Assumptions

If women can lead a church why are they not allowed to be bishops?  That question is often asked.  Many think the Church of England inconsistent.  How should we react?

Agree

First, we should agree.  Yes, the church did act oddly both in the 1980s (when it allowed deaconesses to be made deacons) and in 1992 (when it approved the ordination of women to the presbyterate).  Many, at the time, pointed out that things were wrong.  They correctly argued that decisions about the ordination of women should begin with a discussion on whether women may be made bishops.  What were they told?  In the words of Archbishop Robert Runcie, that “was a fence too high.”  In other words he knew it was something the church would not approve.  At the time he was right.

So what happened?  The reformists opted for a step by step approach.   We will get what we want, they thought, by starting from the bottom. We will work up and get there in stages.  Thus they argued it was wrong for deaconesses and lady parish workers to be excluded from the House of Clergy in the synods of the church.  After all, they said, they receive an allowance just like the clergy.  Why are they in the House of Laity?  Some said we did not need to make them deacons.  Instead there could be a section of synod for those on stipends.  But that would not do.  And so deaconesses were made deacons.  The march toward women being bishops began.

Accept

Secondly, we should accept two or more wrongs do not make a thing right.  Have you noticed how shallow the arguments are.  When did you hear a debate in which the teaching of the Bible was carefully and thoroughly considered?  Some have sat through many meetings and have not yet witnessed such in the deanery, the diocese or general synod.  In fact, a foreign reporter, who sat through the debate of 20 November 2012, has stated he was very surprised by the shallowness of the debate.  He was amazed at how scriptural and theological arguments were given such scant attention.

Why did this happen?  Why were the arguments mainly emotional and pragmatic?  Surely it was because the inconsistency of what the church has done stared us in the face.  Certainly the media and the world kept speaking of it.  How could the wrong be put right?  Either by recognizing the church had done wrong in the past, or by making women bishops.  The majority are not prepared to do the former.  But to compound our mistakes by doing another wrong will not put things right.

Admit

Thirdly, we should admit the church is under the judgment of God.  He is displeased with the Church of England.

Take a careful look at Isaiah 3 and you will see it is so.  Yes, we agree the passage does not mention the Church of England.  But it does refer to the people of God.  The prophet uses terms well understood at the time.  He speaks of Judah and Jerusalem (verse 1).  These terms refer to the people of God.

What does Isaiah say?  He says because they had disobeyed God’s word God will judge them.  He will take away their support and supply, and he will remove their civil, military and spiritual leaders (verse 2f).  Instead he will give infants and boys (verse4f) as leaders.  But that is not all.  In verse 12 we find leadership of God’s people by women is also evidence of his judgment.

God, on 20 November 2012, has provided the CofE an opportunity to step back and take stock.  Will it do so?  Or will it try to find a way to add to the mistakes it has made over the last 30 years?  Sadly, it looks more like doing the latter than the former.  However, as Isaiah knew, God is good and kind.  He looks after his people.  He has provided a Saviour.  He will preserve a remnant.  There will always be some who love him; and who show their love for him by keeping his Word.

The CofE may be all but finished as a church.  God’s people never will be.  They shall prosper.

2 December 2012