On the Women Bishops Vote

To the chagrin of some of those around me, I managed to spend most of yesterday listening to the Church of England General Synod discussion on 'Women Bishops'. The ultimate result of the day, it seemed, was 'NO'. But it is easy to get caught up in the headlines and engage in a classic excercise of the adventure of missing the point. Indeed, the most powerful post I read in the whole day had little to do with the 'issues' and more to do with the people. Read Tanya's excellent piece here.

What the Synod voted for was, in fact, not the place of women bishops. For better or for worse, the C of E has already agreed that there is no reason to stop women becoming bishops, yesterdays vote (and indeed the specific piece of legislation before Synod) was about how to do this without alienating two important parts of the C of E, the Conservative Evangelicals, and the Anglo-Catholics. It is worth pointing out that these (and others, though smaller groupings) groups, for whom the alleged safeguards (hinging on the legally-recognised but still vague word 'Respect') were put in, were not happy with the provisions. As a good friend, who is both an intelligent Anglican and conservative evangelical pointed out, this is due in part to the simple fact that in the early 90's vote on female clergy, many people got stung as they were offered similar assurances and so voted yes, which now means nothing. It becomes rather easier to sympathise with the Con-Evs and Ang-Caths - who are not trying to impose their view on the rest of the Church, but rather remain within the Church - when you remember that.

A second observation comes from my own experience yesterday; on Twitter. The "@Yes2WomenBishops" campaign, supported by such internet big dogs as the Church Mouse and Vicky Beeching, had seen coverage in the general media, and seemed to dominate my Twitter feed over the last two weeks. From Twitter (and maybe this is just the people I follow and engage with) you would have thought it was a cast iron, sealed shut case: that the C of E would vote yes. This wasn't the case - and I think thats because Twitter is not yet a perfect barometer of opinion. I come from the Conservative Evangelical wing of the church - and out of my home church, only about 6/300 people are on Twitter. At Trent Vineyard, the Church I'm serving at and part of now, its probable more like 1/5, and nearly all of the Pastoral Staff are tweeting. Twitter isn't the whole world - and neither is social media. And the C of E, like the world, is made up of people from all sorts of kinds.

Thirdly, lets look at the actual results. There is a sort of two-part process to this decision. The first of these is the vote in the Diocesan synods. These are the 44 bits of England divvied up by diocese. Of these, 42 out of the 44 voted for Women Bishops. In Synod itself, 90% of Bishops, 75% of Clergy, and 64% of Laity (normal, non-ordained people) vote for women Bishops. It is easy to see which way the tide of opinion is flowing, at least at the moment. If the Con-Evs and Ang-Caths want to influence things in the future, then they need to come out of the proverbial closet and get involved in church politics, and try to get elected to Synod. And also, for those in the world and the media trying to critique the C of E, or pin its decisions on the 'church' generally, looking at the facts is key. 

The media is a fascinating thing - in all its many forms (social, general, television, radio, newspapers etc) - and this mornings headlines (such as the Telegraphs incorrect 'Church in crisis over final no' [its not a crisis, and it wasn't final!]) won't help people to understand the issues at stake. I don't think the C of E has committed missional suicide - that tends to happen on the ground, at the local and parish level, if individual priests give up the Gospel work they pledged to do. I don't think that - contrary to what one Bishop said - people are asking when women will become bishops as one of the top concerns of people. I do think the media would do well to connect the dots, and look at the Con-Evo churches in the Anglican fold which are growing, and the fact that losing the Con-Evo's or the Ang-Caths would be a blow to the C of E. The church should not worry what the media thinks - as one of my Twitter friends pointed out "For all those now concerned that the Church will now be seen as wierd by society, MEMO: We also believe Jesus rose from the dead". As indeed he did. The media does not control the church - the church must and should work harder to influence the culture. I wrote on this very issue recently, looking at the crisis in The Episcopal Church in the US (Basically the historic American Anglican Church) over homosexuality; and as I quoted Alan Scott there;  "A vote for relevance in a dying culture is a vote for death". The Church of England needs to work out a better set of provisions for its members, and listen to the pillars of Anglicanism.

What do I think? And why do I care? Regular readers will know that I've grown up in a non-Conformist Baptist Church, and am now a committed part of a large Vineyard (Charismatic Evangelical) church. But I love the C of E - even as it frustrates me, and I sometimes feel a tug to it, a tug to consider how I might serve it in the future. I also have a great many friends in the C of E, and as a recent post from one of them put it, the future for Conservative Evangelicals in the C of E is not good. I also am a Christian and part of the church in England - so national issues find themselves worked out on the local level as people assume my Christianity means I support everything the Anglican branch does. I don't. I've written elsewhere about my views on Women in Leadership, Women Bishops, on Christianity and Homosexuality, and on what I mean by Evangelicalism. What the C of E does and says, matters for every Christian in the UK, whether Anglican or not. For me, this 'no' vote is not a victory for anyone, but instead a recognition that there is still work to do. 

Writing this post was quite hard to do - I know I will have alienated people with some of my words - but I felt I had to say some of these things. The vote is more complex than a Yes or No to Women Bishops - because Synod has already said yes. Twitter and the media are not a perfect representation of everyone - however much they might seem all-encompassing. The media should not rule the Church - and indeed Anglicanism has three grand rules: Scripture, Tradition and Reason. And Anglicanism, for its faults and features, does matter to every Christian in the UK. I would love to hear your thoughts and comments on this issue, so do leave them below.