s ministry was a second-order matter, i.e. not one that warranted a split. This reflects the largely Evangelical nature of the Jerusalem conference; it nevertheless has some support from the experience of the Church of England over the past three decades. As many dioceses can attest, it is possible for pro- and anti-women parishes to work successfully together, given the mutual trust that ought to be second nature to Christians. Legislation is only necessary where trust is lacking. Traditionalists, understandably, will want to see how those who made fond assurances during the debate plan to build that trust, particularly in the light of what has happened to the assurances made 15 years ago (and reiterated as recently as November 2000).
In the mean time, the inevitability of a pro-women-bishops vote on Monday should not prevent the marking of another milestone in the regularising of women’s leadership. As so many women priests have shown, there will be super bishops in the Church of England in future, and they will be women.
|
back to Comment
previous story
|
next story 
back to top%231%23.gif "Army Chapliancy Blog © site")
