From the Church of Ireland Gazette:
Speaking to the Gazette editor in an interview while visiting Ireland, Bishop Tom Wright, former Bishop of Durham and now a Research Professor at the University of St Andrews, has said that the Church of England should not proceed to the consecration of women as Bishops if the move were to create a large division.
He said: "my own position is quite clear on this, that I have supported women Bishops in print and in person. I’ve spoken in Synod in favour of going that route, but I don’t think it’s something that ought to be done at the cost of a major division in the Church."
Bishop Wright warned that if the Church of England were not able to resolve the matter "a ‘quick fix’ resolution" would be "a recipe for long-term disaster".
If Bishop Wright's "position is quite clear on" women bishops, why would he pull the rug from under them when controversy develops? Abandoning women when the going gets tough is hardly supportive. What good are empty words? And
Asked to comment on what would happen if the Church of England rejected the Covenant proposal, Bishop Wright said: "That is always a possibility, and if that happens, then I suppose the thing would be dead in the water. but that’s a notional possibility which I don’t actually see as realistic."
That "the thing would be dead in the water" is my fondest hope. We can but try to shed light on the possible negative consequences for the Anglican Communion if the Daft Covenant is adopted. If Bishop Wright thinks "the kind of unstructured mess that we’ve had" is bad, then, very likely, he faces a far grander mess if his wish for a covenant comes to pass.
Bishop Wright is often good copy.
It's not thirty years since the first women were ordained as priests in the C of E. I think it was 1994.
ReplyDeleteIt was 1976 when women were first "regularly" ordained here in the US. Our former rector was one of the women priests from here that went over there and helped with some features of the transition. I think she was some sort of shepherd for the women.
ReplyDelete[It strikes me as dangerous, to get between the good bishop and a microphone and/or camera...]
ReplyDeleteSelling out half the Imago Dei, crying "Peace, Peace" when there is no peace. Yeah, THAT'S never been tried before. {snort}
I would guess he is finally showing his true colors --he does not support full inclusion in the episcopacy, otherwise, he would.... no matter the cost.
ReplyDeletePeople like Bishop Wright have really good instincts up to a point, but always abandon the bus to the future when the destination is in sight. It's "let's take that winding detour (again) so we don't have to face up to what we are called to do." But guess what? The bus ignores them and arrives at its true destination anyway.
ReplyDeleteWright's or the interviewer's lumping the Covenant together with the question of backtracking on consecrating female bishops may lead some UK supporters of women bishops who have not so far questioned the Covenant to take a hard look at it.
ReplyDeleteTim, my mistake. You are correct. It's only been 16 years that women priests in the Church of England have been waiting to be treated equally.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, if I'm wrong, and I am, I'm not Wright. Still, when the first woman bishop is ordained, I'd hardly call it a quick fix.
Susan, perhaps one or two of our women bishops might pop over and help the Church of England whenever it decides to give the go-ahead to ordain a woman bishop.
Margaret, I'm not the least surprised that Bp. Wright would back away in the midst of controversy.
Bex, Wright opposes the ordination of gays, unless they are celibate or closeted, which is not, I think, a good instinct.
Lapin, the journalist probably controlled the direction of the interview. Women bishops and the covenant are the two big controversial issues which will be taken up at GS. If those in support of women bishops lump the two together in a negative way, then that's all to the good.
ReplyDeleteI like Tom Wright's books on the New Testament a lot, but we didn't do his ego any favours by making him a bishop.
ReplyDeleteGrandmere, sorry I didn't phrase it better. I meant that I liked his instincts about theology (in "Surprised by Hope") until he jumped off the bus by saying that he couldn't consider gay people whole and equal. Apparently he justifies this by using the "it's OK if you're in the closet" detour. Sad.
ReplyDeleteTim, I agree that Bp. Wright's books on the New Testament are clear and easy to understand. My rector uses them for his sermons, on occasion.
ReplyDeleteBex, I stopped attending our adult class based on one of Wright's courses on DVD, because he made much of Jesus' inclusivity, and I knew the bishop's views on teh gays.
Mimi, as ever, you are right, and not Wright, which is a good thing, on both points.
ReplyDeleteCathy, in this instance, I am happy not to be Wright.
ReplyDeleteMimi, I am with you on being unable to join in the appreciation of Tom Wright's scholarship because of the disjunction between his reading of Jesus' inclusivity and his condemnation of gay people.
ReplyDeleteHe came to our parish some years ago and gave a terrific lecture on reading the Bible in our day and how radical Jesus' message was and about how we obviously have to understand the differences between first Century Palestine and our time and place. And then, most bizarrely, he jumped into the "gay issue" as if he had not heard himself speaking for the last hour. He went from encouraging us to think while reading the Bible to being a to-the-letter fundamentalist without pause.
Unfortunately, he went further, and spoke directly to a lesbian woman who asked how he could so lightly dismiss her fifteen year monogamous relationship with her partner, telling her that what she was doing was against Biblical teaching and that he was sorry but she would have to become celibate to be in right relationship with God. I have never read another word he wrote.
Penelope, what a story! How lacking in compassion and sensitivity.
ReplyDelete