Pluralist-- Your last comment deserved a thread of its own, and now it has it. Thank you for three arguments well worth discussing.

The answers would be 'affirmative' Bowman in the sense that a predicament is arrived at and the consequences of action follows. The theology of taint cannot be introduced, so the equality of leadership has to be uniform, however others may or may not be taken into account. Inevitably the decision puts some into transition towards an end, and end where male superiority on any principle is undermined.

Chrsitianity is full of the language of submission, but when a male ordained uses that language it relates to another higher bloke and God who apparently set it up, but the female use of submissive language has a different history. So the female in leadership will have a different linguistic impact and association - rises to submission again. Also surveys show female clergy are more liberal than male, on the whole, on doctrinal points. So a different background and more liberality anyway suggests a more liberal future with female equality.

It is notable that female clergy that try to be evangelical come up against those who say she shouldn't be in charge anyway, so there is every incentive for a female cleric to leave the evangelical stable either altogether or call herself post-evangelical in some sense.

All of which, Carl, brings me to our shared dismay at TEC, and the question whether the situation of the CoE is in a closely or distantly analogous condition. English churchfolk will judge for themselves, but it does not seem to me to be a close resemblance.

(a) Episcopalians today are, in the main, bobos (American Culture Note: "bobo" = "bourgeois bohemian" = persons with bourgeois wealth and personal lives but bohemian social sensibilities. Comparatively soulful "yuppies." See David Brooks, Bobos in Paradise.) who constitutionally believe that anything worth doing well is worth doing eclectically and transformatively. Traditions are important-- especially other people's traditions-- but mainly as the bass part in an endless, improvised passacaglia. They fear seeming intolerant or provincial far more than they fear seeming uninformed or disloyal, which drives those of a more conservative or absorbed temperament stark raving mad every three years in early July. The passage of something mildly shocking and unprecedented is a General Convention tradition that has been faithfully continued since 1973. This year, the General Convention approved the ordination of transvestites and a form for same sex marriage that is indistinguishable from most forms of the marriage service. Nevertheless, the bishop, clergy and people of the growing diocese of South Carolina left the convention early in protest, which may also become a cherished convention tradition.

(b) TEC has a disputed magisterium. The 2000 or so souls in the diocese of East Oregon sponsored a measure repealing the canon that requires baptism before communion, a practise called communion without baptism (CWOB). Behind the scenes, three convention committees competed for jurisdiction over the matter, which is to say the honour of plotting its demise. In an upset victory, Evangelism outmanoeuvred both Liturgy and Ecumenism, and after hearings on the measure, sent a resolution to the floor that affirmed that baptism is the normative path to communion. We saw during the debates that followed that Episcopalians are distributed among--

• those who think that the Book of Common Prayer (1979) is the whole magisterium of the church,
• those who think that the Prayerbook is an adequate but incomplete expression of church teaching, and
• those who are stricken with a crippling spiritual claustrophobia at the thought of any official teaching whatsoever.

On CWOB, the first two groups united to crush the third without mercy.  Yet, notwithstanding the final decision of the General Convention, East Oregon appears set to continue their local practice of CWOB anyway, relying on their diocesan canons for authority to do so.

(c) Which reminds us that TEC has no agreed polity. The church is presently divided between those who believe that it is a loose federation of dioceses in which the highest rank is diocesan bishop in standing committee-- the traditional view-- and those, such as the Presiding Bishop, who seek some metropolitical power across the continent for the Presiding Bishop. Whilst the established Church of England hesitates to give the civil courts any chance of interpreting a measure for OWE, the never-established EC is often in courts across the land arguing that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) vest the Presiding Bishop of TEC with metropolitical authority over diocesan bishops and their dioceses. (Should any of these cases be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, it will be heard by the eight Catholics and one Jew now serving on the nation's highest court.) Indeed, nine (9) TEC bishops were informed this month that they may be tried in the House of Bishops for giving testimony to Federal judges that even church school books for children have until recently presented the traditional view. Meanwhile, this month's General Convention--

• repealed the canon requiring each new Presiding Bishop to resign his diocese,
• voted to sell the church's New York headquarters in Manhattan near the UN, and further
• voted to appoint a commission of persons "far from power" to propose a wholly new structure for TEC.

They couldn't and didn't approve the Anglican Communion Covenant (ACC), since doing so in this mess would give the Instruments of Communion more power in TEC than anyone in the church itself.

Thus I can agree, Carl, that, especially considered as a "national church," TEC is in rather deep disarray. But I would be surprised to read that anyone acquainted with both churches thought the CoE was capable of a similar state.

In fact, because TEC cannot agree on its polity, has by all accounts little practical authority over its bishops and dioceses, and relies on the civil courts to establish even the extent of that authority, I consider that the United States of America has no "national church" at all in the sense intended when that phrase is used in documents of the Anglican Communion. Apart from Rome, all other Christian traditions seem to have several denominations in North America, and so do Anglicans. I hope that the next Anglican Communion is open to bishops of all Anglican jurisdictions in the United States in whatever way works for the communion as a whole.

Carl

"I cant privately reject the spiritual authority of women"

Sorry for the delay in replying to your post, but i have been thinking about it, (a lot of brain clunking).

The debate about private and public submission to the spiritual authority of women, has been their all the way through. The only way i can explain to you why i believe this need not be a issue is this! I have always been taught and firmly believe that when we believe in Jesus that we pray listen and discern, from that discernment we can obey. 

A woman sharing the gospel and the giving and taking of communion for the time of doing so is simply "the vessel "through which that gospel is shared and communion given and taken, the woman herself in the same way as the man himself does not have any authority..There is a difference in a man or woman having respect for a human person and following the human persons "inspired by Gods instructions".

Somewhere on one of my bookshelves i have a book called "By whose authority" This book tells us by "Jesus Authority" I share this with you.

I do not underestimate how difficult an adjustment that is in human thinking to make that leap of faith to believe that Jesus might just might speak through a woman. Of course there will be women which will be false prophets in the same way as there are men who are false prophets. On a human level it came seem a little like russian roulette , how can you know? But trust the Jesus in me/you and take it to the lord in prayer and you will know, God will make sure of that.

Peace

Angela

Hi Carl. Thanks for an even more succinct summary of your model of doctrinal change in the Church of England (CoE). Having experienced TEC's generation of silliness myself, I am not at all out of sympathy with your general concern about doctrinal drift in contemporary Anglicanism. For that very reason, I think it makes sense to commend your model's testable descriptions and predictions to those in England who can actually check them out. My last post in fact does that. After all, when both you and Pluralist are seeing potential for a notable schism on the horizon, it seems to me that there might possibly be bigger fish to fry than the ideal way to read the Code of Practise (CoP). But the truth of that depends upon facts on the ground that haven't been discussed here.

A notable prediction of your model is that the mere discussion of the CoP in the CoE since last spring has dissolved all chance that any wording of the CoP could retain trust among those who oppose women's ordination to the episcopate (WOE). I wonder whether trust has in fact been damaged, and so should all who are following this. This is unhappily reminiscent of Mark Bennet's prediction that the involvement of the civil courts in interpreting the amended measure will be found to have similarly dissolved trust in those who favour the ordination of women to the episcopate as a matter of right (OWE). Can we consider Mark's prediction to have been confirmed by the action at General Synod? Again, I wonder whether the prospect of extraecclesial interpretation did in fact discourage members from approving the amended measure, and so should all who are following this. Taking both views into account, it may be wise to be open to the possibility that OWE and WOE need to talk to each other face to face-- an indaba?-- before they try to further legislate.

From such discussion, it may emerge that, as you say, the deep issue is whether whose who favour the expanded ministry of women actually cannot conscientiously tolerate the traditional episcopal ministry of men anywhere in England. Yet again, I wonder whether that it is actually the case, and so should all who are following this. If there are actually two (2) "taint" theologies out there, then it might be prudent for the CoE to consider letting doctrine lead practise by unequivocally repudiating both of them in its canons before considering further change.

Carl

You were wrong because you were trying to attribute the issue of authority to me and to those who, like me, want women to be bishops in the Church. In your response you have indicated that it is your own issue and not mine. I don't have an issue with authority. But just to be clear where we stand it might help if you could answer the following question, which arises from your comments:

Would you say that "authority" is a charism of a "bishop", or can you give an example of a circumstance where it is possible to designate a person who does not have special authority within the church a "bishop"?

Mark

Simon

It is clear from the commitment of the archbishops and the Church since 1994 hat they will be provided for, and will come from the identification of people with the charisms of episcopacy from the relevant traditions in the normal way.  

This is "process speak."  It buries a number of inevitable decisions in jargon.  You must be explicit in explaining how clergy who oppose WO may still be added.  It is not sufficient to say they may oppose it privately.  Submission to authority is a public act.  It can't just be believed.  It must be lived and taught.  So how then do you propose to add clergy who specifically reject the authority of those placed over them?  In fact, they won't be added.  Acceptance of WO will become a requirement for ordination.  Which makes the jargon about 'charisms of episcopacy from the relevant traditions' somewhat hollow.

carl

Bowman

I am an American.  I can only tell you what I would do.  If a church of which I was a member stood up a woman in the positon of an elder, I would immediately leave that church.  Such action indicates that the church has used an external standard to norm the Scriptures.  Once that kind of process has been started, it is difficult to stop.

Some opponents of WO will leave.  Some will stay.  But the dynamic will be in place.  Over time you will bleed conservatives.  This will make the church more susceptible to liberal innovations.  The more innovations that occur, the more conservatives will be pushed out.  Eventualy the center of gravity will rise above the center of buoyancy and the whole ship will capsize.  The people at Thinking Anglicans will be delighted - until they realize there is no money to pay salaries.

This is what TEC is currently finding out.  Does the CoE really want to follow TEC on the road to oblivion?

carl

It might help some of us to see this discussion in context if we knew a few things about what the contending parties actually think and might do, as distinct from what they "should" think and "ought" to do.

(a) Is there an appreciation from the rest of the Church of England, including WATCHers, of the continued spiritual value of the historic ministry of men that could be evidence of a desire to maintain it that is credible to Fifists and Reformists? Conversely, could-- I do not say "should"--  the position of the rest of the Church, including WATCHers, plausibly be seen by Fifists and Reformists as a repudiation of that ministry?

(b) Does the absence of such appreciation (or even the presence of such repudiation) actually erode the confidence of Fifists and Reformists that the Church of England will continue the traditional ministry of men? Is it likely that empirical study would find that the discussion of the amendments to the measure has in fact reduced this confidence since the spring?

(c) Is a separation from the Church of England occasioned in whole or part by the consecration of women to the episcopate likely? If so, would it be numerically or geographically significant?

(d) If the answers to (c) are affirmative, are those who favour the consecration of women to the episcopate united in their desire to proceed, even at the cost of division in the church? Conversely, are there any who favour the consecration of women to the episcopate but would oppose proceeding further, if the cost is division in the church?

(e) If the answers to (c) are affirmative, would the new body of separated brethren be a viable church?

(f) If the answers to (c) are affirmative, would the Church of England be either much more liberal or much less evangelical as a result of the separation?

Since I myself am in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, it is hard to know how representative the views expressed on these threads are. Carl has raised some interesting points, as always, but I cannot tell whether he is speaking of  the Church of England as a current member of it.

Carl

You are simply wrong. The argument I am making is framed around women being equally bishops with men (and therefore female bishops having the same jurisdiction and authority as male bishops) - it is not about the enforceability of their authority, but about the fact that they will have same authority as men currently do (which can, under the measure, be delegated - a concept very different from enforcement).

Mark

Hi,

I am sure we all wish John Richardson well, and a long and blessed ministry going forward. However, surely Carl has taken a wrong turning here in making him, and his Parish, an icon of the Dissenters problem.

Whatever happens, the Ugley Vicar will be generally expected to look after himself and cope with what Bishops (of either gender) cast in his direction. He has being doing it for several decades so far, and Dissenters such as myself are not primarily thinking about his generation and the preservation of their ministries.

The real issue is the generation of christian leaders who will take the Gospel to people not yet converted, not yet worried about life and death, even not yet out of their mothers arms or womb.

The Dissenters want a space for these leaders to be nurtured for the work that, in the Providence of God, will be theirs. Our explusion is going to be a grievious assault on that body. 

Peter