It’s thirty years since the first women were ordained as priests of the Church of England. For ten years, there have been women bishops too. Well, at least one aspect of the Church’s reform is done and dusted.
Cue hollow laughter from those acquainted with the strange intricacy and agony surrounding this seemingly simple reform. In reality it was a Pyrrhic victory for the liberals that left them deeply demoralised. Not being much of a feminist (or a traditionalist), I was slow to tune in to this story. But its dark fascination gradually drew me, like an ecclesiastical car crash.
Female clergy have been cornered into a psychological trap
What happened is this: opponents of the change were allowed to stay in place. More than stay in place: they were allowed to form a structure of their own, with their own bishops. At first these were known as ‘flying bishops’, as they were not confined to a particular area, but could oversee parishes scattered in various dioceses. That began to sound like an inappropriately quirky euphemism for a depressing stalemate.
This arrangement was beyond unusual. Institutions do not generally allow internal dissent to bed down. Maybe its architects supposed that it was an emergency measure that would fade away in a decade or so. Instead, the traditionalists settled down deeper, in four-poster style. The desire to reunite the Church around a single episcopal structure was declared to be unanglican, in effect heretical. Candidates for ordination have to state their agreement with the policy.
What really interests me is the subtle psychological trap into which female clergy were cornered. Having gained the right to be ordained, even unto episcopacy, should they complain that the Church remained full of sexism? Such complaints made them sound ungrateful, whingy and secular. And because they were not allowed to complain about the fundamental structural issue, their complaints felt weak, thin, resentful, beside-the-point. It sounds sexist to say it, but they had been trapped into nagging. The alternative was to raise the stakes, and sound like ball-breaking harridans, demanding the ejection of the traditionalists. They were trapped between two sexist tropes.
I’ve written on the subject a few times over the years, but last year I found myself dropping journalistic neutrality. My thoughts were sharpened by the division over homosexuality. The conservative evangelicals, realising that the Church is slowly opting for gay blessings and probably gay marriage, are demanding the same arrangement that traditionalists have. And I realised that, if this happens, the Church of England is over. A divided episcopate – different bishops for those of different views – must be fought tooth and nail.
Reversing the error of thirty years ago will be contentious
I have been invited to say a few words at a conference in London this weekend. It is run by the campaigning group WATCH (Women and the Church). I’m sure that my audience isn’t the heckling sort, but I expect there might be a few murmurs of disquiet when I say my piece. The campaign for women clergy’s rights has been misguided, I will say. It has been a gift to the traditionalists. Every time WATCH complains of discrimination, some traditionalists feel a little more secure, for, in their view, women seem to be importing the ways of the world into the holy realm of religion.
The campaign must therefore leave rights-talk aside and focus entirely on Church unity. It must say that a church needs unity, and in the Church of England this is the function of the bishops: to be a united force, to uphold the same teaching. The Church was therefore mistaken when it authorised the current disunity. Instead of echoing secular identity politics, liberals must seize the religious high-ground from the traditionalists, and treat the unity of the Church (meaning the Church of England, not the Anglican Communion, and not some even vaguer global entity) as a sacred matter.
Reversing the error of thirty years ago will be contentious. Dare one argue that the majority view should be more assertive, that minority rights should be curtailed? It doesn’t sound very liberal. But it will be good for the image of liberal Anglicans. We are willing to be the nasty party of the Church, if theological integrity demands it. Some things matter more than niceness.
The CofE’s female clergy muddle is not sustainable
12
0
20.04.2024
It’s thirty years since the first women were ordained as priests of the Church of England. For ten years, there have been women bishops too. Well, at least one aspect of the Church’s reform is done and dusted.
Cue hollow laughter from those acquainted with the strange intricacy and agony surrounding this seemingly simple reform. In reality it was a Pyrrhic victory for the liberals that left them deeply demoralised. Not being much of a feminist (or a traditionalist), I was slow to tune in to this story. But its dark fascination gradually drew me, like an ecclesiastical car crash.
Female clergy have been cornered into a psychological trap
What happened is this: opponents of the change were allowed to stay in place. More than stay in place: they were allowed to form a structure of their own, with their own bishops. At first these were known as ‘flying bishops’, as they were not confined to a particular area, but could oversee parishes scattered in various dioceses. That began to sound like an inappropriately quirky euphemism for a depressing stalemate.
This........
© The Spectator
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
