This is an Outrage!

Today, "the Church of England" replied to HM Government's consultation on equal (civil) marriage. Though many may point out that this does not directly affect me, I am nonetheless feeling deeply hurt. Principally, when I saw the headline and read the upshot (TA) I felt as if my Church, to which I hope to dedicate my life (whether it be long or short, etc.) has betrayed me.

However, after the initial shock, I realised an important question: who exactly has betrayed me? The Church of England? It seems difficult to credit that based on the not-quiet portion of the Church who stand with me (or with whom I stand – e.g. Times letter, 21 Apr). No – someone (or some folk) has/have written this document on my behalf – on every CofE churchperson's behalf – and on the Church's behalf. (I have been unable to ascertain who this/these person(s) is/are – it barely matters.) An obvious further question is: who asked them to do so?  I did not. Who empowered them to? Again, I did not. This is also very important indeed, because (as Rowan Williams will know well) it is nigh-impossible to speak accurately on the Church's behalf – particularly in cases like this. To be clear, I am not suggesting that "the Church of England" should have replied in accordance with liberal Anglicans' views (I trust we have done that ourselves (if not, get on with it!)) – rather they should have remained silent, because the Church is not (yet) in agreement over this.

For balance, there is a chunk of the document with which I whole-heartedly agree: the civil marriage/religious marriage distinction is new, artificial, unnecessary and potentially damaging. The government should obviously introduce not just equal civil marriage (which is an institution they are essentially inventing on the hoof), but equal marriage. I understand that many churchs would not offer marriage services to same-sex couples; I understand that several desperately want to (including the Quakers, who, as ever, are more Friends to the rest of us that we are to ourselves!). But that would be okay – it would mean that when (yes, when) General Synod approve the conducting of same-sex marriages in CofE churches, we could move faster towards making that a reality.

Finally, I noticed that The Response claims:

8. It is important to be clear that insistence on the traditional understanding of marriage is not a case of knee-jerk resistance to change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole. (emphasis mine)

I only wish I could believe (even for a second) that were true. Not only in this case specifically, but also in general.

Please let me know what you think by commenting and let others know by sharing. Cheers!

57 varieties – representative equality in the episcopate

So, we near a point at which women won't be legally disbarred from becoming Church of England bishops. People are even throwing around notions as to when the first "woman bishop" (which, by the way is an abhorrent phrase – we have long since stopped saying "lady policemen" or "woman policeman") might be consecrated (2013 or 2014 generally).

However, it recently occurred to me: what after that? Can women be said to have full equality in our church if there are a small number of female bishops in a majority male episcopate? There are, according to the report on Bishops' costs, 113 sees in total.

So, for proportionality, there would need to be 57 female bishops (since there are slightly more women in Britain than men). Between 1 Jan 2009 and 31 Dec 11, 23 new bishops will have been consecrated (plus, if I recall correctly, one translated from elsewhere in the Communion), for an average of about 8 per calendar year.  If we decided to redress the balance as quickly as possible (hanging certain moral issues which I'm about to explore), the numbers might be about right within 7 years.

But that would involve discriminating against men for 7 years. Which would be hypocritical in extremis. Could the Appointments folks perhaps favour female candidates for a while? Could they somehow arrange that miraculously a women gains about every other vacant see? Then it would take 14 years or more.

Also, there ought to be about 10 non-white bishops (based on 2001 census data) and 5 or 6 LGBT (based on several estimates).

Or ought we always to ensure that our bishops are chosen on merit alone? That would, of course, be preferable, but what if appointments groups "coincidentally" find straight (or closeted) white men to consistently be the best candidates? We ought to be able to trust such representatives, but... it's just difficult.

Besides, I had a squizz around the internet at who the CofE's most senior female priests are. There are 4 cathedral deans (out of 44), 16 archdeacons (out of 121) and (as far as I can tell) about 17 canons residentiary (out of many). That's less than 40 senior (using an admittedly entirely arbitrary definition) female priests (out of many plus 168).

So plenty of work needs to be done much lower down. Probably first.

Addendum: I was asked, so I looked it up: about 1 in 4 CofE priests are female (about 3,000 in 12,000) [source]. I've also added dean & archdeacon totals above.

Sometimes change happens. Get over it.

Logged on to facebook this evening and saw they've split News Feed from Live Feed. I don't quite understand it, but I'm sure I will.

But, as ever, there are about 1/2 million groups already called "CHANG FACEBOOK BACK 2 NROMAL" or "NU FBK IS SHITT" or "MY 2 BRAIN CELLZ CANT HANDEL ANY CHANGE". Christ, these people annoy me. Keep your complaining to yourselves, you loud, aggressive, obnoxious retards.

Sometimes I become exasperated.