Brava!
A hearty “Brava” to the Women Clergy of the Church of England who have written one of the saddest and most-Christian of letters I’ve seen in a while.
We believe that it should be possible for women to be consecrated as bishops, but not at any price. The price of legal “safeguards” for those opposed is simply too high, diminishing not just the women concerned, but the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole. We cannot countenance any proposal that would, once again, enshrine and formalise discrimination against women in legislation. With great regret, we would be prepared to wait longer, rather than see further damage done to the Church of England by passing discriminatory laws. In this, we support the recent principled stand taken by the Archbishop and Bishops of the Church in Wales.
The Catholicity (wholeness) of the Church is about building relations, building trust, building communion. It can, as my friend Ana used to say, “Shatter the resonances” if we push too hard, too fast. The women clergy write, After 21 years of ordained ministry and 14 years of priesthood, many of us have much experience of building trustful relationships with those unable to accept the priestly ministry of women. If you’ve watched The Vicar of Dibley, you’ve seen this process in action. Gay presbyters, too, have seen this. But a Bishop is something different. To bring in “other bishops” for those who question “the bishop’s” presence and Authority is not an accommodation, per se, but rather a denial of the catholicity of the Bishops. It is the creation of a deonomination within the denomination. What is a denomination difference, at root, but a denial of one understanding episokope by a group of people? If I can not accept the ministry of my local bishop, I am in a different denomination of Church.
Again, as the women say, Strong relationships have been forged on the anvil of profound disagreement and there is ample testimony to the richness of these encounters, to set alongside those situations which have proved painful. As the broken body of Christ on earth, the Church’s internal relationships should rest on trust, forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation, rather than on protection and an over-anxious reliance on the letter of the law. It is the process of working out this thing that is important: it is the process, the work, that makes us Church. Running rough-shod over someone is not the action of a Christian.
We long to see the consecration of women bishops in the Church of England, and believe it is right both in principle and in timing. But because we love the Church, we are not willing to assent to a further fracture in our communion and threat to our unity. If it is to be episcopacy for women qualified by legal arrangements to “protect” others from our oversight, then our answer, respectfully, is thank you, but no.
I would that gay clergy would take the same stance…
Chris Jones says:
I too salute the women who wrote this, though I read it from the other side of the divide. The whole notion of “flying bishops,” by which the Church of England has sought to accommodate those who are opposed to the ordination of women, is deeply un-Catholic and is a denial of the very basis on which Anglicans (Anglo-Catholic ones, anyway) must oppose the ordination of women.
If those who support, and those who oppose, the ordination of women share what is fundamentally the same faith, then they can and should continue in communion with one another, under the omophorion of the same bishop (male or female), shepherded by the same priest (male or female) whom that bishop has appointed. To reject the ministry of a priest because she is a woman, or to reject the ministry of the bishop because he accepts the priesthood of women, is to deny that one has the same faith as that bishop or that priest. In that case it is dishonest to continue in fellowship. It is better to separate, with sadness and love, than to pretend that there is a unity of faith which does not exist.
What these women clergy are saying, in effect, is that at a certain point it is necessary to put a stake in the ground and declare that ordination of women is part of the Church’s teaching and practice and those who would adhere to the Church must embrace that teaching and practice. Those who cannot embrace it must adhere to another Church. That stance, sad as it is, has the virtue of a bracing honesty.
15 May 2008 - 11 אייר 5768 at 9:36 am
Fr. Ernesto says:
They are correct on catholicity and the office of the bishop. It is an incredibly principled stand reaffirming that if the church is not truly catholic, then it is not truly church.
That stance is likely to win them more friendship from the Global South than a policy of insistent confrontation. And, as you pointed out yourself, friendship opens doors. The colloquial saying is that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. The Biblical way to put it is that a gentle answer turns away wrath.
I do not believe in women bishops, but I found myself thinking positive thoughts about the women who wrote those principled ideas.
16 May 2008 - 12 אייר 5768 at 2:04 pm
siren19 says:
It’s an interesting stance. The difference between women bishops (in England, we’re talking now) and gay bishops is that there are already gay ones– they’re just not especially honest about it. The women, some of whom might be gay also, of course, don’t have that (alluring but false) option, which is probably beneficial in the long run to their spiritual health.
16 May 2008 - 12 אייר 5768 at 5:30 pm
Huw says:
Siren - you are right, of course: especially on the closet issue. I have known these Bishops - including one with a partner…
In the case of the Gayz it would be “Not until we can be who we are…” which is, I think, exactly what the women are saying as well.
16 May 2008 - 12 אייר 5768 at 11:58 pm