Abstract
Whereas traditionally all Northern bishops in the Church of England have been invited to share in the laying on of hands at the consecration of new bishops for dioceses in the Province of York, when a bishop opposed to the ordination of women was consecrated in February 2015, a week after the first woman bishop had been consecrated, all but two carefully selected male bishops were asked to exercise ‘gracious restraint' and refrain from imposing hands. The author reflects on the significance and implications of this new pattern of participation.
In York Minster early this year I was present when two new suffragan bishops were consecrated: on 26 January Libby Lane, our first ever woman bishop, as Bishop of Stockport; and on 2 February Philip North, opposed to ordaining women, as Bishop of Burnley. Both broke new ground for participating bishops.
At Libby Lane’s consecration, to my surprise, some bishops opposed to women’s ordination robed and processed without laying on hands. While refraining from formal assent, how far were they supporting a transgression of their understanding of the episcopate? Philip North’s consecration presented two novelties, which arose from much mutual seeking of a trusted procedure. The Archbishop denied they were precedents (making it easier to assess them). I question their necessity, but recognize the majority have to ‘hear’ the minority.
First the Archbishop ceded the roles of chief consecrator and eucharistic president to the Bishop of Chichester (while remaining himself at hand). Apparently any future woman archbishop could now similarly delegate those roles to a male bishop without appearing to act under duress. Was this premature? Then the assisting bishops (if such we were) were to exercise ‘gracious restraint’, and not lay a hand on Philip North – two chosen opponents of the ordination of women alone did so. We others robed, processed and stood in a square round the platform.
The Archbishop quoted the ‘five guiding principles’ in GS Misc 1076. 1 These, however, rather unspecifically say that our Church remains ‘committed to enabling them [the opponents of women’s ordination] to flourish within its life and structures’ and ‘Pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority … will be made … in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion’.
But imposed ‘gracious restraint’ raises a whole concatenation of consequent questions, namely:
When bishops opposed to ordaining women attended Libby Lane’s consecration, what significance attaches to their attending but not laying on a hand? Correspondingly, at Philip North’s consecration what significance attaches to attending but not laying on a hand? What would disqualify another Anglican bishop from laying a hand on a similar future candidate and thus trigger ‘gracious restraint’? One imagines a descending order of disqualification:
A female bishop. A male bishop whose own chief consecrator had been a woman. A male bishop who had once laid a hand on a woman being made a bishop. A male bishop at whose consecration a female bishop had laid a hand on him. A male bishop who had shared in the laying on of hands on another male bishop when a female bishop had also laid on hands. The consequent question presses: granted a ‘core’ of uncompromised males as chief consecrator and two other bishops, is the protected succession endangered if someone ‘disqualified’ also slips in a hand?
These questions evoke instances from India and Sri Lanka.
The Church of South India (CSI)
At the formation of the CSI on 27 September 1947, presbyters from non-episcopal churches were consecrated as bishops (Lesslie Newbigin being one), but other presbyters, also not episcopally ordained, also laid on hands. The Church of South India provided that thereafter three presbyters from the diocese for which the bishop was being consecrated should also lay hands upon him (some such presbyters being themselves episcopally ordained, some not). From a tightly Anglican standpoint such participation could appear otiose or misleading; but CSI’s episcopal succession has never been questioned on those grounds. Lambeth 1930, despite qualifications, nevertheless reported in advance on the scheme: ‘we hold that the participation of Presbyters in the Laying-on of Hands could not, in any way, affect the validity of the Consecration, provided, of course that three Bishops take part in the Laying-on-of Hands’. Would not this principle apply to us today? And CSI bishops (including Lesslie Newbigin) have themselves shared in English consecrations – so any doubts stemming from those ‘disqualified’ participants in the past are already embedded in our succession.
Anglican Church of Sri Lanka
In ecumenical moves in Sri Lanka, since 2000 the ‘heads’ of other participating Churches have laid hands on bishops being consecrated for the two Anglican dioceses, straight after Anglican bishops. These ‘heads’ are clearly outside the historic episcopate, but their participation is viewed as enriching the consecration.
I add an Indian experience. The Mar Thoma Church is a reformed branch of the ancient Syrian Church in Kerala, the only Eastern Church with whom Anglicans are in communion. In 1989 I shared on Robert Runcie’s behalf in consecrating three Mar Thoma bishops. After praying the metropolitan handed each newcomer a staff, holding it himself at the top. Each consecrand lay flat and grasped the bottom. Others assisting like me lay or bent and grasped the staff – my hand just above the new bishop’s. The metropolitan took his hand away; others followed down; I took my hand away; and the prostrate new bishop, holding his staff, was thus ‘done’.
Who had grasped the staff? Answer: bishops of the Mar Thoma Church and other churches in communion with them (e.g. CSI and Church of North India). Bishops of other branches of the ancient Syrian Church not in communion with Mar Thoma stood around fairly supportively, but not touching the staff. There resulted a clear visual distancing between the participating bishops and the friendly visitors who were not assenting or participating. York echoed this – ritually I was a friendly visitor not assenting or participating, at a careful protection of a rigorously pure male episcopal succession. This bids to establish in our Church an internal non-juring succession – two historic episcopates formally separated by a glass wall. Any suggestion of ‘taint’ was officially denied, but an imposed quarantine suggests a fear of contagion. However, marvellously, York events were not precedents.
By invoking CSI surely our leaders could give assurance that a ‘core’ succession of a chief consecrator and two other male bishops will be scrupulously sustained, but opponents of women's ordination surely must not mind if someone ‘disqualified’ or even not recognized by them as a bishop puts in a hand?