So, the Church of England is to condsider offering offer 'conscientious objector' status to those who oppose the appointment of women bishops 'similar to that given to pacifists during the two world wars' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2896628.ece)
Setting aside, my views on the issue of women bishops, I don't have a problem with conscience clauses. I do have a problem with the equation of this with pacifist conscientious objection. My uncle spent World War II in jail because of his decision not to partake in war, and he was hardly unique. Will these Anglicans be similarly denied their freedom? No! I suspect that as with the orginal ordination issue some nice arrangement will be found for them to stay in post and enjoy the security of those who agree with them. I don't think it's a good parallel, sorry.
In a broken and disordered world, conscience clauses do seem to be needed, they are a way that allows individuals to stay in relationship when they honestly hold views that put them on the edge of a mainstream - URC ministers who don't endorse paedobaptism, Anglicans who don't endorse the ordination of women. I am glad, truly glad, that the BU requires its Regional Ministers to accept the ordination of women (pretty basic in a Union that has been ordaining us for about 80 years) but know the tensions that arise because local churches have the liberty to refuse to appoint women - a church notionally in our cluster has nothing to to with us because 3 out of 6 churches have women ministers. Conscience clauses are not the solution, but they do keep some level of open relationship without denying disagreement.
Lastly, how can you ordain women and not permit women bishops? Forgive me, I'm a heretic I know, but you either ordain women or you don't.
Oh, I'm glad I'm a Baptist! We might get ourselves into horrid knots, we might avoid scary topics, but somehow we seem to manage, on the whole to keep talking to each other despite our differences and without the need to resort to special dispensations over this or that bit of doctrine.
This is probably rather rant-ish, sorry, just needed to let off a bit of steam!
Comments
I saw that article this morning as well. The clause initially annoyed me but then, having read your blog, Ireconsidered.
I guess it at least allows people to be honest about where they stand on an issue, rather than hiding it which allows for honest and open discussions.
On a similar issue - would people be allowed such a cluase over homesexuality and ministry I wonder?
(I also wish sometimes there was 'I don't know', or' I'm still trying to work out what I think about that' clause I could opt into! )
I'd love an 'I don't know I'm still struggling with that one' clause because it does leave the way open for movement and exploration, and is often more honest than yes/no.
What I meant to say, in amongst all the ranting, was that I am ok with the idea of conscience clauses because they do serve a useful purpose in keeping people broadly together whilst they explore ideas and/or agree in good faith to disagree. What I'm not comfortable with is the idea - which is how I read the article, probably not at all what it meant - that they are parallel to what pacifists did in WWII, which seem to have, at least in some cases, cost them their freedom. And it is that reading I was ranting about, honest. I wouldn't claim to be a pacifist but I would defend the right of people like my uncle to be one and not get locked up as a result. But then from the relative safety of 2007 that is probably easy to say...eeeh but life's tricky!