There we are: Evangelicals are hidebound and change-allergic, straining attempts at compromise. Never mind that Archbishop Welby ”“ who, as the Times itself says, “backed the push for female bishops” ”“ is himself widely known as an evangelical.
There’s also a glitch in the Times saying that Libby Lane’s appointment will test the compromise. If Thomas’ concern is male oversight for conservative churches, why wouldn’t he be satisfied with a female suffragan who draws her authority from a male bishop? He should have been asked, don’t you think?
Nor does the article’s grasp of history sound much better. Not when the story says, “The tradition of all-male bishops dates to the Church of England’s break with Rome five centuries ago, in the days of King Henry VIII.”
“He should have been asked, don’t you think?”
That bit is actually unfair: Rod Thomas will not be satisfied with a female suffragan drawing authority from a male bishop, and the CofE hierarchy would be well aware of that without having to ask. Revd Thomas is the spokesman for many churches in the CofE which will not accept women priests, let alone women bishops (suffragans or ordinaries). Because of peculiarities in the polity of the Church of England, these parishes are able to ensure that only males serve as clergy in their congregations. To change that would mean significant changes in the law, and even ++Welby (who doesn’t seem quite as clever as his predecessor) would realise that action like that would simply drive these churches to become independent Anglicans.
But I agree that the original article in the NY Times deserved to be lampooned – implying that male-only bishops were a product of the Reformation!