Since the House of Bishops first introduced it into the proposed Measure for the consecration and ordination of women, vocal opposition has been expressed, almost entirely by supporters of women bishops, to the provision of ministry “consistent with the theological convictions” of petitioning parishes on the ordination or consecration of women.
One of the chief objections is that the clause introduces new features into the legislation — something the House of Bishops is not allowed to do. Yet a careful reading of the legislation suggests that what the amendment proposes for opponents of women bishops, the legislation itself already does for supporters.
Here is Clause 2 (5)::
Where a scheme made under this section includes a statement by the bishop that he will not ordain women to the office of priest, the scheme shall make provision —
(a) for the ordination of female candidates for the office of priest, and
(b) for the support of the ministry of clergy who are women and their pastoral care.
So if the bishop does not himself ordain women, provision must be made, according to the legislation, for the support and pastoral care of women clergy in his diocese.
Let us compare this with the proposed situation regarding petitioning parishes and Clause 5 (1) c.
Clause 2 (1) b, let us remind ourselves, says that diocesan schemes shall address “the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners” in petitioning parishes (“pastoral care” of course being the term used with respect to women clergy in 2 (5) b).
Clause 5 (1) c now adds that the Code of Practice shall give guidance as to “the selection of male bishops or male priests the exercise of ministry by whom is consistent with the theological convictions as to the consecration or ordination of women on grounds of which parochial church councils have issued Letters of Request”.
The “exercise of ministry” referred to in 5 (1) c undoubtedly includes the “pastoral care” of 2 (1) b. What 5 (1) c does is to address whether this “pastoral care” is “consistent with” — no more than that — the theological convictions of petitioning parishes.
And yet opponents have called for this to be removed.
Suppose, then, that the same principle were applied to the “pastoral care” of women clergy under Clause 2 (5) b.
According to Clause 2 (4), a diocesan bishop may choose not to ordain women, on grounds of his own theological conviction (“whether of himself or of other persons in his diocese”).
If Clause 5 (1) c is removed, there is then no necessary requirement in the legislation for petitioning parishes and their clergy to receive pastoral care from someone who will do this in a manner “consistent with” their “theological convictions”.
Yet if this same approach were applied to Clause 2 (5) b concerning the “pastoral care” of women provided on the basis of the theological convictions of their diocesan bishop, then presumably there would be no express need for this to be “consistent with” their opposing “theological convictions” either.
It would surely be unreasonable, however, in a situation where a bishop had to draw up provisions for those who were distanced from his own theological convictions, for him to say, “My convictions have some bearing on the need for provision, but yours have no bearing on the nature of the provision itself.”
And supposing what he provided was another opponent of women’s ordination –- albeit a bishop? Would it be enough to say this represented ‘extra’ support merely by merit of being a special bishop for them (like having your own named contact at the bank, regardless of their views on the economy)?
Would the women not feel doubly aggrieved, first that they had a problem with their diocesan bishop, and secondly that they were being treated in a cavalier fashion?
The fact is that the legislation already in the Measure provides for women in certain circumstances what is being requested (but is not yet included) for clergy and parishioners in other, comparable situations. And if it is no problem in the former case, it should not be in the latter.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:
Ok John two questions as you seem so interested in this issue.
ReplyDelete1 Would the inclusion of Clause 5.1c enable you to vote for the legislation if you were on General Synod?
2 Do you recognise those women priests and bishops who are already in the Anglican Communion as loyal Anglicans? Because that is what Lambeth 1998 asks you to do. You seem to want to be regarded as a loyal Anglican but I would like to be sure you therefore regard supporters of women bishops and priests as loyal Anglicans.
Without doubt the most self defeating argument ever presented on this blog. If it is already in the measure, then the clause is pointless and your campaign to retain it is equally so.
ReplyDeleteAu contraire mon, er, souris. Since it is already in the measure for women, there is no reason to object for the same provision being spelt out for parishioners and other clergy when the shoe is on the other foot.
ReplyDeletePS to the Mouse, if Clause 8 is acceptable as a 'clarification', and the principle of 5 (1) c is in 2 (5) b, then 5 (1) c is also presumably acceptable as a 'clarification'.
ReplyDeleteThat's provided you agree with the premise.
John
DeleteMy personal view is that it is simply a clarification and changes nothing. I have repeatedly said so. As such, I think it makes no difference whether it is in there or not. However, it is clear that many disagree with me. In which case, since it makes no difference, taking it out is a no brainer. Arguing that it makes no difference so should remain makes no sense.
The difficulty with your proposal is that now that the 'clarification' is there, removing it will have an effect in itself.
DeleteClause 8 indeed contains a clarification. It is now clear that a bishop acting under powers conferred through the legislation exercises delegated powers.
But in clarifying, a clarification also excludes.
In this particular instance, it means that that bishop is not a delegate: his exercise of ministry is his own, not the other bishop's.
In the case of Clause 5(1)c, now that it has been put forward, the removal of the Clause will open up interpretations which you are arguing go against what is in the Measure.
I am saying the principle of 2(5)b is being applied through the new Clause 5(1)c. I also see this as a 'genuine' amendment (which the bishops are allowed to make). It adds something which is not there, but should be.
You seem to be saying it is only a clarification. But were it to be simply removed, and nothing put in its place, those who have also read it as an amendment and who now want it removed will have some justification for saying that is itself a 'clarification' - the Measure does not mean what the amendment would have required us to understand it as meaning.
Hence, as I've said in the petition, NOW removing 5(1)c would probably render the Measure unacceptable to Traditionalists, whatever may have been the case before.
Sorry, John, but I think this is tosh.
ReplyDeleteImagine a diocese with a woman bishop, and some clergy who did not want that to be so. No supporter of women bishops would object to arrangements for(a) for the ordination of MALE candidates for the office of priest, and
(b) for the support of the ministry of clergy who are MEN and their pastoral care - in other words for precisely the provision for men made by clause 2(5) for women.
But 5(1)(c) does not say only that, it goes way further - being, yet again, an attempt to privilege men over women. At some point we men are going to have to stop making that attempt - or is that only an eschatological hope?
Simon, you say 5 (1) "goes way further". But my problem is, I really can't see how. Do explain, please.
ReplyDeleteThis is all about inclusion, the very fact that the dear old CofE is contemplating this is that society (including congregations) accept the idea that gender may not be important to the selection that God makes when calling people to their vocations.
ReplyDeletehowever, at the same time to inhibit a belief that this may not be what God intended does also wreak of arrogance, and who knows, men may make worse of better Bishops and Priests, but I don't want the CofE to adopt leglislation that alienates anyone.
So in the spirit of this clause 5.1c, I say 'yes' - not because it solves the bigger issue, but permits everyone to continue being in the same communion. We all should live in teh acceptance that we are different - any law (even in secular life) which legislates against a different point of view just is not right..... even if I am not sure of either side of the argument.
Hi John. Because it introduces a concept absent from clause 2(5), namely something to do with consistency with theological convictions - actually some sort of right to have over you a person who exercises their ministry in a way consistent with your theological convictions.
ReplyDeleteNow, I understand that the ambit of the consistency that can be demanded is narrow, but this is still more than women are being given by clause 2(5). At least, that is my reading of it, though we may disagree about that. And even if women were in fact to be offered a clause on all fours with 5(1)(c), that would not put things right, because it is a bad clause, introducing permanently into legislation something - the idea of taint and all that - which is simply wrong (again, in my view).
I know you will appreciate the nuance of the word "permanently"; and yes, it will, I think, be the case that the protections in any code will be transitional. I do think we need to be honest about that. In other words, whilst I think that there should be a permanent (meaning, in this instance, life long) place in the C of E for those who dissent from women bishops now, if they want it, I most emphatically do not think that the set up should evince an intention that the division continue permanently, in the sense of for all time. Clause 5(1)(c) is an attempt to achieve just that; as other say, it enacts discrimination, and that discrimination, to my mind, is biblically wrong.
What you describe there, Simon, is precisely what conservative evangelicals fear might be the case, i.e. that there is no longterm place in the Church of England for those who hold to the church's historical position on gender and church leadership. Conservative evangelicals do not simply seek a place in the church till we retire; we are concerned for the next generation, and the generation after that, and so on.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean this as a threat or an attempt to hold people to ransom, but the plain fact is that if it becomes clear that there is no longterm place in the Church of England for conservative evangelicals who understand the Bible to teach a complentarian view of church leadership, the supply of ordinands will dry up pretty quickly and many of the existing ministers and some of their congregations will leave. This would be a tragedy. No one wants this. This seems to be what a clause such as 5(1)(c) is designed to prevent.
Simon, I have to disagree at a number of points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think the principle of 2(5)b clearly has an expectation of "consistency with theological convictions" from the bishop in terms of provision to women.
Secondly, we do actually have some 'right' - indeed responsibility - to choose those who are in authority over us, both socially and spiritually. Remember the Reformation! Within Anglicanism, you can change churches. In the NT you can choose to do something about those under whose authority you come, eg false teachers: to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."(2 Ti 4:3, NIV).
Thirdly, there is a necessary degree of difference between what is granted to particular persons (in this case women) and parishes. I have, however, argued that the same ought to be granted to individual men, so that they too may experience 'pastoral care' that is cognisant of their theological convictions.
Fourthly, where's the mention of 'taint' in the legislation? This is, I'm afraid, an argument I hear much used and misused by supporters of women's ordination, but not by opponents (at least, not in my hearing!).
Fifthly, how does putting the wording in the legislation make it permanent? The law of the land changes, constantly. So can this. There is no good reason to leave out something which suits the current situation on the grounds that things might change.
So John let me put my two questions again - which you have not yet answered.
Delete1 Would the inclusion of Clause 5.1c enable you to vote for the legislation if you were on General Synod?
2 Do you recognise those women priests and bishops who are already in the Anglican Communion as loyal Anglicans? Because that is what Lambeth 1998 asks you to do. You seem to want to be regarded as a loyal Anglican but I would like to be sure you therefore regard supporters of women bishops and priests as loyal Anglicans.
Another thought has occurred to me on this whole issue, John. What will CEs and ACs do in the event that both ABC and ABY are female (which, if the measure passes, is a possibility) and all diocesan and suffrogen bishops are consecrated by one or the other of them? And, just to add some more problems to the situation, all PEVs that were appointed by their male predecessor retire during the female archbishops time in office.
ReplyDeleteTom, yes, maybe you are right. Certainly that is how I see it working out. I would not see it as tragic if there was no complementarian constituency in the C of E in 20 years time, but right. I think that hard issue needs to be addressed, but does get rather fudged. My views about the best way forwards are, though, undoubtedly shaped by my family's experience of a conservative evangelical church, an experience which led to great personal hurt. I would not pretend to have put that experience entirely aside in thinking through these issues now.
ReplyDeleteJohn, thanks.
On your first point, you clearly acknowledge that the two clauses appear to make different provision. You think that difference is bridged by the expectation you describe. We disagree.
Second, yes, we have a right/responsibility to choose our leaders. But that can be exercised within or without a denomination. The issue is whether complementarians should have that right whilst staying in the denomination that wants to go in a different direction (if indeed it does). I would say not. Again, we simply disagree.
Thirdly, I take your point ... so 2(5) and 5(1)(c) are different, we agree. The issue is whether the individual/group emphasis justifies the difference. My answer is no. Clause 2(5) makes provision for those individuals who are adversely affected by a bishop not wanting (on grounds of conscience, I know) to do the whole job the church wants him to and thinks right that he should. In other words, it is the group putting right the wrong (lack of pastoral care etc) that the bishop's conscience would otherwise afflict on individuals. Clause 5(1)(c) sets up a statutory discriminatory regime to cater for the conscience of groups who could equally well satisfy their consciences by accepting provision in a code or, if that is not enough, by a change of church.
Fourthly, the "taint" issue - this is a reasonable description of the FiF position, I think. I don't know whether they use that word themselves. I am not sure whether a Reform church would object to a priest ordained by a female bishop or not, even if the priest in fact held complementarian views. If it would, that would be a "taint" doctrine speaking, I would have thought.
Fifth, an Act/Measure clearly has a degree of permanency about it, more so than lesser bits of legislation of various sorts, guidance and, yes, codes. But maybe what I really meant was that the legislation then enshrined in itself the ability for the division to be renewed in each generation, or something. It will make the division persist. That, actually, is the point of it, and that is wrong. Well, that is what I think!
How refreshing to see someone like Simon being so honest about what the clear intentions of organisations like WATCH and its supporters are in seeing the eventual cleansing of all opponents of WO in the Cof E and in time eradicate all expessions of their theological convictions.
ReplyDelete'Hospice care' it is.
"...equally well satisfy their consciences by accepting provision in a code or, if that is not enough, by a change of church. "
In other words accept it or get out.
If only the Fulcrum leadership were so honest.
Chris Bishop
Devon
"Cleansing"? Your word, not mine. I am simply against establishing a permanently discriminatory position, and then I consider the natural consequence of not doing so, that's all.
ReplyDeleteAnd my views cannot be taken as being the "clear intentions of WATCH and its supporters". They are mine only, nothing more, and I do support WATCH, but others have different views, and I am sure they express them honestly. They may well see possible outcomes that I do not!
In what ways do you think the Fulcrum leadership have not been honest? I can't think of one myself.
"In what ways do you think the Fulcrum leadership have not been honest? I can't think of one myself."
ReplyDeleteSimply in the way that you have been honest about the likely consequences of the leglislation being transitional and the eventual eradication of theological convictions that are 'discrimatory' (your word not mine), of those that do not support WO. Your estimation of what will happen to them is pretty accurate.
The writings by Kurht, Stowell, Storkey, Mercer and Cawdell make soothing noises about 'generous provision' and so called 'grace' but they know full well what the likely consequences in the long term for CE opponents of WO will be, and that is extinction. They are just not so forthcoming and honest as you are about it.
Chris Bishop
Devon
Simon, I think the biggest problem with what you have said, which Chris alludes to, is the following:
ReplyDelete"Fifth, an Act/Measure clearly has a degree of permanency about it, more so than lesser bits of legislation of various sorts, guidance and, yes, codes. But maybe what I really meant was that the legislation then enshrined in itself the ability for the division to be renewed in each generation, or something. It will make the division persist. That, actually, is the point of it, and that is wrong. Well, that is what I think!"
Where is the problem with the "division" continuing from generation to generation? Does the theological conscience on this matter diminish in value with the passing of time?
I want women bishops and I would love for John and those of a similar disposition to him to come to believe that God wants all to be involved in the leadership of His Church, regardless of gender. But I also value unity in mission, and I believe that that is worth far more than women in leadership. Therefore I am prepared to wait until we have enough provision within the measure to keep ACs and CEs within the Church of England (which I believe 5.1c does, if I understand the Bishop of Lewes correctly) rather than see WATCH happy and start to lose the ACs to the Ordinariate and CEs to wherever they will depart to.
And their presence is vital for the Church of England if the liberal leaning that seems to be taking hold on previously unexpected areas (Bishop of Liverpool, for example) on the issue regarding practicing homosexuals in leadership and SSM.
Division is undesirable, even sinful, I think. I am sure we would agree on that.
ReplyDeleteBut it is also debilitating, locally, regionally and nationally. It leads to (equally sinful) arguments such as those seen now in Southwark about preferment and money, and other problems of ill-discipline such as irregular ordinations and so on.
Moreover, your value judgment about being "prepared to wait ... rather than keep WATCH happy ..." is your prerogative, but might be seen as lacking empathy for the plight of women called to ordination, consecration, or other ministries. What happens, for example, to someone in a rural parish in Chichester Diocese, who is called to be ordained? At the moment, there is no bishop within the diocese who will ordain them, I think. That is truly shocking: the individual consciences of the bishops are being given way too much indulgence. Now that particular example can be resolved, both in the short term (by renting a bishop), and in the long term by different arrangements, but is the sort of nonsense we have to get away from. But that is not half of the problems that the persisting division causes. There are parishes in Chichester, so I am told on good authority, where a woman priest will stand with a full chalice whilst congregants queue up to be served by a male chalice bearer, and - the really shocking bit - this continues week after week with the incumbent saying nothing about it to his congregation. That sort of thing is disgraceful, and is part of the culture that must be dealt with. In a Reform church I know of, the voices of women on the PCC are utterly ignored, and any dissentients side-lined and pushed out. The thinking seems to be that women should not be on the PCC, it being regarded as the equivalent of the church elders, and therefore properly reserved for men. That too, is part of a culture that has to go.
Yes, I would love to go on being charitable and kind to those with whom I disagree, and making "proper provision" was the outworking of that; that was my position until about 2 years ago, but talking to those actually affected by views on women that I disagree with has persuaded me that the time for change has come. Waiting in a holy huddle whilst awful things go on in the name of theological conscience is unacceptable.
Simon, as I have already said I am in favour of women bishops. However, I could not give 2 hoots for the feelings of others if by doing so we veer from what is right in God's eyes. Unity cannot be lost over petty personal issues such as these. Yes, it would be a tragedy for women with an episcopal calling to be unable to fulfil that calling. But it would be an even bigger tragedy for the Church of England to chase out Conservative Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics purely to make WATCH happy.
ReplyDeleteGosh. "Petty personal issues"! Don't think so. Not how it feels in my family, anyway. The evidence on the ground of fundamentally sinful attitudes and ingrained behaviours, more like. Dismissing this sort of stuff is pastorally crass. Theological teaching has to be looked at afresh in the light of its fruit, and tested and re-tested wherever it appears to be producing injustice.
ReplyDeleteThere are two wrongs here, and their means of resolution are in conflict. The first is the repression of women; in my view, unbiblical, and evidenced in all sorts of sinful ways. The second is disunity among Christians; unbiblical also, we agree.
The first can begin to be undone by a clear church commitment to equality.
As for the second, there is already disunity amounting to de facto split. In my local experience, the anglo-catholics and conservatives won't co-operate with the rest of us in any form of inter-church work or local mission anyway. They co-operate with the C of E essentially only where compelled to do so, for example for its faculty jurisdiction and pension provision. Read the Reform letter to the bishops of a couple of years ago. That was its clear intention and, locally at least, that is exactly what has happened. So the split already exists. We should accept the reality and move on. So the question is only whether, and if so how, the present semblance of unity can be maintained? I don't think it is worth it; but if it is, the answer is not without continuing/exacerbating the first wrong in some form or other. Since the church is already split into a thousand pieces, I would choose to put right the first, and live with the consequences.
Simon, could I commend to my book, advertised left, A Strategy that Changes the Denomination?
ReplyDeleteIn it, you'll find an argument for a rather different approach from all hues of evangelical.
You, and others, may also be interested to note that I have organized a second 'Anglican Evangelical Junior Clergy Conference' which starts on Monday, which attempts to take forward the agenda argued in the book, and which is open to both women and men.
"And their presence is vital for the Church of England if the liberal leaning that seems to be taking hold on previously unexpected areas (Bishop of Liverpool, for example) on the issue regarding practicing homosexuals in leadership and SSM."
ReplyDeleteThank you Youthpasta for this very important point. I am shocked to have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen this pointed out/admitted by an egalitarian! Which tells me just how blinded by monofocal obsession so many of them must be. So well done YP.
And so, come on now Simon. Let's see what you have to say to this.
Dan
Hi Dan. Not sure that I really buy into the link you are making between those who are egalitarian and those who support SSM etc. A fuzzy link at best, with plenty of active homosexuals in anglo-catholic circles, I suspect, and probably more than one might guess in conservative churches too.
ReplyDeleteBut even if there is a link (so that those who support the consecration of women tend also to support SSM etc), then so what? If they are right about one and not the other, then what is the correct response? To pretend they are wrong about both and act accordingly? To produce an unjust solution on the thing they are right about so as to guard against speculative future problems? Don't think so myself. No injustice that can be dealt with should be perpetuated. Deal with the consequences when - and if - they arise.
"Hi Dan. Not sure that I really buy into the link you are making between those who are egalitarian and those who support SSM etc."
ReplyDeleteI made no such link. And you haven't grasped YP's point. Please read his concern again.
"A fuzzy link at best, with plenty of active homosexuals in anglo-catholic circles, I suspect, and probably more than one might guess in conservative churches too."
But you don't find either of those groups out there actually campaigning for it.
"But even if there is a link (so that those who support the consecration of women tend also to support SSM etc), then so what? If they are right about one and not the other, then what is the correct response? To pretend they are wrong about both and act accordingly? To produce an unjust solution on the thing they are right about so as to guard against speculative future problems? Don't think so myself. No injustice that can be dealt with should be perpetuated. Deal with the consequences when - and if - they arise."
In this you are frankly at odds with pro-WO Bishop Nazir-Ali, whom I personally heard say that given the choice of two options, he would certainly side with opponents of WO in order to stop the SSM etc. agenda.
I will go further and predict that if opponents are comprehensively forced out as Tom warns, I give remaining pro-WO evangelicals 10-15 years in the CoE before they too are pushed to the brink by SSM campaigners. Matters really are that serious now.
Finally, your repeated mention of the "justice" issue prompts me to put to you the question I put to Canon Andrew a thread or two ago, and which he dodged his way round before comments were closed:
Was God "unjust" to non-Levites in OT Israel when he didn't let them be priests?
Dan
The argument for justice is as false as the one declaring we should try to keep in step with society. The justice being asked for is rarely qualified on theological grounds (indeed, my argument in favour of women bishops would never make any cry for justice), but rather targets society's standards as the benchmark and declares the church to be found wanting.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of Biblical narrative in both arguments (the vast majority of those who argue against women bishops tend, in my experience, to purely target the tradition argument, which is as false as the modern society one!) is quite disturbing and would suggest we might need to focus on evangelising the CofE before we start to reach out to the rest of the country!
You've been talking to the wrong people then YP. :p
DeleteThe trad argument is an "icing on the cake". Bible first, then, "who else has thought this?" - oh everyone apart from the odd person here or there who's gone down for having weird views about the Trinity, or whatever.
However, there is a bit of weight in that. Hebrews 13 tells us to "Remember our leader", that's after ch 11, faith's "hall of fame" & after 12, the cloud of witnesses. Heb 13 straight afterwards reminds us, Jesus is the same "yesterday, today & forever", then the warning not to be blown around.
So, we remember our leaders because we are one church, Jesus doesn't change. Augustine & Luther's Jesus is ours. & if we ignore our past we get blown around. So Tradition isn't totally sperate to the Bible.
BUT, we can't put it ahead or even equal to the Bible. The Bible case is simply, that while it affirms women in all sorts of vital roles serving the church, it limits the level of authority and roots this in creation, not in culture. Especially 1 Tim 2, first refers to man being made first, then refers to Genesis 3, where the created order was reversed. That's why those who oppose do, we don't want to repeat the sin of Eden.
But Darren, Genesis 1 talks about men and women both being made in the image of God at the same time. And we also see Paul writing about women in positions of leadership.
DeleteBut my point was more a sad indictment of the church if it is unable to argue the point from the Bible and decides to go for earthly reasoning instead.
I'd be interested on your view to comments I make on my own blog on the matter (www.youthpastablog.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/women-in-church-leadership) as it would be good to have someone challenge my understandings from a biblical perspective.
In addition to this, the argument for justice does not consider the minority of women in the Church of England who feel called to the permanent diaconate. They are already marginalised and find it hard to have their vocation taken seriously. Squeezing alternative views of the ministry of men and women out of the Church of England will only further marginalise that group of women, and will hardly mean justice for them.
ReplyDeleteThe permanent diaconate in the C of E now includes both men and women. Nothing that happens to other orders of ministry, in terms of who can be ordained into those orders, marginalises them - only the attitudes of others towards them.
ReplyDelete