THE recent campaign by Women and the Church (WATCH) to abolish the provisions agreed in 2014 for clergy against the ordination of girls does “not bode well for any settlement emerging for evangelicals” against blessings for same-sex couples, the Director of Forward in Faith has said.
At its annual conference last week WATCH announced plans to see a motion delivered to the General Synod asking members to think about “whether it is correct for the 2014 House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests to proceed in perpetuity and, if not, to set a date for it to come back to an end”.
Forward in Faith is a traditionalist membership organisation which advises and supports parishes which have passed a resolution under this House of Bishops’ Declaration.
In an announcement published on Friday, its Director, Tom Middleton, suggested that the availability “explicitly references the roles of the broader Anglican Communion and indeed of the church universal. This is demonstrably, subsequently, a matter of ecclesiology moderately than of gender per se.
“While such opposition represents a minority viewpoint within the Church of England, it reflects the practice of by far the greater a part of the church universal. As result, we should always actually be defined by being in favour of something . . . moderately than being against something.”
During the WATCH conference, the Area Bishop of Croydon, Dr Rosemarie Mallett, a member of the steering committee that drafted the 2014 laws (News, 26 July 2013), said: “I believe in honesty we also thought that as society modified and as views became more open-minded amongst growing numbers of younger men and ladies, the culture of the Church would change just like the culture of the broader society.”
Responding so far, Mr Middleton suggested that, “Given that we’re only just over a decade on from the settlement being put in place, and mutual flourishing is in its infancy, such attitudes don’t bode well for any settlement emerging for evangelicals from their opposition to the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF).
“What are they, and others, to make of the guarantees made to Anglo-Catholics, which some appear so keen to renege on so soon after those commitments were made?”
He also asked concerning the “well-being” of young clergy within the Society (which is supported and financed by Forward in Faith) who put themselves forward for ordination under the settlement, should this be revoked “after such a brief elapse of time”.
The chair of WATCH, the Vicar of St Michael’s, Chiswick, the Revd Martine Oborne, had spoken on the conference of the potential to bring a legal challenge under the Equality Act (2010). While this meant that folks throughout the Church “can discriminate on grounds of sex”, she said, it contained protections against victimisation and harassment.
“Most of us may have experienced harassment, and it is unlawful,” she said.
Mr Middleton’s statement asks for “evidence” of this harassment. “Without evidence being provided and without formal reporting of allegations, there may be a danger that highly generalised comments turn into a method of undermining those of a special theological position.”
He continued: “I simply cannot view a set of principles advocating tolerance of various, well-grounded, theological perspectives as being in any way ‘violent’ — quite the alternative.”
On this, he suggested that safeguarding was being “weaponised”. “Firstly, there may be an elision being made between traditionalist witness, whether evangelical or catholic, and safeguarding risk. Secondly, the assertion is being made that men basically are a safeguarding problem. That was once referred to as sexism.”
Concluding, Mr Middleton suggested that the Society was being presented with a alternative. “One option is a monochrome state run church, claiming to turn into more “open-minded” because it closes down other theological perspectives . . . The other is a vibrant national church.”
In an in depth response sent to the Church Times on Monday, Ms Oborne said that the Declaration permitted churches to “say no” to women applying to be their vicar, presiding, preaching, and to having a girl bishop.
“Forward in Faith says that these arrangements usually are not discriminatory, but they’re. In fact, as a way to be legal, they depend on the exceptions that the Church of England enjoys under the Equality Act 2010.”
There was “loads of evidence” that girls experienced harassment, she said, and pointed to research conducted by academic researchers and theologians including Dr Gabriella Thomas, Dr Sarah Schofield, and Dr Sharon Jagger, in addition to public testimonies.
Though she agreed that there was no time-limit to the Declaration, it was “appropriate to have a review — especially as many ladies have found it hard to flourish throughout the arrangements”.
She concluded: “The arrangements usually are not only unjust but . . . have also brought more fracture to the Church than unity,” she said. “Although within the Church we talk quite rightly about our desire for diversity and inclusion, that desire is conditional in the case of women.”
