Anglican Church of Australia - General Synod 2001 Media Service
Ph: 02 9265 1525 Fax: 02 9264 6552
Email: research@anglican.org.au
News and Information: www.anglican.org.au/generalsynod2001

Transcript from Ann Young (AY) and Muriel Porter (MP)

media conference, 23/07/01

Women Bishops

It was first discussed and formally passed in 1977. It agreed in 1977 that there were no theological barriers to deacons, priests and bishops. That was a resolution not legislation.

Then the church moved in stages. We had a women deacons bill agreed to in 1985, women priests in 1992 and now we are coming back to women bishops. We have taken it in three stages.

Ann Young.

It was 1998 when the issue of women as bishops first came up on its own. And that is what generated the working group of which Muriel and I have been chair and deputy chair.

There is some support for and some considerable opposition to.

Divide the church?

Without doubt we’ve had that threat every time we’ve had the debate about women as clergy, going back to 1985 if you look at the record. There is always that threat. I don’t believe the church would divide because women bishops would only be appointed in dioceses that wanted to appoint them and not in diocese that didn’t and quite a few of these chaps have met with women bishops when they were at the Lambeth conference.

I don’t believe that any part of it would leave the church over it.

There may be groups in the church that would consider leaving. I certainly hope it would not mean any spit of diocese from the church. I think on balance that is unlikely.

After women were ordained as priests within the church there were some priests who left the Anglican Church and either moved to other existing denominations or Anglican style denominations. But is was a fairly small number

Process

The fact we are sitting here together and we are going to be standing on the podium on two different sides of this issue and we have endeavored to remain friends through all of this. We can live together and we think others can too. The process has been very important. We have had huge consultation and we have tried to listen to all points of view. That is why you will find in the canon as it is coming to the synod that there is a protocol so that if there are people who are threatened or uncomfortable by a women once she is appointed in a diocese that there would be provision for them to be provided with pastoral ministry by a male bishop they would feel comfortable with.

When women were ordained as priests it was a very difficult time in the church. It was very emotional and a matter on which people felt very strongly. And so one of the things we have tried to do as the leaders of the working group – the group has tied to coop and appreciate each others point of view instead of saying I don’t think there’s any possibility of discussion.

Contrary to bible

That is a very consistent view of those who oppose the priesting of women and those who oppose the consecration of women bishops. That is the underlying reason who archbishop Jensen myself also have continued to oppose this move. It’s a theological issue. It’s not just a matter of church practice.

For those supporting this it’s a theological view as well. They have different interpretations of the Bible and I would hate to think that we just support this on the basis of feminist struggle for equal rights or something. But it is also a theological view and a biblically based view – what is happening is we have different interpretations of the bible

Another three years. Different place.

But unfortunately but this is not threat. If we don’t find some accommodation here and leave it for another three years I think we’ll find there is not as much willingness to promote provision for an alterative point of view in any bill that comes next time. What happened is a very ugly time in 1992 with women priests? It was ugly because it had built up and up over many years. That will continue to happen. You have to have a two thirds majority in three houses to get a canon like this through. You think what would happen in state parliament or federal parliament if you had to have a two-thirds majority in both houses every time. Nothing would happen. It goes require a high majority, if you keep frustrating majority like that then anger develops. I hope and pray that wont happen because it was very ugly some years ago. That’s not a threat. It is my prediction.

There are provisions for this bill to be amended. We were asked to bring legislation with provision for this alternative oversight and I think it is a very reasonable proposal. I would hope that is pure and simple not the reason for it being thrown out. I think it would say things that are not helpful to our church. If people theologically and biblically based can’t accept it I would be much happier than people saying it’s got to be a pure position.

Millions of people overseas see it to be a flexibility at all. One of the issues that have fueled the discussion in Australia has been the fact that man people of a conservative opinion theologically overseas has felt quite besieged in dioceses that have women bishops. Where men wish to oppose the priesting of women who wish to be ordained themselves have felt they get an unsympathetic treatment under those regimes. And the situation in the US is in no means a friendly situation in the Episcopalian church. It’s not just a matter from adopting a model from overseas. The thing about Australia is we are a little bit different to overseas. We have a series of independent diocese that work together in a sort of federation and that is a matter that is not common in US, UK or Canada. It’s not a simple way of translocating.

I think we are looking very hard for a middle road. My position is I can’t see them as correct but I appreciate that other people see it differently. What we are trying to do is learn to live together. We have learned a little patience. I would hope that no matter the debate goes we don’t go away with the degree of acrimony and anger that characterized every phase of priesting of women.

I don’t think it is inevitable.

It has to be otherwise we have a second-class of women inhabiting a second-class order of priesthood. It is like women may be a schoolteachers but not principal. A Member of Parliament but not prime minister. I think once we went on the road for women’s ordination than I think you have to. It’s a form of discrimination that is unacceptable.

It is the next logical step. Not just logical these issues are a matter of time. We now have 10 per cent of clergy as women. They are in quite senior positions. That pressure is going to come to bear.

Just go ahead

It is highly unlikely. I would hope it doesn’t happen.

Discrimination

It is certainly a difficult issue. I don’t see it as simply as discrimination point. I come back to the point that I never agree with the priesting of women in the first place. We can’t unscramble that.

The question of unity. The bishops have a preeminent role to maintain unity in the church. It is their particular role in that way is we see this a dimension beyond the priesting of women.

Democratic church

We are open to that allegation. We are not a democratic organization. The essential behaviour of the church is governed by our understanding of the bible and our desire to be true to god.

Bishops are the focus of unity but you cant remain the focus of unity with a male an female priesthood and only male bishops, that becomes a symbol of our fracture if women cant be admitted into the episcopate by their very nature. The house of bishops that is only male is incomplete. We argued in 1998 we needed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people in the house of bishops to make it complete. I see the same thing with women. A male only episcopate can’t work for very much longer because it doesn’t represent unity any more.

AY on Jensen

The point is made because we believe that the conservative as it is termed view is the way people should behave. If we come back to the issue of whether the bishopric is incomplete. In a sense this issue comes u with it as well. What we are doing now in having women priests, deacons and possible women bishops is very much linked to the time in which we live. We are unusual in doing that. Throughout the history of the Christian church. What is termed the conservative theology is in fact the tradition and the dominant theology of the church. So in order for the church to do law it is first if it holds to those traditional values

Dr Jensen is not the only person with a particular view of the bible. very many eminent scholars from a very central part around the world in the Anglican Communion – England, US and Canada, NZ, all of these places would say there is a different interpretation of the church’s tradition and the bible and the Holy Spirit that brings us into new truths.

ENDS.