ECUSA House of Bishops Covenant Statement.

Is this a cobbled together response to the Primates? The Anglican Communion is by nature episcopal. So time is now bought by undermining the image of episcopacy in the USA. Dioceses that have a bishop about to retire must now do without pastoral leadership for a time.

As a response to the Primates communique it seems to be avoidance behaviour, a political ploy if not something like a tantrum. Bishop Nigel Mcullough of Manchester was present. I wonder what he really thinks?

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?m=20050506

The comments are somewhat sad but there are many hurt people in ECUSA. Simon Sarmiento's comment refers to an earlier link to the Fulcrum site with the whole of Jane Williams address there.

Hurrah for that fine contribution from a lay Christian and from her female viewpoint. Made even more valuable by her story of her journey and her self-description "I am an ongoing mishmash of new learning but broadly I have a Radical head, a pair of Charismatics arms, an open evangelical body and conservative evangelical legs."

It could describe me also except for the "new learning" part, as I have been on the road as a layman somewhat longer - 78th year now.

I welcome the Fulcrum's leadership statement re women bishops. Having accepted the ordination of women I do not see how logically and by grace we can oppose the thought of women bishops. I had to work hard in my mind about women's ordination. May I tell some of my story?

Long before the time of late 20^th Century Secular Feminism and Christian Feminist theology, I began to have uncomfortable feelings about some Christian teaching concerning the supposedly subordinate role of women. This was in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

As a teacher of Religious Education in the 1950s and 1960s, working with young teen-agers already alienated from a close relationship with the Church, I was finding the tired Evangelical discussion of such issues and their implications difficult to sustain. My teaching syllabus require me to step back and to see the main themes of the whole of Scripture, rather than to be involved in the miniscule scrutiny of selected and not always associated passages. I began to see that there were many issues, which were not as clear-cut as the received Conservative Evangelical tradition implied. For me there was the need to examine underlying principles in the light of the whole of Scripture and especially the themes of Creation, the Fall, Incarnation and Redemption. [I could spell these out if required.]

So I was entering into what I later came to know as hermeneutics. A progressive interpretive task was going on afresh.

The understanding of 'headship' that I arrived at was something like this: Christ is Lord of the Church, exercising rule and authority, seeking voluntary and willing submission from the heart by His people. When Christ is understood as the head and source of His Body, the Church, then the leadership is not one of dominant or threatening power, rule and control, but one which Jesus declared- that of servanthood. This is the upside down Kingdom understanding of leadership or authority. The head of the Family of the Church is the Lord who declared himself as Servant, and whose love of His Church is a self-giving love. The analogy in Ephesians 5, of the relationship between male and female being like that between Christ and His Church is also more clearly understood from the Greek. The submit in verses 22-24 is in the Greek hupatasso, which is a more voluntary and mutual submission rather than a submissive obedience. Christs relationship with His Church is not then to dominate but is rather that of Servanthood headship.

Mutual submission and servanthood is of the essence of all Christian relationships, as Jesus taught.

It was a result of my personal journey of understanding, that when the Church of England, in church council and Synod, faced the decisions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood, I voted in favour. This was on the basis of my convictions from my scriptural understanding. As we live in the now but not yet situation, I recognize that there is a variety of opinion and conviction. The same applies to the consecration of women as bishops. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we may trust the Holy Spirit and go ahead, together imaging God, and with servant leadership bring in the Kingdom.

It is over division about some issues that Ephesians 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace, is crucial. This chapter goes on to point out the need to avoid personal hostility and abuse, to speak the truth in love and gentleness and to behave with charity, courtesy, graciousness and humility when there are points of tension and disagreement.

Ken Sawyer. 

Karen Springer writes: "It is becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary lay people in evangelical parishes to wade through some of the "stuff " being presented to them by some groups."

Surely that applies only in "some" evangelical parishes. The "stuff" she has become concerned about emanates mainly in parishes linked to Reform or where clergy have that affiliation. It may even depend on which theological college a clergyperson trained at!

There must be many parishes where laity do not have this problem.

Sometime since I posted on this theme. May I repeat something I posted back in July(?). I am in my late 70's now and onetime long ago followed well packaged Evangelical understanding in which the principle of male headship was one which I accepted as received. It was truth - part of the package so to speak. For many reasons I became a more open evangelical long ago. Even got into trouble with evangelical lay leaders in the old Church Assembly House of Laity for something I said about not getting too hung up about "The Vesture of Ministers Measure". Mind you evangelicals were few and far between then and resisted from behind the parapets!

To my point. From my notes here:

I found myself asking how important teaching such as the headship line was in relation to Jesus teaching on self-giving love, reconciliation, forgiveness and justice.

REDEMPTION AND RECONCILIATION.

The meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus was to secure freedom from the Falls consequence, bringing God and humans into a relationship of harmony as sins barrier is taken away. Christian believers are equally redeemed and once reconciled to God, are equipped to bring reconciliation across the worlds divisions. Jesus sacrifice was once for all. (Hebrews 10:11-14) If, then, the Cross put right what the Fall put wrong, life in Christ is no longer to be lived in the old order. So: -

￘       Romans 10:12-13- no difference between Jew and Gentile. Jesus is Lord of all!

￘       1 Peter 2:24. By His wounds you have been healed - both male and female restored, forgiven to live new lives with new freedom and new possibilities. Even Calvin, whilst continuing to emphasize mankinds depravity, also saw men and women as equal parts of Gods plan for salvation. This is spelt out further in Galatians 3:28.

Again, it is said that in Christ there is no separation between Jew and Gentile, in Christ there is no slave nor free  yet into the mid 19^th Century there were splits in the Church as some used selective texts to justify slavery. This was seen as the prevailing interpretation of biblical truth. At the same time in Britain there were other Evangelicals, such as members of the Clapham Sect, who had come to a fresh understanding of Scripture and fought for the abolition of slavery on biblical grounds. Just as slavery could not be justified on biblical grounds can such gender discrimination be justified? In Christ there is no gender hierarchy. Unity in Christ totally transcends social, ethnic and gender distinctions. WE ARE CALLED TO MAKE ALL THIS REAL IN PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE.

Whilst the Christian Church proclaims saving grace, it can hardly contradict this by holding male and female as still being under the positional curse of the Fall. Surely such alienation is healed for those who are in Christ? With the original Creation position restored, men and women in the image of God and by Gods grace, can work together to bring in the Kingdom.

This would then include the ministry of the church.

Graham this is an excellent service in providing this transcript. Thank you.

I was cheeky enough to mail the link to Kendall Harmon for titusonenine, although you may have already done so. Well it is provoking the anticipated response.

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10534 Try the blog folks.

I wonder whether there is a Fulcrum view of the new press release from Anglican Mainstream, and the letter (presumably that of September 16th) presented at Lambeth Palace on December 29th?

If, as claimed, it was signed personally "by over 1700 people, including 290 clergy and two Bishops from 260 churches in 38 dioceses" it hardly covers the mainstream  of evangelicals in the C of E.

And what is the mainstream? Who is in and who is out?

In the light of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's letter to his clergy in Rochester Diocese, reported on CEN's website and now in "The Times", expressing his strong reservations concerning the House of Bishops' statement on the Civil Partnership Act there are now further questions about the publication of that statement.

Similar questions have been asked by Bishop Michael Scott-Joynt of Winchester and Bishop Tom Wright of Durham has also expressed doubts. From another direction entirely Bishop Peter Selby of Worcester has declared his disagreement.

Now the BIG question or/s. Who actually drew up the statement, who saw and agreed with its' final form and who issued it? Manifestly some bishops are seriously embarassed that it does not represent their views/opinions.

A further development is reported in this week's "Church of England Newspaper", already online in its main reports. http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php

Under "Civil Partnerships issue is deeply dividing bishops" Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports: A SENIOR bishop has acknowledged that the row over the Churchs support for the Civil Partnerships Act highlights a growing divide in the House of Bishops over issues of sexuality. The Statement was presented last year as the unanimously agreed position of the House of Bishops, but the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Rev Peter Forster, told The Church of England Newspaper that they are deeply divided over the issue.

There is deep, underlying disunity in the House of Bishops over whether there are situations when sexual relations outside marriage can be welcomed and blessed by the Church, the Bishop said. Two different views are emerging from the House on how we respond to cultural pressures on these issues and the Civil Partnerships Act has been a catalyst in exacerbating these divisions.

More to come it appears.