A New Path to Aliveness

Like many other people, I have been deeply saddened by the decision of Bishop Philip North to withdraw his acceptance of the post of Bishop of Sheffield. It's the second time he has had to do this: previously he withdrew from the bishopric of Whitby before becoming Bishop of Burnley. The reason was the same both times: he came under great pressure from many CofE clergy and lay people because of his opposition to women clergy and bishops. Coming from a strongly Catholic tradition, he simply believes, for reasons of Scripture and tradition, that to ordain women as either priests or bishop is not merely wrong but actually impossible, because (I'm putting it crudely) the grace of God is not available for this purpose.

Now I happen to disagree with him, as many others do, but the fact is that he belongs to an honourable tradition within the CofE whose conscientious and theological objections were recognised when the General Synod approved women's ordination.  It was accepted then that 'traditionalist' clergy and bishops would not be discriminated against because of their views. It seems an absolute betrayal of that agreement that Bp North should have been subjected to such personal attacks by those who champion female equality. You end up thinking who is discriminating against whom?

There have been many testimonies to the Bishop's care and affirmation of women clergy in his present diocese (Blackburn), despite his views; and he is well known for his outspoken views on urban deprivation and the failure of the Church's mission is such places. We have lost a potentially great church leader, and one wonders where he goes from here. It cannot be said the he is anti-women. There is nothing personal about it: he simply cannot accept that their ordination is acceptable before God. This goes beyond present-day concerns about equality.

The disturbing thing about this is the inability of the Church to uphold its own agreements. What will happen in future if the CofE agrees to gay marriage, but clergy are not to be forced to take such a ceremony on grounds of theological objection? Will their refusal be construed as homophobic, and will they be subject to the same vilification as this Bishop?

Back to the Sermon on the Mount.  This week, we have studied the rest of Matthew 5, where Jesus informs his disciples that unless their righteousness surpasses that of scribes and Pharisees they will not enter the Kingdom of God. He then goes on to take a number of examples of  Jewish teaching, with the formula, 'You have heard it said...but I say...'  Thus demonstrating that he is not denying the truth of the Law but supplementing it. I like McLaren's suggestion that  religion is a kind of road to nowhere: ok, so you have fulfilled various legal demands and challenges, as have many before you, but then what?  The disciple is to have his or her eyes set on the road to a further destination, which is not marked out by rules and regulations but simple obedience to Jesus and his word.  Jesus ends, 'Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.'  Lift your eyes!