Colin Podmore. The Living Church. 29 October 2014
Women as Bishops – The Living Church
4 thoughts on “Women as Bishops – The Living Church”
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Colin Podmore. The Living Church. 29 October 2014
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Phil, have you been following Alistair Roberts’s work on masculinity in the Church?
http://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/rescuing-christian-masculinity/
The Report from the Steering Committee for the Draft Legislation on Women in the Episcopate (GS1924) contains (ANNEX A) a Draft House of Bishops’ Declaration which includes a preamble on the ‘five guiding principles’ as follows
‘5. The House reaffirms the five guiding principles which it first commended in May 2013 when submitting legislative proposals to the General Synod for the consecration of women to the episcopate [and which the Synod welcomed in its resolution of 20 November 2013]. They need to be read one with the other and held together in tension, rather than being applied selectively’
Principles 1 and 4 are
‘Now that legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and holds that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience;’
‘Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures;’
What is the ‘theological conviction’ mentioned in the fourth guiding principle and elsewhere in the Report? For some, I suggest, it is the conviction that the ordination of women in 1992 was contrary to the revealed will of God and to proceed with the consecration of women would be a further sad step along that path of disobedience. So what is the fourth guiding principle really saying? Is it saying that the theological conviction that the ordination and consecration of women is disobedience to God is ‘within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion’ and the Church of England remains committed to enable that conviction ‘to flourish within its life and structures’? Of course we notice the ‘those’ and the ‘them’ of the fourth guiding principle. The fourth guiding principle is not about convictions flourishing but about people flourishing. But surely the two go together. If the conviction about disobedience is outside the ‘spectrum’ how can those who hold it flourish within the life and structures of the Church of England? So either the conviction about disobedience is within the spectrum or it is outside the spectrum. If it is outside, then the fourth guiding principle offers no assurance to those holding that conviction that the Church is committed to enable them to flourish. If it is within, we need to read the fourth principle alongside the first guiding principle. When we do this I submit that the word ‘tension’ used in paragraph 5 of ANNEX A is not the right word. The first and fourth guiding principles are not so much in tension with one another as mutually exclusive of one another. The Church of England cannot be ‘fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender’ while at the same time being committed to ‘enabling them to flourish within its life and structures’ who hold the theological conviction that the ordination and consecration of women is contrary to the revealed will of God.
Phil Almond
Some would reform C21 churches on their model of the C1 pauline mission. Others would conserve the historic three orders of ministry as something that no single church or communion can ever change. Both constituencies have failed to dissuade us in the past, and both are failing to dissuade us now. Indeed, because these visions differ in their details, each will undoubtedly lose more battles to the other from time to time in the future. Yet their visions of reform and conservation remain within the ‘spectrum’ of the Anglican Communion. Understandably, some will stay, some will go. Those who stay should be committed to something in Anglicanism that is less disputed than the understanding of ministry. Those who go will not find a perfect church anywhere before the Lord’s return.
Phil,
‘Remains committed to enabling them to flourish’ refers to those with the theological convictions, rather than the convictions themselves.
Clearly, those who hold that the ordination of women is contrary to the revealed will of God might either attribute this to outright disobedience, or worldly deception, or both. Also, while it may be an important issue, they might view it as part of the meandering journey that they hope will eventually lead the Church towards the full stature of Christ, rather than an heretical denial of Christ Himself.
Within the scope of their theological convictions, these factors would impinge on the culpability that they attribute to those in support of women in the episcopacy.
The enablements for flourishing would involve the overall provision for their fellowship and participation in the life and structures of the Church. The principle provides assurance that this provision should still continue for them as long as they will accept the Church’s decision to support women in the full exercise of episcopal authority elsewhere.
It’s clear that the theological conviction that ordaining women bishops is contrary to the revealed will of God may be tolerated, but will not be allowed to flourish.
My own view is that the Church is in the process of capitulating to the worldview that equality and interchangeability are one and the same. Hence, the next target is for the genders of couples within marriage to become interchangeable.