The church of England faces a mass exodus of priests and worshippers after plans were approved to allow women to become bishops without protection for traditionalists.
At a confidential meeting, bishops narrowly voted to proceed with the historic reforms and to resist pressure to create separate dioceses free of women clergy.
The decision will dismay hundreds of priests who could defect to the Roman Catholic Church, which refuses to ordain women. It was taken at a meeting of about 50 members of the House of Bishops, at a hotel in Market Bosworth, Leicestershire, last week, and has set the stage for a showdown with traditionalists when the General Synod, the Church’s parliament, is next convened, in July.
This story is both compelling and tragic. It is the death knell for the CofE if finalized in July. Where else for these men to go but Rome?
Intercessor
So much for tolerance. I support WO and I think it can be supported by Scripture, but this is simply wrong. There is support the other way and this cannot and should not be dogmatic. There must be freedom to object to this without fear of reprisial.
There is absolutely no cause for alarm. Our wonderful bishops have “opted for a Synod motion that asks for respect for opponents of women bishops” and there is precedent for this in the respectful and reconciling [url=http://chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com/2008/05/richard-wood-not-gone-and-not-forgotten.html]John Gladwin, Bishop of Chelmsford[/url]. Yes we can be sure that our beloved anglo catholic clergy will be treated with such respect that they will soon be reconciled to the new status quo.
Pull the other one why dontcha?
Let’s see who else we can get rid of? How about those evangelicals who we promised we would make more bishops from to redress the balance. What have we done? Sweet nothing.
Yup we are all going to keep paying for your gardeners and listening to you lecturing us on climate change, carbon footprints and why Jesus may have had a gay relationship with the beloved disciple.
Why don’t we have some Muslim bishops? Then we can have our own Sharia Courts.
Take our parsonages too while you are about it.
When the CofE finishes these types of innovations with a woman or gay ABC, the grand old church will be dead. The modern secularists will have finally killed our Mother Church, like KJS is killing our wonderful Episcopal Church.
The Lord will not be mocked! I foresee an orthodox movement coming out of the Third World to missionize Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S.A. Perhaps it has already begun with parishes and dioceses fleeing to Primates from places where the Lord is worshipped as King and not relegated to the dust bin of modernity.
Though I am an old man, I hope to live long enough to see secular-humanism defeated and those mocking our Lord vanquished.
[blockquote]I foresee an orthodox movement coming out of the Third World to missionize Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S.A.[/blockquote]
See what[url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/05/25/church-is-not-doing-enough-to-convert-uk-muslims-says-bishop/ ]+Michael Ali-Nazer[/url] is doing. Thanks be to the Lord for his witness in Britain.
Well, surprise, surprise. I think it was only a matter of time before it happened, but so much for tolerance and forbearance. How long did it take TEC to reneg on its assurances that WO would never be mandatory and that freedom of conscience would be protected? I forget, but I’ll bet +Iker or +Ackerman knows. At least in the U.S. it was over 20 years. It appears that the C of E is rushing to catch up with us, and Canada, and New Zealand in terms of having women bishops, no matter what assurances of making pastoral provision for conscientious dissent were given in the past. Why am I not surprised?
It reminds me of the treaties the American government made with various Indian tribes in the days of the wild western frontier. For instance, in my home state of South Dakota (which has the largest percentage of Native Americans of any state, including Arizona with all its Navahos), the government solemnly promised the Sioux/Lakota that the Black Hills would remain in the hands of the Indians “as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow.” That is, until gold was discovered in the Black Hills. Then the army was dispatched to take the Hills by force. All those solemn Indian treaties meant nothing.
David Handy+
This move in the CofE isn’t even prompted by a gold rush! It’s the opposite. By breaking the promise to honor what has been church practice since the beginning, and by, according to another news item, refusing to evangelize British Muslims for fear of hurting their feelings, the CofE is rushing towards oblivion.
the John Gladwyn comment is frankly laughable. This is the man who demanded he attend the priesting of a Resolution C priest in his diocese and demanded that he preach and totally undermined the role and honour of +Keith Newton the flying Bishop. He is a passionate advocate of all things liberal and having served in his diocese as an Anglo-Catholic- no freind of the orthodox.
Quite honestly that says it all and I would have no option but to leave the church of England if left to the compassion of those who in truth – loathe us. You only need to look to America to see how long the understanding and care lasts.
Sounds more like another communique from beneath Wilhelmstrasse 77. The bruised and broken divisions will peal off.
The liberal evangelicals of Fulcrum have kept silent so far, as they train their guns on Gafcon. (A victory in North Africa! Huzzah!) But in their hearts they must agree with this.
#11 Did you read the link?
#5: Why bother when the dhimmis are doin’ it for themselves?
as the Church of England Newspaer says about Britainistan:
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/Editorial.aspx
Remember, ‘sharia…. is inevitable’ (RW).
Isn’t Gladwyn a Fulcrum liberal evangelical? I seem to recall he got short shrift some time back in Kenya (abandoned on the savannah with his clergy by the Kenyan church) because of his gay advocacy work.
Synod may not go along with this so the fat lady has not yet sung.
But the string of broken promises is growing longer – and Synod is getting more and more bolshie with some of the Bishops’ proposals. This when there are more proposals for [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2022089/Save-Our-Churches-Dozens-of-historic-buildings-to-be-made-redundant.html]closing churches[/url].
I expect we will continue to need bishops to manage the decline they create.
I am going off bishops.
Like most posters here, I am deeply concerned about this report – indeed I was deeply depressed when I first read it. However, we must note:
1. The report may not be entirely accurate. The House of Bishops meets ‘in camera’.
2. It is not clear exactly what the bishops have opted for. The key phrase is: “Instead, the bishops opted for a Synod motion that asks for respect for opponents of women bishops, but does not make provisions for them.”
It seems unlikely to me that the bishops will have opted for anything other than what the Manchester Report has put on the table. That would therefore mean the ‘single clause’ option with a Code of Practice. But despite what WATCH, Christina Rees and co have demanded, this Code would have to be statutory, not merely ‘voluntary’ (see here, and my own analysis here.) This is not quite what the Telegraph implies by the phrase “does not make provision”.
If I am correct in this, what we have here is the bishops opting of the ‘minimalist’ provision of the Manchester Report. But other options are still there and Synod will get the final vote.
All that having been said, however, one may still feel this tells us a lot about the House of Bishops. We really do have to wait and see, but as with all things Anglican the signs are there for those who want to see them.
Personally, I think it is time for REFORM to decide what it wants and to talk with Forward in Faith about what they are planning.
Perhaps someone at Fulcrum or Covenant will write us an interesting essay.
#17 Thankyou for your wise thoughts. Unfortunately I think we are going to see more polarisation; that is what happens when you ignore peoples’ deeply held convictions. When you start acting as a lobby for one group rather than a council of all that is what happens.
All totally unnecessary.
#13-apologies did not click your link as I was reeling from the main article.
#19 and others, I think what really sticks in the throat about all this is the blindness of the bishops to their own – well, I can’t think of any other word than hypocrisy.
Clearly they are of a mood to say to opponents of women bishops, “Like it, lump it or leave it.” This itself is instructive from a body which likes to pride itself on its attitude to ‘minorities’, ‘the oppressed’, ‘the marginalized’, etc. When it comes to their own views, and their own structures, they are quite as happy to oppress the marginalized minority as any junta member. One of the evangelical bishops has said to me the option presented to the Anglo-Catholics should be ‘find a compromise with Rome within the next five years, after which you’re out, no money, no buildings, that’s it.’ I find that frightening and appalling, yet that is from a ‘brother’!
I’m also concerned that the bishops don’t seem to understand that if this is how they treat others, it is how they will themselves be treated when the issue is same-sex relationships, as it is almost bound to be in a few years’ time – sooner if conservative evangelicals and catholics are pushed out.
At the moment, I am wondering if there is the appetite for the fight amongst those who will suffer exclusion. Certainly if they don’t die in this ditch, they will die in another.
One other thing which must be said is that the Church of England has ‘form’ in this regard. The same happened in the seventeenth century with the ‘Great Ejection’ of the Puritans. The Church of England has always been happy to solve its problems by getting rid of the problem people and then saying it remains a moderate church because the ‘trouble makers’ left!
PS. There is, of course, a possible response: those who face marginalization get together and say, “This is something, up with which we will not put.” They then place themselves under the authority of their own (existing) bishops, politely return or repudiate the licenses they hold from existing diocesans, and go from there. It could be done, but would it be done, or will we just continue like lambs to the slaughter, opening not our mouths (and would that be the right path in this case)?
#20 I am not from your particular background but am so impressed by what you and others are doing at parish level. Would that there were more with your commitment and calling to spread the light of Christ.
Be assured of our regard and prayers for you and your congregation. We really cannot afford to lose you and see that light snuffed out.
#19 The attitude of the bishop in your second para is a disgrace. seems to me that when all around are losing their head our bishops have decided to go off theirs. I would have hoped for better without importing all the conflict of other parts of the Communion into our church.
Um that’s not #19 but #21 and #22 much as I agree with myself.
#22 I already see rumblings in the big evangelical churches. We will have to see how far our bishops decide to be a mature stabilising force at this time or decide that they are going to push the envelope.
#21 also “sooner if conservative evangelicals and catholics are pushed out”
We are the only growing part of our moribund church and one of the biggest sources of finance. If not a majority [although not in the house of bishops] we are pretty close. We have no plans to be pushed out anywhere although may well decide to do some pushing of our own.
If we were pushed out of course the bishops would have to dig their own gardens.
Breaking of trust and breaking of promises is what this seems to come to come down to.
The major problem it seems to me at Communion level is that many primates no longer trust the ABC – I have heard this couched this in different ways from at least 3 GS primates recently. This has been a tragedy for us all. Now our bishops are showing that the church’s promises are not worth the paper they are written on. It is just desperately sad – let’s see if Synod has more integrity.
I hope very much that English conservative evangelicals and catholics will stick together on this one. In the U.S., the WO dissenters who didn’t leave in ’76-’77 were left with no support, people who thought women priests and bishops were acceptable saying “this isn’t the bridge I want to die on.” Now they’re facing the predictable next bridge and dying anyhow. You need to all hang together or you’ll all hang separately, as the Americans are.
#25: Can you reference this? I’ve long believed that if 20 or 30 evangelical flagship churches in England threw down the guantlet, the liberal hierarchy would probably wilt.
But will this ever happen? As it appears to me from my distance, the problem in England is that the system keeps evangelicals of The Wrong Sort out of the episcopacy. Diocesans choose their suffragans (unless there is a rebellion of the Jeffrey Johns kind), then suffragans overwhelmingly are chosen as diocesans. So it is really a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Only liberal evangelical establishment men get chosen as suffragans, and then in power they hasten to shed any evangelical plumage from their youth and ‘broaden’ (which usually means adopting a kind of effete moderate liberalism).
How long will it be before Nigeria or some of the other Global South Churches start providing Pastoral protection for Churches and congregations in the U.K.? I believe that once that happens it will be such an affront to the establishment that we will begin to see further fracturing. I don’t have tremendous confidence that the C of E, as we’ve known it will continue as the Established Church for very many more years and that when the next Monarch ascends the throne we may have to say goodbye to Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.
#30: Well, you have the oddity of Sandy Millar being appointed a bishop in the Ugandan Church to work in London (!) – the purpose being to keep the HTB family of churches from jumping ship – and another network in London (Richard Cook’s Comission group) using an overseas bishop to ordain leadership. So it could happen, I guess. These churches are net contributors to the Cof E and can sort out their own training for the future.
Gordian,
Do you think that what Bishop Ryle warned us to look for, the throwing overboard of the Articles and the hauling-down of the old flag, are now coming to pass and that we are now closer to a time when we must leave the C of E as we’ve come to know it? Has the fat lady already sung and left the building?
RMBruton [#30], That has been the question in the back of my mind for some time now. It may well happen on the day when a beleagured evangelical parish is unable to find episcopal protection on British soil.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
suscribe
#25 [url=http://chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com/2008/05/post-gafcon-meeting-in-london-note.html]Here[/url] for example.
RobRoy, that orthodox movement is here in the U.S. and Canada……right now……and it is growing, and cannot be stopped, nor can it be slowed.
That was for #29 The Gordian. The big flagship parishes have publicly not been vocal but there are rumblings of extreme dissatisfaction.
I humbly submit, as an American who has found church refugee status from TEC in the Province of Uganda, no matter what comes, now is the time to work hard to establish ties to orthodox dioceses in other provinces (such as those of the Global South). That will help your members embrace mission work, give you partnerships which will reinvigorate your members and help them see beyond the petty struggles of a bunch of out-of-touch and power-mad liberal bishops with which you cannot (yet) be disconnected — and will, as a wonderful by-product, provide the relationships upon which you may need to rely should things become even more hostile and conformist, as they did here. And, of course, pray like mad, educate your congregations, pray like mad, educate some more, then pray like mad.
#34: Well now, that IS interesting! These are heavyweight guys, & Jim Packer is still greatly respected in England. The lunacy of Ingham’s treatment of him will reverberate among English evangelicals.
Now what if these flagship churches were to announce they were thinking of affiliating with the Church of Uganda? (After all, what is Ugandan Bishop Millar’s London ministry about?)
If it is a final solution that so many here seem to desire, it should be better that the Catholics and Protestants in CofE not stick together on this issue, as no. 25 wishes. There will be little room for or understanding of, Catholics in the “covenanted” church that would be in the offing.
#38 no reason at the moment to suppose that anyone is planning to leave the CofE but yes, deep dissatifaction
#39 Why not get along, we do already and find each other hugely amusing: bells and smells and overhead projectors.
Think Bishop Sandy Millar’s London Ministry is about being Bishop of Alpha, a non-geographic diocese? Well fancy that.
No. 40 – Nothing wrong with getting along and finding each other amusing – it’s just not ecclesiastically logical. Interestingly, though, yesterday anRC priest said to me he wished there could be a United Nations of Churches, where we could all respect and communicate with each other(a new subject, I admit)
In all the responses I’ve ever read about the WO issue, I’ve only seen comments about women priests who are described
as liberal and “worldly-based” rather than those whose relationship with the Lord is deeply rooted in the saving message of Jesus. And I have to wonder…Have any of you met with the many female priests whose lives, gifts and ministries are at work in the churches, communities and lives of the people they have been called by
God to serve? Have you listened to them share or preach? Have you seen their leadership gifts at work in our churches? Have you watched the way they share Jesus to a world who desperately needs Him? Do you know them? Or most importantly…Do you want to know them?
#43: Yes I do know some, a few well. They have all been Episcopalians.
There must be 6 or seven by now. Now a large number and not a fair sample, you may well say. They have all been feminists of the Mother Jesus sort, bossy, arrogant, chip-on-the-shoulder sorts. I suppose par of this comes from being insecure, don’t you suppose. Two have almost certainly been lesbians. They have ALL been so far over on the left field they couldn’t get back into the ball park even with a compass.
“Share” Jesus? Share Him? This has to be a woman talking. Jesus is not a piece of birthday cake being divided so every child gets a piece.
I have spent a lot of time raising children.I’m not bad at it, but I do not, could not, do the mother’s role. I was Daddy, the Lawgiver, even if I was not a tyrant or a despot. My love is not a mother’s love because my nature is not a woman’s nature. Have you observed that men and women are different, fundamentally different, whose differences are so structured that each needs the other to be complete as a parent? You SHOULD check on this difference. Does plumbing have a lot to do with it? Absolutely. That’s why I have a wife, not a boyfriend.
Here’s a simple fact:Evolution has formed us for different roles, different functions. Being a pastor is not mothering, it is fathering, if I may put it that way. Turning a woman into a man – as now often happens in America – does not make her more than a man and more of a woman, it makes her less than, half a glass of each instead of a full glass of either. Larry
The issue here is; what saith the scripture? Since the apostle Paul pretty well laid out who may be a bishop/elder in the pastoral epistles, the issue would seem to be settled from that standpoint. Perhaps I’m opening a whole new can of worms, or maybe I’m just pointing out the elephant in the room.
Anyway, AMiA issued a terrific report on ‘whither WO’ here http://www.theamia.org/assets/AMiA-Womens-Ordination-Study-Aug-03.pdf. I’m sure a number of you have read it, but if you haven’t, you might want to give it a whirl.
#43- i know some but its beside the point. My objection is theological not political; please excuse a lengthy summary but do read it:
1. Jesus fully valued and upheld women calling them into ministry as chosen disciples. Yet Jesus chose no women ‘apostles’. Mary Magdalene, ‘first witness of the resurrection’, is obvious apostolic replacement for Judas- yet Matthias is chosen.
2. Supporters of WO suggest Jesus was limited by the wisdom of his age. But Christ often defied convention and the pagan world around him was awash with female priests. Women priests were not an alien concept. Jesus could have followed such example . But he did not.
3. St Paul taught that women were equal (‘In Christ…there is no male or female, slave or free’) but that their role was different. (Forbidding women to have ‘authority’ in Church.) This suggests how St Paul interpreted the fact that Christ appointed no women apostles.
4. There were no women bishops or presbyters in the early centuries of the Church. This indicates that St Paul’s take was not his own (some even suggest sexist) opinion. But the consensus among all the Apostles
5. In the 3rd century, a group known as Montanists formed. Their teaching was rejected because they questioned the reliability of Apostolic Tradition. (Montanists wished to change tradition due to “new revelations of the Spirit”.- sound familiar?!) What ultimately condemned them was their practice of ordaining women idicating that ‘male-only priesthood’ was the authentic teaching of the Early church. (It also tells us the issue of women priests is not new – as we are led to believe!!!)
6. Canon Law in the early Church forbade women’s ordination. These canons were endorsed by the Council of Nicaea (who gave us ‘The Nicene Creed’) To endorse women priests we must assume the council of Nicaea got the Apostolic Tradition wrong. Is this tenable?
7. One can only argue that Scripture endorses women priests, by attributing St Paul’s teaching as;
A) wrongful personal opinion – or –
B) applicable only to his time and place.
However there’s a right to interpret Scripture. The traditional way is to endorse scriptural teaching and mould our lives accordingly. Choosing our prefered interpretation and making it say what we want to hear, is most definitely not the way forward. Therefore S. Paul’s teaching is hard to dismiss.
8. Secularism promotes gender as interchangeable. Christinaity upholds a celebration of two different natures- a difference of role and function within equality of being. We see this clearly in Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul. Both witnessed with equal power – but by different callings- as man and woman. One was priest -Peter- the other beloved disciple -Magdalene. Both equal, yet distinct.
9.. At the Eucharist the priest stands ‘in persona Christi’. Christ cannot be ‘sacramentally’ represented by woman because Christ’s ‘maleness’ is not incidental- but revelatory. (telling something about God.) Jesus is bound to his role as Father not mother. A ‘male God’ says something subtle yet profound.
Pagan religion used priestesses to promote a ‘mother god’ who gives birth to the world. (Hence nature worship!) But Judaism challenges this- making God life giver instead. Nature created ‘by’ not ‘of’ him. A female can no more be spiritual ‘father’ than a man can play the role of Mary. Else we return to pagan understanding of feminine divine. ie PECUSA!
10. Scripture teaches that Christ’s relationship with humans is signified by the royal imagery of Christ as groom and His bride the Church. This is cemented in marriage and at mass! At the Eucharist created order is echoed. The Church gather as bride- the priest celebrant stands (in persona Christi) as groom. Having a female priest confuses this divine image of ‘Christ and bride’
10. Mother Church has always taught that change to doctrine and practice can only be accepted when backed by scripture, reason and tradition. All three -not one. If something cannot be proved by these then we lack authority to adopt it. So even if modern ‘reason’ suggests women’s ordination is correct – it cannot be accepted- unless revealed by Scripture and tradition. (Which it is not)
12. All arguments in favour return to one thing. That women must be ordained for reasons of ‘inclusivity’ and ‘equality’. Immediately reverting to secular definition of man and woman. Rather than upholding divine revelation of ‘equal but different’. I am yet to hear a convincing theological argument in favour. Pro arguments appeal powerfully to the hearts- but miss the head. The arguments for women priests and bishops seem entirely sociological.
13. If God wants women priests and bishops- he wants them for the whole Church. I cannot accept that Anglicanism- which makes up a tiny fraction of global Christianity- has authority to make such decisions alone. Only when Rome and Constantinople agree – can we proclaim the ordination of women as a decision from God. Yet Rome and Constantinople remain utterly opposed. Subsequently the Anglican place within mainstream Christianity is being seriously undermined.
14. In England in 1992 we were promised that ‘women priests’ would restore the Church and people, especially the young, would flood back . Not true! Though many women priests perform excellent work, the decision has only fractured and damaged our Church. Hundreds of faithful priests were lost . Laity left in droves. Should current trends continue there will be no ‘C of E’ worshippers in 2050. Hardly the outcome promised.
So at what point do we admit mistakes as a Church? The decision began unlawfully – it has caused schism and has not helped the church flourish in number. It has led to deeper problems (the same arguments to justify women priests are used to justify active homosexuality) . Furthermore it has moved the church in line with secular thinking rather than acting as a counter cultural voice.
Nuff siad?
#42 Rob k
“ecclesiastically logical” – not sure that is essential or that has anything to do with Anglicanism or the English [have you ever looked at the British Constitution but it works].
#43 and others. Personally I do know women who are perfectly orthodox lay readers and priests and indeed some of the best preachers I have come across. Since it is not my theology I have no problem with women priests or bishops for that matter.
However I do recognise that there are a great many priests and laity in our church [and not just among anglo-catholics] who find for reasons so fundamental to their view of the church and the sacraments [and lets face it that is the view across the majority of the worldwide Church] that this breaks the link with the apostolic succession, the link with the teaching of the apostles’ teaching and the validity of the preparation and the presidency at the Eucharist. #46 RPP puts this view well.
I think we have much to learn from the parts that make up our church and that is how I as a low-churchman by background view the high church and anglo-catholic parts of the church. I am not the only person I know who has found that their understanding has deepened and their thought engaged through contact with the other parts of the church. As many evangelicals age they find spiritual growth from exploring what the catholic understanding offers.
But mostly I object to the bishops resolution because I am distressed by the steamrolling of these Anglicans who will be caused great angst and by the failure to keep to their word. If they think their word is worth nothing, why should the rest of us?
PageantMaster – I meant to say that, although we should get along, it’s not ecclesiological that we should be in the same church. Smells and bells aside, fundamental ecclesiologies are at odds. The English Constitution is an admirable thing, but not sure it should apply as an ecclesiological model. RPP explains the Catholic reason against women priests very well. Note that in his explanation the Protestant Headship argument is not present, as it is irrelevant.
Sometimes I wish all this didn’t matter, especially the sexual issue. After all, the only time Jesus speaks of the Last Judgement in the Gospels is in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats. He doesn’t line them up against the wall and ask them what they believe, but whether they perform the Acts of Mercy.
rob k
Thanks – I suppose I think that we should be in the same church; I happen to think that we are enriched thereby. If we didn’t have the catholics would we Lutherans or Puritans or something else. I don’t want to be in that smaller meaner church.
I understand the catholic arguments as well set out by RPP – it is just that I am not sure about them. I have never found the ‘headship’ arguments particularly convincing; even John Stott got rather knotted up with arguing them. I am also not 100% sure that I have the answer but I am sure that I do not want to lose those who disagree with my current view.
I think in all these things #49 we have to trust in God and in his Word. I am not convinced that in order to be a Christian that I have to have all the theological answers to everything.
BTW – the World Council of Churches was meant to fulfil the role you refer to in #42 as a United Nations of Churches but by its nature it covers such a broad spectrum of churches that any pronouncements tend to the banal. I think ecumenicism is so important as we all accept the living Christ as our saviour and try after our different styles to follow Him.
46, I would just point out that you ignore the fact that the first apostles were also Jews. Using your line of argument a good argument can be made that if an all male priesthood is required because the first apostles were men, then they should also be Jewish. Jesus himself was a Jew and, by definition a Gentile is not a Jew and cannot therefore stand in the place of Jesus while presiding at the altar. Judas replacement was a Jew. And then you have the strange case of Junia in Romans 16:7. Yet we easily dispense with the Jewishness of the Apostles while, at the same time relentlesly cling to their gender, but one is just as immutable as the other.
There are a lot of traditional things that the Early Church did that we do not do today. Triple immersion baptism and removing non-christians from the church prior to the liturgy of the table for examples. So we do set aside tradition although it is a useful guide. The Reformation itself was, in part, a reaction to certain Roman Catholic traditions.
If our primary guide is Scripture, something to which even tradition is subserviant, then we have to admit that it does not set up a clear list of rules and regulations as to how the Church is to be ordered, organized and governed. And we have to admit that cultural practices of the 1st Century may not have Biblical sanction.
Thus I don’t think, on a Scriptural basis, we should be overly dogmatic on this issue. I think it can be fairly debated either way.
What is clear to me is that WO is not a right that women are entitled to, it should not be forced on those who do not want it and those who have serious theological objections must be given plenty of room and their theology respected and accomodated. To force it on the unwilling is wrong pure and simple. Indeed the fact that in TEC the first woman ordinations were improper argues against it and no passage of time should obscure this fact.
#46 and any others
Do you have any sense of how this will be perceived and reacted to?
A bit of overstating and back-reading going on there.
1. The issue isn’t apostles, because there was no continuation of the apostolic office after the first generation. It’s to do wilth the appointment of ‘elders (presbuteroi) in every city’ by Paul and Timiothy. Some were Jews, others were converted Gentiles and proselytes. Ethnicity didn’t matter. But there is no evidence that women were ever appointed as ‘episkopoi kai presbuteroi’.
2. ‘apostoloi’ could also mean ‘misisonaries’ in Acts and the Pauline letters.
3. The Didache is interesting but it is *not* inspired Scripture!
If Scripture is not ‘clear’, then look at the uniform practice of the early church (er, not Marcion or the Montanists …).
4. Priscilla and Aquila seemed to share a teaching ministry. A model for us today, perhaps? – husbands and wives leading together.
I was referring to #51.
Can I just say that, from the English perspective, I’m with Pageantmaster here (can I also say how much I dislike blogging pseudonymns, though)? The issue is not whether there are arguments for or against women’s ordination, or even who has the better arguments. That has been gone over for years.
We need to be quite clear that in 1993 the Church of England decided (a) that it would ordain women as presbyters and (b) that the matter was not thereby resolved. The Lambeth Conference in 1998 subsequently endorsed the position that those for and against women’s ordination remain equally loyal Anglicans.
The Church of England is thus, at this point in time, formally uncommitted as to whether women can and should be priests – a fact recognized by the Manchester Report. Thus, the big issue is whether the vote on women bishops should be seen as settling the matter ‘once and for all’ or whether the Church of England remains broad enough to include conservatives of the Catholic and Evangelical hue. (Incidentally, as recently as 1977 the majority of Evangelicals took the view that ultimate leadership in a congregation should be male.) The issue here is attitude – to the Church, to doctrine and to other Christians.
What WATCH (Women and the Church) are pushing for is the ‘single clause’ solution with a Code of Practice to ‘protect’ opponents of women bishops. This is the Manchester Minimalist approach. But as Manchester observes, it will be seen as a clear signal that the issue is settled, that disagreement with women priests is no longer an option for Anglicans who expect to be fully part of the church, and that opponents are expected to be a dying breed. The question is whether this is an honourable and godly solution, given that the decision to ordain women relied on assurances that opponents would still find an honoured place within the Church – they were not to be excluded from membership or governance, including episcopal governance.
I don’t think there is a serious likelihood that less will be offered than the Manchester ‘single clause’ option. That is to say, there will be a Code of Practice. But it will be for the opponents of women’s ordination like reservations for native peoples – somewhere to allow them to live their ‘lifestyle’ away from the mainstream of society.
It is, moreover, worth checking out what else WATCH has on its agenda. Note especially this argument for women bishops:
“Language: our continued use of masculine language for people and God is a stumbling block for many? […]
* We know that God is beyond gender, but continual use of solely masculine images and pronouns for God suggest to many that, really, God is male
* If God is always referred to as Father or as “heâ€, then both women and men may infer that men are more like God in an essential way (their sex) than women are. This reinforces the historical view of women as the lesser sex, and needs to be challenged. It also impoverishes our understanding of God with implications for the way Christians relate both to God and to one another”
As sure as eggs, the same people who will bring you women bishops on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis will bring you the ‘She’ God.
And just a final note, in his book on the future hope, Bishop Tom Wright at one stage refers to the Holy Spirit as “she (?)”. So to anyone who wants to say, “Women bishops, yes, but that other agenda could never happen,” I would respond (and you need an English accent for this one, “Yeah. Right.”
I suppose that my views on WO are well-known (after all, they got me banned at a certain blog “because you tried to drag them into every discussion”), but when I read something like this, and the comment thread, I have to wonder — have people lost sense of reality, of how things work in the real world and culture we inhabit? Consider the following two articles on the Church of Sweden, and (a) its experience of WO since 1960 and (b) its present stance:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-09-032-f
and:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-02-036-f
The first of these is by my friend the Rev’d Dr. Folke T. Olofsson, a priest of the Church of Sweden and (like me) a Contributing Editor of Touchstone; the second is my own. Since 2003 the Church of Sweden has accepted the “blessing” of same-sex “partnerships,” and now that Sweden has decided to abolish such “civil partnerships” in favor of full marriage equality, the Church of Sweden is shambling down that slope as well — and of course opponents of WO are rigorously excluded from ordination (whether as priests or deacons) in the Church of Sweden, just as clergy are made to divulge their stance on WO if they become candidates for the episcopate, and if opposed to it, excluded from eligibility. The Finnish, Danish and Norwegian Lutheran churches are moving in the same direction, at varying speeds (the Finns rushing ahead to prosecute/persecute clerical opponents of WO, while holding back on SS for the moment; the Danes having already approved SS as an option for clergy, are beginning to consider stopping ordaining opponents of WO; and the Norwegians are rapidly pushing ahead on both “fronts”); and the stance of TEC needs no discussion here (inquire of Bps. Ackerman and Iker for more information).
Consider “the Swedish experience,” I say, and is there any likelihood of the Church of England arriving at the same destination, and that sooner rather than later? Fortunately, there are some who can read the signs of the times aright, among them my friend Fr. John Hunwicke, the Vicar of St. Thomas the Martyr (Becket not Cranmer) in Oxford, whose thoughts on the matter can be found on his blog here:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/
[blockquote]I’m with Pageantmaster here (can I also say how much I dislike blogging pseudonymns, though)?[/blockquote]
Of course you may Ugley Vicar.
#57 Ugley Vicar is a title, not a pseudonym ( 😉 )
Oh dear, I wrote “… and is there any likelihood of the Church of England arriving at the same destination, and that sooner rather than later?” when I should have written “… and is there any likelihood of the Church of England NOT arriving at the same destination, and that sooner rather than later?”. And to counteract the gloom-inducing spectacle of the Scandinavian “death-head” mirror image presented to the Church of England, I present readers with the perhaps bitter-sweet vision of “the road not taken” here:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-04-031-i
#57 (again), smelling a rat, I went back and looked at my Ugley Vicar blog and discovered by own profile had disappeared! Can’t blame anyone else, but it is now back with name, rank, serial number etc.
#59 Dr Tighe
[blockquote]I suppose that my views on WO are well-known (after all, they got me banned at a certain blog “because you tried to drag them into every discussion”)[/blockquote]
Not much change here then? – but thankyou, the Church of Sweden really does illustrate the dangers of travelling a road without looking at where you are travelling. As I understand it the Church of Sweden’s exciting and innovative moves have been met by plummeting attendances.
#58 Off Topic: There are different reasons why people post under a callsign:
1. The internet is public and it is wise to restrict private personal information on it – employers and others are now doing searches of blogging, facebook entries etc
2. Not everyone on the net is friendly or well-intentioned;
3. Some have professional or business reasons;
4 No-one could have anticipated the level of persecution that a church in our Communion would undertake; for Americans, a blog name is often essential protection; for the rest of us, we could never have imagined what would happen in TEC; who knows where things will go in our church in the future.
5. Not every blogger here wants everyone to know that they are a religious nutter.
Whether one posts under one’s own name or a pseudonym we have a responsibility to take care in what we write.
#51 [i] 46, I would just point out that you ignore the fact that the first apostles were also Jews. Using your line of argument a good argument can be made that if an all male priesthood is required because the first apostles were men, then they should also be Jewish. Jesus himself was a Jew and, by definition a Gentile is not a Jew and cannot therefore stand in the place of Jesus while presiding at the altar. Judas replacement was a Jew. And then you have the strange case of Junia in Romans 16:7. Yet we easily dispense with the Jewishness of the Apostles while, at the same time relentlesly cling to their gender, but one is just as immutable as the other. [i]
But the New Testament shows quite clearly how the church was opened to the Gentiles and Paul and Barnabas sent to minister to them and with them. So scripture deals with this and provides the answer. Yes non Jews may be apostles. The same cannot be said for women as priests.
And even ignoring point 1 what of the others? Look I would dearly love to be a supporter of WO – I would have a great chance to be a Bishop! So please just show me a very clear, theological and biblical argument that does not fly in the face of holy tradition and I will humble beg pardon. What I will not accept is that God does u-turns and that what was wrong in one age is now right cos it feels good. God is eternal and unchanging and I TRUST what he has chosen to reveal. He is the same yesterday -today and forever.
“Ugley Vicar is a title, not a pseudonym” – you mean like as in:
The Rev. John Richardson, U.V.?
#43…From your response, it sounds like you don’t know the female priests that I’m talking about…I wish you did.
BTW…You’re correct, I am a woman. And I never thought of “sharing” as it relates to living, preaching, teaching the Gospel
in terms of equal pieces of a birthday cake. Maybe it’s because I’m not that skilled at cutting cake into equal pieces (My husband is actually better at it than I am) But, in our family, sharing means offering to others those things that have been freely given to us. And when we share, the offerings aren’t always equal. Sometimes they don’t always look that nice on the outside (like that perfect piece of birthday cake that falls over on its side, smearing all the icing) But what’s best about the sharing that we do in our lives (whether it’s a toy or the Gospel) is that it’s not just a “woman” thing.
As an American laywoman, let me second Pageantmaster’s support for having both evangelical and catholic emphases in one church. We can learn from each other, and we can mutually keep each other from going to extremes with our tendencies.
Ok #64, bless your heart. Still, you have overlooked my fundamental argument. And as I said, my statistical base for ordained women leaves a good deal to be desired. But it’s also true that small samples, when uniform, are often telling even as it is true that small samples as well justify our biases. But what is one to do with one’s actual experience?
Only a fool or a liberal ignores it. So your argument is like informing me that there are good, monogamous, self-disciplined, non-exhibitionistic homosexuals. OK, there may be, but my experience is absolutely to the contrary and the samples are a whole lot larger. (JUst go to a GL parade.) Are they not representative because there are a million homosexuals and the parade is only 5000?
Still true, “but some circumstantial evidence etc…”, and Thoreau said. Larry
Larry…Well, I know a small sample of male, heterosexual priests who
are unethical and adulterous. So, if we use this small sample size along with your small sample size of female priests and make larger
assumptions, does that mean that there are no priests in our church
(male or female) who are fit to serve as ministers of the Gospel?
The point is, writingmom, that experience is not what the decision should be made on. It has to be justified theologically and scripturally.
I’ve known a few very good ordained female priests and a larger number of poor ones. But my experience isn’t the deciding factor, even if it were statistically valid.
Katherine…I completely agree…The experience is not what the
decision should be made on…It does have to be justified scripturally.
However, I don’t see the WO stated in as black and white a manner in Scripture as other key issues. And I know women priests in several (for lack of a better description) “T19-following” churches and dioceses who serve together with male priests and have
vibrant and growing ministries. So maybe those in authority in those churches and dioceses don’t see the issue as completely black or white either. (And, no, these are not places where they are being forced to accept female priests.)
My reason for originally writing comes after reading, yet another,
post where female priests are written about in such a negative way.
I do know female priests (along with male priests for that matter)
whose purposes seem to be contrary to what they are called to do
as ministers of the Gospel. But I also know female priests (and male
priests) who are serving God and His people in amazing ways through their roles as priests in His church. And I know some of these female priests well enough to say with certainty that they wouldn’t be in the priesthood unless they had a clear call from the Lord.
So this issue is one I’ve added to my “Front Porch with God” list…
You see, when I get to Heaven, I hope I’ll have the chance to sit in an old rocking chair and have a glass of iced tea (Unsweetened…Sorry Southerners) with our Lord…And that’s when I’ll have the chance to ask Him all about the things on earth that I wasn’t able to fully understand.
And “OK, God, so what was the deal with women’s ordination?” is
certainly on the list. Until then, I can only act (and react) to what
is happening here by searching Scripture, seeking the Lord in prayer and listening.
“But the New Testament shows quite clearly how the church was opened to the Gentiles and Paul and Barnabas sent to minister to them and with them. So scripture deals with this and provides the answer. Yes non Jews may be apostles. The same cannot be said for women as priests.”
And on the same ground it was also opened to women. I don’t think you can read back the modern priesthood back into the first Century. I don’t think you can dismiss the Jewish argument. If we say that bishops and priests don’t have to be Jews because they are not apostles then I don’t think you can turn around and say that WO is wrong because the Apostles were male.
I also don’t think you can translate the same Greek word as apostle when you think it refers to a male and missionary if you think it refers to a female.
And I certainly don’t want to set 1st Century cultural norms on equal basis with Scripture. I think that 69 is correct. I simple don’t think that Scripture is clear enough on this to be overly dogmatic.
And on the same ground it was also opened to women.
Please show me where?
PageantMaster – Thanks for your post no. 50. My posts here have not been very nuanced. I actually believe that there is much in our separate “traditions” that can co-exist in the same ecclesiological body. I could try to flesh that out in a long, rambling post, but I won’t. I hope I havn’t suggested to you that I think I have all the answers. I’m willing to find out in afterlife what they may be. Will tell you my position on WO if you care to know. Thx. By the way, use of a pseudonym doesn’t bother me at all. That is, except for “Anonymous” since in some threads there may be more than one contributor using it.
#72 rob k – Thank you. As a layman I find that T19 and the other blogs at their best have been a wonderful education. Where else could you talk to clergy and laity from all over the world from such a variety of different churches and ecclesiologies? I have enjoyed your posts on other threads and learnt from them so I thank you for engaging with me. I would enjoy hearing your views on the woman bishops issue either here or through the T19 PM/email system through your account above.
Some blogs do not encourage pseudonyms such as #55 above. T19 is not overkeen. One respects that. BTW I think that John Richardson’s post at #55 is the one on this thread that is the most important for setting out the background to this decision in England. I am grateful.
Heh heh – some interesting petitions on the Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream site:
[url=http://chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com/2008/05/petitions-on-women-bishops.html]here[/url]
I do hope English visitors here will take the trouble to sign one of the petitions referred to in #74 by Pageantmaster. Personally I’d prefer them to go for the one based on the NEAC 77 Clause J6. Amazing to think that just thirty years ago you could get most Evangelical Anglicans to sign up to that without demure as representing the biblical position. I don’t think the Bible has changed since then, so something must have.
Even if they won’t sign this one, I hope they might still sign the one for supporters of women bishops who nevertheless see the need for legislative provision for opponents which goes beyond a Code of Practice. We all know what they’re worth in the hands of the establishment.
Also on Rev. Richardson’s Ugley Vicar blog [url=http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2008/05/petitions-on-women-bishops.html]here[/url]
[Note the request that signatories be from the UK rather than international supporters]
#75 sorry for cross-posting. Well done.