X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Features

Conservative Anglicans’ emergency plan to escape women bishops

The Anglican Mission in England looks like a support group. But if required, it could turn into rather more than that

20 September 2014

9:00 AM

20 September 2014

9:00 AM

Anglicans aren’t the sort of church-goers who set much store by miracles, signs and wonders. Yet their own church is one of the greatest miracles of our society: it has managed to hang together, in spite of raging differences, for centuries.

Since 14 July, that miracle has been under threat. For most, it was a great leap forward when the General Synod finally approved the ordination of women bishops. A delighted Archbishop of Canterbury was ‘grateful to God and to answered prayers’. David Cameron called it a ‘great day for the church and for equality’.

But one section of the church didn’t feel it was a great day. Members of the conservative evangelical movement, represented by a pressure group called Reform, had resisted this change for years. Reform was set up after the Church of England approved the ordination of women as priests in 1993. Before the vote on bishops, they and the remaining Anglo-Catholics had argued there was insufficient provision for those who still believed that the Bible does not permit women to lead in this way. The conservatives feared being forced to submit to a bishop whose authority they disputed. They lost the argument.

Next week Reform will hold a conference for its members to decide what happens next. And what does happen next will surely change the character of the Church of England, for better or worse.

By the time July’s vote rolled around, the conservatives just wanted an exemption from being led by a female bishop. They argued that if a woman was appointed in their diocese, those churches that are ‘complementarian’ (believe that men and women are equal in the sight of God but have different roles) could have a different spiritual leader. They failed to get this, but the declaration by the House of Bishops said it was dedicated to this particular group ‘flourishing’ in the Church of England, and will appoint a conservative evangelical bishop to ‘represent them’.

[Alt-Text]


This word ‘flourish’ may prove more sinister than it sounds. It seems to be that complementarians can continue to believe what they do, but only so long as they don’t cause a fuss if a woman is appointed in their diocese. Conservative clergy applying for jobs may find that their honesty about their stance on this issue puts an interview panel off them entirely. Silent flourishing is welcome, but nothing more vocal, thank you.

To non-Anglicans, this probably sounds like a storm in a vicarage teacup. Even other Christian denominations might be bemused: the Bible talks only of overseers and deacons, so the Church of England is bickering over a made-up job. Baptists might well feel they’d got it right all along: by not having bishops, you can avoid an almighty row.

Even to those who do worship in Anglican churches, it’s difficult to understand why this has become such a big problem that it requires pressure groups, repeated votes and horsetrading. The church once again seems obsessed by gender and sex when the outside world has moved on.

The conservatives themselves say that these debates are ‘secondary issues’ that shouldn’t split the church. But they’ve spent a heck of a lot of time and effort fighting over something ‘secondary’, haven’t they? Susie Leafe, director of Reform, argues that she and her colleagues are not stick-in-the-muds but are instead sticking to the Bible: ‘Who are we to redefine who God claims to be and what He says?’ Those bits of the Good Book, incidentally, include 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet’, and 1 Corinthians 11:3, in which the early church is told that ‘the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man’.

Liberals take those verses with a strong dose of context: women were barely educated when the church was forming. And elsewhere, Paul also instructs women to cover their heads, which not even Reform advocates. Even evangelicals can’t agree on the practical implications of these verses: the late theologian John Stott argued that it meant women could be teachers but not bishops. Others, like those parishes associated with Holy Trinity Brompton and the Alpha Course, are quite comfortable with women serving in all roles.

But for those who do take a literal reading of these verses — and who don’t fancy Catholicism — a split looms. It won’t be dramatic or happen all at once: Reform anticipates that Anglican congregations who disagree with female bishops will be forced to leave whenever their diocese is led by a woman. But they don’t want to join the Baptists or other evangelical denominations: they see themselves as Anglicans, committed to those articles of faith that jumbled them into the C of E in the first place.

Instead, they have an alternative Anglican structure waiting for them. It is called the Anglican Mission in England (Amie) and was set up by the Global Anglican Future Conference, itself a deeply conservative movement in the global communion. Amie is a support group, but it is also well organised, and would be able to cope with practical administrative matters for refugee evangelical groups.

Good riddance, loyal Anglicans might say. If you can’t commit to the compromises necessary to be part of that miraculous unity of liberals and conservatives, high church and low church, then you haven’t really got it in you to be a proper Anglican anyway.

But those preparing to pack up their bags or declare independence argue that they represent the growing wing of the Church of England, and say they’ll leave behind liberals who cannot keep Anglicanism alive. Reform’s research backs them up: in a survey of 185 churches who opposed women bishops, two thirds had grown in the past decade, with a third growing by more than 33 per cent each year. And a third of these congregations are under 30. For the rest of the church, the picture is miserable: the average age of a congregation is 62 and nearly half of English congregations have fewer than five members under 16.

This isn’t quite fair to the churches the conservatives would leave behind. If Holy Trinity Brompton, which devised the world-famous Alpha Course, is happily staying, then the C of E is hardly doomed to a dusty decline. But if a rapidly growing branch of the church breaks off, soon Anglicanism could be somewhat less miraculous.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close