• Taint

    The Church of England has a problem. Well, the Church of England has many problems, but the one that it is waking up to at the moment is that women bishops are getting closer and closer to it and it hasn’t quite worked out what to do.

    Why does it have to do anything?

    Ah, well there exists a settlement in the Church of England whereby the Church of England does not fully recognise as bishops those bishops in the Anglican communion who have been consecrated in other parts of the Anglican world who happen to be women.

    Now this means that priests who have been ordained by such bishops cannot serve in the Church of England. All those claims that churches which allow the consecration of women as bishops make about being in full communion with the Church of England are deeply compromised by this.

    The election of a female candidate to the episcopacy in Ireland is a joyful thing. It is right, I think, that all positions in the church should be open to both men and women equally. I long for this to have become normal so that we can then get on with talking about what kind of episcopacy we think the church needs. We’ve got so hung up on gender that we’ve not really been able to talk much about episcopacy itself. I’m one of those pesky people who is a passionate advocate of equality in this area who also thinks that it will make very little difference to the leadership that the church receives. My belief that women and men can lead the church equally is founded in a belief that women and men have the same capacity for both glory and despair as one another. My training convinced me precisely that women and men in the church need equal opportunities because I saw that women in leadership positions in the church are capable of exactly the same cruelty as men.

    However I digress.

    I find today an excellent post has been published from Will Adam, editor of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal and Vicar of St Paul’s, Winchmore Hill in the Diocese of London on the recognition of orders. I was unaware that the Scottish Episcopal Church had a different legal position with regards to the Church of England to the churches in Ireland and Wales, but it is so. A Church of England bishop can apparently refuse to receive the orders of someone ordained in Scotland for any reason but not those from Ireland and Wales.

    However there also appears to be an argument in the same post (which  I have to admit I don’t understand with respect to Scotland) saying that there is be no way that a Church of England bishop could automatically refuse to receive the orders of someone ordained by a bishop who happens to be a women provided they come from within the British Isles, though they could be refused from elsewhere. (If I read that right).

    All of which must make Church of England legal types sit up and take notice.

    I’m interested in this not simply from a legal point of view though. Some people in Anglicanism believe that women cannot be ordained and refuse to receive their ministry. I don’t think I  very often encounter such people and in Scotland, our legislation on ordaining bishops is a done deal. If a diocese chooses a female candidate for the episcopate then that is that. If she has any problem ministering to anyone in her diocese then she can, if she thinks it will help, ask a colleague from the college of bishops to help her out. However, that is her choice and not anyone else’s. We don’t have legal “protection” for those who can’t accept women as bishops and we are not going to. And we thank God we don’t.

    Amongst those who can’t accept women there has developed this peculiar mentality which people refer to as a theology of taint. It is sometimes denied to be such, but the fact remains that there are some who won’t recognise the ministry of those who have been ordained by women, never mind the women themselves. It looks like a theology of taint and it sounds like a theology of taint and frankly to me it is precisely a theology of taint.

    What I’m interested in is that with respect of our current bishops in Scotland, all of them have either had a female co-consecrator present at their consecration, joined in consecrating someone with a female co-consecrator present or have been consecrated by someone who has had a female co-consecrator present at their own consecration.

    What I wonder is whether those who apply the theology of taint believe that anyone at all (bishops, priests or deacons) now ordained in Scotland is legit.

    Oh, and by the way an English bishop was present and joining in when this situation began. I was there – I saw it with my own eyes.

    Where does this leave the Scottish Episcopal Church in relation to those who would deny the legitimacy of women to act as bishops?

    (The bishop who happens to be a women who joined the SEC for a consecration was a delight and I attempted to teach her the gay gordons).

    Do we, or do we not, remain in full communion with [all of] the Church of England?

10 responses to “The end of the World”

  1. agatha Avatar
    agatha

    Mildly serious question that has never occurred to me before. Why does she still get called the Virgin Mary when Jesus had brothers she presumably had in the normal way?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Well, there are those who try to make the case that she remained “ever” Virgin and that the reference to Jesus’s brothers is an oblique and more general reference to the men of the extended family – cousins, uncles and so on. I think that’s rather silly myself.

      The Blessed Virgin Mary is simply one of the titles afforded her because of the persistent story of Christ’s birth. For myself, I think there is more interesting theological ground to be ploughed by thinking of her as exemplifying a virgin world waiting in longing and expectation for God to come. That kind of thing seems to me to be considerably more potent than birth-story tittle-tattle.

  2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    When I was young I was sure the birth story was ‘just a myth’ – but then as I got deeper into history I got more experienced at evaluating stories. Not, you understand, ‘form-critical’ experienced, but historical experienced. What now strikes me with force is that two very different writers tell very different stories about the birth of Jesus with very different genealogies. However, despite the two birth stories coming from markedly different traditions, both bill Mary as a virgin. In any other context, I would find that more than convincing. So here, too, I let myself be convinced. As a sober historian, and cynic, I find it the most probably explanation. Not the only historically possible one, just the most generally convincing.

    Generally, I find historical thought more satisfying than the more circular arguments of form criticism. I am fairly sure I could use form criticism to disprove the fact that David Cameron is currently the PM.

  3. agatha Avatar
    agatha

    Thanks – I have no problem with the virgin birth, its been humanly possible for decades now so I reckon God could have arranged it easily enough a couple of thousand years ago.

  4. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Well, actually it is NOT humanly possible – even with IVF. You cannot get a boy baby, humanly speaking, without a father. But then, humanly speaking, bodies do not resurrect, and walk and talk and eat…

  5. agatha Avatar
    agatha

    Rosemary, I think you are being a bit technical. Where I come from a virgin is someone who hasn’t had sex.

  6. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    The problem is that it is not the ‘having sex’ but the chromosomes in the baby. Or to put it another way – how did Jesus get his X? It is easy enough to get pregnant without ‘having sex’ but harder without ‘having sperm’. Despite that, the evidence is that two unrelated stories believe it was done. And two unrelated stories believe the babe was born in Bethlehem. Very interesting.

  7. Agatha Avatar
    Agatha

    From God?

  8. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Sperm from God? Not I think, stories ‘from God’ except in the general sense that all understanding is divine. No. Stories from history. And the biology? Truly beyond current understanding. But, here you have it – if one understands it ceases to be amazing and people say : ‘Now we understand, that is not a miracle and Jesus is not form God.’ And if we do not understand, people say: ‘We do not understand and so it cannot have happened, and Jesus is not from God.’

  9. Agatha Avatar
    Agatha

    If I didn’t believe God could knock out a few sperm as and when required I would have Sunday mornings free.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Blackbird singing in the dead of night

    One of the things that we were given to do on last week’s congregational weekend was to think of things that make us happy. There is a theory that if you make a habit of recalling three happy things that have happened to you each day, then it improves your mood. We used to call…

  • The Queer Bible Commentary – Book Review

    This book brings together the work of many different writers who are known for their interest in the area of gender, sexuality and Biblical Studies. Whilst the Anglican Communion ties itself in knots over one gay bishop, gay theologians, writers and pastors are at work all over the world reading biblical texts in both radically…

  • All is vanity

    All, as we know from Quohelet, is vanity. Lo, I looked into a mirror and I beheld my father’s eyebrows growing upon my own face. This, as anyone knows is not a desirable thing, so I took myself off into town to look for a trimming implement. Little did I know how many male trimming…

  • Apologia

    Kudos to Mother Ruth for spotting Bishop Ted Gulick’s apology to gay and lesbian members of the church. However, I think she has missed the fact that Bishop Ted is bishop of Glasgow and Galloway’s companion diocese in the US. “In his annual report to the diocese’s convention Saturday, Bishop Ted Gulick said he’s trying…