Rector’s letter
THE RECTOR WRITES
Dear friends,
Split decision?
Open almost any textbook on management and you will see significant attention given to the issue of managing change. Change is nearly always divisive to some extent: it will bring some opposition in its wake. But of course refusing to change when the need for change has become apparent is also divisive: there are potentially winners and losers on all sides. The cost of doing nothing may become greater than the cost of changing. But when a small minority make it clear that, in the face of a proposed change, they will never ever be persuaded to accept what is proposed, what should you do? Abandon the proposal in deference to their views (bearing in mind there is no point delaying until they may have a change of heart)? Offer compromises to make the change less unpalatable? But what if the compromises you offer are so substantial they begin to dig away at the reasons for changing in the first place?
Those were the dilemmas facing General Synod in July when it debated women bishops in the Church of England. The ordination of women as priests was debated over many decades before finally being introduced. The Church of England has now had over ten years experience of women’s priestly ministry. Once you have decided that women can be priests, you have put to one side all the arguments about Jesus only choosing men as his twelve disciples, and about women having authority over men in the church. There is then no logical reason why women should not be allowed to go on and exercise the ministry of a bishop. Already there are two women Deans of English cathedrals – Salisbury and Leicester – and several women have become Archdeacons. General Synod three years ago re-affirmed its belief in principle that women should be enabled to become bishops. The Synod meeting this July began the debate as to how this might happen, and what legislation would be required – not only by the Church of England but also by Parliament (since the Church of England is “by law established”).
It came as no surprise (except possibly to sections of the press) that Synod voted in favour of women becoming bishops – the experience of having women as priests has contributed significantly to the desire for women to become bishops. The issue for Synod was what to do about those who under no circumstances could accept the change.
Several possible compromises were under discussion, including in effect setting up a ‘Church within a Church’ for those opposed. In the end Synod opted for a compromise which offered opponents a national code of conduct under which anyone who was in conscience unable to accept the ministry of a woman bishop could have access to the ministry of a like-minded male bishop, whilst still remaining within the existing structures of the Church of England.
That seems to me to be about right. It gives a serious concession to opponents, without at the same time undermining the authority of women who will become bishops (some of the other rejected compromises were felt to go too far in that direction).
No-one has ever seriously accused the Church of England of acting with precipitate haste about anything, and it will still take a number of years for the legislative process to work its way through. Indeed, the legislation will have to be approved by further votes in Synod (and could theoretically be thrown out). The first woman bishop is not likely to be appointed until 2014 or 2015.
There may be some who will feel unable to remain within the Church of England as a result of this change (though I suspect the numbers being quoted in the press are seriously inflated). It will be a great sadness if any feel they must leave their spiritual home for another church. But in the end the Church must do what it believes to be right in the sight of God. It is no good proclaiming God’s justice to the world if the Church cannot order its own affairs according to the principles of justice.
Keith Maudsley
