The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright has a letter to the editor of The Times published today in which he explains his position:
Bishops’ views on women
From the Bishop of Durham
Sir, Anthony Howard (T2, July 12; see also report, same day) describes my action in signing, with 16 other bishops, an open letter pleading for fuller debate on women bishops as a “defection”. This is a complete misunderstanding. I have for some years argued strongly in favour of women bishops, in public and private, in person and in print. I have not changed my mind.The motion before us at the General Synod was not whether we were in favour of women bishops, but whether we favoured a particular way of proceeding towards that goal. I want the train to get to that destination not only as soon as it can, but with as many passengers as possible still on board. I therefore agreed with the other signatories not that we should have further delay for its own sake, but that we should have what synod had specifically asked for when commissioning the Rochester report on the subject, namely proper theological discussion before taking steps which presupposed such discussion.
The Church now copies the world in treating all issues in monochrome, with goodies, baddies and “defectors”. Like an examination candidate on a bad day, synod was determined to discuss the question it wanted to discuss rather than the question on the paper. I could not vote for the actual motion, but could not vote against the perceived one, and I therefore abstained.
That was not a “defection”. It was a silent vote for that reasoned discourse which, in company with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I still believe is the best hope as we move forward into uncharted territory.
THOMAS DUNELM
Auckland Castle, Co Durham
Sophistry, as one would expect from Wright.
Bishop Wright’s reference to the ordination of women to the episcopate as “uncharted territory” is quite a slur on the churches of New Zealand and North America. That it was presumably unintentional actually makes it worse.
If the actions of the North American churches are (apparently) so inconsequential and irrelevant, then why is anyone upset about them?
Couldnt have put it better myself. The choice is between dogmatism / fundamentalism – which concludes before researching or debating; and scholarship – which debates / researches first and concludes second. I think Bp Wright is right to attribute the desire for quick answers to the Zeitgeist. A lot of ground clearing needs to be brought into the public consciousness first. Does the NT even speak of a Christian priestly order at all? Is the meaning of ‘overseer/bishop’ the same in NT and 21st century or is it different? Does God ever have no calling/vocation at all on a person’s… Read more »
Ah, this makes things a little clearer. He is a “Yes, but not yet” man. My view is that he showed poor judgement(which justified his silence in the debate) in associating himself with the letter from the others. As they were mostly “No, not ever” men such assesments as Anthony Howard’s were inevitable, but still we are living in times where there are interesting alliances. As a matter of interest I asked on another blog if you can be “orthodox” and still in favour of women in the three-fold ministry of the Church, or was the only defining issue sexuality.… Read more »
I think that there has been a fair bit of theological discussion, but that this is one of those issues where you simply have a difference of view, and that it is a difference which those who oppose women bishops cannot see bridged at all.
Hence, the call for a third province or threats to leave the CofE whether it be to Rome or to the Protestand Reformed Church of Lagos and Sydney (pending)
Merseymike’s option is the impossible one. It has 2 inadmissible presuppositions:
(1) We are all irredeemably victims of ideology, with no chance of ever thinking objectively.
(2) This situation is fine, and it doesnt matter – we shouldnt either expect or want people to think objectively or put aside their own ideological biases. From now on, we will abandon scholarship and be driven by ideology.
A rather longer article by Tom Wright will appear in the Face to Faith slot in Saturday’s Guardian.
I’ve come to consider this the “Kerry quandry”; it’s the desire to nuance in the face of a yes/no question. While he’s right, nobody likes it and wants either the yea or nay.
Prior Aelred wrote: Bishop Wright’s reference to the ordination of women to the episcopate as “uncharted territory” is quite a slur on the churches of New Zealand and North America.
The thought that we might be walking in the footsteps of ECUSA is enough to make me hesitate for a VERY long time… what a mess they’ve caused !
Christopher, I think there has already been plenty of discussion.
What I think is not going to be found is a point of agreement. I can’t see what a delay would do, because your idea of ‘theology’ is not a priority in my opinion, whereas justice and inclusion is important. The questions you ask do not really matter to me.
From Dave: “The thought that we might be walking in the footsteps of ECUSA is enough to make me hesitate for a VERY long time… what a mess they’ve caused !” Actually, it may not have been us North Americans or specifically ECUSA that you all are following at all. At my first position after seminary I served on a staff with a priest from Uganda. He told me that the Anglicans of Uganda had been the first in the communion to ordain women – their warrant? That in their culture women are the bearers of the holy. I never… Read more »
A *blessed mess*, Dave: thanks be to God!
Strange as this may seem, church decisions are not made on the basis of what matters to Merseymike.
Theology (or call it what you will) is intended to be an informed and detailed framework for understanding. No decision can be made outside a framework. It will either be an informed framework or an uninformed one. Which is better? (The uninformed frameworks – by pure coincidence, I dont think – often have a suspicious overlap with the Zeitgeist.)
Uninformed according to who, Christopher? I have a feeling any outcome which wasn’t of your liking would be described in the same terms.
I think this is simply another delaying process. Wright wishes to re-ingratiate himself with the conservative evangelicals, and this is a way of doing it.
In any case, it isn’t happening. We are – for once – actually starting to make positive moves forward, and the things that matter to you, Christopher, clearly were not viewed as of primary importance.
JCF wrote: “A *blessed mess*, Dave: thanks be to God!”
Toleration of heresy and promulgation of immorality are certainly *biblical*; and persecution of faithful Christians is indeed a *beattitudinal blessing* …
…but I wouldn’t like to be the one dishing out the dirt !!
Mike, how can that be if NTWright has already mentioned that he wants women bishops. Wanting women bishops or not is cleary therefore not the issue. The issue is whether we can just press for what we ‘want’ (as though ‘wanting’ something were an argument in its favour) or whether we ought rather to investigate, research and debate first to find out what the best answer is, independent of our ‘wants’. Im not saying that my ultimate position is any different from Wright’s. The difference lies in how we, and you , are proposing to get there. ‘Wants’ and ideologies… Read more »
Many years ago, Dave, I was indeed covered in “dirt”: through which, Christ took away my blindness, and I saw His word through new eyes.
I pray you, someday, let Christ do the same for you, too. Shalom!
Martin Reynolds wrote: “My view is that he [Tom Wright] showed poor judgement(which justified his silence in the debate)”
Actually he was not called by the Chairman to speak in the debate. You don’t get to speak if you are not called.
JCF wrote: “Many years ago, Dave, I was indeed covered in “dirt”:”
Hi JCF, what do you mean when you testify that you were “covered in dirt” ?
Just to clarify the point about not speaking in the debate, the Chair of this debate (the Bishop of Dover) had some 110 names who had asked to speak, and clearly he therefore had to say no to a large majority of those people. He also stated specifically at the start of the debate that he was going to discriminate against bishops in his choices. One can argue about whether that was the best course of action, but it does explain why Tom Wright did not get an opportunity to speak.