Yesterday, Matt Schmitz posted about the decision by the General Synod of the Church of England to reject women bishops. At question time in the House of Commons today, UK Prime Minister David Cameron spoke about yesterday’s decision. According to the Guardian,
Cameron said he was “very sad” about the result. “On a personal basis I’m a strong supporter of women bishops. I’m very sad about the way the vote went yesterday …. I think it’s important for the Church of England to be a modern church in touch with society as it is today and this was a key step it needed to take.”
Cameron indicated that the government would respect the Church’s self-governing status — although established by law, the Church legislates for itself through the General Synod — while giving the Church “a sharp prod.” It’s not clear what the prod will be. Some MPs are threatening to end the Church’s representation in the House of Lords; others, to remove the Church’s exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Anyway, Cameron made clear, the Church would somehow have to “get with the programme” and reverse yesterday’s decision.
Please note that the Prime Minister’s objections, and the objections of the other MPs, are entirely political. I don’t mean that as a criticism; it’s simply a fact. In essence, what the Prime Minister is saying is this: The Church’s decision is inconsistent with the deepest values of contemporary English society; therefore, the decision is illegitimate. Now, no doubt, the Prime Minister thinks it is morally wrong and un-Christian to refuse to ordain women as bishops, and many people agree with him. But his main point, at least as expressed in Parliament, is that the Church must change to keep up with modern society. As a public institution, the Church has a responsibility to reflect public values.
Public values are not in principle the binding authority for Christian churches, however. Whether women may become bishops — or priests, for that matter — is a complex theological question on which Christian churches disagree. To resolve the question in an intellectually honest way, you’d have to spend a lot of time considering scripture and tradition. And you’d have to be open to the possibility that scripture and tradition point to an answer that contradicts public opinion, in which case, you’d have to conform to scripture and tradition, not public opinion. It wouldn’t be the first time Christians found themselves at odds with the wider society, after all. But, anyway, I’m not arguing here about women bishops. My point is only that the values of the wider society cannot, for Christians, be the determinative factor.
And here we come to a central problem of establishments. Inevitably, public values do become the determinative factor. Public institutions cannot contradict public opinion for long. What will the outcome be in this case? I don’t know enough about English society to make a confident prediction, but two possibilities suggest themselves. First, the General Synod will get the message and reverse course in the near future. The supporters of women bishops were only six votes short of a supermajority, which is awfully close. Perhaps next time the vote will be different. Alternatively, the opponents of women bishops, who come disproportionately from the laity — an observation that requires a post of its own — will hold on, and the Church will move, slowly, toward disestablishment. I can’t imagine Parliament will remain patient for long with a public institution out of step with public values.
Mark Movsesian is Director of the Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University.
November 21st, 2012 | 1:33 pm
That’s a very witty headline. Amazing how spelling can convey so much.
November 21st, 2012 | 1:59 pm
Whether women may become bishops — or priests, for that matter — is a complex theological question on which Christian churches disagree.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it’s my understanding that the Catholic Church has definitively said that Anglican orders are not valid. If that is correct, it seems to follow logically that there is no question of having Anglican women priest, because there is no such thing as an Anglican priest at all, male or female. And there is no question of having Anglican women bishops, because there is no such thing as an Anglican bishop at all, male or female.
The Anglican Church, as I understand it, is not even a church at all “in the proper sense of the word” (in the Catholic view).
My point is only that the values of the wider society cannot, for Christians, be the determinative factor.
This is of course still a valid point, but of course it is at least possible that some of the values of the wider society might influence the church for the better. For example, I think it was at least in part the values of the wider society that exposed what we now consider to have been a sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. It seems evident to me that the Church was brought along by the values of the wider society on the issue of female altar servers from the 1960s through the 1990s. And the New Orleans Catholic school system was not integrated until after Brown v. Board of Education and the integration of the New Orleans public schools.
November 21st, 2012 | 3:31 pm
“Correct me if I am wrong, but it’s my understanding that the Catholic Church has definitively said that Anglican orders are not valid.”
This is correct, but I don’t see why the Catholic opinion of Anglican orders is relevant to those voting. Obviously the Anglican Church does considers Anglican orders to be valid. Maybe I’m missing your point?
November 21st, 2012 | 3:49 pm
The Catholic Church has been struggling with what it recognized as a sex abuse scandal from the 1980s. The public-at-large became aware only in 2002. So I’m not sure what how that applies here. Unfortunately, though the Church seems to have been helped along in its decisions, the public at large has not been. Sex abuse in public schools remains what it was in spite of the 2002 airing in the Boston Globe. The very things that caused some to gasp about the Church are accepted in other venues, if after some agonizing. Think Polanski or, more recently, Kevin Clash.
As to female altar servers, the change was at a couple of levels. The one you miss that made them possible is removal of Alcolyte as one stage in priestly formation. IOW, what changed was administrative not foundational.
Female bishops would be foundational. And why would Anglicans base their decisions on Catholic beliefs?
November 21st, 2012 | 4:55 pm
It seems strange that British politicians have any opinion at all on the Church of England, considering the low level of religious observance in that country. I wonder why they care. Even odder would be the CE giving any consideration to these opinions from outsiders (including those Catholics cited in an earlier comment).
November 21st, 2012 | 6:24 pm
Mark is pointing out what has and will become more of an issue in the future. Although in this country we do not have a state run church the culture holds powerful sway. Many denominations have already taken this step and I am surprised that the Anglicans failed to get this question passed. I suspect that there are many in the Anglican community (African Nations) that do not hold to the traditional rule of the church being changed just to satisfy the political/cultural conventions of the day.
If various churches continue to do this they will reap the whirlwind and cease to be any kind of representation of what the church was intended to be.
The church is not a democracy to be ruled by society. It is the kingdom of God to be ruled by scripture and those entrusted with its orthodoxy.
As a non catholic I am surprised at some of the thoughts concerning this issue. The church is constantly being attacked by secular voices; these in most cases are dry wells…I think the worst days are ahead of us. To play these questions down as not having much point to them because technically they are outside the “True” church reflects an under appreciation
for the difficulties that we who are people of faith are facing in a world hostile to christian faith as it has been handed down through the ages. Christ afterall (the LIVING RESURRECTED CHRIST not some exististenial phantom) is a common denominator of us all the adhere to christian teaching.
November 21st, 2012 | 7:45 pm
David Nickol: “I think it was at least in part the values of the wider society that exposed what we now consider to have been a sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.”
Perhaps, but you could also argue that it was the values of the wider society that caused the sex abuse in the first place. Ideas like “free love,” and then “counseling and psychological treatment, rather than punishment.”
November 22nd, 2012 | 8:02 am
Patrick
“you could also argue that it was the values of the wider society that caused the sex abuse in the first place. ”
Absolutely right. It was in fact wider society holding the church up to standards itself had set and always traditionally taught.
Therein lies the difference. Women priests and bishops is society seeking to produce innovation within the church and departure from all that has been traditionally taught on the issue.
November 22nd, 2012 | 11:52 am
Peg wrote
” Even odder would be the CE giving any consideration to these opinions from outsiders (including those Catholics cited in an earlier comment).”
The Anglo-Catholic party has long embraced the “branch” theory of the church, according to which the three branches are the Roman, Orthodox and Anglican churches.
Much of the opposition to women priests and, now, bishops, is based on the belief that no one branch should depart from the traditions of the undivided church.
In the case of women priests, the “impossibilists” simply have to avoid their ministry; once introduce women bishops and it becomes necessary to check the pedigree of every priest.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact