So it’s happened. The Church of England has voted for the single clause option on women bishops with a code of practice to look after dissenters, but no legal provision. The decision not to have legal provision was taken in order to defend the validity of women bishops - to legislate provision for those who dissent would be, it was argued, to undermine the authority of the women bishops. It must be granted that this makes logical sense, nevertheless it finally puts to rest the oft-repeated liberal lie that we are a broad church with room for everyone. I have to say, I feel like an unwelcome stranger in my own church. I am now, in a way, a criminal and my crime is the outrageously henious act of not moving at all.

Some bishops understood this. The chair of the debate, The bishop of Dover Stephen Venner, had this to say before the final debate on the amended motion (from here):

I have to say that for the first time in my life I feel ashamed. We have talked for hours about wanting to give an honourable place for those who disagreed. We have turned down almost every opportunity for those opposed to flourish. And we still talk the talk of being inclusive and generous. The Rochester report said in many many pages that there were a variety of ways in which scripture and reason could be read with integrity. It argued over and over again that it is possible to be a loyal member of the CofE and [accept] some legal safeguards for those who oppose the ordination of women. It is not just those who are opposed to the ordination of women who find the motion we have at the moment difficult. I do. Where is the CofE about which we have spoken today? Is this CofE to which we have come to in this vote the CofE at its best? I have to say I doubt it. Is this the CofE to which I thought I belonged? I have to say with huge sadness, I doubt it.

And there it is in a nutshell. The talk of being inclusive and generous is just that. Talk. In reality there is no desire to anything like inclusive and generous. And, since we’ve been noting it regularly, do also be aware that the promise made to Synod in the 90’s during the debate on the ordination of women to the priesthood that there would always be legal safeguards for dissenters has been knowingly abandoned. This is beyond a lack of charitable spirit - this is a knowing and deliberate breach of trust.

As always (as it was with the original debate on the ordination of women to the priesthood), it was the more “open” evangelicals who swung the vote. They may be slowly waking up to the enormity of what happened, as the Ugley Vicar notes:

The fact that Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham then moved [after +Dover’s speech] (unsuccessfully) for an adjournment may make Open Evangelicals at least pause for thought about what has been done.

But it’s done now.

So what situation are we in? Were I back in a parish in England (a situation I wrote about a few weeks ago) I would now be in a tricky situation. Theologically I cannot recognise this innovation. I can acknowledge all the administrative authority that my new female bishop had - she can do all the paperwork that she needs to do and I would happily help her with it. But spiritual authority I could not, in good conscience, recognise. In taking this position I don’t think I am extraordinary, but simply holding to the position that the church has held for almost 2000 years. I’m not picking a fight, but the fight has come to me.

Now, as I take this position my female bishop would be encouraged by the code of conduct to deal with me graciously and I don’t suppose that many of them would do anything else. But here is the rub - if they choose not to abide by the code, if they choose to enforce the rights that the legislation has granted them and which proponents of women’s consecration have fought so hard for, then I would be the one outside the law and she the one inside it. All it takes is one belligerent liberal bishop to force this issue and the code will fall apart. Who is willing to bet that it won’t happen?

And so, as the Ugley Vicar has previously argued, the lie of the broad church is demolished once and for all. I am now outside the church on a matter that is, according to the discussions of the church, still debatable and where people on both sides are understood to hold their position in good conscience. And that is a ridiculous state of affairs. Our “broad church” has become even narrower. It strikes me that this is in no large part due to an absolute breakdown in trust - I simply do not trust the liberals to play fair. They have demonstrated time and time again that they will not.

Now will someone please tell me why Fraser and the rest of them keep crying wolf on the “takeover” of the conservative evangelicals? If even N.T. Wright, great defender of orthodoxy that he claims to be, is on their side who are they worried about?