Church of England to have Women Bishops
Those of you who know me are certainly aware that I opposed the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church back in the 70s and that issue primarily drove me out of the denomination. Now, why should I be concerned about Women Bishops in the Church of England? The reason I am concerned is that I see signs of an unhappy compromise in the making. This, of course, is the typical Anglican way of living with conflict, so why should I be surprised? But it is insidiously misleading and souls will be led astray.
At the recent Synod in England, July 7-11, 2006, (let's see if I can get it right) two significant votes were taken. One vote was to pave the way for the consecration of women as bishops by declaring that it was not a doctrinal issue in the C of E, and the other vote was to reaffirm a previous vote about the Ordinal (Canon A4) saying that the orders conferred ought to be considered as valid by all in the church. Never mind the fact that since 1993 clergy and people have been allowed to dissent from accepting the ministry of women priests, now there is a vote on the books which insists that the ministry of female bishops must be considered as valid. It seams to me that this leaves anyone totally out in the cold who considers the ordination of women to be impossible from a doctrinal point of view, for whatever reason: biblical, theological, or from the standpoint of apostolic tradition. While the English are famous for their ability to "muddle through", one finds it hard to see what they can do to patch this muddle up.
One of the suggestions being made is for a third province. The Church of England presently has two provinces, Canterbury and York. A third province would cover the same geographical area as both those provinces but would be allowed to dissent from the ordination of women. They would presumably also not allow gay ordination or gay marriage. But they would still be in the C of E and they would be in communion with other Anglican provinces world-wide. Geoffrey Kirk has suggested that this would create a "museum piece" of the part of the church that would be in the Third Province. I quite agree. But even more, I can not conceive of how it would work. I mean, what is the point? Isn't this just unity for the sake of unity? Isn't it at root a face saving device whereby we agree to disagree, but we remain "in communion"?
The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be preparing the way for a two-tiered Anglican Communion. Provinces willing and able to sign a covenant would be able to participate in Anglican meetings like Lambeth, but those who do not sign the covenant would be associate members. This almost presumes and would even provoke the break-up of the Episcopal Church and other Anglican provinces world-wide. Any parishes or even dioceses wishing to remain fully in the Covenanted Anglican Communion would have a legitimate reason to break away. It is another part of the muddle that has become Anglicanism.
The time has come to stop trying to save face. The Anglican Communion is already hopelessly fragmented, particularly if you include the "continuing churches" in the picture. All efforts to pretend it hasn't happened simply contributes to the muddle and misleads serious Christians who wish to get on with their lives. Why must we wait until the C of E gets its act together? The way it looks now, the C of E has created facts on the ground that will never be satisfactory to Anglo-Catholics, and are also repugnant to the Evangelicals' understanding of Scripture.
Back when the Church of England voted to ordain women to the priesthood, there was provision made for priests who wished to leave. Quite a lot of money was given to each priest leaving the ministry of the C of E because of a conscientious objection to the measure. No such settlement was made when the Episcopal Church began to ordain women; so the C of E by comparison should be commended for its magnanimity. It seems to me that we have come to another point in which it would be best to be magnanimous. If parts of the Anglican Communion are going to break up about this, let them do it as amicably as possible. After all, this is the gentlemanly English way.
The Catholic Church in England and in the United States is gaining converts as a direct result of the crisis in Anglicanism. Those of us who made our peace with Rome quite some time ago look at what is happening now with a philosophical attitude. Quite simply put, I thought I learned as an Anglican what it meant to be a Catholic, and now that I am one, I seen nothing attractive about the mess Anglicanism is in. The word "communion" means something entirely different to me now. In Anglicanism churches are in communion because of their historical connections and their ability to agree to disagree about doctrinal issues. In the Catholic Church being in communion means, at least in part, being in communion with the Pope. Belonging to The Church in its most visible and obvious form, in other words. In some sense we already belonged to this Church as Anglicans, but we were in a state of imperfect communion. Now imperfect communion is a fact of life even within the Anglican Communion.
As Anglicans we all knew where Anglicanism had come from. The interesting question was always where it was headed. As long as we thought that it was headed back into communion with the visible Catholic Church, it was possible to be Anglican and still be a believing Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic position. Now this is impossible. So it is time for Anglo-Catholics to become true Catholics.
The vote in the Church of England was made against the advice of Cardinal Kasper. Just as the Pope had pleaded with the Anglican Communion not to ordain women to the priesthood, so now, the Catholic Church has urged the Church of England not to proceed to ordain women to the episcopate. The reason is that the Catholic Church inexplicably still holds out some hope that it would be possible to undo some of the facts of Reformation history in England and restore the provinces of Canterbury and York to full communion with the Holy See. I would say that great figures like Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI even dared to hope that this could happen in this generation. And we dared to hope that it could happen even during our lifetime. How things have changed!
I can not even begin to go into why I think there is such a fundamental difference in attitude between Rome and Canterbury that has led to this impasse, but I would urge you to think about all of the issues that have led up to this mess. Most of them have to do with morality. It really starts with Lambeth allowing divorce and re-marriage. I remember how shocked many of us were when suffragan Bishop of Massachusetts Ben Arnold got divorced and remained in his position. When I was in seminary Joseph Fletcher was my professor of Ethics, and his "Situation Ethics" has become the hallmark of the Episcopal approach to moral decisions. Anglicans seem to have the hubris to think that all of this is progress and that Catholics and others who do not agree are just not as well educated.
So do not be fooled by Anglican attempts to muddle through. The time to get out of Anglicanism and into the Catholic Church is now. Fortunately we do not have to give up all that we love about Anglicanism. We can join the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church. http://anglicanuse.org
By the way, the "Third Province" already exists. It consists of the five Roman Catholic provinces in England and Wales.
C. David Burt
Those of you who know me are certainly aware that I opposed the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church back in the 70s and that issue primarily drove me out of the denomination. Now, why should I be concerned about Women Bishops in the Church of England? The reason I am concerned is that I see signs of an unhappy compromise in the making. This, of course, is the typical Anglican way of living with conflict, so why should I be surprised? But it is insidiously misleading and souls will be led astray.
At the recent Synod in England, July 7-11, 2006, (let's see if I can get it right) two significant votes were taken. One vote was to pave the way for the consecration of women as bishops by declaring that it was not a doctrinal issue in the C of E, and the other vote was to reaffirm a previous vote about the Ordinal (Canon A4) saying that the orders conferred ought to be considered as valid by all in the church. Never mind the fact that since 1993 clergy and people have been allowed to dissent from accepting the ministry of women priests, now there is a vote on the books which insists that the ministry of female bishops must be considered as valid. It seams to me that this leaves anyone totally out in the cold who considers the ordination of women to be impossible from a doctrinal point of view, for whatever reason: biblical, theological, or from the standpoint of apostolic tradition. While the English are famous for their ability to "muddle through", one finds it hard to see what they can do to patch this muddle up.
One of the suggestions being made is for a third province. The Church of England presently has two provinces, Canterbury and York. A third province would cover the same geographical area as both those provinces but would be allowed to dissent from the ordination of women. They would presumably also not allow gay ordination or gay marriage. But they would still be in the C of E and they would be in communion with other Anglican provinces world-wide. Geoffrey Kirk has suggested that this would create a "museum piece" of the part of the church that would be in the Third Province. I quite agree. But even more, I can not conceive of how it would work. I mean, what is the point? Isn't this just unity for the sake of unity? Isn't it at root a face saving device whereby we agree to disagree, but we remain "in communion"?
The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be preparing the way for a two-tiered Anglican Communion. Provinces willing and able to sign a covenant would be able to participate in Anglican meetings like Lambeth, but those who do not sign the covenant would be associate members. This almost presumes and would even provoke the break-up of the Episcopal Church and other Anglican provinces world-wide. Any parishes or even dioceses wishing to remain fully in the Covenanted Anglican Communion would have a legitimate reason to break away. It is another part of the muddle that has become Anglicanism.
The time has come to stop trying to save face. The Anglican Communion is already hopelessly fragmented, particularly if you include the "continuing churches" in the picture. All efforts to pretend it hasn't happened simply contributes to the muddle and misleads serious Christians who wish to get on with their lives. Why must we wait until the C of E gets its act together? The way it looks now, the C of E has created facts on the ground that will never be satisfactory to Anglo-Catholics, and are also repugnant to the Evangelicals' understanding of Scripture.
Back when the Church of England voted to ordain women to the priesthood, there was provision made for priests who wished to leave. Quite a lot of money was given to each priest leaving the ministry of the C of E because of a conscientious objection to the measure. No such settlement was made when the Episcopal Church began to ordain women; so the C of E by comparison should be commended for its magnanimity. It seems to me that we have come to another point in which it would be best to be magnanimous. If parts of the Anglican Communion are going to break up about this, let them do it as amicably as possible. After all, this is the gentlemanly English way.
The Catholic Church in England and in the United States is gaining converts as a direct result of the crisis in Anglicanism. Those of us who made our peace with Rome quite some time ago look at what is happening now with a philosophical attitude. Quite simply put, I thought I learned as an Anglican what it meant to be a Catholic, and now that I am one, I seen nothing attractive about the mess Anglicanism is in. The word "communion" means something entirely different to me now. In Anglicanism churches are in communion because of their historical connections and their ability to agree to disagree about doctrinal issues. In the Catholic Church being in communion means, at least in part, being in communion with the Pope. Belonging to The Church in its most visible and obvious form, in other words. In some sense we already belonged to this Church as Anglicans, but we were in a state of imperfect communion. Now imperfect communion is a fact of life even within the Anglican Communion.
As Anglicans we all knew where Anglicanism had come from. The interesting question was always where it was headed. As long as we thought that it was headed back into communion with the visible Catholic Church, it was possible to be Anglican and still be a believing Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic position. Now this is impossible. So it is time for Anglo-Catholics to become true Catholics.
The vote in the Church of England was made against the advice of Cardinal Kasper. Just as the Pope had pleaded with the Anglican Communion not to ordain women to the priesthood, so now, the Catholic Church has urged the Church of England not to proceed to ordain women to the episcopate. The reason is that the Catholic Church inexplicably still holds out some hope that it would be possible to undo some of the facts of Reformation history in England and restore the provinces of Canterbury and York to full communion with the Holy See. I would say that great figures like Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI even dared to hope that this could happen in this generation. And we dared to hope that it could happen even during our lifetime. How things have changed!
I can not even begin to go into why I think there is such a fundamental difference in attitude between Rome and Canterbury that has led to this impasse, but I would urge you to think about all of the issues that have led up to this mess. Most of them have to do with morality. It really starts with Lambeth allowing divorce and re-marriage. I remember how shocked many of us were when suffragan Bishop of Massachusetts Ben Arnold got divorced and remained in his position. When I was in seminary Joseph Fletcher was my professor of Ethics, and his "Situation Ethics" has become the hallmark of the Episcopal approach to moral decisions. Anglicans seem to have the hubris to think that all of this is progress and that Catholics and others who do not agree are just not as well educated.
So do not be fooled by Anglican attempts to muddle through. The time to get out of Anglicanism and into the Catholic Church is now. Fortunately we do not have to give up all that we love about Anglicanism. We can join the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church. http://anglicanuse.org
By the way, the "Third Province" already exists. It consists of the five Roman Catholic provinces in England and Wales.
C. David Burt
posted by C. David Burt | 11:15 AM
1 Comments:
Hi David.
Being involved in the church organ trade, I'm all too aware of many of these problems. While I totally agree that this type of compromise leads nowhere, it might at least provide an legal loophole for established "Anglican" parishes to avoid protracted property battles with their bishops here in the USA!
We have a couple of major parishes that have warned us to be on call to remove their pipe organ to storage on short notice!
Post a Comment
<< Home