ACNS 2545 - AUSTRALIA - 24 July 2001

Dr Ann Young - against Women Bishops (Part III)
There is one other question which was raised during the consultation process
that I would like to mention here. The brief asked us to bring forward a
draft canon, and to propose a method of alternative oversight for those who
oppose the consecration of women as bishops, to provide for the good
conscience of those who hold the position that I share - that ordination of
women to the priesthood and thence to the episcopacy is contrary to the
teaching of scripture. Many of the submissions to our group turned the coin
over. What of those who support women's ordination but are not able to
receive the full ministry of women as priests or as bishops? This reinforces
for me the concern behind the move made last Synod to provide for
alternative oversight. We as a Synod make decisions by majority vote. It's a
method that fits our society well. It's at best doubtful that it is a
biblical method. But it's the method we use. So how do we care for the
marginalised, the disaffected, the hurt, the less powerful, the minorities?
No matter which way the canon is decided, those people will be in our
church. Either Muriel Porter or I will be one of them. So will a goodly
number of you.

The basic question is theological - we each will vote on the canon according
to whether we believe it is, or is not, proper for women to be ordained. But
bishops are not simply promoted priests. They have responsibility for
ordination of others, for confirmation, for maintaining unity and sound
doctrine. Consequently, passing this canon would raise added concerns and
practical problems. It may be possible within a diocese to move parishes to
seek or to avoid the ministry of an ordained woman; it is hardly practical
to move dioceses in response to the gender of the bishop. Realistically,
though, many Anglicans are not wholly happy with their bishop, because of
differences over theology or churchmanship. In some cases but not all, the
matter of gender may simply be another point of difference. The concerns are
probably greater for men and women who are or wish to be ordained, and hold
a view contrary to that of their diocese or bishop. It is a very serious
matter if a woman's ordination is not accepted, or if an ordained person
cannot accept the validity of his colleague or bishop. Yet the reality of
the situation is that both these scenarios are inevitable, as are concerns
over the validity of confirmation. No amount of protocol or legislation can
completely overcome this. However, to discuss and work through the concerns
over the past three years has given me a greater understanding of, and
empathy with, people of different views to my own, and we as a Working Group
have tried to share that better understanding with the church via the
consultation process. The group discussions here are a further extension. We
may not alter one another's mind, but we may find that we can work together.

I will vote against the principle canon. I cannot set aside my conviction
That Jesus Christ established His church on a pattern that is eternal,
That the Bible plainly places the responsibility for leadership of God's people on men,
And that the Holy Spirit's guidance has maintained and continues to maintain
the church according to the will of God.

If the canon passes, it becomes less to do with theology and more to do with
practicality and the weight we give to tradition. Whether the canon passes
or not, we will need to show one another respect and care if we are to
honour God rather than act as a group engaged in political debate.