It is very difficult for anyone close to the college (either a former or current staff member) to comment on Aitken's article, for legal reasons surrounding the disciplinary/grievance proceedings. In fact, he has made himself vulnerable to the charge of libel by speaking out himself before the case has been resolved. Privately, there is tremendous outrage about his claims which are clearly ventriloquized Turnbull spin, and I have no doubt that this indignation will come out into the open before long.

Wycliffe, and in particular those staff members now labelled as 'bitter' and obstructive, provided refuge for Aitken during his first years out of prison. It is unspeakably graceless of him now to turn against them. And his apparent confidence that it is both legitimate and ethical for a new Principal to come in to a Christian institution and 'shake out' existing staff members or 'sweep hard' to get rid of critics is simply staggering.

Even though Aitken and the Guardian have both blundered colossally, we assume they are not guilty of wilful deceit. Sounds like many of us are speculating that Aitken's garbled version of events came from Turnbull - a justifiable assumption. May we use this forum to ask Dr. Turnbull (should he ever visit these pages) to confirm or deny that he was Aitken's source? Or perhaps Aitken might reply himself, given that he must be gibbering with fury at having been manipulated in this way? After all, he can hardly afford another blow to his public image.  

I'm not sure it's strictly true, Paul, that numbers of female ordinands have increased under Richard Turnbull (that might have been true of the first year, in line with existing trends, but apparently not of recent intakes). I can't be precise about this though - perhaps somebody with better information can offer figures. But the college has definitely given the impression of a general improvement, which I'm afraid is another example of the spin that the current regime is capable of.

Forgive me for saying so, Matthew, but if you were truly 'above all this' then why even bother visiting the site, let alone posting on it? Is it just to inflame your indignation, and confirm your own higher virtues? Or do you do the rounds chastising those who dare to comment on a situation which is not only in the public domain and of considerable public concern, but has also affected some of our dearest friends in a direct way?

It is not only those who remain in the college who know what has happened at Wycliffe over the past 3 years or so. Many who have left and are free to talk openly are actually in a better position to comment on the matter. And while you point us to Jesus, the Gospel and mission, you don't seem to appreciate that at the centre of this controversy are issues about Christ-like and truly 'evangelical' behaviour: HONESTY crucially, but also fairness, respect, transparency, wise leadership, etc. etc.

I DO regret the tone of my earlier message, and apologise to Matthew for it. But I think the other responses were calm and measured, and the critique in general still stands. What I have found frustrating is the claim coming from those in Wycliffe that what's been reported in the press is misleading and onesided: and yet there's a reluctance to discuss and bring things 'into the light'. What has come out, via Aitken, is a garbled version. 

Also the idea that no one with an interest in the situation (such as those who may be served by Wycliffe ordinands in the future, or those who are part of the wider Wycliffe community, or members of the University) ought to discuss it is just strange.

Those of you keeping up with the Wycliffe thread on Thinking Anglicans will have come across the post about the research fellowship in Doctrine/History which Wycliffe has advertised in association with the Latimer Trust. All applicants will, presumably, have to sign up to the Latimer Trust's doctrinal basis (see http://latimertrust.org/download/basis.pdf) which insists upon 'the divinely appointed order in which headship roles are given to the male' and rejects all kinds of popish practices like the use of vestments in the eucharistic service and the attribution of sacramental properties to, ahem, the sacraments. Etc. Any thoughts on what this says about the breadth of the new regime?

Neil, surely you're not oblivious to the fact that for many of us who post here, an idea of justice which entails equal opportunities for women and men is precisely NOT worldly, but what we understand to be a principle of the Gospel in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc. (Sorry to wheel that one out again as a kind of shorthand, but one does keep coming back to it.) You may disagree with that view of things, but I'm surprised you totally failed to see what Fern was getting at.

I think you must also be able to see Fern's point that women are massively underrepresented in the Latimer Trust: only one of their publications has been written by a woman (as far as I can see), and the one female figure on the leadership is a Trustee rather than a member of the governing Council. She is outspoken on women's ordination and sexual orientation more than any other issue. Moreover, among all the 'Revd. Drs.' she is conspicuously lay and conspicuously non-academic. Do they also have a problem with intellectual women, I wonder. Perhaps it is rather that intellectual women have a problem with them?

I hope I'm right in thinking that what you're saying, Neil, is not that we shouldn't pursue justice for the unjustly treated, or that 'justice' - however it be understood - isn't part of the good news proclaimed by Christ. You're saying, I take it, that we shouldn't grasp at status through selfish ambition, and that there are lots of women out there who want to serve the church for selfless reasons rather than trying to put themselves on the same level as men.

Fair enough - except that, as User 1402 pointed out, that rather sounds like saying that equal opportunities is the only argument for women priests and that selfish ambition is the primary motive of women entering the ministry. Or, at the very least, that women are going into ordained ministry in order to prove a point. Do you really think that?

On this rights/justice issue, the thing is that nobody here has brought up 'rights' except you, and you seem to be equating my references to justice and equality with the sort of 'rights' language used by claimants in insurance payouts. This is a terrible caricature: do you imagine the movement for women's ordination to be a bit like a group of disaffected workers lobbying for higher pay? When I spoke about 'justice' and 'equality' I had in mind something far more basic and anthropological.

A question: on the same basis that you would deny Christians a discourse on human rights and equal opportunity in the debate over women's ordination, would you also object to the Church taking a principled stand on (for example) racial discrimination? Any such principled position would rely heavily on a view of universal human dignity, equality, etc. Would you really see that line of argument as worldly and unbiblical? Of course the Church has to make theological and biblically-informed decisions about issues of social justice, particularly issues which affect half humankind, and allow these decisions to shape its own practice. And although the case for women's ordination was built on far more than a discourse on social justice, there was clearly a point at which the Church had to state that it simply wasn't 'right' that women were not admitted into full priestly ministry. Inconveniently for your argument, this decision was not made by a cabal of career-hungry harridans, it was made by Synod on behalf of the wider Church.

As a final note I wonder, too, if you might engage more directly with some of the other responses to your posts.

I am sorry if I have misread you, or wasted your time. 

To be clear, I agree with you that individual vocation should never be expressed in terms of a right. No one should go into a selection conference saying 'I have the right to be a vicar'. Indeed, I have never heard of anyone making such a bizarre claim.

But I absolutely do NOT agree that this is the same thing as the community of the Church saying that it is 'right' and just that women's vocations should be recognised and that they should be equal partners in the priestly ministry of the Gospel, because they were created equal in the sight of God and gifted in equal measure. From this point of view, it is an injustice (an offence against the dignity of creation) to exclude women from certain roles in the same way that it would be an offence against God to exclude someone on the basis of their ethnicity. This is a theological argument, not an argument founded on worldly values or career aspirations or grasping at one's rights.

I still haven't heard an answer to the charge that the Latimer trustee was, in an indirect way, imputing dishonourable motives to ordained women. It seems quite clear that this is what she was getting at.

Matthew, threads like this often take on a life of their own: this is nothing unusual. But great that you're eager to get stuck into the debate anyway, as you seem to be on all message boards which you denounce as idle gossip and petty theological wrangling.

You can hardly say that the theological debate on women in the priesthood had not reached maturity in 1994. Anglicans were discussing the possible roles of women in the church as early as 1694, and the first deaconess was ordained in London in 1862. The first petition for women to be admitted to the priesthood was submitted in 1930, and a report on the subject appeared in 1935. In 1944 the Diocese of South China ordained a deaconess to the priesthood, and in 1972 a consultative document on 'The Ordination of Women to the Priesthood' presented a survey of current opinion. In 1978 Synod agreed that there were no fundamental objections to the admission of women to the priesthood.

1994, therefore, seems to be a belated rather than premature response to the theological discussion. If anyone claimed the theology hadn't been properly 'done' by 1994, then they weren't listening.

Certainly - 1694 was the date of the redoubtable High Church writer Mary Astell's "Serious Proposal to the Ladies", in which she set out her vision of an Anglican convent. Her idea was discussed by senior clergymen including Gilbert Burnet (+Sarum) who advised Queen Anne against implementing it. Astell was also interested in the early church office of deaconess, and has a VERY interesting discussion about the biblical passages prohibiting women from speaking/leading in "Some Reflections Upon Marriage" (3rd ed., 1706): you can read this at http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/astell2.html (see section headed "Appendix"). Especially striking are the paragraphs which begin "That the custom of the World ..." and "As for his not suffering women ...".