A Telegraph Editorial: A Church divided

The word “historic” is too freely bandied about; but it is an accurate description of the vote of the General Synod of the Church of England to allow women bishops. It marks a decisive break with the Church’s Catholic roots, more so even than when it voted to ordain women priests in 1992, which led to the departure to Rome of many Anglo-Catholics.

The traditionalists who remained were protected by legal safeguards, allowing them to believe they remained a powerful voice in the Church. That pretence can no longer be sustained.

The Synod vote is an unequivocal, almost brutal, rejection of traditional Anglo-Catholicism and an embrace of a progressive approach to the full participation of women, who make up half of those in training for ordination. It will take years for the necessary legislation to be enacted and attempts will be made to assuage the concerns of those for whom women bishops remain an obstacle to full communion.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Provinces, Church of England (CoE)

8 comments on “A Telegraph Editorial: A Church divided

  1. libraryjim says:

    “Historic”? Perhaps “Infamous” would be a better word?

  2. Bernini says:

    [i]Further equivocation and navel-gazing would be a disaster for the Church.[/i]

    Yup. The time for “dialogue” and “listening” is over. The die is cast. The CoE has cracked in half, just like TEC. The only option those on the outside have is to consider where to go. What was once your home is no longer, and will not be ever again.

    For my part, once I made the decision to cross the Tiber, all was well. I have to wonder why I didn’t do it before.

  3. evan miller says:

    “Successfully negotiated”??? All negotiation was futile and accomplished absolutely nothing. +++Williams was completely ineffective. If he’s as “successful” at Lambeth, maybe something will actually be accomplished there despite it’s insultingly silly structure.

  4. r-storm says:

    I have always found it curious that reporting makes the mistake of assuming that Anglo-Catholics were ever a majority. Whenever Anglo-Catholics fail to get their way (which, admittedly, is ever increasingly the case) the reaction is that the world is falling apart and something completely new is happening. Newsflash folks: This has always been a predominately Protestant Church. It may have given great credence to the middle way or gave deference and the limelight to the Anglo-Catholics, but at its heart it has always been a Protestant Church and a rather sizable majority of would rebuke any attempt to label them anything but Protestant and certainly would cringe at being pinned as a catholic; Anglo, Roman or otherwise. In the US the Church was for a long time the Protestant Episcopal Church. It is regretable that a large number of folks are unhappy with what is going on, but they should be honest and admit was that their hopes were always to turn the Church to Rome; always willing to make concessions to the Pontiff but never to the majority of the Communion that is Protestant.

  5. dwstroudmd+ says:

    “Successfully negotiated” implies some sort of substantive action. Care to point to one taken by the ABC. Oh, I say, old chaps and chappettes, “rather more than less” protection for the AngloCatholicTrads is really my cup of weak tea – hardly cuts the mustard as action or leadership.

  6. Eugene says:

    I do not understand why everone is making a big deal of this recent decision of the Synod of CoE: the big change was in 1992 when women were allowed to be ordained as priests. I think the NT is clear that a priest (presbyter, elder) is of the same order as a Bishop (overseer). See Acts 20: 17 and 28; Titus 1:5 and 7).

  7. rob k says:

    No. 4 Anglo-Catholics have always hoped for the reunion of all Christians, not just Protestant Christians. You may not like it, but in the Reformation the CofE kept the Catholic infrastructure of the Church (the apostolic ministry) despite the efforts of many to expunge it or deny it. If that hadn’t happened then it would have prpbably just another body. Protestant, that is, as we understand it now, not 450 years ago.
    C

  8. Peter dH says:

    #6 Theologically, you are absolutely correct. The decision was made in 1992 and there’s nothing new under the sun. In terms of church order, you aren’t. So far you could basically simply ignore what happened in the parish next door. However, as soon as the female vicar next door is promoted to the episcopate with oversight over you, questions of authority and gender suddenly become impossible to ignore.

    That is what our traditional Anglo-Catholic and conservative evangelical brothers and sisters(!) are struggling with. Myself, though I have always been in favour of women’s ordination (WO): I am appalled at the way things have been handled at Synod. Given the strident nature of some of those who pursue WO, and the wider agenda that often seems to come with it, it seems to me that the general distrust of a “code of practice” is justified. It’s a theologically muddled solution anyway.

    The disturbing thing is that as a consequence I find myself now wondering whether this whole move is, indeed, of God at all. Maybe it’s time for me to return to prayer and the theological drawing board and re-evaluate matters thoroughly.