I am not a member of general synod, but if I were and if I were called to speak about women in the episcopate, this is what I would have said:

My brothers and sister, how can we even have this conversation? Because we aren’t really talking about women bishops are we? We’re really still, to some degree, back in 1992 talking about whether women can even be priests. And yet here, all around us are our sisters in Christ, whose entire understanding of the person God is most truly calling them to be, is the identity of a priest. How can we calmly discuss this matter when so much weighs upon it for these sisters we love?

Then again, how can we have this conversation when the room contains brothers and sisters whose entire concept of the church, the body of Christ, so foundational to our identity as disciples of the Lord, is that it cannot have women in certain orders of ministry?

I want to propose that we are caught amidst the thorns of unanswerable questions for the simple reason that our questions are misdirected. And one key piece of misdirection is that we are confusing two different questions: firstly, whether women can become bishops and, secondly, whether any particular woman is a bishop. These are not the same question. I am convinced that one may honestly hold the opinion that women cannot become bishops whilst simultaneously recognising that any woman ordained by the church as a bishop is indeed a bishop.

The same is true of priests. This is, and always has been, the mark of being a member of the clergy: whether you have been ordained. St Augustine, particularly, argued this strongly and successfully against the Donatists. And it is vital. Otherwise, how else can anyone’s orders (male or female) be tested? There will always be differences of opinion. I, no matter how good a priest I am, will always have moments where I and others might question whether the church made the right choice in ordaining me. And always the answer will be that I am a priest, simply by virtue of the act of the church which ordained me.

I think observation contains the germ of an answer to my original question. How can we have this conversation? We can have it because we are only discussing the open, future-oriented question of whether some non-specific, generalised women can be ordained as a bishop order at some as-yet unknown point in the future. We are emphatically not discussing whether the past acts of ordination by the church are valid.

With this principle in mind, those of us in favour of women in the episcopate may still engage seriously with those who aren’t in favour. We may even allow ourselves to be challenged by our dissenting brothers and sisters. And we can do this without compromising our understanding of the orders of specific women we know and love.

Equally, those who do not agree with the ordination of women to various orders my still recognise and engage genuinely with specific women who are priests or bishop. Again, there is no need for compromise. One may still hold the general view that women cannot be priests/bishops. One may still campaign for the church corporate to have this understanding. But, in so doing, one does not have to disregard the orders of women who are already ordained.

So my plea is that we agree that the age old doctrine of the church stands and that orders are valid simply by virtue of ordination being an act of the church. If we can do this, then suddenly the entire other conversation, the one about the future, can take place honestly and unthreateningly and can continue to take place long after we reach the required 66% required to change our practice. Indeed, we can continue to disagree in love until we are all 100% of one mind, one way or the other.