Blackburn: What We Still Don’t Know

by Rev Martine Oborne, Chair of WATCH (Women and the Church), a group that works for gender equality in the Church of England

Surprise, surprise – there actually is dissension in Blackburn about the Church’s proposed appointment of a bishop who does not ordain women and did not vote in favour of General Synod’s recent decision to allow the blessing of same sex couples.

When Philip North was nominated as the new Diocesan Bishop of Blackburn in January, there was some surprise that the announcement was apparently greeted by universal joy among female clergy – given that North does not accept that the Church of England has the authority to ordain women as priests and is therefore not sure that these women can consecrate the bread and wine in services.

It has now come to light that there are in fact a number of clergy with concerns about the nomination, but we have not heard from them publicly because they are worried about speaking out.

One vicar, Rev Dr Rebecca Aechtner, who ministers in Scotforth, says she has sometimes been accused of being ‘shouty’ and ‘a feminist’ simply for raising concerns about how women are treated in Church.  Nonetheless, as the only ordained woman elected to Bishops’ Council, she continues to raise ‘serious concerns about how women clergy will be protected and about people being evaded when voicing those concerns.’

And now, in addition, there are others in the diocese who have concerns about the nomination, given that Bishop Philip abstained in the recent vote at General Synod to permit clergy, if they so choose, to bless same sex couples, and the other bishop in the Blackburn diocese, Jill Duff, voted against.

With regard to Bishop Philip’s position on women’s ordination, there is still no clarification about the practical outworkings for the diocese – such as which candidates Bishop Philip is willing to ordain as priests. Will this be all male candidates or just male candidates who don’t affirm women’s ordination? And who will ordain female candidates and male candidates who don’t want to be ordained by a non-affirming Bishop?  It would also be good to know what, if any, provisions will be made for clergy and parishes who don’t want to be overseen by a bishop who doesn’t fully affirm women’s ordination. If the situation were the reverse, with an affirming diocesan Bishop being appointed, then parishes who don’t fully accept women’s ordination would have the right for extended episcopal oversight. But there’s no current provision in Church law for the opposite to happen.

I’m told by senior clergy in the diocese that there was a consultation with clergy and parishes before the nomination of Philip North as a diocesan bishop in which clergy said they did not want a non-affirming Bishop, but they also said they did want Bishop Philip.  This is not logically a feasible request but was taken as support for the nomination.  Details of the consultation have not been published but it does not seem that efforts were made to take readings on the potential appointment with clergy in safe spaces – where people could raise concerns without this being observed by and known to their future boss. Indeed, clergy who have not indicated their wholehearted support have been described as being wilfully disobedient to authority.

My own opinion is that, given that there are a number of clergy in the diocese, both female and male, who are uneasy with what the nomination signifies and may lead to, it would seem appropriate that the process should be paused, at least until proposals have been made about the practical outworkings of the appointment and these have been consulted on.

It is not only a disgrace but, frankly, dangerous if we are creating a culture in our Church where people feel unable to speak out. The campaign group, Women and the Church (WATCH), that I chair has recently got together with the Student Christian Movement to launch a new campaign called #honestchurch which calls on churches to be clear and transparent about the limits they put on women’s ministry and also how they welcome people from the LGBTQIA community.  Jesus famously said, ‘What you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.’ Secrecy and coverups are an anathema to our faith.  Let’s give women and men in Blackburn a safe space to say what they really think.

Comments

11 responses to “Blackburn: What We Still Don’t Know”

  1. johnapplebyld avatar
    johnapplebyld

    I agree that the practical implications should be clarified urgently. However, although I personally favour complete equality for women and full recognition of same-sex relationships, we currently have the ‘Five Principles’, without which we would have made less progress. Given those, there will be some non-affirming diocesan bishops for the foreseeable future. I think, though, that some pastoral provision for women priests in such dioceses would not only be valuable and fair, but would also show a mechanism for support for conservatives in dioceses where their bishop does support SS blessings, without a formal mechanism. (We really don’t want a multiplicity of bishops distinguished by varying doctrinal positions!)

  2. William avatar
    William

    Are there any/many clergy or parishes who refuse to be overseen by a “non-affirming” bishop, or is it that you’d like there to be? And if so, what is the theological basis for objection? Bishops have held and continue to hold all sorts of opinions and theological views; are clergy, parishes or ordinands to revolt because their bishop is a surprise preterist, a hopeful universalist, or has a suspiciously high Marian theology?

    From what I’ve been led to believe, +North comes to his views honestly, holds them gracefully and communicates them humbly. That he should be hounded like this is unseemly, and that you would deliberately sow discord on the matter even more so. We wonder why people are so hesitate to make any steps towards change when the humble cri de coeur for equality becomes a progressive pogrom in a matter of years. Any clergy with concerns about gay marriage should heed this lesson well.

    1. charleswread avatar

      Interesting that you label the asking of some difficult questions ‘hounding’. You seem to have proved Martine’s point!

  3. brenwilson avatar

    I totally agree Martine that there are some important questions to be asked about the situation for women in Blackburn diocese, particularly for those who are unhappy with the appointment. The C of E offers alternative provision for those who cannot accept the ordained ministry of women, but no support for women priests who are unhappy with a bishop who would not ordain them.

  4. davidkeen avatar

    You seem to be conflating two issues, the ordination of women and the LLF proposals. Do you think that both of these disqualify someone from being a Bishop if they hold the ‘wrong’ views, or just the former?

    Have you expressed your concerns directly to Bishop Philip?

  5. Malcolm Dixon avatar
    Malcolm Dixon

    Well said, Martine. And what about the insult to catholic order in having a bishop who, by his choice, is not in communion with a substantial proportion of the priests in his diocese?

  6. Susanna (no ‘h’) avatar
    Susanna (no ‘h’)

    Martine,
    I applaud your dignity and tenacity- your recent article in the Guardian newspaper was excellent.As someone who has spent my working life within the public sector,I began reading this site naively amazed that the dear old C of E would wish to promote anyone who held views which in any other arena are held as discriminatory- and would be seen by most of us as deeply offensive.
    Oh dear! Contributors seem to suggest that if these views are deeply held and humbly offered they are OK and objecting to them is ‘hounding’….
    Or it is somehow Martine’s problem to take up?
    How any ordained female can work within such an organisation is beyond me- and why you should have to put up with such injustice is no honour to the organisation

  7. tobyforward avatar

    It seems to me to be a dereliction of duty and failure to carry out his ordination oath. If he believes that the Church is in error by ordaining women priests, then how can it be right to appoint them to parishes in his diocese and allow error to persist and increase?

  8. Susannah (with an 'h') avatar
    Susannah (with an ‘h’)

    I’d just like to affirm Philip North as an individual: a good and decent Christian. His appointment to Sheffield was subverted. Now it seems as if his appointment to Blackburn is being subverted too. The Church of England committed itself to the Five Guiding Principles, and that was a commitment that protected a relatively small minority who – in good conscience and fidelity – believe in a male-only priesthood. That isn’t my view, but in a broad church, I believe we should work together to accommodate diverse consciences. I hope Martine has been in touch with Philip, and asked to meet for a cup of tea, so they can work constructively on ways to make sure women priests have all the support they need in their diocese. We need to love one another, even when we hold different views. Women are (in my view) rightly recognised already as valid priests in the Church of England. That is a majority position. But we also need to protect minorities, and the Church of England has promised to protect the presence and ministries of those like Philip, at all levels of the Church. He didn’t make those rules. He’s just trying to carry out his vocation within those rules. Talk, work together, build co-operation. I’m sure he wants these things as much as anyone else.

    1. charleswread avatar

      “Women are (in my view) rightly recognised already as valid priests in the Church of England.”

      But that’s the problem – it is not clear that +Philip thinks that. He could not explain himself to the Sheffield women clergy on this. He is associated with The Society which seems to be clear that women are not and cannot be priests.

  9. Susanna ( no ‘h’) avatar
    Susanna ( no ‘h’)

    Charleswread has hit the nail on the head .
    My comments have never been to attack Phillip North but to express my concerns that the Church of England sees it appropriate to promote someone with his well known views into a post of authority over female priests.
    Susannah uses the term ‘subverted’ in relation to his previous appointment at Sheffield . What does another offer of a diocesan seat do but subvert( ie undermine) the authority of the women priests within the diocese? Or do they all have to accept that the Guiding Principles mean a form of Russian Roulette where some dioceses will have to suffer a bishop who does not accept their status – and of course they will be the ones called upon to ‘work constructively’ with a bishop who holds such views

Any thoughts?