In a statement shortly after being consecrated, Bishop Libby said she had been encouraged by the thousands of messages of support she has received since the news of her appointment was announced. She said:
“Archbishop Sentamu has observed, “the way that we show our faith and our love for one another is with two simple things, prayer and parties.” Today is an occasion of prayer and of party – and I am thrilled that so many want to share in both. I cannot properly express how encouraged I have been in the weeks since the announcement of my nomination, by the thousands of messages I have received with words of congratulation, support and wisdom. I’ve heard from people of all ages, women and men – people I have known for years, and people I have never met; people from down the road, and people from across the world.
Ms Libby Lane (she can be called a bishop but she cannot be a bishop in reality, in view of scripture’s direct commands that priests and bishops are to be male) unwittingly identifies why her elevation will do nothing to fix the problems in the Church of England:
[blockquote] “Many those who have been in touch have little or no contact with the Church of England; not all have been people of faith, but every one of them has felt this moment marks something important.” [/blockquote]
Indeed, which is the same phenomenon observed with TEC – many people outside the church will applaud the move, but those people will not join the church or do anything to support it. Their real motivation is to silence the church’s moral claims by making it as close as possible to being “one of them”. Once it is quiet, they are happy if it stays that way and they can forget about it. So this outpouring of support will not translate into greater practical support for the CofE, anymore than it did for TEC. Yet at the same time it places pressure on those who take scripture and tradition seriously, and causes many of them to withdraw support, hence accelerating the church’s decline.
[blockquote] “My consecration service is not really about me. With echoes of practice which has been in place for hundreds of years in the church…”. [/blockquote]
Sure, “echoes of practice”, but echoes are all they are. The practice of the Christian Church for 2,000 years has been only males as church leaders. By going down this road, the CofE has converted itself into a spiritual cul-de-sac with no relevance for the rest of Christian history or the rest of the Church.
I think it’s worth noting that Libby Lane enjoys the backing of Bishop Peter Forster of Chester, who can by no stretch of the imagination be viewed as a Church of England liberal. While her consecration will not be viewed with approbation by Catholic Anglicans, it’s unlikely that she will be in the same theological corner as many of her sister bishops in TEC and Australia.
“While her consecration will not be viewed with approbation by Catholic Anglicans”
Nor by orthodox evangelicals, albeit for slightly different reasons.
If scripture says clearly not to do something, then we are not to do it, no matter how orthodox the candidate might appear to be.
“…who can by no stretch of the imagination be viewed as a Church of England liberal”
Church of England liberals are not the real problem and never have been. Its those who aren’t liberal yet compromise with them who are the problem.
Dr. Bonner,
– I think you forget that Catholics and Orthodox make up 3/4 of all Christianity. Women’s ordination is by definition not only a liberal, but a radical shift in holy orders. If she were by any stretch a traditionalist, she would not have accepted the job.
She may not be in the same vein as KJS, but I daresay, if anyone expected her to stand in the way of the acceptance of gay marriage and the rest of the current agenda of Lambeth Palace, she would not have been appointed.
So, we will have to pray that she completely surprises the people who put her in office, and upholds Christian doctrine instead of playing the HoB games.
Gentlemen,
I don’t disagree with you about the radical nature of the shift in the context of global Christian belief and practice. However, I’m uneasy with the logic that can accept women’s ordination to the priesthood but not to the episcopate. MichaelA’s arguments – in my opinion – could just as plausibly be directed at my former diocese of Pittsburgh and its current bishop – and former archbishop – Robert Duncan, or at the Province of Kenya. For all the current gracious restraint exercised by ACNA, I suspect there are many evangelicals in Pittsburgh who would have no difficulty elevating one of their woman presbyters to the episcopate.
As for Libby Lane, I have great difficulty imagining Peter Forster – who was investigated by the police for “hate speech” on the subject of homosexuality not so many years ago – would be in the business of promoting someone who was categorically of the accommodationist persuasion. Of course I may be wrong, but such a stance would be very counter-intuitive.
Hi Jeremy,
Your point is, in essence, that there are evangelicals, who are otherwise orthodox, who accept ordination of women to the priesthood. I agree. Some of them are in CofE. Some of them are in ACNA. Some of them are in Kenya. And many other places besides. And equally, I expect you are well aware that there are many more evangelicals across the Communion who believe Scripture teaches otherwise, and many of them are also found in each of the jurisdictions you mentioned, and many more besides. And you could substitute “catholic Anglican” for evangelical Anglican in those sentences and they would still hold true. What conclusion should we draw from that?
I assume you are not suggesting that the mere fact that some people believe in the ordination of women as priests or bishops mean that I or tjmcmahon must also? If so, you will get short shrift – that is precisely the type of thinking that led to the debacle in TEC.
As you correctly observe, once one accepts the ordination of women priests, women bishops are likely to follow as a matter of logic. But that just begs the question – why is it right to ordain women as priests in the first place? The judgement of the church through the ages (and of much of the church now, including many evangelical Anglicans) is that it is not right because Scripture expressly forbids it.
That was the point of my post – the consecration of Libby Lane is another step on the road to decline for CofE because it is fundamentally an act of deliberate disobedience to the Word of God. But I agree that her ordination as priest before that was another such act of disobedience.
Re your last paragraph, I wasn’t discussing whether Libby Lane was of the accommodationist persuasion or not. My point was rather that the Church of England is being disobedient to Scripture by ordaining women to the episcopate AND to the priesthood, regardless of what theological views they might hold.
Actually no, I wasn’t suggesting that anyone should be bound to accept the current majority view (I’m not of that persuasion myself).
However, if the “disobedience” of this consecration rises to the level you describe, then should not the same standard apply to Pittsburgh (in respect of its membership of ACNA) or Kenya (in respect of its membership of GAFCON)? Both currently fall short of the standard you describe.
Let’s just skip the sugar coating and call this what it is, pure unadulterated heresy. Although it is hardly the first, nor likely to be the last from those quarters.
Anathema!
Hi Jeremy, re your second paragraph, yes, of course the same standard applies to everyone. Feel free to substitute ACNA or Kenya into my post #1: elevating women to the episcopate won’t solve any of their current problems. And, what I didn’t say but was implicit, ordaining women to the priesthood is a cause of problems, like any disobedience to apostolic teaching.
Mind you, ACNA and Kenya are both in a far stronger spiritual position than CofE because they are actively examining the issue in the light of scripture as a church, and because they do genuinely allow space for those who disagree with the ordination of women.
Jeremy I should add, I know from previous discussions that you don’t follow the current vogue in CofE and I wasn’t meaning to suggest that you do. My question in para 2 of #6 was rhetorical, and I am sorry if it came out the wrong way.