The Archbishop of Canterbury admitted today that it will be “desperately difficult” to keep the Church of England unified in light of its schismatic vote on women bishops.
In a heartfelt appeal for unity after a particularly fraught week, Dr Rowan Williams called on Anglicans to push ahead with the consecration of women bishops despite the fact that a minority of traditionalists, conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have threatened to leave the church over the issue.
The beleaguered church leader suffered an ignominious defeat on Saturday evening when the general synod ”“ the church’s legislative assembly ”“ rejected his personal appeal for a series of safeguards that would have provided a separate class of male-only bishops to administer to those who remain vehemently opposed to female leadership in the church.
In reading the article I wonder about the constant use of “political “language to describe Church realities. It gives the impression that the issue of women (or gay) bishops is just a typical partisan political wrangle between “liberals” and “conservatives” on a Church stage. So there is nothing of eternal importance at issue. (Which, of course, favors the “liberal”-unorthodox side on the current key issues.)
However, the issues at stake go much deeper than that–they go to the core of who a priest is, how he should live, and what Christian morality is. So shouldn’t the words “orthodox” or “unorthodox” (or even heretical) be somewhere in evidence in news coverage. (Which it virtually never is). Or maybe these are words that Anglicans themselves consider toxic and never use in their debates- so the news coverage follows their lead.
While it’s true the press uses ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, because those are familiar terms, but as DeaconJohn says, they make the public (incl. too many within the church) think it’s all just wrangling over opinions. The press, and the public in general, don’t have a sound understanding of what orthodox, heterodox, etc. mean in the Church. But then, neither do many Christians. Witness the indiscriminate use of ‘orthodox’ by so many different groups of Anglicans, e.g. those who support women’s ordination but oppose same-sex activity and ordination, and those who have no problem whatever with remarriage of divorce persons but oppose one or both of the above. But since ‘orthodox’ literally means ‘right praise’, who one earth would not say that’s what they’re offering to God, whatever issues they support or oppose? It reminds me of Oscar Wilde’s apt remark: “Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is everyone else’s doxy!” The thing is, there really is a defined orthodoxy in the Church, which is the ancient, unchangeable doctrines founded on Scripture and the consistent interpretation of the Church over 2000 years.
Ian,
Excellent point. The difference is between orthodoxy and Orthodoxy.
Sadly, the legal fiction of women bishops is just another sign of the Church acting outside its authority. For those interested, below is the text of the presentation that Cardinal Kasper delivered on the subject to C of E Bishops in 2006. It is worthy reading.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr6006b.html
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that progressives, whether English or American, have a hard time giving conservatives even the smallest amount of breathing room. I thought the way conservatives in the Diocese of Washington (DC) were treated might have been an anomaly. I foolishly believed that Presiding Bishop Schori would be a conciliatory figure. I thought there would be “space” for conservatives outside the accounting ledgers. She turned out to be twice the “man” Browning and Griswold were. That’s why I’m gone now.
At least I picked Spain for the World Cup…I can get some things right.
The difficulty lies in the refusal of the pro WO bishop proponents to mitigate their need for absolute power. We all know (including the proponents), in our heart of hearts, that this innovation is not really about theology, or the Bible, or even Jesus. It’s about power. It is.
Reply to Senior Priest (#5.).
You are correct. For many, it’s all about power. And absolute power at that.
Their motto seems to be, “My way or the highway.”
If they were concerned about ‘God’s Way,’ then they would engage in theological debate and they would avoid injecting ‘the spirit of the times’ into their debate.
This autocratic and ‘back door’ approach on the part of those promoting women’s ordination/consecration turns me away from their arguments and not towards them.
If they will not engage in a true theological debate, then my conclusion is that they know that they can’t prove their points theologically.
The TEc road is being well traveled. And for +Rowan to say “Go ahead, go forward with this” just rubs salt in the wounds. He has always been okay with this just like he has been okay with partnered non-celibate homosexuals as clergy. Next stop for Cof E…Jeffery Johns will get is seat.
I just have to ask……Where was the ABofC and the CofE when TEc went down this road and then the road it wandered down after wards in 2006 with the consecration of a partnered homosexual? Did the CofE and the AbofC seriously think that not working with us Traditionalist/Anglo-Catholics to keep this from happening here that it would not infest over there? Where were the strategies then?
an inch at a time……….
This battle has a broader context and wider ramifications than women in miters. Little by little, over the past forty years, men have been marginalized in a thousand ways – demonized as well, I think I can fairly say. I hardly need to rehearse the evidence; it is everywhere and most of you know it. See in particular the recent article in Harpers about the increasing irrelevance of men.The issue is not equality, it is dominance, and this war is not merely civil rights or the like, but a far older battle with far greater repercussions. Men’s losses in the fight over bishops is merely a skirmish. It is no wonder that church congregations are made up of women; and now the clergy will follow the same course.
What will it take for men to take their own back, that is, restore the place in the psycho-social world that women now usurp at every turn? It is instructive that to say what I have just said, is to mark myself as a vicious reactionary, a male hegemonist whose great desire is to reduce women to slavery (once more). Are we really to be relegated to house-husbands who take care of the kids while the wife earns to bulk of the income – for that statistic is increasingly clear too? Or irresponsible geeks who hide in computers or electronic games? The imbalance is now getting too great; the balance must be restored or society will lose much of its driving strength, to be replaced by the nest-work of manipulating relationships. It is no accident that the space program has been derailed, is it? Larry
5. Senior Priest, you are right smack on the mark! It is and always has been a quest for power. They might deny that, but there it is for all to see; a determination to get rid of what they see as ‘The Old Boys’ Club,’ so to speak; a deliberate tearing down of the Church in order to rebuild it in their image, and not that of Christ, while at the same time giving Him lip service.
“What will it take for men to take their own back, that is, restore the place in the psycho-social world that women now usurp at every turn?”
They need to earn it back. Women has stepped into a void caused by the failure of men to keep their obligations. This began with divorce, not birthcontrol. If a woman can be divorced after being out of the workforce raising kids etc, and a man can simply step away from both wife and children in order to improve his lifestyle, then it is necssary for women to have a back up plan. Since women have always had significantly more survival instincts than men, this included working harder, investing in higher education, and not engaging in deviant social behavior. If addiction rates (drugs/alcohol/gambling/sex) were the same for men as for women, and if men obtained higher education degrees at the same rate as women, men would be doing better. After all, they don’t have kids to worry about.
The main civilizing effect that caused men to act like MEN instead of boys was the need to feed their children. If men are to return to their rightful place I suggest the following:
1. Treat divorce or begetting children outside of marriage the same way one treats any other moral bankruptcy. Divorce should be a factor considered when applying for a job. It is appropriate that people ask “So, according to your credit report you have fathered three children by 3 separate women.” How do you manage your parental obligations? How are your children doing? Hmm. I see your oldest appears to have dropped out of high school. ”
2. There should be a marriage bonus, not a marriage penalty on taxes, and if you divorce, it is gone, and will never come back even if you marry again.
3. If kids under the age of 18, drop out of school or have criminal charges/are placed in care in the course of tax year, there should be no income tax deduction, and this should be on the parental credit report. (Both parents, including noncustodial parents).
If this were to be done, I anticipate that men would rapidly regain their “rightful place” as husbands, fathers and heads of families. Right now, there is no reason why they should bother.
If women bishops, then does it follow that we will see women archbishops? Mz. Canterbury It MUST follow, mustn’t it. How can it be forbidden now? L
Exactly Larry Morse….exactly. They cannot very well hold them back now ….can they?
Like in the American situation, this is all about power. By not giving an inch, it drives the opponents away and consolidates poiwer in the hands of the likes of Bruno and Schori over here and their equivalents across the pond. All about power.
#12, you are on the mark as well. By being irresponsible and, more importantly, by not speaking out against irresponsibility, men have given up their power. Some of that breakdown in past family culture is a result of government welfare programs that early on penalized a mother and children, if the husband and father lived in the house. But generally since the 60s, men have simply let their power drift away an inch at a time by their irresponsibility and refusal to stand up and be counted. (I would suggest that heterosexuals have most likely allowed homosexuals to come to power, similarly, by their irresponsibility in handling their relationships and in their handling the institution of marriage so cavalierly.)