GOSPEL CALLS FOR SOLIDARITY WITH OPPONENTS OF WOMEN BISHOPS
From Cranmer’s Curate
"If the proposals are eventually voted through by General Synod in more or less their present form (which cannot happen this February), then we believe that potential ordinands will be put off ministering in the Church of England and the whole appointments process for vicars will become increasingly discriminatory against those who hold to male headship."
Mr Thomas quotes the Rt Revd Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes and a member of the Reform Council:
"It is very important to say to all who profess to be ‘evangelicals’ that Gospel commitment means that we should seek to defend one another’s place in the Church. The Gospel has our prime loyalty, therefore we stand with Gospel brothers and sisters. This is not an issue about whether the Church of England decides to consecrate women bishops or not – on that it seems the majority wish to do so and should not be hindered from so doing. No, rather, what is at issue is whether provision for those of the older traditional integrity, be it Catholic or Evangelical, will be provided. If some evangelicals are content to see fellow evangelicals effectively driven out of the Church through lack of provision that is adequate to meet conscientious problems, then something other than the Gospel has claimed their first loyalty. Credally and morally orthodox believers cannot afford to lose Gospel allies at a time like this!"
Mr Thomas summarises the problems with a Code of Practice rather than strong legislative provision for opponents as follows:
* It makes the authority of complementary bishops dependent on women who are in a position of ‘headship’
* It allows diocesan bishops discretion about how far to meet congregational needs – and can be easily resiled from
* A Code can be changed at any time in the future by a simple majority of General Synod (whereas a legislative provision requires a two thirds majority in each of the three Houses)
* It seems to undermine assurances that were given to ‘traditionalists’ prior to the Act of Synod being passed in 1993
* However much goodwill there is at the present, over time a new generation of bishops might feel less strongly about accommodating the provisions of a Code
Mr Thomas concludes with an urgent call to prayer and action:
"Even although time is very short, we ask members to make these issues a matter for urgent prayer. Please pray also for Reform members and others who are members of the General Synod and who will be seeking to speak in the debate. Further, it would be a tremendous help if members could write to, or e-mail, their diocesan bishops now, before the General Synod. Points you might wish to make include:
* The proposals for women bishops will, if they become law, cause great difficulty for those who believe that church order should reflect family order where the Bible advocates male headship (Ephesians 5: 22-33 and 1 Timothy 3)
* A Code will not be an adequate safeguard for the ministry of those with a ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ integrity, since its provisions are discretionary rather than mandatory
* What we seek is a statutory guarantee that parishes should have access to a form of alternative oversight where the bishops concerned are able to exercise jurisdiction over all the issues mentioned in Clause 4(1) of the draft Measure (ie issues like appointments, parish reorganisations, sponsorship for ordination training etc)
* We trust that the bishops to whom we are writing will show their care for us by speaking in favour of enhanced provision so that proper safeguards are provided."
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
