Thinking Anglicans

Arun Arora’s piece is surprisingly weak, coming from the C of E’s Director of Communications. Extrapolating what he claims Martin Percy “implies,” Arora never addresses what Percy actually wrote, nor does he address the fundamental issue that has driven the discussion: how can a bishop pastorally support a group of priests whose orders he a priori believes to be invalid?

A truly outstanding piece of writing from Andrew Lightbown. It presents (most of) the issues on both sides with clarity and, I suggest, genuine balance. I also applaud him for paying tribute to Bishop Philip. That is important. This is quite such a mess because Bishop Philip does appear to be a highly commendable bishop. The one issue I think Andrew Lightbown overlooked is that the underlying difficulty is not just the failure to resolve the theology of episcopacy but the failure to resolve the theology of the nature of women. I think the latter is now becoming critical to… Read more »

Off the question around Bishop North’s appointment, I noticed this from the Sheffield Diocesan statement of needs (p5): “Although attendance as a percentage of the population is low (1.4% in 2014), as a diocese over the past five years we have moved from numerical decline to stability and small growth, with an increase of 1% between 2014 and 2015 in average weekly attendance.” This is not true, according to the C of E report ‘Statistics for Mission 2015’ – see p.40 for a plot of attendance for the diocese over the past 10 years. There was a decrease between 2014… Read more »

If feminist means “an advocate of women’s rights on the grounds of sexual equality” then I am a feminist. The women of steel referred to in Giles Fraser’s article are feminists in that sense. Maybe they are strong enough, and humble enough, to care about having a “Bishop for all” who is gifted and compassionate, but may not be a feminist.

The limitation of unity in diversity has been demonstrated. Different traditions can co-exist but not when it crosses the identity of a group. Bishop Philip can be a suffragan: he will not be accepted as a diocesan unless he renounces some of his other allegiances and views. So traditionalists know now that the same must and will happen if they allow openly gay bishops and clergy: any traditionalist is likely to then face the same challenge if promoted to diocesan level and cannot accept gay clergy . Equally, it must be clear that no openly gay bishop can become a… Read more »

Kate — this is completely inaccurate: “if a woman bishop became a diocesan,” since there are already two dioceses (Gloucester and Newcastle) already having bishops-who-happen-to-be-women.

You have a point about the limitations of mutual flourishing in the current impasse.

However, Philip North could simply withdraw from SWISH (or whatever they call themselves now), thus breaking part of the problem away.

The fundamental point is that the Church of England as a whole entity has decided recognise women priests. Where a woman priest finds herself in a diocese with a diocesan bishop who does not (in conscience) believe in women priests, that is an interface for both parties to work through with grace, prayer and love. But nevertheless, the Church of England as a whole DOES recognise women priests, so their ministry is not invalidated by the individual conscience of a bishop in their diocese. Their ministry is validated, if you like, by an authority higher than the diocesan – namely,… Read more »

Are we witnessing a further retreat from a territorial approach to ministry? It has long been possible for the ordinary citizen of one parish, subject to certain conditions, to associate himself instead with the church, and priest, in another. It is also possible for a resident of England to associate, not to the Church of England, but to the Church of Rome or anywhere else, or a non-geographical free church. Society priests are free to associate themselves with an alternative bishop, and perhaps lady vicars in Yorkshire will also deserve that right. Perhaps all priests will get to choose which… Read more »

Fr David, Thank you for your fine words. My sentiments exactly.
Fr John

It’s worth reminding ourselves in the context of this discussion that, whatever he may say to the contrary, +Philip won’t be out of communion with the female priests of the Diocese of Sheffield or with anyone else in the Church of England. He won’t be because he can’t be – it’s an ecclesial impossibility. Colin Podmore sets this out helpfully in ‘Aspects of Anglican Identity’, a book he wrote long before he became Director of Forward in Faith. ‘It is important to remember that (as the term itself suggests) ecclesial communion is a relationship between churches, because this shows that… Read more »

Kelvin, yes, it’s a theological mess. Just like the nature of the Eucharist, the sacraments, priesthood, and everything else Anglicans disagree on.

But what, practically, should England do about it? Relitigate equal consecration, after a hard-won compromise? If so, there’s no telling how much damage may be done, or how such an effort could retard equality for LGBT people.

I’m interested in Kelvin Holdsworth’s comment regarding the integrity of catholic order, though usually when I ask this everyone goes quiet and talks about something else. But the question for me is that surely it is the purpose of the likes of +Philip and the Society to maintain catholic order – it’s his concern for that very concept that makes him unable in conscience to ordain women. Whatever your view on the rights and wrongs of the ordination of women, surely it’s undeniable that catholic order was compromised as a concept if the Church of England at the same time… Read more »

Arun Arora’s piece in the Yorkshire Post is seriously misleading. He must know that his ‘score of ten to one’ is not a fair representation of the situation.

I may be going to get myself out of my theological depth. As I understand it, the people who are most upset about women priests are concerned about remaining in communion with the Roman Catholic church. They see women priests as unacceptable to the RCC, and therefore a block on some hypothetical reconciliation. Which is slightly odd, because women priests are the least of the problem here, given the RCC holds that the ordination of all priests in the Anglican Church is invalid. CofE ordained women are no less invalid than CofE ordained men in the eyes of Rome. And… Read more »

Marian, at the splendid Chrism Mass in the diocese of Chichester presided over by the diocesan bishop – both male and female priests are in attendance to renew their priestly vows – no distinction is made. I would presume that the same will apply in future in the diocese of Sheffield. How about that for church unity and mutual flourishing! Unfortunately, that is something that doesn’t apply in most other dioceses where in addition to the Chrism Mass with the diocesan bishop alternative Chrism Masses are the order of the day presided over by a PEV.

Very interesting point from Jules. As I’ve said before I agree with equal ordination wholeheartedly. But in ordaining women as well as men we moved away from ‘catholic order’, at least as defined by Rome – just as we already had by renouncing papal jurisdiction in the sixteenth century. Presumably many ‘traditionalists’ oppose women’s ordination, at least in part, because it represents a further distancing of the CofE from that order. But that position was decisively rejected in 1992 and 2014 – the CofE (rightly in my view) decided that it had authority, notwithstanding the views of the Eastern /… Read more »

“It’s worth reminding ourselves in the context of this discussion that, whatever he may say to the contrary, +Philip won’t be out of communion with the female priests of the Diocese of Sheffield or with anyone else in the Church of England. He won’t be because he can’t be – it’s an ecclesial impossibility.” Term-parsing misses the point though. I think that the Synod decisions of 1993 and 2014 can be unpacked like this: every member of the Church of England is required to accept institutionally the ministry OF female presbyters; no member of the Church of England is ever… Read more »

Simon, all good questions. Colin Podmore wrote this at a time when he was in a better position to be objective than he may be now. It sets out the Church of England’s theological and legal understanding of ecclesial communion which to the best of my knowledge hasn’t changed. I’m familiar with the statements of SSWSH about this and as far as I can see they fall into exactly the error which Colin Podmore pointed out. At various times, including during the discussions leading up to the formulation of the 5 Guiding Principles, SSWSH has tried to say that things… Read more »

Interested to hear the two women priests being interviewed on Radio Sheffield – one in favour and one against Philip North’s appointment as their diocesan bishop. It has oft been quoted that one third of the clergy in the diocese of Sheffield are women – it would be interesting to know what percentage of this 33% are in favour or opposed to this significant appointment. Then again, what percentage of the remaining male two-thirds are pro or anti?

“What about asking Philip North?”

The press and media are as available to him as to anyone else.

“Thomas Sharp’s blog would be a good place to start.”

Indeed. It says that the claims that North and his friends don’t hold to a theology of taint are at best disingenuous, at worst flatly dishonest, and that is _exactly_ their position.

It’s easy for Philip North to state, clearly and unequivocally, the legitimacy of the orders of his own clergy. He hasn’t done that.

An analysis of controversial appointments usually finds that the appointing organisation failed to apply the ‘press announcement’ test, that common sense test which asks ‘how will this appointment be received’? Will the intelligent and interested person on the Clapham omnibus understand exactly why the appointment has been made when the news breaks? I say ‘interested’ because obviously in the scheme of things CofE bishop watching is becoming something of a minority sport these days. Now this is not a charter for making appointments so bland that the dangers of controversy are removed altogether, but it does presuppose that at the… Read more »

Anthony Archer’s comments are, as always, interesting to read. His reference to the CNC’s temptation of making “appointments so bland that the dangers of controversy are removed altogether” reminds me of nothing so much as Churchill’s oft quoted comment about William Temple being the only “sixpenny article in a penny bazaar”. Let’s face it we have had more than enough bland managerial appointments to the bench of late! It seems to me that talent, like cream, inevitably rises to the top and it would appear that the CNC in their interviews and prayerful deliberations separated the cream from the milk… Read more »

Alan Mitchell – the voice of reason and good sense. I notice that Lord Hague is encouraging his successor as Leader of the Conservative Party to hold a General Election sooner rather than later. If that is the case then the Act of Parliament formulated under the last Coalition Government regarding Fixed Term Parliaments will have to repealed. That being the case then surely – if there are to be no more Traditionalist bishops appointed – then similarly the General Synod will have to repeal the Five Guiding Principles and turn their backs on mutual flourishing. For, as Alan Mitchell… Read more »

I don’t think it’s a question of trying to re-litigate the compromise leading to the consecration of women as bishops in the C of E to ask, as Percy did, the “how” questions–how will a bishop be a pastor to the one-third of his clergy whose ministry he believes to be invalid? What provision will he make for their well-being and flourishing as clergy? Will they receive preferment within the Diocese? We’re talking about a bishop, in a position of authority over women whose ministry he a priori rejects. How he plans to minister to them, and deploy them are… Read more »

Re: Chrism Masses. Let’s not make a big deal out of Chrism Masses, which have suddenly, over the last couple of decades, become trendy among bishops and (some of) their priests. There is nothing sacramental about them (other than that they are a celebration of the Eucharistic sacrament), and they have no particular significance in the life of the church.

As for concelebration, this too is (to put it mildly) a fringe thing in the Church of England, and certainly not something to be encouraged, in the opinion of this writer anyway.