In the last few days I have had reason to blog rather a lot on the subject of collegiality (click on the ‘label’ tag below for a list). As pointed out in my last post, however, this is no small matter.
Perhaps the most definitive document for the Church of England on the subject so far states that,
Episcopal collegiality exists to ensure the Church’s fidelity to the apostolic teaching and mission and to maintain the local church/diocese in fellowship – in communion – with the Church around the world today and the Church throughout the ages. (Bishops in Communion: Collegiality in the Service of the Koinonia of the Church [London: Church House Pub., 2000] 38)
Notice, being ‘in communion’ here does not mean ‘receiving the sacraments together’. That kind of ‘lowest common denominator’ approach is sometimes invoked, but according to Article XXVI of the Thirty-nine Articles, you can be ‘in communion’ in that sense with an evil minister who deserves to be deposed.
Rather, as the title of the above booklet suggests, ‘communion’ refers to the koinonia of ‘fellowship in the gospel’ – what the booklet calls the “apostolic teaching and mission”.
Furthermore, since faith, and therefore salvation , comes by hearing the word of God, collegiality is not about maintaining good manners amongst clergy but achieving what is often called the missio dei – the mission of God to the world.
And this is why the prevailing practice of ‘episcopal collegiality’, identified and largely condoned in the booklet, of bishops being free to dispute even quite fundamental doctrines, is such a serious matter.
As a result, it would seem that nothing short of ‘entryism’ is now taking place with regard to issues of marriage and sexuality. Indeed, we could find ourselves in the frankly ridiculous situation where the bishops of the Church of England are all theoretically ‘upholding’ what the Bishop of Salisbury deems the ‘current understanding’ of marriage, even whilst none of them actually believes in it personally.
It helpful, therefore, to remind ourselves that collegiality works vertically as well as horizontally. That is to say (as the same booklet briefly acknowledges), a ‘collegiality’ also exists between presbyters and the diocesan bishop.
The influential sixteenth century theologian, Richard Hooker, was a keen advocate of bishops, seeing them literally as God’s gift to the Church. Yet he was no believer in ‘my bishop, right or wrong’. Rather, in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, he sounded this cogent, if rather long and convoluted, warning:
... bishops, albeit they may avouch with conformity of truth that their authority hath thus descended even from the very apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any command of the Lord doth enjoin; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away, if thereunto she be constrained through the proud, tyrannical, and unreformable dealings of her bishops, whose regiment she hath thus long delighted in, because she hath found it good and requisite to be so governed. Wherefore lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them. (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, VII.v.8, emphasis mine)
The approach advocated in Bishops in Communion is that bishops must be free to act on individual conscience, even to the extent of disagreeing with established understandings, without this breaching their collective collegiality.
They ought not to be surprised, however, to find that this does not apply to their collegiality with their presbyters. And there is a simple reason for this.
In the Church of England, presbyters differ from bishops in the very important regard that most presbyters are responsible for pastoring a segment of the Church through the weekly teaching of the word of God. Bishops are not.
Thus, although the bishop may have a ‘go anywhere’ expectation and ministry, the presbyter will not – and must not – have an ‘invite anyone’ attitude. Who gets to preach is a very important consideration in parish life because weekly preaching is one of the key means by which the sheep are fed.
Whilst it may therefore be possible for episcopal colleagues in the same diocese to disagree amicably about fundamentals, it is not so easy for presbyters to accommodate the ‘breadth’ of views. Parish ministry includes the pulpit, and in the pulpit one ceases to be a teacher in theory and becomes one in practice.
Furthermore, to be admitted to the pulpit is, in some sense, an endorsement of the person. Article XIX defines the Church as a congregation ... in the which the pure Word of God is preached”. We are this right to be careful whom we admit as preachers. And this brings up back to the issue of koinonia and collegiality.
Collegiality is designed to preserve koinonia with the Apostolic teaching and mission. Thus the boundary of collegiality is reached when the Apostolic teaching and mission is threatened and koinonia is thus breached.
But as Hooker points out, bishops cannot ignore their presbyters in this regard, and presbyters are not under obligation to remain in submission to their bishops “in what sort soever they behave themselves”.
Yet the Bishop of Salisbury described his recent meeting with a delegation of his ‘presbyters’ as “open and robust” – and we can all guess what that means, especially when he acknowledges that one of the issues he faces with them is “profound disagreement about the definition of marriage”.
By any measure, therefore, the vertical dimension of collegiality in the diocese of Salisbury has been put under considerable strain. And we may reasonably ask whether the same is not about to happen regarding the appointment as Bishop of Croydon of a man with similar views to the Bishop of Salilsbury.
What those involved in these appointments ought to note is that whilst they may assume that horizontal bishop-to-bishop collegiality remains intact, vertical, presbyter-to-bishop collegiality may well be broken.
For this is not simply a matter of private judgement. The new bishops are consciously and deliberately in disagreement with, and prior to their appointment have been actively opposing, the established teaching of the Church.
Any presbyters who uphold the ‘current understanding’ of marriage are not setting themselves up against the bishop – rather the reverse. And if collegiality with him is therefore broken, it is the bishop who broke it.
What these presbyters then decide to do is problematic in the present circumstances. That they would be entitled to do something, however, would seem to have the tacit support of at least Richard Hooker.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend: 
John - is this issue simply to do with what a bishop thinks about the issues of sexuality? Collegiality goes much wider than that, even though you don't seem to want to acknowledge it. For many years some bishops have themselves presided over services of Benediction, even though priests in their diocese have considerable reservations about the matter, and the 39 articles are pretty clear about it. Why has no one raised the issue of collegiality between bishops and priests with respect to this?
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, there are a number of Evangelical Churches about the place where the ordained ministers do not dress in a way prescribed in the Canons. The bishop and archdeacon are aware and simply ignore it. What does that say for collegiality with other clergy in he diocese who do take the Canons seriously?
Collegiality is not just about sexuality. Because that is the only context in which you raise it, or will discuss it, it is difficult to see that you are really interested in Collegiality. it seems that just want to focus on sexuality and the bishop of Salisbury. (I still don't think you have written to him directly about the matter and would advise your doing so - but that is another matter from the one you are attempting to address here).
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andrew, as you will know, the issue of Benediction was raised vigorously in the nineteenth century. The resolution the Church reached on that was a great disappointment to the evangelical party, and explains a lot about their subsequent attitude to bishops, which has had unfortunate implications for the mission of the Church.
ReplyDeleteOn dress, this is not a matter of doctrine, and there is also a certain amount of desuetude. However, if a bishop gives a direction in such a matter, then it ought to be obeyed (following the principles of Article XXXIV, 'Of the Traditions of the Church'). That is not to say, of course, that there cannot be further dialogue, given the fact that this is only established by "diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word."
However, whereas Scripture is silent on the matter of robes, it is quite forthright on the matter of marriage (eg Hebrews 13:4).
As a rider to my last comment, I grew up in a relatively traditionalist Anglo-Catholic church and so I know from the inside (altar-server, crucifer, etc) what that is like.
ReplyDeleteI also know what is was like when the same church began to slip into 'Southwark liberalism' in the late 1960s.
I was, however, roundly and soundly converted through the auspices of my University Christian Union, at which point two things became clear.
First, a lot of what my home church had taught me to do tended to generate superstition. An anxious child will not be helped overcome his anxieties if there is some vague but definite problem created by not genuflecting at the right time or in the right place. A lot of adults, I think, have the same problem.
Secondly, the real failure of my home church in the early years was that although they believed the Creeds (eg regarding the real virginity of the Virgin Mary), they did not know how to preach the gospel. Thus as an 'enquirer' in my early teens I was not told how to find what I was seeking. That had to wait until University.
Following my conversion, however, I did not leave the congregation -- I just stopped doing all the 'superstitious' stuff. When a visiting friend of mine refused to receive communion there because what was done with it implied transubstantiation (and I think it rather did) I didn't refuse, because I knew transubstantiation didn't happen.
However, as the same church became increasingly liberal, so it became increasingly difficult to participate. One could overlook the superstition, but the denial of the Creeds and the endorsement of un-Christian sexual morality in particular made that impossible.
Personally, therefore, though I feel uncomfortable around aumbrey lights, statues, excessiveness of candles etc, for the sake of other people, I grew up with this stuff and learned to ignore it and would encourage them to do the same. Immorality, however, is quite another matter.
I wish I could read this post as anything other than very divisive and rather self righteous, but I can't. The way that you write anglo catholics/roman catholics/orthodox off as 'superstitious' and their practices as better ignored is truly worrying John and I'd encourage you to re-think it for the sake of Christian Unity.
DeleteAndrew Godsall
Which is wonderfully ironic given your attitude to orthodoxy.
DeleteHi
ReplyDeleteAgain whilst often enjoying the endless back and forth between you both, and usually being in favour of John's argument, I still struggle to see how John you answer Andrew's point about Benediction. If your argument is that collegiality maintains the apostolic faith of the church, which again is not actually an Anglican argument as far as I can trace it rather an RC/Orthodox one, then any breach of the churches doctrine by a bishop is to breach collegiality.
Therefore whilst I strongly disagree with the Bishop's statement, I struggle to see why on grounds of collegiality it should bother me more than the practice of something like benediction which according to the articles and protestant basis of the church is idolatry. It rather reminds me of the problem with GAFCON/FCA where we are told it's all about sexuality whilst it's clear that other matters of doctrine and the church are disputed. Andrew, though respectfully I disagree with the vast majority of his posts, is right to come back to the issue. Either collegiality includes the doctrine of the church or it does not, on the basis of the argument simply of collegiality immorality and false doctrine must go together.
Paul Devon
So if the Church reaches a resolution which is different from the 39 articles that is ok? (You are saying that is what happened with Benediction.) So if the Church comes to a resolution, even if some groups don't much care for it, then things will be ok?
ReplyDeleteAndrew Godsall
I think I would say groups within the church have decided for themselves it's ok despite what the formularies say, and those who don't like it don't really have the power to do anything about it. This is why collegiality in the cofe can't work, you need to have a fixed doctrine and disciplinary action which is followed everytime when you teach against it. Hence in the Orthodox churches to publicly go against the doctrine of the church will see you deposed very quickly, might I say in the anglican church it often results in promotion!
ReplyDeletePaul Devon
Andrew, you seem to be saying we should all just accept what is being said about sexuality, because there's so much variety in the Church of England on other matters.
ReplyDeleteThat's not quite what I'm saying John. I'm saying that there is a debate to be had about sexuality, and we have never had it. It might seem like we have been talking about it endlessly, but by and large it seems to have been a dialogue of the deaf. The debate won't be over quickly - it's not a three hour debate in General Synod. It's going to be a conversation that takes years. The Bishop of Salisbury is right to point up the need for it and I know at least some of his colleagues who totally agree with the need for a conversation.
ReplyDeleteOne of the strengths of the Anglican Church is its variety. If you don't want variety, then there are other churches that don't offer it - as Paul says, the Orthodox are probably better suited to if you want a hard and straight line.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
The appointment of Jonathan Clark as bishop of Croydon is a bad sign of more trouble to come in Southwark.
ReplyDeleteClark was raised as an evangelical and studied under George Carey but he adopted liberal catholicism and rose in those ranks.
His predecessor Nick Baines, himself raised as an evangelical but now a liberal, had a testy, even cross relationship with evangelicals in Southwark, where Nick was always talking up Tom Butler. Now things will get worse.
Mark B., W. Kent
May I respectfully suggest Mr Richardson wishes the Church simply to uphold Traditional Marriage. End of conversation.
ReplyDeleteYes, but trying to invoke collegiality as a reason that a bishop cannot come out against it just doesn't for me work in the CofE, and to spare Andrew making his point again, a vast number of clergy and bishops think the conversation is not over.
ReplyDeleteI may well disagree with them but the current state of play where blessings happen on a regular basis but are hidden does no-one justice. Either it is acceptable or not, either the church authorise it or disciplinary action is taken against those performing, and to get to that point we need a serious debate aside from the boring shouting at each other
Paul Devon
Adnrew and Paul, I guess the question I would like answered is this: when and how do these 'conversations' ever come to an end? And can an individual ever decide they are, too all intents and purposes, settled?
ReplyDeleteObviously we can always entertain 'philosophical' doubt - the admission that since we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, we may always be wrong about something. But functionally we have to assume some things to be settled.
Fruthermore, if one person wants to open a 'conversation' do the others have to join in? There is a widespread report in the news today of a proposal that neonates can be killed in the same way that foetuses can be aborted. The BMJ is quoted as saying, "the publication's role is to present well-reasoned arguments, rather than promote one particular moral view". Must we regard the question as now open until the arguments have been refuted?
Hi John
ReplyDeleteI don't think we can see any sign of the conversation coming to an end until it has actually started. The fact that you are not keen for one Bishop to even begin the conversation is an indication of how difficult it is going to be to have it more widely at all. But I am sure we can't avoid it.
I am sure individuals can decide that a conversation is settled. But that is simply as an individual. That is why I kept pressing you on the issue of Benediction. It looks like it is settled if you read the 39 Articles. Yet, as you yourself say, the conversation about that was re-opened in the 19th Century. The C of E is the kind of Church in which questions simply will be re-opened, and may always remain open. That is why some of us value it so highly.
Once again - thank you for your collegiality in allowing different perspectives to be aired here.
Andrew Godsall
Hi,
ReplyDeletedrawing a middle line i would say the conversation has started in the sense of the various consultations currently going on regarding sexuality in the church. Also I think Andrew you are confusing the difference between a conversation and practice, so in Benediction individuals and a movement within the church decided not to re-start a conversation, they actually decided to do it regardless of what others said and we then through lack of discipline allowed that to become mainstream in the Anglo-Catholic wing. In many ways that is my problem now, not that we should be afraid to ask the question again, that for me is the basis of the Reformation that everything can be asked and re-examined, but that we are talking about a practice already occurring that there is no clear decision on.
Also in the GS report I referred to earlier there is an article on collegiality that includes General Synod in the mix. I don't actually think conversations ever really end, that is the case in all streams of Christianity and very frequently in evangelical circles, but that an action can be declared unacceptable and then not allowed to continue. Is this not a statement by the House of Bishops and a vote by General Synod in the CofE, followed by discipline by the individual Bishop? That does not end the possibility of questioning the decision, or indeed end the conversation, but it should end it actually happening in Church of England churches or action by individual clergy,
Paul Devon
Andrew, all this seems to be saying is that anyone can try to start a 'conversation' about anything, but that no one is obliged to join in.
ReplyDeleteThank Paul - I thin your distinction is helpful. I think there is a concern when any one 'party' can push their agenda to the point that others feel uncomfortable. Benediction is one example. The provision of 'Flying Bishops' I would say is another. It is an appalling bit of ecclesiology that should have no place in the body of Christ.
ReplyDeleteI think it is worth noting that the House of Bishops pastoral statement about civil partnerships does allow for a 'pastoral service' for a couple who wish for that. The Southwark Cathedral web site is clear about what it can and can't offer, for example.
John - I think it has to do with momentum. I don't sense any momentum in the C of E for a conversation about any articles of the creed. Individual groups (like the sea of faith) might raise their heads but in general there is no will for a sustained conversation. But there clearly is the will for one about human sexuality. No one is obliged to join in. But that would not stop it taking place.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
"The provision of 'Flying Bishops' I would say is another. It is an appalling bit of ecclesiology that should have no place in the body of Christ."
ReplyDeleteWhy? If parishioners and clergy cannot for reasons of conscience accept the imposition of liberal bishops on them, isn't a flying bishop much much better than they seeking episcopal oversight from outside the province?
Its hardly a new issue: In 1998, Jesmond Parish Church and St Oswald's Walkergate told the incoming Bishop of Newcastle that they could not accept his episcopal authority and ministry. Their reason was a good one - he had in effect taught that homosexual practice within loving permanent relationships was not sin, during his previous post as a suffragan in Southwark.
As you have written in a slightly different context, this is a conversation that has never been had, and it won't be over for a long time. So surely provision has to be made in the meantime?
Just to take my previous point a little further, it seems to me that Canon Andrew must be right about this:
ReplyDelete"I think there is a concern when any one 'party' can push their agenda to the point that others feel uncomfortable."
That would apply to those who 'feel uncomfortable' about accepting the ministry of women priests and bishops, would it not? And even more, to those who don't just feel uncomfortable about it, but cannot in good conscience ever accept it.
And to those who 'feel uncomfortable' about being forced to perform 'same sex blessings' when they believe that God has taught clearly that such relationships cannot be blessed?
Hi Michael
ReplyDeleteThe provision of flying bishops is quite a different issue to someone not liking a liberal bishop. Flying bishops are in place simply to minister to parishes who don't like their own bishop because of what he may or may not have done or said over the issue of women priests. Evangelicals are notoriously divided over that issue and it is certainly not about being 'liberal'.
Who is being forced to perform same sex blessings? I wasn't aware that being forced to do something was even being proposed. Please tell me where it is being forced in the C of E.
All this is far removed from the bishoo of Salisbury opening up a conversation that is going on already in any case.
The only thing, ultimately, for places like Jesmond to do is what Christ Church, Wyre Forest in Kidderminster did - to leave the C of E. They seem happy to have done so.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
As an Evangelical under a flying Bishop I am afraid Andrew Godsall entirely misrepresents the situation regarding flying bishops. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your bishop and to speak in this way trivialsies the debate and shows an astonishing lack of theologic seriousness. Bishops who ordain female presbyters know that when they do so the unity of their diocese is fractured. The reason that it is fractured is because such bishops insist in introducing into their dioceses clergy whose orders are not recognised by the whole diocese or the whole college of presbyters. Thus, the Bishop, by his actions introduces division into his college of presbyters and the diocese suffers as a result. In the face of such an attack on the unity of the diocese and in a period of reception it is entirely appropriate that clergy are free to congregate around a bishop who is better able to speak for the mind of the whole Church; as the whole Church (and by this I mean the world wide universal church as well as the Apostolic Church of the past) is by no means convinced that the ordination of female presbyters and bishops is consonant with scripture and the teaching of the ancient fathers whereas all are agreed that men can be ordained presbyter and bishop.
ReplyDelete"Bishops who ordain female presbyters know that when they do so the unity of their diocese is fractured."
ReplyDeleteReally? So why is it that every diocese in the C of E (some of which are growing in every sense of that word) ordains women and that as many or more women were ordained as men last year? Why are bishops doing this if they know it is causing such fracture Nigel? Who is holding a gun to their head to make them do it?
Any why do the majority of anglican provinces ordain women?
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Your response is no response Andrew. It matters not a jot on the numbers ordained. The problem is that the the whole Church including the Church of England is not agreed that women can be presbyters. Thus in every diocese in the CofE where women are ordained the simple fact of the matter is that her orders are not accepted across the whole diocese. This I repeat is an act of schism.
ReplyDeleteNigel
ReplyDeleteBy no means ewveryone was agreed that the English Reformation was the right way forward and it was a schismatic act wasn't it? (Especially so far as Roman Catholics are concerned, whom you now seem to be appealing to as correct in their views about the ordination of women).
If we accept your view, it is necessary to say that the great majority of our bishops are schismatics. That then begs the question as to why you would want to remain in a church in which you regard almost all the bishops as schismatic.
The C of E and the majority of Anglican Provinces have ordained women Nigel. There is no way they are going to unordain them. Those who can't receive this decision are very welcome to remain within the Anglican family but it is they who are the schismatic ones, refusing, as they do, to accept the theology of their own Church.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andrew why is you view of the Church so parochial? First of all the theology of the Church of England is not necessarily the theology of THE church. And therefore the Church of England has no authority to force acceptance of an innovation that those who are opposed can find no warrant in either Scripture or Tradition. To do so would be to submit to tyranny. Secondly at present the Church of England does not force us to accept female presbyteral ordination so I am not rejecting the teaching of my Church as the C of E as yet has not elevated this innovation to the level of a doctrine. Thirdly you have not answered my objection. To repeat (please answer this in your reply) explain to me how a bishop by ordaining female presbyters into his diocese, when he knows those orders are contested and will fracture the unity of his diocese can avoid the charge of no longer acting for the whole church and is therefore the source of division. I am (once again) underwhelmed by your weak appeal to the "great majority". This is a matter of doctrine not of numbers. Fourthly the Reformation could never be regarded as schismatic as it was appealing 1) to Scripture and 2) to the unwavering consensus to the early church. So it was an appeal back to Apostolic times. The Magisterial Reformers objected to the innovations introduce by Rome. Nigel
ReplyDeleteNigel
ReplyDeleteIt is not a matter of doctrine or faith but of order. Those arguments about the ordination of women to the priesthood were settled by the C of E and by many other anglican provinces a long time ago. No need to rehearse all the arguments again. Your objection was dealt with then. if you can't live with the answer to it, I am sorry but I believe (as do the majority) that the right decision was made. So do many evangelicals.
Andrew Godsall
Andrew here is the nub of the disagreement. When a matter of order flouts the authority of scripture it ceases to be a matter or order but of doctrine. Further the Church of England still has not settled the question of the ordination of women to the presbyterate as it is still an open question as to wether this innovation has been received. You keep on referring to current voting majorities as if this in any way settles a doctrinal argument. I note (despite several pleas on my part) that you have still not answered the question as to how a bishop is to be regarded if he introduces a contested ministry into the heart of his diocese. He certainly cannot be said to be upholding the unity of the Church. Nigel
ReplyDeleteNigel
ReplyDeleteEvangelicals are not agreed that ordaining women flouts the order of scripture.
I think you and I disagree about how a bishop who ordains women is to be regarded. I regard them as responding to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and acknowledging what God is doing in calling people to ministry. You regard them as flouting scriptural authority. I don't think there is any other answer to offer you. We simply disagree. As I have said, if we accept your view, (which the C of E in its theology does not) it is necessary to say that the great majority of our bishops are schismatics. That then begs the question as to why you would want to remain in a church in which you regard almost all the bishops as schismatic. I presume it can't give you that much of a problem if you have remained since 1992 or been ordained since then.
Andrew Godsall
Thanks Andrew. You begin with a blanket statement that is not true. You should say "some evangelicals do not think that ordaining women flouts the authority of scripture". Others clearly do. But the point is this. You and I clearly disagree. But where do we agree?? We are both agreed that men can be ordained presbyters. In fact we are all agreed on this. In fact the whole CofE is agreed on this!! We are not agreed that women can be thus ordained.Clearly then if a bishop breaks with the consensus of his college of presbyters and with the consensus of his church he is clearly and unambigously breaking the unity of his diocese and of his church. You call that the leading of the Holy Spirit. On what grounds do you call that the leading of the Spirit? Majority vote?? That is thin theological ice you are skating on. I would rather call that disobedience. And why should these bishops claim that they are responding to the prompting of the Spirit? Do they have an access to the Spirit that I do not have? Why do I not have the same "prompting"? Moreover I have always regarded myself as a loyal son of the CofE!! Where exactly does the CofE's theology differ from mine? I would love to know as up until now I have always presumed myself to be a loyal Anglican and no one has ever called me anything but. In fact I have been called a faithful anglican a number of times even in the Church's official documents. You ask why have I not left?? I have not left because as yet the CofE does not demand I accept the innovation. Even if it did demand it I would still not accept the innovation and then be in open rebellion to the Church's teaching but I would still stay and argue my corner and try and bring the Church back to a sane mind and I would stay until driven out. Is this not what the Reformers did? Yours Nigel
ReplyDelete"Clearly then if a bishop breaks with the consensus of his college of presbyters and with the consensus of his church he is clearly and unambigously breaking the unity of his diocese and of his church."
ReplyDeleteThe consensus of the college of C of E priests and bishops, and the consensus of the C of E is clear. That's why almost all the bishops in the C of E ordain women Nigel. It's the collegial thing to do, both vertically and horizontally.
The Church of England's teaching is that women can be ordained Priest. You don't have to receive that teaching - we are that kind of church. but the teaching is very clear.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Perhaps I could throw in a reminder here that, according to the CofE's understanding of collegiality, "Consensus does not necessarily man coming to a single opinion."
ReplyDeleteThe consensus of the Church of England is that it has NOT decided, decisively (as it were) that women's ordination MUST be accepted.
Again Andrew you have a woefully parochial view of the Church of England!! You seem to think that the Church of England is the Church. How can the Church of England take something it inherited and did not invent or confect and claim the authority to change it by vote in a provincial synod?? Also Andrew if the consensus is that clear why are we having all these debates in synod regarding female bishops and codes of practise?? And if the Church of England is that clear why does it allow priests and parishes to reject the ministry of female clergy?? Please also explain why I am not as spirit filled as the majority of Bishops of the Church of England? Further you will know full well that whenever female priests are ordained in your local cathedral that that is not an action of the whole diocese as there are a number of clergy in the diocese who reject their ministry. You write that the bishops are "responding to the prompting of the Holy Spirit". The prompting of the Spirit leading to division?? I have my doubts.
ReplyDeleteJohn:
ReplyDeleteThe Church of England decided in 1992 that women's ordination to the priesthood would happen and has simply made provision for those who can't accept the development.
Nigel:
I think the Church of England is one branch of the Church - and it is the one you and i and many hundreds of women have been called to be priests in.
I am sure you are as spirit filled as any bishop Nigel. who said you were not?
Our bishops act on behalf of the whole diocese. I am privileged to go to many ordinations. When the bishops ask the question at an ordination 'Is it now your will that they should be ordained?' I have never heard anyone say 'No it isn't'....So I see no evidence of division.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andrew, correction. "The Church of England decided in 1992 that women's ordination to the priesthood would happen" BUT recognized that this issue was not settled. That it is still not settled is clearly evidenced by the provisions (albeit grudging on the part of some) "for those who can't accept the development."
ReplyDeleteThanks Andrew. You should understand that those opposed would not necessarily come to the service in the first place and secondly if they did they would be polite enough not to interrupt. Are you honestly saying that because that does not happen there are not significant numbers of clergy and laity in your diocese who are opposed?? You know that is not the case and it seems as if you are being disingenuous. So I repeat. I think you a very, very aware that when these ordinations take place in the Cathedral it is not an action of the whole Church (as it would be if only men were ordained) and that significant numbers of clergy and laity dissent. I agree that the CofE is one branch of the whole tree. But by what authority does one branch unilaterally change that which belongs to all? You were the one who that claimed that the bishops who ordained female presbyters were following the promptings of the Spirit. My question then was how come all of us do not have the same prompting?? Or is the Spirit only given to those select few?
ReplyDeleteNigel
ReplyDeleteIt would not be an action of the whole church if only men were ordained. The consensus is that both men and women should be ordained. To only ordain men in the C of E would be to deny the will of the church.
I dont know why you don't have the same prompting of the spirit that the great majority of our bishops have. All I know is that they have such a prompting.
I think if you have such strong objections you need to be honest rather than polite and express your objections in response to the question the bishop puts at an ordination. He doesn't just ask it for fun.
Andrew Godsall
The consensus where Andrew?? It is not even the consensus in the Church of England at the moment as you know. For you know very well that when the Bishops of the diocese ordain women presbyters there are other presbyters in the college of presbyters who reject their orders. So I put it once again: how do your bishops act for the whole Church when in ordaining women they are only acting for the part of the Church that agrees with them? How on earth is that a consensus?? Now if only men were ordained (as I have said ad nauseam) everyone is agreed on question. Even the female presbyters are agreed on that as male presbyteral ordination is not the question in dispute. There is consensus here. The question that is still in dispute is whether women can be presbyters. There is no consensus here. I note you have not answered the ecclesiological question about the part taking what belongs to the whole and by a vote in a provincial synod presumptuously altering it. I note also that you have dodged the pnuematological question lamely saying that you know the bishops have the spirit but don't know why others don't. How do you know they have the spirit? If they do have the Spirit do those opposed have it?? If so is the Spirit contradicting himself?? I should perhaps go to every ordination and object but if I did it once I would be barred from ever attending another ordination again. I am very public about my views and everybody knows them but you know very well that such a display at an ordination would not be welcomed. But to close: Are you honestly telling me that you thought everyone in the diocese was in favour of the innovation because they did not object at an ordination service?
ReplyDeleteNigel
ReplyDeleteNo intention to dodge questions. But time is limited and you ask a lot of them. Some I have answered before, but find you don't like the answers.
The ecclesiological question: the C of E has concluded after years of discussion that its life is ordered by a mix of decisions/advice within the House of Bishops - bishops having a role in teaching - and the decision of its provincial synod. Since the mid 1970s those two bodies have consistently concluded by consensus that there are no theological objections to the ordination of women. Some people do not accept or welcome this decision, but it has been taken carefully and legally. Provision has been made for those who did not wish to accept this development but numbers are small. Less than 10% of parishes in this diocese take advantage of alternative episcopal oversight. In some dioceses no parishes do so.
The pneumatological question: how do I know the spirit works through the bishops who ordain? I see the fruits of the spirit in their work. St Paul taught us to look for those fruits.
I am sure you have the gift of the spirit. But we also know that spirit gives different gifts to different people. I don't know you, so I do not know what your gifts are. But I know God gives them to you, as God does to each of us.
Tell me why you would be barred from voicing your objections if you attended an ordination? And why do people not raise any objections at that crucial question in the service if, as you claim, so many people hold these objections?
Apols if I missed any questions. Time is short. Off to church. Pray for me as I pray for you.
Andrew Godsall
Thanks Andrew. I have prayed for you and will continue to do so. But I still feel that you are missing the central thrust of what i have been saying. Has the whole (and by this I do not just mean the CofE) Church accepted that men can be priests. Yes. Has the whole Church (including the Church of England) accepted that women can be priests? No. Thus the Church is divided over female presbyteral orders. It is here the division occurs. Those who pursue this divisive action cannot be said to be pursuing the peace of the Church. Please show me where my logic is wrong. Nigel
ReplyDeleteThanks Nigel. Your logic is not wrong IF you believe that 100% of the people in every branch of the church have to agree before any change is made to anything. The Church does not take that view. Hence we have divisions.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the RC Church and the Orthodox Churches do not recognise that you and I are priests at all. So there is a division there. They do not recognise our sacrament of holy communion as a valid sacrament. So there is a division there.
But please do tell me why you would be barred from voicing your objections if you attended an ordination? And why do people not raise any objections at that crucial question in the service if, as you claim, so many people hold these objections?
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Nigel, like Andrew, I'm puzzled by your references to the 'world-wide Church universal' as support for your arguments when there is no common understanding in that body of the nature and function of the priesthood itself. Similarly, there is no common understanding of whether priests should remain celibate, of what happens during the Eucharist and a host of other matters. Anglican orders are not accepted as valid by most of the world-wide Church universal so where does that leave you? You seem to seize on gender as the common factor and ignore the much more fundamental question of the nature of the thing.
ReplyDeleteEven the opposition to women's ordination in the 'parochial' Church of England is divided. Evangelicals differ in their reasoning from the Anglo-Catholic wing because of totally different views of priesthood.
Speaking as one who supports women's ordination but is lukewarm about women bishops because it is so divisive and only ever likely to involve a small number of women just as it currently involves only a small number of men, I support proper provision for those who cannot accept episcopal oversight from a woman. The problem. however, is that it is practically impossible to maintain two integrities for any length of time because of the lack of agreement over the nature of the priesthood.
To say that "I cannot accept oversight from a woman bishop" is a stance that can be accomodated whereas saying that "I cannot accept oversight from a woman bishop and I do not recognise as valid the orders of anyone who has been ordained by one" is an entirely different matter. It IS unresonsable to expect clergy to come with 'pedigrees'. Fern Winter, London
Thanks Andrew Thanks Fern. I do not necessarily believe that 100% of the folk have to agree before "any change is made to anything". But you miss, I fear, the significance of what happens when the Orders of the Church are not interchangeable. This is due to the fact that the Ministry exists in order to promote the unity of the Church. Calvin claimed that the Ministry exists as a "principal bond by which believers are held together in a single body" (cf 1 Corinthians ff). This insight is so crucial it is enshrined in one of the major legal and theological sinews of the CofE namely Canon A4 (please go and read it). THUS although there are deep seated theological differences between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals these never resulted in one side claiming that the others were not clergy at all!! For despite differences in other areas both sides still acknolwedged each others Orders.However in the dispute in hand Bishops who ordain women presbyters are introducing a class of presbyters/priests whose orders are not recognised by a significant section of the college of presbyters in each diocese. In other words they are introducing a class of priests who are not deemed to be presbyter/priests at all. Now this is breaks the unity of the diocese in one fell stroke as the ministry is fractured and it creates (what Rowan Williams has called in connection with the Jeffrey John debacle) a massive "ecclesiological deficit". Thus, Fern, this goes deeper than the debates of whether one is a protestant presbyter or a catholic priest which is why the CofE was able to accommodate the rise of Anglo Catholicism (with no need of Acts of Synods or Codes of Practices) as there still existed the mutual recognition of orders. When I appeal to the universal church all I am saying here is that from earliest times only men were presbyters/bishops. This was the unyielding, unwavering position of the Church as it was only the schismatic sects (such as the Montanists who felt that the Holy Spirit was prompting them to do something new and who purported to have female priests). Just briefly Fern it is completely illogical to have female priests and to bar them from the Episcopate. Andrew, the fact that the RC's do not recognise our orders has nothing to do with the current debate. I believe the Orthodox currently do although are in the process of reassessing that judgement in the light of our innovations. You are right Andrew. No doubt I could pitch up and voice my objections. But that would give me brief intense exposure and I would not be allowed to voice my objection the following year. It would also cause great distress and anxiety to all present and is probably not a wise Christian response. But let me ask you. Is the fact that there is no yearly objection the reason why you hold that there is no opposition? Thanks to both. Nigel
ReplyDeleteDear Nigel
ReplyDeleteYou asked:
"But let me ask you. Is the fact that there is no yearly objection the reason why you hold that there is no opposition?"
I did in fact make it plain a few posts ago that I know there is opposition. I even gave an indication of the level of that opposition - small, less than 10%.
What I think the lack of yearly objections indicates is that the 'opposition' realise what the consensus is. The resounding answer of 'It is' to the question by the bishop also indicates the will of the people. That would be the will of God's people.
You then say:
"No doubt I could pitch up and voice my objections. But that would give me brief intense exposure and I would not be allowed to voice my objection the following year. It would also cause great distress and anxiety to all present and is probably not a wise Christian response."
Basically you are admitting that your cause is lost, and that actually standing up to object would not be the collegiate thing to do. For which I offer respect.
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andew, I fail to see the logic of your latest reply to Nigel.
ReplyDeleteHe gives as his reason for not voicing an objection every year to the ordination of women that it would cause great distress - the same reason I would give.
You reply "Basically you are admitting that your cause is lost, and that actually standing up to object would not be the collegiate thing to do."
No, he isn't. Nor do his actions or his reasons imply that.
To paraphrase the line from Jerry Maguire, "Show me the logic!"
Andrew, once more you seem to be working with a very parochial "little englander" a-theological view of the Church of England which would make Hooker et all spin and turn in their collective graves. Please bear in mind that according to the CofE's own articulated view of the presbyteral ordination of women this can never have been said to have been received if it is just received by the CofE; in other words if opposition to this innovation in the CofE was finally crushed. Furthermore as Hooker pointed out (in another context) even if Rome, Orthodoxy, Presbyterianism, and everybody else all agreed that female presbyteral ordination was a good thing what would that prove?? It would merely and only prove that they have the fleeting arbitary consensus of the moment but not the consensus of the ages. BTW way do you still think that a bishop who ordains into his college of priests priests who are deemed not to be priests by his other priests is still in all honesty a focus of unity in the diocese?
ReplyDeleteDear Nigel and John
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me why standing up and raising your objections at an ordination service would cause great distress? That might get us to heart of the matter.
Andrew
Andrew, it surely doesn't need explaining does it? Think of when you've seen, or heard of, services and special occasions being interrupted.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, show me the logic!
Yes John. It needs explaining. I am utterly at a loss to know why you don't object. The bishop asks a very clear question to the congregation, indeed to the diocese: 'Is it now your will that they should be ordained?' Is he just asking this question for fun? Does it have no real meaning? Nigel is claiming that to go ahead and ordain would be so dangerous as to fracture the unity of the Church. Surely no one wants to do that? You have the power to stop that happening by objecting when the bishops asks if it is your will.
ReplyDeleteSo spell it out for us. Tell us why you don't object. The I can show you the logic.
Andrew
Andrew, if you can't work it out then I can't explain it to you. I do think this discussion has run its course with too many hares being started and too little real content.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment it is in danger of descending into mere 'trolling'.
I'm not sure who you are accusing of trolling John, but I'm not sure Nigel or Fern or I would agree with you.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment it simply looks as if you can't explain.
Let's see if Nigel can explain it shall we? If you really can't explain why you don't object, I can't really answer your question and show you the logic.
Andrew Godsall
Andrew, I'd rather leave it there, thanks.
ReplyDeleteAhh ok. I see the logic has now occurred to you.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Godsall, Exeter
Phew!
ReplyDelete