As the votes on Saturday illustrated, we remain as a Synod, it seems, committed by a majority to the desirability to seeing women as bishops for the health and flourishing of the work of God’s Kingdom in this Church and this nation. We’re also profoundly committed by a majority in the Synod to the maximum generosity that can be consistently and coherently exercised towards the consciences of minorities. We have not yet cracked how to do that. We all know that. To recognise it is not at all to gloss over it or to say that there is some kind of ”˜synodical juggernaut’ which has to roll on regardless of the unfinished business that Saturday put before us.
So, that’s it really – we have to recognise that those two goals are still the goals before us. Holding together is desperately difficult and to see it perhaps in terms of the service we give to one another may at least give us all a sense that we have something to work for in this process – and that, I hope, is what today will help us forward with. So I hope we can this morning recommit ourselves to that search for the goals that Synod seems to have settled upon, to do that in love and in hopefulness, in awareness of the extremely difficult decisions that face many and not minimising those and yet also in the belief that we are ”“ in serving one another here ”“ quite simply, serving the God who calls us.
Fine words, except that what the GS is talking about isn’t peace, love, and understanding. It’s about power and the new opportunity for women to exercise it in an untrammeled manner.
I see this as a predictable attempt at putting as positive a spin on the defeat of his amendment as possible. And an equally predictable attempt at appealing for everybody to “stay at the table” and keep the sacrosanct, endless process going. This constant stalling tactic has only partially worked at the international level with the AC, and I don’t see it working any better in the CoE. After all, you can only put off the inevitable so long…
I’m disappointed naturally, but hardly surprised and certainly not shocked. The ABoC has trained me to have very low expectations of him as a Christian leader. He’s a fine scholar, but a terrible leader.
David Handy+
P.S. That is, he’s a horrible leaders, UNLESS you’re primarily an institutionalist who values superficial, merely institutional unity over authentic, theologically coherent unity. If you fall in the latter camp (and there are many who do), then Cantaur has been playing the delay game almost to perfection, postponing the inevitable breakup as long as possible and seeking to minimize it. If that’s your idea of what the ABoC is supposed to do, then ++RW has been remarkably successful.
But I have a completely different conception of what the role of a bishop or archbishop involves.
David Handy+
[i]”…desirability to seeing women as bishops for the health and flourishing of the work of God’s Kingdom in this Church and this nation.”[/i]
This is a disgusting statement and the fact that he sees this as a goal just proves how far a miss the Anglican Communion is.
I am profoundly grateful that the Archbishops continue to insist that GS holds to itself basic Christian standards. +Rowan points out that a majority voted for an amendment which would have given space for all, and then insists that GS observes its generosity and that the dioceses do likewise before the measure returns in 18 months time.
Now come elections to GS. If traditionalists can manage to elect not merely a third of their own, but merely a third who wish to retain comprehension, this defeat may well be reversed.
Imagine our own General Convention, if a majority of bishops and laity voted to follow the lead of a PV commited to the unity of TEC. Yes, that is not a stretch of the imagination, it is an impossible dream.
David–it appears that “the role of a bishop or archbishop” is itself really up for grabs. I understand bishops primarily through the lens of “apostolic”, e.g. missionary leaders, church planters, evangelists–but perhaps the loudest voices that I have heard have argued first and foremost that a bishop is the symbol of unity. This symbol of unity can be grossly twisted and maligned, e.g. as a tool of power to control–but choosing for the moment to look for the best of others, there is certainly a huge emphasis on the hope of one bishop, one diocese, one people united. And while I respect that emphasis, the apostolic/missionary view leads in a different direction with different expectations of what the Bishop does. For example, in light of the current debate, should Paul and Barnabas have canceled their mission trips to work on unity, instead of in fact going in two different directions because they could not agree on John Mark’s role on the team? It certainly is not one or the other, but there is a different accent and emphasis–and I would prefer the ABC and all the bishops to be more apostolic in their roles.
The hand writing is on the wall. The Anglo-Catholics either need to make their peace with it or leave now. They have no other alternative.
I would still like to know what the Global South Primates will do regarding this?
I’m neither Anglo-catholic nor do I see female pastors/bishops as biblical.
Am I alone, or what??
Don
No DonGander you are not alone….there are many who are not Anglo-Catholics that do not think the women clergy are biblical.
It is difficult to expect much credence for the Archbishop’s “this is not the end of the road” argument considering his own rush to dispense with the views of the primates and orthodox at Dar es Salaam and Jamaica, and to not invite orthodox bishops such as Duncan to Lambeth. When he is seen as happily placing the orthodox in the rest of the world outside the tent when it suits him, no one can fault any orthodox in the CoE for seeing that the road leads to somewhere where they are not welcome as well.
And of course, it is not at all the end of the road: this thing must go to the dioceses, get their individual approvals (as I understand it), and come back to GS in a couple of years and get 2/3 majorities in each of the houses. (I think I have this right.) As #5 says above, there are elections to GS in the meantime. This would be an odd time for those with commitments to maintaining the witness of “traditionalists” to give up. Mind you, we have seen ourselves do this before!
Mr. Radner,
What are the chances of some of the impatient liberals in the CofE going ahead and pushing this through in one of their diocese like what had happened in TEC years ago.
RE: “I am profoundly grateful that the Archbishops continue to insist that GS holds to itself basic Christian standards.”
Yes — isn’t it wonderful how clergy listen and heed all of that “insistence.”
RE: ” . . . and come back to GS in a couple of years and get 2/3 majorities in each of the houses.”
I think it incredibly unlikely that better/more informed/more kindly revisionists or moderates or Fulcrumite/open evangelicals will be elected to GS in the interim. After all the Fulcrumites don’t believe in making any allowances for conscience of the misogynistic, patriarchal, traditionalist bigots — why should the foaming revisionists?
But each will weigh the chances and risks, and proceed accordingly, of course. If people really deem it remotely likely that new kinder gentler revisionists or open evangelicals will be elected, then I’m sure those folks will stay on. And they’ll spend their time decrying the people who leave who believe that it will be highly unlikely to get better delegates.
And yes . . . we’ve seen that kind of thing before too.
Re: TL Dillon–This really isn’t a dogfight that involves any of the Global South Primates’ pit bulls. They long ago made peace with the notion that some of their provinces (notably Nigeria from the Protestant side and South East Asia from the Catholic) would reject the ordination of women to the presbyterate, while most others would allow it. The same appears to be true of the ordination of women to the episcopate. This is not seen as a litmus-test issue for orthodoxy–unlike homosexuality, where there is substantial unanimity throughout the Global South.
The current count among the 38 officially recognized provinces is: 7 that reject women in Holy Orders entirely, 3 that allow only women deacons (including Southern Cone), and 28 with women priests. Among the Global South provinces that have been supportive of US reasserters, Uganda and Kenya both ordained women shortly after the US and long before England did. All, or almost almost all, of the six extra-provincial Anglican churches allow women clergy as well.
As for bishops, 5 provinces and 1 extra-provincial church have actually consecrated women, and 11 other provinces clearly allow the practice, although they have not actually appointed a woman bishop yet. These include several in the geotheological Global South, such as Sudan, Bangladesh, and North India, and several others in the geopolitical Global South, such as Southern Africa, Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines. So if England moves from the “No” to the “Yes” column, it will leaving a group that currently has 22 Anglican churches and joining one that will then have 23.
Thank you Dale Rye….not looking for it to be nor insinuating that it is or should be a [i]”dogfight'[/i] I just wanted a bit more clarity as to where the Global South Primates stand and you have given me the answer. This helps me more than you could know. Thank you again
It is puzzling why the Press and others declare this all over. I’d hate to be facing diocesan approval; Code of Practice; and a 2/3 majority in 2012/13. Dioceses can now devise Code of Practice arrangements which pretty much emulate what the ABC and ABY sought up front. To be sure, if Reform, FiF, and conservative evangelicals fail altogether, the situation is not good. But I am prepared to see what they themselves say as the next season unfolds.
The problems with following the ordinariate route are several for ACs: it is costly, it comes with second-class status within the RC ethos, and it means saying goodbye to Catholic Anglicanism. It is easy for conservatives to say this will be the option for many, but as many others point out, ‘crossing the Tiber’ even in an Ordinariate boat, is a very hard choice.
I think the challenge is finding a way forward — look at Kolini and the AMiA/ACNA difficulties. You have the sole primatial sponsor of AMiA in favor of WO, Christ Church Plano in the same mood, and the AMiA’s own teaching. And ACNA’s Archbishop ordaining women, much to the chargin of others inside of ACNA already.
As Dale Rye points out, the Communion itself is divided, most noticeably in the GS. How to see the variegated reality at work within one Province — that is what is hard to see. It is easy to say it won’t work full-stop. But what then of Provinces in the GS, e.g., that already ordain women?
At least the CofE is seeking a way forward and not just running the ACs out of the room altogether, as in TEC.
The difference is, I think, that the GS understands and respects the position that Scripture can be fairly read to preclude WO. Thay may disagree, but they recognize this as a respectable position. They will make provision to allow those who disagree with WO to have their own clergy and bishops. Something which TEC and CoE will not do over time.
It is up to those who oppose WO to decide whether this is acceptable. But the fact remains that in TEC and now in the CoE WO is the law of the land. I respect Fr. Radner, but any suggestion that the CoE will back down or allow an arrangement acceptable to those who reject WO is wishfull thinking at best.
Approval in dioceses is a no-brainer — no question that that will happen.
“Code of Practice” is like DEPO was — completely useless anyway, since it leaves it all up to the lovely WATCH bishops, who have already demonstrated their charm, grace, and fruit of the Spirit in spades.
The COE is doing precisely as TEC did — which is not allowing provision for the very well-articulated and spelled-out concerns of the ACs and the conservative evos. I don’t see any sign at all that there is interest by a majority in dealing with the very clearly stated needs of the ACs . . . Fulcrum has been crystal clear in its posted essay, for instance, that it is utterly disinterested . . . and the ABY/ABC’s amendment didn’t deal with the stated concerns either. DEPO never was an option because it depended on the good grace of the revisionist bishops — in the same way, the code of practice.
The ravers, the “moderates” [sic], and the open evos are riding the ACs out on a rail, tarred and feathered. It’s basically a redux of the late 1970s and 1980s in TEC.
Good luck COE — welcome to ACNA. Welcome to AMiA. Welcome to APCK, ACC, EMC, APA, ACA, HDC, REC [insert 20 more here].
It will offer very very little gratification to hear, 10 years from now, lots of wringing of hands and moaning and complaining from the open evos about how mean and cruel and dastardly it was for so many traditionalists to leave the COE and not remain to help them fight the latest greatest fads and trendy demands of the foaming revisionists.
Don Gander, #9, No you are not alone, many people who honor Scripture and simply identify themselves as Christians know that our Father’s house should be “a house of prayer” and that it should not be used as stepping stone to earthly power.
Just for the record, it is 4 Anglican provinces (not 5) and one extra-provincial church that have women bishops. I was probably distracted by the number of commas in any list including “Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia.” As far as I know, none of the 5 churches with women bishops (the others are TEC, Canada, Australia, and Cuba) have formal provisions to protect opponents that are even as robust as those proposed for the CofE. I suspect that much the same is true of the other 11 provinces that, in theory, allow women bishops. Most of the 32 provinces with women clergy have relied on the same sort of informal agreements to respect one another’s consciences that worked for some years in the US, but have now broken down within many provinces almost as thoroughly as between them.
Obviously, the current arrangements for mutual respect have broken down. I have a couple of suggestions for what might replace them, although both “solutions” are very untidy:
1. I am beginning to see Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney as sort of a prophet when he predicted that the future shape of Anglicanism would have more in common with the Church of Australia than with the Church of Rome. Australia has enormous diversity in theological belief and practice, from almost certainly the most Protestant dioceses in the Anglican Communion to the most Catholic. What holds the province together is a constitution that allows almost complete diocesan autonomy. Important national decisions that might override diocesan policy require huge and practically unattainable supermajorities. Parishes are similarly fairly empowered vis-a-vis their dioceses. In practice, most of the church’s mission is carried out by voluntary coalitions of the willing–dioceses, parishes, missionary societies, etc. that band together for particular projects that they can agree on, while they disagree with practically everything else.
Abp. Jensen’s notion is that Anglicans worldwide can operate the same way. Agreement on one issue need not imply it on any other issue. Mutual recognition of ministry and intercommunion should be a matter of bilateral agreement between provinces, dioceses, and perhaps even parishes, not something imposed from above by the central authorities of the Communion (just as the Anglican Church of Australia does not hinder the close relationship between the Diocese of Sydney and the Church of England in South Africa, which has been out of communion with Canterbury since 1870). In the same way, Nigeria could be in communion with Burundi and the ACNA, while Burundi is in communion with Nigeria and TEC–it would be a matter of bilateral agreement. People could join for particular projects without agreeing on anything else. This seems to be what is evolving in practice.
2. Alternatively, many Anglican provinces seem to be abandoning the idea of geographical dioceses in favor of “communities of like-minded individuals.” Any spot in New Zealand is within the oversight of at least three Anglican bishops. Spain has Anglican parishes belonging to three different provinces. There have been Church of South India parishes in the US for decades. TEC has long been in communion with two distinct churches in the Philippines, just as Sydney is in communion with two provinces in South Africa. The Global South sponsors of the AMiA, ACNA, and similar organizations obviously have no problem with the overlapping geographical reach of these churches, much less their overlap with TEC.
The big problem in the CofE debates has been the problem of how to handle people opposed to women’s ordination who find themselves geographically within the boundaries of a diocese with a woman bishop. There is no tidy answer so long as the geographic principle is considered inviolable; one is inevitably left with either parishes that have a woman’s oversight imposed on them or women bishops who do not have the same oversight powers as their male colleagues.
Despite the long Roman and Anglican history in England of “peculiars,” churches that are geographically within one diocese but under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of another (or even of the Crown), nobody seems willing to bite the bullet and let parishes in the Diocese of Chichester that want a woman bishop transfer to Southwark while those in Southwark that don’t want one transfer the other way. The difficulty with that, of course, is abundantly obvious in the history of extra-communion Anglicanism in America. If a parish can “fire” its bishop in favor of another at the parish’s sole discretion, there is no meaningful difference between an episcopal polity and a congregational one. Protecting the oversight of the bishops while also protecting the consciences of dissenting parishes is a problem that has not yet found a solution.
Dale, IIRC, you are beginning to change your tune. Years ago it was pointed out that there are overlapping ‘oversights’ throughout the Anglican world, but you resisted this notion. Now you see it as a virtue.
Good, that’s progress. Now we need an Anglican ecclesiology that sorts out just why we have bishops in the first place. The Catholics and Orthodox have no problem with this, because they don’t (and won’t) have women bishops and all bishops must adhere to the church’s teaching. A Gene Robinson is an impossiblity in such a setting.
“The COE is doing precisely as TEC did” — I cannot imagine a vote being taken on the ABC/ABY’s amendment, which only failed by five (abstentions were five), in a TEC General Convention. It wouldn’t happen, and if it did, the results would be a landslide. I genuinely believe TEC’s days are numbered. There simply won’t be the numbers and the money to sustain the vacuous account of the Christian Gospel presented by TEC’s leaders. Perhaps it has been reassuring to be able to watch CofE affairs and say: “see, it’s just as bad over there” — from both ends of the theological spectrum in the US. (The British Press also does a great job overheating every dish — look at the Jeffrey John nonsense.) At issue is the organisation of conservatives in the UK. The evangelical wing in the CoE has no TEC counterpart. The dynamics are different and will play out differently. Will there end up being ‘insert 20 more’ continuing churches in the UK? There has not been up to now, and I doubt there will be in future. In my view the big challenge in the UK is cultural, and it will take strong conservative organisation and thinking to move forward in the next season. TEC’s future seems more certain: lack of money, numbers, and theological training will mean continued decline.
RE: “Perhaps it has been reassuring to be able to watch CofE affairs and say: “see, it’s just as bad over thereâ€â€””
Oh, it’s not at all as bad over there as here and that’s been a great comfort. But now that the COE will lose scads of conservative evos and scads of AngloCatholics, and will gain the lovely WATCH bishops, it will be. That’s one of the big reasons why it was protected from going toddling off the deep end like TEC did. I give it no more than 15, probably 10 years.
RE: “At issue is the organisation of conservatives in the UK.”
Not sure if you’re thinking of the Fulcrumites as conservatives, but we’ve all seen how “well” they work with the conservative evangelicals and ACs.
RE: ” . . . it will take strong conservative organisation and thinking to move forward in the next season.”
Good luck Fulcrum.
Dale Rye, your first option is nothing more than a Federation — exactly what the libs want and what Jensen wants. The TEC libs want the cache of belonging to the “Communion” [sic] while having no responsibility to reign in their syncretism.
The question has always been — for Uganda, for Kenya, for me, for Greg, for thousands of others here in TEC — why would we wish to belong to such a “Communion”? Why not have a real Communion, made up of provinces that actually believe the Gospel, rather than TECian provinces, and move on.
It’s a bit like saying “hey — you can have this nice piece of hay over here” and others saying “we’d rather have the broccoli.”
Why would anyone [again, other than the libs and Jensen] wish to have the piece of hay?
Well, no one has ever doubted your confidence in reaching iron-clad conclusions! Perhaps the contributions of Wycliffe, Ridley, Trinity-Bristol, St John’s-Nottingham, Cranmer Hall-Durham will end up coming to nothing in the next season, but I would hope that english evangelicalism, with its long history, is more durable than that.
RE: “Well, no one has ever doubted your confidence in reaching iron-clad conclusions!”
All that remains, then, is to go back through the past 5-6 years of iron-clad predictions by . . . [i]some[/i] and my own . . . and tot up which ones have been blindingly wrong and which ones spot-on. I’m pretty comfortable with that comparison. ; > )
I think if one went back and read the angry tirades against the ABC over the last 5-6 years, it would not appear possible that in the future that he would end up (1) contra the PB, (2) assisting FiF, (3) demonised by the Left. But to repeat my point: “Perhaps the contributions of Wycliffe, Ridley, Trinity-Bristol, St John’s-Nottingham, Cranmer Hall-Durham will end up coming to nothing in the next season, but I would hope that english evangelicalism, with its long history, is more durable than that.” There is no counterpart to this in the US, and TEC will sink without any new ‘victims’ to ‘liberate’ and the money all drained away.
Can you imagine an +Iker saying this about the Presiding Bishop of TEC? Or of 60% of the TEC HOB supporting a way forward for him and his fellow ACs? “I was never very hopeful of the Archbishops’ amendment, though it was good that it was debated. It would not have brought a clear and certain place for the Catholic understanding of Faith and Order. But it would have allowed a new generation of Provincial Episcopal Visitors – flying bishops – to try to work out, with the Archbishops, some sort of corporate life for our priests, people, and parishes. It is fair to say that both Archbishops wanted that. Moreover 60% of the bishops in Synod (though not two thirds) were prepared, more or less enthusiastically, to support the Archbishops and accept their spiritual lead.” Whatever one makes of this, it is miles away from “The COE is doing precisely as TEC did.”
Thanks to Dr. Seitz for participating in this stimulating discussion. I will readily admit that he knows more about the English situation than I do, since he’s lived in the British Isles and I haven’t, and he maintains personal contacts with more English church leaders than I ever will.
Nonetheless, I tend to agree with Sarah. Of course, there are huge differences between the spiritual as well as institutional state of the CoE and that of TEC. TEC is already in advanced Stage 4 with terminal cancer. The CoE may only be in stage 3, or even stage 2 (if you’re optimistic). Or to switch medical analogies, TEC plainly has AIDS, since it has no immune system left whatsoever to fight off blatant heresy and gross immorality. And it may be fair to say the CoE merely has HIV, without all the full-blown symptoms of active AIDS.
But the basic underlying problem remains the same: the proven inability to resist the powerful cultural currents that are driving the CoE helplessly toward the oncoming waterfall. And as a state church, it is extremely hard to foresee any possible chance of that venerable Church successfully escaping the grip of the river current and escaping to the banks, much less executing the necessary U-turn and somehow traveling upstream. Of course, what is humanly impossible is possible with God. But that takes human cooperation, and so far the majority of the hapless leaders of the CoE show no sign whatever of the necessary repentance, courage, faith, and determination.
Now please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not desparing of Anglicanism itself. I firmly believe that the kernel of Anglicanism can survive its separation from the chaff of its obsolete institutional forms in the Global North. I do (naturally) believe in a God who raises the dead not only back to life, but resurrects them to a radically transformed and incomparably better mode of life. But before there can be a resurrection, there must be a death.
That is the unpalatable truth that I fear many of the noble orthodox leaders in the AC (including the honorable ACI scholars) still don’t get. The death of the AC as we know it remains “unthinkable” to them. Well, it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable!
The Old Christendom-based Anglicanism of the last 450+ years has run its course and is on its last legs. Its demise is, humanly speaking, unavoidable, because its foundation has been eroded away by the fateful, decisive, irreversible turn of western civilization against biblical Christianity and the banishment of historic Christianity to the private realm as a small minority of ignorant, anti-tolerant bigots. The old Erastian model Anglicanism will inevitably continue to wither and die. But from the ashes, I believe it will rise Phoenix-like, or better, Christ-like, from the tomb. IF (and it’s a big if indeed) we are as willing to pay the price of faithfully following Christ as our brothers and sisters in the Global South, and our ancient forebears in the pre-Constantinian era.
That is my hope. So I am not by any means wallowing in grief or despair. I truly and earnestly believe that the BEST days of Anglicanism are yet to come!
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of a radically, even confrontationally post-Christendom style Anglicansim for the 3rd millenium
Thank you Dale for #22–in addition to British particulars, there are also within British Anglicanism societies (e.g. monastic orders, and recently the Church Missionary Society) which are empowered to select, train and ordain candidates as deacons and priests. These societies are non-geographical and intended to be mobile, focused on a particular call to serve within the community. Although these societies do not have the comprehensive responsibilities of a diocese, but certainly the pattern is in place for overlapping jurisdictions. As you say, if only someone “would bite the bullet…”
The practice, if not the institution of particular oversight for particular parishes is much older than Flying Bishops and was once observed in TEC. For many years, for instace, an exiled Chinese bishop resident in the Diocese of Pennsylvania was freely permitted to provide episcopal ministry to the Anglo-Catholic parishes in the area…this was before TEC changed its Canons to require the diocesan to make visitations in person, excluding delegation. In England retired colonial bishops from exotic dioceses were kept busy ordaining, confirming and providing differing forms of oversight to “odd” parishes, both evangelical and catholic, who could not or would not welcome their Ordinary.
It is ironic that “inclusion” now means that a more rigid and less pastoral interpretation of “jurisdiction” is observed and enshrined in law. Oddly the real victim is not primarily traditionalists, but rather the Anglican practice of comprehension.
RE: “I think if one went back and read the angry tirades against the ABC . . . ”
Oh, I think if one went back and read my predictions about what the ABC would do — contra all of the blithe predictions of some — . . . . but then, they already have gone back and re-read, and they know. Who could have imagined how right those predictions would prove? Not even I. What a mess he was, and remained. From his horrendous manipulative leadership at the last ACC meeting, to the ridiculous and silly and non-unifying Indaba Lambeth [another of my predictions completely right — contrary to the sunny predictions of unity by some], to his prevarications about Lambeth invitations, on backward down through the years of his failed reign. I’m very pleased for people to go back and read predictions and compare — the comparison of predictions and their outcomes is staggering.
Hard to tell if he is merely a ham-handed incompetent, or malicious. That will, I suppose, be the question for future historians. But nobody of any credibility will argue that he was successful — he has presided over and led a Communion into schism and fracture and utter incoherence. And that doesn’t even count all the other bold predictions . . . why, I even remember “bold predictions” from some about how short a time it would take for the Covenant to be operational — heh. I should go dig up the exact years that were predicted — now long past.
RE: “it would not appear possible that in the future that he would end up (1) contra the PB, (2) assisting FiF, (3) demonised by the Left.”
Goodness — how anyone could miss that “in the future” he would be “demonised by the Left” I don’t know — he was “demonised by the Left” 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 years ago. But then the Left squall and demonise over papercuts. Certainly, some, though, try to hold up demonisation by the left as some sort of Holy Grail — as if it’s not as easily obtained as milk from the grocery store — and evidence of a person’s competence and integrity. And of course he would be “contra the PB” — what good that has done, who knows? “Private suggestions” don’t really count — although again, some wish they did. And I’m sure the FIF is grateful for all of his Highly Successful “assistance” to them. Flailing around late in the game to try to hold off the inevitable consequences of one’s own failures and manipulations and back-room schemings may, of course, mean something important to some.
RE: “Perhaps the contributions of Wycliffe, Ridley, Trinity-Bristol, St John’s-Nottingham, Cranmer Hall-Durham will end up coming to nothing in the next season. . . ”
Yes, I think it likely that it will end up coming to nothing — numbers and votes count, as we’ve seen in TEC. Those who hold the levers of power count in the realm of the political — and those are bishops and clergy and synod members, not professors and deans, as much as professors and deans might wish it to be so.
RE: “. . . but I would hope that english evangelicalism, with its long history, is more durable than that.â€
Well, much of “english evangelicalism” will be departed from the COE 10 years from now — but sure, perhaps it will be “durable” outside of the COE. Unlesss what is meant by “english evangelicalism” are the open evos in Fulcrum. And I’m sure that they will be “durable” in the COE. Absolutely positive, in fact.
But rather than the usual charming hissing match articulated above about who was accurate and who was shatteringly wrong — entertaining but unproductive and now tediously old-hat from years past — I’ll stipulate that I would love for the COE to be capable of reforming itself. I’d love for various seminaries to be successful at churning out committed Anglican Christians and those committed Anglican Christians gaining influence amid the levers of power of the institution. The vote yesterday makes it even more unlikely.
But hope springs eternal for some, for sure.
I will look forward to all the cawing and bleating from the Fulcrumites about the Cruel Unkind Leavers who won’t stay in the COE and help them deal with the Things That The Fulcrumites Themselves Deem Important. No doubt it will be the Cruel Unkind Leavers who will be to blame — and not things like yesterday’s vote.
Clueless, self-serving denial is a blessing sometimes.
David—I think it’s great that you’ve joined up with Sarah on this. I know you have a self-styled ‘radical’ vision. My basic point is that we shall now see what happens on the ground. ‘On the ground’ in the CofE is nothing like ‘on the ground’ in TEC, awash with continuing churches, new arrangements like AMiA, no evangelical wing and nothing like the presence of training centers comparable to the schools I mentioned above. Will they throw in the towel and accept that the next Synod will go forward with Women Bishops with NO allowances (as in TEC) for those opposed? Here is where the voting differential on the ABC/ABY amendment is so different than in TEC. It reveals a different reality on the ground. At any event, this may not be a fruitful speculation-arama, and I am off for several weeks with a license to officiate in the C of E – I will leave my pate un-mitred.
RE: “I will leave my pate un-mitred.”
[Another olive branch] But could you not process boldly down the aisle with your mitre tucked obviously under your arm so that we can all hail your martyrdom and yet, your heroic courage in the face of bigotry and persecution and ignorance? We could then write paeans to your intellect, your theological depth, your sterling leadership abilities, and your charm and humble devotion to TECdom.
; > )
. . . While noting that TEC is a US-based communion of thriving growing churches in multiple countries around the globe.
I continue to be distressed by personal attacks on the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps we are so used to attacking political leaders in secular affairs that we think such rhetoric is appropriate in addressing the Archbishop. Rather than noting that both archbishops managed to get a majority of diocesan bishops and lay members of General Synod to provide adequate protection for all, it is thought fair game to question the political agility or even personal motivation of +Rowan. +John Ebor seems to escape this form of discourse, although in the context of the CofE he shares primacy. York was utterly right to protest the personal attacks on +Rowan and probably relieved when he could say:ROROGATION
The Archbishop of York pronounced the dissolution of the Synod on the Orders of HM The Queen and Privy Council.
I am reminded of the folly of the restoration leaders which led to the great ejection in 1662, a move which established Nonconformity as a persecuted minority and lost the Church such spiritual giants as Richard Baxter. The clerical members of General Synod, or those who voted to defy their archbishops have the temper of the “Cavalier” constituency bent on revenge against even moderate supporters of Cromwell, many of whom would easily have conformed to the older Prayer Book.
A problem is that clergy tend to have more taste for this sort of institutional political battle. Many laypeople have more limited tolerance for it and desire more to apply available energy to studying and witnessing the Gospel in other ways. This translates into growing departures as more energy is expended in long, boring meetings. And a church absorbed in institutional politics having a hard time attracting new members. And good stewards deciding to use their resources elsewhere. This has a lot to do with the formation of AMiA and ACNA in the US. It is a dynamic that crosses cultures.
By the way, I am not defeatist. Only negative for the short term. My long view is positive. By which I mean centuries from now, and then for eternity.
Does any one know what the ratio of clergy is to church member is in England?