Co-published, with permission, in the Church of England Newspaper, Friday 19th November 2010
Earlier this year I was asked by the Church of England Evangelical Council to contribute to a consultation that they held on the issue of women bishops. The question I was asked to address was “Whether, in the light of the proposed legislation, there remains a place for both ‘integrities’ on women’s ordination within the Church of England”.
Before I responded to this question, I made it clear that Fulcrum, the group I help lead, completely supports the ordination of women as bishops. I also made it clear that my perspective is strongly influenced by working alongside three brilliant ordained women in the parish of which I am vicar. Already convinced of the biblical basis for women’s ordained ministry, seeing its impact within our parish has illustrated the enormous enrichment brought to every aspect of church life when women are given the opportunity to take a full role in its leadership.
My response to the question asked by the CEEC was to argue that it all comes down to what we believe about the so-called ‘two integrities’.There are some who use this terminology to argue that there should be (because they believe it was promised back in 1992-3) two completely equal and valid tracks in the Church of England, one of which will allow clergy to enter and minister within a church that has an essentially ‘ordained women-free zone’. A self-contained structure, in other words, almost a church within a church which will allow their churches and ministries to exist completely separately from that of ordained women.If this assumption is made, it is understandable that those making it will see the provisions under the Measure as completely inadequate. They will be inadequate to effect that total separation that some desperately want and believe that they need.
But such a ‘dual-track church’ cannot possibly be allowed to happen if the Church of England, through its elected synods and with a hefty two thirds majority in each house, has decided that it wants to establish women bishops. Once this legislation has final approval, it has to be accepted by everyone as the position of the Church of England, and with acceptance of this overall position, generous concessions then can and should be made to those who cannot ‘with integrity’ support the ordination of woman priests and bishops. These concessions, however, need to be within a voluntary code of practice rather than legally binding if we are not to end up with women ‘semi-bishops’ rather than genuine ones. Speaking frankly, it is time for the opponents of women bishops to accept that, rightly or wrongly, they have ‘lost’ on this issue and that the provision made for them cannot be allowed to compromise the move forward that the church as a whole has chosen to take.From this perspective, a recommended code of practice should indeed be adequate with pastoral oversight, confirmations, annual interviews and a number of other functions able to be exercised by a male bishop, if this is what churches and clergy want and request. But these same groupings will also have to accept that if a woman bishop is appointed to their diocese (or province) they will be, whether they like it or not, under the authority of that bishop even if, in practice, the bishop decides to delegate some of the exercise of that authority out of pastoral concern for them.
Two final points. The first may sound naïve and the second trite but I believe them both to be true. Firstly, when women bishops come into office in the Church of England I am genuinely sure that they will bend over backwards to be generous to those whom ‘with integrity’ cannot fully accept their ministry. I know lots of women clergy and can’t think of any of them who are out for revenge. In virtually every case they simply want to be allowed to minister as they believe God has called them to exercising this ministry with deep care for everyone, including opponent of women priests and bishops. If anything, I think it more likely that women bishops will be tempted to be too generous in the application of such a code rather than ignore it because of its voluntary nature.
Secondly I want to question what difference bishops of either gender will really make to the day to day life of most evangelical churches if that involvement is not actively sought. I can understand the concerns of Anglo-Catholic groups much more here. But in many, perhaps most conservative evangelical churches that object to women’s ordained ministry, bishops are already kept at arm’s length. With their more practical function, it is archdeacons who are in many ways a more meaningful figure of authority within such churches and of course they have been able to be women for some years. For conservative evangelical churches, therefore, having a woman bishop will actually change very little.
Women bishops are on their way and for most of us in the Church of England this can’t happen quickly enough. For those who of us who have seen women’s ministry in action, we know the fantastic difference that this is going to make. As much as anything that happens in the parishes, the advent of women bishops will also significantly enliven the culture, outlook and work of the House of Bishops. Concessions both can and should be made to those who cannot ‘with integrity’ agree with this decision but not in a way that will impossibly compromise the most exciting step that the Church of England has taken for years.
Stephen Kuhrt is Vicar of Christ Church, New Malden.