In this debate we need to keep in mind that we are looking at providing for the Church of England in 50 years time, not just in five years time.
Many orthodox evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are agreed that there must be transferred jurisdiction to alternative bishops, which includes ordination, appointment and licensing. It is not clear whether these are included in the Archbishops’ proposals.
The difficulty in the way of securing this without creating two classes of bishops, in that people could appeal against the jurisdiction of a woman bishop, is the tradition of mono-episcopacy.
This is the irreducible minimum to which the Revision Committee have hung on. Yet it gives rise to the oddity that an innovation (women bishops) is resulting in objectors being excluded because of appeal to a tradition (mono- episcopacy). This theologically threadbare understanding of sole jurisdiction has no biblical or theological warrant that I have seen deployed in these discussions. This tradition is an accretion to the church ”“ arguably through exercise of male power. A male pattern of ministry was developed over centuries without asking what pattern of ministry women should exercise in different situations.
well done.
The sensible and rational and theologically defensible scheme presented by Canon Sugden sounds familiar to me…I have been involved with organizations seeking such a reasonable niche for similar reasons in the Episcopal Church since 1976 (CAM, ECM, ESA). Of course, no one in the Episcopal Church politburo ever gave such an idea any real or serious consideration.
Good luck to the English dissentients; my expectation is that they will be in the same position as TEC opponents of the ordination of women find ourselves today; and, it is all too easy to see (no longer alarmist or far-fetched imaginings) that the same fate for English proponents of biblical and traditional Christian morality will come along in due time just as it has for TEC proponents as well.
Many are uncomfortable with any statement connecting the two issues, but no less authority than the House of Bishops (TEC) “theological” paper on same sex matters makes the connection as do many others.
“Where have all the flowers gone…when will they ever learn”
This is a refreshing and thought-provoking piece. I am persuaded that some form of non-geographic dioceses are certain to be part of the future of Anglicanism. It is the logical extension of non-geographical parishes/congregations. Parish dynamics changed with the introduction of automobiles and telephones; today we have airplanes, email, and websites–all of which change the way we communicate and connect with each other. And so, the relationship between bishop and parish has and is changing.
On the other hand, I have appreciated the catholic tradition of locality–that is, that a congregation has a ministry in its location for good or ill. Parish churches rarely move locations–but adapt as the neighborhood develops over time. I have been aware of a tension then between geographical locality and non-geographical relationships.
Canon Sugden’s proposal offers an intriguing solution–that the norm remains the geographical diocese with overlapping dioceses of affiliation. His context is the role of women’s ministry. Other contexts might be a society’s commitment to ministry among the poor, a second-language population, military personnel, etc. One can connect this proposal with the various conversations about how does a congregation become “missional”? The answer may be that some parishes are called to have the focused ministry of a society, while others are called to having a ministry committed to its locality.
I have questions too–but for starters, I like the possibilities of what Canon Sugden has proposed.
General Synod starts today [Friday] in York at 3:45 pm and continues until 1 pm on Tuesday 13th July. In case it helps here are some links I found with a bit of explanation of what will be going on.
The Agenda is here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/gspapers/gs1777.pdf
General information and links to other resources including the live audio links and other materials [top right] are here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/
More materials including hopefully audio podcasts should be posted once sessions start on this page. The program for today may also be found on this page and only two items stick out – the legislation to deal with extending death in service benefits to civil partners and the questions this evening.
There is very little on the agenda – the decks have pretty much been cleared to deal with the issue of women bishops.
Women Bishops
This debate starts on Saturday after a Presidential Address by the ABY [host] and is in two parts:
1. a ‘take note’ debate on the report of the revision committee. This only permits an up or down debate on whether or not to accept it. No debate on amending it or more general issues to do with women bishops are permitted.
2. a line by line debate on the legislation in the Measure and amending Canon. This is quite complicated and there are a great many amendments, including those by the ABC and ABY to provide for ‘Coordinate Bishops’ which seem to be flying bishops, but at the discretion of the diocesan who still remains as a woman bishop, or one who has ordained women.
From the other side of the tracks comes a really excellent, and light-hearted explanation of the line by line position and amendments, by Justin Brett, a member of Synod:
http://dodgyliberal.blogspot.com/2010/07/lesson-concerning-debating-of-women.html
As he points out the materials relating to this debate are:
1. The Measure – Draft Bishops and Priests [Consecration and Ordination of Women] Measure:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/gspapers/gs1708a.pdf
2. Notice Paper 5 containing the proposed amendments to the above:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/noticepapers/np5.pdf
3. Revision Committee Report including illustrative Code of Practice [142 pages and includes the draft measure and amending canon]
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/gspapers/gs1708-09y.pdf
Iin addition the background to this with a detailed examination of the historical role of bishops and the arguments over extending the episcopacy to women was contained in the Report chaired by +Michael Nazir-Ali here:
The Rochester Report [302 pages]
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/womenbishops/gs1557.pdf
There is also the Church Times explanation of the grouping of amendments which is worth reading:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=97359
Peter Owen at Thinking Anglicans also lists what he thinks are the effect of the amendments:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004486.html
The Archbishops’ amendments [ABC and ABY] seek to make more effort to keep opponents of women bishops in the CofE, while maintaining the jurisdiction of women bishops. Church Times Blog has them, and links in to Thinking Anglicans who have them in the context of the original text to show their effect:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=97049
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004472.html#more
Other Reporting during Synod:
Church Society – it is not clear whether they will be issuing their regular reports this time:
http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/synod/agenda/iss_synod_agenda_intro.asp
The General Synod blog – not official, but useful:
http://gensyn.blogspot.com/
Church Times – available to subscribers:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/index.asp?id=97070
Thinking Anglicans:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/
The concept of non-geographic boundaries is a non-starter for at least three reasons.
1. It would make bishops have to compete for parishioners. Money follows parishioners, and bishops do not want to deal with people taking their money elsewhere.
2. It would establish a competing orthodox entity whose performance could be visibly measured against the larger church. Liberal churches are declining churches. This kind of arrangement would highlight that distinction.
Most important:
3. It does not compel objectors to submit to the authority of a woman bishop. The ultimate proof of authority is that those who reject must still submit.
carl
I welcome this stimulating piece by Canon Sugden, who puts his finger on a problem that won’t go away, i.e., the folly of continuing to require all congregations to fit into an obsolete geographical mold when it comes to oversight and common mission. Thus, I must agree with Loren (#3), although I recognize that carl is probably right (#5) about the fact that any weakening of the rigid geographical system of dioceses will be firmly resisted by the institutional powers that be, and especially by those on the left.
For those wanting to read up on the potential benefits of a non-geographical approach to networking congregations together, I highly recommend Lyle Schaller’s 2003 book, [b]From Geography to Affinity: How Congregations Can Learn from Each Other[/b]. As always when it comes to Schaller’s books, this one is chock full of fresh insights and valuable suggestions.
David Handy+
Thanks Pageantmaster (#4), for all the many helpful links. And thanks for adding a few reflections of your own.
Earnest prayer is certainly needed, as this General Synod could prove to be momentous and fateful, for good or ill. And alas, I fear it’s quite likely, barring divine intervention, that its effects will sadly be for ill. This weekend is indeed a critical crossroad time for the CoE.
David Handy+
Also worth looking at in relation to the draft amending measure linked in #4 above is the Draft Amending Canon:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/gspapers/gs1709a.pdf.
Also worth looking at in relation to the draft amending measure linked in #7 above is the Draft Amending Canon:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2010/gspapers/gs1709a.pdf.
The report from Synod yesterday is here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsjul090710.html
The answers to the questions may be quite interesting, but as usual the questions themselves are not published until much later, which leaves one playing an interesting guessing game wondering what question is being replied to.
To point out the obvious: a form of this kind of “Dioceses by Association” already exists in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, with their 1992 Constitution. Three “streams” or [i]tikanga[/i] are arranged along cultural lines, with geographical overlaps. The difference between this and the old Apartheid regime of RSA is the voluntary nature of the arrangement agreed to by all parties, as well as the ongoing possibilities of vetoes by any party at General Synod. There are other features, but that’s enough for now: see http://www.anglican.org.nz/