Tuesday, 9 February 2010


Monday 8th February 2010

Dear Bishops and Synod members,

As 50 incumbents of Church of England churches we are writing to say why, in our view, the consecration of women bishops would be a mistake and would raise for us great difficulties of conscience and practice, as well as being wrong for our Church as a whole.

Our concern is derived from Scripture. It seems to us that the Apostolic teaching on male headship in church and family (as in 1 Corinthians 11-14, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3) is clear enough in its principles: overall leadership in the church is to be exercised by men. The fierce debates that have surrounded the gender issue over the last twenty years or so have stimulated much careful analysis of these texts, and have only served to show that mainstream translations such as NRSV, NIV, REB and ESV are correct in their translation and may (and should) be taken as they stand.

It is, of course, right to say that these passages in Paul and Peter have a particular cultural setting; but to make them prisoners of that culture and thus unable to challenge our culture, seems to us implicitly to deny the authority of Scripture. It is surely the genius of the New Testament that what was spoken in a particular context is at one and the same time also God’s word to us. Far from being a prisoner of his culture, Paul is not afraid to challenge it, warning his readers “not to live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking” (Eph 4:17). Why, then, is it assumed he will uncritically reflect their values on this issue of gender?

Therefore we think the historic, reasoned reflection of Christians down the ages (including the historic position of the Church of England) has been correct; we fear that the current pressure to overturn it comes not for biblical reasons but because we are losing our nerve in the face of pressure from society.

In saying all this, we emphasise again that we are NOT for a moment saying women are less valuable than men, and nor does the Scripture. This, in our experience, is the point which we find hardest to communicate, since the world about us equates value with power. Just by making this point we are thought to be “anti-women”. On the contrary, it is both possible and right to affirm that we are “all one in Christ Jesus”, while at the same time affirming different roles. For the Bible separates roles and worth: our Lord Jesus himself submitted to the Father, but is, of course, no less God than he is.

There are, of course, questions about how precisely to honour this teaching in some details of the life of our churches today, but few would doubt, surely, that the office of bishop is indeed very much a leadership function!

In our own churches we are glad to teach these passages of Scripture as they stand, and include a ‘complementary’ view of gender roles in our teaching on marriage, family life and church. Gently ordering our shared life this way is, in our view, vital to our witness to a Christian understanding of family life. Our churches contain many members - and very many women as well as men - who are glad of this teaching, which is all the more important in a world which is so confused about gender roles and sexuality in general. In such a context, the oversight of a woman bishop would be enormously hard to explain, however great her merits in other regards. Again and again, in our youth groups, at marriage preparation and whenever covering the relevant passages in homegroups and from the pulpit, we would find ourselves having to answer people’s question, “Why does the Church of England go against this?” This would fester on for as long as people have Bibles in their hands.

In the end, this is an issue about our view of Holy Scripture, and this is why it matters to us so much, as ministers of the Word.

As matters stand, it seems likely that General Synod will be invited to vote on legislative proposals that threaten our ministries. An illustration of the practical problems we will face should a Measure fail to provide adequate safeguards, can be seen with future ordinands. At the moment we are encouraging young men into the ordained ministry in the knowledge that they cannot be discriminated against if they hold convictions about male headship. While this remains the case, we have encouraged them to believe that there is a worthwhile future for their ministries in the Church of England. However, we will be unable to do this if inadequately protective legislation is passed. The issue that will then arise is how to encourage these men to develop their ministries if they cannot do so within the formal structures of the Church of England. The answer must be to encourage them to undertake training for ministries outside those formal structures, although hopefully still within an Anglican tradition. We will, of course, have to help them with the financing of their training.

Our congregations will inevitably start asking questions about their own place within the Church of England if they see us encouraging people into training for alternative ministries. This will come into sharp focus when the issue of succession to an incumbency arises. Since we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a female bishop, we are unlikely to be appointed to future incumbencies. We see nothing but difficulty facing us. In these circumstances we will have to discuss with our congregations how to foster and protect the ministry they wish to receive. This is likely to generate a need for the creation of new independent charitable trusts whose purpose will be to finance our future ministries, when the need arises.

These twin developments will need to be financed from current congregational giving. This will inevitably put a severe strain on our ability to continue to contribute financially to Diocesan funds. Where we are unable to contribute as before some will see this as a form of retaliation. However, that could not be further from the truth. We long to contribute to the well being of the Church of England. Over the last ten years we have encouraged more than 180 young men into the ordained ministry, over 50% of whom were under the age of 30. We have together contributed a gross figure of more than £22million to Diocesan funds.

Finally, for those of us ordained since 1992, our understanding, in good faith, was that proper legal provision would be made for those who did not agree that women should have the overall leadership of a church (Resolution B, etc). It seems to us a matter of simple integrity that Synod should now keep its word to us in this and not force us down a road none of us wish to tread.

Yours in Christ,

Rev’d Rod Thomas St Matthew’s Elburton, Exeter

(Chairman of Reform)

and 49 other signatories, which follow

Rev’d Michael Andreyev St Peter’s Stapenhill, Derby

Rev’d Nigel Atkinson St John’s Knutsford, Chester

Rev’d Simon Austen St John’s and St Peter’s, Carlisle

Rev’d Martin Bailey All Saints Riseley, Peterborough

Rev’d Iain Baker St Thomas Kidsgrove, Lichfield

Rev’d Hugh Balfour Christ Church Peckham, Southwark

Rev’d David Banting St Peter’s Harold Wood, Chelmsford

Rev’d Neil Barber St Giles Normanton, Derby

Rev’d Robert Bashford St James Westgate,Canterbury

Rev’d John Birchall Christ Church Surbiton Hill, Southwark

Rev’d Iain Broomfield Christ Church Bromley, Rochester

Rev’d Mark Burkill Christ Church Leytonstone, Chelmsford

Rev’d John Cheeseman Holy Trinity Eastbourne, Chichester

Rev’d CJ Davis St NicholasTooting, Southwark

Rev’d Steve Donald St John the Evangelist, Carlisle

Rev’d Richard Espin-Bradley St Luke’s Wolverhampton, Birmingham

Rev’d Jonathan Fletcher Emmanuel Church Wimbledon,Southwark

Rev’d Simon Gales St John s Lindow, Chester

Rev’d David Gibb St Andrews Leyland, Blackburn

Rev’d David Harris St Leonards, Exeter

Rev’d Clive Hawkins St Mary’s Eastrop, Winchester

Rev’d Chris Hobbs St Stephen’s Selly Park, Birmingham

Rev’d Christopher Hobbs St Thomas Oakwood, London

Rev’d Jonathan Juckes St Andrew’s Kirk Ella, York

Rev’d Jeremy Leffler St Ambrose Widnes, Liverpool

Rev’d James Leggett St James, Ryde, Portsmouth

Rev’d Ian Lewis St Bartholomews, Bath

Rev’d Angus MacLeay St Nicholas Sevenoaks, Rochester

Rev’d Julian Mann Oughtibridge Parish Church, Sheffield

Rev’d Ed Moll St George’s Wembdon, Bath

Rev’d Darren Moore St Catherine’s Tranmere, Chester

Rev’d Ken Moulder St Oswalds, Newcastle

Rev’d Robert Munro Cheadle Parish Church, Chester

Rev’d Alasdair Paine Christ Church Westbourne, Winchester

Rev’d Andrew Raynes Christ Church, Blackburn

Rev’d Mike Reith Dagenham Parish Church, Chelmsford

Rev’d Vaughan Roberts St Ebbe's, Oxford

Rev’d Simon Scott All Saints Little Shelford, Cambridge

Rev’d John Simmons Christ Church Chadderton, Manchester

Rev’d Simon Smallwood St George’s Dagenahm, Chelmsford

Rev’d Will Stileman St Mary’s Maidenhead, Oxford

Rev’d William Taylor St Helen’s Bishopsgate, London

Rev’d Melvin Tinker St John's Newlands, York

Rev’d Alistair Tresidder St Luke's Hampstead, London

Rev’d Philip Venables St Andrew’s Bebington,Chester

Rev’d Stephen Walton St Michaels’s Marbury, Chester

Rev’d Tim Ward Holy Trinity Hinkley, Leicester

Rev’d Mike Warren St Peters Tunbridge Wells, Rochester

Rev’d Gordon Warren St Anne’s Limehouse, London

(The Bishop of Lewes, the Rt Rev’d Wallace Benn, also wishes to be associated with this letter)

A briefing paper from Reform on the different roles of men and women in ministry can be found at: http://www.reform.org.uk/pdf/tm/the_role_of_women.pdf


Revd Paul Dawson, Reform Media Officer

T: 07791 495824, E: paul@standrewschelsea.org

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the

No comments: