The Rt Rev John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, has led opposition to ordaining women as bishops but said that it was now certain to happen.
He spoke ahead of a key vote next week by the General Synod, the Church’s governing body, on plans to allow women to lead dioceses, which is currently not allowed.
A leading proponent of women bishops, the Bishop of Oxford, also described their ordination as “inevitable”, saying that it would “happen very soon”.
[blockquote] In a foreword to the report the archbishops say they will not allow bishops to discriminate against would-be priests for being theologically opposed to the ordination of women.[/blockquote] And if they do so discriminate, then what? Well, nothing much. If a bishop decides to ignore the CoP practice outright, then what? Well, nothing much. People who object have two realistic choices:
1) Submit and compromise a matter of conscience.
2) Leave.
Ironically, this will create the push for a non-CoE Anglican presence in the UK. The CoE should be careful what it asks for. It just might get it.
carl
carl (#1),
I agree that the leadership of the CoE is acting recklessly and is in grave danger of getting what it thinks it wants. I welcome this honest and forthright statement by +Hind. It’s important for everyone to face reality, however painful and even unacceptable it may be. The game is up for conservative, anti-WO Anglo-Catholics, or even die-hard anti-WO evangelicals, in the CoE. It is now manifestly plain that there will be no real or adequate provision for anti-WO clergy (or even laity) in the CoE in the near future.
It’s notable that the lonely two dioceses (only 2 out of 44) that failed to back the idea of women bishops in principle were +Hind’s diocese, Chichester, and the big Diocese of London, led by +Chartres, who recently spoke at the Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston. Of course, for those of us who are aware that +John Hind is due to retire later this year, the big question we’ve been wondering about is this: Quo Vadis? Will +Hind then join the Ordinariate or not? I know some people who know the SSC and the anti-WO wing of the CoE much better than I do who feel fairly sure (or even hopeful) that +Hind will soon follow +Newton and the other Anglo-Catholic bishops who’ve already swum the Tiber.
Time will tell, but I tend to think that they may well be right. And if so, it would be yet another sad indictment of the stubborn blindness of the current leadership of the CoE, that they continue to alienate and drive away some of their finest and most faithful clergy. Lord, have mercy.
The High Elves are departing from Middle Earth. Soon Rivendell and Lothlorien will be deserted, for the noble Elves will never return. And I, for one, despite my firm support for WO, will mourn their passing.
David Handy+
No one really knows what is going to happen – it is on a knife edge. There is more chance of women bishops coming in if proper provision is made for opponents. It is not a matter of making sure that those coming into the priesthood are not discriminated against, although that is part of the picture; rather whether provision will be made for those whose ecclesiology would be fatally flawed under a woman bishop and under which the validity of the episcopal office and perhaps eucharist would become meaningless, that is the more catholic end. I note with some amusement the attempt by some ‘open’ evangelicals to pick off such of the conservative evangelicals as are also opposed. There is going to be a lot of jockeying going on, as we are seeing with the Bishop of Oxford trying to convince everyone that it is a done deal, and some signs of fear with the Bishop of Chichester’s throwing the towel in.
It is going to be an interesting time – some may even vote against what one would assume are their own interests, if they can’t get their own way – witness the extreme all or nothing pro women bishops camp who insist on total victory, and might just scupper anything less, and thus reduce the prospects of the change coming in.
It is a time for grace, steadfastness, and a Christian approach, something we have seen little of in the last Synod, but with the new membership of the current Synod, who knows.
Do pray for us, please.
A sad, divisive, and unecessary change if it comes to pass. ISTM, the following captures the spirit at play:
Ah Pageantmaster (#2) you’ve “uncovered” the real question with respect to WO. Will the conservative evangelicals be able to maintain their theological convictions (the Anglo-Catholics will not)? While I am a conservative evangelical Anglican, my real concern is that the Synod will adopt “the winner take all” mindset that has altered TEC beyond recognition as an Anglican body.
#5 FrCarl
You are almost certainly right. For me the problem is not so much women bishops as much as those being lined up to become the first women bishops – loony liberals to a man, so to speak. Just like most of the Inclusive Church Gang of Four made diocesans recently by Rowan [Chelmsford, Salisbury, Ely] recently.
Just how dysfunctional and out of touch our leadership is has just been shown by the massive defeat of the Bishops’ Amendment today by the House of Commons
[blockquote]They voted by 334 to 251 to overturn the Lords amendment – tabled by a group of bishops – which would exclude child benefit from counting towards the £26,000 [$40,000 post tax equivalent] a year cap on benefits to working-age households – set at the equivalent to the average post-tax salary of a working household. [/blockquote]
3. Pageantmaster [blockquote] There is more chance of women bishops coming in if proper provision is made for opponents.[/blockquote] The only meaningful provision is statuatory provision, and that is the one solution that has been firmly ruled out. Everything on offer amounts to “Opponents concede defeat and then the victors will magnanimously agree to be gracious … for a while, or until they decide not to be gracious, which ever comes first.” It’s not provision. It’s a hospice plan to isolate those who currently disagree until they die off – all they while insuring they cannot propagate. Only a fool would accept it on face value – especially considering what happened to previous promises about WO.
Once it passes, the game is up. Opponents should cut off the money and start planning to leave. They will be out the door one way or the other soon enough. Whether head first or feet first makes no difference to the liberals.
carl
Well, there you go again with that dodgy Calvinist crystall ball you have carl – the same one presumably with which you opined that the international Libyan intervention was doomed to failure unless the West sent in troops on the ground.
We will have to see, and no, no one should be heading for the exits, much as many liberals, and perhaps carl think they should.
I disagreed with Carl on Libya, but I think he’s right on this one, Pageantmaster. You don’t rule out statutory provisions if your intention is to exercise the same behavior as would be required by statute. You do the ‘Anglican thing’ – use high sounding language while behaving at lower level. You yourself are concerned about the quality of the new diocesans, and I have heard multiple stories of the duplicity of the existing ones – and you’re concerned even more about the crop of women bishops that will quickly be appointed. No statutory provisions means, “trust the bishop to do the right thing”, and that’s the *one* thing they’ve shown can’t be responsibly done. They simply aren’t trustworthy *as a group*.
#9 Thanks Mark
I am not going to prejudge Synod this week, but will pray for them, as I encourage you to do, if you would please. Next week I will take a view.
Its always worth looking at the detail in any article. +Hind’s prediction is not that the measure will pass this time around, but rather that he thinks it will inevitably do so, sooner or later. From the article:
[blockquote] “He said: “Some people may be in favour of women bishops but disapprove of the provisions that are made for dissent so it’s perfectly possible it won’t go through in July. But if it doesn’t go through in July it will come back and go through at some point in the future.” [/blockquote]
The discussion above about “statutory provision” is intriguing – I am not sure that some of the posters really appreciate the situation. This measure cannot go through unless all three houses of General Synod vote for it, by a two-thirds majority in each. In other words, if any ONE of the houses of laity, clergy or bishops return a vote of only 65% in favour, the measure dies. All the previous votes in General Synod to consider it, all the votes in diocesan synods, count for nothing. Of course the liberals can and will try again, which is +John’s point.
There have been a number of previous votes on the issue, and the liberals have NEVER achieved a two-thirds majority in all three houses (since those votes were only to consider the matter, only simply majorities were required). Can they achieve it this time? Its possible, but just as possible that they will fail.
As regards +John, he has fought a noble fight, but he retires in a couple of months and its time to hand on the torch. There are plenty in CofE who are still fighting hard.
As for the measure, I’ve always said my money is on the Archbishop of Canterbury getting what he wants, because he usually does. He wants a vote for women bishops but with entrenched protection for those who don’t want to accept them (not because he is well-inclined towards the orthodox mind you, but because he can see the terrible danger CofE is in if it adopts this measure. He understands what has happened, and is happening, in North America). Rowan is a very savvy political animal and it would not suprise me if he steps in at the last minute to re-offer his compromise solution, and enough uncertain liberals and conservatives swing behind him to give him what he wants.
But these are all just predictions. Let’s watch what happens, and pray for the orthodox in CofE. They have been fighting hard, they will continue to do so, but they also have plans prepared to separate if CofE goes too far down the liberal path. May the Lord grant them courage and wisdom.
I understand that the Archbishops’ amendment which was rejected last year (i.e. providing alternative oversight for those opposed to women bishops) has been put on the agenda for General Synod next week. Is that the case?
If so, what happens if it is accepted? Does the whole resolution have to do the rounds of the diocesan synods again?
#12 MichaelA – Synod agenda and papers are here. I haven’t looked through it in detail, but believe it will be on the agenda, or at least that is the intention.
Yes – it is being put forward by means of a Diocesan Motion [Manchester] – see item 13, page 5 and also page 17 here. The Bishop of Manchester was of course the head of the committee charged with considering and drafting the legislation.