The Parish Church of St John-at-Hampstead

Some reflections on a talk by W.A.T.C.H
(Women and The Church)

WATCH was formed in 1996, two years after the single issue campaign MOW (Movement for the Ordination of Women) was closed. It is a national group whose members include women and men both lay and ordained supporting women priests and openness in appointments to the Church of England.

Some facts. The ordination of women was first considered by the Lambeth Conference in 1920 and has been debated by the General Synod for the past 25 years. It is surprising to be reminded that as long ago as 1975 the Synod agreed ‘that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood’. By 1987 women were being ordained as deacons and the first women priests were ordained in 1994 following Parliament’s ratification of the Women Priests Measure in 1993. There are now currently, 3,000 serving women priests (nearly 1 in 4 of priests in the Church of England is female).

As you know the backlash from this from those opposed to the ordination of women, was the resignation of a number of male priests (441 claimed financial provision) which cost the Church of England £27.1 million. In addition to the financial provision clauses there are 2 clauses in the Women Priests Measure which allow a Parochial Church Council to: (a) vote not to accept a woman priest to take services and (b) vote not to accept a woman as their incumbent, priest- in- charge or team vicar. One wonders how many members of the average PCC being female, would vote against and indeed how many women in general terms are opposed to the ordination of women. This was never disclosed and may not be known.

Another unwelcome consequence of the measure was the vote in November 1993 by the General Synod for an Act of Synod to accommodate those opposed to the ordination of women, creating a separate class of so called ‘flying bishops’ (there are, currently, 1 in the province of York and 2 in Canterbury) the effect of this to some degree has been to produce an alternative Episcopal ministry which has very little regard for diocesan bishops.

There appears to have been a great deal of obfuscation since then and it seems reasonable to view this and the reviews of the Act of Synod, as creating a ‘church within a church’. It is worth bearing in mind that the Church of England requested and was granted exemption from the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and will also be exempt from the provisions of the Equality Act currently being debated by Parliament. It was observed during the discussion, that it would be impossible for anybody to claim exemption from racial discrimination or disability legislation. Indeed, whilst I would acknowledge the intended even handedness of the view that those who believe that women cannot and should not be bishops, are ‘trying just as hard as we are to be faithful’, no reasonable person would view either an individual or entity as ‘trying just as hard to be faithful’ if they were opposed to racial equality or enabling legislation for the disabled. Our disability it seems is to be female.

Enormous time and energy is being spent on finding ways to accommodate those opposed to women bishops, which makes me ask why are we even countenancing such a debate? Doesn’t it rely on women’s capacity to be ‘patient’ to accept that the very idea of equality within the church is repugnant? I made the observation that the church seems indifferent to the possibility of the majority of women worshippers leaving the Church of England because of these acts of discrimination.

It would be wrong to presume that all lay and ordained males within the Church of England are opposed to either women priests or bishops, but there are clearly a number of pressures on them to keep their views to themselves. Indeed I was astounded to hear a now retired male member of the Synod of 1993 explain that a number of clergy seeking preferment were told that they would not be considered favourably unless they agreed to the Act of Synod which created ‘flying bishops’.

A further unpalatable compromise involves a proposed Code of Practice which, if adopted, will require the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to appoint ‘flying bishops’ to oversee parishes and/or male clergy who will not accept women bishops. The Code will ‘enable’ women bishops to delegate the care of such parishes in this way, though it could undermine their overall authority.

The draft legislation regarding women bishops is currently undergoing review and being batted back and forth, though it is hoped it will be debated in General Synod during February 2010 though probably subjected to more revision until July 2010 when a further debate is due. It is hoped it will be sent out for diocesan debate thereafter.

Much is made of the schism within the Church of England which the acceptance of homosexual priests/bishops is likely to promote; even if women’s role as bishops is somewhat subsumed in this context, however, we must not lose sight of the plight of those men whose calling is also questioned and whose sexuality and it expression are viewed as an abomination. They too are subjected to pressures and divisive tactics. It has been a long time since Mrs. Pankhurst lost patience at the disenfranchisement of women in society and it seems clear that we face an equally long struggle to end our disenfranchisement within the established church. Sadly, as Mrs. Pankhurst discovered, being polite, patient and reasonable did not necessarily work.