Women bishops: Let your yes be yes, and your no no.

Fulcrum have recently issued a statement articulating their view on the vote before General Synod, this November, on whether to proceed with women as bishops.

Most readers of this blog will be familiar with the debate; at its heart is whether the piece of legislation being voted on will provide adequately for those who cannot accept the latest development of having women as bishops. At present, the position within the Church of England is that some accept that women can be priests, and others do not. The legal position is that both those views may be held with integrity; one can be a loyal Anglican and hold either persuasion, and neither view is a bar to senior appointment within the Church of England.

As the Church of England considers having women as bishops, there is a wish to allow those who do not agree with this move to continue to remain as loyal Anglicans, with a full place within the Church of England. The legislation for next month attempts to say this. Some would argue that it does so inadequately; others feel the provision for "traditionalists" is adequate.

The Church's General Synod must decide. It will do so by voting, and the bishops, clergy and laity will vote separately. (In the parlance, this is a vote "by houses"). Each "house" must secure a 2/3 majority for women bishops to become law.

Here's where I would take issue with Fulcrum. They say

that it is clearly the will of the Church to proceed.

Actually, that is jumping the gun. That is what the vote in November is to decide.

(One important distinction is needed here. The Synod has already voted, in principle, to explore women bishops. It may be said that it is the will of the Church to find a way to proceed. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that the will of the Church is decided as to whether to proceed with this precise legislation, this way of proceeding).

How will we know whether it is the will of the church to proceed? The answer is by looking at the voting figures. So we need each person to vote according to their convictions. Those who want women bishops and feel the provision for traditionalists to be adequate - should vote "yes". Those who do not want women bishops, or who do but do not feel the provisions to be adequate - should vote "no". Think "yes", vote "yes". Think "no", vote "no". Provided everyone does that we will discover whether it is the will of the church to proceed.

However Fulcrum asks this:

that those who are against will be able in good conscience to abstain

What good is that? Having jumped the gun by saying that the will of the church is already settled, they then ask those who don't agree with them to abstain. "If you don't agree with us, please don't vote accordingly." But if that advice is followed, we would never find out what the will of the church is.

In fact, follow that logic a moment. Fulcrum wishes to vote "yes", so they therefore ask those who think "no" to abstain. On that logic, those who wish to vote "no" should be asking those who vote "yes" to abstain as well. The result would be a result of 100% abstention in all houses. Or, rather, the "yes" and "no" counts would be very low, and the result decided only by those few voters willing to see through the charade of abstention and actually to vote in accordance with their conviction. If Fulcrum think abstention is the way to express their view, they should at least follow through on that and their members abstain accordingly.

No - this won't help one bit. If you are reading this as a member of General Synod: If you think the right result is "yes", please vote "yes". If you think the right result is "no", please vote "no". Please only abstain if you feel you have a vested interest in the outcome and your vote would be morally inappropriate. (Basically - that means the deans and senior canons should all abstain, but very few others.)

Let your yes be yes and your no be no.