Women priests in the CofE

Maggi pointed me to this excellent lecture by Vivienne Faull, Dean of Leicester Cathedral and one of the most senior women in the CofE.

I believe that the time has come for the Synod to vote on the Reception of women priests and declare unequivocally that, at the level of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, the orders of women priests are valid…Those who in conscience cannot accept that fact no longer represent the mind of the church.

It’s an excellent read, and I’ve quoted more extensively from it below.

The current proposals for the legislative framework for the consecration of Bishops as presented to the Synod in February by the Bishop of Guildford, and currently being revised by the Bishops of Guildford and Gloucester, allow for what has been entitled Transferred Episcopal Arrangements. The provision would allow … parishes to transfer their obedience to an alternative bishop appointed by the Archbishop of the Province. [However, if] a candidate is Confirmed by a woman who is a bishop and moves into a parish which has opted for Transferred Authority, would their Confirmation be accepted? If a man was ordained by a woman and moved into a diocese where the ministry of women bishops aren’t accepted, would that man’s orders be recognised?
Graham James, the Bishop of Norwich, put it straightforwardly to Synod on 7 February: ‘Baptismal communion alone is not enough to create or sustain a church. You need the Eucharist with a commonly acknowledged ministry to do that. So a divided episcopate actually creates a divided church. When some Bishops do not recognise those who are in their fellowship as fellow bishops or their sacramental acts, you do not actually have a church any more, you have two churches’.
It seems to me that if women bishops are a theological innovation, TEA is a far greater ecclesiological innovation. Others have noted that we have for some time been very close to articulating theologies specifically rejected by the early church. The postmodern temptation to picking and choosing amongst bishops, the pre-modern temptation to see your bishop as tainted, surely need to be resisted…
So I do believe that the time has come to back ourselves out of the TEA cul de sac but not, as some have suggested, also to back away from moves to consecrate women as bishops. Rather, I think we have to look again at the underpinning provided by the idea of ‘an open process of Reception’ and the equivocation that surrounds it. I believe that the time has come for the Synod to vote on the Reception of women priests and declare unequivocally that, at the level of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, the orders of women priests are valid.
[Peggy Jackson’s] proposal is for ‘a clear statement of diocesan opinion of the validity of women’s orders – not to diminish or ignore the fact of minority opinion, but to accord it proper status: i.e. that of Conscientious Objector. The Church of England did decide to ordain women to priesthood; they are priests, of equal status and deserving equal recognition, to their male counterparts. Those who in conscience cannot accept that fact no longer represent the mind of the church, but they can still be respected by the church for the integrity with which they hold their views, and their fears more effectively addressed.
The practical operation of pastoral care and Episcopal oversight extended or otherwise, for clergy with Conscientious Objection could continue unchanged, or could even be made more explicitly available, with the reasons clear and visible. But it should be more honestly and openly identified for what it is: the generous accommodation of Conscientious Objection, not a pretence that a decision already made by due legal process was somehow not really made.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 11:41pm on 13 June 2006
Category: Faith, Links

Without commenting on women as bishops, John, I must address the key point highlighted – that “Those who in conscience cannot accept that fact no longer represent the mind of the church.” Especially after your recent highlights that dissenters should maintain their churcch membership, I ask – who made the decision that approved ordination of women priests? I am really asking a church polity question – who in the Church of England changes policy?

In the Southern Baptist Convention, the Convention policy is set by elected representatives, but their polcies can be overturned by a vote of church members gathered at the national convention. Thus, the laity chooses what the church policies are. In contrast, the Roman church policy is set by clergy selected by other clergy, where the laity have no say, and must rely upo the Magesterium to get it right.

In the SBC, those who are of a significant minority can be justly described as not “of the mind of the church”, but in the Roman Catholic faith, recognizing that the church is all of the people, not some, this designation can be false. For example, 77% of Roman Catholic Women use birth control, and of that group, 94% use a method that is prohibited by the Magesterium. Are that 77% “not of the mind of the church?” I think not.

Hammertime () (URL)
9:24pm on 14 June 2006

Hammer,
Such things in the CofE are decided at General Synod. There are three Houses in Synod – Bishops, Clergy and Laity. All bishops are part of the Synod. All Clergy are (AIUI) represented by elected representatives. The Laity representatives are elected from members of local Deanery Synods; those members themselves are elected from the local parish church councils. So, the decisions are made by elected representatives, although in a slightly complicated fashion. On the ordination of women, the Laity and Clergy were overwhelmingly in support of it; the bishops supported it but by a smaller amount.

It can safely be said (both from official votes and from surveys of opinion in the CofE) that the large majority support the ordination of women to the priesthood. So, Vivienne Faull’s assertion that the objectors do not represent the mind of the church seems to be correct.

Hope that helps make it clearer!

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
10:41pm on 14 June 2006

It does – thanks!

Hammertime () (URL)
5:10pm on 19 June 2006

As I examine the worldwide Anglican communion, I see that the majority of the communion rejects homosexual ordination and will likely not recognize the new head of the ECUSA.

With your post in mind, wouldn’t the liberal, majority wing of the ECUSA actually be the minority in the church as a whole, and therefore “do not represent the mind of the church”?

Interestingly enough, I heard some clips from the Right Rev. Schori herself equate OT laws of food and clothing with who we can have sexual relations with. She denies that homosexual behavior is a sin by stating that “We are all born with different gifts”. Furthermore, she refused to discuss the Gospel in its soteriological aspect when presented the question, “What happens after we die?”, instead babbling about, “What is important about your life, what makes you a unique individual, what motivates you when you get up in the morning, give hints about what continues when you die”. Good grief.

I am concerned about the ECUSA and the CofE. Ruth over at Willows is a CofE Sunday School teacher, and not only rejects church traditions, but doesn’t even claim to be a Christian! Doctrine and possibly faith have clearly taken a back seat to inclusivism, at least by these measures.

Hammertime () (URL)
6:58pm on 20 June 2006

The thing is that the Anglican Communion isn’t a church – it’s a loose association of churches. Each individual member church is independent and none is ruled by another. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t the head of the whole Communion in any authoritative sense; his role is described as being an “Instrument of Unity”.

So, if ECUSA decides to ordain women and to have a woman bishop, or even a woman head, they are not strictly answerable to anyone else. However, these things do strain the bonds of friendship that sustain the Communion. And this is a problem. What, though, are we to do when we feel the Spirit calling us to new things (ending slavery, equal rights for all races, equal rights for women)? Do we submit to the “traditional” view, or do we challenge it? We might be wrong, but refusing the call to change is refusing God.

As for Ruth, she’s on a journey. She’s well aware of “the right answers” to the religious questions – she’s from a clergy family. But the process of making those answers meaningful is often a hard one, and that’s the road she’s travelling at the moment. (I hope I’m not speaking out of turn, Ruth!)

After all, Hammer, it’s not like you yourself stand firmly within “Church Tradition” – or have you gone over to the Orthodox Church and not told us? :-)

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
7:18pm on 20 June 2006

Thank you for clarifying the polity of the Anglican Communion, John. I thought that the ties were greater and that the Archbishop of Canturbury had more power.

The question is not, “What are we to do when we feel the Spirit calling us to new things” but, instead, “How do we tell when it is, in fact, the Spirit that is leading us to new things and not the spirit of this age?” When the answer to that, which we both know, demonstrates that something is not of the Spirit (which equal rights of any kind would be) and is instead a product of culture (which some of ECUSA’s policies have been), what is our reaction to be?

By “rejects church tradition” I meant that Ruth doesn’t want to recite the creeds and such in the Common Book of Prayer. I don’t think they are remotely binding (despite my admiration for Thomas Cranmer), but if someone in my denomination did not believe that Baptism should be by immersion, they wouldn’t be a Sunday School teacher. That’s all.

Tradition that is not tied explicitly to Scriptural doctrine is what makes denominations what they are. They are not salvific :)

Hammertime () (URL)
3:05pm on 22 June 2006