Women in the Episcopate

Having just heard a second successive sermon on the potential role for women as bishops in the Church of England, I felt I should write about it to clarify my thoughts on the issue. It is therefore probably a good thing I am writing this before anyone actually follows my blog because no one then has to read it!!

The problems the CofE has with this issue are complex. I will probably only write a few things that only partially relate to parts of the issue!

1. The Bishop as Preacher

Historically, as chief pastor the bishop was the one who preached to the gathered church. Regular priests didn't, instead they would commonly read a homily from a book of sermons. (There were a few exceptions, as always, but the rule used to be as stated.) We can debate why this was the case - it was probably to do with varying levels of education etc. etc. However, my point is that preaching is essentially an episcopal ministry.

Now when the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church of the USA, ++Katharine Jefferts-Schori, visited my church a month ago to preside at mass and preach, she was not permitted to wear any of the episcopal regalia (mitre, crozier etc.). However, today she was preaching (but not presiding) at St Paul's Cathedral, just across the river, and yet was allowed (if the twittering classes are to be believed) to wear her mitre.

The reason on her first visit to London she was not permitted to wear her silly hat is that she was not permitted to exercise any episcopal ministry, only that of a priest. However, preaching is no more or less an episcopal ministry than presiding at the mass. How does the Church of England draw this distinction?

(If you wish to argue that neither preaching nor presiding are any longer episcopal ministries, that is fine, but on neither visit was Bishop Katharine visiting to confirm, ordain or consecrate anyone - that would be cross-border interventions, which is quite another topic)

2. Women in Authority

One argument posited against the consecration of women to the episcopate is based on the (in my opinion, faulty) interpretation of biblical proclamations that a woman should never be in authority over a man.

Now when a priest is ordained in the Church of England he (or she) takes two oaths (or if they prefer "solemn affirmations"). They are as follows:

The Oath of Allegiance

I,AB, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her

Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to

law: So help me God.

The Oath of Obedience

I, A B, do swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical

obedience to the Lord Bishop of C and his successors in all things

lawful and honest: So help me God.

For those less comfortable with Prayerbook Substitution, AB is replaced with the name of the person being ordained and C is replaced by where they are being ordained.

Now I ask, why, if no woman may have authority over a man, is the first oath acceptable but if made to a woman the second is not? (Other than the grammatical nastiness of having a female Lord Bishop with his successors!)

Recourse is not allowed here to the divine right of kings, thereby separating our Sovereign Lady from any other class of woman - that went out of fashion when the king was last called Charles.

--

Right that will do for now. I will no doubt return to this topic again, as I still want to think about the "Apostle to the Apostle" (bonus points to a comment who can identify this woman) and why I have a little sympathy to some arguments against women bishops. I will also want to rant about the use of language in this debate, which means I am apparently no longer traditionalist or catholic, and indeed whether I am just a dirty back-slidden liberal!

You have been warned!

--

The Oaths are taken from §C13.1 and §c14.3 of Canon Law of the Church of England, available here