On English Women Bishops, with note for Evangelicals

I find what is going on, or what might be going on, let alone what will be going on in the C of E re women bishops a little confusing. Go to this Fulcrum link for further links. If I understand what the ABC is saying here, then (i) there will be women bishops in the C of E, (ii) there are unlikely to be 'provisions' satisfactory to those seeking 'provisions' (i.e. ways not to have ministry of women bishops in my corner of the Lord's vineyard), but (iii) there is a chance there might be satisfactory 'provisions' if discussions in dioceses over the next 18 months accumulate to be a tide in GS approving 'provisions'. But then I might be wrong.

John Richardson, reliably, posts an extremely helpful essay on how conservative evangelicals might respond to women bishops, distinguishing the ways in which this response could, or should differ from anglo-catholics. The whole essay is here. Some sentences which caught my eyes are these:

The essential difference between CEs and A-Cs opposed to women bishops:

"At the risk of over-simplifying, the Anglo-Catholic takes the view that a womancould not be a priest or a bishop, whereas the conservative Evangelical holds more broadly that a woman should not be a priest or a bishop.

Underlying this is a difference over whether being ordained confers a change of condition — often referred to as ‘character’ — or essentially an authority to exercise a public ministry (compare Article XXIII, ‘Of ministering in the congregation’). The Anglo-Catholic would hold to the former, whilst the Evangelical Anglican would generally adhere to the latter."

On an Anglican way forward for CEs opposed to women bishops to work with women bishops:

"The conservative Evangelical Anglican understanding of orders and ministry means that the debate concerning women priests and bishops is not ultimately about gender but about faithfulness to Scripture.

The conservative Evangelical may thus apply Article XXVI in a way that the Anglo-Catholic cannot, for what the Article says about ‘unworthy’ ministers, the Evangelical may also be willing to apply in principle to women priests and bishops:"

"The conservative Evangelical would therefore not automatically deny the validity of Holy Communion celebrated by a woman priest, nor maintain that nothing useful could ever be learned from a woman’s teaching. (Indeed, the crucial objection in 1 Timothy 2:12 that a woman should not ‘teach or exercise authority over a man’ rather presumes that a man could, nevertheless, learn in such circumstances.) Equally, the conservative Evangelical need not have a problem with a man ordained by a woman bishop, since the prescriptions of Article XXIII have arguably been met:

... those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men [in the old, ‘generic’, sense] who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

Since, under any new legislation, a woman bishop would be in receipt of that ‘public authority’, she could lawfully call and send ministers."

On the non-necessity of departure:

"The question conservative Evangelicals need to confront, however, is this: “If you had your own way, and were running the Church of England, what would you do that would transform it from what it is to what you think it ought to be?” And the answer cannot be (to put it extremely crudely), ‘get rid of the women and the gays’.

We may need to remind ourselves that the Church of England had no women priests before 1993, yet it wasn’t exactly thriving back then. What it lacked was not men, but faithfulness to the gospel and integrity regarding its own outward standards of faith and practice.

By the same token then, and according to the arguments I have advanced above, the advent of women bishops need not be the ‘end of the world’ that some are gloomily predicting. It is possible to be ‘salt and light’ even in a Church where, as Article XXVI puts it, “the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments.” And even the Church of England is not there yet!

It will, however, require faithfulness of its own, as well as courage, fortitude, imagination, dedication and a willingness to suffer for the sake of the gospel.

What we must look for from our evangelical leaders in the next few weeks is not threats (or, as our opponents would regard them, offers) to depart, but coherent and practical proposals to achieve what our bishops are called to do in the Ordinal, namely, “to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers” and “with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same.” And this applies, of course, not just to the ordination of women or other ‘hot button’ issues, but to the ‘whole counsel of God’."

This is eminently sensible. It opens up the crucial question of finding fellowship with those we disagree with because we look first for what we hold in common and not what we differ on. (John has fine things to say on this which I have not cited). That, I suggest, from afar, could be important to rapprochement between 'conservative' and 'open' evangelicals in the C of E!

The essay also helpfully focuses attention on what we can admire in the ministry of those we are cautious about: are they faithful to the gospel?

This, incidentally, is part of the reason why I affirm the ministry of women in all orders of our church: there is no intrinsic reason by way of gender why women and men cannot be faithful to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; and, having ordained women as deacons, priests, and bishops, there is good evidence of these ministries being carried out faithful to the gospel.

The difference between conservative evangelicals opposed to women bishops and women bishops themselves will be paper thin indeed in the C of E where the teaching ministry of women bishops is doctrinally sound!

Fresh Expressions in Christchurch

My report for Taonga is here. I may post a further reflection or two here, later.

Idea for C of E to Try: Electoral Synods

Down Under we love England, the English, and appreciate the great heritage England has given us, including soccer, netball, rugby and cricket, which last three we regularly beat England at. One point to draw from sport is that the colonials may have something to teach England. To be fair to England's sporting administrators and coaches, they are willing to learn. But the Church of England, is it willing to learn from Down Under? Actually, willing to learn from a whole lot of churches in the Communion?

A simple and relevant idea at this point would be electoral synods as the means of nominating bishops to the crown for appointment. Such elections would, among other things, avoid the appalling and outrageous imbroglio of the last few days in which one reporter has been responsible for titillating the Anglican world with rumour that Jeffrey John was a candidate for Southwark and is now also responsible for catalysing liberal wrath and anger towards ++Rowan Williams that Jeffrey John is no longer a candidate for Southwark. Was he ever short-listed or merely one name of many on a long list?

Despite the fact that no one other than people sworn to confidentiality can possibly know what ++Rowan did or said, or not did or not said, the Archbishop of Canterbury is being hung, drawn and quartered in liberal Anglican circles without trial to determine the facts of the matter. I always thought liberals were as concerned about justice as any other Christian value.

Thanks to this reporter and whoever thought it funny/important/ego-boosting/savvy/whatever to feed him the rumour, both Jeffrey John and ++Rowan Williams are being subjected to public scrutiny, comment, judgment and consequent vilification (by some). Result Secular World 5 - Church of England 0. Three of the Secular World goals were self-inflicted by the hapless English defence!!

Two of the brighter sparks in C of E life, Nick Baines and John Richardson, have sensible things to say about this appalling media beat up. But neither proposes the simple possibility that dioceses might have more say by holding electoral synods. Chances are that Southwark would have elected Jeffrey John as its nomination.

Meantime, here in Christchurch we are appreciating very much the lessons being learned from England re Fresh Expressions of church from the acknowledged master, Bishop Graham Cray. I will try to say more over the weekend about his pearls of wisdom, but suffice for now to note the wonderful way in which everything he says is grounded in theology, centred on Jesus Christ, and embued with testimony of gospel transformation of people.

Missing Bishop Appears Down Under

At least one bishop of the C of E will not be present for the great debate looming over multiple amendments, as well as the substantial proposed legislation on women bishops. (Probably best to head to various posts on Thinking Anglicans for briefing on the intricacies of it all).

Instead Bishop Graham Cray, Team Leader of Fresh Expressions and Archbishops' Missioner, is here in Christchurch speaking at two conferences we have arranged. The first, a two day event at Lincoln University, is on Fresh Expressions of Anglican Mission, the second, a one day event at St Christopher's Avonhead, is on Fresh Expressions. Amazingly, and a sign of great interest in 'fresh expressions' of church, we have quite a few people from other denominations coming to the first event as well as to the second ... about 150 to the first and 180 to the second.

Understandably, blogging will be a little light for the next few days :)

Some problems with comments

Hello. Have had problems with disappearing comments to my Monday 5th July post 'Cultural Cleavage etc'. Even reposted comments have disappeared. I give up :(

One hopes

That as the C of E moves towards its General Synod, and considers the claims of its various media promoted candidates for Southwark, the following words are kept in mind:

"If the truth of Christ is indeed ultimately one as we all believe, there should be a path of mutual respect and thankfulness that will hold us in union and help us grow in that truth."

That was just a few weeks ago in the ABC's Pentecost Letter!

Communion's Cultural Cleavage Rends Asunder What Man Joined Together

It is difficult to see the Anglican Communion holding together as events unfold around us: the touting of Jeffrey John as bishop (celibate gay man, alleged to be unrepentant for the non-celibate years, proven to teach in favour of non-requirement of celibacy), the resignations of bishops from the AC's Standing Committee and the non-resignations of bishops from the AC's Standing Committee (laid out here in its chaotic detail by the ACI).

Sitting here Down Under, immersed in the Western mode of being Anglican and being human, it is reasonably easy to understand the consistency of ++Rowan Williams one month inhibiting TEC members of certain Communion committees consequential on the consecration of non-celibate Mary Glasspool to be bishop and the next month, apparently, not inhibiting the C of E appointments' process commending celibate Jeffrey John for nomination as bishop. But I am guessing that in some parts of the Communion, both in the Global South, and in churches sympathetic to the Global South (including parishes in Southwark and California), perceptions are different. Insufficient action against TEC, and no action against John amounts to a completely different way of responding to the presence of homosexuality in society and church. An unacceptable way which, in the end, is being driven as much as anything (IMHO) by cultural differences: in both the USA and the UK (and in NZ) our societies have moved very very fast relative to history to embrace homosexuals as normal, ordinary, equitable, indiscriminate citizens. It is not so much that the church is being pressed to conform to an alien culture around it (though this is a factor) but that the culture is challenging the church to welcome 'aliens' in its midst as full, included, insiders. The church has been caught so flat footed in a number of cases that our protestations of our "rights" to determine what is right and wrong appear to bring the gospel into disrepute: how come the community of love is so filled with fear of those who are "different"? In any case, our culture is pressing us to consider that homosexuals are not different, but like us, being our friends and family.

Of these questions and issues, of the nuances being explored, willingly or unwillingly, by the Western church, there seems little evidence of understanding in the minds of African prelates and Asian princes of the church, to say nothing of some of us known as 'conservative' sitting in the very citadels of changing societal attitude. Now time may prove that the understanding of African, Asian, and conservative Western church leaders is full of wisdom from above. (That part at least which refuses to let go of the moral question of same sex sexual relationships. Homophobically driven "kill gays" legislation will not be proven to be wisdom from above). But right now, the difference in understanding, the appreciation of the question of human dignity as represented in the Western world compared to parts of the non-Western world toying with more rather than less repressive anti-homosexuality laws, is so great as to likely constitute a cleavage in the Communion, rending asunder what man - colonial rulers, missionaries, Victorian bishops - joined together, the Church of England and its fledgling children as one incipient global church. Archbishop Rowan may yet preside over his worst case scenario, the clear, un-spinnable break up of the Communion, but not because his own gifts of wisdom and leadership have been less than any other leader could have provided, but because the cultural forces at work have been more like two continents colliding than a train wreck which might have been averted if only the driver had better sight.