|
In
July 2000 the General Synod passed the following motion:
That this Synod ask
the House of Bishops to initiate further
theological study on the episcopate, focusing on the issues that
need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in
the
episcopate in the Church of England, and to make a progress report
on this study to Synod in the next two years.
The Commission was
set up under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Rochester
(Michael Nazir-Ali) and published their report at the end of
2004.
Submissions
Church Society's submission
to the Commission.
Three other submissions
were printed in Churchman 2002 volume 116/1
Analysis of the Report
The Rochester Commission
on Women in the Episcopate makes a thorough and fair attempt
to work through the theological and practical
issues relating to the possible
consecration of women as Bishops. The Commission was established
following a resolution at
General Synod in 2000 and over the intervening years has taken
a large number of written and
verbal submissions and produced a substantial report. With some
members of the Commission
opposed to the development they opted not to make recommendations
themselves, which would
have led to minority reports, but to set out as carefully as
possible the different views that now exist in the
Church and the possible courses of action which lie ahead. The
report begins with an attempt
to set out a theology of episcopacy.
The report tries to be scrupulously fair in representing the
different views and contains substantial
quotations of submissions they received in order to avoid misrepresentation.
However, in the end
this merely serves to highlight the problems now facing us.
How can we arrive at a way forward
when the Church of England now encompasses such widely different
views about the nature of
ministry, of authority in the Church and about how to handle
and interpret Scripture? The
Commission has sought to deal with this by setting out the
differences as clearly as possible. Its
great value, therefore, is that it ensures that the differences
are properly understood rather than
caricatures. This will help honest debate, but it is unlikely
to do more.
Most of those opposed
to the consecration of women Bishops are Anglo-Catholics, many
of whom
are members of Forward in Faith. They have been very much on
the ball and established their own
Commission to shadow the official Rochester Commission and
this produced the substantial report
Consecrated Women shortly before the official report. Some
have been very upbeat and despite
some losses they have held together and used the provisions
of the Act of Synod regarding women
priests to safeguard their position. They have opposed women
priests and Bishops on the grounds
of Scripture but also because of their view of priesthood,
which is incompatible with the 39
Articles, and because such a change should, in their opinion
be taken by the universal Church not
just a few bits of it. In theory if Rome accepted women priests
most Anglo-Catholics would appear
to be willing to do so. Whilst we are aware that Anglo-Catholics
are co-belligerents against
liberalism we are still convinced that they have perverted
the Church of England and that they
would be happier in Rome.
There are some who oppose the ordination of women who appear
to evangelicals to be very similar
to Anglo-Catholics, but are actually just traditionalist Anglicans.
They ought really to be
thoroughgoing reformed protestant evangelicals, since that
is the position of the formularies of the
Church! However, they are generally not pro-Rome and give the
appearance of being a dwindling
band
.
I will make no attempt to distinguish between Liberal Catholics
and Liberals, I am sure there are
differences but it all looks the same to me. They believe that
they are being consistent with what
they see as the great themes of Scripture but they certainly
do not accept all Scripture. They are
convinced for various reasons that the ordination of women
is right. Their position is cogent but in
the end those on the outside feel that understanding what they
believe is like pinning jelly to a wall.
Whilst they can talk about scholarly consensus or being led
by the Spirit their theological basis is
akin to shifting sand, and whilst they may revel in this very
fact it has the practical consequence that
there are no limits, no boundaries and no restraints other
than individual desires and prejudices.
This makes doctrinal and moral degradation inevitable as has
been long evident. As J Gresham
Machen argued a century ago, liberalism and Christianity are,
in reality, two different religions.
Various labels can be used to distinguish the differences that
now exist between evangelicals. For
the purposes of this article I will call those opposed to the
ordination of women by the title 'classical
evangelicals'. We believe that the Bible sets out a pattern
of human relationships between men and
women, which, whilst meaning that they are equal before God,
also means that they have different
roles. It seems plain to us therefore that the pattern found
in Scripture is that men were to take the
duties and responsibilities of leadership within the home and
within the Church family. Not only
are we convinced that this is what Scripture teaches we also
note that almost all previous
generations of Christians have understood Scripture to teach
this as well. Since early Christians
spoke Greek and lived in the same cultural milieu as the New
Testament we see it as confirming
testimony that we are right and would need to be absolutely
convinced from Scripture before
overturning such long tradition. Furthermore, we are convinced
that despite all the fine words what
is driving the desire for change today is not Scripture but
culture. We remember that culture is very
fickle and there are already signs that some of the gender
driven issues that dominated the last
quarter of the 20th century may prove to be passing fads.
There are, of course, many evangelicals who are in favour of
the consecration of women Bishops.
When it comes down to it some who wear the label evangelical
believe little that might equate with
any meaningful historical definition of evangelical theology.
Nevertheless, many in favour are
sincere in their evangelical convictions and honestly believe
that the Bible does not preclude the
possibility of women being presbyters. Moreover, they do not
wish to relegate Biblical teaching to
the category of historical curiosity but genuinely wish to
live by it today. Many of the arguments
put forward are well summarised within the Rochester Report
and they must be taken seriously.
The problem is that none of them seem to present a convincing
case. Whilst there clearly are
difficulties in understanding the precise application of Biblical
passages the evangelical arguments
in favour of women presbyters seem to rely on possible readings,
on speculation about the original
context of the New Testament passages and on treating certain
themes as overriding straightforward
practice.
There is a fundamental
theological incompatibility between some of these views and it
stretches far beyond the issue of gender and ministry. This is
why we now have so many problems. The Anglo-
Catholics have gradually eaten away at the doctrinal standard
of the Church of England by
distorting it and refusing to live by it. Whereas previous
generations of liberals kept their liberalism
reasonably well hidden for fear of the consequences, we now
face a situation where most of the
leadership of the Church uphold, and actively promote, teaching
that is incompatible with the
doctrines of the Church.
A connectional church, which is what the Church of England
should be, requires by definition the
acceptability of ministry across the Church. The creation of
women priests caused widespread
collapse of this principle and women Bishops will exacerbate
it. This is not simply that the ministry
of such priests and Bishops is not acceptable in some parishes
but also that those opposed to it are
now in effect barred from certain offices. For example, it
has been stated openly by some that an
evangelical opposed to the ordination of women cannot be a
Bishop to the whole church. Therefore
this change has dealt a deadly blow to the concept of the Church
of England.
The report does not suggest a solution to all this but attempts
to outline the various courses of action
that might be taken. Church Society has stated publicly that
the only viable option is not to go
ahead. The Society argued previously that the ordination of
women as presbyters is contrary to
Scripture and therefore in permitting it the Church went beyond
its legal powers. Even if the vast
majority of the Church is in favour this will not make them
right, it will still be contrary to God's
Word.
All the options that will allow for the consecration of women
Bishops will destroy the Church of
England in the long run. Although the interpretation is disputed
we have noted that in the decade
following the introduction of women priests the rate of decline
in Church attendance doubled as
compared to the decade before. Furthermore the number of men
attending has dropped by nearly
30% and the number of men entering full-time ordained ministry
has more than halved.
If the consecration of women Bishops goes ahead the idea of
having one Bishop in each Diocese
who is opposed may salve the consciences of some but will raise
many other problems. The idea of
Third Province will certainly have some advantages in allowing
people to get on with gospel work
without being as compromised by liberalism but this is not
sufficient justification. All the options
proposed will be destructive, therefore, since we desire to
see the Church of England as a reformed
and national Church we will hope and pray that it will pull
back from the brink.
5.
Synodical processs
|
