More than 1,300 clergy, including 11 serving bishops, have written to the archbishops of Canterbury and York to say that they will defect from the Church of England if women are consecrated bishops.
As the wider Anglican Communion fragments over homosexuality, England’s established Church is moving towards its own crisis with a crucial vote on women bishops this weekend.
In a letter to Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, seen by The Times, the signatories give warning that they will consider leaving the Church if two crucial votes are passed to introduce female bishops.
I note that there is a big difference between a firm declaration that such clergy WILL leave the C of E if women bishops are forced on those who oppose them, and the mere statement that they will CONSIDER leaving. But still, for 1,333 clergy to sign such a forceful protest is significant indeed. According to this report, 60% of that large number are active clergy currently serving in ministry, the other 40% are retired. Those 800 or so active clergy, including up to 11 bishops, constitute some 10% of England’s ordained leaders. A significant minority, but not enough to hold the C of E hostage.
Of course, some might say that the C of E has shrunk so badly, with less than a million people bothering to come to worship each Sunday, that there is a surplus of clergy and that therefore it’s not a bad thing if the established church loses some of its “excess” staff. I’d say, on the other hand, that these men (and a few women) may represent some of those best equipped to do evangelism since they actually believe in something and are willing to stand up for it boldly. What about the need for MORE laborers to reap a spiritual harvest in England? Not more chaplains, mind you, or mere curates to care for those already in the fold, but real laborers, actual missionaries.
Let’s pray for this upcoming General Synod that starts Friday. The combination of the two issues of the unbiblical “gay is OK” ideology and the attempt to force women bishops on those who in good consceince can’t accept them makes for a potently explosive mix. It may not be “the Perfect Storm,” but it will be bad enough.
I’ll be very interested to see what is said by the evangelical leaders gathering today at All Souls’, Langham Place, in London to report on GAFCON. I doubt John Stott ever thought, when he occupied the pulpit there for so many years, that things would ever come to this in the C of E. But it has.
David Handy+
David+ and don’t forget, there are at least 750 CoE folks (I don’t know the percentage of clergy / lay) registered for today’s meeting at All Souls Langham Place. I think I read there could be 600 or so evangelical clergy who might consider being a part of GAFCON.
As I read on one comment thread or blog, truly CoE is going to be squeezed hard from both sides. But, personally, I think that’s a good thing.
–elfgirl
1,333 Clergy isn’t the sum total of those opposed to the ordination of women. There are a number of notable evangelical absentees from the petition, who I am fairly sure are opposed to women’s ordination, but might only consider it a second order issue. There are several members of the clergy that I know personally and who are opposed to WO missing. Also several members of the Reform council and leading members of the Church society, most noticeably Bishop Wallace Benn, are missing.
I am praying as this day unfolds for the gathering at All Souls and I will pray this weekend for the Church of England.
In the U.S., the church decided to put the “rights” of women clergy over the consciences of those who dissented on ecclesiastical and/or scriptural grounds. This is not the only disaster which hit the American church, but it hit us hard.
Why deliberately do what will cause great distress to Christian brothers and sisters? Why?
Ultimately, I think, for precisely the same reason that we say some things which cause offence to our worthy opponents. They firmly see this as God’s will.
For those who want to follow what’s happening at All Souls,
John Richardson is blogging the event.
There are a lot of warning lights going off on the ABC’s dashboard…it has become doubtful that he will reply with anything more than a philosophic, maundering letter if past history proves true. Full speed ahead!
alas this article is appalling. It does not even try to understand the theology behind an opposition to women priests and merely presents it as an equality issue. Poor poor journalism once again. I begin to wonder if they don’t really WANT to get it.
The 1333 signatories are not necessarily opposed to women’s ordination, but to the “single clause option” that would remove the existing canonical protection for congregations that are opposed. About 4479 people (including 1276 female and 1205 male clergy) have signed petitions supporting that option. This is not a pure liberal vs. conservative issue—a significant number of evangelicals support women’s ordination, including quite a few of the Anglican provinces in the GAFCON movement, and a significant number of liberals oppose the single clause option because they feel the precedent will be used to restrict their local autonomy.
ABC is like a deer in the headlights. He wandered out into a busy highway where children should not play. He can’t get across.
Will someone please rescue this poor man?
Kate: since you’ve done such a wonderful job in your Province, you come to mind.
Dale Rye: Read the letter. It’s available at Forward in Faith’s site. They say “Our theological convictions, grounded in obedience to Scripture and Tradition, and attentive
to the need to discern the mind of the whole Church Catholic in matters touching on Faith
and Order, lead us to doubt the sacramental ministry of those women ordained to the
priesthood by the Church of England since 1994.” and
“Our theological convictions, grounded in obedience to Scripture and Tradition, and attentive
to the need to discern the mind of the whole Church Catholic in matters touching on Faith
and Order, lead us to doubt the sacramental ministry of those women ordained to the
priesthood by the Church of England since 1994.”
These are not people simply who reject the single clause measure, but who will probably leave the church of England if it is passed.
There is another petition organised by FiF for laywomen, which they are reporting has over 8500 signatures. Not to mention opposition from the evangelicals. And were I a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that these 10% of the clergy represent far more than 10% of the laity.
Sorry, that second quotation should have been “It is with sadness that we conclude that, should the Church of England indeed go ahead with
the ordination of women to the episcopate, without at the same time making provision which
offers us real ecclesiastical integrity and security, many of us will be thinking very hard about the
way ahead. We will inevitably be asking whether we can, in conscience, continue to minister
as bishops, priests and deacons in the Church of England which has been our home.”
Choir Stall:
I think he’s more of a [url=http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/06/post_turtle.html]post turtle[/url] than a deer in the headlights. At Least the deer has a reason for being there. And a chance to escape.
#8
“The Times” is not the newspaper it once was.
Gledhill wouldn’t even have been taken on as a tea-girl back then.
Good for them! I hope they have better luck derailing ordination of women to the episcopate than they did in opposing WO in general.
David Handy wrote:
“60% of that large number are active clergy currently serving in ministry, the other 40% are retired.”
A little more precisely, 35% are “retired” but still active, while only 5% have been obliged by age or infirmity to give up active ministry. For instance, the “retired” priest among the signatories whom I know best recently kept the 45th anniversary of his ordination in the parish where he works as honorary assistant priest on a “house for duty” basis.
Alan Harrison
First they started letting girls sing in choirs. And now this!
Sometimes I think we engage Rome better than we do other Anglicans.
Let the votes be counted. Let the ayes say “aye” and the nays say “nay.” If they must leave, let it be so.
Adam 12 He’ll never notice since he does not drive.
Goodbye, John……and be careful of that door!
Alan (#16),
Thanks for setting the record straight. I welcome your correction. I’m glad that many retired clergy are actually still serving churches in retirement. The same is true here in the States.
David Handy+
LOL!!! We don’t see blocs of clergy leaving because of the MANY clergy who are very much engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, but then this over women’s ordination?!? No wonder the CofE is such a basket case! LOL!!!
We need all our clergy and laity. Remember: “first they came for the…”
Let’s pray for some common sense from Synod and honoring of promises made, not for a vote for division and the loss of loyal Anglicans. There is quite enough in the Communion without bringing it here unnecessarily.
Alas – there is to much ignorance. Too many on Synod will assume that a simple measure is enough. But that is the legislative equivalent of asking me to wear a yellow star- I am treated differently and become a second classed priest on account of my (historically orthodox) theology. As a 34 yeear old priest it would lead to me having no chance for preferment and possibly other parish appointments. I would be a leper ‘dealt’ with and ‘respected’ but never embraced or wanted. Furthermore I would never be sure of which male priests were ordained by women etc…which would mean I was unsure of any sacramental validity. In short it would be untenebale. Its quite simple – if this is all I am offered- I WILL resign and consider offering my life and my talents where they are appreciated.
Only a new Diocese will do (and this is already a compromise from a province). That might give me enough space to flourish and structures in which I can work and grow.
I’m with the rugbyplayingpriest here. There is wilful misunderstanding going on on the part of the liberals in the Church. The curious thing is that they seem to want to employ a scorched earth policy after victory. The decision to consecrate women to the episcopacy has all-but been conceded. The question is how generous they will be to the dissenting minority. The answer they have given, very loudly, is “no generosity whatsoever”. They want to win and drive their opponents out.
How very different from what they are demanding for clergy who dissent from official C-of-E teaching on gay weddings, for instance…
I suppose it is just possible that, as in Wales, the uncharitable supporters of women bishops will overplay their hand.
Let’s remember the fundamental dynamics involved here. The reason why I’m not sanguine about the upcoming Synod is precisely because what is at stake here is the capability of a state church with a thoroughly Erastian tradition to suddenly start resisting the powerful currents of the national culture. Can the C of E abruptly become a genuinely counter-cultural church??
For let’s make no mistake about it. Nothing les is required, in order to move upstream against the western cultural DEMAND for “inclusivity” above all else. The fact that it’s actually anything but truly inclusive in reality is completely beside the point. The point is: the secular culture is determinedly moving one direction, and it has the pull of a very powerful rip tide. Does the C of E have the inner strength to swim against the tide of cultural opinion??
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of high commitment, post-Christendom style Anglicanism of a radically sectarian, unabashedly confrontational, Christ-against-culture sort. As an American I have no problem whatsoever adopting an in-your-face, adversarial posture toward the surrounding culture. But I doubt if the Brits do.
Little Cabbage, a homosexual priest is still a priest and the sacraments he celebrates are vaild. (The same is true of an angry priest, a gluttonous priest, a usurious priest, a thieving priest…..) The issue here is the validity or otherwise of holy orders conferred on women, and in the case of women bishops of the orders purportedly conferred by them on others, male or female.
27- too true- which is why this is a first order question of the highest importance and yet too often neglected by evangelicals. It is sad that – as others point out- despite winning the day (women bishops WILL happen) the liberals would still drive honourable men and women into the wilderness due to thier loathing of all that is patriarchal, orthodox and traditional.
Those who have eyes and ears will see and hear that the true church is being pushed to the margins- and this Synod might actually be far BIGGER than some dare to think. We might be voting on whether true orthodox Christians will have a future….and I am not trying to be inflammatory.
28- still, you have to be honest and admit that there is a lot of hypocrisy going on within the anglo-catholic tradition regarding active homosexuality, which make your voice less convincing when it comes to other matters. Some priests that I have met refer to it as “just” a matter of discipline, though I didn’t see much of that discipline conducted by the anglo-catholic bishops when I was an Anglican myself. And, as my Pope has stated, it is definitely a moral theological question of the highest degree that in many ways has to do with what kind of (Christian) anthropology you adopt and thus has a consequence on how the sacrament of penance is being administrated. Most sound bishops would not let a serial fornicator or a serial thief continue to administrate the sacraments but they have turned a blind eye to “buggery”!
So…what is being argued here is that some Anglo-catholics are hypocrites in objecting to the obliteration of one of Christ’s sacraments by changing the orders necessary for its administration BECAUSE they do not protest equally or even more so the sins of some of their members. Is that it?
But the two situations aren’t in the same league. By that criteria no one could protest the slaughter of the innocents because they winked at gluttony. Who would listen to a fat priest tell us that we should defend the orphans and widows. Who is he to lecture us? That fat slob. Yeah, I’ll never read G.K. Chesterton again, or C.S. Lewis because he smoked.
Sheesh. Such is the logic of pinheads.