….even a retired bishop like myself, having no vote in the proceedings, can see that we’re now at a critical time in the Church’s development. For the core principles of the traditions within the Church of England seemed to have reached a near unbreachable gulf over the issues of the provisions for those opposed to women bishops. And there’s a further development, for some, the need for holding the church together in unity, whatever the compromises which must be made to do so, has itself become a firm principle, disturbing those who believe that unity at any price can’t trump other deeply held principles.
The truth is that compromise can be both an evasion of duty where a clear obligation is avoided for the sake of some secondary advantage, or at the other extreme, compromise in the Church may be an attempt to discover God’s will where two seemingly core principles dictate different courses of action which seem to be incompatible. It’s because of this possibility that the Church has spent so many years trying to come to a common mind over women bishops.
But the debate isn’t purely between principle and compromise, for the General Synod had before it and accepted draft legislation which already showed significant compromise to both sides. Whatever the final outcome the Church won’t be forcing priests or congregations to accept the ministry of women bishops without the further provision of a bishop whose ministry they would welcome.
In a situation of conflict I understand compromise to mean that all parties achieve some of their key priorities. Bishop Tom apparently understands the word to describe a situation in which one party achieves all of their most significant aims and another none.