The debate about the ordination of women bishops in the CoE is being discussed again Rob highlights pro petition and john a case against, and Maggie notes the issue raised in the house.
Having just come out of a day teaching on community organising and change a few thoughts went through my mind. Firstly how the issue of power is so pertinent to many of the anti arguments, the issues of power and control are not explicit in the writing, but bubble under the surface and can be seen by the way names and titles are used, the magic power (as community organisers would call it) as jargon and quotes are couched into the arguments, that bedazzle the reader. Although this can be also seen in some of the pro posts read although to a lesser extent.
The second issue is the general tendency to avoid too much tension and how the strategies for change employed such as petitions are quite weak. There seems to be bit of a lack of imagination in the process for change, (maybe this is why is seems to be taking so long) perhaps because of the avoidance of tension. Creative methods to promote change will need to accept that tension may be caused, but organisers would happily live with this as all action is in the reaction.
Richard, I was pleased to see references to both pro and anti petitions, but with respect to your comments about power, we need to be clear what issue these petitions are addressing. It is not whether there will be women bishops. That, I take it, is pretty much a ‘given’. The issue is how the Church will accommodate two existing perspectives on this. In 1993, it acknowledged the existence of two ‘integrities’ and guaranteed an honoured and continuing place for both.
Since then, three things have happened. The number of women priests has (naturally) grown enormously, the number of people in favour of women priests and bishops has swollen considerably and, despite written guarantees (in the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod) the number of senior appointments of traditionalists has shrunk almost to zero.
In other words, institutional power has shifted considerably to the pro position. Clergy representation on Synods is the result of voting by an electorate who are naturally likely to exclude those opposed to women’s ordination, since many are now ordained women. The bishops pick bishops who agree with them on the issue (again, being pro). Similarly the laity are mostly pro and also vote for lay representatives on Synods.
Some might say, “That is a good outcome and proof of the value of women clergy.” Be that as it may, power lies largely with the pro group – who are now proposing to use that power to remove provisions guaranteed back in the 1990s. That is one of the reasons why this feels so difficult for those of us in the ‘anti’ camp.
The Manchester Report offers other ways ahead and cautions against the problems the ‘Single Clause’ approach will cause, for all the reasons I have outlined above and more, yet that is the way that things are likely to go, because those who can make this decision have the power to do so.