Contents
 back to Letters |
 previous story
|
next story 
|
Women bishops: aftermath of the General Synod’s vote last week
From the Revd Sr Rosemary CHN ROSEMARY CHN Convent of the Holy Name Morley Road, Oakwood Derby DE21 4QZ From the Revd Jim Wellington Sir, — The recent vote on women bishops at York was a triumph for theological consistency, but a defeat for generosity. Having rejected the structural solutions designed to reassure dissidents that they still have an honoured place within the Church of England, the Church must now act speedily to try to bridge the inevitable credibility chasm that has resulted from that decision. One way in which this might be done is through some form of covenant, drawn up by the House of Bishops in consultation with those who cannot in conscience accept women in the episcopate, and endorsed by the General Synod. Every new bishop, male or female, could be invited to sign the covenant in a public act of worship shortly after his or her installation. Such an action would carry with it a considerably greater degree of moral and spiritual commitment than the mere words of a voluntary code of practice. The Church has a sacred obligation to reach out to those who are hurting at the present time. Many of them will find this covenant proposal wholly insufficient and will seek to make their spiritual home elsewhere. Others, however, may be reassured by it that the victory of the majority does not necessarily mean the tyranny of the majority, and may be persuaded to stay. Among the various options now open to us, surely this one is worthy of consideration. JIM WELLINGTON The Rectory, Nottingham Road Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5FD From Mrs Anne Martin Sir, — The issue concerning General Synod’s vote on women bishops was whether women should be admitted to the episcopate on equal terms with men without restrictions, or whether formal structures, such as separate dioceses, should be built into the draft legislation for those who would refuse to come under the care of a women bishop. The debate was skilfully and gracefully chaired by the Archdeacon of Tonbridge, who ensured that the Synod heard from a balanced number of speakers from a broad Church. The motion placed before the Synod by the House of Bishops asking for the preparation of legislation mindful of those who cannot support women bishops was clearly passed in all three Houses with minor amendments. The motion enshrined the principle that a woman bishop’s authority should not be diluted. To do otherwise would be a form of discrimination. It was distressing that those of us who sincerely believe that we made the right decision, particularly senior women clergy, were told we should be ashamed. All of us were mindful of those who rejected the motion, but we trust that the legislative drafting group and House of Bishops can find ways to accommodate those who cannot accept women bishops through a statutory national code of practice without diminishing the equality of women bishops. Voting to ask the committee to look at alternatives would only have prolonged the agony and put off the decision. It would also leave the Church of England rightly open to accusations of continuing to look inward on itself. Now it is a matter of trust. We must pray that trust can be sustained in the Church of England. Our future depends upon it. ANNE MARTIN General Synod member 8 Woodberry Close Chiddingfold Surrey GU8 4SF From Prebendary Tony Kyriakides-Yeldham Sir, — For those who since Monday night last week may be ecclesiologically challenged, Michael Ramsey put it most eloquently: the “vindication [of the Anglican Church] lies in its pointing through its own history to something of which it is a fragment. Its credentials are its incompleteness, with the tension and the travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy, it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as the best type of Christianity, but by its very brokenness to point to the Universal Church.” Amen to that. TONY KYRIAKIDES-YELDHAM Dodbrooke Rectory Church Street Kingsbridge Devon TQ7 1NW From the Revd Paul Hamilton Sir, — The General Synod’s inevitable decision not to keep its promise to traditionalists makes at least two underestimations that it may regret. First, it is assuming that the Evangelical contingent who have reluctantly accepted women priests under the headship of a male bishop will be ready to modify their view now that sufficient time has passed. Second, it is assuming that pushing the undecided off the fence will mean that we land on Synod’s side rather than continuing with what the majority of the Church believes. The Synod’s determination to push this through has clouded its vision to the extent that it believes holy orders to be a matter of equality and justice rather than calling. We can but hope that the code of conduct will help us rebuild something robust, but it feels increasingly as if we are going to be building upon sand from now on. PAUL HAMILTON The Rectory, Thorndon Gate Ingrave, Brentwood Essex CM133RG From Mr Kenneth Petrie Sir, — I always was under the impression that it was the promises made by Prime Ministers and MPs that would not be honoured. I was obviously wrong in my assumption. One cannot believe promises made by bishops and some priests. And they call themselves Christians. I sincerely hope that they no longer stand up in their cathedrals or parish churches and state, “I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.” Catholic, yes; apostolic, no. KENNETH PETRIE 197 Parkside Road Bradford BD5 8PG From Miss M. Hughes Sir, — Many years ago, in my parish in London, we had a succession of women deacons, most of whom were very strident feminists. It was the general feeling of the congregation, both male and female, that their wish to be ordained as clergy owed far less to their stated desire to administer the sacrament and fully minister to their parishioners than to achieve another goal in their feminist battle. Women are now able to be ordained, to administer the sacrament, and fully minister to their parishioners. If this was what they wanted, why are they now clamouring to be bishops? M. HUGHES 12 Far Ridding, Gnosall Stafford ST20 0DW From the Revd David Lyon Sir, — Your correspondent Canon David Robinson (Letters, 11 July) asks Catholics “on what grounds they are so sure that women have no place in the apostolate”. The Church of England professes belief in the “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church”. Our Lord founded his Church upon St Peter and the other apostles, who in turn literally handed on to their successors the authority entrusted to them in the sacrament that we now call ordination. The Church of England inherited her threefold holy orders of bishops, priests, and deacons from the apostolic Church, the vast majority of which today comprises the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Holy orders are not held exclusively by the Church of England, and any attempt to change them without reference to — let alone the agreement of — the rest of the apostolic Church would discredit our ability to count ourselves a part of it. Your readers will also begin to understand why so many clergy and laity would be compelled to leave the Church of England if she were to complete a unilateral ordination of women to the episcopate. Those who wish to remain part of the apostolic Church (of England) need proper provision of male bishops whose ministry is independent of the authority of female bishops: nothing else will do. Many are handicapped by mistakenly believing that the Church of England is “the Church” when it isn’t. On this small island, she is a large fish in a small pool; in terms of the apostolic Church, she is very small fry indeed. The only way to resolve this issue once and for all is an Ecumenical Council of the whole apostolic Church. For the vast majority of English people, the Church of England has become a joke. We have far better and more godly things to do than tear ourselves apart. Maybe we should start by converting England to Christianity. DAVID LYON St Peter’s Vicarage, Willows Lane Accrington BB5 0LR From the Revd Richard Tillbrook Sir, — If the good Canon (Letters, 11 July) needs to write to you for information concerning the theological arguments to do with women and the episcopate, a subject that has been much debated for more than 20 years, I can only assume that he is either not genuinely interested, or he has been ministering on a faraway island.If he had read the Church Times, he would know. Perhaps he just wanted to see his name in print. RICHARD TILLBROOK St Barnabas’s Vicarage Abbot’s Road Colchester CO2 8BE From the Revd Peter Elliott Sir, — I find Martin Dales’s letter (11 July) quite bizarre. He states that it cannot be right that any part of the Church should be discriminated against; perhaps there is an omission here, “unless they are women”. Mr Dales is at liberty to change his opinion. A woman finds it difficult to change her gender. PETER ELLIOTT 48 Butterfield Drive Eaglescliffe, Co. Durham |
| back to Letters |
 back to top |
previous story
|
next story
|
