CONFRONTATION IS threatened by traditionalists in response to the latest news from the Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate which has ruled out the structural changes demanded by those opposed to women bishops.After its third meeting last Friday, the Committee issued a statement which said: “The members of the Committee were unable to identify a basis for specifying particular functions for vesting which commanded sufficient support both from those in favour of the ordination of women as bishops and those unable to support that development. As a result all of the proposals for vesting particular functions by statute were defeated.
“The effect of the Committee’s decision is therefore that such arrangements as are made for those unable to receive the episcopal ministry of women will need to be by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop rather than vesting.”
The remaining options are to simply allow women to become bishops in the same way men would, or to do so with an accompanying Code of Practice which would advise on pastoral oversight for those unhappy with women bishops.
The chairman of Reform, the Rev Rod Thomas, said the decision had “overturned the will of Synod, created the spectre of confrontation, and risks extending the controversy for another five years.”
The chairman of the Third Provence Movement, Margaret Brown, said: “This is really very ungenerous. These women wanted to come in, to butt in, without taking responsibility for the ensuing problems. It’s like they’ve got the diamond ring in an inheritance, and now they want their brother’s golden watch too. It is very unchristian.”
That is the wrong way to understand the argument, said the chair of Women and the Church (WATCH), Christina Rees, who called on the Church to concentrate on what God was calling it to do to reflect its position on women.
She said: “This is a real breakthrough. I am delighted that now we can look forward to having women as bishops on the same terms that men are bishops. Women will bring valuable different perspectives and ways of doing things and will also bring a sorely needed wholeness to the Episcopal leadership of our Church.”
Traditionalists are especially upset as the Committee had signaled in October that it had “voted to amend the draft Measure to provide for certain functions to be vested in bishops by statute rather than by delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory code of practice.” That was critisised by supporters of women bishops as betraying the will of Synod, an accusation which is now being taken up by traditionalists.
Mr Thomas said: “At last February’s General Synod there was a clear desire to provide legislative safeguards for those who could not, in conscience, accept the oversight of women bishops. This has now been overturned by the Revision Committee. Whereas there was a prospect of agreement, the Revision Committee has now set the General Synod on a course of confrontation. It has served the Church badly.”
There had been speculation that the Vatican’s offer of Personal Ordinariates to traditionalist Anglicans who wanted to join the Roman Catholic Church would change the balance within the Revision Committee.
In a sermon on All Saints' Day, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, appeared to plead for Anglicans to stay: “We need to go on telling a few stories about those who have shown us that it is possible to lead lives of Catholic holiness even in the Communion of the See of Canterbury!”
Rome was the least of the Archbishop’s worries, Mr Thomas said: “There has been much speculation about Anglo-Catholics leaving the Church of England for Rome. What has been overlooked is the number of large evangelical churches which the Church of England now risks losing – not to Rome, but to independence or alternative Anglican affiliations.”
The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans UK has declared itself ready to wrest power from the Church’s hierarchy should it liberalise further.
The Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Peter Broadbent, who is on the Revision Committee said: “It is difficult to know how many people have been swayed by the Vatican’s offer. Those who’ve been swayed are those who don’t know enough about Anglo-Catholics.
Ms Rees said: “The Vatican’s invitation, whatever you think about the substance, highlighted the difference in Governance between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, and I think it might have made some people on the Revision Committee think ‘no, we are a different Church, we have to make our own laws, we have to decide what we want to do’.” Bishop Broadbent warned that the debate was still far from concluded: “Whatever we end up with has got to have two thirds majority in Synod… so it’s still incomplete, but clearly the traditionalists who are wanting the models we’ve already looked at and haven’t been able to make work, are right to be concerned.”
Mr Thomas said: “Within the General Synod there will be many who will be deeply unhappy at the bullying tactics being used to dismiss opponents of the proposed new legislation. Some evangelicals who do support the introduction of women bishops will nevertheless vote against proposals which have the effect of excluding other evangelicals.
“It may be that in the providence of God, the result of the Revision Committee’s decision may be the reverse of what they intend: that this unbiblical move to put women in positions of headship in the church will fail. Reform will now renew its commitment to work towards this outcome.”
Ms Rees said the change in direction was down to pressure from Synod members: “The Revision Committee had lost focus. The outpouring of dismay after their announcement on October 8 concentrated their minds. I think they are listening in a new way.”
Bishop Broadbent said it was appropriate that the Committee was lobbied, but that they would not be swayed by emotional pleas: “There’s emotion throughout this, there’s emotion from those who are against women bishops and there’s emotion from those in favour. What we have to do is try and think what’s best for the Church, and do that theologically and coherently.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: RI