THE Church of England is facing a fresh schism this week over its long running and frequently fraught attempts to consecrate women bishops.
An influential coalition of evangelicals said they would order newly trained priests to leave the Church if it pressed ahead with the ordination of female bishops without any caveats for conservatives who are opposed to such plans – and they would stop donating cash to the C of E.
The stark warning came in the form of an open letter on the eve of this winter’s General Synod signed by 50 ministers from Reform, a broadly evangelical coalition of ministers who are bitterly opposed to opening up the church further to female leaders.
According to this report, the signatories form a small section of the church’s overall congregation. But its message will still worry senior bishops because the evangelical wing is one of the few areas that boasts growing congregations, younger worshippers and generous donors. It also represents a profound tactical shift in the way evangelicals intend to oppose women bishops.
Previously statements from the anti-women bishop lobby have largely revolved around threatening to leave the Anglican Communion altogether. This letter is intended to remind bishops of the potential financial and spiritual loss which any walkout would incur.
Members of the Synod applaud as the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch gives a speech on the issue of the ordination of women bishops. Photo: PAUL GROVER
Those opposed to women bishops – broadly evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics – have been lobbying for the creation of three so-called “super flying bishops” who would have had no geographical diocese and could administer to any congregation that felt unable to worship under the leadership of a woman (something liberals are opposed to because, they argue, it would create a two tier bishop system where men were still more senior than women).
Synod members were told by the Bishop of Manchester, the Right Rev Nigel McCulloch, that the committee’s attempts to find a compromise had failed. Instead the Synod will be asked to vote on women bishops this summer without any opt-outs for traditionalists.
If that vote goes ahead without any conciliatory gestures to traditionalists, Reform say they will be forced to tell newly ordained priests to leave the C of E, something which could have a profound effect because Anglicans are already struggling to attract new clergy. The rebel ministers have also said they would have to stop donating to the Church of England, pointedly reminding Synod members that their churches had contributed more than £22m to church coffers in the past decade.
Women bishops have been appointed in Anglican churches in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States and Cuba but progress has been much slower in the Church of England.
Some Anglo-Catholics have threatened to defect to Rome, something which the Vatican has viewed with open relish. Last October the Pope made a surprise announcement that Rome would allow Anglo-Catholics to convert and retain some of their Anglican traditions.
But liberals are growing increasingly impatient that opening up the church to women is taking so long to implement. Synod members were supposed to vote on the next stage of creating women bishops during this week’s meeting but because of the opposition from conservatives it will now have to be delayed until the summer.
Christina Rees, a synod member and chair of the pro-women’s bishop campaign group Women and the Church (Watch), said: “The delay is extremely disappointing and it shows how, when it comes to the issue of women bishops, the Synod has chosen to move very slowly. But at least that means that when we finally do see the draft legislation opening the episcopate up to women, no-one can say we haven’t left a single stone unturned to find the right solution.”
She added: “We have debated this issue prayerfully and thoughtfully for over 30 years and we are ready for this. For the past 15 years we have had women working as priests, many of whom would make some truly excellent bishops. It’s a waste and an embarrassment to the Church that the House of Bishops is still dominated by men and closed to women.”
Meanwhile, it is reported by The Times that the C of E is suffering from a “testostorone deficit”.
Canon Simon Bessant, of Sheffield, called on the Church to redress the problem of women seriously outnumbering men in congregations.
He said there was ”plenty” of anecdotal evidence that the gender balance in congregations is getting ‘’seriously out of line”.
Members of the Synod applaud as the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch gives a speech on the issue of the ordination of women bishops Photo: PAUL GROVER
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
February 9th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
So Reform are … anti-reform?
February 9th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I can’t remember who said “I’d never join a club who would have a person like me as a member”? Perhaps the women Bishops could heed this.
In the Babble there is a verse about not allowing a woman to preach; so do the women preachers follow their book which they claim to be true or ignore the inconvenient bits as usual?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Male bishops? Female bishops? Quite frankly, who gives a toss. They’re all barking mad.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
super flying bishops? do they have x-ray and heat vision as well?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Is “ordinates” a portmanteau word? A cross between “ordains” and “consecrates” perhaps!
February 9th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Maybe they’ll all leave in a huff, and we can start worrying about things that really matter.
Angela: Your quote is from the eloquent Groucho Marx.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
This is piffle. As Angela says, the New Testament forbids women from holding office, or even expressing their opinions, in several places (at least Mohammed got that bit right!), so why on earth do intelligent women want to have any truck with an organization which discriminates against them so blatantly? Many attempts have been made to argue away the clear meaning of these verses, including claims that they were not part of the “original text” (*sigh*), but that misses the point completely. It doesn’t matter what “St Paul” said specifically on the matter, we are dealing here with a principle that runs right through the Bible. God is a man: Jesus was a man: all the disciples and early church leaders were men: Adam was a man, and Eve was only created because God could not find amongst all the animals that he had created “an help meet for him”: Christ is the husband and the Church is his bride: throughout the book it is taught that the male has authority and the female is in subjection to him. Arguing about the validity or precise meaning of specific verses is pointless: the message is quite plain for those that have eyes to see!!
February 9th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Groucho Marx also said that in the beginning there was nothing: God said “let there be light” and there was still nothing, but you could see it!
February 9th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
IT was also Groucho who said “I’d never want to join a club that would have me as a member.” – For Angela K.
His recipe for beef brisket kicks ass too.
I’m a huge fan!
February 9th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
@Marcus: Do you realize that there is actually a Bishop of Barking?
February 9th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
@barriejohn: But many barking bishops. The “mad” is usually left silent as their beliefs and behaviour mean it is not needed.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
The best bit about these discussions is their total irrelevance to anyone except the Church. The secular world resolved this issue decades ago and it is now illegal to bar someone from a promotion solely on the grounds that they are female in every area except within religious organisations. What is the point of these people really? Do they serve any useful purpose at all?
February 9th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
@ barriejohn: I see there’s a Bishop of Dorking too. But that maybe has more to do with catholic priests and their choirboys.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Stonyground: Are you trying to stop these people from acting according to their sincerely held beliefs, and following the dictates of their conscience, by suggesting that they should start acting in a rational manner? Shame on you!
February 9th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
The C of E is an irrelevance. Who really care whay they say or do. It’s entertaining just to sit by and watch it implode like bystanders chucking pint glasses into the centre of a Saturday night melee.
Is there really a Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells?
Bend over Blackadder!
February 9th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
@stonyground: Indeed, who cares? The concern is manufactured and utterly dishonest. It is manufactured by a BBC with a Director General on £800,000 plus a year who is a Roman Catholic and who has already had a chat with Ratzinger. So much for blessed are the poor. The same Director General stated as a dictat that those who lacked faith (unspecificied) would be banned from Thought for the Day.
It is manufactured by an army of religious nutters who will rush to their laptops to protest, unthinkingly, when told to protest to the MPs, the papers, the BBC when they are instructed. An excellent example is the euthanasia debate; the insistence that we must have unelected bishops in the House of Lord to preserve the “equality” espoused by the repellent Ratzinger; who protest about the “failure” of the BBC to represent enough religion.
I know one of these fundamentalists. He is a pleasant enough man but utterly shallow and vacuous. He doesn’t actually read anything that he protests about. He just does as he is told. The secularist army really does need to start hitting back hard, very hard, and stop being so academically temperate – with some honourable exceptions.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
@Broga: Fundamentalists don’t read ANYTHING, or even keep themselves informed. I know this from my own experience with them. Many of them, even today, will not have televisions or radios in their homes as a matter of principle, and there are even some who refuse to read, or are not allowed to read, newspapers. Their mind is already made up about any contentious moral issues that they might otherwise be forced to face, and all their ideas are formed by their leaders. On issues like Evolution, Biblical Archaeology, or The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, they don’t ever look at any original scholarship, just in case their minds should be corrupted by the unbelievers’ attempts to “twist the truth”, but fill their libraries with the writings of fundamentalist “experts”, whose conclusions have been made in advance of their research! It’s no wonder that their minds are so closed, but of course THEY feel that being so out of step with modern society is in no way shameful, but an attribute to be worn like a badge of honour!!
February 9th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Way off topic here but, on thursday between the hrs of 4 and 8pm, or 16.00 hun to 20.00 hun hrs there is a pro democracy protest outside the iranian embassy organised by iranians, maryam namzie et al. Address is 16 princes gate, london, sw7. Time to put Your money where Your collective mouths are. See you there?
February 10th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Why do they need bishops at all? Jesus didn’t say “ye shall create a hierarchy of men in funny clothes who produce nothing, ye shall pay them lots of money and give them fine mansions”.
The Methodists manage nicely without bishops.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:54 am
You’re right, OurSally. Bishops and Archbishops as we know them are not found in the New Testament, and non-conformist churches do not have them. The terms bishop, elder and overseer are interchangeable in the Epistles, and there were quite obviously several in each local church, but when did the teachings of the Bible ever matter to the established church?
February 10th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@Our Sally: At he same time the C. of E. bishops are having a great time complaining at their synod that “Religion on the BBC is being marginalised.” Talk about biting the hand that feeds them. They have a Director General (£800,000 plus a year in return for seriously upsetting me and no doubt others of like mind) who issues a dictat that Thought for the Day will continue – no discussion, he has decided. This banal twaddle costs money as does the massive infection of religion on every radio programme, and much of TV, that is funded by the licence payers.