Reaction to the Bill from Bishop David

BILL TO ENABLE TO BE ORDAINED AS BISHOPS

Bishop David writes …

At the end of July, Governing Body members received the text of the proposed Bill to Enable Women to be Ordained as Bishops and several accompanying papers. Among these is a long Note from the archbishop about the proposed legislation.

Now that the proposed legislation is in the public domain, it is appropriate for it to be made available on the Credo Cymru website and for me to comment on it.

The first thing I must do is to explain the timetable. Now that the Bill has been published, members of the Governing Body have until 27 October to propose amendments to it. A Select Committee will consider all the proposed amendments and duly produce a report in time for the meeting of the Standing Committee in February. The report will then be circulated to all Governing Body members in preparation for the debate and vote at the April 2008 meeting of the Governing Body.

As it stands, the proposed Bill rules out any possibility of a special episcopal jurisdiction being created for the sake of those who in conscience cannot agree to the ordination of women as bishops. Instead, it speaks rather vaguely about 'pastoral care and support' being provided for us by the Bench. The impression I get as I read the proposed Bill and the accompanying Note is that those who framed the Bill do not really understand the position of those who dissent from the proposed change to the ordained ministry. The archbishop is absolutely correct, of course, to state in his Note that the kind of provision we are asking for is considerably more than that which accompanied the ordination of women to the priesthood. What he seems to me to skate over is the undeniable fact that our request simply reflects the difference in scale between the ministry of a bishop and that of a priest. This is where I believe the real issues to lie. Crucial differences in this respect are that bishops ordain others and receive declarations of canonical obedience from clergy and other office holders. There would be huge difficulties associated with these distinctive aspects of a bishop's ministry if women were to be ordained to the episcopate. For my successor(s) to have powers of jurisdiction is, I still believe, the only way in which these difficulties can be contained.

Clause 2 of the proposed Bill is the one about pastoral care and support for those who would continue in conscience to be opposed to the main enactment. A sentence towards the end of the Note sheds a bit more light: 'Given that the Bench feels unable to go down the route of alternative jurisdiction such support, whether for parishes or clerics, must be "pastoral" in nature, as stated in the Bill, and must reflect the circumstances as and when a woman comes to be ordained Bishop.' That seems to mean that, while we could no doubt expect sincere expressions of goodwill, sympathy, etc. at the time of the Bill being passed, nothing would be spelt out about provision for us until a woman was actually on the point of being consecrated. I believe this to be completely unsatisfactory. In the first place, it means that to vote for the proposed legislation would be to sign a blank cheque regarding not just our own future in the Church in Wales but that of those who come after us as well. Secondly, to go ahead on the assumption that, while it would be possible for a woman to become a bishop in Wales, this wasn't going to happen for many a long year, strikes me as blatantly sexist. And thirdly, I would feel genuinely sorry for any woman whose election as bishop precipitated the process of putting some new pastoral provision together in a hurry.

The longer I reflect on the proposed Bill, the more convinced I become that it is driven above all by that post-1960s feminism which has done so much to secure for women all the fundamental human rights enjoyed by men. It has rightly sought to correct stereotypes which portrayed women as inferior, which largely confined them to domestic roles and tended to keep them out of public life. Its goal has been the inclusion of women and girls in every occupation and institution open to men and boys. In general terms, I for one regard this as entirely laudable.

Ignoring the large part which the Church has played in Western culture in advancing the status and dignity of women, some women have seen the sacred ministry as just such an occupation or institution from which their exclusion is a matter of fundamental injustice. The major weakness in this view of the ordained ministry is that it assumes that the Church is organized like a modern, secular, democratic society. But the Church is not a voluntary association of the like-minded, whose task is to create and maintain structures to serve its own purposes. It is a divine institution, whose sacraments are given by Christ. Holy Orders are conferred within it not for the honour or advancement of the recipient, but for the service of God and the building up of the whole. To consider the ministerial priesthood and episcopate as a human right is to misunderstand their nature completely.

The fundamental confusion at the root of this argument is neatly expressed in the Christian feminist slogan, 'If you won't ordain us, don't baptize us.' The Church has always baptized women; it has never (until recent innovations) ordained them to the priesthood or episcopate. This is not due to any devaluation of women. It arises from the fact that there is no necessary progression from baptism to priestly/episcopal ordination. If such a progression did of necessity exist, the Christian life would presumably be a sort of religious 'career path'. Such a concept can hardly be said to sit comfortably beside the Lord's warning that those who follow him must deny themselves and take up their cross daily.

Bishop David Thomas
Provincial Assistant Bishop