[CofE] General Synod Adjourns Women Bishops Vote Until Autumn

Ironically, this will only convince opponents that assertions of “Trust us.  We will provide for you” are completely hollow.  If any opponents still possessed illusions, they have now all been dispossessed of those illusions.  These amendments forced proponents to show their true face.  If the bishops bow to pressure and remove the offending amendments, opponents will consider themselves totally unprotected and act accordingly.  If the amendments are not removed, then the measure will likely fail.  At which point the civil gov’t could very well intervene to prevent another long delay.  Thinking Anglicans had a story this morning about MPs making dark rumblings about what is going on.  If that happens, then opponents will be totally unprotected.  And again, they will act accordingly.  Does anyone really believe this problem will be kicked into touch for five more years?  That seems the one outcome that isn’t likely to happen.

This is a potentially disastrous outcome for the CoE.  It’s hard to see an outcome that doesn’t precipitate an outflow of Conservatives from the CoE, and the establishment of a Free Anglican Church in England.

carl

It is hard to see any good come out of caving to the feminazi bullies.  As I’ve just blogged, Synod just rewarded the vindictiveness of CofE feminists.  Shame.

(By the way, Carl, there is already a Free Church of England, but it is very small.)

“Grace and generosity” have been lacking in the treatment of the traditionalists heretofore.  One can hardly blame them for wanting protections to be explicit and in writing.

“If the amendments are not removed, then the measure will likely fail.  At which point the civil gov’t could very well intervene to prevent another long delay.  Thinking Anglicans had a story this morning about MPs making dark rumblings about what is going on.”

The British government has no power to foist women bishops on CofE.  Only CofE can do this to itself.

If that story is the one I am thinking of, then it appeared in the Telegraph two days ago.  It is important to note what it was saying (and not saying):

The two MPs were not threatening to force women bishops on the CofE.  Rather, they were threatening to derail the measure if it was passed by General Synod with the Bishops’ amendments (i.e. the limited protection for anti-WO members of CofE).  In other words, they threatened to influence their committee (which has a preliminary oversight and checking function) to withhold the measure from Parliament.  The reason for this is that they don’t believe that anti-WO members of CofE should be given any protections or arrangements for alternative oversight. 

This is almost certainly such a hollow threat as to lack credibility:  If the measure is passed by General Synod, then it has to next go before Parliament.  It is most unlikely that the review committee of which they are a part would dare to use its powers to prevent parliamentary consideration and scrutiny - it would immediately come under attack from all sides of politics.

I view this development as positive, for a number of reasons:

1.  It forces all members of CofE to confront the vicious and uncompromising nature of WATCH and its allies:  These people want no protection whatsoever for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.  They will not compromise.  Too many in CofE have fooled themselves that compromise is desirable or achievable.  They have to be disabused of this naivety.

2. It gives more time for orthodox evangelicals (i.e. those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops) to marshal their forces and present their arguments through various media and on various fora.  Their message will take time to sink in to the wider church which has generally tried to ignore the “politicking” over this issue.

3. Even the measure with the bishops’ amendments does not give adequate protection to orthodox Anglicans.  It should be opposed all the way.

4. The measure, with or without the bishops’ amendments, contains significant dangers for CofE as a whole.  In particular, the idea that most of the details will be contained in a Code of Practice, which will be drafted by the bishops alone, and will have the power of delegated legislation (i.e. authority conferred by Parliament):  This is radical and dangerous.

Pray that sufficient members of General Synod will come to appreciate the dangers of this measure, between now and November, and that they vote it down.  That will give the orthodox a five-year breathing space in which to continue their various methods designed to protect faithful churches and grow their ministry. 

During that five years, it is also likely that the process of CofE losing members and income will continue, thus driving home to all members of CofE and to the civil government that, if they want their established church to continue, they have no alternative but to deal with the orthodox, in a serious and respectful manner.

More about a particular problem with both versions of the measure (i.e. with or without the bishops’ amendments), due to its provision that the details of how women bishops will be implemented are to be governed by a Code of Practice (COP) which has not yet been drafted:

The first problem is that the COP will be “delegated legislation” (according to a blog post by +Broadbent, one of the supporters of the measure).  This will give the COP in effect the authority of Parliament.

A second problem is that General Synod will not get to vote on the terms of the COP.  Rather, GS will be asked to accept that CofE have women bishops, but with effectively all other details to be determined by the House of Bishops afterwards in the COP.  So General Synod really does not know what it is voting on.  The real detail will be determined by only one house of GS (the HOB) with the clergy and laity excluded.

A third problem is that nobody will say who has the function of preparing future amendments to the COP and submit them to Parliament.  This is a crucial function, because Parliament has limited time to consider and debate amendements to any delegated legislation.  If done in the right way and with the right timing, it will be easy enough to get significant amendments passed in future which may radically change the inital nature of the COP.

Michael A

I think you underestimate the hostility of the general culture towards orthodox expressions of the Christian faith.  It isn’t likely that you’re going to be able to muster broad sympathy for their position.  I also think you underestimate the Machiavellian nature of the opposition.  You are correct that long-term Evangelical growth might lead to indefinite delay.  Proponents know this as well.  Which is why an appeal to civil authority becomes so attractive.  It defeats the prime conservative advantage of growth. It can with one sweep of the pen change the dynamic.  Conservatives can be wrong-footed and placed in a position where they have to either compromise or leave out of conscience.  You can be sure that if Parliament forces this change, then there will be no protection for dissenters.  This whole effort can be couched in terms of overcoming a small minority that is using the rules of the church to frustrate the desire of the overwhelming majority.  The position defended by that small minority is not culturally sympathetic. 

If the current proposal goes down to defeat, the activists aren’t going to wait another five years.  They are going to look for a radical solution from a sympathetic authority beyond appeal.  Right now that authority is murmuring threats.  It is trying to intimidate the CoE.  If that intimidation doesn’t work, I think you will see appeals to that authority for direct intervention.  And I think those appeals will be favorably received.

carl

“You can be sure that if Parliament forces this change, then there will be no protection for dissenters.”

Parliament doesn’t have power to force the change, that is the point. 

And if it it had, it would have done so long before this, e.g. under the previous Labour (left) administration.

“Right now that authority is murmuring threats.”

No, two very-left politicians are murmuring a threat which by its very nature shows that they know they have no real power to do anything, nor any prospects of persuading their colleagues to try.

Actually, the government might have MORE ability to intervene in the internal affairs of the new Free Church that you postulate - there’s an interesting thought!

Michael A

We will see.  I have almost infinite faith in the ingenuity of politicians to get around inconvenient laws to do what they desire to do.  The gov’t after all is checked only by itself.  If the cause is sufficiently righteous, and the enemy sufficiently ignoble in the eyes of the general public, I believe the gov’t would act.  It needs the ability to coerce in some way.  Perhaps by exposing the church to legal liability for discrimination.  This isn’t about law, after all.  It’s about winning.  These activists aren’t going to willingly wait another five years - especially if they see demographics turning against them.  Nor are they going to give conservatives what they want - a separate jurisdiction.  They do not want the image of two parallel churches with one growing and one declining.  So what then is left to them?

A gov’t can coerce (or suppress) any church it likes simply by using its authority.  But it does seem counter-intuitive to suggest that an established church under the authority of the civil gov’t is somehow safer that a free church.  The Free church down the road doesn’t have to get its decisions approved by parliament.

carl

“If the cause is sufficiently righteous, and the enemy sufficiently ignoble in the eyes of the general public, I believe the gov’t would act.”

Precisely, with emphasis on “sufficiently”.  In Britain, to overturn centuries of traditon requires a lot of sufficiently.  And conversely, governments that mistake the public mood get themselves into difficulty.  An example is Same Sex Marriage - only a year ago the conservative party in UK thought they were on a winner with this and have now found that support is not nearly as strong as they thought.

“It needs the ability to coerce in some way.  Perhaps by exposing the church to legal liability for discrimination.”

Sure.  The progressives have been wanting to do this for decades, long before the issue of women bishops came up.  There is a whole raft of issues they would like to coerce through in this way.  The short answer is, if they could have done it already, they would have.  And I agree, they won’t stop trying, not in Britain, not in Australia or probably anywhere else.  But smart politicians don’t directly attack churches - public opinion can change very quickly.

“These activists aren’t going to willingly wait another five years - especially if they see demographics turning against them.  Nor are they going to give conservatives what they want - a separate jurisdiction.  They do not want the image of two parallel churches with one growing and one declining.  So what then is left to them?”

I agree.  If they had their way, you and I would be awaiting trial and execution right now (I write that without a trace or irony or exaggeration).  But the number of activists are actually quite small.  They are even small in TEC, although they control all the levers of power.

To give a parallel example, in Sydney the progressives tried for two decades to get women priests.  They succeeded in most dioceses in the rest of Australia.  Their fury, their outrage at Sydney’s recalcitrance was fearful to read.  The government of this State was progressive for most of that period, but it wasn’t going to touch this issue with a barge-pole, not unless a majority of laity in Dio Sydney had been in favour of women priests, which we never were.  The progressives failed, and they gnashed their teeth, and that was it.

“A gov’t can coerce (or suppress) any church it likes simply by using its authority.”

Very few politicians believe that (particularly those serving more than one term).  Even relatively absolute rulers like Constantine the Great, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were careful only to move against the church when they believed they had very strong public opinion on their side.  Those who didn’t, like Henry II or James II, ended in tears.

“But it does seem counter-intuitive to suggest that an established church under the authority of the civil gov’t is somehow safer that a free church.”

“Established” is not the same thing as “under the authority of the civil government”.  Depending on the circumstances, Establishment can mean protection from the civil government.  Anyway, I agree that we will see.  This play has many scenes to run yet.

Archbishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt has criticised the make-up of the Crown Nominations Commission which will choose the next Archbishop of Canterbury: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9385196/Choice-of-new-Archbishop-a-colonial-stitch-up.html.

“Not one single person comes from elsewhere in the Anglican Communion except the Archbishop of Wales which is part of the United Kingdom … the selection of the new Archbishop is an expression of not really caring for the Anglican family.”

I’m with Michael on this one. Sort of. There was every indication that if the vote proceeded as things currently were (ie with the bishops’ amendments in the legislation) it may very well have failed. The more militant pro-women bishops group were not prepared to have their victory with any concession to the conservatives and so they may even have voted it down. For that reason conservatives were actually keen for the vote to take place now.

However, what the resulting delay will do, as Michael points out, is demonstrate how utterly ungracious bodies like WATCH really are. I think we may very well end up with firmer protections for the conservatives. The “middle ground” are well aware that they need them in order to keep them in.