This is a term which as far as I know is only used in discussions of women priests and bishops. The recent report by the House of Bishops contains the following:
the House believes that it would be more helpful and accurate to refer simply to ‘ those within the Church of England who on grounds of theological conviction are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests’ rather than singling out… any particular groups (§10).
Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests will continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion… (§12, 24).
A means by which PCCs can signal that they wish to take advantage of the arrangements available to those who , on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the priestly or episcopal ministry of women (§56).
At the other end of the spectrum is an approach that would include all the elements of the new arrangements in a Measure… It would mean that arrangements made for those whose theological convictions did not enable them to receive the priestly or episcopal ministry of women would have statutory force (§72).
The terms I wish to explore here are:
on grounds of theological conviction are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests
and
those whose theological convictions did not enable them to receive the priestly or episcopal ministry of women.
Others have used terms like ‘cannot in all conscience’. ‘Unable’, like ‘cannot’, seems to me too strong a word. It is clear enough why the Report uses it. The bishops are working towards legislation. For this purpose they are accepting that opponents of women bishops exist, and bracketing out the question of whether they are right. Maybe I’m nitpicking, but my fear is that use of this and similar terms has encouraged their use in other contexts and has thereby exaggerated the strength of the case against women priests and bishops.
Let’s try it in other contexts.
I am unable on grounds of political conviction to buy books from Amazon because they don’t pay their taxes.
Many people do avoid using Amazon for this reason: does this sentence provide a fair account of their position? It’s a bit over the top: ‘I choose not to’ would be more accurate than ‘I am unable’.
The Prime Minister is unable on grounds of moral conviction to authorise the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances at all.
If only! Here ‘unable’ sounds better: the point would be to emphasise that moral conviction prevents certain actions. We would love to hear more from politicians and business leaders about things they would have liked to do but cannot do for moral reasons. It is still arguable, though, that ‘unable’ is an exaggeration: it is characteristic of human nature that we know what we morally ought to do but choose to do otherwise.
How does ‘unable on grounds of theological conviction to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests’ compare with these? Theological conviction is of course different. In the case of Amazon, political conviction is a type of moral conviction: the forbidden action is not impossible, but morally wrong. Does this theological conviction state that receiving women’s ministry is impossible, or morally wrong?
As I understand it, it depends who you ask. For an evangelical committed to male headship, women ought not to take leadership roles but sometimes do. Disapprovers therefore ought not to receive their ministry, but are able to. To this extent the situation is similar to the examples I have given. Of course, even the most ardent opponent would not consider the consecration of a woman bishop as disastrous as a nuclear war, so perhaps the Amazon analogy is closer: ‘unable to’ means ‘determined not to’. The determination is moral rather than theological, though the moral position is still informed by a theological conviction.
The matter is different for catholic opponents who believe in objective sacramental changes: from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ, from layperson to priest, from priest to bishop. From this point of view a woman cannot perform the role. ‘Unable on grounds of theological conviction’ now means something different. The theological conviction pulls the strings more directly. Nevertheless ‘unable’ is still a misleading word. The ability at stake is not the ability to receive women’s ministry, but the ability to accept its validity. The theological conviction does not make its adherents unable to accept its validity; rather, it forbids them to do so. They are, of course, forbidden only to the extent that they accept the theology. In other words, ‘I am unable on grounds of theological conviction to accept…’ really means no more than ‘I theologically disagree with…’
I therefore suggest that terms like ‘unable on grounds of theological conviction’ and ‘cannot in all conscience’, while they offer the convenience of a simple summarising description, also have the disadvantages of exaggerating both the strength and the unity of the positions held.