davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Manchester Report: Women Bishops in the CofE

The Church of England has released the long-awaited Manchester Report - it’s evaluation of what is required to move towards the consecration of women as bishops. At the moment the document is available as a series of word (.doc) files.

The big questions addressed are

What legislative changes are required?
What provisions are necessary for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops, nor those that they ordain?

Women bishops are all but inevitable in the CofE and so the report, in its own words…

seeks to move the debate on from the ‘whether’ to the ‘how’.

Readers can go check out the meat of the report here (.doc file). The legislative changes are pretty standard stuff. The really thorny question which the group has grappled with is how to deal with conscientious objectors. This, however, raises its own issues:

12 ...there was a great deal of perplexity over how this could be done in a way which (a) had ecclesiological integrity; (b) left space within the Church of England for those who in conscience could not accept the priestly or episcopal ministry of women; and (c) avoided any flavour of discrimination or half-heartedness on the part of the Church of England towards women priests and bishops.

And there is the rub. As the group recognised, any move to have special arrangements for those who object may, in some way, indicate that the Church is not wholly committed to the matter. It’s a critical issue for,

22 ... far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses.

As an evangelical who could not accept the ministry of a woman bishop, the question is “do I still have a place in the Church?” And, if so, what does that place look like? We are not a small minority by any means. As the report itself notes the General Synod of 2006 had large numbers disagreeing with the statement:

The view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.

22.5% of bishops, 23.9% of clergy and a whopping 35.6% of laity cannot agree with this move (para. 31, Manchester Report). What is to become of them? What place do they have?

I’m really grateful that the group recognised this massive issue and have made some steps towards solving it. Not least, they have recognised the need to have something for a lack of provision would provide great legal uncertainty (para. 60). Here’s what they suggest:

50. The three broad approaches are as follows:

the simplest possible statutory approach with no binding national arrangements;

legislation that would provide some basis for special arrangements for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops, such arrangements to be made within the present structures of the Church of England; and

legislation that would create new structures within the Church of England for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

...

90. [...] we have decided for the sake of simplicity to focus in this analysis on the structural solution that would involve the least innovation (though it would still involve quite a lot) in terms of the present structures of the Church of England. This is the approach that would involve the creation of a number of new, special dioceses, without a separate provincial structure.

Now, that quote obviously washes over a great deal of discussion of the alternates. The bottom line of the solution is this: not happy with your bishop? You can have another one. The advantage, the Report claims, is that this doesn’t require a new way of doing things, just a new diocese. That is certainly true and would cause the least disruption.

How would this work out for the dissenting portions? The Report makes some suggestions:

100. There are also some question marks arising from the differences between those who have difficulties over women’s ordination for reasons of sacramental theology and those whose position derives from a particular view of headship. For Catholics, issues concerning sacramental assurance and the collegiality of presbyters with their bishop are fundamental. As soon as the Church of England had admitted women to the College of Bishops many of them would find it necessary to be able to look to male bishops who had made it clear that they did not intend to ordain women to the presbyterate or participate in the consecration of women to the episcopate. If special dioceses had been created they would, therefore, petition to be part of it straight away.

101. For many Evangelicals, by contrast, the issues would be rather different. On headship grounds they might not be able to accept a female incumbent or direct oversight by a woman bishop. But, for so long as their incumbent was male, and the bishop providing oversight to them male, they would not necessarily see any compelling need to petition to move from the historic diocese, particularly if the special diocese was seen to have an ecclesial culture far removed from their own reformed convictions. It is perhaps partly for that reason that Conservative Evangelicals have put it to us that it would be crucial for one or more bishops within the new dioceses to be Evangelical. Whether that would in fact be sufficient to make the new structures stable is not entirely clear.

But this is not the whole of the matter. For how are clergy to relate to one another as women bishops begin to be ordained?

136. For many supporters of women’s ordination the crux of the current dilemma is whether any special arrangements for those who in conscience cannot receive the ministry of women bishops and priests would be tantamount to acknowledging a doubt on the part of the Church of England over the decision to ordain women as priests and bishops.

137. Moreover, since - irrespective of Canon A 4 - mutual recognition of orders has traditionally been one of the hallmarks of a Church, would it be tolerable to contemplate having within the Church of England people who retained doubts about each other’s orders? These have, of course, already been acute questions since 1994 in relation to women priests. They would assume even greater importance in relation to women bishops who would themselves be ordaining men and women to the priesthood.

This is, for me, the key issue. If I refuse to recognise the innovation then what will happen? Can I be considered truly Anglican? What will happen to my license, my orders?

138. This is undoubtedly one of the most difficult circles to square. Having pondered the matter carefully, we believe that any possible solution needs to incorporate the following elements:

a. A clear statement by the Church of England that, in admitting women into the episcopate, it is now fully committed to opening all orders of ministry to men and women;
b. An acceptance on the part of those who, theologically, cannot receive the ministry of women priests and bishops or those ordained by them that the Church of England has decided to admit men and women equally to holy orders and that those whom the Church has duly ordained and appointed to office are the lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and lawful obedience;
c. An acknowledgement by those in favour of women’s ordination that the theological convictions of those unable to receive the ordained ministry of women are within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition and that those who hold them should, therefore, be able to receive pastoral and sacramental care in a way that is consistent with their convictions.

The Report goes on to be very clear what it means by “lawful”:

142. A formulation along these lines would go some way, we believe, to dispelling some of the confusion that currently exists in relation to the “validity of orders.” The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England does not admit any distinction between the lawfulness of an ordination and its validity. Thus, an ordination conducted fully in accordance with the various requirements of the Church of England as to matters such as qualifications of the candidate and of the ordaining minister and the rite employed, will take effect for all legal purposes.

143. It is not, therefore, open to any person, whether or not a member of the Church of England, to question the validity of the ordination in legal terms. The fact that some may doubt whether women may, sacramentally, be priests and bishops and/or exercise headship is a separate matter from calling into question whether, as a matter of law, the ordinations are valid.

Here, I think, is the great problem. The Report wishes me to recognise a distinction between the “lawful” and “sacramental” (whatever we understand by that word, and Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will have some disagreement). I’m not sure that I can. Rather, it seems to me that for an ordination or consecration to be “lawful” it must also be “sacramental”. We would not (and do not) agree to this distinction with respect to Gene Robinson’s consecration. It is a stretch to suggest that since it was carried out in good order and according to the laws that I must, even in a limited way, recognise it as valid.

Now, this does not mean that we cannot respect those persons. I can well imagine having a diocesan bishop who is a woman and being very happy to abide by her administrative requests and procedures, to have her round for a meal to get to know her better, and so on. But I could not recognise her as a “bishop” in any sense other than as a courtesy and, surely, the proposed canons will require more of me.

Now, granted, the Report would make a provision for me to become part of a new diocese. I would in effect, have 2 bishops, albeit with 2 different relationships. Nevertheless,

149. We believe that an essential part of the effort “to maintain the highest degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops” is to be accommodating on the subject of the duty and oath of canonical obedience and to provide for two separate duties, and possibly two oaths, one to each of the bishops in respect of that bishop’s functions.

150. We regard this dual allegiance as important both in substance and symbolically, and we recommend that if one of the approaches canvassed in this chapter is adopted, then work should proceed on the formulation of two distinct duties and oaths with consequential amendments to the relevant Canons.

So here is my dilemma. Even if I were to join a new diocese, what oath would I be required to swear in substance to my former diocesan? Surely not one that bent my conscience? But the Report, unless I have misread it, insists that I must recognise the canonical validity of the consecration.

And what if I don’t want to join a new diocese? What if I love the diocese that I’m currently in? Why must I move when others have changed? I don’t want to appear picky here but it really does seem that, ultimately, I will be forced to move in some way - once again finding that despite my theological position having not changed one iota, the playing field has and I am no longer on the centre spot where I thought I stood but somewhere near the touchline.

And there is another issue that the Report nodded to but didn’t address:

24 ...Full communion and collegiality within the House and College of Bishops has up to now been a central plank in Anglican ecclesiology. The prospect of a House of Bishops where there would no longer be full communion and collegiality between its members does, therefore, raise new and difficult issues.

As we noted above, almost a quarter of the House of Bishops could not agree to the measure. What is to become of them? Must they now be forced to acknowledge the validity of the consecration of their women colleagues? Collegiality is a big thing for the English House of Bishops, moreso certainly than TEC at this current time. Who do bishops go to for alternate arrangements? Will they be allowed to not recognise the place of the female bishop opposite them? There is certainly more work to be done here.

The Report closes:

165. Nevertheless, as will have been clear from this report, the Church of England now faces some very serious decisions. They go to the heart of what sort of Church it wishes to be. Far better that those issues are faced calmly, honestly and prayerfully now than that the Synod should set off down a road which may, ultimately, fail to command sufficient consensus.

The problem is that the Church of England does not have sufficient consensus. It is gratifying that the Report calls us all to take this very seriously but more than contemplation is required to make this work. It could be that those of us who protest are the main problem. But then, it could be that the real problem is requiring orthodox Christians to accept an unbiblical move. It may be that the innovation itself is what has brought us to this point of division.

Posted by on 04/29 at 11:28 AM

Hi Dave,

Re your comment:
“Here, I think, is the great problem. The Report wishes me to recognise a distinction between the �lawful� and �sacramental� (whatever we understand by that word, and Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will have some disagreement). I�m not sure that I can. Rather, it seems to me that for an ordination or consecration to be �lawful� it must also be �sacramental�. We would not (and do not) agree to this distinction with respect to Gene Robinson�s consecration. It is a stretch to suggest that since it was carried out in good order and according to the laws that I must, even in a limited way, recognise it as valid.”

This sounds a little like something I read about the teaching of Augustine in his writings against a breakaway group of Christians called the Donatists. They’d left the church because a bishop called Caecilian was ordained by a group of bishops including a bloke called Felix of Aptunga, who’d given up church property to the Roman authorities during the last great persecution against the Christians. To the Donatists, this made Felix unworthy to be a priest, and thus any sacraments he administered or ordinations he officiated in invalid.

Augustine argument against the Donatist position was that the church was apostolic, unified and universal, and salvation could only be found through it. So even if the officiating clergyman was unworthy, that didn’t affect the status of the sacraments he administered or the ordinations he conducted. Their validity came from them being administered by a clergyman from the universal church. [A Short History of the Early Church, Harry R Boer, p.161]

It appears that the same type of argument is being used here. As long as the controversial person (the same argument may in future be used if the church ordains ‘out’ gays as bishops in the UK or Aus) has gone through the right church ceremony, they are a bishop/presbyter, regardless of your Scriptural objections.

Posted by �on� 04/29 �at� 09:30 PM
thanks Roger.
I think the Donatist issue is slightly different. The question that they raised was whether those who had renounced the faith could be accepted back in with authority upon repentance. They argued that they could not, Augustine demonstrated that they could.

I think it’s a slightly different issue.

Posted by �on� 04/30 �at� 06:20 AM
David,
here is a analysis of the report that tackles it from a different, more “church political” angle. http://www.thewormbook.com/helmintholog/archives/2008/05/02/anglican_anorak.html
What do you make of Andrew Brown’s ability to count the numbers?
Which of the possible approaches outlined in the report do you think will occur? if Brown is right and the “muddle along” option is chosen do you think conservative evangelicals will stay in the CofE?

Posted by �on� 05/03 �at� 07:44 AM
cheers John.

It’s interesting, isn’t it? I think the bulk of Andrew’s premise is spot on - that we are simply papering over the cracks.

As for the numbers - the specific percentages he gives are from the report itself. In terms of the rift that it will cause, well he’s right to note that it already exists.

I personally think that the outcome that will get chosen is the “seperate dioceses” choice (which you’ll see I’m not happy with). It’s the least worst option and strikes me as the way the Report certainly encourages General Synod to go.

As for the conservative evangelicals? I think they’ll go with the alternate dioceses. I wouldn’t - I’d stay where I was and ask why I had to move at all and why something had been foisted upon me.

Posted by �on� 05/03 �at� 08:32 AM
With my almost complete ignorance of the English scene it strikes me that the “separate diocese” scheme will resemble Australia, with differences in “churchmanship” walled up in seperate diocese, with some stay-puts scattered around.
How long can those cracks be papered up do you think? If you went back to the UK (maybe to Boristown)would you want to be an Anglican minister?

Posted by �on� 05/03 �at� 09:29 AM
I don’t think it will work that way, John. We can have “seperate” dioceses here in ‘Straya because we are geographically distinct. But we’re talking about being in a separate diocese to the neighbouring parish.

If I went back then it would certainly be to the role of Anglican minister. I want to be one now (as I am!) and will continue to want to be one. We’ve lived with the cracks being papered over for so long, when new cracks appear I’m not sure what difference it makes! I’d rather carry on in a dodgy diocese (’cos the bishop, ultimately, can’t touch me) than shift over to something “new”.

Posted by �on� 05/03 �at� 11:11 AM

Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main

Statistics

This page has been viewed 41495 times
Page rendered in 1.6604 seconds
Total Entries: 736
Total Comments: 3903
Total Trackbacks: 856
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2008 06:00 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/09/2008 09:47 pm
Total Members: 4
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 11
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/18/2008 01:03 am
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am