Ordinal – woman bishop?

A friendly word addressed to fellow users and lovers of The Book of Common Prayer (1662)

The Ordinal, usually bound together with The Book of Common Prayer and The Articles of Religion as one book, is a Formulary of the Church of England and of the Anglican Way. It sets forth the form of doctrine of the Ministry of the Church, which is Threefold, that of Deacon, Priest [Presbyter] and Bishop.

When the Ordinal of the Church of England was created in 1550, as a book written in English and based upon Scripture and medieval Latin texts, there was never any intention that a women could be or would be admitted to any of the three Offices. However, social conditions change, the mind of [parts of] the Church of God change, and thus, in the twenty-first century, women have been ordained as Deacons and Priests in the Church of England (and also in other provinces of the Anglican Communion).

However, with the real possibility that women priests may be consecrated as bishops, even archbishops, in the next decade, there are some persons who, having either supported or not being opposed to the ordination of women as priests, now have grave doubts about their possible consecration as bishops. Reasons for this concern vary – from a strong biblical doctrine of the “headship of the male”, through the traditional catholic teaching of the Bishop as a successor of the apostles and an icon of Christ Jesus, to the practical question of whether it will really work in terms of loyalty and obedience to a female bishop.

The Forward in Faith Movement is totally opposed to the consecrating of a women as a bishop and has proposed and provided the basic legislation for a third province in the Church of England, wherein are no female clergy at all. And the evangelical Church Society has given general support to this proposal.

But what about those who do still use The Book of Common Prayer and take seriously its position (with the Ordinal and Articles) as Formulary of the Church of England? How should they think and act?

Here I want to suggest that to be committed to the Formularies and interpreting them in the most generous way does not allow one to support the consecration of a woman as a bishop, even it if allows one to support the ordination of a woman as a deacon and priest.

What do I mean? Here I must invite my reader to read carefully first of all the text entitled, “The Form and Manner of Ordering of Priests.” In reading this I also invite you to follow the old convention that “he” can stand for “he or she”. As you read through you will notice that the candidates for the Order of Priesthood are first of all called “persons”, then “servants” and then “brethren”(which can mean brothers and sisters”). In the address by the Bishop they are also called “messengers, watchmen and stewards of the Lord”. In the questions from the Bishop there is one which may be taken as being addressed only to man, for it may be taken as presupposing he is head of a family; but in different social conditions today the question also makes sense as addressed to a woman (“to frame a family according to the doctrine of Christ”).Then in the Prayer before Ordination and the words of ordination the text nowhere specifically states (even if it originally assumed) that it is a man that is being ordained.

So one may claim that, in and of itself and by itself, the Ordinal does not specifically state that the Order of Priesthood is solely and only for male candidates. While it may assume such, it does not clearly declare such. So in this sense a generous benefit of doubt may be allowed.

Now let us turn to “The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop.” Is this service like the previous one in that while it assumes that the Bishop will be a man it never specifically states this to be required?
The answer in this case is NO.

If we allow the convention that “he” may be “she or he” then we conclude that much of the text appears to be of the same kind as for the ordaining of priests. Yet there are a few features of the service that appear to require that the candidate be a man.

First of all, the Epistle is from 1 Timothy 3:1ff, where the text reads: “If a man desire the office of Bishop…. A Bishop must be the husband of one wife…” Then, secondly, in the presentation of the candidate to the Archbishop the words are: “we present unto you this godly and well-learned man to be ordained and consecrated Bishop.” In the Litany are inserted these words: “That it may please thee to bless this our Brother elected…” In the questions from the Archbishop the candidate is addressed as , “Brother…”

So, it would appear that it is impossible to deduce from the Ordinal, even on a generous interpretation, that a woman (even if she is legitimately a priest) can be elevated to the office of bishop. Now, a canon could be passed by the General Synod to add to canon law which would effectively state, “notwithstanding the natural and literal interpretation of the Ordinal, a woman may be a candidate for the office of bishop.” However, for those who have a high view of the Ordinal as Formulary (and containing both the teaching of Scripture and the witness of Tradition) such a change would not be convincing or acceptable.

Thus I conclude that the leadership of Prayer Book Societies are bound by their commitment to the Formularies to oppose the ordination and consecration of women as bishops; and, as a corollary of this, to support ways for faithful churchmen to remain in good faith in the Church, if and when the innovation is implemented. In England this may mean giving support to the proposal for a Third Province.

November 1, 2005 petertoon@msn.com