The Church of England has just approved the ordination of women as bishops. This was a very controversial and divisive subject, where no compromise was found. One proposal had allowed for a form of legal separation for control and property if that church objected to being under a woman bishop. But that proposal failed and little else was ultimately achieved by the traditionalists.
On an ecumenical front, the Roman Catholic Church has expressed its regret with this decision. This makes attempts at reconciliation even more difficult. Interestingly, however, it probably will increase the ranks of the R.C. church, as frustrated C of E'ers opt out. You can read a news report on the voting here, and a blog about the meeting here. Next up: gay priests--looks like a lot of fun for the synod members.
Going forward, it certainly--as Rome notes--makes reconciliation with traditional churches more difficult. It also signals the basic approach the the majority of members are taking to interpreting the scriptures, especially with respect to ecclesiastical matters. Specifically, it seems that the scriptures are seen through the lens of the mores of secular modernity--or worse, post-modernity. This approach has a profound effect on creating church positions on any number of other issues. Thus, the decision itself is historic and interesting, but the assumptions made leading to the decision are the more important story.
As I read the New Testament, there are few church-oriented commands more frequently mentioned or more emphasized than 'unity'. This decision does not help with church unity. Of course, both sides would claim that the other prevailing reduced their 'unity.' But it seems best that those seeking change--especially change that has never happened in 2,000 years, ought to have the burden of making a compelling case. Thus, even in change, we ought to be united. If the 'changers'--as opposed to 'reformers', who might be seeking a restoration rather than something new--have not convinced enough of their fellow members, then possibly persuasion, rather than parliamentary procedure and advantage, is the best course to maintain unity. The counterpoint, however, is that if they are certain they are right, not changing the church would be wrong. I fear that worrying about that point, however, is not as central as St. Paul's and Christ's exhortations to unity--and it flirts with hubris as well.
United we stand,
Thomas More
Comments