Dear Sir,
I read with sadness the article written by Susie Leafe under the Anglican Update section of August’s en. She was commenting on the Archbishop’s theology on the ordination of women to the episcopate. I do take issue with her on several of her statements.
1. Justin Welby has isolated himself from the teachings of the ‘best’ theologians of the centuries following Christ’s ministry.
My question is, who decides who are the best theologians? Are they defined as those who agree with her point of view?1
2. He has isolated himself from the millions of godly women who have rendered faithful service to the Church of England in the past.
How does she know? They were not given an opportunity to serve under any but a male priesthood. Who knows how they might have reacted? Or is she saying by implication that a ‘godly’ woman is defined as one who is only prepared to serve under the authority of a male priest?
3. At least 25% of the church membership in the CofE are against women bishops.
Presumably then, 75% of the church membership are in favour? The vote in the House of Laity was less than 23%, the House of Clergy only 13%. All 44 Dioceses voted in favour. How much more overwhelming does a vote need to be?
4. The legislation was passed so that the Church should appear ‘relevant’ in our society.
A church that is irrelevant in our society is a fat lot of use to the great mass of non-believers.
5. The Archbishop has isolated himself from our society.
Was she unaware of the outrage expressed by MPs and in the press? Many of our clergy friends felt that the Church had become a laughing stock in society. This is not a good basis from which to evangelise the nation.
6. A group of bluff northern taxi drivers were apparently mystified by the Church’s obsession with ‘political correctness’.
I wasn’t aware that ‘northern taxi drivers’ was the accepted barometer for national social opinion.2 And what had ‘political correctness’ got to do with the issue? Is she implying that women who are leaders in our secular society are only allowed to lead to satisfy the political correctness lobby. Are heads of government, politicians, doctors, head teachers, etc. not appointed for ability? Or are they just appointed for politically correct reasons? Is that really what she thinks?
Yours sincerely,
