It's a strange situation because many evangelicals would recognise that women's ministry is an area where Christians can disagree in good conscience. I believe the answer to John's question is partly that, unfortunately, some people are so zealous for their point of view on this that they just want to see those that disagree with them blown away.

Hello Liddon, it seems to me you exemplify the tendency I noted below, you are zealous for your view and that is your perspective on the issue. However, the house of bishops and the official supporting documents listed below by Bp Pete are not private individuals, that is clearly ridiculous.

Are you by any chance related to this Madeline Bassett on the John Richardson blog? You seem to have a huge amount in common.....

Just read the comment by Andrew Brown. I'm surprised anybody gives that kind of lazy knee-jerk polemic any attention whatsoever.

Hello "Pluralist"

I agree with a lot of what you say below, there clearly are sociological factors why some denominations or congregations grow. However, there should be no contradiction from a Christian perspective in saying there are also theological or spiritual reasons for the same. I realise you are not from the theologically orthodox camp, of course.

I'd also be interested to hear what your opinions are on the reasons for the relative unattractiveness of liberal theology at the moment and what you think the future holds for theological liberalism.

Hello Graham,

With all respect, your last post is a bit like an arsonist complaining the house is on fire! If that scenario happens over this issue then of course general synod will only have itself to blame for not providing adequate support for traditionalists. I'm worried that this vote is going to be very problematic for all evangelicals in the future, bringing greater disunity, and also setting a dangerous precedent that you can be isolated and put out on a limb if you have a biblically formed conscience on a subject.

To be frank, although I recognise that the conservatives are not perfect and have made mistakes, I'm wondering at the moment what the point of Fulcrum is, because all you (plural) seem to be doing in practice is weakening your theological allies!

This is very interesting. It shows what Christians believe, i.e that intercessory prayer can be effective, is true. It doesn't say anything about why. As Pluralist says below, it could be some kind of telepathy or energy rather than the action of God. In fact, the article doesn't even say what religion or theological framework the prayers were offered in.

I think stuff like this is encouraging because it offers an indication of the activity of God, but in the end we shouldn't want absolute proof anyway. That kind of making God "visible" takes you away from the NT teaching on faith. This is why I am very suspicious of the Todd Bentley lakeland stuff, they are almost trying to "prove" God exists through miracles and that, to me, is not the Christian definition of faith. On the other hand, we can't rule out on dogmatic grounds that miracles never happen. The evidence is that they do.

Hello Pluralist,

You said "Numbers are not everything, but the quality of what people do and say." I completely agree with that. Thanks also for your response on the other thread about the way forward for theological liberalism. Now, I think it is true that the CofE in general has suffered because of the collapse of nominal Christianity. This is part of a wider trend, where voluntary organisations generally are suffering. I've heard it is now generally possible, for example, to take over local political parties with just a handful of people.

Now of course evangelical congregations in the church suffer because of the same social trends as non-evangelicals do, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. However, I think it is also clear that nearly all the growing churches are evangelical in theology. Evangelical congregations have across the board lost members too, but it is also a fact that they are losing members at least at a slower rate than non-evangelical congregations. Why? You argue it is clarity, but my argument is that liberal theology just does not meet people's needs. People want authenticity, and people have a deep need for God. Where belief is half-hearted, or inconsistent, people see through that. This is why if I became disillusioned with orthodoxy, I think I would probably skip past liberalism and head straight for atheism.

I agree with your comment though about how we should be clear about where we stand. Am I right in understanding that your theology is effectively atheistic anyway? I should say you come across as a lot more thoughtful and tolerant than some theological liberals who can, ironically, be much more authoritarian than their conservative counterparts.

Just want to say excellent post, Brett. It is clear looking at the reports from the debate last night that only secular arguments were used to argue against provision for the dissenters. (Apart from the argument about church unity). When people use secular categories at key points in theological arguments like this, they are probably not really thinking biblically about the issue.

Slight digression, but for a good example of this in action have a look again at "Permanent, Faithful, Stable" by Jeffrey John. He does make some effort to look at the biblical material (half-heartedly, in my opinion) but every time he reaches a key point in his argument he steps out and argues using secular categories like rights or fairness or takes on the victimhood role.

Hello Mark,

Thanks for your comments. I think we might be talking at cross purposes, or possibly on reflection I didn't express myself very well. Of course I don't think the bible gives us detailed advice on everything,  including church government issues (certainly not for an organisation as complex as the CofE). I think it does give us principles to follow in terms of how to deal with other Christians who we disagree with on secondary issues, which basically amount to the practice of Christian love.  (I hope you would agree with that). Those principles were not brought into the debate on Monday night, as far as I can see. I think Brett has already expressed very well what the debate was based on. That is what I meant by secular arguments, (Brett calls them liberal-democratic), I won't add any more on that.

I accept that nobody argued for no provision. The problem is that the provision that was agreed is not sufficient in the eyes of the people it effects. (And they had made that clear).

One more point. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church in the US has as its slogan: In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. I like that slogan very much and I think part of the problem in all this is that people can't distinguish the first two, and don't practice enough of the latter (and I'm not talking about specific groups of people here either).  

Dear Mark, Decbass and Simon

I understand your views on women bishops and I respect them. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. However, I have some Christian friends who believe the following things are wrong:

Drinking alcohol, reading Harry Potter, listening to secular music, eating pork (a seventh day adventist), going to pubs (a big cultural issue for evangelicals from Northern Ireland, for example), and also women teaching men in church.

Now, I can't say I agree with them on any of those things, but if I ever had the power (and took it) to pressurise or force them to do something that they, in conscience think is wrong, then I would be directly breaking biblical principles found in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and I am committing a bigger and more dangerous error than they are. And that is what General Synod managed to achieve on Monday night.

I'd like to add one or two other thoughts to my post below.

GS went for the single clause (code of practice) option. We can probably divide those members who voted for that (or non-members who support it) into two or three groups.

1. People who actively wanted to drive the opponents out of the CofE, or who just don't care about them enough to make sufficient provision. (Decbass?)

I hope the traditionalists don't provide their wish and leave. However, I think there is a great irony that these are the people who probably see themselves as most "inclusive" and tolerant. Action: take provocative act that drives members away. Talk: We are nice, inclusive, broad, etc.

2. People who see driving away members as a kind of "collatoral damage" in order to achieve higher principle. (Mark?) Question for those. Is having women bishops in this specific form more important than Christian freedom and the right to a conscience? I don't know any women (or men) who are likely to become bishops but everyone has a conscience. Should it be trampled upon?

3. Those who genuinely don't want the opponents to leave (Simon?). The Manchester Report warned that the Single Clause (Code of Practice) would lead to turbulence in the church, defections and disunity. The only comment I will make is that Fulcrum and open evangelicals really can't complain if people leave, seek alternative episcopal oversight or withhold parish share because of this issue, when the church itself had warned you this is what would happen! As I said on the GAFCON thread, it would be like an arsonist complaining that the house is on fire!

I noticed that both Simon and Decbass mentioned "pain" and I wanted to say that I haven't personally heard a traditionalist saying their "pain" is a reason for doing or not doing anything. I'm sure the Anglo-Catholic clergy and their families are feeling a lot of pain (they are going to face some very difficult decisions) and those lay people who will be effectively unchurched because they don't want to go to Rome are now in a very painful (I would actually say tragic) position. But I think they were actually just wanting their theological position to be safeguarded, and who can blame them?

Dear Mark

I hope you are right and that people will treat each other properly. Reform have already said they will wait to see the code of practice before committing themselves, so that might encourage those who would like to keep the church together.

I'm not really the one who needs to be persuaded that the code of practice will work, though. In the end the lack of structural provision will leave the traditionalists in quite a powerless position, and I can fully understand their concern. I notice WATCH are going in for the kill and are also seeking a completely toothless code of practice now. (They also seem to want to redefine the doctrine of God). Inclusive Church said in their press release that this is the first step to full inclusion (or something like that). So these must be worrying times for the biblically orthodox.

Interestingly, Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, who you mentioned below, has been touted in the Times (I think it was) as a possibility for first female bishop. Given her amendment on Monday night, traditionalists could have their blood running cold at that prospect.

In the end, I believe in God's sovereignty, and he has allowed this to happen. I must put the future of our church, which I love, in his hands.