Fulcrum Statement on Women Bishops (CofE) - Watching Conservatives Getting Pushed off the Cliff

I think he means “more listening,  and more listening and more listening and more….”

Thank you David for publicising this.  Those in the USA of course will have a strong sense of deja vu, but there are many in the Church of England who are still naive about what they are facing.  They need to face up to reality. 

It still doesn’t seem to have occurred to “moderates” in CofE such as Fulcrum that orthodox evangelicals not only won’t accept these innovations, but they don’t have to either.  The polity of CofE is such that the liberals will find it very difficult to do a Schori on them (i.e. drive them out).  They can simultaneously work inside and outside CofE structures while the rest of the CofE withers.  The question for these moderates is, do you really want that to happen?  If you push the evangelicals far enough, you will end up with the UK equivalent of ACNA on your hands, yet at the same time you will still have orthodox working away within CofE.

And this won’t be like Methodism in the 18th century, when all those pesky methodists eventually had no option but to conform or leave and start their own denomination.  The approval of numerous overseas primates means that any ACNA-type movement will have both legitimacy and longevity.  CofE can avoid that happening, but not by adopting the “my way or the highway” tactics displayed by liberals and many moderates in CofE.

Thanks for this helpful article, David.  I find the threat and manipulation of this particular line to be particularly shameful:

We further hope that those who are against will be able in good conscience to abstain, recognising that it is clearly the will of the Church to proceed, and then work with the provision, which is unlikely to be strengthened should the legislation fall this time.

Well no—it may not be “the will of the Church to proceed” without adequate safeguards for those opposed. And the only way we’ll know is if those opposed actually vote against the legislation.

Obviously, I hope the legislation fails—and if it does it will be in part because of the disgraceful machinations of organizations like Fulcrum, Watch, and various others who have worked to not allow safeguards for evangelicals and AngloCatholics in their opposition to women bishops.

It is sad indeed to see Fulcrum take the Laodicean path, but it is at least helpful that they can be seen for what they are.  Those who compromise in ways like this seldom stop there.  Because they have developed an attitude that absolutes are wrong (or unsophisticated, unfashionable, unattractive, etc.), nothing for them is absolute.  So the authority of Scripture, the uniqueness of salvation in Christ, his substitutionary atonement, his bodily Resurrection, his virgin birth, the reality of Deity becoming incarnate at all—all of these become negotiable eventually.

I realize that this sounds cynical, but I have seen individuals start on this path so often (Rob Bell and Brian McLaren being two well-known examples on the American side of the pond) that it is hard to regard this kind of evangelicals as anything other than apostates-in-formation.  Once embarked on this downward path, the only redemption (apart from repentance) I have ever seen is some sentimental inconsistency that causes them to retain some part of orthodoxy, or a lifespan that is too short for them to follow the slippery slope all the way to the bottom. Of course, repentance is what we need to pray for—and a revival that touches the hearts and minds of these folks and brings them to give glory to Christ once again. This is why this is more than a matter of women bishops and why the CofE needs the prayers of all of us.

Unless a separate structure is approved, the slow strangulation of the traditional position becomes inevitable as soon as women bishops are approved.  Anyone who rejects WO will no longer be approved for ordination.  Laity will be deliberately starved of any leadership opposed to WO.  They will receive male leadership, but that new leadership will be given the task of re-educating the recalcitrants.  In the meantime, the theological mean of the CoE will swing markedly to the left with each new appointment of a woman as bishop.  The conservative opposition will slowly fracture over what to do next.  Some will leave.  Some will stay.  Some will dither.  Conservative growth will stop as the church becomes more and more liberal in its theology.  This is a sure path to TECification.

You can perhaps defeat the proposal, but that only delays the inevitable.  It’s guaranteed to keep coming back.  Eventually it will be approved, but with much harsher terms then are now being offered.  Proponents are being honest about that.  They are offering the red flag of Tamerlane at the moment.  Defeat this proposal, and they will display the black flag instead.  It might even trigger the nuclear option of Parliamentary intervention.  If that happens, then traditionalists will receive less than nothing. 

So what then?  The battle must be joined.  And the first thing to do is cut off the money.  If the CoE won’t create a separate structure, then conservatives should carve out a de facto separate structure.  They should develop a separate conservative funding stream that is independent of the main structures of the church.  It is unfortunate this option wasn’t implemented two years ago.  It would have created very different facts on the ground.  Second, an independent authority structure must be created to provide leadership.  This will provide a place of service for traditionalist clergy once they are no longer received in the CoE.  It will also insure the laity are not left orphaned and shepherdless - that being an explicit objective of proponents.  Third, and most important,it must be admitted that the battle is largely lost.  The CoE is moving to expel the traditionalist position, and traditionalists don’t have the power to stop it over the long term.  Any accommodation traditionalists might receive will be intended only to make that expulsion as easy and painless as possible for the institution that is the CoE.  The counter goal must therefore be to make it as painful as possible. 

Facts must be faced, and I wonder if it wouldn’t be better in the long run for this proposal to be approved.  It would put an end to the vain hope that some accommodation can be reached, and at long last force the fight.  Conservatives must no longer seek to find a comfortable place in a church that accommodates liberalism.  They must seek to drive it out, or leave it to collapse of its own weight.

carl

Carl,

I agree with your general sentiments and principles, but the reality on the ground in CofE is distinctly different to that which applies in the USA.

There is no need to simply give up on CofE.  The actual number of liberal activists is very small, and their almost total control of the bishops and cathedrals doesn’t give them absolute power. 

Even this can be deceptive - the one diocese that the liberals do not control is London, yet London is the powerhouse diocese of CofE.

Also, the advent of women bishops is unlikely to make as much difference as you might think, simply because most bishops are already strongly liberal.

Many large evangelical churches have operated with virtually no interaction with their liberal bishops for over 10 years and they can continue that way for decades to come.

Despite hierarchical frowning on ordinands who reject WO, the orthodox churches continue to operate.  Even very liberal bishops usually approve their ordinands because they don’t want to pick a fight with the large and wealthy evangelical churches from where most ordinands come.  When liberal bishops have picked a fight, it has often ended badly for them – e.g. when the orthodox brought in foreign bishops to carry out irregular but valid ordinations in 1998 and 2005.  In 1998 the bishop of Newcastle backed off, and in 2005 the bishop of Southwark withdrew the licence of the organising priest, but was then hung out to dry by his fellow bishops and the ABC.  Then in 2011 the Southwark churches shipped their ordinands over to Kenya for the Primate to ordain them, and the ABC made a token protest and that was it.

Parliamentary intervention to achieve women bishops is most unlikely, for a number of reasons.  Which is paradoxically why some prominent liberals are threatening it now – if the CofE doesn’t agree itself to have women bishops, then it is almost certainly not going to happen so they are desperate to persuade the orthodox to give in.

I’m thinking Fulcrum is stabbing the orthodox in the back . . . again.

I’m regularly repelled by the breezy readiness of some in the church to adopt innovations that excommunicate orthodox, fellow anglicans.  It is quite telling about the nature, fruit, and motivation of the self-avowed radical innovators.

It is no less so when the innovating group hides behind meaningless words that are belied by their actions: “fulcrum embraces an historic orthodoxy that is generous in spirit…”

Hah!  What a joke.

Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive episcopal oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.

Depo II. And how did Depo I turn out?

A CoE with female Bishops is a Church in blatant opposition to the advice of the apostles. Blatant at least to those who care to study the history of the Church. The so called “three legged stool” becomes a sole peg leg, that of “reason.” I agree with Carl that the history of TEc predicts for an inevitable slouching, shrugging, walk to the left.

Though given one peg leg it will probably be a mighty fall to the left.

MichaelA

I must admit that when I wrote that post last night, I spent as much time trying to anticipate your objections as I did writing the post.  I hope you will accept this in the spirit of the compliment intended.  You treated me much more gently than I expected. I fully expected that you would beat me about the head and ears with a large heavy stick.

In any case.

The actual number of liberal activists is very small, and their almost total control of the bishops and cathedrals doesn’t give them absolute power.

But they are well-placed.  They control the positions of power in an hierarchical organization.  As happened with TEC, a well-placed cadre can fell a large organization if that cadre controls the levers of power.

Even this can be deceptive - the one diocese that the liberals do not control is London, yet London is the powerhouse diocese of CofE.

But who will replace him?  He will retire soon.  Who will come after?  Who will make the selection of his replacement?  The Ugley Vicar mentions every now and then about the dearth of Conservative Evangelical appointed as bishops.  This isn’t going to improve.  It’s going to get worse.  And a diocese with a liberal bishops tends to follow the bishop into liberalism.

Also, the advent of women bishops is unlikely to make as much difference as you might think, simply because most bishops are already strongly liberal.

There are liberals and then there are liberals.  Geralyn Wolf is not the same as KJS.  The type of woman likely to be appointed will be an aggressive advocate for the cause. 

Many large evangelical churches have operated with virtually no interaction with their liberal bishops for over 10 years and they can continue that way for decades to come.

The important word being ‘large.’  I fear many medium and small churches will be left defenseless against hostile bishops who wish to impose change and have the power to do so.  The accommodations that have been offered are intended to provide for the current clergy.  They will not provide for laity.  Once the present traditionalist leadership is gone, it will be gone for good.  There may be some churches that have the critical mass to ignore this dynamic.  But how do they avoid becoming de facto congregationalist churches in the process?

Despite hierarchical frowning on ordinands who reject WO, the orthodox churches continue to operate.

A few will continue to operate.  Many others will be steam-rolled. 

Even very liberal bishops usually approve their ordinands because they don’t want to pick a fight with the large and wealthy evangelical churches from where most ordinands come.

And yet is was Reform that said an approval of women bishops without safeguards would require alternatives for new ordinands.  It said that funding for the diocese would have to be reduced because this new reality would require support for ordinands in other settings.

When liberal bishops have picked a fight, it has often ended badly for them

I don’t see how this ends badly for them.  They can ruthlessly attrit the small and medium parishes and ghettoize the orthodox parishes too powerful to directly challenge.  Ultimately the hierarchy controls who gets accepted.  Besides, I don’t see how someone who rejects women bishops in theory can submit himself to the spiritual authority of a woman in practice.  And that is what will be required of all new ordinands.  The principle by itself will keep most traditionalists away.

Parliamentary intervention to achieve women bishops is most unlikely, for number of reasons.

Perhaps.  It does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that this could happen however.  The leadership of the CoE wants it.  The egalitarian culture in the UK demands it.  And the secular culture in the UK has no sympathy for the theology set against it.  This could easily be spun as Parliament crushing a misogynist minority for the sake of the justice and the majority will.  Who is going to take the traditionalist side?

carl

“I fully expected that you would beat me about the head and ears with a large heavy stick.”

You have to pay extra for that… 

The Ugley Vicar mentions every now and then about the dearth of Conservative Evangelical appointed as bishops.  This isn’t going to improve.  It’s going to get worse.

With respect to Carl, with the imminent retirement of Wallace Benn, we will have none. It may well not improve, but logically it isn’t possible for it to get worse.

A little further on that point - the new bishop of Whitby has just been appointed.  He is an anglo-catholic and as best I can tell, quite orthodox.  Forward in Faith UK seem happy with his appointment, and on that basis, I will be happy about it also. 

Now, many evangelicals in CofE are querying why orthodox anglo-catholics get appointed (occasionally) to bishoprics in CofE, but orthodox evangelicals do not. 

Interesting question.  I suggest that the answer is encouraging, in a perverse way: Fear.

The liberals will appoint the occasional anglo-catholic bishop because there aren’t enough anglo-catholics left in CofE for them really to be worried about them.  But the orthodox evangelicals do scare the liberals because there are many more of them, and because they are often well organised in large parishes.  Giving them bishops would just add to their already considerable clout.

If I am correct, then the liberals are right to fear them, and to try to keep them quiet by whatever means possible, because the orthodox evangelicals in CofE mostly haven’t woken up yet.  They are stirring, however.

This link I think helps to explain why I believe that “conservative evangelicals” (what I would term orthodox evangelicals) should be fighting hard to hold their place in the Church of England:  http://reform.org.uk/news/src/archive/10-2012/title/autumn-2012-reform-newsletter-abridged

Readers will note that Reform holds out no false hope that victory is guaranteed.  Rather they are realistic that they might well have to leave in the end.  But until that happens they intend to do everything they can to turn the CofE around from its current course.  In the meantime, their member churches are continuing to make disciples, plant new churches and put their young people through theological training. 

Many of the new churches planted by Reform churches are “missions” working from leased premises and often largely funded by private donation.  That way they have no permanent ties to the CofE establishment.  If necessary, they can walk out of CofE overnight.  So the groundwork for leaving is there, if necessary.  But they hope that they don’t have to do that.

Although its anecdotal, I expect the suggestion that “some 70% of all male ordinands under the age of 30 [in CofE] are from conservative evangelical churches” is very close to the mark.  And of course, being from that background, they have good prospects of getting stipendiary positions, since the basic requirement for that is a willing congregation.  That situation will remain the same even if their churches and missions have to leave CofE.

By contrast, many liberal women ordinands to the priesthood in CofE are dismayed to find that the only roles they can get are part-time or voluntary - without committed congregational numbers behind them, what else did they expect?

News update.  Fulcrum was arguing against the Church of England Evangelical Council which had joined Reform in urging members to vote against the women bishops measure. 

Now the Church Society has also urged its members to vote against the measure: http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1519

Forgive my ignorance…is there precedent for people who have theological problems with their Bishop to receive episcopal oversight from another Bishop?  Has this been done in the past for other issues?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincial_episcopal_visitor

S. Hamilton, it won’t be a problem if CofE rejects the women bishops measure, will it?