My dilemma, as your diocesan bishop – as one who has worked with this question ecumenically and within the Anglican Communion and the Church of England since 1975 ”“ is that if the answer to the two questions posed by the Manchester Group (should we have diversity of theological view on women’s ordination and should there consequently be special arrangements for those who dissent) is ”˜yes,. I do not believe that just a Code of Practice would enable this to happen. In which case, the question arises as to why we should be offering a discriminatory Code of Practice when it is known, in advance, with some certainty, that this will not provide a distinct enough space for those who cannot accept this development within the Church of England. I do not think that the circle can be squared ”“ or certainly not in this way, and I have worked as Vice Chairman of the Rochester Commission for a number of years and then with the Guildford Group and then with the Bishop of Gloucester on precisely trying to see whether there is an acceptable way forward. My own conviction (at least prior to the General Synod Debate) is that if we do not wish to say ”˜goodbye, it really is time for you to go’ to those who are against, some sort of structural provision will need to be provided in a way which least damages the nature of the Church and least impinges on the general recognition of women’s ministry, including Episcopal ministry.
I hope some of our readers from Britain will weigh in here. The Bishop of Guilford at least plainly recognizes that a voluntary “Code of Practice” offers no real security or protection to principled opponents of WO. That is commendably honest. So far so good.
But this is still very far from calling unequivocally for past promises of such protection for the dissenting conservative minority to be kept and faithfully honored. It reminds me of 1 Cor. 14:8, “If the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?”
But then, of course, it’s clear that the bishop knows that there is going to be a pitched battle, and is seemingly trying to limit the casualties in advance. Is he hoping to play the role of something of a peacemaker, or is he just wanting to appear like one?
David Handy+
Even if Archbishop Williams gets his way over the structure of Lambeth 2008, he’s clearly not going to be able to avoid some painful scenes at General Synod.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
If anyone subscribes to the Church of England Newspaper, perhaps the full article behind this blurb from their website could be posted:[blockquote]MPs’ call on bishops
If the Church does not scrap its discriminatory laws against women, and allow them to become full Bishops, the Government will force them to, according to Labour and Conservative MPs. At a press conference hosted by Watch (Women and the Church) at Westminster Abbey last Monday, chair Christina Rees read a letter by Conservative MP Robert Key: “I can guarantee that if Synod sends us a Measure that discriminates against women and seeks legal exemption from our well-established law against discrimination it will certainly be challenged and probably rejected.[/blockquote]
Hmm – this is going to be an interesting synod. From what I’ve picked (and this is mostly third hand, so I am more than willing to concede to those better in the know than I am):
1) Rowan Williams does not want the single clause option, but the majority of bishops do. This I’ve heard a number of times – my guess is that, although he is in favour of women priests and (almost certainly, though I’ve never heard him on the subject) bishops, he is a fully-fledged Anglo-Catholic and knows that the High Church movement will be gutted (I mean properly left without innards) if the single clause option goes ahead.
2) There is quite a good hope that should the single clause option go ahead in this Synod, it will never get 2/3 support, which would mean it will be delayed until the next Synod where the traditionalists should have enough time to make a proper campaign out of it. (Okay, they’ve never done it before, but…)
3. Robert Key’s argument is interesting – Parliament cannot amend legislation that comes from General Synod. It can accept or reject it. Should the Labour Government seek to impose a secular agenda on the Church, I think there will be serious trouble ahead. It is not an option the Government would want to pursue.
And remember, for every Robert Key (liberal Conservative MP) there is a Sir Patrick Cormack (old school Conservative MP). I doubt very much Parliament would seek to impose itself in this way…
It should be an entertaining weekend, in a twisted sort of way.
[blockquote] Christina Rees read a letter by Conservative MP Robert Key: “I can guarantee that if Synod sends us a Measure that discriminates against women and seeks legal exemption from our well-established law against discrimination it will certainly be challenged and probably rejected.[/blockquote]
Even if WO is premitted by scripture this is just plain wrong. It’s no better than, ” I want what I want and I want if now and I can use the full bower of the secular state to impose it on God’s church I will!” However the ladies want to slice this it is not God’s way. I support WO, but if this is how you ladies want it then to **** with you.
The ghosts of Thomas Cromwell – and of Thomas Ken – walk again. Cromwell as the servant of King Henry VIII closed the monasteries in the 16th century; Ken faithful to his oath to James II and unable in conscience to accept Parliament’s demant to swear allegiance to King William and Queen Mary became a Nonjuror at the end of the 17th. Monastic life in the Church of England waited 300 years to be restored. Are we seeing 300+ years later a new nonjuror movement?
Tom (#7),
My hope is for something much larger and more radical than the non-juror movement. I’m thinking of GAFCON here, and not just resistance to WO. What I’m hoping for is nothing less than, you guessed it, “a New Reformation.” Thus going back not just 300 years, but all the way to Elizabeth’s time 450 years ago (I’m thinking the 1559 BCP here). And in some ways, much farther back yet, to the era of the pre-Constantinian church over 1500 years ago.
The nonjuror movement faded away after a generation, after the death of +Thomas Ken, Archbishop Sancroft etc. With the continual growth of Anglicanism in the Global South, this movement to restore orthodox doctrine and moral orthopraxis (right behavior) will endure a long time, I think. More importantly, it should triumph in the end. Much, much more is at stake now than in +Ken’s time.
Here’s another way of looking at it in terms of historical analogies. I once heard the late, great Canadian theologian Eugene Fairweather deliver a stimulating and provocative lecture on what he called “the three Anglican Counter Reformations.” Prof. Fairweather was referring to the Puritan movement of the 16th & 17th centuries, the Evangelical Revival of the 18th century, and the Catholic Revival of the 19th century. All were radical attempts to “unsettle” the Elizabethan Settlement in order to remake the CoE in drastic ways. All three eventually failed to take over the C of E and carry out “an extreme makeover.” Though all three certainly left their mark on Anglicanism.
I submit that what we are seeing emerge today is nothing less than what I like to call “the FOURTH Anglican Counter Reformation.” And I firmly believe that this one WILL SUCCEED. As +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted said so eloquently in Jordan two weeks ago, “the Reformation Settlement” is obsolete and has broken down. It will have to be replaced by what he called “a Global, Post-Colonial Settlement.”
To which I would add, and it must also be a “Post-Christendom” Settlement too. And for a thoroughly Erastian and Constantinian tradition like Anglicanism, that is not a matter of gradual, incremental, evolutionary change. That is drastic, sweeping, revolutionary change.
Time will tell. But that is my fond hope and earnest desire.
David Handy+
What you really want, David, is not a Reformation, but a Counter Reformation. The modern Ref. has already taken place and we have learned that this one is religious poison, slef-administered. We wish to RESTORE something, an ancient and elemental truth which has been attenuated and vitiated to the point of its death. But New CouinterReformation Advocate doesn’t sound quite so well, do it?
The Instauration Guy in the Boonies