back back to Letters previous previous story  |  next story next

Way forward over women bishops: responses to the Manchester report

From Mr Richard Doney and others
Sir, — We are a number of men and women who have been recommended for training, most of whom are already at our various theological colleges, and would like to offer our thanks to the Bishop of Manchester, and the group that he chaired, for the report published last week (News, 2 May). It is evidently the result of much thought and prayer.

We are praying very hard for the bishops as they prepare to meet in May to discuss the report, and also for the members of General Synod who will vote on it, that unity will be maintained.

The Church has affirmed that God is calling us to minister as priests and deacons in the Church of England. We very much want to answer that call. We desperately want to follow Christ to the best of our ability, for the rest of our lives, in the Church that has nurtured us as Christians, making new disciples and caring for his people.

In order for all of us to do that, we need a structural provision that will further inclusivity and diversity. This will allow us all to receive and offer “pastoral and sacramental care in a way that is consistent with [our] convictions” (paragraph 138 c).

Bishops, members of General Synod: please vote for the “new dioceses” option and so allow us all to do that to which we are called.

Paul Atkinson, Dexter Bracey, James Bradley, Paul Cartwright, Michael Childs, Philip Corbett, Richard Doney, Stephen Edmonds, David Hayes, Andy Hughes, Daniel Lloyd, Daniel Mclean, Simon Morris, Gordon Newton, Jen Swinbank, Andrew Teather

Addresses supplied

From Professor Walter James
Sir, — The Church of England is indebted to the Legislative Drafting Group for a report characterised by that rigorous analysis and generosity of spirit that we have come to expect from groups chaired by the Bishop of Manchester.

Nevertheless, should the Church of England admit women into the episcopate, there is one aspect of the situation that the Synod and consequently the Drafting Group have overlooked. No consideration appears to have been given to what provision would be made for those of us who happen to live in one of the holes in the Gruyère cheese, but who, in good conscience, would be unable to accept structures that limited the allegiance owed to the local bishop.

Further attention needs also to be paid to the imbalance in the provision of sacramental and pastoral care available to those of us who would accept and welcome the ministry of a woman priest.

There are still some dioceses in which there is little or no attempt to “accommodate the breadth of theological views” through the deployment of women priests as incumbents. There are areas where there are no arrangements, special or otherwise, that respect our convictions, even though provision for extra-parochial ministry to us could be made under Canon B41. We are victims of a de facto post-code proscription. Our bodies disjunctively inhabit a different pew from the one in which our hearts and minds are situate.

The consideration that the Church has now to give to admitting women to the episcopate also provides an opportunity to reconsider the position of those who would welcome the ministry of a woman priest but are — and have been for 15 years — effectively denied the opportunity to experience it in the place where they live, move, and have their being.

A reordering without any omission of the words of paragraph 138 (c) of the report indicates what needs to be done: an acknowledgement by those unable to receive the ordained ministry of women that the theological convictions of those in favour of women’s ordination are within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition, and that those who hold them should, therefore, be able to receive pastoral and sacramental care in a way that is consistent with their convictions.

This is a fourth element that needs to be incorporated alongside the three enumerated in paragraph 138 if an equitable and just squaring of the difficult circle is to be adopted.

WALTER JAMES
25 Kepplestone
Staveley Road
Eastbourne BN20 7JZ

From Mrs Margaret Brown
Sir, — One of the options suggested in the Manchester report is an additional province that could resemble proposals advocated by the Third Province Movement.The Church’s leadership is weak and divided; the message is one of vagueness and confusion; and therefore proper legal provision must be made for a Third Province within the Church of England for the sake of the Church’s mission to the nation.

Though some people may think otherwise, a Third Province would not cost a large amount of money to set up, because clergy stipends, housing, pensions, etc., would be paid for in the normal way. After all, these costs would have to be met, whichever province the clergy were in; so it would make no significant difference.

A Third Province would enable clergy and laity to stay within the Church of England.

MARGARET BROWN
Chairman, Third ProvinceMovement
Luckhurst, Mayfield
East Sussex TN20 6TY

From the Revd Gerry Reilly
Sir, — I am inspired by the eirenicism of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the group chaired by Bishop McCulloch, but I am also confused by it.

How can one remain in communion with groups such as Forward in Faith (FiF), AMiA, etc., when they do not want to stay in communion with me, will not share an altar with me, or even receive communion with me? How can a group want to stay in a comprehensive Church when it rejects the ministry and oversight of most of its bishops, and denies the validity of the ministry of many of its priests, and proclaims its sole ownership of orthodoxy and the deposit of tradition?

How can one province of a Church deny the orders of the other provinces and still call itself part of the same Church? At the moment, they are excluding women, homosexuals (but not their own), and “liberals” (i.e those who do not agree with them) from the ministry; who is next on the hit-list?

Much as I struggle to do so, I cannot find the hand of the Holy Spirit in their doings. How FiF can get into bed with the ecclesiology and sacramental theology of Bishop Jensen or Reform I cannot fathom. It would be disastrous for the whole Communion if their position(s) were to prevail.

GERRY REILLY
Benedictus, 8 Victoria Square
Poples Well, Crewkerne
Somerset TA18 7ES

From Canon John Goodchild
Sir, — Your report on the Legislative Drafting Group’s options is depressing. The first option would be perceived as unfair to those opposed. The others introduce unwelcome complications. Might it not be better at this stage to allow women to become suffragan, but not diocesan, bishops?

The diocesans could provide a focus for unity and would exercise headship. They could operate in the minority of parishes that did not want women bishops, but women would have more scope to use their gifts, and be increasingly welcomed in an episcopal ministry.

Of course, some might say that they were unable to accept the ministry of a male bishop who had been involved in the ordination and consecration of women. Meaningful communion is only possible, however, where both sides can respect the Christian integrity of the other. It is reasonable to suggest that those who cannot accept male bishops who enable women’s ministry should move to another denomination. A financial settlement might be available to reduce hardship.

Those in favour of women bishops might object that they were still denied diocesan appointments. But at least a major step would be taken. Once baptism of females and males replaced the circumcision of males, it was inevitable women would be included in oversight — even if in God’s sight a thousand years is like one day.

JOHN GOODCHILD
39 St Michael’s Road
Liverpool L17 7AN



back back to Letters up back to top previous previous story  |  next story next


© Church Times 2006 - All rights reserved

Website by Baigent