Lib Dem Voice polled our members-only forum recently to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 550 party members have responded, and we’re publishing the full results.
84% think the CofE should allow women to be come bishops
In November the Church of England’s Synod failed to pass a vote that would have allowed women to become bishops. Do you think the Church of England should or should not allow women to become bishops?
-
84% – Should allow women bishops
2% – Should not allow women bishops
10% – Neither
4% – Don’t know
An unsurprisingly overwhelming backing for women to be allowed to become bishops within the Church of England. Most of the 10% ‘neithers’ were a variety of don’t cares (atheists, disestablishmentarians et al).
But 66% oppose parliamentary intervention over the issue
Would you support or oppose Parliament intervening to change the law to force the Church of England to accept female bishops?
-
24% – Support: it is wrong that the Church does not allow female Bishops and if they won’t act themselves Parliament should intervene
66% – Oppose: whether it is right or wrong, it should be a matter for the Church to decide. It would be an attack on religious freedom for Parliament to interfere
7% – Neither
3% – Don’t know
A slightly more mixed response here: two-thirds oppose direct parliamentary intervention in the established church to enforce state laws, though many in their comments made that conditional on the church seeking disestablishment if it wishes to avoid state interference. Almost a quarter of respondents, however, are happy for parliament to get more pro-active.
And 66% also support bishops being removed from the House of Lords
If the Church of England does not allow women to become bishops do you think all bishops should be denied the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords?
-
14% – Yes, in that circumstance, they should be removed from the House of Lords
66% – Yes, but I think all bishops should be removed from the House of Lords in any case
14% – No, they should not be removed from the House of Lords
4% – None of these
2% – Don’t know
A result which combines two historic liberal arguments — disestablishment of the Church of England AND the abolition of the House of Lords — with two-thirds wanting to see bishops removed from the Upper Chamber altogether, regardless of the CofE’s position on women bishops.
Here’s a selection of your comments:
Even the Church of England thinks that the Church of England should allow women to become bishops. It’s only the Synod’s bizarre voting system that prevented change.
The internal governance of a religious organisation is its own business. The CoE’s established status complicates matters, but the solution is to disestablish, not to interfere.
I think it is very plain that the majority DO want women Bishops. The evangelical and anglo-catholic wings will never agree, so there must be better provision for these minorities, which was a stumbling block all along.
If we ban them from sitting in the Lords for this, it would indicate that it’s ok for one religion to be there at the expense of others. They shouldn’t be there full stop.
It is not parliament’s place to intervene and the CofE should be permitted to do as they please.However, this being the case, the CofE should have no place in state affairs, the legislature or privileged access to government.
It has to be decided on theological grounds (on which I think they are wrong). It is not unreasonable that theological issues will conflict with the secular standards of the time. It would be fundamentally wrong for non believers or a secular body to intervene in a religous matter – about as illiberal as you can get.
This is not an area a political party (especially one lead by an someone who is not a member of the CoE) should have an opinion on. I support disestablishment of the CoE so they can sort their own problems out
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1119
Cheers! Gin Palace to open at Ludlow Food Centre
Are Lib Dems really the most opposed to more money being spent on potholes?
The escalating cost of Tory failure on immigration
Victoria Gardens energy efficiency event #dundeewestend
Stephen Glenn
Michael Kilpatrick
Mary Regnier-Wilson
Andrew Hickey
10 Comments
I wonder(whatever their views when pushed) how many people in this country (and our members) care anything much, one way or another, how this private organisation conducts its internal affairs.
Tony Dawson, it’s not a private organisation. It’s the official state religion which has special privileges and seats in the Lord’s.
How many of the public think it should be disestablished is an interesting question that needs asked.
The problem fir the CofE is the geographical rather than theological way in which the church devides itself. lots of their problems would go away if they arranged themselves differently. Then the sensible ones could have women bishops and the others could keep their old ways.
Surely it should be up to the chuch to decide? If people do not like the decision or the way it is made, they do not have to be a member. They can always join another religious group, start one of their own or forget relgion and try to do similar things through a political party.
It’s not just for the church to decide for itself if the church in question is the state religion ( in parts of the state anyway!) – of course there should be women, gay, pink, blue and green bishops if the people in question are the best for the job. Liberals need to realise that the ‘conservatives’ and ‘evangelicals’ have a tiny element of influence in the state because of their grasp over the state church.
Astonishing. What millennium do these bishops live in? How come people who break the spirit of the sex discrimination laws every day end up sitting in parliament making laws?
Actually, Richard, it wasn’t the bishops of the Church of England as a body that blocked the proposal for women bishops, it was the laity.
I must admit that I have a certain detachment from this controversy, as I am a member of a church that has had women elders, clergy and moderators (the nearest thing we have to bishops) for decades. This would also apply to the established Church of Scotland. So this becomes a question why there is an established Church of England, why a cohort of its bishops sit ex-officio in the federal upper house, unlike representatives of any other religion, and to what extent that allows the federal legislature to interfere in the internal democracy of the Church of England.
There are two issues here. As others point out the Cof E’s internal machinations should be of no interest to those of us who are not practising members of the church.
A reformed, partly elected, second chamber should find room for representatives of major religions and denominations (and for unbelievers) among other interest groups. But the top-heavy representation of Cof E bishops is as outdated as the concept of a House of Lords itself.
Do you think the Church of England should or should not allow women to become bishops?
It’s an ambiguous question. It’s a bit like asking me “Do you think we should have David Cameron as Prime Minister”. I would answer “No” if it was meant to be my personal preferences regardless of anyone else’s, but “yes” if it was meant to be a question on who is the legitimate Prime Minister from the way the people of this country voted and the support they have given to the distortion of the electoral system which made Cameron the only viable Prime Minister in the 2010 Parliament.
I appreciate the Church of England was founded to be a Church which tamely obeys the state, but we have largely accepted now that this is a purely ceremonial issue. So, as others have said, it’s up to the Church’s internal mechanisms, we who are not part of it should say that whatever it wants according to those mechanisms it should have.