From the Revd Thomas
Brazier
Sir, - I was disappointed by
the recent statement from the House of Bishops (News, 31 May). It
claims that we need "new" ways of thinking, but there is very
little new in the statement at all. The discussion revolves around
the same two tired old questions that have thus far yielded so
little fruit: 1. How can we get women bishops? 2. How can we
accommodate the dissenting "minority"?
Even I, as part of the
"majority", can see that the minority will always reject the
validity of the first question and, so, are not interested in the
second question. We can never engage the minority with this kind of
thinking: all we can hope for is to crush their voice. It is time
to stop grinding endlessly round the same mill, and start asking
different questions.
First, let us ask how church
members should deal with a church practice that they believe to be
incorrect. Personally, I vote for the costly choice of remaining in
the Church and working for change (which is why I remain in the
Church, even though we presently prevent women from becoming
bishops). Others might opt to leave the Church, also a costly
choice. I suspect very few would choose to be "accommodated".
Second, let us acknowledge
that, as long as a dissenting minority exists, there is actually
doubt over the question. We, the majority, do not have a monopoly
on hearing God. So, let us ask how to manage this doubt. Presently,
we manage it by refraining from appointing women as bishops.
Perhaps our practice will soon change, but even then we must
remember the doubt. This is the only way in which we can really
take the minority seriously, which is far better than mere
accommodation.
Suddenly, instead of having
to put up with the minority, we can see them as having something
constructive to offer to the conversation. Dare I even suggest that
they might be able to serve the Church by preserving the old way of
life while the doubt persists?
Finally, having engaged with
the first two questions, let us ask simply, without being
distracted by concerns of accommodating the minority, whether
gender should continue to be a bar to the episcopate. We have never
yet put this question to the two-thirds majority test. The July
2006 and July 2008 Synod meetings did not require (and did not
achieve) a two-thirds majority. The November 2012 synod muddied the
question with considerations about how to accommodate the minority.
It is time for the question, by itself, simply to be put.
TOM BRAZIER
38 Brancepeth Road, Washington
Tyne & Wear NE38 0LA
From the Archdeacon of
St Albans
Sir, - As a member of the
House of Clergy in the General Synod who unequivocally believes
that the episcopate should be open to women and men, and who
supported the legislation last November, I offer a privilege to
myself and a blessing to others by saying little and listening
much. One of the wisest words that I have heard in the Synod
chamber on this matter is the futility in indulging in competitive
pain.
Therefore, by all means let
the Church do as the Revd Jesse Zink suggests (Letters, 31 May),
and examine the proper provision of episcopal ministry and mission,
but let us not embark on it to enshrine our place on the anger,
grief, and disappointment meter, and seek to elevate those whom we
assume to be in a lower position.
JONATHANSMITH
6 Sopwell Lane
St Albans AL1 1RR