This news story by Cranmer's Curate appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline:
Revd Rod Thomas, chairman of UK Anglican Evangelical network Reform, reports significant progress on the development of a biblically orthodox Society within the Church of England with its own panel of bishops.
In his latest newsletter to the 1600-strong membership including 500 clergy, he reveals that the Reform Council has decided that the new Society announced at the October 2010 conference would not be formed "purely for the purpose of providing episcopal oversight for those who cannot accept women bishops. Not only was it unlikely that the General Synod would respond in a way that would be adequate but the effect might be to marginalise us. We needed to show that we occupied, and argued our case from, the middle ground. However, the development of a broader based Society, able to operate with its own panel of bishops across a range of issues could be a positive development".
He reports that "a considerable amount of work has been done on this within the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) in the UK and an initial panel of (existing) bishops has been proposed. The Primates of the FCA worldwide have also been consulted. The doctrinal basis of the Society would be the Jerusalem Statement agreed at GAFCON in 2008. There might be two categories of membership – one for those who were supportive but who had no immediate ministry need, and another for those who did need alternative episcopal oversight".
Mr Thomas continues: "The existence of such a panel of bishops could well be a help to the English House of Bishops in dealing with the current dilemma over women bishops. One possibility is that the House of Bishops may decide that in the light of the consultations in the dioceses, the present legislative proposals should be amended in order to provide better safeguards for those who are opposed to them. If this turns out to be the case, they might be open to positive proposals for changes that would enable parishes to have oversight from a recognised panel of bishops."
He argues that "quite apart from the issue of women bishops, the formation of a Society could help in situations where irregular ordinations have had to take place over the last few years or will be taking place in the future. Where the ordinands involved have been through the Reform Panel of Reference, there is every reason to commend them and their congregations to the FCA’s initial panel of bishops for recognition and oversight. The Reform Council was warmly supportive of this – and supportive too of the idea that in due course a way should be found to give all those involved a public welcome".
He concludes: "Needless to say, there is still much work to be done on all these proposals. In order to help the process, the Council agreed to set up a joint working group with Church Society to consider how a future panel of bishops might be selected."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So what this means in effect is that the St Augustine Society will not provide for Conservative Evangelicals who, as the Following Motion from the Church of England Evangelical Council puts it, “are unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops”.
ReplyDeleteThis is because GAFCON/FCA have for their own reasons 'agreed to differ' on the issue. Thus the panel of bishops could include those who do ordain women, and in fact could even include women bishops. (Indeed, in an extreme, though unlikely, scenario, all the bishops could be women.)
And what this means is that there is currently nothing on the table for Conservative Evangelicals who are asking for 'proper provision' over the introduction of women bishops.
As Terry Wogan used to say, "Is it just me?"
Maybe. It depends on what Rod means by “a broader based Society”. It could mean that the Society won’t just be a single-issue body, but will stand for a thoroughly Reformed C of E. But as you say John, Rod’s statement does sound very odd: if the Society isn’t for CEs who can’t accept women bishops then what is the point of having it?
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is that there is not enough open discussion of the Society and what is needed, so we end up trying to guess what Rod meant. We still haven’t been told the names of the working group who are making these plans- at the conference it was “Angus Macleay and four others”. It is outrageous that the Reform Council have consulted the FCA primates, but have made no effort to consult the people on the ground in this country whom it is actually for. Maybe that’s why it’s been called SAS- because it operates in complete secrecy!
Disappointing too that the Jerusalem Declaration will be the doctrinal basis, given that document’s notorious omission of “alone” after “justification by faith”. Why not the Thirty-Nine Articles?
There is some encouragement in Rod’s letter in the Reform mailing. First, Church Society are more involved. Second, he talks about “a Society”- so it may be that the ridiculous “St Augustine Society” will be dropped: So far things have been less Andy McNab and more PG Wodehouse.
Stephen Walton
Marbury
Perhaps a small oversight on the part of Reform, who haven't noticed that the Jerusalem Declaration has no 'male headship' clause, unlike their own covenant, which does. And neither does the 39 Articles, except indirectly.
ReplyDeleteIf Reform wishes to take the broad brush approach, which it does for fear of being marginalised and to ensure a wide acceptance, my only question is 'Why?' A dissenting organisation to which all can sign up is no dissent at all.
This concern about 'marginalisation' raises an important point. Surely churches that depart from biblical orthodoxy marginalise themselves from God's will even though for a time they may be numerically larger than the orthodox.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, institutionally, two Societies, one Anglo-Catholic, the other Conservative Evangelical, with a traditional view of male leadership in the Church, would be numerically and financially quite significant in the Church of England.
And the institution, or at least some within it, are being generous to the idea of a Society.
Is it not the best solution a Conservative Evangelical/Reformed Anglican section in SSWSH? Some details would need to worked out - eg safeguarding 39 Articles' theology and practice in Holy Communion etc. And the CE section in SSWSH would need its own panel of bishops.
PS a response from SSWSH on the possibility of a Reformed Anglican section would be useful.
ReplyDeleteJohn, have you any idea what their response to this would be?
Julian, no idea how SSWSH would respond, but I am very interested to know how many Evangelical Anglicans have joined SSHSH.
ReplyDeleteSo if that includes anyone reading this, would they please send me an e-mail via the link on my blog?
Meanwhile, if not having a single bishop from their integrity appointed since Wallace Benn (Lewes, 1997) is not 'marginalization' then I am afraid I do not understand the term.
The Reform constituency is marginalized already. A Society would not make things worse!