Archbishop of Canterbury: Conservative Bishops 'weakening body of Christ' in row over gays and women

[DeepModem Mom]

London Times: July 17, 2008
Bishops 'weakening body of Christ' in row over gays and women
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Conservative bishops have been accused of breaching their duties and damaging the welfare of Christians as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, fights back against his critics. Anglican bishops arriving for the Lambeth Conference yesterday were told to stop their backstabbing and in-fighting if they were not to “weaken the body of Christ”.

A background paper distributed to 650 bishops and archbishops attending the ten-yearly conference in Canterbury told them to remember that their relationships with each other were “fragile and tainted by sin”. Anglican rows over ordaining gay priests and women bishops were damaging for “all the baptised”, it said. But the most stinging criticism was for conservative bishops, of whom 230, mainly from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda, are boycotting Lambeth.

The paper, commissioned by Dr Williams, made clear that bishops who had transgressed diocesan and provincial boundaries in search of “orthodox” primacy were considered guilty of undermining collegiality. An even worse sin, it suggested, was boycotting the conference....

***

The paper, written by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, represents the start of the fightback by Dr Williams, who has been accused of showing inadequate leadership....

It concedes that there are occasions when a church “falls out of sympathy” with its bishop on matters of doctrine and conduct. But it demands that the ease of modern communication and travel does not excuse choosing a leader in another province to become “chief pastor”. This is a reference to the 300 US parishes that have sought oversight from provinces including Southern Cone, Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/comment/faith/article4347017.ece

[JerseygirlCT]

1. Good to see

but I'll need to see a good bit more before I believe that the ABC has really developed a backbone.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Also waiting-and-seeing here. nt

[knitter4democracy]

2. I agree with him.

That's exactly what they're doing. A house divided against itself has a damn difficult time of standing for long.

[Dorian Gray]

4. What I don't understand

is the theological reasoning behind ordained female priests not being allowed to be ordained as Ministers. I understand that it is a completely different ordination, and I'm sure that there was some theological justification in the Anglican Community, but I have no idea how that can be. (Yes, I further realize that the theological reasoning behind the lack of ordination of females within the Catholic Church AT ALL is debatable, as I have questioned the justification myself.)

I know we have some Episcopalians posting here, and my confusion here is veering slightly OT to the OP. But, JerseygirlCT or anyone else with an Anglican/Episcopalian/United Church of Canada (I believe they are of Anglican origins, as well, no?) background, do you know the prior theological justification for the ordination of females to the Anglican priesthood while not allowing their ordination to Bishophood? It's sort of fascinating to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

6. Well, as we certainly have female bishops now in the

Episcopal church - our Presiding Bishop is a woman - I'm not sure what the rationale is in other places. I'll look into it if I can and get back to you.

But truly, whatever the reasoning is, I'm quite sure it's the sort of made up to cover the fear of girl cooties thing we see with the whole movement against an ordained openly gay bishop. Some people just do not want a woman or an openly gay person as their spiritual leader.

I've often seen the RCC used as some explanation - I think these are the people who really wish to be RC - and they probably ought to just swim the Tiber already and get it over with. But tradition is very appealing to many, and it's usually a process.

I'll see what I can find.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Most of the people against women bishops are also against women priests

However, one can avoid women priests, either by serving in one of the dioceses that doesn't accept them, or by not accepting them in one's own parish or by moving to a different parish if you're a minority holdout against women priests.

The usual "theological" justification is that Jesus chose only male disciples. My counter to that is that is that in his day, most women were married and had children by their mid teens.

Anyway, while the sexist contingent can shut their eyes and pretend that women priests don't exist, bishops are another matter entirely. In the Church of England (Brits can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall a Yes, Prime Minister episode on the subject), bishops are appointed by the government from among candidates nominated by the Church. It's thus possible for a diocese to have to accept a bishop it doesn't want. That's why women bishops per se have become a controversial issue in the UK.

In the U.S., the system is different. Dioceses elect their own bishops from among candidates nominated at large, so in the U.S., no diocese has gotten a woman bishop unless the majority of priests and lay people accepted the idea. What set the "conservatives" off here in the U.S. was the election of a woman presiding bishop, in other words, someone they can't ignore.

So as far as I'm concerned, there's no real theological justification for objection to women bishops apart from the objection to women priests in general. Good old-fashioned sexism is certainly a part of it, but where the manure hits the ventilation device is at the point where the individual sexist can no longer avoid women clerics: with the appointment of women bishops in the U.K. and with the election of a woman presiding bishop in the U.S.

By the way, the United Church of Canada is a union of all the mainline Protestant groups (Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC) that aren't Anglican or Lutheran. Anglicans in Canada are called...Anglicans.

[Dorian Gray]

10. Thanks for the answers here Lydia

(And also to JerseyGirl!) I appreciate your thought out answers, and I sort of assumed it was a hold over of conservatism in the Anglican Church. (And thanks for correcting me about the UCofC, as I was uncertain about that, as well!) But, I truly never thought that if women could be ordained as priests, further ordination as Bishops would be a problem. So, I truly appreciate your answers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Their objections seem to centre around their idea of the continuity of the church

The basic objection is that women priests or bishops aren't valid, for the apparent reason of Jesus' disciples all being men (they were all Jewish and all circumcised, I believe, for that matter, but that doesn't make a difference, strangely). But they then say that since bishops are responsible for presiding at confirmations, and ordaining priests, then those actions will be invalid as well - the 'girl cooties', as JerseygirlCT puts it so well, will infect the future members of the church and its ministers, even if they're men - and if they then become bishops, then their actions will be invalid too, and so on.

I'd guess there's also a conscious, or unconscious, hatred of having a woman in charge of a man - but they don't give that as an official reason.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. What's really irritating is that they're getting their chasubles in a bunch

over something that literally doesn't affect them. The Anglican Communion has a lot of provisions for "local option." The Archbishop of Canterbury is not the Pope and can't order anyone to do anything.

All this fuss is being caused by homophobes and sexists who can't stand it that somebody else has chosen to have women bishops and uncloseted gay bishops.

The "conservatives" may say all sorts of nasty things about Katherine Jefferts Schori ("She went only into the priesthood because she couldn't get a job as a scientist"), which is nonsense. It bugs the "conservatives" immensely that KJS was the overwhelming choice of her fellow bishops and the lay people. It bugs them that the people of New Hampshire chose Gene Robinson as their bishop.

No one is requiring the Africans or Latin Americans even to ordain women or uncloseted gay men, much less make them bishops.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. I think it even bugs the heck out of them that we have a

very democratic system in the US. It irks many that the people of the Episcsopal church got to *choose* Schori, and that the people in NH got to *choose* Gene Robinson. Any perceived dimunition of their power - even elsewhere, where as you say, it doesn't impact them in the least - is not allowable. Their people might start getting ideas.

[Warpy]

9. OK, color me impressed by Dr. Williams.

Usually, they just blame gays and women for wanting too much and cave to the pursed lips crowd. He's actually put the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of prissy, intolerant people who have refused to take Jesus's words seriously.

I wish there were more of him. If there were, Christians wouldn't have such a bad name.

[kwassa]

11. the comments from readers of the Times article are really vile.

Enough to make me sick to my stomach, but it really does indicate how bizarre some believers can really be.

Same link as the original article.