When the first women were priested in Bristol Cathedral in 1994, there had already been female priests in other countries for some time. But although those women – in New Zealand and Canada and the States and elsewhere – were an enormous inspiration to those of us in the first generation of English female priests, we weren’t just following a bright idea from somewhere else in the world. The argument for women’s equality in Church and in society at large had been going on throughout the 20th century in this country. Maud Royden, a campaigner for women’s suffrage, was among those who founded The Church League for Women’s Suffrage (CLWS) in 1909, and in 1913 turned her interest specifically to women in Anglican orders, although she accurately predicted that getting the vote for women would be a picnic compared to seeing them in Hoy Orders. The campaign for suffrage was put to one side during the Great War but revived soon afterwards, and 1929 saw the first General Election in which women voted on equal terms with men in England. 1929 was also the year in which women became “persons” in their own right, by order of the Privy Council. And that same year, the Society for the Ministry of Women was founded, Maud Royden being a leading member.

Maud was an outstanding writer and speaker, and one of her observations was that it was a distinguishing feature of Christianity among the world religions to ignore the differences between men and women. It was at the heart of Christ’s teaching, she said, to treat people first as human beings and only secondly to pay attention to their gender. Maud Royden was right: this is one of Christ’s most extraordinary, radical and liberating teachings, but alas the world at large has proved slow to accept this, often seeing it as a threat, not a potential freedom.

This morning, 17 years on, I opened my calendar at March 12th and realised that the anniversary has fallen in the same week that saw the exit of a small group of Anglicans who have decided to join the Ordinariate – and the primary issue over which this shift in Church allegiance has occurred is the presence of women in Holy Orders, and the perceived “threat” to traditionalists of them becoming Bishops.

Some simply dismiss those who are against women’s ordination as misogynists. Personally I think that’s too simplistic: the human frame is far more complex than merely falling into love or hate. There are some misogynists in the Church, for sure – I’ve been spat on in Vestries before now. But for most it’s far more complicated than that; some genuinely feel that it’s essential to the integrity of the Church to demarcate the differences between men and women, and to reserve some areas of authority only for men. Others say that the decision to leave was, in the end, motivated by the sense that they no longer wanted to live inside a church that is marked more by politics than spirituality (although again that’s complicated – it’s a feeling I can sympathise with completely, having been on the receiving end of unpleasant church politics for most of my life precisely because I am a woman who was born with gifts that fit comfortably into ministry).

It is, I suppose, just a coincidence of the moveable feast of Easter that the exit to the ordinariate and the anniversary of the first ordinations fell within the same week. For those who left, I wish them well, and hope they are happy in their new home. And I hope for everyone’s sake that the political infighting will now recede.  But it still seems sad to me that two millennia after Jesus spoke such extraordinary words of inclusion into a society that treated women as mere property, it’s still apparently impossible for women in the Church to be treated as fully equal human beings. So much so that there are those who have to leave the Church because they cannot worship side by side with women who dare to lay claim to their God-given equality.

You can read more here about Maud Royden, Constance Coltman, Isabella Gilmore (whose legacy included a scholarship that helped to fund my own studies at Cambridge) and other leading figures in the early movement for the ordination of women.

I daresay the Archbishops are disappointed that their idea didn’t fly, as will be those who voted with them. But the ABC himself told Synod “this is not a test of loyalty” – in other words, let the idea be tested, don’t just vote for it because we are the Archbishops. Disagreeing with authority needs doing graciously and with humility. But true authority will hear disagreement, not react like a toddler. I think the ABC and the ABY showed true leadership by allowing their idea to be tested, rather than manipulating the system.

There has been much commentary in the week folllowing, among which one of the most useful is Ed Beavan’s summary in the Church Times (scroll down for a useful panel on what happens next in the process)

I’ve  collected some blogs that have reported or commented on synod at the weekend. If you have links I’ve missed, please add in the comments.

My posts, here, and here

the voice of sanity on Jeremy Fletcher’s new blog

Nick Baines wondered out loud whether any useful parallels could be made with narcissitic personality disorder. and follows up  today with more nuance on the use of the language of power and victimhood

Bishop Alan Wilson says it’s time for faith

Andrew Brown reports a triumph

good in parts prays and hopes

Revd Lesley Fellows celebrates the Eucharist

church mouse gathers up the news

peter ould hopes that the measure might yet be stopped.

thinking anglicans (several posts and updates from the floor of synod)
church times blog

and more (thanks, commenters):

sue blogging from york has some great perspective on the issues

dodgy liberal

gen-syn blog

and a word from nancy on the eve of synod
ruthie gledhill recorded Bishop Tom’s valedictory:

The Guardian’s CiF Belief had two posts this week, both of which drew a surprisingly low number of comments – the page is usually fought over pretty energetically by very keen commenters. Ed Tomlinson unsurprisingly commented on those who will/might go to Rome if women are admitted to the episcopate, which the Guardian headlined: “An Anglican considering going to Rome says, keep your women bishops, and… give us the money and buildings we need…”

If you’re in a muddle about what all these debates, revisions, amendments and the like are for, and what they mean in plain english, the best summary I’ve seen is here, and if you want to read all the papers etc in fine detail, Thinking Anglicans has all the links and commentary.

The flurry of press and blogs about the leak on Jeffrey John being on the shortlist for Southwark and then off it again is, of course, a separate issue, but whether the proximity of the rows was deliberate, predictable or merely unfortunate, it has certainly created the opportunity for a number of people to criticise Dr Williams, who – given that he has opted for the unity of the Church as his top priority – seems doomed to displease everyone no matter what he does. Ruthie G apparently (behind her paywall) reported that the ABC lost his temper over leaks on this story. I’m only surprised he hasn’t done before. But Pete Broadbent has been tweeting and commenting here and there, taking the longer view and defending both the ABC’s decisions and the CNC process.

WATCH and most other supporters of women in the episcopacy have been dismayed by the Arhbishops of Canterbury and York’s proposed amendments to the draft, and are hoping that Synod will not agree with them, although many people have also noted that although Synod can disagree with its leaders, it’s difficult and unusual for them to do so.

It’s not just that those women who might become Bishops would have their opportunity delayed or their ministry and gifts limited; it’s not just that the CHurch as a whole will be diminished if these gifted women are once again put into the Green room; it’s the fact that among the thousands of women clergy, and thousands more lay people who want to live in a Church that treats all people in equality, are genuinely considering leaving the Church of England if this is fudged again. The opponents of women Bishops will, we are told, leave anyway. If both supporters and opponents are going to walk, what on earth would be the point of agreeing to another fudge that offers second-class episcopates to women? It won’t produce unity. It would be so much better to make a clean decision than to prolong the toxicity.

Kelvin Holdsworth comments from north of the border:

we are also being treated to a commentary on Rowan William’s temper and the suggestion that he personally vetoed Jeffrey John’s nomination. I don’t even know whether that is possible. In any case, I’d prefer not to believe it, I think. It was bad enough that +Rowan laid down his friend for his life the first time around when Jeffrey was nominated to be suffragen bishop of Reading. If he really has become someone who would lay down the same friend for his life twice, it is too ghastly to contemplate for long.

Now, its straight off to General Synod for the Archbishop, where he is sponsoring an amendment to the measure allowing women to be nominated for the Episcopate which would make them second-class bishops forever.

I hope the English Synod says no to this and does so clearly and decisively.

I hope so too. But I’m also checking out alternative options in case they don’t.

The Church of England has today published the 142-page report of the Revision Committee that has been considering in detail the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England. Also published is an amended version of the draft, eleven clause Measure and associated draft Amending Canon.

The Committee has met on 16 occasions over the past 12 months and considered 114 submissions from members of the General Synod and a further 183 submissions from others. After much discussion the Committee rejected proposals aimed at fundamentally changing the approach of the legislation, whether by converting it into the simplest possible draft Measure or by creating more developed arrangements – whether through additional dioceses, a statutorily recognised society or some transfer of jurisdiction – for those unable to receive the ministry of female bishops.

As indicated to the General Synod in February 2010 (scroll to p6), the draft legislation continues to provide special arrangements for those with conscientious difficulties by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory Code of Practice. The legislation has been amended in a number of detailed respects. Provision for statutory declarations by bishops unable to take part in the consecration of women as bishops or their ordination as priests has been removed as has an obligation on the Archbishops to nominate particular suffragan sees to be occupied by those who do not consecrate or ordain women.

Added to the Measure are new provisions requiring each diocesan bishop to draw up a scheme in his or her diocese that takes account of the national Code of Practice and provides local arrangements for the performance of certain episcopal functions in relation to parishes with conscientious difficulties. A further new provision allows such parishes to request, when there is a vacancy, that only a male incumbent or priest-in-charge be appointed.

It is expected that much of the July group of sessions of the General Synod in York (9-13 July) will be devoted to debating the Revision Committee’s report and conducting the Revision Stage of the legislation. This is the moment (equivalent to a parliamentary Report Stage) when all 470 members of the Synod have the opportunity to consider the draft legislation clause by clause and to vote on proposed amendments. Proposals rejected by the Revision Committee can be debated afresh at the Revision Stage.

Once the Revision Stage has been completed – and provided the Synod does not decide that further work is necessary in Revision Committee – the draft legislation will have to be referred to diocesan synods and cannot come back to the General Synod for final approval unless a majority of diocesan synods approve it.

The earliest that the legislation could achieve final approval in Synod (when two-thirds majorities in each of the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity will be required) is 2012, following which parliamentary approval and the Royal Assent would be needed. 2014 remains the earliest realistic date when the first women might be consecrated as bishops.

Notes

The motion carried by the General Synod in July 2008 was:

‘That this Synod:

(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

The Legislative Drafting Group on Women in the Episcopate, chaired by the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, Bishop of Manchester, published in December 2008 its further report and drafts of a Measure and associated Amending Canon, together with an illustrative draft Code of Practice and an Explanatory Memorandum.

At its February 2009 group of sessions, the General Synod agreed that the draft legislation should be passed to a Revision Committee for detailed scrutiny. The Revision Committee comprised (ex officio) the members of the Steering Committee appointed from the Synod by the Appointments Committee of the Church of England in November 2008 to be in charge of the draft legislation throughout its Synodical stages, together with additional members newly appointed to constitute the majority of the membership of the Revision Committee and was chaired by the Venerable Clive Mansell, Archdeacon of Tonbridge.

The Revision Committee issued press releases on its discussions in October 2009 and in November 2009.

Workplace bullying of the clergy has become “rife”, according to the union Unite which says priests are being picked on by bishops and parishioners.

The union has set up a hotline where the clergy can report abuse, and says it deals with up to 150 cases a year.

“Bishops have got a lot nastier”, says the Reverend Gerry Barlow, chair of the faith workers branch of Unite. Unite says the bullying frequently comes from superiors within the church who may be under financial pressure.

“A bullying case can go on for a long time”, says Terry Young, a former minister who runs the helpline. “They’re picked on for everything they do wrong, so in the end the person runs around terrified. You see these people unsupported, driven into depression and a nervous breakdown.”

The Church is home to some truly great people whose lives are a testament to genuine love and self-sacrifice. But I also know for sure that there is a shameful degree of severe and mind-bendingly awful bullying within the Church, not just from Church superiors but from others within the structure too. I’m not surprised there are clergy who leave depressed and broken.

More useful thoughts and questions on the topic from David Keen at St. Aidan to Abbey Manor.

This is what Mouse says about his new site:

Regular readers of the Mouse will know that for some time he has been
keeping track on Archbishops, Bishops and Clergy on twitter through
his Twurch of England Twitter stream. Mouse finds this a fascinating
way to engage with the church. It is rather like having a permanent
invitation to listen in on someone’s conversation and join in whenever
you want. In fact, that’s exactly what it is.

Mouse currently follows around 70 people in this Twitter stream,
including one Archbishop (John Sentamu) and nine bishops (Alan Wilson,
David Hamid, David Rossdale, David Tomson, Lee Rayfield, Mike Hill,
Nick Baines, Pete Broadbent and Steven Croft). Mouse provides his
readers with an occasional top 10 tweeters in the Twurch, based on
statistics from Twitter Gradr.

Then Mouse had an idea.

The thing about the sidebar widget is that it is not very engaging. It
does not really let you get involved in the conversation – the exact
opposite of Twitter. So Mouse recruited vicar, tweeter and geek Rev
Peter Ould to help build something a little more fun.

The Twurch of England website now allows you to follow the
conversation in real time and log-in to twitter and get involved. The
site has a blog, where Mouse will offer up his periodic stats and
other views on what the Twurch is discussing, but also hopes that it
will be an ‘open blog’, where the majority of posts will come from
others who want to discuss how the church is engaging with those
outside it. You can grab the side-bar widget for your own blog /
website too.

The Twurch of England is, of course, on twitter itself. Please do get
in touch if you know of any more clergy or bishops who should be
included in the list. For the time being it will be just clergy and
bishops, but in future may expand (e.g. to ordinands).

Mouse was delighted that the good old CofE even seemed keen on the
idea:

The Church of England is happy that this site is available as a hub
for people seeking to engage with the church and its various tweeters.
[CofE spokesman]

The blog kicks off with a guest post from one of the Twurch’s most
active tweeters, Bishop Alan Wilson on ten reasons why he tweets.

Finally, before you respond with theological questions about a church
that only contains clergy, that is not the idea at all. The Twurch is
open to everyone to engage with, its only the twitter livestream which
is limited, as this is an interesting way of engaging with the church.

Comments, suggestions, ideas all very welcome.

Here’s a clip from the latest one, by Rev’d Canon Jackson:

“Can we stand back a moment and remember: What is the fundamental question? The Church is trying to resolve one of the most fundamental questions of all – What is the nature of a human being? and, more specifically:

(a)Which human-beings can be regarded as normative, or representative, of humanity as a whole and thereby are capable of receiving the grace of ordination, for sacramental ministry?
(b)Which human beings, in God’s determined order of creation, may be assigned authority to lead human society and human institutions and thereby are capable of fulfilling a role of headship?
(c) In relation to both of these, can women do so, or not? i.e. has God assigned these roles in the created order differentially among human beings according to their gender, or not?These are fundamental ‘first order’ issues, because neither women nor men can control what gender is assigned to them at birth, nor can they in any sense be held responsible for it.  As Maude Royden summed it up, “I was born a woman and I can’t get over it”.

Read the rest here

The latest from the rather dry and technical sounding Revision Committee on women in the Episcopate which met yesterday contains one ecclesiologically significant discovery:

After much discussion, the members of the Committee were unable to identify a basis for specifying particular functions for vesting which commanded sufficient support both from those in favour of the ordination of women as bishops and those unable to support that development. As a result all of the proposals for vesting particular functions by statute were defeated.

The effect of the Committee’s decision is therefore that such arrangements as are made for those unable to receive the episcopal ministry of women will need to be by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop rather than vesting…

Bishop David explains…

I also heard several people comment that there is something worrying about the bloodlust with which people set about someone who becomes a scapegoat for the ills of a system. The villification of one person may make people feel a little better but it doesn't tackle the root of the problem; it doesn't attend to the cracks in a culture that makes such behaviour seem normal. A broader critique comes from HSBC chairman Stephen Green, who is also an ordained Church of England minister. In his book Serving God? Serving Mammon?  he explores the ethics of banking, and argued that the banking industry largely lost its moral compass in the last few years, resulting in a  "major breakdown in trust". 

There's a piece by Russell Lynch published today, in which he quotes Green:

"It is as if, too often, people had given up asking whether something was the right thing to do, and focused only whether it was legal and complied with the rules. The industry needs to recover a sense of what is right and suitable as a key impulse for doing business" [Green] said. He warns that while many bankers did well by their customers, "we must also recognise that there have been too many who have profoundly damaged the industry's reputation". 

The boom in complex mortgage-backed securities and an entire alphabet soup of toxic investments – as well as sub-prime loans to those who could never afford them – were driven by a compensation culture which "ran out of control", he said. "Inappropriate products were sold inappropriately by many. Compensation practices ran out of control and perverse incentives led to dangerous outcomes. "There is genuine and widespread anger that the contributors to the crisis were in some cases amongst the biggest beneficiaries of the system."  He added: "Underlying all these events is a question about the culture and ethics of the industry." Mr Green is quick to point out that HSBC has "not always been perfect" in this regard, but the bank was ready to play its part in rebuilding public trust with a "more sober and reasonable" approach to compensation. A complete overhaul of rules and regulations is inevitable to improve financial stability in the future, but a more ethical stance is required to have a real impact, he added. "We should remember that no amount of rules and regulation will be sufficient if the culture does not encourage people to do the right thing."