The Archbishops of Canterbury and York suffered a humiliating defeat yesterday when the Church of England’s governing body rejected moves to create male “co-bishops” to work alongside female bishops in an effort to placate traditionalists.
Women bishops will now be given total authority in their dioceses when they begin to be consecrated from 2014, against the wishes of the Archbishops who had wanted traditionalist male bishops to rule alongside them with equal authority.
The vote increases the chances of further defections by dozens of Anglo-Catholic clergy and laity to the Ordinariate, the branch of the Roman Catholic Church created for defecting Anglicans who wish to retain both their Catholic and Anglican identities in the face of the growing liberalisation of the established Church.
Read it all (subscription required).
It seems to be all about turf and not pastoral care.
Kendall,
I guess that this pretty much bangs the final nail into the coffin’s lid. Unfortunately many poor, deluded souls will be conned into believing that there may still be a chance that at some future time, perhaps some allowance will be made for conscientious objectors? No, they just need to suck it up and face defeat squarely in the eye and say so long. [Edited by Elf]
Even if it was fairly predictable, this fateful decision is momentous and will have far-reaching effects. The polarization or “tearing the fabric” of the CoE continues to progress relentlessly with seemingly unstoppable momentum, just as is happening within the larger Anglican Communion.
It’s all terribly sad, but, alas, it was and is probably inevitable. For “[i]a house divided against itself cannot stand[/i].” Or as I like to paraphrase the Master, “[i]Oil and water just don’t mix. Never have. Never will[/i].” Two mutually exclusive gospels or religions can’t, and shouldn’t, cohabitate under the same institutional roof.
The CoE stopped being “THE Church of (all) England” a long time ago. But now it has taken another historic key turn at a major fork in the road, a tragic choice that will inevitably lead to the CoE further shrinking and further reducing its comprehensiveness.
I’m saddened, but not shocked. +John Hind of Chichester was right in his realistic assessment of the situation within the CoE. So now that the liberals have called the bluff of some diehard opponents of WO, the only questions left is: Quo Vadis? Where will they go? And the smart money is on the safe prediction that they will scatter, and go various directions…
David Handy+
While not surprised, I fear this will have very far reaching implications as well in terms of the outright rebellion of it all. Both the Archbishop of York and Canterbury were pretty much told to kiss off, and that is what is truly shocking. The supposed leadership is apparently completely impotent to stop anything, not just in the greater Anglican Communion but in their own Church of England.
Anglicanism, as it was intended by the English Reformers, is as extinct as the Dodo bird. The Continuing Episcopal Church of England is as dead as the Norwegian Blue in Monty Python’s Dead Parrot skit. I don’t know why anyone should be surprised.
#4 An interesting comment.
Sorry, I think that this is honest, at least. This is the direction in which the church is going and, IMO, it’s deceitful and duplicitous to set up elaborate, odd structures (smokescreens) in an attempt to pretend something else.
Personally, I have no problem with female priests and bishops as I haven’t read anything compelling in the Scriptures that indicates clergy and bishops must be male. That said, however, this just isn’t a compelling moral or other issue for me and I abide by whatever the church decides. Some churches in the GS also permit female clergy and, quite frankly, I think they have more pressing things to worry about than gender issues right now. Perhaps I’m naive, but I don’t see this as a further “splitting” issue anymore.
Yes indeed, those who froth at the mouth over female bishops should move on if they must. Godspeed to them. I figure most of these already left, though, after the ordination of women.
#7: +1
Equivocation doesn’t suit a church.
This is what happens when you maintain TEc, support TEc, and place TEcANs in your religious institutions by the TEc playbook. All His Grace had to do was look over the pond to see the outcome of his compliance with TEc – and I think he did. He saw exactly how the ordination thingy and mandatory-iness of the ordination thingy would play out. He saw, he enabled, he obtained the desired result. And, looking at TEc, he knows precisely how the gay ordination thingy will go.
Nice apparent opposition though. It might fool a few for a bit longer. Maybe he needs a synodical affirmation that such ordination will never be forced on any diocese? TEc had that. Oh, wait……..
Look for a formal split in the CofE this summer.
You shouldn’t listen to Ms Gledhill. She has entirely misunderstood what took place. There is still a possibility of compromise, and a carefully nuanced way forward that will give space to traditional catholics and conservative evangelicals. The Press are unreliable in their understanding. What we passed allows the Bishops to fine-tune the legislation.
Thank you, #11.
RE: “Perhaps I’m naive, but I don’t see this as a further “splitting†issue anymore.”
I think probably you are naive. The COE did not go through the horrendous splits in the late 1800s and late 1970s/80s that TEC went through. As a result, they were able to hold onto both the low-church reformed evangelicals AND the AngloCatholics that we lost when 1/3 of our church departed after the 1970s.
As a result the church over there is *far far far far far more diverse* than over here. It’s a big like taking a step back in time, frankly, to see the equivalent of the REC and Continuers *still in the COE*.
The reason why they were able to attain this is that — when they instituted women clergy they were able to listen very carefully to the theological concerns of the AngloCatholics in particular. Those concerns involved the AngloCatholic conception of the sacraments and ordination — both of which also involve *bishops*.
As a result of the non-fascist, counter-to-TEC way that the COE managed this, the AngloCatholics were able to maintain the integrity of the sacraments and ordination. They were not forced to partake of a non-Eucharist [by their standards] and a non-ordination [by their standards].
It is this very gentle and respectful way of dealing with WO that is now being violated and reversed, contrary to *sworn oaths* that were given to the AngloCatholics.
RE: “I figure most of these already left, though, after the ordination of women.”
Not at all — because again, the consciences of those opposed to WO in the COE were actually respected and pastorally dealt with by their allowing AngloCatholics to maintain the order and integrity of the sacraments.
Now they will not be so dealt with.
I understand if TeaTime is quite happy with the riven and rigid stasis and decline and lack of inclusivity and breadth in TEC. I understand if TeaTime will be happy for the AngloCatholics to depart forthwith.
But it will be a very grave loss to the Church of England, not only in people and money and health, but also in ethos.
I am saddened to see the Church of England become the hard, cruel, rigid, fascist entity that TEC is [setting aside all the heresy and corruption which is now a given in TEC].
No, Sarah, clearly you don’t understand what makes Teatime happy. 😉 Quite a complex topic that so it’s no wonder you got it wrong. But before I respond further, I’m just curious where you stand on the modifications and accommodating measures such as “flying bishops” and what-not. Do you think those are reasonable and workable?
RE: “No, Sarah, clearly you don’t understand what makes Teatime happy.”
Well, that’s why I used the helpful word “if.” Not claiming to understand, particularly since your #7 seemed far more vengeful and happy than sounded like you.
The old flying bishops measure worked pretty well, I think. But unfortunately the COE hierarchy are bent on stripping that away from the AngloCatholics, such that the sacraments will be “dull and void” by AngloCatholic standards.
I’m not an AngloCatholic mind you — but I can actually wrap my mind around the problem for them.
I think that the COE should offer male bishops with power and not beholden to the female bishops to those AngloCatholics and others who in good conscience simply cannot have the former. You asked, that’s why I’m saying this. Not because the COE has the slightest interest in what some Episcopal layperson in TEC thinks.
All of this also reminds me of the draconian and hateful actions of so many bishops here in TEC who stripped away the 1928 BCP from mostly aged hands in small rural parishes, and forced female clergy on those same parishes. Nice. Very nice.
In DUSC there are actually still some parishes who never recovered from that — it was a killing blow.
But hey — at least control was inflicted on the evil laity, and that’s what matters.
We can all have the satisfaction of watching the same charming, pastoral, and gracious spirit “indwell” the COE. I’m sorry to see it happen.
The hottest of water on the bags to steep is what makes ’em ‘appy. Is there a metaphor here??
[blockquote] “Yes indeed, those who froth at the mouth over female bishops should move on if they must. Godspeed to them. I figure most of these already left, though, after the ordination of women.” [/blockquote]
Teatime, its not as simple as that. There are large segments still in CofE who are opposed to the ordination of women (let alone their consecration as bishops), and as best I can tell, far more of them are evangelical than anglo-catholic. They tend to have large congregations (often very large), and consequently, far more money per head than the liberals.
Although its not easy to follow what is going on (and even those in CofE will admit this), it is clear that a lot of quiet ‘quarantining’ of ministries has been happening: For example, orthodox evangelicals find creative ways to minimize (or even eliminate) parish contributions to diocesan and provincial funds; new church plants are established in ways that slip beneath the radar; liberal bishops are prevented from influencing choice of ministers.
Not only will these people never accept women priests or bishops, but they can probably stay in CofE for a long time, even indefinitely, without practically accepting the ministry of female clergy. Even worse from an establishment perspective, they can probably work both within and without CofE at the same time.
That’s just the evangelicals. More anglo-catholic bishops remain in CofE than have left for the ordinariate, and my impression (although I don’t think there are any reliable figures on this) is that there are still many more anglo-catholic clergy and laity in CofE than have left for the Ordinariate.
The liberals for many decades have relied on a comfortable assumption: that anglo-catholics and evangelicals will always fight each other and that will take the heat off the liberals. As events in America over the last 20 years have shown, that is by no means as true as it once was.
Then there is the matter of finances: CofE seems to be in worse financial shape than at any other time in its history, and this is right at a time when the dominant party (the liberals) show little ability grow congregations and hence increase income.
In short, the polity of CofE is being profoundly affected in ways that are not apparent in Synod deliberations. I think Rowan Williams is alive to this issue. He is liberal, no doubt about it, but he also has a more realistic appreciation for what could happen in England.
[blockquote] “You shouldn’t listen to Ms Gledhill. She has entirely misunderstood what took place. There is still a possibility of compromise, and a carefully nuanced way forward that will give space to traditional catholics and conservative evangelicals. The Press are unreliable in their understanding. What we passed allows the Bishops to fine-tune the legislation.” [/blockquote]
Has she? Or have you and your fellow bishops entirely misunderstood how far you have pushed the orthodox?
The Archbishops’ amendment is seen by many orthodox Anglicans as quite inadequate. And yet even this could not be agreed to on Wednesday – the Manchester amendment was derailed by Southwark.
Over the last three years, you and your fellow bishops have given the strong impression that you are either not motivated to protect the orthodox, or that you do not have the power to do so. It doesn’t matter which is the case, the orthodox have to protect themselves.
If the bill gets up with the ability of bishops to modify it at their pleasure down the track, then it is more typical English uncertainty in areas where most other countries would seek clarity.
Will their be any real provisions for the orthodox under those circumstances? Who knows? It’ll be at the pleasure of the bishops. And everyone can then either look at the record of bishops on these kind of matters and (realistically) quiver, or (optimistically) think they’ll “do the right thing by people’s consciences”.
What it *will* do, is make sure that the orthodox again delay taking concerted, organised action, such as leaving in a substantial block to start a new Anglican structure. It’ll be more dribs and drabs declension as this rector leaves that parish and is replaced with a gung-ho supporter of women’s ordination, those ordination candidates aren’t accepted, most of that parish over there leave with their rector to go ‘independent Anglican’ and the like. Each individual standing alone and their fate determined by the good will of their own bishop, and no other orthodox standing with them, in the hope that such things “won’t happen here”.
I’m not saying that’s the intent of this. I’m sure the bishops believe they’re great guys, and putting this kind of free-hand into their grasp is the only sensible way forward. But that’ll be the effect. The proponents of women’s ordination get what they want, and they ensure that there’s no other Anglican body on home soil that rejects this innovation, just a bunch of ex-Anglicans who all left at different times and under different circumstances.
And, of course, once this is in, the ‘open evangelicals’ will get to enjoy the gratitude of the liberals, as the only remaining people in the increasingly narrowing tent will be Fulcrum-style (liberal) ‘evangelicals’ and liberals. But I’m sure they’ll make some clear and definite commitments to respect the consciences of the remaining open evangelicals.
And they’ll keep those commitments as well as the ones to the opponents of women’s ordination have been kept.
[blockquote] “What it *will* do, is make sure that the orthodox again delay taking concerted, organised action, such as leaving in a substantial block to start a new Anglican structure.” [/blockquote]
That’s one option. Another is to run parallel Anglican structures right under the noses of the establishment. Or do both at the same time. Whatever you do, make sure that the liberals and those who tolerate them do NOT get any share in the contributions of the faithful. ;o)
I join Dr. Seitz(#12) in thanking Bishop Broadbent(#11) for chiming in here. Much appreciated input, +Peter. However, while I defer to your superior knowledge of the situation in the CoE, since you are a leader on the ground and aware of many things that I as an American and very much out of the loop would have no way of knowing, I can’t foresee any happy ending here.
Regardless of how the English bishops may “fine-tune” this awful legislation, I think +John Hind of Chichester will eventually be proven right. It’s only a matter of time, and there will inevitably be women bishops in the CoE. And alas, there won’t be anything like adequate protections guaranteed for those conservative Anglicans, both evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, who simply can’t and won’t accept this development. The writing is on the wall for all to see: MENE, MENE…
Watch what +Hind does after he retires. My bet is that he joins the Ordinariate. And he won’t be alone. Or if he doesn’t, others will.
I support WO, including in principle to the episcopate. But I also fully support the ACNA’s firm refusal to allow women bishops, in the forbearing spirit of Romans 14, not causing our fellow Christians to stumble or violate their conscience.
But thanks again to +Broadbent for his important contribution here. I’m glad he has been unmuzzled by +Chartres.
David Handy+
#20 Tsk tsk that’s very divisive of you MichaelA – off to confession I suggest with a bag of Hail Marys.
Bishop Pete is one of the good guys and I welcome such efforts as the House of Bishops are indicating they are minded to make. It is a strange set of circumstances that brings Bishop Pete to the same mind as the Bishop of Gloucester.
I am sure it is not the reason they are doing it, but the voting numbers do make it appear that in order for there to be certainty that the Measure will pass in July with a 2/3 majority in each house, it will be necessary to encourage at least some of the turkeys to vote for Christmas [or Thanksgiving]. It remains to be seen if this will be achieved. The alternative will be for a huge PR disaster for the church and the ire of members of parliament who have been remorselessly nagged by the ladies of WATCH and who will likely lose the will to live under the onslaught. Moreover it will be the nail in the coffin of Rowan Williams attempt to ensure his legacy of bringing in women bishops in an otherwise lacklustre performance as Archbishop.
I think there is quite a bit of tweaking and fudging to be done. For a start the Code does not provide an adequate mechanism of dispute resolution through Judicial Review for the reasons set out here. Judicial Review is a prohibitively expensive and rarely successful remedy. It relies on showing that the bishop has behaved in a way or taken into account factors in a manner no reasonable bishop would. In addition the high court will not thank the church for clogging up their busy lists with the cases like St Cynthia’s church appealing the insistence of Bishop Lucretia Borgia on personally confirming the children of the parish. They have much more important work to do reviewing the cases of retarded teenagers fighting extradition for execution in the States for hacking into the Pentagon and the immigration appeals of Islamic terrorists. This is not the right forum for the resolution of church disputes.
I certainly welcome any attempt by the church to behave to one another like Christians and to try to keep us together. Pray for us please.
#21 Rev David Handy
All is sweetness and light now and I would say that thanks are due to both Bishop Chartres for his recent visit to South Carolina and Mere Anglicanism and to Bishop Broadbent for engaging with us here and for the encouragement which that ministry has given. Moreover, like the Synod standing with Nigeria, one of the important things we can do in this Communion is to offer support and encouragement to one another, and where appropriate to stand together.
Supplement to #22
The reason why it is unwise for the church to take its affairs anywhere near the High Court has been shown up today: ‘Bideford Town Council prayers ruled unlawful‘
[blockquote]A Devon town council acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said before meetings, the High Court has ruled.
Action was brought against Bideford Town Council by the National Secular Society (NSS) after atheist councillor Clive Bone complained.
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.[/blockquote]
Presumably the Judges will no longer be attending the service HM bids them attend at the start of the Judicial year?
Be careful what you ask for: you might just get it!
@21 Muzzled? I’ve never been muzzled. You really don’t want to believe what you read in the newspapers, particularly the Times and the Daily Wail!
You have been in our thoughts and our prayers for a long time Bishop Pete, and we are very glad to see you in top form and engaged in the church. You are the only English bishop who has publicly engaged in these weblogs, and for that many of us are grateful, and your efforts for unity in the church as well as those of Bishop Chartres are appreciated.
[blockquote] “#20 Tsk tsk that’s very divisive of you MichaelA – off to confession I suggest with a bag of Hail Marys.” [/blockquote]
I suppose that’s a fair characterisation, if you call the person who points out an incoming tsunami to the people on the beach ‘divisive’!
My point is that if CofE does not repent of its tolerance of liberalism, then it will suffer the same fate as TEC. The details will be different of course, just as the polity of CofE is different from that of TEC. But the reality will be the same.
I personally think that would be a tragedy. So will virtually everyone in CofE, regardless of their orientation. But merely thinking something is tragic doesn’t stop it happening.
#17 Michael, Thank you for your explanations and reasoning — very interesting. What do you think of the “Flying Bishops” structure and efficacy?
I don’t mean to sound harsh in any of this. I was trying to be matter-of-fact but it’s easy for me to frame things that way from across the pond, I’ll admit, because I have no vested interest (but I do have affection for the C of E). I would count myself as an Anglo-Catholic in worship, practice, and doctrine, for the most part. I don’t see this as a “rights” or “equality” issue but, rather, being open to whom God calls to serve and lead the Church in this capacity. Gender isn’t synonymous with sexuality.
Anyhoo, I think that the time for extravagant accommodation is running out and hard decisions have to be made. The longer that’s delayed, the more difficult and painful it becomes. Quite honestly, I think the best solution would be for dioceses to choose their own bishops, as is done here. In that case, female bishops would be permitted but not forced. Would that be possible in England?
I didn’t mean to sound horrid but, as Sarah presented this in terms of Anglo-Catholics, if someone is so Anglo-Catholic that he or she is committed to an all-male clergy for reasons involving doctrine and tradition, then he or she may be better suited to the RCC. Many evangelicals here have moderated to the point of accepting female pastors.
Teatime,
Personally, I think flying bishops was working and would have worked. It was a typically CofE compromise position. The anglo-catholics seemed to be happy with it, and the evangelicals would have also. After all, the latter’s main goal is to convert the unchurched, and in the past, as long as they were left alone to do that, they took little interest in hierarchical politics (but that is changing).
The problem is that the powerful liberal lobby were always determined to eliminate Flying Bishops. They want no provision whatsoever for the orthodox. Even the proposal put forward by the Acrhbishops of Canterbury and York is a lot less than that, and it is clear that the liberals will not accept even that.
Unfortunately, this is the same pattern that we have seen in TEC – these liberal extremists will not settle for anything less than total victory, and the ‘moderates’ who should restrain them simply do not understand (or prefer not to understand) what they are dealing with.
The moderates also do not seem to understand that under this sort of pressure, orthodox evangelicals and anglo-catholics change their behaviour patterns. Their support for the established churches is not absolute, if their fundamentals are threatened. You would think events in USA and Canada over the last ten years would have educated the moderates, but they still don’t get it.
Thanks to Pageantmaster for his amicable #23.
I agree that we ought to be offering all the support and mutual encouragement to each other that we can as orthodox Anglicans, no matter where we happen to live, or no matter with which branch of Anglicanism we are affiliated. I didn’t mean my earlier comment as some sort of pessimistic call to abandon ship.
Thanks also to +Broadbent for his #25. I’m glad to hear that I was misinformed about him being “muzzled” after the flap over his remarks about the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I always wanted to believe better of +aChartres.
You are right, sir, that the secular papers can’t be trusted to cover the religion beat fairly and accurately. But then, I don’t even trust [i]the Church Times[/i]! That’s why I’m glad that independent blogs like this exist, and that sometimes major players like yourself can chime in from time to time. That’s wonderful. Keep up the good work in London.
David Handy+
#29 Michael,
Yes, the liberal element proves time and time again to be THE most intolerant when they don’t get their way entirely. I think it stems from liberal theology being tied up with liberal political activism which demands winners and losers, perceived power and perceived impotence. (Although, evangelicals and conservatives here in the States were the masters of binding the religious to the political and the liberals have become rabid in playing catch up.)
I guess I’ve mostly seen jaded criticism of the Flying Bishops scheme and not much wholly positive so I’m glad it does work. Still, fractures and special accommodation disturb me as indicative of something not very healthy. I know that the hallmark of Anglicanism is that it can keep different types of thinkers and practitioners at the table, and this is a strength, but it seems that there are very different levels of quality and service at this table.
As I mentioned previously, perhaps the discussion that the C of E should be having concerns one of episcopal (and even rector) selections at the local level instead of appointments. You can’t use the Flying Bishops scheme indefinitely and every time there is factional disagreement. Wouldn’t it make more sense to come together as a Church about what is permissible and then allow the parishes and dioceses to choose by voting at diocesan councils?
Teatime2, that is a good point, however the evangelicals have been complaining in CofE for 15 years or more that activist liberal bishops interfere in the ordination process. These bishops refuse to ordain candidates (in good standing) who express support for orthodoxy; they also try to block orthodox appointments to parish positions; and they try to foist their own candidates on evangelical parishes.
Here is an example: In 1997, a suffragan bishop from ultra-liberal Diocese of Southwark (Martin Wharton) was appointed Bishop of Newcastle. He had publicly stated that homosexual practice within loving, permanent relationships is no sin. Obviously no orthodox evangelical or anglo-catholic is going to accept that. Two evangelical churches (Jesmond and St Oswalds) immediately declared that they would not accept his Episcopal authority and ministry.
So what did the liberal hierarchy do? Exactly what they would have done in Southwark diocese – they began the process of weeding out evangelical clergy. They started off with the (apparently) weakest link and summoned an ordinand from the smaller of the two churches (St Oswalds) to a meeting with the bishop’s diocesan staff. There he was told that unless he publicly denounced his vicar, he would not be ordained (and before anyone asks, no, they had no power or authority to make such a demand).
Mr Moll would not do this, although he was prepared to take the oath of canonical obedience. So he was refused ordination.
The vicars of Jesmond and St Oswalds then arranged for a retired bishop of the Church of Uganda, Howell Davies, to ordain Mr Moll (who had complied with all requirements for ordination in CofE).
+Wharton’s staff then obtained an interlocutory injunction from the High Court to prevent any further action arising from the ordination (an interlocutory injunction is a temporary order to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing).
Before the matter could get to a final hearing, the Diocese of Newcastle backed down and dropped their legal proceedings (probably because they had small prospects of success – Mr Moll’s ordination by the Ugandan bishop was irregular, but valid). Mr Moll commenced ministry as a deacon. He was later ordained as a priest and is now vicar of a CofE parish.
This sort of thing was probably happening before this 1997 case hit the courts, and it has happened many times since. As you can imagine, it does not endear the liberal hierarchy to the evangelicals.
A further story to illustrate the point: Evangelicals in the ultra-liberal diocese of Southwark regularly complained that the bishop declined to ordain their ordinands who were in good standing. This reached the stage where a rector in Southwark (Richard Coekin) invited a bishop from the Church of England in South Africa to ordain three of his ordinands in 2005. Again, this was a valid ordination in CofE, but irregular (because the consent of the local diocesan had not been obtained).
The bishop of Southwark (+Butler) stripped Coekin+ of his licence. Coekin appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose court found that +Butler had gone beyond his authority, and restored Coekin’s licence.
In that particular case, ABC saw no point in stirring up evangelicals by making a martyr out of Coekin. But each of these cases irritates evangelicals. There may come a point when they are not prepared to put up with this interference anymore. That is all the more likely when it seems that the various female candidates for elevation to bishop (if the measure passes in July) all seem to be strongly liberal in their views.
British evangelicals have already seen how the ultra-liberal Katherine Schori behaved in TEC after her elevation to Presiding Bishop in 2006 – deposing and otherwise oppressing her opponents. They may not wait around for history to repeat in CofE.