Sorry Rowan but you are wrong this time

I have long been an admirer of Rowan Williams and never thought I would have to write this but I have to admit to being gravely disappointed by his Enough Waiting campaign which is designed to achieve a 'Yes' vote for women bishops regardless of the ramifications. It smacks of getting the issue out of the way to progress other things. I could understand that if it meant advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ having made satisfactory provision for those who remain loyal to the tradition of the Apostolic Church but sadly it is not. Anyone who doubts this who hasn't already seen it should watch this heart-wrenching video to experience the devastating effect in South Carolina where the ruling liberal elite in The Episcopal Church (TEC) is destroying traditional Anglicanism. 

Up until now Rowan has always been even-handed while being clear in his support for the ordination of women, even when he was slapped in the face by them. No doubt in his heart he has reconciled himself to the notion of 'respect' believing that everything will be resolved after the vote but other people do not think like him. The truth is summed up in this report. Anyone and everyone is invited to join the bandwagon by contacting 'their' synod representative to press for a Yes vote. The Dean of Salisbury told The Independent on Sunday, "There's no sense at all – not theological, not rational – in making women priests if you are not going to make them bishops." Quite so. It was neither theological nor rational to make women priests because that is their only 'justification' for being made bishops. 

Today The Independent publishes an open letter signed by over one thousand clergy: 'The Biblical case for women bishops'. But there is none. The reasons given for their belief have nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment of bishops yet these people stand at the Altar In Persona Christi, the One who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.

Is there no shame in the Yes campaign?

Bishops: a loss of trust

The desperate methods being employed to secure the ordination of women to the episcopate are now an embarrassment to the Church of England and in some respects look like a re-run of the vote in the Church in Wales in 2008 when their bishops thought they could ride roughshod over opponents. That measure was rejected for reasons explained in the following extract from a VirtueOnline special report:

THE CHURCH IN WALES VOTE ON WOMEN BISHOPS

Everyone who has been following the progress of moves to ordain women as bishops in the Principality will know that the enabling Bill failed on 2nd April. The bare bones of what happened are these: An amendment that would have given protection to traditionalists who could not accept the ordination of women by providing them with a bishop, was not passed.

When the substantive motion was then put to the vote of the Governing Body of the Church In Wales (CIW), it was assumed that it would go through on the nod. But curiously enough it did not. It failed by three votes to get the two thirds majority in the House of Clergy, one of the three houses of the Governing Body. The Bill therefore did not receive the necessary support.

We can conjecture as to why, unusually, this substantive motion was not approved after the amendment had been cleared out of the way. The reason is probably quite straightforward. When the draft Bill was published some months ago, Welsh traditionalists became concerned that nothing stronger than vague assurances over protecting their position would be put into the draft. This was in spite of the fact that under current arrangements there is a Provincial Assistant Bishop (PAB) who provides care for traditionalists. This post is currently held by Bishop David Thomas who is understood to be approaching the age of retirement. [Bishop David Thomas retired in 2008. He was not replaced. - Ed]

The amendment was voted down it seems because the majority of members led by the Archbishop of Wales, Dr. Barry Morgan, opposed what they saw as "institutionalised schism" being brought into the Church. It is believed however that several fair-minded members of the Governing Body in the House of Clergy were unwilling to vote for the substantive motion which would almost certainly have stripped traditionalists of their PAB in the proposed new setup.

Any future pastoral provision would have had to depend on the goodwill (were it to exist) of the future bench of bishops of the CIW, a bench which could well by that time have included female bishops. However, we are bound to admit that had the Bill including its amendment been passed, it would have created severe difficulties for the CIW. What could these have been?

We have to remember that the CIW is reckoned numerically to be about the size of the Diocese of Oxford (a medium sized C. of E. diocese). Taken as a whole, the CIW is therefore very small, given that it is divided into six dioceses, each with its own bishop.

The present system in Wales employing a PAB (not unlike the Provincial Episcopal Visitor system in England) has worked quite well because the traditionalists' bishop has concentrated on his pastoral duties, while the diocesan bishops, all men it must be emphasised, have restricted their duties in traditionalist parishes to the jurisdictional and administrative side of their work. Boats have not been rocked to test the present compromise system to its limits.

The author Roland W. Morant went on to explain: "As was realised in England a year or more ago when discussion was taking place on women bishops there, when women bishops are introduced into an episcopal college of men (as would apply to the present bench of Welsh bishops), the system using a PAB (or in England, PEVs) would become unmanageable." - Please follow this link to read Mr Morant's explanation in full.

As indicated in the extract above, the Archbishop of Wales is a relatively big fish in a very small pond. He is unrepresentative of the views of the wider church so he must have been chosen to represent the liberal ruling clique as their representative on the Crown Nominations Commission. The House of Bishops is showing the same cavalier attitude as Dr Morgan towards opponents in their 'Enough Waiting' campaign which has been condemned by a Barrister and Synod member in these terms: Bishops who pressure elected synod members to change their vote are suborning clergy and laity and inviting them to betray their electorate. Desperate to secure a 'yes' vote by whatever means a social media campaign has also been launched to encourage people to contact diocesan representatives and to use Facebook and Twitter to tell their friends to do the same thing regardless of whether they have any theological understanding of the issue, whether they attend church or not, or even if they are Anglicans.

This process has now lost all credibility. The Anglican church in England and in Wales is in a complete mess over the issue of women bishops. In Wales Dr Morgan is using sleight of hand to get the measure passed by their Governing Body having previously failed because traditionalists were ignored. In England bishops constantly retreat in the face of tirades from WATCH about demeaning women when according to many women in the church what they are doing is demeaning themselves and their sex. The Third Province provides a solution that enables both sides genuinely to respect the position of the other.
 

We need a fresh start. The measure should be rejected in the interests of unity so that our bishops can reflect on their actions and seek a solution acceptable to ALL. Otherwise the church as we know it is doomed. 

Where do we go from here?

After lengthy speculation, Downing Street has confirmed that Justin Welby is to be the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. God help him, he will need our prayers. FiF has welcomed the appointment which is encouraging but on the downside his appointment has also been welcomed by Christina Rees, ex-Chair of WATCH, which does not bode well since he will be expected to be malleable to their will. Watching his press conference at Lambeth Palace he gave the impression of being his own man with a strong sense of conviction but stressed the need to listen attentively with regard to LGTB issues suggesting a possible about face on the question of same sex unions. He also urged the General Synod to vote in favour of legislation allowing women to become bishops. While he spoke positively about those who took a different conscientious view, as with the bishops who have taken part in the Enough Waiting campaign, there was no suggestion of further compromise. 

Chosen to represent the Anglican Communion on the Crown Nominations Commission was the Archbishop of the neighbouring miniscule Province of Wales. Rightly or wrongly the delayed announcement had the stamp of Dr Morgan all over it. Stubborn in the extreme and not given to compromise, Dr Morgan is well know for his leanings towards secularised religion so he will be well pleased that Bishop Welby has been commented on mainly for his secular achievements rather than for his spirituality plus the fact that he is a strong supporter of the ordination of women as bishops. With characteristic insight the Rev Dr Peter Mullen provides a useful pen-picture of the new Archbishop here including the observation the Bishop Welby holds his views on women bishops "as a result of careful study of the scriptures and examination of the tradition" to which Dr Mullins rightly responds: "Well, that’s nice to know. But where does it leave those of us who examine scriptures and inhabit a tradition but come to conclusions at odds with those of Bishop Justin? For example, my examination of scripture reveals that it does not contain even so much as one solitary example of a woman bishop or, if it comes to that, a single woman priest."

What is clear is that to get on in the church today one has to be a supporter of the ordination of women - note the quick exit from the selection procedure of the Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres. Bishop Welby says he wants provision for 'traditionalists' but what can that amount to when any so called concession is regarded by WATCH as demeaning to women. In a briefing booklet Women Bishops Legislation - Not Fit For Purpose, members of the Conservative Evangelical and Catholic groupings in the General Synod commend the proposal put before the Church in Wales:

 "We could look to the Church in Wales for an example to follow; having
rejected previous unsatisfactory legislation for women bishops, they are now
looking at a new process with two related pieces of church legislation, one to
provide for women bishops, and the other to provide for traditionalists (the
former cannot come into force until the latter has been agreed). This
approach has the potential to provide more equally for both those who
support women bishops and for those who do not."

It is dangerous to read too much into this proposal. It results from Dr Morgan's intransigence in refusing to appoint a new Provincial Assistant Bishop (PAB) to replace the Rt Rev David Thomas following his retirement. It is widely thought that the Governing Body of the Church in Wales voted against the ordination of women to the episcopate in Wales because of the Archbishop's refusal to re-appoint a PAB, a posture he maintained while bringing forward this cunning scheme. These are the two-stage proposals:

 1. The first Bill would deal with the following matters of principle:

Women may be ordained as bishops in the Church in Wales.

There will be a scheme of pastoral provision, to be approved by the Governing Body by means of a second Bill, making provision for those who cannot in conscience accept the ministry of a woman bishop.　

If this first Bill were to be passed and become a Canon, it would not come into force until such a second Bill is approved by the Governing Body and becomes a Canon.

    2. The second Bill would refer to the Canon enabling women to be ordained as bishops. We have purposely suggested that the scheme of pastoral provision be included – presumably as a schedule – in a second Bill in order to give as much confidence as possible to those for whom it provides that their genuinely held views are being taken seriously and that the church is being faithful to its declared intent in 1996. 

It is suggested that the two Canons would come into force on the same day.

Despite the apparent good intentions, since 'traditionalists' in Wales have already been denied pastoral provision based on their own spiritual needs, any new scheme will be based on what the Archbishop decides, not too unlike the position now facing the Church of England except that pastoral care continues to be provided by the Provincial Episcopal Visitors, but for how long once women bishops are approved? 


The minimal provision before the Church of England Synod looks generous when compared with anything that might be expected by 'traditionalists' in the Church in Wales. They have no alternative but to accept or reject the pastoral care offered by the Bench of Bishops all of whom hold contrary beliefs. Under the Archbishop's new plan the issue becomes one of sex rather than integrity. If the diocesan bishop is a woman, a male colleague from the Bench may be requested but since neither would be of the required integrity the procedure is pointless. In the longer term, as the church becomes increasingly feminised and the number of bishops is reduced under proposals detailed in the Church in Wales Review there may, in the future, be only female bishops on the Bench. In the meantime Dr Morgan and the other bishops will be hoping that resistance will die out. It has not so far, nor will it.

The people of Wales should demonstrate that they are not as gullible as implied in the proposals and reject the ruse as another cynical attempt to deny 'traditionalists' what they were promised when women were admitted to the priesthood. Likewise in England, the measure before Synod has become one of integrity and should be rejected.

Who do they think they are kidding?

The Bishop of Sheffield has taken his turn in Archbishop Rowan's Enough Waiting campaign with the usual self-affirming assertions:

"In 1805, Admiral Nelson sent the most famous signal in naval history to the fleet: England expects every man to do his duty. 
I believe our country wants to send the same signal to the Church of England General Synod at the present time. 
The majority of people the Church of England serves in parishes across the land want to see women as bishops.  The society we serve wants us to make a positive decision, to take action and to move on. 
We have an immense task before us in the next ten years.  We are called to bear witness to God’s love and God’s justice and God’s ways and God’s call to know him in Jesus Christ.  We must not spend yet more time on this internal issue. 
Of course it's been important that we’ve taken the time to think through the biblical arguments.  Is there good evidence for women taking a leading role in ministry in the Bible?  Yes there is.  Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the resurrection.  Paul names many women as co-leaders and fellow workers with him. 
Of course it’s been important that we keep in step with other churches. We’ve pondered long and hard whether we can take this decision by ourselves.  The majority of us believe that we can and that we must as we have taken many other such decisions in the past. 
Of course it’s been important that we take time and care to find the right ways to make provision for those who will not accept this development.  I deeply respect those who hold such views.  I hold them in high regard.  They will continue to have an honoured place in the Church of England. I believe the traditions they represent have a vital part to play in our future.  I will continue to support them.
But we have now found that compromise position:  provision can be made without undercutting the ministry of the women who are ordained as bishops. We need to move forward.  However long we keep talking we will not find a better fit than this. 
Even those who are opposed to the measure are weary of the debate and need to know where they stand. 
So this is a moment for a clear decision.  We cannot continue with a situation where women are ordained deacons and priests but not as bishops. 
I believe we need the wisdom and perspective and gifts of women as bishops, urgently, in the House of Bishops, in dioceses and in our wider society.  They will be a rich gift to the Church and the nation. 
The overwhelming majority of dioceses have already given approval to this Measure.
For the sake of God’s Kingdom and God’s mission to this land in the coming years, I hope the overwhelming majority of General Synod members will support this measure.
England expects and the Church of England expects.  We need to deliver."

The duplicity of this campaign is mind-blowing. Who do they think they are kidding? Talk of 'respect' simply pays lip service to the 'Appleby amend­­ment', a cop-out if ever there was one. 

Of course these campaigners are in favour of the ordination of women. If they were not they would not be where they are today pouring out irrelevant propaganda to justify their position.  The legislation is not fit for purpose. It must be rejected.

Enough is enough

After watching Dr Inge's video I was left with the feeling that if people believe what the Bishop of Worcester says in his 'Enough Waiting' contribution they will believe anything. That is no disrespect to the bishop. I am sure he fervently believes what he says but it does not hold up to scrutiny. I have not seen any evidence to prove that the Church of England has been "enriched immeasurably through the ministry of women as priests" but I have been told by various parishioners that their new woman priest is 'a lovely person' and how friendly she is with people. Why shouldn't she be? Bar the odd exception, women in the church are but they have not been ordained to fulfill their ministries. This attitude may help to salve the consciences of those who have gone with the flow of women's ordination but it is totally meaningless in theological terms. The great hope of enrichment through the ministry of women as priests has been an abject failure for the church. Church attendance continues to fall at an alarming rate with the fate of the US Episcopal Church acting as a warning beacon of what we can expect in this country if the measure is approved.  But Dr Inge really takes the biscuit when he says: 

"The legislation presently before Synod strikes what seems to me is the best balance we are ever likely to get between rejoicing in the ministry of women as bishops but at the same time honouring those who don’t feel that this present move is warranted either by scripture or tradition. It enables us to move together, respecting one another; it enables us to remain a broad church."

That the balance is completely outweighed does not appear to have any significance for Dr Inge yet he speaks of honouring opponents when in truth the promises made to secure the ministry of woman as priests have been dishonoured removing any notion of a broad church.

The Bishop of Worcester is just one of a number of people who have been encouraged to add their support to Archbishop Rowan's 'Enough Waiting' campaign. In a postscript to a previous entry I noted that the Bishop of Chelmsford, like the Archbishop of Wales before him, had wrongly applied Galatians 3:28 to justify the ordination of women. There appears to be no limit to what supporters will say in an effort to get the measure through. Mark Russell, Chief Executive of the Church Army, had this to say: What happens if we say no? If we say no, we condemn this to the long grass, and years more discussion and years more synodical debate and more reports and more meetings – to get exactly to where we are right now. So I think this is the right time to make a decision, and to say yes.

Can they not see the imbalance when traditionalists are expected to accept their lot, as the Bishop of Worcester puts it, moving together, respecting one another, enabling us to remain a broad church, but if the vote goes the wrong way as they see it, we can expect years more discussion and years more synodical debate and more reports and more meetings. It doesn't have to be like that. The decision of Synod could be accepted in good grace as the will of the Holy Spirit. But be assured, if the vote does not go their way, it will not be accepted because their cause is not spiritual but secular, an attitude typified by an anonymous comment in this Telegraph report which referred to the "poor, poor beleaguered minority” ... “They have been pushing this but they are like a spoilt child: the more you give them, the more they want” when, in reality, what is on offer has become less and less, reduced to another meaningless promise.

Another bishop joining the 'Enough Waiting' campaign is the odd-ball Bishop of Willesden, The Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, who believes that his support is affirming women on equal terms with men. I don't know what world these people live in but I don't know of any women who do not already think that they are on equal terms with men. The only difference is that again, they don't see the need to be ordained to prove it. But worse, Bishop Broadbent also believes that there is a logic to what we’re going to do anyway, because when we ordained women as priests, it was only right that we should then say that they should be bishops as well. No, the logic is that they should not have been ordained to serve as priests if they were unable to accept that they may not be allowed to become bishops. He goes on to say that it is important to get a two thirds majority this time around not to "look completely stupid in the eyes of society"!

Let us hope that those eligible to vote allow themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit, putting aside what society may think, not feeling pressured to vote in the affirmative because there has been enough waiting to get to this point. We are the Church, all of us; society may think what it will. The stark fact is that the measure as presented has lost all credibility. It is being steam-rollered under the banner of women's liberation in defiance of the wishes of the wider catholic church, hindering the cause of unity which should be our first priority. Women in the church have been liberated but a vociferous minority interested in their self advancement are seeking to control the direction of the church by unscrupulous methods as illustrated by this outrageously dishonest campaign. 

What these campaigners are saying is never mind that what we are doing is contrary to scripture and tradition, there has been enough waiting. We allowed women to be priests so we must allow them to be bishops; the measure must be approved now, otherwise we will look silly. This is not a waiting game, it is a fundamental change in our understanding of ministry. The church already looks silly as a result of adopting its liberal policies which have led to illiberal practices and disunity. Never mind Enough Waiting, enough is enough. This is no longer a question of whether there should be women bishops but a question of honour. The church is failing in its duty to care for all. Abstaining is not an option. The only honest vote is NO.