On July 14, 2014, the General Synod of the Church of England voted 351 to 82 to allow the consecration of women bishops. (Religion News Service reported the event online almost immediately after its occurrence, thus proving once again that its journalism can be as speedy as that of secular media in the pursuit of a story.) July 14, Quatorze Juillet, is of course the holiday when the French Republic celebrates the anniversary of the Storming of the Bastille. Presumably the date is coincidental, though progressives are cheering the vote as a victory over yet another bastion of male oppression. Others are not so sure.
Given the passions that have been invested in this issue, and not only in the C. of E., I suppose that a personal disclosure is in order: I am neither an Anglican nor particularly progressive, thus (as they say in Texas) I have no dog in this fight. I am a Lutheran, albeit with some reservations, but on this issue fully in agreement with Article 7 of the Augsburg Confession, according to which the forms of ecclesiastical organization are prudential matters not central to the Christian faith. The institution of bishops is such a matter. One may or may not be in favor of individuals bearing this title. If you are going to have bishops, I see no reason why only men should have the title. The idea of apostolic succession, a direct line from Jesus to the Apostles to an uninterrupted series of bishops consecrating each other is thunderously implausible as historical fact. Certainly in the case of the English church: Henry VIII did his best to liquidate any bishops that placed loyalty to Rome over loyalty to the king; Queen Mary then reversed this policy, persecuting royal loyalists; and then Elizabeth I once and for all established the royal supremacy in the Church of England. I wonder how many bishops survived these successive purges to continue the alleged succession.
Read Full Article »