Wanted: Believing Bishops for the Salvation of the Nation

The other day (as you do) I wandered over to the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website to see what Anglicans were thinking about. Apparently it is women bishops and same-sex marriage (or for tweeters out there #WomenBishops and #gaymarriage).

Actually, you might well get the same impression reading this blog, though in fairness to myself I would point out that when I try posting on other topics the rate of hits goes down and vice versa (on the day of the women bishops vote, there were over eight hundred hits before I even posted anything), so perhaps the problem is also the readership.

But what should Anglicans be thinking about? Or to what will their thoughts turn when we have bishops who are women (and same-sex marriages at least in some denominations)?

I doubt whether it will be what they were thinking about towards the end of the Second World War, namely the conversion of England. As some readers of this blog will be aware, I have gone on at considerable length about the report Towards the Conversion of England and have posted extracts here so people can read it for themselves.

Indeed, I could genuinely claim that this report provides the framework for everything I am trying to do via the blog and my other involvements. My personal dream would be ‘every parish an evangelizing parish’.

And that is why the present debate about the gender of our bishops has to be seen as a distraction.

Please note, however, my careful choice of words. I am referring to the present debate, not all debate. There are perfectly good grounds for debating the role or otherwise of women in the episcopate, but in the present situation in the Church of England, our troubles will not be resolved either way by settling this issue, whether to the satisfaction of some or of all.

The Church of England has only ever had male bishops, and until 1993 only had male incumbents, but for several decades (at least) it has failed to be an evangelizing body, or even to uphold the core truths of the gospel.

Consider what Towards the Conversion of England had to say about the state of the Church of England in 1945:

In view of the immense opportunities open to parochial evangelism, it is alarming to discover how few of the clergy have been given any training in the work of an evangelist, such as in the art of preaching or of personal dealing with enquirers; how few, again, have been used of God to bring a soul to new birth ... (98)

Or again,

The ignorance of the Bible to-day, not only in the ranks of the laity but also amongst many of the clergy (and particularly the younger clergy) is really horrifying. Yet there is nothing more vital for the work of evangelism. The Bible contains the title deeds of our Faith. How many priests, to-day, by pointing to passages and verses from the Holy Scriptures, can bring that assurance of salvation to enquirers which our Bible-loving forefathers were able to mediate to countless multitudes? (100)

Indeed earlier on the report makes this damning observation:

... the Church is ill-equipped for its unparalleled task and opportunity. The laity complain of a lack of creative leadership among all ranks of the clergy. The spiritual resources of the worshipping community are at a low ebb. Above all, the Church has become confused and uncertain in the proclamation of its message, and its life has ceased to reflect clearly the truth of the Gospel. (6)

Yet that was the situation with an all-male clergy and all-male bishops. And whilst it might be objected that little has changed today, clearly gender is absolutely no guarantee of evangelistic endeavour.

And here is another point to recognize. If that is still the situation in much of the Church of England today, creating and maintaining all-male enclaves of ministry and episcopal oversight, far from transforming matters may actually make them worse.

But what have bishops got to do with it? Some critics of Conservative Evangelicals have rightly observed that until they were threatened with women in the role, they rather preferred to ignore bishops entirely. And that is true. But the answer is not to carry on ignoring them.

Another book that I believe should be on the shelf of every bishop is that by the Rt Revd Samson Mwaluda, Bishop of Taita Taveta in Kenya, titled Reorienting a Church for Accelerated Growth (Nairobi: Uzima, 2003). In it, Mwaluda points out,

Our experience in Kenya, as in many parts of the Anglican Church worldwide, is that the diocesan bishops [sic] leading rôle affects every aspect of the Church. I want to contend that one key factor in the reorientation of the Anglican Church in Taita Taveta for accelerated growth, is for the diocesan bishop to focus on his rôle as the chief teacher-evangelist.”(18)

Then he adds,

The Anglican Church, particularly in the West, is decreasing in areas where bishops undervalue evangelism and the teaching of the apostles’ doctrine. [...] Anglicanism is growing quickly where bishops are vision bearing evangelist-teachers ... (19)

And this is surely the crucial point — not just about bishops but about the Church of England. According to the latest census figures, nominal Christianity has fallen by about 10% in ten years. That is not a decline, it is free-fall. And that has taken place whilst the majority of the population have, I would suggest, been indifferent to the Church’s disputes about the gender of its bishops or its attitude to homosexuality. (And furthermore it is during a period when women vicars have become widely accepted as normal. The Vicar of Dibley, which initially relied on the ‘novelty factor’, first aired in 1994.)

I don’t know how many contributors to Towards the Conversion of England are still alive (and I would very much like to contact any who are), but they must be amongst the most disappointed people in Christendom.

But as Mwaluda suggests, we do not have to look far to find one area we might address, yet which has been almost entirely ignored, and that is the attitude of our clergy in general and our bishops in particular, to evangelism and apostolic doctrine.

Towards the Conversion of England actually has some suggestions to make in this regard:

Any forward move ... in evangelism must begin with the clergy themselves, and with their coming together to gain a new liberation into the vision of the glory of God. Our first recommendation as a Commission is that the Bishops (if they have not already done so) should arrange for gatherings of their clergy for this purpose. (90)

That was in 1945. Yet what bishop has done so? I am not saying there are none, but certainly none under whom I have served (which is several). Indeed in all my thirty six years (almost to the day) in ordained ministry, none of those bishops has tested me on my understanding of any theological issue whatsoever, let alone the gospel itself.

There aren’t even questions asked during the process of Episcopal Review. Yet surely the most basic question that ought to be asked regularly of all clergy is ‘What do you preach and what do you teach?’

And this is where we come to the bishops themselves.

Bishops are the overseers of the shepherds and the guardians of the gospel. I feel no embarrassment in making that statement. That is why we have them and that is, first and foremost, what they are supposed to do. If they don’t do it, no one else will or can.

So the first question that should be asked of any candidate to the episcopate is the one they themselves ought to ask regularly of those under their charge: ‘What gospel do you preach and what gospel do you teach?’

Actually, I do know a suffragan bishop who, in his interview, was asked almost exactly this, and I was very impressed by the fact. (I don’t know his answer, but I am glad the question was put.) Yet if you look at the preaching and teaching, or simply the priorities of bishops, you do wonder what they feel about the Apostle Paul’s charge to the Corinthians:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ... (1 Cor 15:1-3, NKJV)

Now whenever I post this, someone always objects ‘What about the resurrection?’ And indeed the resurrection is there in Paul’s preaching. But the crucifixion is the horse that pulls the cart, as we see elsewhere not least in the words of Jesus himself:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mk 10:45, NKJV)

But the important word in what Paul has to say, as far as our present debate is concerned, is the word ‘if’; as in ‘the gospel ... by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you’.

For the Apostle views life in these terms: that the only guarantee of salvation is to hold fast to the word of the gospel, of which the first and key element is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (which means, incidentally, as a ‘penal substitutionary’ sacrifice — try Numbers 8:15-18 for a change and Article II).

This concern — this gospel — is what should be at the forefront of episcopal ministry. Every bishop should believe that the word of the gospel begins with Christ’s death for sins, scripturally understood, and only if people believe and hold fast to this can we be sure of their salvation from the coming wrath of God.

And every bishop should ensure, as far as possible, that the clergy under his — or her — charge, who hold his or her license, believe, preach and teach the same.

Whether and how that can be the case is the real debate we should be having and which we are yet to have. Who are the bishops who believe this, and who are the candidates for the episcopate who believe it?

Without that, we will never be the Church which Christ builds and whose prevailing against the gates of hell he guarantees.

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

Whitby: Another Fine Mess

I doubt whether he realized it at the time, but John Secker, the Churchwarden at St Oswald’s Lythe who organized the petition which led the Revd Philip North to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Whitby, is urging others to break church rules and indeed may be in transgression of those rules himself.

The 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, which is of course still in force, states as its first principle the following:

Ordinations and Appointments

1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Although Mr Secker and other signatories might not themselves be covered by the Act (they are not, after all, involved in the appointments process), the pressure they are exerting is, in fact, encouraging others to do just that.

Any appointment at Whitby which took their request into account would be a violation of the Act of Synod.

However, such violations have already taken place, most explicitly in the appointment of the latest Bishop of Salisbury, where the diocesan statement of needs said that “The Bishop will have to be prepared to ordain men and women without discrimination”. This, of course, was itself clearly in breach of the Act.

Unfortunately, no one picked it up at the time (which seems extraordinary, but is the case) and the appointment went through. But clearly, given the lack of ‘traditionalist’ appointments at every level, such discrimination has been going on for some time.

The situation is confused, however, by the fact that the abortive appointment of Fr North may itself have been in breach of the Act.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the succession of traditionalist catholic bishops at Whitby has been part of ‘an informal arrangement’. And informal arrangements do not seem to be envisaged by the Act.

According to the Act of Synod, a diocesan bishop should ‘make arrangements so far as possible within his own diocese for appropriate care and oversight for clergy and parishes’. Similarly, bishops in a region ‘acting jointly shall from time to time nominate from within their region for the purpose of this Act of Synod one or more bishops who are opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood.’ And of course the Archbishops may operate the scheme of PEVs (Flying Bishops).

So in London, for example, the post of the Bishop of Fulham was more formally linked with the oversight of traditionalist parishes and clergy, in keeping with the first provision of the Act.

The problem in Whitby seems to be that there was no such formal ‘designation’ – hence, presumably, the disappointment of some of those in the Cleveland area who would have expected at least a chance of having a bishop who did support the ordination of women.

The thing to bear in mind — which is often forgotten — is that both those in support of, and those opposed to, the ordination and consecration of women, are faithful Anglicans. In principle, therefore, the good people of Whitby should have been prepared to take what they were given, provided everyone stuck to the rules. And it  may be that the signatories of the Cleveland petition are unaware of the nuances of Anglicanism and of the formal provisions still in place, in which case they acted out of ignorance, not in defiance of those rules.

Nevertheless, they have created a doubtless-unforeseen difficulty over Fr North’s replacement, for if the process still follows the rules, the views of his ‘successor’ must be disregarded, in which case they could find themselves back in the same situation as before. However, precisely because Fr North has stood down on the grounds that his views (in his opinion) would make it difficult for him to be a ‘focus of unity’, it is hard to see how his replacement’s views could simply be ignored as the rules actually require. Yet if his replacement does not share his views, it will be hard to avoid the suggestion that the rules have again been broken, this time in the other direction.

Meanwhile, ironically, the action of the Cleveland petitioners contradicts the demand of many supporters of women bishops that people ought not to be able to choose their bishop on the basis of his or her views. In this case, the supporters of women’s ordination are doing exactly that — although one suspects (given the theological position of some of those in support of women bishops) that this  demand has at least partly in view the next flashpoint, which will be over bishops’ views on homosexuality.

Of course, one could say the objectors ought not to be allowed to get away with it. Alternatively, one could argue instead that the introduction of one innovation (women bishops) opens the door to others (bishops whose sphere of influence is defined theologically as well as geographically).

Either way, it is ‘another fine mess’.

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

God, Christ and Gender

One of the issues that has arisen in the ongoing debates about the consecration of women bishops is the representative nature of those we commonly call ‘priests’. Specifically, it is being asked what their gender has to do with their humanity and therefore their adequacy for the ‘priesthood’.

If one takes an ‘iconic’ view of priesthood, then this is clearly pertinent. If the priest somehow ‘embodies’ Christ in performing the functions of priesthood — particularly the celebration of the Lord’s Supper — then it might be worth asking whether a woman can do this in exactly the same way as a man.

The best negation of the argument that it makes no difference is perhaps that put forward by CS Lewis in his 1948 essay ‘Priestesses in the Church’. “Why,” Lewis asked, “should a woman not in this sense represent God?” He continued,

Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as ‘God-like’ as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man.

Such assumptions are taken for granted today. But Lewis had a different objection. “The sense in which she cannot represent God,” he wrote, “will perhaps be plainer if we look at the thing the other way round.” The full force of his argument requires quoting at length:

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to “Our Mother which art in heaven” as to “Our Father”. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask “Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?”

But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child.

We should note that even in Lewis’s day, the argument that God has no biological gender was advanced to ‘deconstruct’ the language used about God. And we should note also that Lewis is well aware of the effects of such deconstruction. Far from the use of ‘Mother’ instead of ‘Father’ being the harmless exchange of one metaphor for another, it would (at least in his view) lead to a religious life, and therefore a religion, “radically different from that of a Christian”.

Hence for Lewis the iconic significance of the priest required that the priest be male rather than female, for with the Church, he says, “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.”

But what if you do not share Lewis’s iconic view of the priesthood or his sacramentalism with regard to priestly function? What if, as I have suggested earlier, you would allow that anyone and everyone, including women, could celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Is there still room for saying that gender matters, either in relation to God or to Christ? And what implications, if any, does this have for our thinking about ministry?

Our thinking about gender in this particular context has not one but two starting points.

One is biology. And here gender is relatively straightforward, being essentially a component of the process of sexual reproduction. I say relatively because even here there are complications. Some species, for example, exhibit hermaphroditism, where a single organism can function as either the ‘male’ or ‘female’ partner.

Down at the cellular level, however, everything is clear. Whether one is talking about the vegetable or animal kingdoms, sexual reproduction involves the fusion of two gametes (cells with half the usual pair of chromosomes) to form a zygote (a cell with a full complement of chromosome pairs, one from each of the parent organisms).

All the rest, as they say is commentary. But the commentary is both considerable and variable and gives us little by way of ‘rules’ either of gender characteristics or behaviours. Male and female are not hard and fast concepts — not that they are not essentially clear cut within a given species, but that taken as a whole they do not justify us making statements of the form ‘all males look like’, or ‘all females act like’.

At this point, however, we must introduce the spiritual dimension, for as Lewis says above, in the Christian religion we believe that “God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him”. And he does this from very early on.

In Genesis 1:26 we read that God first deliberates about making human beings: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ...”

Some, most notably the feminist theologian Phyllis Trible, have suggested that this adam is androgynous — a sexually undifferentiated ‘earthling’. But this is unsustainable for numerous reasons. Here we may note simply that the text goes on to speak of adam in the plural: “and let them rule over the fish of the sea, etc.” What ever God plans to make, there will be more than one of them.

And so we read how this works out in the next verse, which forms a poetic triplet (single Hebrew words are indicated by square brackets):

[And created he] [God] [man]* [in his image]
[In the image] [of God] [he created] [him]
[Male] [and female] [he created] [them].

In the first part of the triplet, adam has the definite article. But we need not translate this as ‘the man’ since frequently elsewhere (eg Gen 7:21) ha-adam simply means ‘humankind’. Nevertheless, as the second stanza shows, adam in this sense can be spoken of as a collective singular. To use a term which is now regarded as archaic, we are one ‘mankind’, not ‘men and women’ — a point brought out by Genesis 5:1b-2:

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man [adam].” (NIV)

And though it is common to regard Genesis 2 as being a separate ‘creation narrative’, actually it brings home rather neatly the point made in chapter 1: there is a singular ‘adam’ before there is a plurality of male and female.

This means, furthermore, that we must address at this point the question of a ‘Christological’ reading of the opening chapters of Genesis, for in the New Testament the first Adam is clearly seen as anticipatory of Christ, “a pattern of the one to come” (Rom 5:14), who is therefore a ‘second Adam’:

So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Cor 15:45)

And this is of enormous significance in terms of our salvation, for the argument runs that what is true of the first in a negative sense is true of the second positively. Thus,

... since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:21-22)

When it comes to Genesis 1:27, therefore, we must hold the second and third stanzas in tension. God created a singular ‘man’ in his image and he created a plural ‘male and female’ also in his image.

Once again, we must understand this Christologically. The first point — that one man on his own can image God — must be true in order for what the Bible later affirms about Christ to be true also:

For he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Col 1:15)

Christ’s imaging of God lacks nothing. Furthermore, it is necessary that he be the full image-bearer, for we ourselves derive our imaging of God from him:

And just as we have borne the likeness [eikon, image] of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness [eikon, image] of the man from heaven. (1 Cor 15:49)

But here we must be very careful and again we must be ready to read Genesis Christologically, for what do we mean by ‘Christ’?

In attempting to do theology, there is a danger of treating the person of Christ in isolation, as if Christ were an abstract concept or, more plausibly perhaps, understood comprehensively as a member of the Godhead. That, however, would not be true, for Christ as we know Christ — Christ as he is revealed to us — is not an abstraction, nor even just the Second Person of the Trinity. Rather, as 1 Peter puts it, he is the lamb “chosen before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet 1:20).

Indeed, he is the one whose character determines the world as we know it, since it was made not only “by him” but “for him” (Col 1:16). His very character is that of ‘Creator Redeemer’, and therefore though it does not require, it entails another.

And it is here that the third stanza of Genesis 1:27 comes into play: “Male and female (in the image of God) he created them”, for what we see played out in the history of creation and redemption is that God images his own image.

God is imaged in Christ, in whom dwells the fullness of God taking bodily form in his creation (Col 1:19). And as Christ is imaged in us, so God is imaged in that which he has created which is entirely distinct from himself.

Now something of this is surely what we see in Genesis 2. We are told in 2:18 that it is ‘not good’ for Adam to be alone — a word which means not ‘lonely’ but ‘the only one of his kind’ (cf Gen 44:20; Ex 18:14, etc). Similarly, however, in God’s plan for creation, it is clearly not his intention that Christ should be ‘alone’. On the contrary, through Christ God is “bringing many sons to glory” (Heb 2:10). Therefore,

Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. (Heb 2:11)

But there is only one eternal Son who is “ the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Heb 1:3). Therefore these ‘images of the image’ must be both ‘the same as’ and ‘quite different from’ the eternal Son, whose image they bear by derivation from him rather than by nature.

And this, I suggest, is the theological heart of the concept of gender.

Following a Christological reading of Genesis 2, we stand in relation to Christ as Eve stood in relation to Adam. He recognized her as ‘bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh’. In a real sense she was him — an image of the image-bearer. But in another sense, she was quite distinct from him — a being in her own right. And this is brought out in her name: she is an ishshah, not an ish — a woman, not a man (and later an Eve, not an Adam). But she is an ishshah precisely because “she was taken out of man” (Gen 2:23).

And all of this sets the stage for the comment in 2:24 which Paul will pick up and place at the centre of his understanding of the Church and of the nature of our salvation:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Gen 2:24, cf Eph 5:31)

This is why, in the great drama of marriage and sexuality husband is to wife as Christ is to Church, which is again as head is to body. Christ is not alone, for that would be ‘not good’ in relation to creation. Rather, it is ‘Christ and the Church’ which constitutes the ‘one new man’ (Eph 2:15) ruling over God’s creation.

The Psalmist expresses a sense of mystery in relation to Genesis 1:

what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honour. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet (Ps 8:4-7)

Ephesians sees it fulfilled in Christ and the Church:

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Eph 1:22-23)

God is thus rightly and always in relation to us ‘he’. And in marriage the husband is always to the wife as Christ, and the wife is always to the husband as the Church.

What this means for the ministry is simply (!) that what we do in the congregation should follow what we see revealed in Christ. But that, of course, may be a challenge to all of us in many ways.

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

The 'priesthood' of 'priests' and the priesthood of believers

In the wake of the vote against the women bishops Measure, I find myself pondering just what questions we now need to be asking. If the recent General Synod vote is to have any redeeming outcome, it will probably involve the willingness to rethink assumed theological positions.

This is certainly being urged by ‘egalitarians’ on ‘complementarians’, but there is every reason why that could be applied to all.

Without a doubt, women bishops would be an innovation in the Church of England, contrary to the entire tradition of Anglican history from before the Reformation to the present.

Such a thing might indeed be possible — some are arguing it is a gospel imperative — but by the same token, surely any position, no matter how long its pedigree or widespread its acceptance, is thereby similarly open to question (if not necessarily to overthrow).

And one such must be the nature of ‘priesthood’. In the wake of the Synod vote, blogger Revd Jody Stowell wrote, for example, of her feeling that she “simply did not exist at the same level of priestliness” as her male colleagues. Again, she said that she felt like “a second class priest”. Indeed throughout her post the underlying conviction is that she is a ‘priest’.

Yet whenever I read such language I cannot help, as a Protestant, being reminded of the words of Martin Luther: “Worthy of anathema is any assertion that a priest is anything else than a Christian” (LW 40:19).

Despite my Anglo-Catholic upbringing I have always, since my conversion, regarded it as self-evident that every Christian is fully a priest. Equally, I have always instinctively shared Luther’s view of the continuing use of the word ‘priest’ and its impact on our thinking:

... we neither can nor ought to give the name priest to those who are in charge of Word and sacrament among the people. The reason they have been called priests is either because of the custom of heathen people or as a vestige of the Jewish nation. The result is greatly injurious to the church. (LW 40:35, Concerning the Ministry, 1523)

Now of course Ms Stowell may be using the word ‘priest’ in its proper sense, as ‘presbyter writ small’. I do not need to assert any covert Romanism on her part.

But if we are to have a frank discussion of women in the episcopate, it is not inappropriate to have an equally frank discussion about all of us, men and women alike, in the ‘priesthood’ (or presbyterate) and to attempt to identify what this really ought to mean. For in following Luther’s thoughts on the subject, those functions which are reserved to the Anglican priesthood are properly seen as belonging to all in the Church by merit of their shared ‘priesthood’. Thus he writes,

... all Christians, and they alone, even women, are priests, without tonsure and episcopal “character.” [...] So when women baptize, they exercise the function of priesthood legitimately, and do it not as a private act, but as a part of the public ministry of the church which belongs only to the priesthood. (LW 40:23)

Now if we were to accept this position, I wonder what difference it would make to the debate on women’s ordination and consecration? For Anglo-Catholics, I suspect it would simply be intolerable. But would it affect the views of the proponents of women bishops if we accepted that any and every Christian, without episcopal ordination, could celebrate the sacraments and do all the other things appertaining to the ‘priesthood’?

In a way, the position is not much different, after all, to that of evangelicals like myself whose position on women being vicars and bishops is that they should not, rather than that they cannot. To say that anyone could perform these functions without episcopal ordination does not mean they should, but that is a very far cry from saying that they simply could not even if they went through the motions.

It is here, however, that we come up against the assumptions within our present framework. In its criteria for selection, for example, the Ministry Division of the Church of England insists that candidates for ordination “should be able to speak of the distinctiveness of ordained ministry within the Church of England”. This is in addition to being able “to articulate a sense of vocation to the ordained ministry” and having “an inner sense of call”.

All this, it seems to me, is likely to make any candidate for ordained ministry think that he or she is ‘special’ in a way which is not common to all believers. And this is further complicated by the fact that in Anglicanism we tie this up with the language of ‘priesthood’ — a word which, however much we may (or may not!) wish to gloss it as meaning something other than what it did under the Old Covenant, speaks of a special relationship with God and with the rest of humanity.

Now of course there is something special about the ministry conducted by clergy. But the important question is how it differs from the ministries of all believers. Are there two kinds of priesthood — one common to all and another belonging to a special order within the Church? Or are there just specialities within the 'priesthood of all believers' like there are specialities in, for example, the Navy, with some having expertise in one area, some in another, but all (like the crew of a ship) essential to the whole?

There are some who would argue that the Anglican model of priesthood provides an important link to the ‘Catholic’ Church — that our orders are a vital lifeline with the wider community of believers and with the grace of God necessary for our life in Christ.

There are others who would be dismissive of all talk of distinctions or of sacraments.

But there are others again who would regard the Anglican attitude as not so much a ‘model’ as a set of unexamined assumptions, where priests are ‘distinctive’ but no one is quite sure how, where the ministry is ‘sacramental’ but no one is quite agreed why, and where the people of God are all ‘special’, but some are not quite as special as others.

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

Women bishops: what concessions were made?

One of the things I have heard and read frequently in the wake of the failure of the women bishops Measure is that supporters, as one Tweet put it, ‘bent over backwards’ to accommodate Traditionalists.

On this blog, one person wrote “we compromised, we put aside our own desires, our own theological convictions, our very sense of identity in Christ to accommodate those opposed in a spirit of love”.

Now my problem is this. From where I am sitting, it simply didn’t look like that. Sorry, but that is the case. I remember too well the public tears of the Bishop of Dover (who was also ‘ashamed’ then to be part of the Church of England) at the Synod in July 2008.

This was the same occasion on which the Bishop of Durham reportedly called for the debate to be abandoned — a debate during which thirteen proposals, most of them intended to strengthen provision for Traditionalists, were voted down.

Sadly, I remember it all too well, and my feeling that the writing was very clearly on the wall. At that point I was personally convinced that nothing except a bare minimum of provision would be offered. The ‘train crash’ of last Tuesday started, as far as I am concerned, with the ‘derailment’ four years ago.

So here is my question, and I ask respondents PLEASE to keep their replies brief and to the point.

I am looking for specific examples where what Traditionalists requested was either approved or strengthened through the decision-making processes of the General Synod. For example, you could say, “The House of Bishop’s Clause 5(1)c amendment was not completely removed and a form of words to satisfy Traditionalists was attempted.” (Only don’t, because I’ve got that one down.

I would genuinely welcome contributions as I feel progress can only be made in an atmosphere of honesty, which includes correcting the historical record.

As a PS, please don't write and tell me no concessions were made — I want to hear from those who can tell me about what was done, not what wasn't.

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

Parliament calls for 'statutory provision' for opponents of women's ordination

How  different things were back then. Here is a repost of an earlier article of mine, which picks up on the 1993 debates.

As a PS to my earlier article, someone e-mailed me a link to Hansard for 1st November 1993, prior to the final parliamentary debate which approved the 1992 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, which records the answer from Mr Michael Alison to a question put by Harry Greenway MP.

This makes it quite clear that without the Act of Synod, Parliament would "insist" that the Synod put in place a further Measure, "to create a statutory provision" for those opposed to the ordination of women and requiring appropriate episcopal provision. The necessary linkage between the 1992 Measure and the 1993 Act is thus, I believe, firmly established, as is the "moral authority" of the Act.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : The Act of Synod will provide for the appointment of up to three new suffragan bishops to act as provincial episcopal visitors. Their remuneration will be the same as that of other suffragan bishops. Housing and a car will be provided and working expenses will be reimbursed.

Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Church Commissioners will bear in mind the great concern expressed by the House in last Friday's debate that priests and congregations committed to a male priesthood be properly looked after when females--ladies--are ordained as priests in a few months' time? Will he give an assurance that the Act of Synod measure which deals with the matter will give proper moral and real authority to those bishops committed to protecting those congregations and to serving them?

Mr. Alison : I am delighted that my hon. Friend has underscored the need for the co-called Act of Synod to have real teeth and real moral authority. I shall convey the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed to the General Synod when it meets at Church house next week to discuss the very point that my hon. Friend has raised. The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.
 
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Lest we forget: the ABp of York in 1993

Something someone asked me about prompted me to look up an earlier Blog post on the Act of Synod. These words of the then-Archbishop of York speaking in the House of Lords make poignant reading:

People have said, “Well, it is possible to revert an Act of Synod”. Of course, it is possible to revert anything, even legislation. However, as I am sure that your Lordships realise, it is not very easy to reverse things in the Church of England; indeed, it is not easy to do anything in the Church of England, especially if one is trying to undo something. Any motion of that kind requires the approval of all three Houses. Therefore, once you have something, it is really quite hard to get rid of it. I believe that the House can, with confidence, vote for the Measures before us unamended. I feel that we will all come together and that the synod will, next week, see the point of enshrining this treasured diversity of the Church of England in the Act of Synod.

People need to understand, this is why trust has been so hard to gain. We have memories!


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

Don't blame the laity!

One of the opinions being voiced subsequent to the defeat on Tuesday of the women bishop’s Measure is that the House of Laity is ‘unrepresentative’. It is therefore ‘their fault’ that the vote was lost, and there are subtle — and not so subtle — hints going around that ‘something must be done’.

To a limited extent, I sympathize. Clearly the House of Laity represents a different point of view from that to be found in the House of Bishops. But if accusations of bias are to be made regarding the former, they are surely even more justified regarding the latter, which contains no — count them — representatives of the Conservative Evangelical Complementarian position.

Indeed, no one of that persuasion has been appointed as a bishop for years — an outcome which invites the accusation not so much of bias as Gerrymandering. (The latter was a mythical Irish bird, named after the shape of a constituency so redrawn on the map as to make the election of their own candidate by a Roman Catholic majority an impossibility.)

Let us return, though, to the House of Laity. This certainly contains a significant number of Traditionalists on the issue of women’s ordination — perhaps not enough to have swung the vote on their own, but certainly enough to help.

But why were people of such persuasions on the General Synod in the first place?

Part of the answer is because it became clear back in 2008 that ‘proper provision’ was going to be highly unlikely. It is worth re-reading this Daily Telegraph piece on the voting then, which reports not only the tears of the Bishop of Dover, but the depressing litany of the voting:

By yesterday’s debate 13 amendments had been put forward, many of which called for much tougher safeguards such as the creation of entirely new “men only” dioceses to look after those across the country who did not want to be led by a woman bishop, or a new class of “super bishop” to minister to traditionalists in their existing dioceses.

But one by one these proposals were voted out by the Synod despite their support from many senior bishops and both Archbishops.

It is because of such things that I find it hard to accept the suggestion that the provisions finally put in place were, as some people described them, ‘generous’.

But this is also why the composition of the House of Laity today became what it is.

With the 2010 elections to General Synod looming, there were many people who offered, or who were encouraged, to stand for election precisely because they feared the lack of proper provision. And although I have absolutely no way of knowing whether all of them made that clear in their election addresses, all of them were certainly elected in the proper manner by the legal electorate of Deanery Synod representatives.

Thus, though the composition of the House of Laity was partly the consequence of deliberately political action by opponents of the proposed legislation, the motivation for this was equally in part the previous actions of the General Synod itself.

In short, it was the actions and decisions being taken before 2010 that, ironically, contributed to the Traditionalist make-up of the House of Laity and the eventual defeat of the Measure.

It is illegitimate to blame these lay representatives as if somehow they were at fault for seeing what was happening, being concerned and getting involved in the political process. Is this not what we would normally encourage?

By contrast, the composition of the House of Bishops is impossible to influence by the ordinary process of voting, and in the House of Clergy it is difficult, for obvious reasons, even to get elected if you are an express opponent of women’s ordination or consecration. Hence there is a bias the other way in both these houses, just as there is probably some bias (how much is hard to say) amongst the laity.

Those who have least to complain about, though, are those who are suggesting that ‘next time it will be different because we will get our act together’. That is what they are entitled to do, but they ought not to complain on principle at others doing the same.

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

Women Bishops: our Good Friday moment

It was somewhat symbolic, not to say ironic, that the concord that signalled the beginning of the end of decades of religiously-linked violence in Northern Ireland should be called the ‘Good Friday Agreement’.

In order to bring it about, people had to sit at the same table with those who had killed friends, colleagues and loved ones. Not just pride, but genuine hurt, had to be put to one side. In a very real sense, a sacrificial price was paid.

In the wake of the vote going against the women bishop’s Measure on Tuesday there has been a massive outpouring of hurt and anger. It would be quite possible to analyse this and to comment further.

But when all has been said, one fact remains. Those in disagreement are going to have to sit down at the same table and resume the process of seeking a way ahead.

This must happen. It is not only inevitable, it is right. And the sooner it begins to happen, the better for all.

We should remember that we are the Church. If Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley can manage to talk to one another in the same room, then clearly so can — and should — we. Let those who have the option begin the process now.

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

Women Bishops: What Went Wrong?

The article below is written to present things at a 'parish magazine' level. Feel free to use it.

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

Women Bishops: What Went Wrong?

On the 20th November the General Synod of the Church of England, meeting at Church House Westminster, discussed legislation (a ‘Measure’) to introduce women bishops.

The Measure had already been approved by forty-two of the country’s forty-four dioceses and was clearly favoured by the majority of the General Synod. Late that afternoon, however, by a margin of five votes, the Measure was defeated.

How did this happen, and what went wrong?

The first thing to realize is that when Anglican synods vote on major legislation, they do so by ‘houses’ — the bishops, clergy and laity each having their own House — and the legislation has to gain majorities in each of the three. Furthermore, when the legislation is really serious a two-thirds majority is also required.

In this particular case, the Houses of Bishops and Clergy each supported the legislation (overwhelmingly in the case of the bishops), but it failed in the House of Laity.

At this point, some people are crying ‘Foul!’ But the Church put these extra requirements in place for a reason. In matters of faith, it was felt, the maintenance of truth and unity would be very important. In certain circumstances, therefore, a ‘fifty-percent-plus-one’ margin was felt not to be enough either to affirm that a decision was right or that sufficient people supported it.

Some of the rancour that is being expressed about the required majority therefore shows a misunderstanding of how the Church of England chooses to do things, and why.

As to the acceptance of the Measure amongst the dioceses, but its rejection in General Synod, this is again the way the Church chooses to operate. Measures (which actually go on for consideration by Parliament) have to be referred to dioceses for discussion and approval. But it is the General Synod that has the final word.

One reason for this is that the General Synod is, frankly, considered to be better-equipped theologically. And certainly the one time I attended there were clearly a lot of very bright and experienced people there.

But why, when so many seemed in favour, did the legislation finally fail? There are two schools of thought on this. One has it that the ‘Traditionalists’ refused to compromise. The other, that the compromises offered to Traditionalists were simply inadequate.

So which is to be believed? An important point to bear in mind is that the General Synod decided some years ago to accept the appointment of women bishops in principle. The question since then has not been whether but how to introduce this, given that some people (for a variety of reasons) dissented from this move. Both those in favour and those against, however, were spread out along a spectrum of ‘solutions’.

At one end were those Traditionalists who wanted a ‘Third Province’ — virtually a separate branch of the Church of England. At the other end were those who advocated a so-called ‘single clause’ Measure — one that introduced women bishops with no provision for dissenters.

Over the next few years, the options on offer to Traditionalists were gradually whittled down, whereas the ‘single clause’ approach was still being considered almost until the last minute. Nevertheless, even in 2008, when the first draft of the proposed Measure was produced, Traditionalists were being offered their own bishops who would perform a whole range of functions, including overseeing appointments in parishes and even sponsoring candidates for ordination. Had that remained on offer, there is little doubt the legislation would eventually have been accepted by them.

It soon became clear, however, such these proposals would be fiercely resisted by many supporters of women bishops, who made up the majority of the General Synod. A second draft of the Measure therefore removed almost all of the provisions in the first. In their place was simply the delegation to an alternative bishop of “the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service” and “the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners”.

The difficulty remained, though, that there might be just enough Traditionalists in the House of Laity to reject this new proposal as failing to give ‘proper provision’. Various attempts were therefore made to head off this prospect, but all were again opposed as offering too much, including a suggestion by the two Archbishops in July 2010, which was defeated on a ‘vote by houses’ in the House of Clergy. Finally, in July this year, the House of Bishops (as it is allowed to do) introduced the now-notorious Clause 5(1)c.

This stated that a Code of Practice (yet to be written) would 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 under section 3 [of the Measure]” (emphasis added).

At this point, however, supporters of women bishops in the Synod hit the roof, making it quite clear that they would vote down the Measure if this Clause remained in. Thus instead of the legislation being voted on in July, it was referred back to the House of Bishops for ‘reconsideration’ of the offending Clause.

Hence what came before the Synod in November was different again. Clause 5(1)c was still there, but now with words suggested by a supporter of women bishops, the Revd Janet Appleby, stating that the Code of Practice would give guidance as to “the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3” (emphasis added).

Clearly this was very different from the previous version (and a very long way from a Third Province). Yet even Janet Appleby herself said that she found this suggestion “personally painful and feared this was a compromise too far.”

In the event, however, it turned out to be a compromise not quite far enough. When it came to the vote, the Measure was narrowly defeated. Yet the likelihood is that had the original Clause 5(1)c been allowed to stand, the Measure would either have passed or have been voted down only by the supporters of women bishops.

Ironically, therefore, the Measure was arguably lost by its supporters rather than defeated by its opponents — who have been in a minority all the way through.

So where do we go from here? At the moment the recriminations are flying thick and fast. And the talk is of ‘years’ before the issue is resolved. Yet we have a new Archbishop in waiting and he was a businessman before he became a member of the clergy. It would be far better if he could be allowed to find a solution in the next eighteen months, and with enough willingness to work together, this might be achievable.

We in the Church of England have made a terrible mess of things, and our first response should be repentance. But after that, we need to aim at reconciliation and to avoid recrimination. The Church of England may never quite be the same again, but perhaps that is a good thing, and in its way, an answer to the many prayers that have been prayed about this issue in past weeks.

Revd John Richardson

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

Finally: women on women bishops

I suspect some people are going to have apoplexy watching this. Still, you've got to love the opening. I might just edit that bit and keep it as a clip -- if you'll pardon the pun.



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

Evangelical and Catholic letter to The Times: text and signatories

Below is the text of the letter that was published yesterday in The Times and a complete list of the signatories. I would just want to add two things. First, I can immediately think of three people in the Diocese of Chelmsford who I'm sure would have signed it, but whose names do not appear. It therefore must not be regarded as a complete list.

Secondly, contra what was said in The Times, this letter is in no way a challenge to Archbishop-elect Justin Welby's authority. Some of those who signed, myself included, have already expressed in other contexts (for example a greeting from the Church of England Evangelical Council) our welcome of his forthcoming appointment.

Of course, the whole issue presents a challenge to his leadership, but that would be true whichever way it goes. And he seems to be a man who takes such challenges in his stride -- that is why some of us have invested a degree of hope in him.

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


Sir,

As active priests from both the Catholic and Evangelical groupings of the Church of England, we write to express our deep concern over the draft Women Bishops Measure. We believe that our future ministries will be severely prejudiced if the General Synod votes to approve the draft Measure.

The Bible teaches – and the Church has traditionally understood – that men and women are equal before God and yet have different, complementary, roles in the Church. By maintaining these different roles, neither men nor women are diminished; rather, we demonstrate God’s wisdom in creating us to operate in this way.

We accept that there is a majority desire to introduce women bishops, but we are also very conscious that the minority in disagreement is far from insignificant. We had hoped for compromise – but the provision being made for us in the draft Measure comes nowhere near what we need.

We are told that if Synod does not pass the draft Measure it will impair the mission of the Church. However, approving the draft Measure will do much more harm in the long term and will lead irrevocably to deep fractures appearing within the Church. We urge Synod to avoid this by voting not to approve the draft Measure.

Yours faithfully


The Revd Rod Thomas, Diocese of Exeter

Chairman, Reform

The Revd Canon Simon Killwick, Diocese of Manchester

Chairman, Catholic Group in General Synod

and 324 others:

The Revd Stuart Allen, Diocese of Coventry
The Revd Michael Andreyev, Diocese of Derby
The Revd Nigel Atkinson, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Andrew Hartropp, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Peter Ackroyd, Diocese of St Albans
The Revd Peter Anthony, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Ben Archibald, Diocese of Peterborough
The Revd Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd David Atallah, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Simon Austen, Diocese of Carlisle
The Venerable George Austin, Diocese of St Albans
The Revd Martin Bailey, Diocese of St Albans
The Revd Iain Baker, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd David Banting, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Neil Barber, Diocese of Derby
The Revd Philip Barnes, Diocese of London
The Revd David Barnsley, Diocese of Derby
The Revd Michael Bartlett, Diocese of Worcester
The Revd Dane Batley-Gladden, Diocese of London
The Revd Brian Bell, Diocese of Wakefield
The Revd Paul Benfield, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Ian Bentley, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd Jonathan Beswick, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd John Birchall, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Michael Blackman, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Tudor Boddam-Whetham, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Ian Booth, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd David Bourne, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Dexter Bracey, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Matthew Brailsford, Diocese of York
The Revd Andy Brewerton, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Robert Brewis, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Ian Brooks, Diocese of Liverpool
The Revd Iain Broomfield, Diocese of Rochester
The Venerable Michael Brotherton, Diocese of London
The Revd Paul Bryce, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd James Buchanan, Diocese of London
The Revd Dr Terry Buckingham, Diocese of Bradford
The Revd Canon Allan Buik, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Mark Burkill, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Tim Burrell, Diocese of Ripon & Leeds
The Revd Graham Burrows, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Andrew Burton, Diocese of St Albans
The Revd Reg Bushau, Diocese of London
The Revd William Butt, Diocese of Derby
The Revd Paul Bye, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Andy Byfield, Diocese of Peterborough
The Revd Mike Cain, Diocese of Bristol
The Revd Philip Calvert, Diocese of Birmingham
The Revd Ken Campbell, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Leon Carberry, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Charles Card-Reynolds, Diocese of London
The Revd Paul Cartwright, Diocese of Wakefield
The Revd Victor Cassam, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd John Caster, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Philip Chadder, Diocese of St Albans
The Revd Carl M Chambers, Diocese of Chichester
The Venerable Ian Chandler, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Tim Chapman, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Jim Charles, Diocese of Canterbury
The Revd Godfrey Kiprotich (Kip) Chelashaw, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Simon Clark, Diocese of London
The Revd Dr Terry Clark, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Philip J Coekin, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Richard Coekin, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Prebendary Ian Cook, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Canon Stephen Cope, Diocese of York
The Revd Philip Corbett, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd David Craven, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Tim Crook, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd George Crowder, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Greg Cushing, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Daniel Howard, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Paul Darlington, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Alan Davies, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Tim Davies, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Paul Dawson, Diocese of London
The Revd Andrew Dawswell, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Nicholas Deane, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd John Dewar, Diocese of Southwell & Nottingham
The Revd Steve Donald, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Simon Dowdy, Diocese of London
The Revd Raphael Duckett, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd James Dudley-Smith, Diocese of Bath & Wells
The Revd Canon Kit Dunkley, Diocese of Coventry
The Revd James Durbin, Diocese of St Albans
The Revd William Eardley, Diocese of Derby
The Revd Robin Eastoe, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Gary Ecclestone, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Stephen Edmonds, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Nigel Elliott, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Christopher Epps, Diocese of Truro
The Revd Richard J Espin-Bradley, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Rupert Evans, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Christopher J C Evans, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Robert Farmer, Diocese of Peterborough
The Revd Dick Farr, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Ron Farrell, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Robert Fayers, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Damian Feeney, Diocese of Oxford
The Rev’d Andy Fenton, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Joe Fielder, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Geoffrey Firth, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Michael Fish, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Jonathan Fletcher, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Tony Ford, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Jonathan Frais, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Karl Freeman, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Jonathan Frith, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Peter Froggatt, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Matt Fuller, Diocese of London
The Revd Dr Adrian Furse, Diocese of Leicester
The Revd Simon Gales, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Canon Stephen Gallagher, Diocese of Norwich
The Revd Francis Gardom, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Ian Garrett, Diocese of Newcastle
The Revd David Gibb, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Mark Gilbert, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Ian Gilmour, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Nick Gowers, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Andy Greenhough, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Stephen Griffiths, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Canon Michael Gudgeon, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Stuart Halstead, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd John Hamilton, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd W Graham Hamilton, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Steven Hanna, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Tim Hanson, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Canon Geoffrey Harbord, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Christopher Hardy, Diocese of London
The Revd Canon Jeremy Haselock, Diocese of Norwich
The Revd Canon Andy Hawes, Diocese of Lincoln
The Revd Canon Clive Hawkins, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd David Hawthorn, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Neil Hibbins, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Owen Higgs, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd David Hildred, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd John Hilton, Diocese of Ripon & Leeds
The Revd Nick Hiscocks, Diocese of Salisbury
The Revd Martin Hislop, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Chris Hobbs, Diocese of Birmingham
The Revd Alan Hogarth, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd David Holloway, Diocese of Newcastle
The Revd Martin Howse, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Richard Hoyal, Diocese of Bristol
The Revd Peter Hudson, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Luke Irvine-Capel, Diocese of London
The Revd Pete Jackson, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Charles Jefferson, Diocese of Peterborough
The Revd Clive Jones, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Gareth Jones, Diocese of Ripon & Leeds
The Revd Glynn Jones, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Mark Jones, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Dr Trevor Jones , Diocese of London
The Revd Jonathan Juckes, Diocese of York
The Revd Christian Keane, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Andrew Kearns, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Prebendary Michael Kinna, Diocese of Hereford
The Revd Clay Knowles, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Dr Andrew Latimer, Diocese of London
The Revd Julian Laurence, Diocese of Bath & Wells
The Revd David Lawson, Diocese of Coventry
The Venerable Michael Lawson, Diocese of London
The Revd Brian Lay, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Richard Leadbeater, Diocese of Birmingham
The Revd David Leaf, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd James Leggett, Diocese of Portsmouth
The Revd Andy Lines, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Marc Lloyd, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Dr Peter Long, Diocese of Truro
The Revd Mark Lucas, Diocese of Peterborough
The Revd John Luff, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd John Lyon, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Rupert Mackay, Diocese of London
The Revd Angus MacLeay, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Mark Madeley, Diocese of Bristol
The Revd Julian Mann, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Dr Tony Marks, Diocese of York
The Revd Bob Marsden, Diocese of Derby
The Revd Canon Rodney Marshall, Diocese of Wakefield
The Revd Richard Marshall, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Edward Martin, Diocese of Lincoln
The Revd John Martin, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Stephen Masters, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd James Mather, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Peter Matthew, Diocese of Guildford
The Revd Fr Aidan Mayoss CR, Diocese of Wakefield
The Revd Ian McCormack, Diocese of Wakefield
The Revd Canon Peter McCrory, Diocese of Norwich
The Revd Peter McEvitt, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Terry McFadden, Diocese of Liverpool
The Rev’d Dan McGowan, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Alistair McHaffie, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Canon Robert McTeer, Diocese of Durham
The Revd Dafydd Meirion-Jones, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Suresh Menon, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Mark Mesley, Diocese of Truro
The Revd Canon Arthur Middleton, Diocese of Durham
The Revd David Middleton, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Stephen Midgley, Diocese of Ely
The Revd John Miller, Diocese of Bath & Wells
The Revd Jonathan Milton-Thompson, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Andrew Mitcham, Diocese of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich
The Revd Rohinton Mody, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd Prebendary Hugh Moore, Diocese of London
The Revd Michael Morris, Diocese of Canterbury
The Revd Simon Morris, Diocese of London
The Revd Shaun Morris, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Peter Moss, Diocese of Salisbury
The Revd Justin Mote, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd James Mowbray, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Dr Rob Munro, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Canon Lawson Nagel, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd James D G Nash, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Canon Geoffrey Neal, Diocese of St Albans
The Revd Martyn Neale, Diocese of Guildford
The Revd Peter Needham, Diocese of Wakefield
The Revd Gordon Newton, Diocese of Ripon & Leeds
The Revd Stephen Nichols, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Paul Noble, Diocese of Lincoln
The Revd Marcus Nodder, Diocese of London
The Revd Mark North, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Ross Northing, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Kevin Northover, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd Michael Oades, Diocese of Truro
The Revd James Oakley, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Canon Philip O'Reilly, Diocese of Leicester
The Revd James Paice, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Alasdair Paine, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Phil Parker, Diocese of Guildford
The Revd Prebendary Clive Pearce, Diocese of London
The Revd Fergus Pearson, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd John Percival, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Richard Perkins, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Malcolm Peters, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Andrei Petrine, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd David Phillips, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Ben Phillips, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Prebendary Sam Philpott, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Al Pickering, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Mark Pickles, Diocese of Derby
The Revd James Poole, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Martin Poolton, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd Stephen Pratt, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Frank Price, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Greg Prior, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Jonathan Pryke, Diocese of Newcastle
The Revd Alan Purser, Diocese of London
The Revd Adam Pymble, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Stephen Rae, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Andrew Raynes, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Charles Razzall, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Martin Reakes-William, Diocese of Europe
The Revd Mike Reith, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd John Richardson, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Vaughan Roberts, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd John Roberts, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Francis Rodriguez-Veglio, Diocese of Peterborough
The Revd Daniel Roe, Diocese of York
The Revd Canon Andrew Sage, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Dr Andy Saville, Diocese of London
The Revd Simon Sayer, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Carl Schaefer, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Simon Scott, Diocese of Ely
The Revd Stephen Seamer, Diocese of Europe
The Revd Dr Jeremy Sheehy, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Rupert Shelley, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd John Shepherd, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd David Sherratt, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd David Sherwood, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd John Simmons, Diocese of Manchester
The Revd Mark Simpson, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Simon Smallwood, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Darren Smith, Diocese of Birmingham
The Revd Kevin Smith, Diocese of Durham
The Revd Christopher Smith, Diocese of London
The Revd Mike Smith, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Nicolas Spicer, Diocese of Southwell & Nottingham
The Revd Chris Spinks, Diocese of Chichester
The Revd Russell Stagg, Diocese of London
The Revd John Stather, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Andrew Stevens, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Jeffrey Stokoe, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Reginald Stretton, Diocese of Leicester
The Revd Canon Dr Chris Sugden, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Clifford Swartz, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Simon Talbot, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd William Taylor, Diocese of London
The Revd James Terry, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Melvin Tinker, Diocese of York
The Revd Peter Tizzard, Diocese of Canterbury
The Revd David Todd, Diocese of Derby
The Revd Alistair Tresidder, Diocese of London
The Revd Stephen Trott, Diocese of Peterborough
The Revd Prebendary Brian Tubbs, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd Canon Nicholas Turner, Diocese of Bradford
The Revd Philip Venables, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Gary Waddington, Diocese of Ripon & Leeds
The Revd Simon Walker, Diocese of Carlisle
The Revd Stephen Walton, Diocese of Chester
The Revd Canon Dr Robin Ward, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Philip Warner, Diocese of London
The Revd Gordon Warren, Diocese of London
The Revd Dr Stephen Watkinson, Diocese of Blackburn
The Revd Tom Watts, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Andrew Waude, Diocese of Southwell & Nottingham
The Revd Dominic Webb, Diocese of Chelmsford
The Revd Robin Weekes, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Nicholas Weir, Diocese of Winchester
The Revd Nick Weldon, Diocese of Exeter
The Revd David Whitehouse, Diocese of Liverpool
The Revd Mark Whiting, Diocese of Portsmouth
The Revd Peter Wilkinson, Diocese of Oxford
The Revd Paul Williams, Diocese of Sheffield
The Revd Prebendary David Wills, Diocese of Truro
The Revd Stephen Wilson, Diocese of Canterbury
The Revd Bill Wilson, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Roger Woods, Diocese of Lichfield
The Revd Stephen Wookey, Diocese of Gloucester
The Revd Ian Wright, Diocese of Ripon & Leeds
The Revd Nick Wynne-Jones, Diocese of Rochester
The Revd Iain Young, Diocese of Southwark
The Revd Martin Young, Diocese of Norwich
The Revd Daniel Young, Diocese of Chester

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

Why a 'no' vote is the right vote this time round

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

Appleby feared 'respect' was 'a compromise too far'

In recent weeks, the word 'respect' has come to the forefront of the debate about the Women Bishops Measure. Indeed, some people are now suggesting that this word almost alone legally guarantees the future of traditionalists in the Church of England.

As with the present Archbishop of Canterbury, they feel there has been "enough waiting". If you want this development at all, it is time to vote 'yes'. If you object in principle, the right thing is to abstain, so as to allow the Church to get on with its mission.

Everyone in favour is now legally bound to 'respect' those against. In any case, that respect hardly needs to be commanded. The mood of the moment is that all will be respected and all will flourish. If you don't believe me, check out the recorded messages on the Archbishop's website, from the Bishops of Chelmsford, Willesden, Worcester and Sheffield, from Mark Russell, Chief Executive of the Church Army, Rebecca Swinson, a member of the Archbishops' Council, and last but not least, the Revd Janet Appleby herself, the woman who first suggested the 'respect' formula as a way out of the impasse.

It is when you look at Appleby's contribution, however, that questions arise. After saying how surprised she is to find herself playing such a prominent role in Church affairs, she makes this remarkably frank admission:

When I offered this suggestion I found it personally painful and feared this was a compromise too far.

Now it is worth pausing at this point and reminding ourselves just what that suggestion was. 

The original Clause 5(1)c, which caused outrage amongst many supporters of women bishops, read as follows:

5 (1) The House of Bishops shall draw up, and promulgate, guidance in a Code of Practice as to—
(c) 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 under section 3,

This has now been replaced by the 'Appleby Amendment'

5 (1) The House of Bishops shall draw up, and promulgate, guidance in a Code of Practice as to— 
(c) the selection of male bishops and male priests in a manner which respects the grounds on which parochial church councils issue Letters of Request under section 3,

Enough has been written already to show that we are some way from the original 5(1)c. Not least, this is no longer about the bishop and those whom he or she will help select as clergy, but about the Parochial Church Council and the attitude the petitioned bishop will have towards their theological views (which, when you put it like that, sounds -- frankly -- faintly ridiculous).

Be that as it may, however, in view of all the enthusiasm for 'respect', it is noteworthy that the original proponent of this new approach thought at first that this was too much to concede.

Now I have no doubt about Janet Appleby's sincerity of purpose. She goes on to say that she did this for the sake of the Church:

I took the risk of compromising my own dearly held beliefs for the sake of the unity of the church, a church which, as a cradle Anglican, I love dearly in all its glorious breadth and frustrating contradictions.

To swallow one's convictions for the sake of unity in the Body of Christ is admirable, provided it is done on proper theological grounds (compare Romans 14:13-15, concerning those whose faith is weak with Galatians 2:14ff concerning one who should have known better).

But it is the very fact that I take her seriously which leaves me worried about the new mood of optimism that this is indeed the right way forward. For if Janet Appleby found even the watered down requirement of the new 5(1)c barely tolerable -- a potential compromise of her beliefs -- what of those others who, in future years (or indeed decades) will be acting on the principles it sets out? Will they genuinely allow the flourishing of others for whom they feel 'respect' is too great a compromise?

Remember, it is not just that the legislation puts certain provisions in place for traditionalists. It puts massive powers in the hands of others -- including other PCCs. One of the things the Code of Practice is going to have to work out is what to do in multi-parish benefices where some PCCs want to petition and others don't. Another largely-overlooked provision of the Measure is that a single PCC in a multi-parish Benefice will immediately be able to revoke any existing Resolutions under the earlier legislation.

When you compare the final proposal with what might have been, it is hard to credit the compromise of 'respect' with being able to hold the weight that must rest on it. We know, because they have said so plainly, that for some campaigners, this is not the end. WATCH and others have clearly signalled their short-term intention to be monitor carefully the actual provisions of the yet-to-be-written Code of Practice, and in the long term they want a 'Single Clause' Church de facto if not de jure.

A grudging respect may not be what Janet Appleby intended, and it may be real, but it is hardly enough.

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

The Women Bishop's Measure: remember what might have been

In the final campaigning before the vote on the Women Bishop's Measure, some people are saying, quite vociferously, that the 'trads' are not only refusing to compromise now, but have been stubborn all the way through, whereas the supporters of women bishops have been generous in their willingness to compromise.

In his own section in a booklet hastily published by Forward in Faith and Reform, however, Simon Killwick makes reference to "the draft Measure as it stood after First Consideration in Synod", which (I presume!) is this document, GS 1708 Draft Bishop's and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure.

A quick read through reveals a very different set of proposals from those now before the General Synod. I hope the image below is readable, but it gives some idea of how different:

When you think of the apoplexy that greeted the House of Bishop's very modest proposal in the original Clause 5(1)c, you'll understand why this was strangled at birth. Nevertheless, it shows very clearly how far - how very far indeed - we have come from what was first put on the table as proposed legislation and what was finally brought back to General Synod for approval.

I do remember a couple of years ago actually mistaking this for the final form of the legislation and wondering what there was to make a fuss about from the Traditionalist perspective. So if anyone asks now, "What would satisfy you?" my answer would be, "Let's go back and look again at what was first drawn up."

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

The Women Bishops Measure - a Flawed Process

If you go to the Archbishop of Canterbury's website, you will find a number of articles and videos (eight in total at present) under the heading Enough Waiting, which seek to persuade the viewer of the importance of passing the Measure to introduce Women Bishops now and in its present form.

One of the common themes is that if we do not, it will be a disaster for mission. According to the Bishop of Chelmsford, "if we don’t pass this it would look terrible in the eyes of the world". Similarly, the Bishop of Willesden observes, "it’s important we ... don’t look completely stupid in the eyes of society".

Whenever I hear such observations, I'm reminded of a woman student I spoke to just after the passage of the legislation to introduce women priests. She was a Christian sharing a house with a number of non-Christian women, all of whom were glued to the television news. As the result was announced from General Synod, a great cheer went up. "Oh," said my friend, "I suppose this means you're all going to start going to church, does it?" Embarrassment ensued all round.

However, the advocates of a 'yes' vote are right. If the legislation fails there is going to be some explaining to do. They, and others, might do well therefore to read a new joint publication by Forward in Faith and Reform. Title Not Fit for Purpose, it actually does quite a good job of setting out the issues from the 'no' side of the current debate.

The following extract from Simon Killwick, who was closely involved in the legislative process, sets out for example why there is still so much opposition from traditionalists. And incidentally on that last point, I found myself in a brief Twitter dialogue with someone who kept referring to 'trads' in the same way as some might refer to 'weirdos'. Odd how the three-legged Anglican stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason always seems to have one leg that some people reckon they can do without. What is the Church, I wonder, without the Tradition?

Anyway, here is Mr Killwick explaining very succinctly just why the legislative process has, in this instance, been such a disaster:

Church legislation normally begins with an outline of what it should contain, which commands a broad consensus; this is then translated into legislation through a process which involves a Legislative Drafting Group, a Steering Committee, a Revision Committee and Revision in full Synod. This legislative process is designed to ‘tweak’ and ‘fine tune’ draft legislation, not fundamentally rewrite it, or change or establish policy.

The women bishops legislation was pushed into the legislative process before there was broad agreement on its contents; it was left to the vagaries of the legislative process itself to establish policy – something for which it was never designed. The Steering Committee was supposed to consist only of those who supported the draft Measure as it stood after First Consideration in Synod.

However, they abandoned that form of the draft Measure in the Revision Committee, and voted en bloc for the current form of the Measure, which is substantially different from that which Synod had seen at First Consideration. Revision Committees are supposed to have an inbuilt majority in favour of the draft legislation they are to consider. This meant that traditionalists were a small minority on the Revision Committee, and thereby very limited in our influence. It is all the more remarkable that a majority of the Revision Committee supported better provision for traditionalists by Statutory Transfer at one meeting, but less surprising that the Committee later found itself unable to agree on the episcopal functions to be transferred. We were tantalisingly close then to a lasting settlement which would have enabled the whole Church of England to move forward together.

Another tantalising moment came at the Revision stage in full Synod. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York jointly proposed amendments which would have led to bishops being provided for traditionalists on a similar basis to area bishops in Dioceses with area schemes under the 1978 Dioceses Measure (“Co-ordinate Jurisdiction”). The Archbishops' amendment was supported by a majority of the whole Synod, but was narrowly lost in the House of Clergy on a vote by Houses.

Tragically, again, the opportunity for a lasting settlement was lost, by the slimmest possible margin, against the will of the majority. As a result, we are left with the current draft Measure, which has never commanded consensus – so much so that attempts are now being made to persuade members of Synod to abstain in order to try and force it through, in a terrifyingly naïve attempt to bring closure.

My own view is that if the original Clause 5(1)c had been allowed to stand, the legislation would have passed in July and we would now be on the final lap. 'Traditionalists' would have found this painful, but they would have had some slim assurance of an abiding episcopal future. If you want to know why this didn't happen, go and read what the supporters of women bishops said and why they wanted to bring that amendment down.

If it all goes 'pear shaped' in a few days time, bear that in mind.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

WATCH welcomes proposed measure as "an acceptable next step"

Once again, if there were any doubt as to the 'trajectory' intended by many of those supporting the proposed Measure to introduce women bishops, the published statements of these supporters make it clear.

On the one hand, there are apparently many in WATCH opposed even to the 'watered down' provision on offer as being too much of a concession:

... many expressed concern that by providing such generous provision for those opposed, we are storing up trouble for future years and risk entrenching a discriminatory culture that is deeply damaging to men, women and the health of the Church of England.

On the other hand, for those willing to swallow these concessions, this is only a tactical manouevre:

It is clear that the majority of WATCH supporters feel that, although not ideal, this package is ‘good enough’ – an acceptable next step on a continuing road towards a Church that fully values and celebrates the gifts of her women.

The full statement follows:

********************
 National WATCH Update

Dear WATCH friend,

 As you know, WATCH has been consulting with members and others over the past weeks to get a better sense of whether the draft legislation to allow women in the episcopate has the support of our constituency. Immediately after the September meeting of the House of Bishops, our conversations revealed a very deep and passionate division between those who would continue to support the Measure and those who could not. It appears that over the past few weeks that position has changed.

Our recent consultation with members and others indicates three things very strongly:

1. That our supporters continue to have a number of reservations about the legislation: many expressed concern that by providing such generous provision for those opposed, we are storing up trouble for future years and risk entrenching a discriminatory culture that is deeply damaging to men, women and the health of the Church of England.

2. Despite these concerns, a significant majority of those who responded to our consultation would like to see this legislation pass Final Approval on 20th November: they think that the benefits of having women as bishops outweigh the risks inherent in the Measure.

3. There is a strong minority view that this legislation is discriminatory and should therefore be opposed.
WATCH acknowledges that those with both views are sincere in their desire to see the full flourishing of women in the Church of England. We understand that individuals may feel compelled to vote in either direction on 20th November. However, the balance of opinion in our constituency is now firmly in favour of this legislation passing and we hope Synod members will take that into consideration in deciding which way to vote.

WATCH has worked tirelessly to ensure that the best possible legislation is presented to General Synod for Final Approval and will continue with this work beyond November whatever the result of the vote (especially in monitoring the development of the Code of Practice). What is on the table now is the product of many years of consultation and detailed drafting work. Now is the time for Synod members to decide whether this legislation is a workable basis for going forward together. It is clear that the majority of WATCH supporters feel that, although not ideal, this package is ‘good enough’ – an acceptable next step on a continuing road towards a Church that fully values and celebrates the gifts of her women.

WATCH therefore welcomes the positive contributions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and others in seeking to persuade Synod members to support the legislation. We hope that other bishops will follow his strong lead. For details of Archbishop Rowan’s ‘Enough Waiting’ campaign please follow this link http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/

We also invite those of our members who want to see this legislation passed in November to follow the link below to a website set up by ‘Church Mouse’ and consider signing the letter asking your General Synod members to vote in favour of the draft legislation http://yes2womenbishops.blogspot.co.uk/

With thanks to everyone who has been in touch to let us know your views
and all good wishes,

Rachel

The Rev'd Rachel Weir
Chair of WATCH (Women and the Church)
www.womenandthechurch.org

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