Marriage and the Church's ministry - why women bishops don't work for me

This is an edited piece requested for The Guardian that didn't get published.

************

“With the Church,” wrote C S Lewis in his 1948 essay Priestesses in the Church?, “... we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge.”

These words are a reminder that current debates in the Church of England have a longer history than many realize. And they are equally a reminder that the outcome may be more serious than many think.

But I cannot myself wholly follow Lewis, who rejected women priests on the basis of their exercising an ‘iconic’ rôle in the congregation. The priest, he wrote, “represents us to God and God to us.” Yet at these words my Protestant hackles rise, for does not the priesthood belong to all, both men and women? Martin Luther, no less, wrote that, “when women baptize, they exercise the function of priesthood ... and do it ... as a part of the public ministry of the church” (LW 40:23).

Nevertheless, Luther, Lewis and I would all oppose the admission of women to the Anglican episcopate. And for myself, this indeed relates to Lewis’ belief in the iconic significance of human gender. The place to see this exemplified, however, is not in the Eucharist but in marriage.

The Book of Common Prayer describes marriage as “signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.” There is much that could be said about this, and one of the best accounts is by the Roman Catholic author, Edward Schillebeeckx. The title of his book, Marriage: human reality and saving mystery, identifies the close connection between what is increasingly treated as an incidental aspect of human experience and the entire structure of Christian theology, focussed as it is on the need for, and nature of, our salvation.

Here, Lewis is precisely right. Male and female are discovered to be not mere ‘facts of nature’ but ‘shadows of realities beyond our control’, for in the narrative of Scripture the physical (re)unification of man and woman in Genesis 2:24 is finally identified with the spiritual union of the Saviour and the saved: ‘as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him’ (1 Cor 6:16-17, ESV).

Indeed, this theme within Scripture has profound implications which are rarely considered in Christian theology. Nevertheless, for our present purposes, the consequences are relatively familiar and straightforward, and concern polity within the family, where the male and the female are both ‘iconic’: the man representing Christ towards his wife, and the woman representing the Church towards her husband.

This is most explicitly set out in Ephesians 5, where the relationship is described in terms of ‘head’ and ‘body’, from which has been derived a concept of ‘male headship’. But it is precisely here that we find within contemporary Anglican Evangelicalism both misconstrual and misapplication.

From the Conservative side, there is a misapplication of ‘headship’ from the specific context of marriage to the general context of the Church. Thus the pressure-group Reform speaks of ‘the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests in charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate’.

Yet this is theologically clumsy, for (Thomas Cranmer and Henry VIII not withstanding), the headship of the Church belongs only to Christ. Husband is to wife as Christ is to Church, but not as vicar is to congregation, bishop to diocese — or even monarch to national denomination.

On the ‘egalitarian’ side, however, there is misconstrual, for even where the parallel in marriage with Christ and the Church is admitted (and many of this persuasion find that difficult enough), its practical implications are effectively denied on the argument that the passage calls for a ‘mutual submission’ of all Christians to one another. The submission of a wife to her husband is thus ultimately rendered indistinguishable from the submission of a husband to his wife.

Such an interpretation, however, is hard to maintain. With regard not only to the specific verses but to the overall thrust of the New Testament Scriptures, the weight of evidence is with the Traditionalist view of marriage.

Nevertheless, the application of this to Anglican ecclesiology is not straightforward.

The Church in the New Testament was not so much an agglomeration of individual believers as a ‘community of communities’ — witness the prevalence of ‘household’ baptisms. Individuals there certainly were, but people belonged to households. (This was especially true for slaves, who ‘belonged’ in both senses of the word.) And the household was not just an economic unit but a faith-community in itself.

Arguably, it is this which lies behind the New Testament injunctions about the rôles of women in the Church. 1 Timothy 2:12, for example, famously forbids a woman ‘to teach or to exercise authority over a man’. Yet the underlying rationale is the example of Adam and Eve (vv13-14), who are treated elsewhere as not just individuals but the archetypal couple. As Christ himself is understood to be the new ‘Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45), so Eve is never just ‘a woman’, but is the primeval ‘wife’.

Moreover, it must be remembered that teaching, in this context, is not the mere imparting of facts, as one might teach English or engineering. Rather, it is the imparting of what ought to be believed and practised, and therefore includes reproof and correction (2 Tim 3:16).

If this is the issue, then the primary focus of the injunctions would be the preservation of the ‘iconic’ husband/wife relationships fundamental to the households of the Church, rather than a concern about who may or may not belong to a group which would later become a separate, and professionalized, ‘caste’ within Christendom, as did the priesthood.

The problem within Anglicanism, particularly for Evangelicals like myself, is that there is no simple overlap between our traditional orders of ministry (bishop, priest and deacon) and the biblical pattern of local elder-overseers and semi-permanent deacons alongside peripatetic Apostolic teams. The modern bishop’s rôle in particular, with all its administrative concerns, is almost completely unlike anything found in the pages of the New Testament.

Nevertheless, these orders are our way of providing the ministry which the New Testament prescribes for the health of the Church, and must not therefore conflict with that aim. Thus, as, David Broughton-Knox, the former principal of Moore Theological College, wrote, ‘relationships between men and women in the congregation should not contradict relationships of the home’.

And for my own part, I find it impossible to see how a woman can be a priest-in-charge, incumbent or (especially) a bishop, whilst maintaining with a husband at home the iconic relationship of the Church and Christ, let alone modelling this doctrine to others as the Ordinal says we should. This is especially so when we consider the authority conferred on those offices by the Anglican way of doing things.

It is on this basis that I believe Evangelicals should be conducting the debate about women’s ordination and ministry. Indeed, I understand there is an ‘Open Evangelical’ book in the making which addresses precisely some of these issues.

The one thing I cannot do, and would resist within the Church, is to dismiss the Bible at this point as merely ‘culturally conditioned’. The overarching theme of Christ and the Church is too profound for that. At the end of the Scriptural canon, in the book of Revelation, we read that the age to come is ushered in with a wedding: the New Jerusalem descends from heaven ‘as a Bride adorned for her husband’ (Rev 21:2), and the ancient marana tha (‘Come, Lord’, 1 Cor 16:21) of the early Church is echoed in the invocation of the Spirit and the Bride in Revelation 22:17.

Insofar as human marriage is called to reflect this understanding of the Church in the future, so it must inform, and where necessary control, our understanding of the Church in the present.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

It's now or never - your Resolution C

Until Parliament approves any legislation General Synod may bring forward, it is still perfectly possible to pass Resolution C, petitioning the diocesan bishop for episcopal oversight to be provided under the terms of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (1993).

In plain English, you can still opt for a flying bishop.

If you are in a parish thinking of doing this, could you please contact me.

(A read through the Act will also show how far we've moved from the broader Church of those days.)

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Reasons to be cheerful, maybe!

Today I am feeling a bit less gloomy than I did yesterday, partly because I actually had some sleep last night and partly because I’ve been speaking to others in the constituency and getting a feel for what might happen next.

One of the things to be clear on is the actual issues. In some of the media, and even by some religious commentators, the events of Monday at General Synod have been covered as if they were about the decision to have women bishops.

As the Manchester Report itself made clear, however, that was not the issue. It has been a foregone conclusion for some time that the Church of England would have women bishops. The issue was how provision would be made for those who could not receive their ministry. That is what Monday’s debate was about, and that is how the consequences of the Synod vote must be understood.

The Manchester Report also made clear that there would be consequences for taking the route opted for by the General Synod:

There is no doubt ... that proceeding with legislation that removed the earlier safeguards would trigger a period of uncertainty and turbulence within the Church of England. Many priests and congregations would undoubtedly leave. The Church of England that emerged at the end of the process might possibly be more cohesive. It would undoubtedly be less theologically diverse.

No one who supports Monday’s decision can therefore complain if the Church of England now enters just such a ‘period of uncertainty and turbulence’. Indeed, it would be odd if it did not, following the Manchester Report’s warning that it would.

I am reminded of that great line in Men in Black, just after Agent Kay, played by Tommy Lee Jones, has blown off the head of alien pawnbroker Jack Jeebs, much to the consternation of New York policeman James Edwards, played by Will Smith. (Don’t worry, it immediately grows back.) “I warned him!” says Kay to Edwards, “You warned him!” (which is true, but Edwards hadn’t actually expected him to do it).

So here we are, but why does it matter? As critics of GAFCON have observed, there are alliances today in the Anglican church which embrace those on both sides of the debate over women’s ordination. Is this not just a case of hopeless (or even devious) compromise?

To this we must reply that until Monday, the Church of England was also an organization which embraced both sides in the women’s ordination debate. And on Monday it was perfectly possible for the Synod to continue to do so. The problem is that it has chosen not to — or rather it has chosen to do so in a way (the ‘Code of Practice’) which those who voted for the final motion knew would not be acceptable to precisely those for whom it is intended. This is a bit like serving meat to a vegetarian on the grounds that it is organic, and therefore ethically acceptable.

There is more than this, however, as I have pointed out elsewhere. It is well-known that thanks to a widespread lack of discipline, the ministry of the Church of England is deeply compromised on doctrinal specifics. It is no accident that whereas the Church has managed to produce a new Clergy Discipline Measure to deal with structural infringements (such as preaching the gospel in someone else’s parish without proper permission), it has stalled on the second, though promised, Discipline Measure to deal with matters of doctrine.

The reason is simple: whilst there are very few infringements of the Church’s practical requirements (most clergy work hard and keep their noses clean), the introduction of a doctrinal discipline would result in chaos, since so many clergy sit so light to the Church’s declared doctrines. Such is the Anglican way of muddling along.

However, into this soup of faith there now drops a crouton of clarity: the ordination and consecration of women. Let me stress, it would not be such a problem having women ordained as priests, or perhaps even consecrated as bishops, if the Church’s doctrinal discipline showed any coherence whatsoever. The problem is that is manifestly does not.

Take this interview on Radio 4’s Sunday programme, with Rosemary Lain-Priestly:

Roger Bolton: [...] Do you believe it doesn’t matter whether [the resurrection] was about a body or not, or do you believe it definitely wasn’t?

Rosemary Lain-Priestly: The Scriptures tell us that the tomb was empty and it may well have been. Who am I to limit what God might choose to do? But my faith in the resurrection doesn’t stand or fall on whether there were human remains in Christ’s tomb. [...] So perhaps it doesn’t matter whether or not Jesus took his [physical body] with him.

RB: [...] Would it matter to you, would it shake your faith if a tomb was opened up and the bones in it were confirmed as those of Jesus? Your answer to that is it wouldn’t matter at all ...?

R L-P: I don’t think it would matter because the resurrection that I believe in, I think has continuity with what we experience in this life but in some very profound sense is about transformation, it’s about something other than what we have already experienced.

Is this anywhere close to what the Apostles preached or what the Creeds declare? Yet Rosemary Lain-Priestly is a Dean of Women’s Ministry. I therefore wrote to a relevant bishop and queried how this was possible. His reply was brief, “She’s a quite articulate and intelligent liberal. But she doesn’t speak for anyone apart from herself.”

Now with respect, the last part of that sentence is not true. As a minister of the Church, she speaks for the Church. In her particular ministry I presume she also speaks for the Church to other ministers. In matters of the faith, she is not a private individual and hers were certainly not privately expressed views.

But you can see why there is no Clergy Discipline Measure (Doctrine).

The situation we are now heading for is thus that whilst those with such views can, and do, enjoy deployment and promotion to senior responsibilities, no such leeway will be available for those who do not accept the ordination and consecration of women. We thus have inflexibility where perhaps we might at least have flexibility (and so avoid more trouble in the Church), whereas there is continuing flexibility where there ought to be inflexibility.

Moreover, as we well know from those who campaigned hardest for this situation, next on the agenda is ‘full inclusion’ on sexuality and the modification of the image of God. It is there in black and white on their websites and in their publications.

I warned you!

John Richardson
9 July 2008

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

I (well actually, he) told you so: On the inevitability of the ‘Single Clause’ option

(Ed: Readers re-directed here from the Fulcrum website may have read 'Liddon's' statement that Bp Pete Broadbent's claim regarding "solemn and binding promises" given to objectors to women's ordination in the 1990s is, in his [or her?] words, "a terminological inexactitude". The same is alleged in one of the comments below. People need to read my replies to the comment quoting the relevant sections of the Manchester Report to see that such assurances were indeed given.)


Via another website, I came across this article written by Nigel Atkinson and published in Churchman in 2001.In it, he pointed out how the ordination of women would inevitably lead not only to the consecration of women bishops but to the effective exclusion from the Church of England of those who did not accept them.

I take a different attitude to Nigel on the issue of whether women can be presbyters, in the sense that they can be recognised as ‘elders’ in the congregation. Indeed, I regard the PCC as ‘elders’ in this sense. Moreover, I do not believe that the acceptance of women in the Anglican priesthood, with its imposition of congregational authority, is always the result of anti-Scriptural thinking. Although I do believe it is unscriptural, I recognise there are those who are persuaded Scripture does not forbid it, though I find their exegesis unconvincing.

But the ordination of women took place within an institution and an atmosphere that was, and is, often decidedly indifferent to Scripture (contrary, as Atkinson points out, to the foundational principles of Anglicanism). As a result, the authority of Scripture was diminished overall by the decision. And therefore what Atkinson warned against is coming to pass, despite there being supporters of women’s ordination within the Church who personally remain faithful on this issue.

Even for many of them, however, and certainly for those who believe that Scripture can and must be overridden at times, women’s ordination is, as Atkinson observes, “a first order issue” of justice, “similar to the abolition of slavery.” And as he adds, “for those who persist in advocating slavery there is no other recourse apart from sending in the gunboats once and for all.”

Hence driving out opposition to (and, if necessary, the opponents of) women’s ordination is nothing short of a moral crusade.

That much is becoming clear as events unfold and the House of Bishops spearheads a move to abolish the legal provisions set up in 1993. Atkinson argues, however, that it was never really intended that these should be permanent. On the contrary,

... the framers of the legislation realised that to have a continuation of bishops would also mean a continuation of priests and to have a continuation of priests would also mean to have a continuation of parishes. [Thus] the Synod’s intention never to have a continuation of orthodox bishops contradicted the doctrine of ‘theological reception’ — the very notion on which the legislation itself was predicated.

Why, then, did the General Synod at the time, under the guidance of the bishops, put such safeguards in place? Atkinson refers to the report of the Synod’s Revisions Committee, GS 830 Y, which concluded that “the necessary majority in [the legislation’s] favour would indicate that a common mind on the issue had in fact been achieved within the Church of England,” and therefore that all the safeguards intended to achieve was to “give opponents an opportunity to plan their future,” or in other words, their exit-strategy.

Thus he quotes a member of that committee who, in presenting the legislation in 1989, said,

We must never lose sight of the basic fact that the various safeguards are unusual and exceptional. They are exceptional provisions given by the majority to the minority with very strong views [...] so that the minority may have space to assess the reality of the ordination of women as it takes place in our provinces. However, because the provisions are exceptional they must in the end be seen as temporary. [Emphasis added]

Thus, almost eight years ago, Atkinson warned that “dissent on this issue will not be tolerated in the long run.” And as evidence of this, he pointed to overseas experience, just as the recent petition from women clergy also pointed overseas to argue precisely for the removal of existing provisions, in line with his predictions:

We should be humble and wise enough to learn from the experience of those churches overseas who have experimented with female presbyteral ordination and, after a short period of grace extended to the opponents, have very quickly moved to abolish all conscience clauses and to demand full compliance. [Emphasis added]

Reading Atkinson's article today, I find myself embarrassed at the lack of attention I paid to the women’s ordination debate in the early 1990s and the clear signs of what the future would hold for those who remained traditional evangelicals. The only mitigation is that, like many, I thought the provisions the Synod made would be enough, and that they were an indication of future good will. And that is surely not a bad basis for a decision not even to consider leaving. However, in the light of what has happened since and is threatened now, I find the assurance of WATCH and others that continued provision will be made for people like me on the basis of “trustful relationships” leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Where I feel no personal embarrassment, and can haul on my own ‘Told You So’ tee-shirt, is with Atkinson’s observations about Conservative Evangelicals and Resolution C (remember, this was published seven years ago):

The way forward then is clear. By all means let us argue for an extension of the ministry of the Flying Bishops but let us also as evangelicals begin to start using them. I and my four parishes in Devon all appealed to the Bishop of Exeter to come under the superb and orthodox Episcopal care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet. And it was just as well we did. For when I left Exeter Diocese, if it had not been for the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, I doubt very much if a Reform type of evangelical would have ever replaced me. I dare say the same is true of others. Should others be brought to glory tonight or in the near future what will happen to their parishes? Again I doubt very much whether the powers that be would welcome Reform evangelicals. In short we need the Flying Bishops in order to protect our parishes. [Emphasis original]

Atkinson also warns against the ‘overseas import’ solution to the problem, to which many Conservatives still look:

To go down any other road is to turn our backs on the Church of England and not to live up to our calling to reform it. For example, if we were to fly in two or three bishops from overseas in order to ordain reform evangelicals one thing is certain: those men so ordained would have to be issued with their letters of orders. As soon as they tried to obtain a parish within the Church of England they would be turned down flat as their letters of orders would betray their irregular ordinations. To go down this route is, in effect, to abandon the Church of England and it is a counsel of despair.

Thus the way ahead is clear:

We must all plan to come under the Flying Bishops by passing Resolution C. Let us give ourselves two years. Let us all work towards securing Flying Bishops for three hundred, four hundred, five hundred Reform parishes by October, 2002.

Yet here we are in 2008, and there are probably no more than ten Reform Resolution C parishes in the entire country. Those who fear a ‘conservative conspiracy’, please take note!

Indeed, at last year’s Reform Conference in London, the question was put to me what good passing Resolution C could possibly achieve. I will let Nigel Atkinson — surely a prophet without honour — have the last word:

What will we have then achieved? We will have formed ourselves into a coherent ecclesial body. We will have our bishops, our clergy, our parishes, our people and our money welded together. From this position we will be on an almost unassailable footing to press for further reform or, should we need to, to press Parliament for a third, non-geographical, province. But we must act quickly. We have a window of opportunity before us now, but it will soon be gone. For in order to create female bishops, which is inevitable, all concessions that have been granted us so far will need to be withdrawn.

Now read my own Why Conservative Evangelicals should pass Resolution C.

Revd John P Richardson
18 June 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

English House of Bishop proposes minimal provision, repeal of protection, for opponents of women bishops

As first reported in the Daily Telegraph, the House of Bishops of the Church of England is indeed bringing a proposal to the General Synod in July to adopt the first approach outlined in the Manchester Report to provide for the consecration of women bishops, which will remove the legislative provisions put in place in 1993 and replace them with a 'Code of Practice'. This will mean either the so-called 'Single Clause' approach, discussed here, or the first of the options in the second approach suggested in the Manchester Report which would make the 'Code of Practice' mandatory.

The relevant paragraphs from the accompanying document are these:

12. It would mean that the existing provisions (in part II of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993) for parishes unable to accept the ministry of women as celebrant or incumbent would be repealed, to be replaced by arrangements made under the proposed national code of practice. In addition, the natural consequence of such legislation and a code of practice would be the rescinding of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993.

13. The House noted that a code of practice included a spectrum of possibilities between, at one end, an entirely informal code and at the other one secured by legislation, which itself set out in some detail the ground a code would need to cover. The majority of the House concluded that the next stage of the drafting group's work would have to involve the production of a draft code and a proposal about the extent of its statutory underpinning. There was, however, agreement that the code should be national and that there should be a clear requirement that all concerned should have regard to the code’s provision.

Credit for this news to the Thinking Anglicans website, here:

The document GS 1685A has been released, though not yet on the CofE website. This is the covering Note from the Presidents explaining what the House of Bishops has decided to do.

The full text of the document can be read here.

The text of the motion to be put is below, but do read this in the context of the whole document:

A member of the House of Bishops to move:

‘That this Synod:

(a) reaffirm its wish for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c) affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Women Bishops: An open letter to the Archbishops

Following the Southern Synod of the Society of the Sacred Cross, the Provisional Episcopal Visitors (Flying Bishops), the Bishop of Fulham and the Master of SSC are circulating the following letter for signature by clergy. Apart from anything else, it very clearly states where they are on this matter (and where they have been in the last decade and a half):


Most Reverend Fathers in God,

We write as bishops, priests and deacons of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, who have sought, by God’s grace, in our various ministries, to celebrate the Sacraments and preach the Word faithfully; to form, nurture and catechise new Christians; to pastor the people of God entrusted to our care; and, through the work of our dioceses, parishes and institutions, to build up the Kingdom and to further God’s mission to the world in this land.

Our theological convictions, grounded in obedience to Scripture and Tradition, and attentive to the need to discern the mind of the whole Church Catholic in matters touching on Faith and Order, lead us to doubt the sacramental ministry of those women ordained to the priesthood by the Church of England since 1994. Having said that, we have engaged with the life of the Church of England in a myriad of ways, nationally and locally, and have made sincere efforts to work courteously and carefully with those with whom we disagree. In the midst of this disagreement over Holy Order, we have, we believe, borne particular witness to the cause of Christian unity, and to the imperative of Our Lord’s command that ‘all may be one.’

We include those who have given many years service to the Church in the ordained ministry, and others who are very newly ordained. We believe that we demonstrate the vitality of the tradition which we represent and which has formed us in our discipleship and ministry – a tradition which, we believe, constitutes an essential and invaluable part of the life and character of the Church of England, without which it would be deeply impoverished.

Since the ordination of women to the priesthood began in 1994, we have been able to exercise our ministry in the context of the solemn assurances given at that time that our understanding of Holy Order was one entirely consonant with the faith and practice of the Church of England, and secure in the knowledge that those assurances were embodied in the legislation passed in 1993, and in the Act of Synod which followed that legislation.

That legislation, together with the Act, has been the framework which has allowed us to continue to live and work in a church which has taken the decision to allow women to be ordained, but which has also made room for us, and honoured our beliefs and convictions. We have been further encouraged and affirmed by the Resolution of the Lambeth Conference 1998, endorsed by the General Synod in July 2006, that “those who dissent from as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.”

We believe that, should the Church of England move to the ordination of women to the episcopate, our ability to continue to minister in the church to which we have been called will depend on provision being made to allow us to do so with the same theological integrity which we have been able to hold since 1994. We recognise that, much as we might hope things to be otherwise, the Church of England is set upon the path of ordaining women as bishops. We will strive to honour their calling as ministers of the Gospel, and to respect the offices which they will hold, despite our profound reservations about the Church of England’s decision to ordain and consecrate them. We do not look for ‘protection’ from the ministry of ordained women. Rather, we ask that our theological convictions continue to be accorded that respect which was promised fifteen years ago.

We believe that priests must be able to look to bishops about whose ministry they can be assured; and that bishops in turn must be able to carry out their ministry in a way consonant with the traditional exercise of Episcopal office. Only a structural solution to the new problems which will inevitably be created for the Church by the ordination of women to the episcopate can, we believe, allow us to flourish and to contribute to the life of the whole Church as we believe the Spirit continues to call us to do.

It is with sadness that we conclude that, should the Church of England indeed go ahead with the ordination of women to the episcopate, without at the same time making provision which offers us real ecclesial integrity and security, many of us will be thinking very hard about the way ahead. We will inevitably be asking whether we can, in conscience, continue to minister as bishops, priests and deacons in the Church of England which has been our home. We do not write this in a spirit of making threats or throwing down gauntlets. Rather, we believe that the time has come to make our concerns plain, so that the possible consequences of a failure to make provision which allows us to flourish and to grow are clear. Your Graces will know that the cost of such a choice would be both spiritual and material.

We know that all members of the Church of England and of the General Synod in particular, will be looking to you for wisdom, guidance and leadership in this matter. We urge you, as our Fathers in God, to lead the whole Church in making generous and coherent provision for us. This will not only allow us to continue to play our part in that mission, under God, to which we are all committed, but also ensure that the Church of England continues to encompass, in her polity, an understanding of Holy Orders consonant with that of the great Churches of East and West with whom we share the historic episcopate.

We assure you of our prayers at this time.

Sign electronically here.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

‘Less like a Church’: the impact of the Manchester Report ‘Single Clause’ option on the future of the Church of England

English readers (ie readers from England), please sign one of the petitions on women bishops and the 'Single Clause' option.

For those, such as WATCH (Women and the Church), advocating the Manchester Report’s ‘Single Clause, Code of Practice’ option as the way ahead on the consecration of women bishops, there is just one question that should be asked: “Do you accept that men opposed to women’s ordination will continue to be consecrated as bishops in the Church of England?”

The answer must surely be “No.” Indeed, given the tiny handful of such consecrations which have taken place in the last few years, despite the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, any other answer would have to be seen as reflecting either self-delusion or the intention to delude others.

That Act established that “no person or body shall discriminate against candidates ... for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.” Yet there is no doubt that it has been consciously and deliberately ignored. The ‘stained glass ceiling’ for ordained women has been as nothing compared with the cast iron version for traditionalists in the last decade.

That being the case, the abolition of the Act of Synod, and the other legislation established in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, must spell the end of an episcopate which includes the ‘two integrities’ established by the Act. And that, it must be recognized, would entirely change the nature of the Church of England. In CS Lewis’s words, the body which resulted would be “much more rational ‘but not near so much like a Church.’”

A key feature of a Church is surely that no one should be excluded whose views are consistent with its understanding of the faith. And in the Church of England, this has hitherto been defined as a faith consistent with Scripture — consistent in the sense that nothing which contradicts Scripture is required to be believed or practised.

As is well known, however, opponents of women’s ordination generally believe that this indeed contradicts, or at least bends close to acceptable limits, our understanding and application of Scripture. Equally, though, there are those who, whilst holding identical views on Scripture’s authority, do not find the same difficulties. That this is recognized is part of what it means to acknowledge two ‘integrities’.

That being the case, however, it should be obvious that, at very least, the Church should continue to include people of both integrities at every level. But as C S Lewis warned, it should also have urged greater caution over the ordination of women when this was considered in the 1990s. Writing in 1948, he said this:

To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation.

Those who dislike Lewis’s use of the term “priestesses” may still acknowledge that he was at every point correct. Thus we are indeed cutting ourselves off from the past. Resolution J6, for example, passed at the 1977 National Evangelical Anglican Congress, whilst acknowledging the failure to give women “their rightful place as partners in mission with men” nevertheless continued,

Leadership in the Church should be plural and mixed, ultimate responsibility normally singular and male.

Thirty years later, such a view would be held by a minority even within Evangelicalism. Yet this change seems to have been driven by sociological rather than theological considerations. Indeed, the letter written by WATCH and others, and signed by several hundred women clergy, speaks explicitly of the need to eliminate ‘discrimination’ against women. Yet when pressed, it is clear that advocates of this approach are deeply uncomfortable with the Bible’s own language and with its traditional understanding and application. Our alienation from the past is thus clear, both in practice and in the accompanying justifications.

Again, the divisions between the Church of England and other Churches are indeed being widened. But for those who respond that this has not previously been a problem (for example, during the Reformation), it should be pointed out that, in the process, those other Churches are not being subjected to the same analysis as the Church of England. Hence whilst the Church of England ‘must’ have women bishops because to do otherwise would be to perpetuate discrimination and render our mission to the nation hopeless, few voices are (yet) being raised saying the Church of Rome must do the same if it is to be taken seriously.

As a result of this intellectual ‘schizophrenia’, we treat those other Churches as being subject to different standards than our own. In fact, we demean them (as we demean those of other races) by requiring less of them than we do of ourselves, and at the same time, we betray our moral cowardice in refusing to confront them as we confront those we consider more like ourselves. We are thus divided now not just by what we believe and do, but by a sense of cultural ‘otherness’ which puts those Churches in an entirely different category (along with Muslims, who similarly are not expected to behave as ‘well’ as we do).

And, of course, the Church of England has been torn by the ordination of women and will be further torn by their consecration as bishops.

A degree of tearing is inevitable because ordination is not an opinion but an action, and a Church which tries to accommodate those acting in mutually incompatible ways is always bound to experience some tension. Nevertheless, the one advantage of the traditional Anglican ‘fudge’ is that a remarkable degree of co-existence has hitherto been achieved. As the Manchester Report itself points out, however, the ‘Single Clause’ approach would spell the end of such accommodation, at least in this regard:

The Church of England that emerged at the end of the process might possibly be more cohesive. It would undoubtedly be less theologically diverse.

As we saw at the outset, however, a key feature of that lack of diversity would be the inevitable absence of episcopal representation by those who continue to hold the traditional, historical and (in their understanding) biblical view of the Church’s leadership. And an episcopal church which excludes from the episcopate those who hold certain views has thereby enshrined opposition to those same views.

Thus, whilst the Church of England undoubtedly includes many who are essentially ‘Baptists’ on the issue of infant baptism, it would be unlikely to consecrate an anti-paedobaptist to the episcopate. Being a covert (or even overt) Baptist does not exclude one from the Anglican Church, but this is an issue on which the Church has decided views.

Adopting the ‘Single Clause’ option would put women’s ordination on a par with infant baptism. We might instructively contrast this, however, with things which evidently do not exclude one from being a candidate for the ministry: sitting light to the physical resurrection of Jesus, reserving or adoring the sacrament, being in a non-celibate same-sex relationship, being divorced and remarried, cohabitation, attributing salvation to other religions, and so on. All of these are things which, though varying in moral and theological significance, are either contrary to Scripture or to the Church’s Articles and Formularies. Yet all are held or practised by people currently in ordained ministry.

By contrast, not agreeing to the ordination of women will join the relatively select list of Anglican ‘anathemas’.

The difference, of course, is that with respect to the foregoing list of functional ‘adiophora’ the Church either remains formally committed to the alternative view or at least does not exclude those who hold it. Thus a person may believe that remarriage after divorce is forbidden in the Bible (indeed, given the words of both Jesus and the Apostle Paul it is hard to see how they could think otherwise), despite the Church of England’s recent officially libertarian stance and frequent turning of a ‘blind eye’. But they would know that whilst they might be deemed ‘old fashioned’ or ‘hardline’, they would not at all be formally excluded from the episcopal ministry.

By contrast, disagreement with the ordination and consecration of women will, henceforth, mean being increasingly limited to the margins of the Church. Thus, on a matter on which tradition is unequivocal and Scripture at best open to interpretation, the Church of England will, remarkably, have found the rare ability to narrow its theological views to the rare point of exclusivity.

The fallout, in every sense, is to some extent unpredictable. Certainly, as the Manchester Report acknowledges, the Church of England will be much less like its old self. The following, though, at least seems likely.

First, and perhaps most importantly, adherence to Scripture will have been deemed a secondary consideration in determining fundamental policy and practice. Not all supporters of women’s ordination sit light to what the Bible has to say, but many undoubtedly do, and their views will have been privileged. That they will regard themselves as having won the day must have clear implications for the future development of the Church of England.

Secondly, those who continue to hold the traditional view, whether Catholic or Evangelical, will have to decide a course of action. Resolution C parishes and clergy will be faced with the prospect of losing their current bishops — something many will undoubtedly regard as unacceptable. It is likely that, just as many clergywomen have apparently said they would rather not have women bishops than pay too high a price by way of compromise, there are those who will regard losing their existing bishops as too great a demand for their compliance with new legislation.

This will then lead, thirdly, to the internecine wrangling and warfare that history shows high handed and ill-conceived actions inevitably produce, not least amongst religious communities who, it must be admitted, are somewhat prone to disagreement. A Church which is already in the doldrums will thus find itself holed below the waterline in terms of evangelistic effectiveness for the next decade or so. Instead of getting on with mission, its members will inevitably get on with arguing and tearing one another apart.

Fourthly, in the rump which remains, a counter-Scriptural, egalitarian feminist agenda will have gained the centre-ground. Those Evangelical supporters (and, perhaps, opponents) of women’s ordination who endorse or accept the new arrangements will find themselves faced with a triumphant Liberalism whose next aim will undoubtedly be the inclusion of same-sex relationships and the modification of our concept of God (the latter is clearly stated on the WATCH website). Any attempt to meet this with a robust application of biblical teaching and ecclesiological discipline will be frustrated by the wave of support at the grass roots (where theology counts for little) which will already have helped drive through the ‘Single Clause’ solution.

In order to counter these two pressures, the remaining theological Conservatives would have to adopt a rigorous biblical hermeneutic and develop a united political front to oppose the newly-strengthened Liberalism. Given that they themselves will just have used a much looser hermeneutic and alliances with those they now need to oppose in order to see off the traditionalists, such an attempted switch of fronts, tactics and allegiances is likely to end in chaos or paralysis. There will, moreover, be little enthusiasm for another round of battles.

The most likely result for Evangelicals, therefore, is compromise and assimilation, theologically and functionally. With ‘hard line’ Conservatives no longer coming forward for ordination, the Evangelical leadership in the middle ground will broaden even further. Many who were previously unpersuaded about homosexuality will soften their opposition, whilst some of their continuing traditionalist friends seek to maintain fellowship with them and others drift further apart. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of women appointed as bishops, very few of whom will be recognisably Evangelical, will understandably make the necessary changes in policy and appointments to reflect their own theological dispositions.

Ultimately, the ethos of Anglicanism will have shifted decisively, not just because of what was decided, but because of how it was decided, by excluding people from the episcopate on the grounds of their faithfulness to Scripture, whilst allowing those who are demonstrably less faithful to Scripture and the Church’s Articles and Formularies to continue unchallenged. As a consequence, we may in the future wonder if the Church of England will be not merely less like a Church, but less like a Christian body at all.

Revd John P Richardson
31 May 2008

Having read this article, please now consider signing one of the petitions on women bishops and the 'Single Clause' option. (NB these are really only for English members of the CofE.)

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Stick it in your family, Al-bum!

(As Tommy Steele once sang.) A picture worth a thousand words from this week's Church Times. Whatever you think about women bishops and the Manchester Report proposals, it's a good reason to sign one of the available petitions.

Campaigners for women bishops at General Synod in July, 2005. The Manchester report is to be debated at this July's meeting ACNS/ROSENTHAL

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Petitions on Women Bishops

Following the production of a letter by WATCH and others supporting the 'Single Clause, Code of Practice' option put forward by the Manchester Report, there are now also online petitions for supporters of that approach.

As an alternative, two other petitions are available. One is for Evangelicals who support the view adopted at the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 1977 and rejecting the Single Clause approach in favour of one of the other options in the Manchester That petition is here. Just to make it clear, this is the one I really want you to sign.

An alternative petition, for all those who support the consecration of women as bishops but who reject the Single Clause approach in favour of one of the other options in the Manchester Report is here. Signing this would still help!

NB: These are both really only for members of the Church of England in England. They are not aimed at the international supporters. Please link to these petitions from your blog if you have one and e-mail them to your friends if you have any.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.