James Higham claims a victory for the forces of conservatism over at OoL – although he doesn’t call it that, that is what it is. After all, the vote by the General Synod on the matter of women bishops in the C of E was a majority in favour. The voting rules prevented it being carried, so I fail to see a sweeping victory for the status quo here – merely an arcane rule preventing the will of the majority from being fulfilled. That, I would suggest, is probably a victory for conservatism, but not the one James is claiming here; that there is a sea change going on away from the leftist orthodoxy.
The other issue is the one that wanting women bishops is somehow a lefty liberal (as opposed to “liberal”) move.
The most laughable suggestions were that God must get abreast of modern times. They seek to dictate to their Maker? LOL.
Yeah right, God should just get over sodomy and killings, rapings, drugs, families torn apart, children wasted before their time, ignorance and no education, no jobs, neighbour v neighbour, no national pride, nothing produced any more and so on – yep, God should sure embrace modern life.
I am not aware of any gods expressly forbidding the ordination of female clergy of any stripe, priests bishops or arch bishops. Far be it for me to say it, but the insistence on an all male clergy comes from a primitive, paternal culture where all the rules and religious texts were produced by men. In other words, it comes from man, not god. The Church is a man-made institution – the one we are discussing dates back to the reformation; the desire for a king to break with the Roman Church because it wouldn’t let him have his own way over a divorce. Perhaps God should have just got with the modern times, eh? Well, Henry VIII certainly thought so and started his own church to make sure he did.
The point is, joshing aside, that the votes were significantly in favour of ordaining women bishops – 324 to 122 sure looks like a majority from where I am standing. The reason the Church is now looking pretty silly is not because a majority voted to keep women bishops out, but because the majority voted in favour of them but will not now get its way. Either you operate a democracy or you don’t. If not, well, be honest about it.
The issue here isn’t about a vote for women bishops. It seems to me the issue is an arcane rule that makes the whole edifice look a bit of a tit – quite apart from believing in mythical deities, that is…
———————————————————
Disclaimer: Not believing in any mythical deities and not being a member of the Church of England, I have no horse in this race. I comment, with mild amusement from the sidelines, at what appears to me to be a bunch of ferrets fighting in a sack.
———————————————————
Update: As with any discussion here, I can start as I mean to go on, but cannot control how commenters want to develop it. So be it…
The original point being made here wasn’t about women bishops at all, it was about something quite different.
“It seems to me the issue is an arcane rule that makes the whole edifice look a bit of a tit”
Like Magna Carta is a set of arcane rules that don’t fit with modern life so deserve to be ignored? Or the American constitution is a load of old fashioned waffle and doesn’t matter any more?
I don’t care what the Church does, I have no involvement with it. But in general I am always very wary indeed of modernisers (in any senario) who seek to overturn tradition for what are often short term or expedient reasons and without fully understanding why the original rule was made.
There’s no comparison here. And tradition is hardly a reason to do something or not do it and I am always suspicious of it being used as an excuse. Tradition should always be rigorously examined and overthrown if it no longer applies. Either the CofE is operating a democracy or it isn’t. It is clear that it isn’t, so at least be honest about it.
I presume your complaints about ancient paternalistic institutions will likewise be delivered to your nearest synagogue and mosque.
You’ve been reading this blog long enough to realise that I am contemptuous of all religions and have often discussed Islam here. It isn’t relevant to this discussion because neither Judaism nor Islam have been holding a vote on the matter. Raising Islam and Judaism here is a variation of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
No LR, sorry, but you are quite wrong. There is only a vote in the Cof E because all the ‘right on’ types had managed to bully their way into high office. I presume now that the PTB will insist they vote and vote again until they get the ‘right’ result. This is a long way from the freedom of religion that I was raised with.
I raised islam and Judaism as a counter to all the breathless handwringing of the luvvies who will now declare how awful this is since ‘everyone’ wants it.
I am not remotely wrong, I hold a different opinion to you, that is all.
The CofE deciding to vote on the ordination of female bishops was reasonable and rational. It has nothing to do with the PTB or any anyone bullying their way into high office. It was an issue that was of its time, nothing more. Given that a clear majority voted in favour, no I won’t be surprised if it is revisited. Again, nothing to do with the PTB or anyone else, merely a result of the will of the majority being snubbed.
If I was religious and a member of the CofE with a vote, I would have voted in favour because there is neither logical nor rational reason to vote otherwise. Tradition don’t cut it. Tradition is not a rational reason for making decisions.
I fail to see how preventing women from becoming bishops is a freedom of religion issue. It isn’t. A female bishop does not impinge on anyone’s freedom of religion.
Islam and Judaism are an irrelevance in this issue.
I don’t think we are going to agree on this one! 😮
A female bishop who is ‘parachuted’ into position against the wishes of her local churches is indeed impugning on freedom of religion.
Given the wonderful examples of our political class, I can see that being exactly what happens.
Also, what UmBongo says below.
On to more important issues, how is the Deauville panning out on the job?
I haven’t kept up with all the details of this but I understand that there were special provisions for parishes that did not wish to be in communication with a female Bishop, as there were for those parishes that were opposed to female priests.
Wow! That’s a quantum leap sideways. Just because parachuting is a dubious practice, it doesn’t follow that female bishops are likewise, nor does it presume that one will follow the other. For all you know, you have a parachuted bishop already, it’s just that he has dangly bits under his cassock.
You are attempting to use too broad a brush regarding freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice – not the freedom to dictate the sex of the clergy. You are still free to practice irrespective of the sex of the bishop.
Exceedingly well, as it turns out. I’m very pleased with it.
Some synagogues already have female Rabbis and neither Jews or Muslims have bishops, neither do a lot of Christians for that matter.
Leaving the religious aspect aside, you will find that even your local sports club has a two thirds rule for constitutional changes. It safeguards against entryism and constant disruptive change.
It also denies the will of the majority. So, yeah, I don’t approve. Safeguarding against disruption is a weak argument. The obvious solution is to only hold votes when it is evident that change is becoming necessary. Then hold a straight majority vote. Entryism isn’t an issue as far as I am concerned. If people have the right to vote, they have the right to vote and their opinion is equal to everyone else voting.
Then we shall never agree. Tyranny of the majority is as bad as any other form of tyranny.
Actually, I tend to agree with you regarding the tyranny of the majority being a weakness of democracy. However, no one is being oppressed as a consequence of women bishops, so it doesn’t apply.
And I can agree that no one is oppressed as a consequence of women bishops. I see it as either having a man in a dress as bishop or a woman pretending to be a man in a dress (I do equal opportunities offending). But, tyranny is never a single step process.
Indeed. However, as this is a private club, whatever the outcome, it won’t be tyranny.
It is the established church not a private club. It passes legislation and has permanent seats in the legislative assembly.
LR
If you’re going to deal or comment on institutions like the Church of England (or, for that matter, the Papacy or Islam), I suggest you deal with them on their own terms. The Church of England claims that it is a legitimate congregation of the faithful and that its priesthood – certainly its bishops – can trace their legitimacy to St Peter. The “democracy” of the synod is or should be tempered by this belief. In other words, although it is a secular construct it should and does not function wholly as a secular construct. Indeed, before the synod gets down to work there are prayers to the effect that God is asked to guide the synod’s deliberations.
Like you, I consider that much of this is complete nonsense. However, unlike you, I think there’s no point in having a spiritual and eternal institution which is, at the same time, in thrall to the secular enthusiasms of the day. Sexual equality – whatever it is – must be a wonderful thing according to you and the BBC, but so what? “God” doesn’t do sexual equality. Frankly, I don’t know what S/he does and, more to the point, none of the synod knows either no matter what they claim.
It seems to me that what has happened must be to a believer an insight into God’s will and thus should to a believer necessitate a pause for reflection. As it is, the spectacle of overweight, ugly women weeping because the toy they thought they possessed has been dashed from their grasp is no justification to change the rules and insist that the synod votes and votes again until they get what they (and, not by coincidence, the rest of the metro-lefty bien pensant community) want.
I have to agree with most of this, although not the dig about ugly overweight women, the personal appearance of the clergy is irrelevant, there are plenty of male priests who fit that description too. One of the objections to both female ordination and female Bishops, the only one in the end which I thought valid when I was a Christian in the CoE, was that as a claimed member of the universal catholic church the Church of England had no right to make a decision on these matters in isolation. Which essentially meant that until Rome and the Orthodox churches agreed with the changes then there should be no unilateral action by Canterbury and the synod. There are a number of objections to this view but I think it is true to say that if you claim to be the inheritors of a tradition running in direct descent from St. Peter and the Apostles you can’t then go mucking about willy nilly with the structure of the priesthood. This is consistent with the history of the CoE which, despite the rather simplistic and common line put forward by LR here that it was all about the Henrician divorce and establishment of secular power over the church, has always emphasised its catholic and episcopal traditions. This is as true of the protestant part as it is of the High Church element, which long predates Anglo catholicism and is why many evangelicals are also opposed or at best ambivalent about the proposal for women Bishops.
Who said God doesn’t do sexual equality? If you can find it in scriptures, then it is worth bearing in mind who wrote them; men, not God. Men who were living in a primitive, patriarchal society, so reflected the societal norms of the times. We live in different times and do things differently – rightly or wrongly. The General Synod was right to consider that times have changed and in so doing reflect the approach most modern Christians adopt; that the Bible shouldn’t be taken too literally.
And, yes, I do believe in the principle of equality of opportunity between the sexes. Any institution that denies half of its workforce an opportunity to progress based upon nothing more tangible than sex, is depriving itself of potentially competent candidates.
Ultimately, this argument should be about their club, their rules and ordinarily that is the line I would take. I don’t for one simple reason; it has become evident that a majority of the club do not agree with the rules.
You’re missing the point somewhat, if the CoE is the inheritor of the catholic tradition in England then the question of whether the majority of its members are in agreement with female Bishops or not is largely irrelevant in itself, this really isn’t something that can be decided by a majority vote in the same way that say repeal of a club rule barring admission to women can be. The Biblical argument for a male priesthood is not entirely relevant as the catholic part of the CoE ( which includes many traditionalist protestants ) would not regard Biblical sanction as being the only or even the most important matter here. You have to understand the theological argument that the priesthood is an Apostolic foundation and that all ordained priests are part of the Apostolic succession, you may not agree with it, may think it all nonsense but that is what many in the CoE do believe and sincerely think that female Bishops are stretching this tradition beyond breaking point. The opposing argument is that the Apostolic succession should not be bound by the patriarchal assumptions of the past and that through discussion, prayer and thorough examination of the theological questions raised, a consensus can be reached that the time has come for female Bishops to be allowed, the vote in the Synod is just the outward expression of this. Again you may think it all nonsense but portraying it as just a few conservatives standing in the way of the sensible views of the majority is simplistic, as is the conservative view that this is just a bunch of Fems and proggies up to their usual tricks of railroading through their own pet projects at the expense of everyone else.
I don’t misunderstand or miss the point. I simply do not accept the premise as being a valid justification for an all male priesthood in the 21st Century.
Um, actually, they can do precisely that. There is nothing that stops them changing the rules in any way they wish should they choose to do so. I mentioned Henry VIII somewhat facetiously, but he did set a precedent. Change can be made where there is the will to do so and Christians have been doing it to adapt to the times pretty much throughout their history.
Ultimately, the argument you and Umbongo are putting forward is one of “it’s always been this way, so it always must be this way”, which is pretty much the conservative view. Anything can be changed given the will. Beyond adherence to tradition there is no reason why one sect cannot go it alone – again, it’s been done before.
Which is a rational, reasonable and logical position to take.
The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. If the majority of the CofE wish to ordain female bishops, the past and tradition are weak argument in the face of changing social attitudes and irrespective of theological arguments, those attitudes will permeate through the organisation.
Actually no I’m not arguing that it’s always been this way so it always must be this way, I probably haven’t explained my position properly, in so far as I have one as I’m no longer a Christian, which isn’t surprising because it’s a very complex subject. Here’s a very good explanation from Cranmer, I recommend it to the house.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/church-of-england-remains-bit-more.html
My own interest in this now is purely historical, particularly the Church of England and the various religious and political controversies of the seventeenth century. Whether the church decides to appoint women Bishops or not is something I have no great interest in but I do think it important to understand the processes by which it has arrived at this stage and to separate off personal opinions and preferences from objective fact.
Further to that and FWIW one of the reasons I eventually gave up church going and ceased to have any belief in the truth of Christianity was seeing the antics of opponents of women priests at the time of that controversy around 1990. I, in my innocence, thought that most of the opposition was principled and based on reasonable if arguable theology, instead it became quite apparent that many Anglo Catholics especially priests were dreadful misogynists and the theological objections were very secondary to this. Not all of them of course and it was looking at all the arguments and weighing things up in my own mind, that eventually led to me changing my mind about female ordination. Now that I don’t have any beliefs at all I find I can look at it more objectively and not reduce the whole thing to an irrelevant discussion about whether the church is keeping up with the times or not.
Oh my reason was much simpler. I realised that I didn’t believe in God. I understand that this is fairly central to membership 😉
“I understand that this is fairly central to membership”.
Not necessarily, in my own case I never felt any strong conviction in the existence of God, I wasn’t raised a Christian and only started going to church in my thirties, this was as much an aesthetic response as a spiritual one, I loved the music, architecture and liturgy, particularly the Book of Common Prayer, I still do. there was also an intellectual curiosity and a desire to see if belief could be reinforced and refined by church attendance, this was my own version of Pascals wager really, which at one time I found a convincing argument. The experience of the reality of the church, particularly the one I attended and a better understanding of theology and history eventually led me to understand that actually I just didn’t believe in it. This is why I am now very wary of letting personal beliefs in such things as equality override attempting to understand differing views of the world and the argument that women must become Bishops because a majority wants it and because it fits the temper of the times doesn’t impress me.
LR
The CoE is not Tesco or the Civil Service. There is indeed a type of career progression in the CoE but the CoE’s purpose is not to make a profit or administer quotidian rules devised by politicians or provide therapy by creating job opportunities for (pace Thornavis) the ugly, overweight and hysterical of either sex. As to your, I take it, “killer argument” that “it has become evident that a majority of the club do not agree with the rules” the question arises as to why those rules were adopted in the first place. Of course, any “club” has a right to alter its rules but this particular club adopted those rules for perfectly good reasons. I would argue that they are there precisely to 1. prevent a majority of 50% + 1 doing exactly what it wants willy nilly, and 2. stop the CoE being prey to secular, political or any other fashion. The rules have actually worked in an exemplary fashion as they were designed to.
I notice that you haven’t responded to my point that for a believer (and thus a member of the club) the CoE, and consequently the synod, are a part of God’s mission in the world. As such, a devotion to sex equality may or may not be appropriate: I don’t know and nor do you. Apparently you are a big fan of the “principle of equality of opportunity between the sexes”. So am I but it’s a principle to be seriously considered not an iron rule to be applied in all cases. IMHO the CoE is a case where the principle might not – and therefore should not – apply.
Indeed so. They prevented a significant majority achieving its will. Therefore, it is not a democracy, so should not claim to be any such thing. The kind of safeguards you are concerned about could be achieved by other means – a quorum for voting, for example, or holding a vote only when it is deemed necessary. they could have simply not put it to the vote after all.
Given the length of your comment, I wasn’t going to respond line by line. However, yes, the majority of the club clearly do want to change the rules irrespective of the theological arguments that stem – as I said – from a primitive, patriarchal society. That majority appear to feel that God’s mission can be accomplished with women bishops and why not?
It would seem that around 64% of the CofE disagree with you, no?
I’m not sure that anyone does claim that the Synod is a democratic chamber and the CoE a democracy, they are mistaken if they do. The Synod is constituted in three Houses, Clergy, Bishops and Laity, it was the lack of a majority amongst the laity that led to the rejection of this measure, so if you want to look at it in purely secular terms it seems to me that the House of laity, who represent the great majority of the church is the nearest thing to a democratic body and they voted against, unless you think the much smaller number of votes from the priests and Bishops should have out weighed that ?
The laity vote was 132 for and 74 against. I’d say that was a significant majority in favour.
Not a two thirds majority though which is what is required, which seems reasonable to me for changing something so fundamentally. Anyway this is only for now, female ordination took a long time to pass as well but eventually it happened which is another reason why worrying that it’s all so undemocratic is beside the point, that’s actually how democracy is supposed to work. It isn’t meant to be a rapid way of introducing change, there should be checks and balances and if something takes a while to pass then all the more likely that it represents a real desire for change, properly thought through rather than a passing whim. In this it seems to me that the CoE is showing the rest of us a good example.
“It would seem that around 64% of the CofE disagree with you, no?”
Well 64% of the House of Laity anyway.
I won’t repeat my particular arguments but, as a matter of interest and analogously, when a president is impeached in the US, to be found guilty the Senate has to agree by a two-thirds majority. On Andrew Johnson’s impeachment in 1868, 35 out of 54 senators (65%) found Johnson guilty and therefore the impeachment failed. On your argument, such an outcome was a travesty of democracy and the rules should have been changed and Johnson re-tried (so that the “correct” verdict could be delivered and Johnson removed from office).
Further and worse, there were no women federal legislators at the time, nor were there any women signatories to the Constitution: a constitution, I might add, which derived much of its authority from its architects’ view that it crystallised the principles underlying the ancient constitution of England. Accordingly, and following your argument, the rules under which Johnson was impeached and acquitted (similarly to those under which women bishops were rejected) can be damned as a manifestation of the “primitive and patriarchal”.
The Bishops and Clergy were around the same, so across the board, the majority disagree with you. That it was not enough to cross a particular threshold doesn’t change the fact that the ayes were in the majority.
To compare events in 1868 with those of today is to compare apples with oranges.
I’ve never claimed that the majority disagreed with me. Had they not you wouldn’t have started this post and I wouldn’t have commented.
As to my analogy with Johnson’s impeachment: a good example to illustrate the effect of your argument is still a good example whether it’s 150 hours old, 150 years old or 1,500 years old unless, of course, history really did start in 1997.
A slight aside, but I can’t really see why one would expect the C of E (or any other religion) to follow either a logical or rational path when the whole basis of their club is one of faith rather than rationality.
Well, yes, indeed.
Not really. Faith is the foundation of belief and the church is the living embodiment of that faith and the carrier of the line of faith stretching back to the original disciples, that would, I think, be the view of all Christians. However the obligation to apply rational thought to the understanding of both the place of the church in the world and its internal structure would certainly be stressed by all the mainstream churches. Whether one thinks that is what happens or is even possible is another matter of course.
It is a private club in that many of us are not members and so have no say in how it runs its business. Nor would I wish to. I merely comment with some amusement from the sidelines.
That there are bishops sitting in our legislature is an outrage that is meat for another discussion. Disestablishment cannot come soon enough as far as I am concerned, but I ain’t going down that route today. This discussion has already strayed way beyond the point I was originally making; that this is not some watershed moment that portends a fightback against political correctness. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You raised it in the context of a primitive, patriarchal society. The USA in the 1860s was most certainly patriarchal although not primitive in the sense of the ancient Hebrews during the Roman occupation.
The two thirds rule was wrong then and it is wrong now in that it effectively weights the votes in a given direction, effectively disenfranchising half of the electorate. It is indefensible and I would never participate in any election that used it. I expect all votes to count the same. Any system that undermines that basic principle is undemocratic – which is where I came in; close to two thirds of this electorate has had its will overturned. This is not democratic and the vote was a waste of time.
“Democracy” – a loaded word if ever there was one – is not just about counting votes although, if it were, Egypt and Venezuela would be as “democratic” as Sweden. Votes are important and majorities are important but they’re not the whole thing.
Why do you think, for instance, (and sorry to use an example which might not meet your standards for discussion) that the Founding Fathers made it very difficult to amend the US Constitution and imposed the necessity to achieve super-majorities all the way? I’ll tell you: it’s because they considered that important changes in the way the US was governed should not be amenable to a simple majority vote liable to be influenced by some fashionable – or hysterical – whim. Similar reasoning applied to the use of an electoral college to determine who becomes US president rather than counting the direct votes.
As far as the CoE is concerned the matter of women bishops is a fundamental matter of church government and doctrine. Accordingly, so important were such matters considered that it was deemed necessary (when the synod was empowered to determine such things) that the rule requiring a 2/3 majority in each house was agreed without, I believe, much argument. This isn’t “undemocratic”. It’s no more “undemocratic” than requiring super-majorities to change the US Constitution.
There are endless examples in other walks of life where super-majorities are required to enforce a particular procedure. In company law, for instance, no-one, I think, (excepting your good self perhaps) would argue that the super-majority of 90% of shares/votes required to enforce the sale of shares to a successful bidder (in a takeover) by recalcitrant shareholders is either unfair or “undemocratic”.
A very good comment. I think what annoys me most about this and it has nothing to do with either religious belief or women’s rights, is the way that a system that was established, as you correctly point out, in order to prevent hasty and ill thought out changes suddenly becomes an insupportable and reactionary impediment when it fails to produce the answer that conventional wisdom demands. That really should give anyone of libertarian inclinations a very queasy feeling.
What is a problem for this liberal’s view is that a change wanted by a clear majority was impeded by a rigid rule that effectively handed victory to a minority – again, this has nothing to do with religion or women bishops.
See my other comments on this. There are other, better approaches to ensure a steady ship without making some votes more equal than others. A quorum for calling a vote in the first place, for example.
I have no problem with tempering democracy, I have a huge problem with weighting votes. Barriers should be set before voting, not after, otherwise you get a situation where some votes are more equal than others. And, yes, I do believe that requiring 90% for a bidder to take over is unfair and undemocratic. If a majority want it, it should happen. If you want to stop it, the time to do so is well before it gets to that stage, frankly – by not going public with your company, for example.
Just because that is the situation and it has been around for a long time, it doesn’t mean that it is right. The recent farce with the CofE exposes this rule for the absurdity that it is and exposes the organisation to well deserved ridicule.
“And, yes, I do believe that requiring 90% for a bidder to take over is unfair and undemocratic”
This is where I stop commenting since we are, as they say, arguing from different premises. As a matter of information, in company law, the 90% hurdle is that which prevents the forced sale to the 90%-1 majority of the shares owned by the minority 10%+1. You are arguing – if I understand you correctly – that company law should be changed such that the holders of 50%+1 of the shares in a company can force the 50%-1 minority to sell its shares to the majority. Not, I think, very libetarian nor favourable to the maintenance of private property (let alone an encouragement to invest in a company) but it seems anything a majority wants – no matter how unreasonable or not in accord with previously agreed procedure – is OK with you.
Neither option is particularly libertarian as it imposes action (or inaction) on the unwilling parties. Enforcing a majority to comply with the wishes of a minority is hardly libertarian either and is no more favourable to property rights than the other way around.
No, I don’t approve of super majorities and nothing I have heard here changes that opinion.
I didn’t say that. Like others here, I have expressed concern about raw democracy. However, once a vote is called, then each vote must count equally. Super majorities involve some votes being more equal than others. So, yes, once a vote is called, then the majority should have its way. The time to deal with property rights or slowing down the pace of change is well before the vote is called.
I don’t really care whether the procedure was previously agreed or not as that wasn’t the point – I am stating (consistently) that I do not agree with it and to claim democratic legitimacy using it will undoubtedly call into question the legitimacy of the outcome – and rightly so.
Gosh, I come mover here to be ejukated and all I get is a post by Higham.