ACNS 2545 - AUSTRALIA - 24 July 2001

Dr Ann Young - against Women Bishops (Part II)
It may seem odd that I am going over again matters that for many people
became obsolete with the clarification canon concerning ordination to the
priesthood. But these matters are still the root of many objections to the
current proposed canon. The objections are theological; the yare founded on
the belief that holding the received tradition of the Church is not just
clinging to earlier patterns, but rather an appeal to the experience, wisdom
and knowledge of the catholic church. We need to be very sure that it is new
wind of Spirit of God, and not a tornado of our times, that we allow to blow
away two millennia of acceptance of the leadership role of men in the
church. I believe that it is not a new revelation, that the church be
established by Christ and sustained by His Holy Spirit is not for us to
change. Nevertheless, we have today a partial fait accompli. We have women
ordained as priests in the Australian Anglican Church, and we have a serious
proposal to authorize their ordination as bishop.

I was listening to Margaret Somerville, the medical ethicist, on the radio
the other day. She commented that we are in a Western, secular, democratic,
litigious society, that values the rights of the individual over the rights
of the society. Because of all those characteristics, we will disagree about
ethical issues. Our Church is part of that society, and all of us are
moulded by it to some extant at least. So we can expect that we will be
divided on issues of significance. And any large gathering of people like
this is intrinsically a political forum, so that division into 'parties' is
almost inevitable. The challenge for us as Christians is to resist using the
Synod primarily as a political venue, and to acknowledge that all of us
continually fall short of the Glory of God. When we come to the end of the
debate and vote, how we will see the majority see the outcome? As a victory?
As the Holy Spirit affirming their stance? As a majority opinion of this
group at this time? How will those in the minority react? In bitterness
against a crushing blow? In anger, and rejection of the Church? In
recognition that the majority have in good conscience held a contrary view?
If we are united in Christ, how do we deal with an issue for which there is
such strongly held opposing views?

In the proposed Canon, Muriel has emphasized the possibility of a principled
compromise. For some, there is no such possibility. The ordination of women
to the priesthood is such a gospel imperative that no diminution of its
dignity can be contemplated. Or -a view held equally strongly - the
ordination of women to the priesthood is such a betrayal of gospel
principles, that this is only a further insult. It would be so much easier
if the way we express our faith in God were a light matter, if we didn't
really mind either way. Or if we could come to a point when we echoed the
Jerusalem Council and said 'it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit…'
But friends, that's not the way the debate is shaping. As the Working Group
has discussed the issue over the past three years, we have wrestled not only
with basic questions, but also with how to present them here.

As you can see from the structure of the proposed canon, we decided that the
first question is the basic principle - do we or do we not consider it
proper to consecrate women as bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia?
We purposely separated that question from the possibility of alternative
episcopal oversight because of the responses we had to our initial suite of
suggested forms for oversight. What did we get:

We might accept the canon only if it has this method

We won't accept the canon if it has any method

We would consider the canon if it had this, but not that method

We would consider the canon if this method was modified in this way

We don't care what alternatives are, we'll support / reject the canon

I invite you to contemplate just how convoluted and confusing a debate with
multiple alternatives would be! However, part of our brief was to propose
methods of alternative episcopal oversight. So, first we discuss the basic
issue of principle. The next step is to decide whether the attached Protocol
adequately provides that, or whether even that is unacceptable /
unnecessary, or whether it needs to be modified. Then, if more protection is
needed for those disaffected by the canon, we need to decide whether this
should be imposed legally on the diocesan bishops, and then if so, how. We
have proposed a method which fits comfortably within the existing structure
of our church.