Bill introduced to shatter ‘stained glass ceiling’ over female clergy
-22/03/06
A bil
Bill introduced to shatter ‘stained glass ceiling’ over female clergy
-22/03/06
A bill was introduced in the House of Commons yesterday aimed at shattering the ‘stained glass ceiling’ which prevents women becoming bishops in the Church of England.
Although the bill, introduced under the ‘Ten Minute Rule’ has no chance of becoming law, its introduction was intended to enable Parliament to send a clear signal to the Church of England’s General Synod (‘parliament’) about women bishops.
It is also intended to provoke discussion about the future relations between Church and state, the MP introducing the bill said.
It comes at a time when MPs have challenged the property decisions of the Church, criticised Synod’s recommendation that the church disinvest in companies linked to Israel, and Gordon Brown is reported to have said he would end the hand of the prime minister in appointing bishops.
The new bill was originally initiated by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda. However his parliamentary role in the Department for Constitutional Affairs did not allow him to push forward the measure. Bryant is among several members of the Government who are reported to be extremely supportive of the bill.
Related Articles
The bill was therefore introduced by Andy Reed MP, who began by quoting St Paul that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, “neither bond nor free . . . neither male nor female: for all . . . are one in Christ Jesus.”
The MP said he had been overwhelmed by the number of spurious arguments against women bishops and priests ‘masquerading as theology’.
“Despite the few who have campaigned vociferously against women’s ministry, the truth is that the vast majority of ordinary members of the Church of Englandóand, for that matter, of the nation that it servesóagree that there should be no impediment to women in the Church” he said.
Referring to the last time such matters were debated in the House of Commons, when women’s ordination was legalised, he said; “The Church’s compromise Measures in 1993 allowed parishes to declare themselves women priest-free zones, yet fewer than one in 10 have done so. It is not just in Dibley that women priests are burying the dead, baptising the new-born, celebrating communion, counselling the sick and supporting the dying. In every one of our constituencies there are women clergy, many of whom are the most able of their generation.”
“Half of those in training for ordination in each of the last three years have been women. Yet a full 13 years after they were allowed to enter the priesthood, womenówho can be curates, vicars, rectors, chaplains and deans, and even rural deans and archdeaconsóare still barred from being bishops. That is simply wrong. How can the Church preach equality when it institutionalises discrimination? Can anybody imagine the Church’s refusing to have black or disabled bishops?”
Responding to suggestion that the issue should be left to the Church to decide, Reed, a supporter of disestablishing the Church of England said “while the relationship between Church and state remains as it is, we should use the mechanism before us to make our views known in full. We should be able to express our support for the role of women in every field of British lifeóto express our view, in the broadest terms, that women and men are equal, albeit different. We should be able to give voice to the many men and women in the Church who have been clamouring for this development for decades, and to declare our direct and personal support for the many women clergy in the Church. Many women clergy have called my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in tears of gratitude. They believe that the Church is dragging its heels and listening far too attentively to its ultra-conservative wing, rather than to the mainstream. That certainly smacks of the ultra-conservative tail wagging the mainstream dog.”
The bill seeks to amend Church of England Measures, which are the instruments by which changes are made to the governance and organisation of the Church. Convention dictates that once a Measure has been approved by the General Synod, the Ecclesiastical Committeeóa Committee of both Houses of Parliamentóconsiders whether it is expedient. If a Measure is considered expedient, both Houses are required to approve it before it can receive Royal Assent and become law.
Generally, motions to present any Measure for Royal Assent are debated in each House as soon as the Ecclesiastical Committee report is presented. Neither the motion itself nor the report can be amended, which means that the House of Commons cannot amend Measures as it can other Bills.
However, as Andy Reed pointed out during yesterday’s debate, there have been times in the past when the House of Commons has rejected such Measures. It happened with the Prayer Book Measure in 1927 but also as recently as 1989, when the House of Commons rejected the Clergy (Ordination) Measure. Since 1992, Parliament has passed 17 Church of England Measures.
By introducing a bill in this way, even though it has no chance of becoming law, the MP has highlighted the some of the anomalies of Establishent.
Quoting the thinktank Ekklesia during his speech, the MP referred to the tensions that the bill would highlight in the uneasy relationship between church and state.
“If that is one of the outcomes,” he said, “it will be a useful contribution to the debate.”
The MP said he hoped that his collegues would take the opportunity that the bill afforded to indicate their support for putting an end “to the stained-glass ceiling for women in the Church.”
The bill is being sponsored by MPs from across the parties including Robert Key, Tim Boswell, Simon Hughes, John Bercow, Sharon Hodgson, Julie Morgan, Bob Russell, Susan Kramer, Stephen Hammond, Ann Cryer and Barbara Keeley.
The full text of the debate can be read here
Bill introduced to shatter ‘stained glass ceiling’ over female clergy
-22/03/06
A bill was introduced in the House of Commons yesterday aimed at shattering the ‘stained glass ceiling’ which prevents women becoming bishops in the Church of England.
Although the bill, introduced under the ‘Ten Minute Rule’ has no chance of becoming law, its introduction was intended to enable Parliament to send a clear signal to the Church of England’s General Synod (‘parliament’) about women bishops.
It is also intended to provoke discussion about the future relations between Church and state, the MP introducing the bill said.
It comes at a time when MPs have challenged the property decisions of the Church, criticised Synod’s recommendation that the church disinvest in companies linked to Israel, and Gordon Brown is reported to have said he would end the hand of the prime minister in appointing bishops.
The new bill was originally initiated by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda. However his parliamentary role in the Department for Constitutional Affairs did not allow him to push forward the measure. Bryant is among several members of the Government who are reported to be extremely supportive of the bill.
Related Articles
The bill was therefore introduced by Andy Reed MP, who began by quoting St Paul that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, “neither bond nor free . . . neither male nor female: for all . . . are one in Christ Jesus.”
The MP said he had been overwhelmed by the number of spurious arguments against women bishops and priests ‘masquerading as theology’.
“Despite the few who have campaigned vociferously against women’s ministry, the truth is that the vast majority of ordinary members of the Church of Englandóand, for that matter, of the nation that it servesóagree that there should be no impediment to women in the Church” he said.
Referring to the last time such matters were debated in the House of Commons, when women’s ordination was legalised, he said; “The Church’s compromise Measures in 1993 allowed parishes to declare themselves women priest-free zones, yet fewer than one in 10 have done so. It is not just in Dibley that women priests are burying the dead, baptising the new-born, celebrating communion, counselling the sick and supporting the dying. In every one of our constituencies there are women clergy, many of whom are the most able of their generation.”
“Half of those in training for ordination in each of the last three years have been women. Yet a full 13 years after they were allowed to enter the priesthood, womenówho can be curates, vicars, rectors, chaplains and deans, and even rural deans and archdeaconsóare still barred from being bishops. That is simply wrong. How can the Church preach equality when it institutionalises discrimination? Can anybody imagine the Church’s refusing to have black or disabled bishops?”
Responding to suggestion that the issue should be left to the Church to decide, Reed, a supporter of disestablishing the Church of England said “while the relationship between Church and state remains as it is, we should use the mechanism before us to make our views known in full. We should be able to express our support for the role of women in every field of British lifeóto express our view, in the broadest terms, that women and men are equal, albeit different. We should be able to give voice to the many men and women in the Church who have been clamouring for this development for decades, and to declare our direct and personal support for the many women clergy in the Church. Many women clergy have called my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in tears of gratitude. They believe that the Church is dragging its heels and listening far too attentively to its ultra-conservative wing, rather than to the mainstream. That certainly smacks of the ultra-conservative tail wagging the mainstream dog.”
The bill seeks to amend Church of England Measures, which are the instruments by which changes are made to the governance and organisation of the Church. Convention dictates that once a Measure has been approved by the General Synod, the Ecclesiastical Committeeóa Committee of both Houses of Parliamentóconsiders whether it is expedient. If a Measure is considered expedient, both Houses are required to approve it before it can receive Royal Assent and become law.
Generally, motions to present any Measure for Royal Assent are debated in each House as soon as the Ecclesiastical Committee report is presented. Neither the motion itself nor the report can be amended, which means that the House of Commons cannot amend Measures as it can other Bills.
However, as Andy Reed pointed out during yesterday’s debate, there have been times in the past when the House of Commons has rejected such Measures. It happened with the Prayer Book Measure in 1927 but also as recently as 1989, when the House of Commons rejected the Clergy (Ordination) Measure. Since 1992, Parliament has passed 17 Church of England Measures.
By introducing a bill in this way, even though it has no chance of becoming law, the MP has highlighted the some of the anomalies of Establishent.
Quoting the thinktank Ekklesia during his speech, the MP referred to the tensions that the bill would highlight in the uneasy relationship between church and state.
“If that is one of the outcomes,” he said, “it will be a useful contribution to the debate.”
The MP said he hoped that his collegues would take the opportunity that the bill afforded to indicate their support for putting an end “to the stained-glass ceiling for women in the Church.”
The bill is being sponsored by MPs from across the parties including Robert Key, Tim Boswell, Simon Hughes, John Bercow, Sharon Hodgson, Julie Morgan, Bob Russell, Susan Kramer, Stephen Hammond, Ann Cryer and Barbara Keeley.