FIRST, let me state my
own position, somewhat fence-sitting though it is. Although I long
for closer communion with my Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers
and sisters, I realise that there is an anomaly about a Church in
which a certain category of priests cannot be considered for
ordination to the episcopate. Some aspects of the reaction to the
recent vote on women bishops, however, have none the less been
deeply disturbing.
The first of these was
majoritarianism. One bishop pronounced that "the clear majority of
the Church of England demands it, the people of this country expect
it, and I believe that the Holy Spirit yearns for it." Since 42 out
of 44 dioceses (by a majority vote in each diocesan synod)
expressed support for women bishops, it has been widely concluded
that the legislation should certainly have been passed, despite not
receiving the required majority in the General Synod.
But majoritarianism is
not democracy: as the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has
recently pointed out, democracy is not just about enacting the will
of the majority; just as importantly, it is also about protecting
the rights of the minority, exactly the concern of the House of
Laity.
Second, in the aftermath
of the vote, there has been a nasty strain of clericalism in
evidence. Members of the House of Laity were, it seemed, simply too
thick and reactionary to get it. No matter that key swing voters
were, in fact, people who actually support the ordination of women
to the episcopate, uncomfortable at what seemed to them a "winner
takes it all" piece of legislation.
Third, there has been
Erastianism of the worst kind. As John Milbank has pointed out, the
purpose of having an Established Church is so that "the political
nation is answerable to the Church: to God, to Christ and to
scripture". It now all seems to go in the other direction; hence
the Prime Minister's remark that the Church of England should "get
with the programme". Despite all of the lessons of the 20th
century, even the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury seemed to
believe that the Church should essentially keep in step with modern
"trends and priorities", as if it were in these that true wisdom is
to be found. Other bishops have contended that the answer to this
disagreement within the Church is to put it all in the hands of the
secular courts.
The threat of
legislation, closely followed by the "quadruple lock" by which it
is proposed that the Church of England should be forbidden by law
from marrying same-sex couples, should alarm all of us, whatever
view we may take on these particular issues. Those from the
Catholic tradition cannot help but notice that a similar situation
inspired John Keble to preach his famous sermon on National
Apostasy in 1833 at the beginning of the Oxford Movement.
Fourth, we have seen what
one might describe as a pneumatological deficiency. Are the prayers
for guidance, the talk about seeking God's will, the eucharists,
and all the rest of it, just so much empty flummery? For, rather
than asking what it is that the Holy Spirit might be saying to the
Church of England in and through this vote, the response has been
immediately and hotly to protest that a way must be found to
overturn the decision. In the words of the Greek Orthodox priest Fr
Stephen Maxfield: "The Church of England is very odd. It invokes
the Holy Spirit before meetings of its General Synod, but then it
flatly refuses to believe that he has anything to do with the
results of its deliberations."
One embarrassing problem
was the chronic lack of theology in the debate. Since we do not
have an agreed theology of episcopacy, we do not know whether
bishops exist to provide leadership in the manner of secular gurus,
or bureaucratic managers, or fathers within a family. And because
we do not know this, the conversation all too easily defaults to
regarding episcopacy as just another "senior position".
Similarly, since we do
not have a theology of gender, or indeed of the human person more
generally, we default to secularised discourses of rights and equal
opportunities. Putting it bluntly, we have been trying to decide
whether to have women bishops without really having a clue what
either a bishop or a woman (or a man) actually is.
Perhaps Chris Bryant MP
is right - although not for the reasons that he thinks he is - that
we should simply appoint no more bishops of either gender for the
time being.
Perhaps (and I owe this
point to the Anglican solitary Maggie Ross) we need to put aside
our anxious, self-preoccupied strivings, and our worldly
perceptions that things can be fixed if only this or that group of
people can be outflanked and defeated.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit
has indicated to us in and through this vote that the old way of
doing things has now reached a dead end, and that, instead, we must
now just wait in stillness and silence before the Lord who waits to
be gracious to us. If we did that, people really might take some
notice.
The Revd Dr Edward Dowler is Vicar of St John and St Luke,
Clay Hill, in the diocese of London. An earlier version of this
article was posted on the Elizaphanian blog.