This friend draws attention to the action of Judah's King Asa in 2 Chronicles 14v11 and its spiritual effect:
Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, "Lord, there is no-one like you to help the powerless against the mighty. Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this vast army. O Lord, you are our God; do not let man prevail against you" (NIV).Such trenchant biblical encouragement to faithful prayer in the heat of the spiritual battle is most welcome. Cranmer's Curate can certainly say Amen to any prayer for alternative episcopal oversight in the women bishops' measure but hopefully not naively.
Serious issues for the future of conservative evangelical ministry in the Church of England would remain unresolved even if, God willing, the redoutable proponents of 'proper provision' were to succeed in the General Synod. Amongst such questions are:
* Would our constituency get it own bishops or would we have to rely on Anglo-Catholics? How would proper provision provide for conservative evangelicals?
* What about our young men entering Church of England ministry and taking on incumbencies where the PCC does not want alternative episcopal oversight? Is proper provision going to be the exclusive privilege of the large, established conservative evangelical churches? How can it extend to turnaround churches?
* Is 'two integrities' really the right biblical approach to the ordering of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ on a matter on which the New Testament is clear? How far can we accede to theological diversity without sacrificing biblical clarity on the altar of postmodern uncertainty?
Percipient members of the youth group can no doubt add to the list of questions and come up with better ones. But your curate honestly believes the above issues are not to be dismissed lightly.
Certainly, we should all be praying earnestly for the spiritual future of conservative evangelical churches currently in the institutional Church of England and for fruitful ministry platforms for the gifted young men we are wanting to encourage into presbyteral ministry.
But the God-given victory against this large army of revisionists ranged against us may entail more flexibility and spiritual entrepeneurship than our conservative evangelical constituency is generally comfortable with at the moment.
To address your three bullet points:
ReplyDelete* I think many of us on General Synod hope that in the future there will simply be bishops - male and female - and the notion of 'our own bishops' will simply be eradicated. A system of trust will mean that those who don't want a particular diocesan bishop will have an adult conversation with that bishop about it rather than demanding a separate table to sit at.
* If the PCC does not want alternative oversight why would some 'young man' want to go there?
* The 'Two integrities' idea really is a nonsense and always has been. It dishonours all of us, but especially those ordained women who are loyal and canonically ordainded members of the C of E.
Andrew, your first comment is one of the things that I have HUGE issues with, and this is coming from a view in favour of women bishops!
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the vocal pro +women say similar things, usually with the additional comment suggesting that those against will simply "die out". But this only shows a lack of care and respect for both the people and their understanding of Biblical teaching.
You know very well, having interacted on these matters on John Richardson's blog, that the "our" comment is a matter of episcopal integrity (as well as other things) that means that for some there will always be a need for bishops who take a CE view on this matter.
The fact that there are currently no CE bishops at all is a shocking statement on how "honoured" CE laity and priests are in the CofE and should be something that synod should be looking to see change just as much as trying to see that women can put on a mitre.
Your 3rd comment also saddens me as you show care for 1 side above the other. ALL are loyal Anglicans and ALL deserve an honoured place.
And no, just because women currently can't be bishops doesn't mean that they should be preferred until they gain equality. If you were to have your way, at least the way your past and current comments suggest, then CEs would be treated far worse than those in favour of women bishops claim women priests currently are!
To claim that 'there are currently no CE bishops at all' seems rather unfair on Donald Allister of Peterborough (a founder of Reform, no less) or are bishops to be struck off the CE list as soon as they show (in Julian's words) 'more flexibility and spiritual entrepeneurship than our conservative evangelical constituency is generally comfortable with at the moment.'?
DeleteHi Historian, I don't know +Allister, but assuming you are correct, that is ONE conservative evangelical bishop, am I right?
DeleteAny more?
I seem to recall that there are over 100 bishops in the Church of England, is that correct?
Youth Pasta - I tell you what. Let's have separate provisions in society for those who don't like to have women doctors; or women newsreaders; or women MPs. Or maybe even women teachers come to that. Whilst we are about it we could institute an apartheid state for those who don't really like to have black doctors, or newsreaders or teachers. We'll have legal segregation on the buses shall we?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the things you are asking for sound just about as sensible. If you really are in favour of women bishops, and really think they deserve an honoured place as Anglicans, please stop discriminating against them. To even say that some people do not find them acceptable and that they need *law* to enforce protection from them is just so offensive, and I can't even begin to see why you don't get that.
Sorry Andrew, that's a bit of a smokescreen and if we're talking about being offensive...You have to argue that those things are equivalent. CEs would not, because we would say the Bible doesn't. As I understand it, it is possible to ask for doctors of a particular gender too, which rather undermines the rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteStephen: You can argue that 'the bible doesn't' as long as you like, but once upon a time people argued that it did.
ReplyDeleteAs to doctors - yes of course you can ask for a doctor of a particular gender. I support you being able to ask for a bishop or priest of a particular gender. I just don't want discrimination enshrined in law - that's the difference. There is no legal difference between a male or female doctor, and both are recognised by everyone as doctors. The legislation that we have been considering for bishops up until now has had discrimination built into it, and that is the bit that has to go. It also allows people to say that a woman is not actually a bishop, (or a priest) and that too has to go.
"Stephen: You can argue that 'the bible doesn't' as long as you like, but once upon a time people argued that it did."
DeleteThat is incorrect, Canon Andrew. People have always tried to drag the bible in to support their arguments - not just "once upon a time". They still do so today.
What you haven't shown is why any female clergy have the right to take umbrage at those who don't accept their ministry. Or why you have the right to take such umbrage.
You cannot change people's minds by legislating - I don't know where you got the hopelessly naive idea that you can. So, best get used to it, because conservative evangelicals and anglo-catholics are not going to disappear.
Your one hope would have been to persuade them that they are wrong - but since you dismissed the Bible as irrelevant, your credibility in that department is zero.
Again a bit of a smokescreen. There are also a list of things that the church has held to despite opposition within (significant things like the the divinity of Christ). The question is which one is this and that requires an argument.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if there is a legal requirement for male and female doctors to be available in certain circumstances, but one could see why there might be. You were talking about provision and I simply observed that in an example you cited there is the option for reasonable "discrimination." It is, therefore, not always a bad thing.
Stephen: try this scenario then.
ReplyDeleteYou have moved to a London suburb and go to register at the largish GP practice. You are told by the receptionist that there are only female doctors - and you really want a male one, being a male. You are told "oh in this practice, we don't think men can be doctors - they don't have the right caring skills. So we only have women doctors in this practice".
Do you think that would work, or be allowed? Do you think it would be right?
"You are told by the receptionist that there are only female doctors - and you really want a male one, being a male."
DeleteCanon Andrew, your analogy is flawed before it has even begun. I don't want a male priest because I am male. (and, given that the conservative evangelical position enjoys strong support from women, it would be a very strange reason to use!)
No, I want a male priest because God commanded that the leaders of his church be male.
Yes, that is allowed. And yes, it is right.
I think MichaelA has a point about your analogy both with the flaw and the applicability. All I was trying to say was that you seemed to have got a bit carried away using the doctor example. However, I would think the GP practice had a case IF they presented an argument/evidence for their position. I would think this especially important if they chose to phrase their refusal in offensive language.
DeleteStephen. I would not normally agree with the comments made by Andrew Godsall on this blog, but on this issue I do agree.
ReplyDeleteIMO the male/female gender controversy debate in the C of E (I am not a member) is a massive distraction, and quite unnecessary as it is not an issue in the N.T.
I think it is time for opponents of women's ministry to succinctly present a case for their objection theologically.
You say above that the issue "requires an argument". However, there are some well qualified biblical scholars today who have adequately presented biblical arguments supporting the place and role of women as being exactly comensurate with those of their brethren.
This is not perhaps the place to reiterate the arguments here, but it is noteworthy that neither the Gospel narratives nor the recorded words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of women.
The words and teaching of Jesus are also quite consistent with the disputed passages in 1 Timothy 2:12, and 1 Cor.14:34-35.
What is your problem please?
Graham, we have been through this before on this blog. And proponents and opponents of women clergy have been through it many times on other media, so please don't come out with the canard: "I think it is time for opponents of women's ministry to succinctly present a case...".
DeleteYou then immediately follow this with: "This is not perhaps the place to reiterate the arguments here"..."
Really, then which is it - time to present a succinct case, or not the time to reiterate arguments? Please make up your mind.
Graham. I do disagree with Andrew and yourself on the issue. Although I'm not against women's ministry, but women having the teaching elder position in a church.
DeleteI am aware that there are biblical scholars who think 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 and the other passages don't require a CE position, even those who are evangelicals (Gordon Fee for example). I am sure you are aware that there are those scholars who think they are wrong. Personally I've found the CE position more convincing from Scripture, but I am open to being persuaded I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by a succinct case (at the book level something like Different by Design by Carrie Sandom or God's Good Design by Claire Smith might do the job?).
All that said, my specific point with Andrew is that he'd drawn some specific parallels (which were quite offensive) which CEs wouldn't think applied. I just think it needs an argument that they apply. Especially if you want to persuade someone rather than rile them.
What I don't understand, so please do enlighten me, is why conservative evangelicals are bothered about bishops at all, seeing as they tend not even to believe in the Orders to which their priests and deacons are ordained. Surely in your ecclesiology, all that really matters is the minister of a given congregation? In which case, one might ask, why remain in an episcopally ordered church at all, when you could be a Presbyterian or a Congregationalist
ReplyDeleteFr Julian,
ReplyDeleteYour comment about "two integrities" is perceptive - this was originally a weasel phrase used in the 1990s by liberals to soothe conservatives and moderates into accepting the idea of women clergy into the church. It presented a facade of liberal moderation which led to women clergy being permitted in 1994 by just two votes.
Naturally, liberals being liberals, once they gained what they wanted the idea of "two integrities was gradually and conveniently forgotten.
The question now is why conservative evangelicals in CofE should bother with it at all. Run your churches (and plant new ones) within CofE to the extent that you are permitted to; and if the hierarchy ever makes things difficult for you, run your churches (and plant new ones) outside CofE governance. But don't be enticed by the "two integrities" teaching.
Fr Tom, haven't you answered your own question? Conservative evangelicals clearly do believe in bishops, and there are a large number of them in Anglican churches all over the world. So i suggest that would indicate that you have made some incorrect assumptions about what they believe.
ReplyDeleteMichael A. Indeed we have made reference to the issue on this blog before, but I am not aware that anybody has put forward a distinctly biblical case for not recognising female ministry.
ReplyDeleteI suggested "succinct" in order, hopefully, for posters to avoid long diatribes about "equality" issues, "ordination" and other similar deviations from the real point at issue.
By all means put forward a brief (succinct) defence of women's ministry yourself, and why you may be for or against it.
That is what this blog is for - to explore and discuss such issues, preferably from a biblical position - bearing in mind the subject of this thread. and no, I do not wish to necessarily trawl around for answers "on other media".
c
Graham, if what you want by succinct is a paragraph on what CEs think about women's ministry, that is tricky because whatever we say has of course been debated at great length and also there is diversity with CEs.
DeleteHowever, I think that passages such as 1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:26-40; 1 Tim. 2-3; Titus 1:5-9 all indicate that there is distinction in the role (not value) men and women play in church leadership and teaching, rooted in creation and the Trinity (not just the specific circumstances of those letters). This is linked to the distinction of role (not value)in marriage.
We work that distinction out in different ways, but usually that would mean, at least, that women are encouraged in ministry with other women and children and sometimes in preaching, but that we would see the teaching and church leadership responsibility residing with male elders. How ordination fits with this is complicated (for example we want to see women's ministry recognised and so ordination may be a good thing, but if that leads to overall charge of a church then for us there is a problem). In terms of episcopacy, a women bishop is given teaching and leadership authority over churches and so is a problem.
Carrie Sandom has written briefly, but more fully than that at:
http://reform.org.uk/resources/media-downloads/src/publication/54/title/truth-matters-the-role-of-women-in-the-local-church
Fine Graham, have it your way. I am not "against women's ministry" (your words) and I don't know anyone who is.
Delete