The sheer bizarre awfulness of the Telegraph‘s Blogs Editor, Damian Thompson, has been a constant mystery to me since I first came across him. Well, actually, I had never even heard of him until I wasted an afternoon writing a diary piece for the Daily Telegraph during the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Within minutes of it going online, Thompson had posted a nasty little piece with a deliberately misleading photograph.
Ever since then I have followed his stuff on Twitter with incredulity at the frequent nastiness and perversity of his views. Does he have any friends anywhere? Does he have contempt for everyone other than himself?
So, I find myself in a difficult position today. He has posted a clear piece about the decision of the General Synod Revision Committee on Women Bishops and what he has written makes sense. I suspect that he and I come at the matter from different perspectives, but I guess we would agree that some opposing positions cannot be resolved by compromise and that we just have to face reality – however painful that might be. (And although I agree with his logic, I don’t agree with his silly headline: ‘The Church of England washes its hands of traditional Anglo-Catholics’.)
The issue about women bishops is tortuous. If you don’t believe a woman can be a bishop, then you cannot accept any authority delegated by a woman bishop to a male bishop: the authority still derives from the female bishop. On the other hand, however, you cannot divide up a diocesan bishop into ‘bits’ of authority, some of which can be ignored by those who don’t like the gender of the bishop concerned. If a bishop is a bishop, then he/she must be the bishop with all that means. To do otherwise is to negate any concept of catholicity anyway.
These positions have always been irreconcilable and it is only the desire to keep as many people together as possible that makes the attempt at compromise worthwhile. And that search is worthwhile. Thompson is right, however, to point out that Anglicans who want to go to Rome whilst keeping the flexibility and freedom to dissent and negotiate, etc. that they have in the Church of England might not be welcome in Rome after all. He put it more eloquently, quoting Jonathan Wynne-Jones quoting Fr David Houlding:
“This is a great piece of wickedness. The committee knew what was needed and have refused to provide something that will hold the Church together. This forces people out of the Church who otherwise would have stayed. We didn’t want to go to Rome, but now have been left with no choice.”
On the whole I’m thrilled by the prospect of Anglo-Catholics seeking comunion with the Holy See – but with that sort of stroppy attitude? Houlding is wrong on two counts. It is not “wicked” for a self-governing Church to say to its members: this is the decision of our bishops and democratically elected representatives, and if you wish to stay then you must accept it. Nor do people with Houlding’s views necessarily have the option to become Roman Catholics. The Holy See is not interested in receiving into full communion Christians who would prefer to be in another denomination. In fact, I suspect it will refuse to do so, and much as I expect the Ordinariate to flourish, I hope it does.
Many of those who approve of women bishops have a great concern to keep as many traditionalist Anglicans in the Church as possible. But it might be seen in the future to have been a mercy that the issue has now been forced, that reality has to be faced and that the time for clarity – however painful for everyone in the church – has come.
It is still possible that some workable compromise might be found, but it isn’t looking likely. Which means that we need to pray for and offer support to those who now find themselves in a ‘crisis’ (in the proper sense of the word) – that is, a time to decide and then commit themsleves to the consequences of that decision.
November 15, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Nick,
I feel that those with genuine misgivings about the Ordination of women and even Women Bishops already have a provision for them, with the flying bishops, although this will end at some stage.
The future is going to be difficult for all sides in the Church, with real issues even within congregations about “where they belong” and a default to Rome with those difficulties unresolved is not the move they should make.
The CofE will be the poorer for their loss, and the RC Church will just be taking on a future problem, they have enough already.
It is an issue which needs to be faced with compassion and humility, but with courage and visionary leadership to enable a solution to be resolved without any further, prolonged debate and delay.
I have seen some of the stuff written about the creation of a third province for them within the CofE, but would it work? I just do not know. It would be difficult to work, and would be seen as an extension of the flying bishops initiative.
Perhaps the creation of an ordinariate within the CofE for them is a solution,with similar rules for those within the RC Church. It would be taking the Pope’s idea and turning it around to keep them within the CofE.
One thing that I do know, is that there is no turning back from the Ordination of Women and their selection and consecration as Bishops, in due course – it will be a troublesome synod next year.
November 15, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Perhaps someone will kindly explain to me why it is not possible to be both Anglo-Catholic and support women’s ordination to the episcopate? I suspect I might have a glimmer as to why but if I was a progressive Catholic, as I once was, I would be hoping and praying for a new Pope and a new earth – in doctrinal terms.
November 15, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Peter, many Anglo-Catholics do support women in the episcopate. So do some Roman Catholics. Funny old world.
November 15, 2009 at 7:16 pm
As (a female!) someone who will (hopefully) be ordained Deacon next year, I can’t help wondering:
1) whether I want to take a step whereby I will be “tainting” this church, and
2) if anyone who is involved in implementing these decisions knows which way is up?
I have read quite extensively on this issue as part of my studies, and the problem seems intractible to my little brain. I do admire those who seek a compromise. I hate to be the source of pain for so many people but the pain for me in knowing that my ordination will always be seen by some as invalid is huge.
Perhaps we do just have to face the truth that we can’t live together any more.
And Jesus weeps.
November 15, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Sheena, be bold! To be ordained as an Anglican is, in the eyes of Rome, invalid anyway. So we are going through some ‘birth pangs’ at the moment whihc are painful. But you are not tainting a church any more than any bloke is.
November 15, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Thank you for your encouragement Nick!
And, as a mother of two, I just love it when men use “birth pangs” as a theological metaphor!! ;-D (That’s why the Church needs us!!)
November 15, 2009 at 8:40 pm
If women Bishops are such a problem to some then why aren’t they making making the same sort of fuss about female saints?!!
November 15, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Sheena, it was deliberate!
November 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Sheena, I have had similar misgivings about whether to get involved in any Christian church at all. Do I really want to be part of an institution which has scared and scarred so many, and which, to my mind, is often a long way from representing God on earth?
But I’m not going to be able to change the Church by boycott. I’m not going to be able to change the Church by holding myself hostage from those aspects of it I need. I’m probably not going to be able to make huge changes as an involved and passionate layperson, either, but huge changes come about through lots of smaller ones. Realistically, I’m unlikely even to have a small influence…it’s hard enough to change my own habits and prejudices and all I can really do is try my best to discern and follow God’s will, and if anyone is inspired by that, that’s really the Holy Spirit’s department.
If I walk away I am not even trying to help.
That said, I could have decided to go and join a Forward in Faith congregation. There’s one not too far from where I live. It seemed like going looking for trouble, though.
November 15, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Well, since you asked: concerning his views, I consider myself a friend of Damian Thompson. And while the (suffragan) bishop may not like this: Damian’s position represents the future of Catholicism. In a few years, all the old progressive, sandal-wearing, rainbow-stole sporting lefties who have been damaging our Church as well as other churches since the late sixties will have crossed the styx. Then, the great developments that are being initiated by this second Benedictine reform will be able to bear fruit. What will have happened to what is left of Anglicanism by then, I wonder? I suppose, you will have turned into a charity organisation with regular bingo nights and some interesting old rituals nobody among you will understand any more. Ojh wait: That’s basically what you are already! Sic transit gloria mundi…
November 15, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Oh! So witty!
November 16, 2009 at 12:12 am
I think you may be mistaken when you describe Damian as having “contempt for everyone other than himself”. As a (so I am told) gay man who believes he must accept the Pope’s teaching that he is intrinsically disordered, he may have a healthy or possibly unhealthy (delete according to prejudice) contempt for himself.
November 16, 2009 at 12:30 am
Whilst there is a focus on the Anglo Catholics with whom I have much sympathy and their argument of tradition which is a very strong one, there is also the question of those evangelicals who can not accept women Bishops due to scriptural prohibition. It is very unlikely that they can or will go to Rome.
Where does that leave them? It is being made increasingly clear that they are not wanted!
We are supposed to be in a time of reception, and the novel idea of women bishops has not yet been received fully. My understanding is that the onus is on those who bring the novel idea to persuade the traditional orthodox position to receive it. Are we not jumping the gun? 2000 years of tradition and scriptural interpretation overturned in under 2 decades.
There is a very valid and Anglican position backed up by Scripture, tradition and reason for not being able to receive the ministry and ordination of women bishops. Simply saying that it is a discriminatory and sexist position just will not do.
Once this comes into effect we will have moved far away from being able to claim Catholicity.
What price conscience?
November 16, 2009 at 8:14 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Philip Ritchie, Nick Baines. Nick Baines said: Just blogged on women bishops: http://bit.ly/9tXAn [...]
November 16, 2009 at 8:33 am
Lee, it also won’t do to categorise those who differ from you as doing so on grounds of sexism and discrimination. One of my arguments with the liberal tradition is that it often argues on those inadequate grounds. ‘Justice’ is an issue, but it can’t stand alone as self-evidently justifying of one position. What you don’t seem to recognise is that many supporters of the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate do so from biblical starting points.
November 16, 2009 at 8:34 am
Sheena,
Congratulations and best of British on your forthcoming ordination – and keep going with your head held high. I know this is a time of great contemplation and many doubts.
After four years, I still have a recurring dream when I am stressed about parish life that the Archdeacon will come knocking on my door and tell me it was all a terrible mistake and they ordained the wrong Erica Wooff! The laugh is I told the Archdeacon this and she told me after 20 odd years of ordained ministry her ongoing dream is that she has lost her cassock! My (male) training incumbent who has been a priest for 30 years still wakes up sweating sometimes that he has spilt the consecrated communion wine. He never has.
You will be of great benefit to the church and will have the confidence of your bishop, I’m sure. Otherwise he would hardly have let you get this far and spent all that money on your training is these strainted times. They are not bishops for nothing! We in the ‘second wave’ should be grateful to those women and men that hacked a path through the undergrowth 20 odd years ago. But we don’t have to keep going back to check the path is still there. It is there, it is tarmac-ed and we are here to stay.
November 16, 2009 at 8:51 am
From what I’ve heard at some Diocesan level meetings recently, I’m beginning to think/feel that as a woman and a licensed lay minister; I don’t really belong, or have any value, in the Church of England at all.
But sometimes it’s a case of simply gritting your teeth and continue attending, in spite of the church, and not because of it!
It’s all rather sad but as someone above said if you simply walk away, you certainly won’t change anything.
Anne.
November 16, 2009 at 9:25 am
Thank you for your comment, Nick. My query was of course slightly tongue-in-cheek and Gary Macy’s “Hidden History of Women’s Ordination” seems a good place to start. And as so often Song’s note is simply and utterly inspiring and a real answer to some of Sheena’s and Anne’s concerns. As Pere Yves Congar remarked in the 30s, “the sufferings you will face in the world are nothing to those you will face in the Church”.
November 16, 2009 at 10:37 am
‘Lee, it also won’t do to categorise those who differ from you as doing so on grounds of sexism and discrimination. One of my arguments with the liberal tradition is that it often argues on those inadequate grounds. ‘Justice’ is an issue, but it can’t stand alone as self-evidently justifying of one position. What you don’t seem to recognise is that many supporters of the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate do so from biblical starting points.’
Nick I recognise that many supporters of the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate do so from biblical starting points.In fact there are some if not many heavyweight evanglicals who hold such a view. I have read much on both sides of the fence. Many however remain ‘unconvinced’ by the new arguments and interpretation put forward using scripture.
Also, I am highlighting that the lables of sexism and discrimination, and yes the clarion call of justice, are being missaplied to those who differ in opinion, exegesis, and tradition and are not helpful. Sadly they are being increasingly used within the church, media and society to belittle a sincerely held traditional and biblical view that cannot be beaten down with such labels. As you know words are powerful and such words do not honour anyone or the seriousness of the debate and dialogue.
The question remains however ‘what of those evangelicals who can not accept women Bishops due to scriptural prohibition.’ If there is no provision made for them what then?
I have not by the way flown my colours or taking a stand on this issue I am merely asking the question because much has been focused on Anglo Catholics.
My understanding of the act of Synod and Parliament that passed the ordination of women was that there were now two integrities within the Church of England, and the new was not saying the old was wrong and that we would be in a time of reception. That time has surely not passed as Rowan Williams has commented in the past.
I also understand that the act was passed only if provision was made for those who were unable to receive the ministry of women then and in the future. There seems to be some reneging on the deal if that is the case.
I would not even try to challenge such a learned bishop as yourself on theology, praxis and church law etc but I wonder what articles XX and XXi have to say in this matter and how we do church.
It seems to me that the strength of Anglicanism holding together the various streams and traditions within it is being dealt a death blow if Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals of whatever stream are forced out.
Thanks for a great blog by the way, I wish more Bishops were engaging the way you are with the culture and media of the day.
November 16, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Anne,
I haven’t met you, and I haven’t sat in on any Diocesan level meetings. But if it helps any, I value women’s ministry highly, lay or ordained. My own halting journey toward participation in the Church has been made possible by the encouragement and support of numerous laity and clergy, male and female.
Nick,
I think one of the reasons that sexual discrimination gets thrown about so much on all sides of these discussions is that in matters which don’t involve gender or sexuality there seems to be a lot less controversy. Maybe I just don’t read the right news, but I don’t see any major arguments on how to accommodate in one Church those who venerate the Sacrament or say the Angelus alongside those who would have a worship band rather than a choir. There seems to be an acceptance that different people are moved or called to different expressions of faith and if incense isn’t your thing that’s OK and if it is that’s fine too. The same open-minded inclusiveness doesn’t seem to extend as far as ordaining women bishops. Why is it so much harder for people to agree to disagree on this? If there are scripturally-based arguments for and against, why in this area do some people insist on sacrifice (of vocation, purpose, identity) rather than mercy?
I genuinely don’t understand.
November 16, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Why do we get so hung up on these things? I have discovered that I can learn a lot more from people who disagree with me than I ever can from those who think the same way. Nobody can fully understand god or have it all worked out. We need constructive debate, and at this time when we are urging the secular world to listen as we contribute within the public square it is such a shame that we can’t have proper and respectful debate it within the Church.
As a result of debate we don’t have to agree; some may end up with a group with whom they are happier, for a time and others in a different place. Surely that is good as we learn more about Gods love. As a Baptist I think that some of our past division from other churches was constructive in advancing thought and experience. However some of what was said and done was wrong and was not pleasing to God.
What matters now is that people go where they feel right, and are given the space and respect to work it out with their God. God wants and blesses all who serve, men who are called to be celibate, women priests and bishops, even bishops who support Liverpool etc etc.
I wouldn’t have said this years ago but my own journey has taken me to a place where I no longer care which Church they are in or what theology they espouse provided I see the love of God in them and the spirit of god working through them. I am happy to debate these points with them but I am happier to pray for them and work with them in bringing god’s love to the world.
November 16, 2009 at 6:45 pm
These are not altogether new arguments. I was interested to have come across a reference to William Tyndale considering women’s ordination and asking if a woman were washed up on an island whose inhabitants did not know Christ, could she exercise valid Ministry?
November 16, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Your grace I agree with you and with a heavy heart. I am a FIF priest broken hearted at the truth I must now face- there is no authentically Catholic future for me within the C of E
my prayer is for the church to let us go in love. Where a whole parish opts to go with buildings, where divided with permission to use the building. to force us out is one thing, to totally asset strip us as we go- from buildings we loved, nurtured and maintained, from fonts we were bapised in and altars we met Jesus at, often in areas of poverty where resources are scarce, would be total wickedness.
We are few enough that the loss would be small. In my town there are lots of other churches left to choose from. do you agree?
November 16, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Ed, I have not yet come across anyone whose heart is not heavy – on either ‘side’ of this debate. I am afraid I don’t agree about the buildings – but more because the legal obstacles would be huge. (The church is not the property of the current congregation, but of the parish/benefice – which would continue to be Anglican.) But I think there has to be what would amount to ecumenical generosity here. I think also, however, that that would need to apply to the language and behaviour of both those remaining and those leaving.
I would be interested in your response to the element of this that many still don’t understand: that in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church you have never been a priest – that your ‘ecclesial community’ has always been deficient. If you do accept the Pope’s offer, you will be accepting that (to put it crudely) the altar that means so much to you was never really an altar anyway.
By asking this question I am not trying to be difficult, but to understand. If you feel too bruised by events to respond, then please ignore my question. You are in my prayers.
November 16, 2009 at 9:17 pm
To answer your question: I think I am ok with this because I understand WHY the Roman Church needs to do this. What else can they do but render our orders dormant when many of our priests do not believe in real presence and throw the sacrament out for the birds?
To accept my orders publically would be to accept a cocophany of different opinions all co-existing with Anglicanism. Not good enough for any church claiming to be truly Catholic! Truth is if ALL Anglicans believed what I do I genuinly think they WOULD accept us in a heartbeat. And I know of MANY RC priests who often treat true Anglo_Catholics very differently to others.
Also – through the offer itself- I see a clear acceptance of who we are and a recognition of our validity. If ROme thought WE were invalid they would not be making this offer.
IN the end- looking to the future- I would leave it to God to decide what has happened befor. And I would accept re-ordination as my rite into a new church who would- of course- need reassurance that I was fully valid and paid up within that branch of Christendom.
As to the buildings- I pose a further question to you. Becuse I really do think the authorities need to het this right! So what if there are huge hurdles? My church was built by the parish priest in Victorian times to preach the Catholic faith. It has been paid for, restored, cleaned and prayed in by the people. We have ONLY EVER been full on Catholic in our understanding of orders. Resolution ‘C’ has been in place since it existed.
We minister in the poorest part of town – and despite having doubled our congregation to 140 in recent years- we remain short on resources. Yet I have a committed congregation who want to go to the ordinariate. THis town already has nigh on ten other churches for Anglicans but nowhere for this new ordinariate.
Would you really leave my young family homeless and my people without their church- when you yourself admit we have been squeezed out by the decisions of Synod? Is that Christian? Seriously?
That feels very much like allowing someone to leave a ship in the middle of the ocean but not allowing them to take the dhingy they lovingly built in order to stay afloat. If I AM to enter an ordinariate- how am I to do that effectively without help both from the church recieving me and the one I am leaving? And let us not forget who most of these buildings orginally belonged to in any case!!!! I do not see evidence of Henry VIII caring about legal hurdles.
Easier to wave goodbye and claim to be sorry than be the one with a newborn babe and three year old child facing the very genuine threat of redundancy and homelessness. THat is where I am tonight. Constructive dismissal anyone?
Finally I would love to believe there are many heavy harts. But as I read comments on thinking Anglicans and read statements from WATCH and Inclusive Church all I see is a very unsavoury crowing and smug hard heartedness. THAT is the saddest part of all. I was prepared to accept Women Bishops so long as I was also accomodated with proper provision. Our opponents on the other hand…..
November 16, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Ed, thank you for responding. I am not sure whether the capitals are for emphasis or typos, so forgive me if I misunderstand the force of some of your comments. I am interested that you speak of being ‘re-ordained’ when (as a RC Bishop made clear to me the other day) Rome would see you as being ‘ordained’ – in other words, in the eyes of Rome you are not validly ordained at present and what you call your ‘re-ordination’ would not be even conditional. Surely that has implications too?
No one has a monopoly on crowing and smug hard-heartedness. That is part of the problem. Any statement by either ‘side’ is perceived by the other as intemperate. (Incidentally, I saw my blog post summarised on one website as urging people like you to jump. But, to recognise something (the ‘crisis’ point where decisions can no longer be avoided) is not the same as to welcome it. I have faithfully supported my ‘C’ clergy/parishes, have spoken in the last few days to all of them, and will continue to support them pastorally – just as all my other parishes – for as long as they will allow me to.)
November 16, 2009 at 9:52 pm
thanks Nick, and I appreciate your even handedness and care for your clergy…..but I note you dodge my point on buildings when I push
November 16, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Ed, I wasn’t dodging your point. I don’t see the buildings going with communities that opt for the Ordinariate, but I do think we have to work hard at how we can make this work best.
I also do understand the precariousness you feel about your family and future. How? Because when I had a toddler and a baby I was handed a notice one day at work (GCHQ in Cheltenham) demanding that we resigned from our union, lose all our rights under the employment laws and be open to move to any other job in the Civil Service (anywhere) or face dismissal. We were given 5 weeks to decide and the pressure we were put under was appalling. However, the then Government had the legal right to do what they did (even if they had no moral right) and we had to face the implications of the decision we made. Different people chose differently. Now, don’t think I am regarding your situation and mine as equivalents, but I cite it simply to explain that I am not a stranger to the emotions and challenges you face.
But, I note you didn’t respond to my point about ‘(re-)ordination’!
November 16, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I sometimes wonder why:
Christians, who are bid to love each other, can feel and be so uncharitable to each other?
I don’t profess to be a great biblical scholar but accept that the Churches basis of Scripture, Reason and Tradition give us the ability to learn, grow, interpret and develop in the light of the the circumstances that we find ourselves in.
I accept and love the different traditions within the CofE, and the ability that it has to welcome and accommodate so many different perspectives and traditions within it. Which we are now in real danger of losing.
I wonder if some of us, are painting ourselves into corners, due to an inability to accept and accommodate others within the church, which has been one of its greatest strengths.
I have hope that God’s will be made clear in these matters and that the Holy Spirit will provide some inspiration for those in the revision process, which will provide a clear way forward to accommodate all viewpoints.
I think that Nick is quite right to ask some hard questions, and I suppose that I am fortunate in not having to answer them. The ones that trouble me are:
The RC non-acceptance of Anglican Orders and the dishonesty apparent in the wording of the ‘Norms’ for the new Apostolic Constitution, which do not acknowledge that.
The legal obstacles that would need to be overcome to transfer churches, chattels and resources to a new Parish – what is going on in the USA for the Episcopal Church is a foretaste of the difficulties.
The likely treatment of any Anglican, within a Forward in Faith or Angl-Catholic Parish, who decides that he does not to cross the Tiber?
How we deal with the real alienation of many women in the Church, many providing ministry and mission and participation in so many ways due to an a perception or belief that they are in some way, less qualified than men to be ordained or to be a Bishop on the basis of gender.
Hard questions deserve generous debate in the spirit of love and fellowship, which I have found so readily and widely in the church.
November 16, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Will you accept and minister the discipline of this Church, and respect authority duly exercised within it?
November 16, 2009 at 10:50 pm
in all things lawful…….
November 17, 2009 at 12:17 am
If the appointed representatives of the church come to a decision on an issue, you have agreed that with the help of God you will obey it.
If synod approves the appointment of women bishops then it becomes lawful.
You say you have a young family (if I am wrong then please forgive the assumption of your age) but that means that you would have been ordained alongside women and with a fairly good idea of what the future might hold.
I don’t think you should leave the CofE, especially not with a heavy heart. With your head held high – maybe.
Do you really believe that it makes the slightest difference to your ability to serve Christ and all God’s children if your Bishop is a woman?
My God is bigger than that, yours should be too.
Gareth.
November 17, 2009 at 9:08 am
I think too much is being made of the ordination question. We were on a trajectory where it would be answered by ARCIC, fresh theological thinking about ordination, new ordinals and a re-appraisal of the evidence in 1896 (and answered magisterially in 1897 and by such scholars as Dom Gregory Dix). That trajectory was brought to an end by women’s ordination: warnings were given but here was a unilateral change in Faith and Order (which is not to say that it was unjustifiable).
If I were reading the Gospel at Mass and the fire alarm sounded, clearing the building for several hours, I wouldn’t resume the Gospel reading mid-sentence but start again. We would be in a new context and the people would need to hear the whole passage – not least because they hadn’t all been there earlier.
So it is with ordination. Clergy will need a new start and the carefully phrased statement, prepared by the CDF some years ago, for the ordination of convert Anglican clergy – a statement in English, accompanied by very precise Latin rubrics – is inserted in the Ordination Service to express the fact that this is not the beginning of ordained ministry.
Another parallel is the reception of those baptised, on biblical mandate, in the name of Jesus. My understanding is that they need Trinitarian baptism before they are received and indeed before they are allowed to receive Holy Communion as guests. At a funeral recently, a Unitarian minister asked my permission – quite rightly – before aspersing the coffin at the Commendation.
My prayers for all at this difficult time. It isn’t easy for any of us but it feels like the wind of the Spirit is blowing through the Church and sorting out some of the things we have made such a mess of.
As for churches and all that, I expect nothing less than the same generosity that has been evident ecumenically for years and years. The local (open evangelical) parish here, when the Catholic Church shut in the village, passed a resolution saying that the Catholic congregation could meet in the parish church for Mass without charge. So the precedents are then, once the crockery has stopped flying around.
Prayers and best wishes.
+ Andrew
November 17, 2009 at 9:54 am
Well said Gareth.
Anne.
November 17, 2009 at 11:37 am
Gareth, I am delighted that you have such faith in the synod and its ability to discern God’s will. I admire that but where decisions are being made with shaky scriptural basis and lacking any support from the historic teaching and tradition of a church this presents a problem. Surely you accept that or would you endorse polygamy should Synod choose to accept it?
Where is the line between allegiance to God and one’s deeply held beliefs and allegiance to an established church. That is the issue here and it is rather naive to simply expect Christians to accept things that break unity with other churches and seem contradictory to an orthodox understanding of faith and holy orders.
Yes i was ordained post 1992. But I was not -as so many conveniently now wish to believe- ordained into a church that contained only one integrity. I joined a church that proclaimed that ‘those opposed to women’s ordination could be faithful anglicans’ and which had provided provision for a group such as this. A promise was made that we would always be provided for…that is what is now being withdrawn.
I also ask you not to insult my faith and that of the vast majority of Christians accross the world and down throughout the ages by suggesting my inability to accept WO makes ‘my’ God smaller than ‘your’ God. We both share one God and I am only seeking to faithfully obey what I believe to be his divine revelation to this world. In which gender difference is to be celebrated as difference and not ignored in the pursuance of secularly concieved ‘rights’.
If God DOES desire women’s ordination you are right to conclude that it would make no difference to the life of the church. But if, on the other hand, this innovation is wrong then the Church is in grave error and needs this pointed out. At worst people are recieving a parody of the Mass and void sacraments.
Do read my paper on womens ordination to understand my theological arguments. I am delighted to hear back. For whilst I have heard hundreds of great arguments for WO – none have been theological. They all stem from a secular notion of gender and equality – a philosophy of the self and not of family and sacrifice.
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/on-the-ordination-of-women/
November 17, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Andrew, Many thanks for this – very helpful and hopeful.
November 17, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Well, it’s not surprising that a lib like Nick would agree with an RC like Damian, when convenient. Both hope for the failure of AngloCatholicism, for different reasons of course.
But I would suggest that this line here is, shall we say, rather self-serving: “that reality has to be faced and that the time for clarity – however painful for everyone in the church – has come.”
Heh – -the time for clarity is the actual vote of Synod, which I need hardly remind people requires a 2/3 majority. Of course, it’s useful for someone like Nick to pretend that “the time for clarity has come” NOW. But the time for clarity has not at all come simply because some weighted committee has declared that it won’t offer what AngloCatholics need. He’s only saying that under the happy hope that the committed to no-Women-bishops will leave the COE.
I trust that no one will follow his hoped-for “time for clarity is now” political assertion.
The RC offer will still be there in 2012 — after the Synod vote, which the pro-Women Bishops group MUST WIN BY 2/3.
Good luck! At least — to the no-women-Bishops group . . .
November 17, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Ed- “Gareth, I am delighted that you have such faith in the synod and its ability to discern God’s will. I admire that but where decisions are being made with shaky scriptural basis and lacking any support from the historic teaching and tradition of a church this presents a problem. Surely you accept that or would you endorse polygamy should Synod choose to accept it?”
Well no actually.
My local church is currently giving the sacrament in one kind rather than intinctured in both. I don’t like it. I think that individual maturity should be respected and that those who want to share the same cup should be provided for. Or at least make the effort of intincting wafers. I have raised my objections but we are continuing with one kind.
Now what am I to do?
I have to respect the opinion of the priest, who is the chosen head of our community. I have chosen to be part of that community and as a member must take the authority of our leader seriously. So I go to the altar rail and receive in one kind.
I don’t like it.
Or at least I didn’t. I realised that for the cup to be offered to some and yet others with health problems not, would create a faction (both spiritually and psychologically) within our church.
I’m on my lunch break so don’t have too much time, I’ve had a brief look at your paper – I note there isn’t a single reference which will make understanding your views incredibly difficult – I’ll take another look this evening and comment if I feel I am able.
Have a Blessed afternoon,
Gareth.
November 17, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Ed – having read your St Barnabas blog on the ordination of women, I do not understand why being ordained post 1992, you simply did not go straight into the Roman Catholic church for ordination.
I don’t wish to be personal here but were you already married or hoping/wanting to be married?
I also suspect there were many homosexual priests before the ordination of women, so you can hardly blame that on women opening the floodgates of muddled thinking.
Anne.
November 17, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Martin Sewell writes: “These are not altogether new arguments”. They are not in the least new. Not only have we your Tyndale case but the early history of the Church on women’s roles in the ministry. There is a vast amount of published research on this now available – Ben Witherington, Elisabeth Schuessler-Fiorenza, Karen Jo Tojesen et al – the problem seems to be that it is blissfully ignored.
November 17, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Nick, your current blog has raised so many hares and I would love to chase them all; but rather than dashing off in all directions I have tried to respond to the BUILDINGS question in a new blog of my own. Hope you might find it, if not helpful, then at least thought-provoking. And thanks for your blogging.
November 17, 2009 at 8:07 pm
‘To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation’
- the prophetic words of C.S. Lewis in 1948.
Would that the Church had heeded them. But now that the Church of England is indeed being torn in shreds, perhaps those responsible would have the humility to admit that many of their bland assurances in 1992 were empty and hollow:
- that those opposed would remain valued and honoured members of the Church
- that there would be no discrimination against those opposed in selection of candidates for ordination or appointment to high office in the Church
- that there would be no attempt to force anyone to betray their consciences (ask the Principal of Mirfield about that)
- not to mention the oft repeated claims that Rome would be ordaining women within a few years, and that women priests would refill our empty pews.
Can you wonder why none of us can have the slightest faith in a Code of Conduct, or in the willingness of Bishops to honour it ?
November 17, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Sarah, I think you make some pretty hopeless assumptions about me. I do not want the Anglo-Catholics to leave the Church of England or ‘fail’ at all. Ask my Anglo-Catholic parishes what I think of them and want for them. I want them to thrive and I hope I support them in doing so. I also bear the label ‘evangelical’, not ‘liberal’.
November 17, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Edwin, thanks for this and for responding on your blog. I think you make my point – that the legal situation is the obstacle. You explain how the legalities might be addressed – and you might be right. I think, however, (but might be wrong) that the future will lie in ‘generous hospitality’ rather than in legal battles.
November 17, 2009 at 10:35 pm
+Andrew – You mention a “carefully phrased statement, prepared by the CDF some years ago, for the ordination of convert Anglican clergy” I’ve looked and can not find it (my fault entirely)
Is it online?
Nick – thank you for an excellent blog
November 17, 2009 at 11:14 pm
John,
I count myself as one who would not be in the pews (okay, choir stalls) at all if not for the discipleship and ministry of some women priests. My observation of female clergy has been very positive. Perhaps the pews are not being filled; I speak of my own experience, not of statistics. But perhaps the pews would be even more empty than they are if not for female priests. Perhaps I am wrong, far far wrong in all of my thinking, and the ordination of women is not in accordance with God’s will. Who can know? We all interpret as best we can, act on the basis of the best information and reason and discernment we can, and we’re all still fallible, utterly reliant on God’s mercy.
I don’t believe that those opposed to the ordination of women should be sent away or excluded from the church, no matter how baffled I might be by their position, because I recognise that they are, like I am, interpreting as best they can. But I also don’t believe that making them feel welcome should extend as far as excluding anyone who disagrees, or wrapping people in bubble wrap so they never have to deal with someone who interprets scripture differently than they do. As a moderately informed layperson, the latter is the impression I have of the provisions already in place. From the outside, an organisation like FiF feels like a sort of holier-than-thou club. I’m sure that isn’t the intention, but it’s how it seems from here.
What message does that send to the world about God’s love? What message does it send about God’s mercy? What is more important than that message?
Things are not always what they seem. My opinions of Christianity were similar, that it was a sort of holier-than-thou club, at best rather out of touch with reality and at worst doing real damage in God’s name. I suffered some of that damage, albeit mildly compared to many.
Many of the people who have disabused me of that notion of a disconnected, cliquey, harmful Church and shown me a clearer and more positive picture of what the Church can be have been—you guessed it—female clergy. I thank God for them every day. None of the arguments (scriptural or otherwise) that I have read against their ordination have been able to outweigh the strength of that experience for me.
I’m pretty sure my story distresses those who believe differently than I do; it isn’t my intention to cause distress. Canon law is in no way up to me and there is very little I can do to influence outcomes of synod or committees or what have you. But I might have an easier time welcoming or accommodating or at least understanding those who oppose the ordination of women if someone would answer my questions about the message we are sending to the world.
(As an aside, as someone with a fair few friends who would identify themselves as liberal Anglo-Catholics, I do dislike the way “Anglo-Catholic” and “opposed to the ordination of women” seem to be taken as synonymous in some of these discussions. Surely Catholicism is about more than incense, but surely Anglo-Catholicism is not a united entity with only one viewpoint on such issues as these.)
November 18, 2009 at 7:09 am
John – I saw the ‘carefully worded statement’ on a blog somewhere. It was authentic – because I had come across it before and the Latin rubrics seemed clear rather than funny – but, as is so often with this medium, one remembers seeing things but not where one saw them. I think the word ‘ministry’ is used and the giving of thanks is bidden for its ‘fruitfulness’ over the years. They are, I think, the salient points.
Best wishes (whichever ‘John’ you are!)
+ Andrew
November 18, 2009 at 7:22 am
Well said Song. And thanks for taking time to type out all your above thoughts.
Anne.
November 18, 2009 at 10:16 am
“I do dislike the way “Anglo-Catholic” and “opposed to the ordination of women” seem to be taken as synonymous in some of these discussions. Surely Catholicism is about more than incense, but surely Anglo-Catholicism is not a united entity with only one viewpoint on such issues as these”.
Yes, Song, that is why I posed the tongue-in-cheek question to Nick earlier. When women’s ordination was to be decided, the bishops produced a document outlining the case for change. It referred to the consensus fidelium, to Scripture and Tradition. Reading it I felt it acknowledged precisely the key elements in Christian history on which doctrinal development (in Cardinal Newman’s sense) was based – making things new. Then we had Synod discussion and the atmosphere of dignity evaporated. The language of supposed “passionate commitment” merely echoed the journalism of the day as it is doing now. We read newspapers rather than books and take our tone from them. John Chilver raises Aunt Sallies for destruction that few serious people would have every thought of setting up. It’s what politicians and debaters do. Rome will eventually ordain women as priests when it recovers its older traditions pace C S Lewis.
November 18, 2009 at 3:05 pm
RE: “I also bear the label ‘evangelical’, not ‘liberal’.”
I’m sure you do not *wish* to bear the name “liberal”. Obviously we don’t share the same definition of the word “liberal” anyway so it’s no matter. But yes, you do bear the label “liberal” by me and by others. Shouldn’t bother you — again — we don’t share the same definition of liberal. But I’ll continue happily using that label, and you may label me whatever you please. Labels are awfully useful things — being words, you know, that describe helpful categories in a lovely shorthand.
RE: “I do not want the Anglo-Catholics to leave the Church of England or ‘fail’ at all.”
Well of course you want them to “fail” — that is, in fact, what having women bishops without statutory protection for AngloCatholics is. And I’m sure that you don’t “want them to leave” — you want them to submit — which perforce means to “fail.” And those who won’t submit you desire to leave. But it’s six of one and half a dozen of another anyway.
The above is merely quibbling anyway — the key thing is that “the time for clarity is” not “now” but rather at the synod vote by which your side — the side that wishes to defeat AngloCatholicism by not giving them statutory protection — will need to win by 2/3.
The time for clarity will be *then* and all the premature triumphalism and faux “goodbyes, so sorry you must gos” are, again, transparently self-serving.
November 19, 2009 at 7:50 am
Phew, doesn’t this all consume so much time and energy! Is this really what God wants us to be doing??
Anne.
November 20, 2009 at 8:23 am
Anne,
I agree and find myself pondering what Paul’s letter to the Church of England might look like.
However, it seems we are faced with this situation, with very strong feelings on each ‘side’ and somehow we have to work it out – hopefully with love and grace and generosity and wisdom. Unfortunately that seems to take huge amounts of our time and energy!
November 20, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I believe that the text the Bishop of Ebbsfleet has in mind is the following.
QUOTE
Oratio ad gratias agendas pro ministerio ab electo in Communione anglicana expleto
[Prayer for giving thanks for the former ministry of the ordinand in the Anglican Communion]
Deinde omnes surgunt. Epsicopus, deposita mitra, stans manibus iunctis versus ad electum dicit:
[Then all rise. The bishop, having doffed his mitre, standing with joined hands, facing toward the ordinand, says:]
N., the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from her can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation. And so we now pray.
Et omnes, per aliquod temporis spatium, silentio orant. Deinde, manus extensis, Episcopus orat dicens:
[And all, for a certain space of time, in silence pray. Then, with extended hands, the Bishop prays saying:]
Almighty Father, we give you thanks for the X years of faithful ministry of your servant N. in the Anglican Communion [vel: in the Church of England], whose fruitfulness for salvation has been derived from the very fullness of grace and truth
entrusted to the Catholic Church. As your servant has been received into full communion and now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate in the Catholic Church, we beseech you to bring to fruition that for which we now pray. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Populus acclamat:
[The people acclaim:]
Amen.
ENDQUOTE
It should be noted that this is not said immediately before the laying-on of hands, but before the litany. The prayer reflects the theology of ‘Unitatis Redintegratio’ (the Vatican II decree on Christian Unity).
November 21, 2009 at 2:38 am
The ordination of women has been the key with which to open Pandora’s Box: the flawed premise of (secular) “equality” serves to dismiss the fundamental “discriminatory” premise on which the Christian faith is founded, that of belief in a revealed religion which brings about salvation. It is intolerable to the secular, or liberal, or liberal Evangelical mind, that God might one day choose between sheep and goats, or discriminate in any way between us.
Today the equality logic is used to exclude conservative Anglicans opposed to women bishops from the Church of England (with suitable expressions of regret). Very soon indeed it will be used by the secular state to require the clergy of the Church of England to solemnise the “marriage” of same-sex partners; and to prosecute, fine and even imprison Anglicans who dare to express any scriptural doubts about homosexual practice. You will find a template for this in the Gender Recognition Act.
(Well, actually Christians are already being treated in this way, and the Church is colluding with it by adopting the discrimination fallacy).
There are complete scriptural arguments for rejecting the ordination of women to holy orders of any kind. They have been amply set out by Manfred Hauke in his book, “Women in the Priesthood” and have certainly not been answered by rather creative (to put it euphemistically) attempts to discover the existence in the early church of long-forgotten women priests or bishops.
Soon, Bishop Nick, you will not be in a powerful position, condescendingly letting go those whose doctrinal differences you do not comprehend, but in a weak position, as the State demands that you amend the Bible itself so as to suit secular sensibilities, and you find that the Church of England enthusiastically supports the State’s superior modern morality.
It will happen here as it has now happened in the Church of Sweden. Will you climb discreetly aboard the unbiblical bandwagon? Or will you find yourself impelled to lay aside your mitre for a trip across the Tiber?
I look forward to reading your reasoning when that day comes.
November 21, 2009 at 7:03 am
Alan Marsh,
How do you know you are interpreting God’s revelation correctly? Is Scripture the sole source of that revelation or can God’s will be revealed to us through our experience in the world?
If there is any doubt, would you rather err on the side of sacrifice or of mercy?
Do you hold fast to and follow other Biblical requirements, such as giving to everyone who asks of you? If not, why does Scripture suddenly trump context in this case?
With all due respect for your concern, I think Bishop Nick will do his best to carry out what he perceives as God’s will, whatever the circumstances. Do you really think a constructive discussion is possible if you imply otherwise?
November 21, 2009 at 10:01 am
Alan, it took some nerve to call me ‘condescending’!
November 21, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Alan
” There are complete scriptural arguments for rejecting the ordination of women to holy orders of any kind… ”
There are scriptural arguments for accepting the ordination of women to holy orders. See Bishop of Durham’s talk “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis” 2004
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
He looks at :
Galatians 3.28
Gospels and Acts
1 Corinthians
1 Timothy 2
November 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Nick
You said,
“Many of those who approve of women bishops have a great concern to keep as many traditionalist Anglicans in the Church as possible. But it might be seen in the future to have been a mercy that the issue has now been forced, that reality has to be faced and that the time for clarity – however painful for everyone in the church – has come.”
If that is not de haut en bas I don’t know what is. I am sure traditionalist Anglicans are profoundly grateful to know of your tender concern for them – and yet your sagacity that it might yet be a “mercy” that they are forced out of the Church in which you and your episcopal colleagues hold authority.
November 22, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Alan, I was making the point that in retrospect we often feel relieved that the point of decision was at some point unavoidable. I was not being patronising or condescending, but trying to ask a serious question about whether this point might – when seen from some future point – have been reached.
If I had been trying to be condescending, that does not explain why you consider your own condescension to be a reasonable response – even if you do it in French.
November 23, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“We often feel relieved”
This is psychobabble, not a serious argument for dividing the Church of England.
November 25, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Dear Bishop Nick,
I do not make a habit of writing anything due to my life’s experience of nobody taking any notice and/or ridicule.However that said I feel compelled to write something at this time.
We live in a world so desperate and lacking in the knowledge of the love of God.Our nation is crippled with corruption,immorality,selfishness and greed.
It grieves me and brings me to tears the state of the church of England as the process of disunity and irrelavance gathers pace.I grew up with and still worship largely from the book of common prayer,mostly discarded nowadays.It’s richness and the holiness of many people who used it and are now at their rest taught me the catholic faith and of the love of God.It seems to me now adays the church of England dances to the spirit of the world and not of God.
Why is it therefore now that catholic anglicans are to be deprived of any means of flourishing and despite promises denied an equal and honoured place within the church of their birth.The majority within the church have or will have what they want,innovations and all,why not the minority and the spirit tested.(reception?)
Within the liberal power of the general synod puffed up with equality,justice and no discrimination,is it therefore right that catholic anglicans and I mean those that believe in the universal church not just the provinces of york and cantebury,are made to feel unloved,unwanted,marginalised and persecuted because of their theological convictions.
For myself personally perhaps an easy option would be to cross the tiber or take up the holy fathers kindness,something the church of England cannot give.But I am called to witness and if that witness means that because of my faith and convictions I am to be unloved,unwanted,marginalised,spat upon,and persecuted in the church of England then so be it and I will glory in the Lord for this is the witness he gave to the world.
I humbly submit a prayer.
For the catholic church,for the churches thoughout the world,their truth,unity and stability,to wit.In all let charity thrive,truth live.For our own church that the things that are wanting therein be supplied,that are not right be set in order.That all heresies,schisms,scandals as well public as private,be put out of the way.
(lancelot Andrewes,bishop and divine of the Church of England)
and from George Herbert,caroline divine.
Love bade me welcome,yet my soul drew back.
Guilty of dust and sin,
But quick eyed love,observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me,sweetly questioning,
if I lack’d any thing.
A guest,I answered,worthy to be here:
Love said,You shall be he.
I the unkind,ungrateful?.Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand,and smiling did reply,
who made the eyes but I?
Truth Lord,but I have marr’d them,let my shame go where it does deserve.
And know you not,says love,who bore the blame?
My dear,then I will serve.
You must sit down,says love,and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.
yours in Christ
Baden.W.Favill
December 2, 2009 at 12:48 am
NigelG – many thanks
+Andrew – I won’t hold it against you!
December 3, 2009 at 7:34 pm
hello nick, remember me? Liverpool – kids!
good to know you are still the same.
All the best.
Would like to get in touch.
June 7, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Doug Chaplin,
Damian Thompson’s homosexuality is evident to everyone who cares to google him for two minutes. More surprising is the fact that even after having been repeatedly outed (from Andrew Brown of the Church Times among others) he insists in not wanting to come out.
His self hate is evident in most of his blogs (though at times he is not stupid). But the most striking character of the man is the pettiness of his arguments. He could be a good writer, but indulges in childish courtyard bickering all too often.
June 25, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Agree with Mr. Scargill.
Damian Thompson’s homosexuality is as clear as the sun after just five minutes of googling. Former university friends out him regularly on his own blog (he doesn’t seem to have many friends anyway, unsurprisingly). Andrew Brown did the same on his blog. Still, Mr. Thompson continues to delete all messages, ban the posters and go on as if no one knew.
By refusing to come out, he loses all credibility in all matters concerning homosexuality.
A brilliant intellect, wasted on childishness and pettiness.
August 2, 2010 at 6:51 am
The problem is that Damian writes badly and raises the suspicion that he may not have Irish roots. His attempts at humour are lame.