Bread and Stones
Fifty years ago, 1975 was declared International Women’s Year; the Sex Discrimination Act was passed and in in July General Synod passed the motion that “this synod considers that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood.”
This motion has formally remained the view of the Church of England for the past fifty years – but turning it into the reality of women presiding at the eucharist, absolving and blessing, took another nineteen years. Removing all restrictions on women’s callings in the Church is something we are still waiting for.
This story of the last fifty years can be told in more than one way. The first is a story of how the authorised ministry of the Church of England was gradually opened to women, from the, women lay ministerial roles of 1975: deaconess, lay workers, Church Army sisters, and Lay Readers. Eleven years after that significant motion was passed in Synod, Synod agreed that women could be ordained as deacons, and from 1987, women were seen around their towns and villages wearing a dog collar. It took another five years for Synod to pass the Measure that would enable women to be ordained as priests, along with provisions for churches who did not agree with the decision, and generous financial provisions for clergy who decided that they could not remain as priests in the Church of England (which could be taken up at any time in the following ten years). This vote, and then the ordination of the first women in 1994, were met with joy in the country, and by the huge majority of members of the church, a mood reflected affectionately in the series “The Vicar of Dibley” which played its part in making women vicars “normal”!
The final step in completing the intention of the 1975 motion was enabling women to be appointed as bishops, and this was achieved fourteen years later, in July 2014. Once again, the vote in favour of removing another layer of discrimination was met with celebration and joy in the church and the country.
In many ways the Church of England is a different institution now. Women and men train alongside each other (they have done for more than fifty years). There are still more paid parish clergy who are men but in 2024, 32% were women. Similarly, about a third of archdeacons and suffragan bishops are women, though fewer are diocesan bishops. The third most senior bishop in the Church of England, the Bishop of London, has been a woman since 2018. Lay women are involved at all levels in the Church of England: as Church Commissioners, at Lambeth and Church House; working as diocesan staff (more safeguarding officers are women than men); as youth and children’s officers, members of church choirs and music groups, chairing diocesan and deanery Synods…. while still making coffee and cakes!
That is the story, that most people in and out of the Church know. There are still some places where women are not welcome, but this story says that acceptance of women is just taking time. However, there is a parallel story which is much more painful to describe, because it is the story of how the instinctive reaction of those with power in the Church of England, or perhaps, more accurately, those working and making decisions within the structures of the Church of England, always defaulted, and still do default, to a position which prioritises those who do not fully accept ordained women. In particular, when the House of Bishops, has to consider anything where the needs of women and those who did not fully accept them were in conflict, they nearly always chose supporting their “brothers” and that is still happens too often. Women have been part of the House of Bishops for ten years now, but still do not make up a third of the numbers – a critical proportion for their views to be a normal part of decision making. Linked to this, is the tendency for women to internalise the view that they are a “problem” and so it is up to them to be “gracious” to those who challenge their vocation. What follows is a very brief outline of this other story, and the pattern where each time a step was taken affirming women, something else was agreed which limited this step.
In 1975, in the same synod debate that affirmed there was no theological reason to prevent women being ordained, the motion “that legal barriers should be removed and legislation brought forward” was defeated. The contradictory result of two motions: first that it should be possible for a woman to be ordained priest, and the second that the Church of England wasn’t going to do anything about this belief, are characteristic of the story of the next fifty years. In a speech in that debate, the Bishop of Winchester, John V. Taylor said:
“Are we once again to decide for the sake of unity and an un-rocked boat that it is inexpedient to take any action? What kind of passion for unity is this - that in recent years has so regularly been invoked in support of the status quo and has so rarely inspired us to take any positive step for unity, that has justified so many refusals and so few affirmations?” 1
Anyone involved in campaigning for women to be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops, and then to be treated as fully equal with men when they take up these roles, could have said the same in any of the following fifty years. Since 1975, the unconscious acceptance that it is fully acceptable to continue to challenge the theology of being a church that ordains men and women, is still a significant part of the culture of decision making in the church, with no thought ever given to how this might continually erode all women’s sense of vocation and worth in the Church. When, three years after 1975, a similar motion to start to prepare legislation was also defeated and from the gallery Una Kroll stood and into the silence called “We asked for bread but you gave us a stone”, she gave voice to the sense of rejection that women felt then but which has been repeated over different issues in the last (nearly) 50 years.
November 11th 1992 was a moment of joy across the country when it seemed that in overturning the ban of women being ordained as priests, the church had recognised the justice of God. But immediately, the mood among bishops and church leaders, was one of anxiety, and fear as they rushed to be “pastoral” to clergy who did not agree with the result and were voicing feelings of anger and rejection. The bishops ignored all the years that so many women had been ignored and told not to be emotional about their daily rejection by the church, even though the legislation included provision for individuals and churches. Within days the energy of church leaders focused on finding a way of keeping even the most implacable opponents on board and women were told it was not acceptable to show joy.
Two months later the Archbishop of York and one or two others produced a “solution” to the demands of those who could not accept women priests which became the “Act of Synod”. On reading the documents from this of the bishops one woman deacon said:
“it stands out a mile that there was no woman present. In the end they functioned so much as a group of men, their unity became all important.” 2
Despite the joy of the ordinations of over a thousand women in 1994, women remained “outsiders” in the church, who would have to be kind and gracious to enable those who still did not accept ordained woman, to stay in the Church of England. By passing the Act of Synod and creating bishops specifically to minister to those who did not believe women could be ordained, the Church of England demonstrated that it didn’t wholeheartedly believe that gender made no difference to God’s call. The vote of 1992, recognised as a sign of God’s call on men and women equally, was limited in its scope within months.
It very soon became clear that the Act of Synod was being used to justify the thinking that led to harassment and discriminatory behaviour from clergy and others. The concept of “reception” was developed to emphasise the provisionally of the decision to ordain women in 1992, while the “new” theology and contradictions of “two integrities” introduced by the Act of Synod was regarded as fixed, even though it had never been subject to the rigorous process and scrutiny of the 1992 Measure. The theological risks and ambiguities of this thinking had been spelled out in speeches in the debates but were ignored by all but one of the bishops and a majority of members. Within years research3 demonstrated the negative impact of the Act of Synod on women and their vocations, but this was ignored by bishops. The only report by the Church of England looking at the impact of the Act of Synod focused almost entirely on the experience of those opposed to ordained women, not the (negative) effect it had on women.
This pattern was repeated time and again during the campaign for women to be appointed bishops.
Preparing legislation for women to be bishops took years, not because the basic legislation needed was complicated. but because of the continuing pressure to “protect” those who would not accept the decision the Church of England had made in 1975 and affirmed in 1992. Most of those who did not accept ordained women recognized that introducing women bishops was logical and would happen, but in return demanded legal protection from being ordained by a woman, or receiving communion that had been consecrated by a woman; and ideally, also protection from male bishops who had ordained women, as they considered that this somehow put their episcopal orders in doubt. In other words, they wanted a separate part of the Church of England which was pure and (ordained) woman- free. These demands, or similar ones, had been rejected time and again in the campaign for women to be priests and this pattern was repeated through ten years of reports, proposals, draft legislation and months of the Synod Revision Committee working to find a way of offering support for this group of dissenters while not undermining the future episcopacy of women.
The Committee finally agreed proposals which were to be debated at Synod in July 2010. Once again, those who refused to fully accept women as priests and bishops, put pressure on the bishops and centres of power in the church, and the two archbishops proposed an amendment, too late for the Revision Committee to consider it, creating something legally and theologically ambiguous which they called “coordinate jurisdiction”, and which would open the way for women to be a different class of bishop. It was rejected by Synod but the bishops became so focused on finding a way for those who rejected women as priests and bishops, and who also rejected the agreed provisions, to remain in the church, that they continued to try to change wording and add amendments to the legislation, even after it had been approved by all but two dioceses. These attempts to find a way of keeping everyone together finally collapsed in November 2012 when the measure to enable women to be bishops and which included the outline of how those who opposed this would be provided for, was defeated in General Synod in the House of Laity.
The shock of this rejection of the legislation led to an outpouring of pent-up pain, anger and sense of rejection by women across the church. For once, women were not quiet and gracious. Responses such as these were heard in all dioceses:
“The next day I was surprised at how hurt I felt - really hurt physically. My chest seemed sore with the weight of the pain of it”
“On what basis can I challenge injustice when my Church has institutionalised it?”
For a few months the voices of women were heard. Bishops began to meet with women and were surprised and shocked at how much anger was being expressed – pent-up anger of twenty years of living with institutionalised discrimination. The demand across the Church and recognised in Synod, was for any new legislation to be absolutely explicit that the Church of England could no longer continue as though it was still undecided on whether or not women could be ordained. The new measure, finally passed in 2014, which made it legal for women to be appointed as bishops, was free from discrimination, as was the revised Canon Law. But even then, despite speech after speech talking about the importance of living by grace, and building relationships rather than relying on laws and written protocols, the politics of Synod meant that a way had to be found to include those still refusing to accept ordained and consecrated women, forty years after Synod had declared that there were no theological objections. The compromise was the Declaration made by the House of Bishops setting out how parishes (not clergy) who did not accept the ministry of women as priests or bishops could be provided for.
Once again the pattern seen when the Act of Synod was passed, was repeated. Speeches were made in debate about the importance of living by grace not law; of the value of developing relationships and trying to break down barriers. For a few months there was a glimmer of hope that this new mood of basing decisions on relationships and discussion rather than legal restrictions would help the church move on from the legal discriminatory practices and barriers normalised in too many places by the Act of Synod. It took just over 6 months for barriers to become visible again.
The Declaration had been drafted by a group of men and women, lay and ordained, those who welcomed the ministry of ordained and consecrated women and those still opposed. However, once the legislation had been passed, this group no longer existed, and there was no recognition that for the Church to work out how to grow in a way that included women fully, a similar group would be continue to be needed to discuss and agree on decisions needing to be made in the future. The lack of such a reference group made possible the decision, made by the Archbishop of York (who he consulted remains unknown) to arrange for separate ordinations a week apart for the first woman to be consecrated and, a week later, a suffragan bishop who refused to ordain women or receive communion from them or male bishops who had ordained women. Once again, the right to discriminate against women and to be protected from the sacramental ministry of women, was given the validation of the Archbishops and the bishops, and this validation was demonstrated in one of the central acts of any church: the consecration of bishops. Six months after Synod passed the legislation to allow women to become bishops, and thus potentially finally signalling that the Church of England was prepared to live out the decision it had made in 1975, many women and their supporters felt that once again the Church had reverted to prioritising the feelings and wishes of a small minority who still did not personally accept the Synod votes of 1975, 1992 or 1994.
Ten years later, the sense of being a “different sort” of priest or bishop is still experienced by women. The “Five Guiding Principles”, designed to set out the parameters within which different groups could talk to each other after 2012, and so inevitably being internally contradictory, have been elevated into almost a doctrinal document that ordinands have to assent to, and thereby also assent to a church that still validates discrimination. Despite MOW (sic) challenging the decision to continue to ordain men who refused to accept the 1992 decision that gender is not a reason for refusing to discern that someone has a vocation to priesthood, key decisions are still made which normalise discrimination in the church and which are now spoken of in terms as the “flourishing” of all. These decisions are still made by individuals and groups who are predominantly men, and the views of women are suppressed – too often by women internalising the expectation that they will just have to get on with the continuing discrimination and micro-aggressions. The teaching offered to ordinands about the reasons for the Five Guiding Principles and how they affect the current theology of what it is to be a church or a priest in the Church of England is in most cases minimal, so most women just think they have to accept the church as it is, discriminations and all. WATCH’s current campaign slogan: Not Equal yet” has caught the attention of many people because they recognise that this is still the reality of the Church of England fifty years after General Synod said that there was no theological justification for this.
In 2014, there was a national service and celebration of twenty years of women being priests in the Church of England. On 3rd May, St Paul’s Cathedral was filled with women and men, and the joy felt in 1994 was experienced once again as the “priests of 1994” were given a standing ovation for over fifteen minutes as they processed in. The service was filled with hope; finally the Church of England had “got it” and realised that any legislation that accepted discrimination would continue to undermine the vocation of all women. Ten years later, in 2024, the mood had changed, along with the continuing discrimination that continues to be unchallenged by the Church of England. In a conversation, part of the celebration of thirty years of women’s priestly ordained ministry in the Church of England, Canon Peggy Jackson put this into words:
“But it is hard to see how women themselves, lay or ordained, can ever be expected to flourish, and to realise the fullness of their ministry in Christ Jesus, in a church where their flourishing is said to depend upon the gracious acceptance of structures which are in place specifically to deny them. “ 4
It is noticeable that most of the diocesan anniversary services, usually planned by groups which included ordained women, included lamentation for the way women had been and still are treated by the church, and prayers and sermons named the wound of continuing discrimination. Speaking from the pulpit of Christ Church in Oxford, in the celebration there, the Ven Christine Allsopp summed up the continuing mixture of hope and pain that still accompanies all those who still wait and still campaign for the commitment of 1975 to be lived out fully in the life of the Church of England:
“The 5 Guiding Principles that were produced after the vote for women bishops mentioned “mutual flourishing” but are only addressed to those who do not accept women’s priestly and women’s episcopal ministry. There’s no attempt to define what the flourishing of women might look like. If we want the church to change then we must have the confidence and the courage to speak out. Our vision is of a church where there is neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ, but it must tell our stories, for women are called not in spite of our gender, not in spite of who we are, but because of it.” 5
It is fifty years since the Church of England first declared that there were no theological reasons why women should not be ordained to the priesthood. How long before this is fully accepted by the Church of England and its leaders?
Notes
1. Quoted in “Church Times “ July 11th 1975
2. “A New Strength and new Song” Margaret Webster p193
3. From “The First Women Priests in the Church of England” PhD thesis Dr Helen Thorne 2000
4. The Ven Peggy Jackson (Winchester Cathedral podcast 2024)
5. The Ven Christine Allsopp, preaching in Christ Church, Oxford April 2024
The legislation referred to in this article can be found:
The Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1992 (the link below gives the date as 1993, which is when it was passed by Parliament and became part of statute law.)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1993/2/enacted
The Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993
https://seeofbeverley.org.uk/resolutions/episcopal-ministry-act-of-synod-1993/
(This legislation was passed before it was common for Synod documents to be on line – hence this links to a website for the PEV or“Flying Bishop” of Beverley)
Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2014/2
House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests 2014
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-01/gs-misc-1076-women-in-the-episcopate-house-of-bishops-declaration_july14.pdf
(NB The Five Guiding principles are added as a preamble)