Women and the Church (WATCH) has just launched its campaign to bring motions before all diocesan synods calling for the end of the 2014 settlement; a settlement with no specified time limit and with a framework at its core which provides a home in the Church of England for those who are opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopate.

It is important to note that the nature of the Church of England’s provision for those conscientiously opposed is such that it explicitly references the roles of the wider Anglican Communion and indeed of the church universal. This is demonstrably, therefore, a matter of ecclesiology rather than of gender per se.

While such opposition represents a minority viewpoint in the Church of England, it reflects the practice of by far the greater part of the church universal. As result, we should in fact be defined by being in favour of something – the practice of the church universal, inspired by the Holy Spirit and representing something much bigger than any of us can claim for ourselves in England – rather than being opposed to something.

The Bishop of Croydon, one of those who sat on the committee which devised the Five Guiding Principles underpinning the settlement, said to those assembled at the recent WATCH conference held to launch the campaign: “I think in honesty we also thought that as society changed and as views became more open-minded among growing numbers of younger men and women, the culture of the Church would change like the culture of the wider society.”

Given that we are only just over a decade on from the settlement being put in place, and mutual flourishing is in its infancy, such attitudes do not bode well for any settlement emerging for evangelicals from their opposition to the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF). What are they, and others, to make of the promises made to Anglo-Catholics, which some appear so keen to renege on so soon after those commitments were made?

In an age in which we are being encouraged to emote, what about the feelings of those scores and scores of Society priests – many of them young – who put themselves forward for ordination to the priesthood in the Church of England under the settlement only to be met with a campaign calling for their removal after such a short elapse of time? Does their well-being count for less simply because their theological views do not conform to the spirit of the age?

Prominent in the early stages of the WATCH campaign is much talk of discrimination and of harassment. On the former, I have long wondered what this entails in practice. Given that supporters of WATCH and of The Society tend to operate in different parts of the Church of England, what is being alleged and with what evidence? Is it really traditionalists who are discriminating against female clergy? How precisely are we doing that and from which positions of authority? Could it be that discrimination in reality comes from other quarters?

On the latter, if there is any evidence of anyone in the Church of England is harassing any other individual then that should be reported immediately and acted upon. If the alleged perpetrator is a member of clergy, then the arrangements in place for clergy discipline should

be invoked. Without evidence being provided and without formal reporting of allegations, there is a danger that highly generalised comments become a means of undermining those of a different theological position.

The Chair of WATCH went much further when referring to the Five Guiding Principles and spoke of “the requirement for all clergy to say that they accept the current discrimination effectively silences women, which is an act of violence.” I simply cannot view a set of principles advocating tolerance of different, well-grounded, theological perspectives as being in any way “violent” – quite the opposite.

What is becoming clear is that safeguarding is being ‘weaponised’ and that this is being done on two different levels. Firstly, there is an elision being made between traditionalist witness, whether evangelical or catholic, and safeguarding risk. Secondly, the assertion is being made that men in general are a safeguarding problem. That used to be known as sexism.

I read that, for safeguarding reasons, the Archbishop of York is no longer welcome to speak in a major church in his province – Newcastle Cathedral – as part of his Lord’s Prayer tour later this year. I imagine that many supporters of the ordination of women to the priesthood and of the introduction of the PLF would not have had this brave new world in mind when they committed to those reforms.

We are being presented with a choice. One option is a monochrome state run church, claiming to become more “open-minded” as it closes down other theological perspectives and “changing with society” as it subjects itself to the whims of the political class; whose priorities are assisted dying today and some other profanity tomorrow.

The other is a vibrant national church, celebrating Christianity as a revealed religion and embracing unashamedly the Cross and the Empty Tomb both as a physical reality and as great symbols of God’s love for us. We are called to acclaim: “All for Jesus, all for Jesus, this the church’s song must be, till, at last, we all are gathered, one in love and one in thee.”

Tom Middleton

Director of Forward in Faith

4th April 2025