Part 1 on THAT vote in Synod

Before I begin I want to say a few things....

Firstly if what I write offends you, then I am sorry - that is not my intention - as the name of this blog suggests the point here is to cause conversation - often among people who I would not normally come into conversation with. I hope that we can debate, argue, agree, disagree and then go to a virtual pub (or coffee shop depending on your attitude to both of the above) and agree that Jesus is Lord.

So then some context and so on - because I think its important that I am transparent about what I think, and where I'm at.

I am torn on the issue of women bishops, or rather I am torn on the issue of women in leadership in the church. The issue for me is this - What I want to believe is not the same as what I think that the Bible tells me. I would like to believe that women are called to lead, to preach and nurture the church. I say this from discussions with people who both believe in female ordination and leadership but also from seeing what some of those women are capable of. But as I interpret the Bible, I am left with the opinion that it tells me that this is not God's plan for his church. This is something that over the last few days as the debate and campaigning has reached fever pitch I have struggled with.

However despite my interpretation of the Bible - I am also clear that the Bible is not 100% clear on the subject - indeed a case either way cannot be made beyond all doubt in my opinion and so we must take the evidence we see before us and make a decision based on it.

So that is me, and where I stand - now lots of random thoughts about what has been reported, said and so on over the last week or so. I am no theologian, nor am I a great writer - and my spelling - well lets just say words and stuff like that are NOT where God has gifted me....

Firstly I want to recommend that you go right now to some other places that have been REALLY helpful and that if you haven't read them you really ought to. The posts I link to are written by Jon and Tanya Marlow - they are both in favour of women bishops. They are also Godparents to my children, much loved friends and people with whom I feel totally united in Christ.

http://tanyamarlow.com/on-women-bishops/
http://marlow.me.uk/recurringthemes/?p=268

Now I also know that feelings are running really high right now, and I don't want to discuss the theology surrounding this issue, rather what I'm more interested in is looking at what happened, and perhaps searching for some way forward if one can be found.

The first thing that worries me is the way in which 'sides' have been drawn up, battle lines drawn and love, grace and respect have been ignored. I worry that Conservative Evangelicals have aligned themselves with Anglo-Catholics whilst the other Evangelicals (I'm not sure what to call this group, but it includes the charismatic evangelicals amongst others) have aligned themselves with the liberal wing of the church. This worries me because both evangelical groups have far more in common with each other than they do the other elements. I would love them to be united, and as I look at the church now, I feel the best chance there is of a rapid way forward is for Evangelicals to broker a 'deal'.

I am concerned at the way many have chosen which side of the fence to sit on, whilst many have looked at the Bible to try to discern a truth, too many on both sides have completely failed to do that. One has used an argument based on tradition the other based on culture. However I applaud my evangelical brothers and sisters on both sides who have presented reasoned arguments based on biblical interpretation.

I am concerned that there are those who for personal, selfish or sexist reasons would prevent women bishops and fail to support female church leadership. But I am also concerned by those in favour who label all those opposed to women in leadership as being sexist or misogynist when what they are attempting to do is interpret Gods word faithfully and abide by it whatever the personal cost to themselves.

I am concerned that many of those who make Biblical arguments based on interpretation will not accept that there is room on both sides of the argument for elements of doubt - and given that to ensure provision is made.

I am concerned by the reaction of many to the vote, and the way in which they doubt that God is the one who is actually in charge. Whether that is people tweeting that they pray that the right outcome would happen and that the vote would be yes ( see this excellent post by Peter Ould http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/11/18/women-bishops/) or those who are now suggesting that the 'no' vote was somehow against the will of God. God has allowed this to happen, and we cannot second guess his reasons for doing so.

I am concerned that there is a feeling that this is about discrimination from some quarters, when this should never be the case - there is only one valid reason against women in leadership and that is a Biblical reason. This is because there is discrimination against women in society AND within the church BUT this is not always the case. Discrimination is abhorrent, but so to is rejection of Biblical truth. There are elements supporting women bishops who suggest that any provision for those who cannot support it would lead to discrimination - however as I see it this in itself is discrimination based on Biblical interpretation.

I am concerned that a great deal of effort, energy, time and money has been spent on all sides campaigning, drawing up 'battle lines' , when the same amount of effort put into proclaiming Christ as Lord might just have been more worthwhile.

I am concerned that Synod were asked to vote on agreeing to a code of practice that hadn't yet been written  and I am concerned that a majority would vote for something that is so unclear. I am concerned that a majority would vote for a situation where provision for those who cannot, because of Biblical interpretation, accept female headship. I am concerned at the lack of love, care and respect that shows.

I am concerned that a motion that would have passed was not put forward. I am concerned that there are many in the church who feel hurt, betrayed, crushed and unloved.

I am concerned that there was a whoop of joy from someone when the motion was not passed, and that some in the church have gloried and celebrated the result. But I am also concerned that the pain and hurt some are feeling has caused others to lash out.

I would try to express what I think about ways forward BUT Peter Ould (peter-ould.net) has expressed it so well that I'm just going to suggest you go and look there.

But despite the mess, the pain and all of that I am also thankful. I am thankful for the wisdom and love that people such as Jon and Tanya have shown. I am thankful for coming across Peter Ould this week - its been really helpful. I am thankful that we still have an opportunity to come up with a better solution. I am thankful for the grace and humility that many people who I do not know have shown in all of this.
I am thankful for those who voted 'no' despite being in favour of women bishops because they looked at the provision and found it wanting - both evangelical but also liberal such as Tom Sutcliffe http://www.anglicanink.com/article/liberal-member-synod-explains-his-no-vote-women-bishops


And so now, here I am at the end of the process where do I stand now? Well I still think that the Bible tells me that female headship is not Gods will, BUT because I recognise that this is a matter of interpretation and NOT a salvation issue I am broadly in favour of allowing women bishops on the single condition that alternative oversight that is acceptable to the church leader is found. Application for alternative oversight would necessarily need to be made to the alternative (who would be male). There are other issues that would need hammering out - such as what might happen if the Archbishop of Canterbury became a women.

It is important that the next time the issue of female bishops comes forward two things happen. Firstly that the provision agenda is set by those for whom the provision is being made, and secondly that synod votes in favour of women bishops (and I didn't think I'd be saying that last week).

Why a new blog?

There are lots of great blogs out there why another one?
I used to write a wine blog, waaaay back in the day - I've  tried to get back into but its just too hard work. It isn't fun, I don't feel inspired anymore. Maybe its because I work in the wine trade now, its become a bit too work like - I don't know. What I know is that I stopped, tried starting again (several times) and found it unsustainable.

So why am I trying again - well it stems from a lot of reading of blogs really - it isn't that I have any great things to say, it isn't that I have a burning desire to find lots of people to read it. I think it comes from seeing that I understand so little but that I have a desire to understand other people. Many of these are issues I face as I live my life. I've thought about it for a while, but have held out until now. Today, or rather in the last few weeks things have changed.

The camel that broke the straws back (and yes I know its the other way around before anyone decides to tell me) is the recent debate, vote and general internet activity surrounding women bishops and their potential ordination. This post isn't where I'm going to discuss anything about - but if I ever buck up my ideas I will blog on that topic soon. I should point out that I'm not going to blog about the topic itself - I'm not qualified to do so - rather I want to explore the way that different people have helpfully (and unhelpfully) approached this sticky topic. I'll also question the way in which sides have been drawn up, and perhaps question the wisdom of Evangelicals finding themselves split on an issue that is not central to the gospel message and siding with those who on some salvation issues may find themselves differing.

But that is enough for tonight.
My name is Tim, and I'm a sinner. But I have a sovereign Lord and saviour.