From here:
For his part, the Rev. Malcolm French, the coalition’s [No Anglican Covenant Coalition] Regina-based Canadian convenor, points to an inherent anti-American bias at the heart of the covenant. “Certainly the venom level went up once the Episcopal church had a female presiding bishop and, oddly, this is why the covenant has appealed to some people in the U.K. who would otherwise be seen as perhaps politically on the left. It connects to a larger anti-Americanism that has nothing to do with church politics.”
This is rather an odd statement coming as it does from the political leftist and theological liberal, Rev. Malcolm French. Up until now, being anti-American was the sine qua non of the French id, it was what brightened his day, put a spring in his step and lent fuel to his rejoicing at living in the country of the sainted Tommy Douglas and Jack Layton rather than the land of the devil worshipping George Bush.
What Rev. French really means, of course, is that the Anglican Covenant is against the heretical theological meanderings which are afflicting American Anglicanism. The Covenant, even if adopted, is insufficiently potent to do much about that, but even a whiff of rebuke is enough to start Anglican liberals foaming at the mouth in indignation.
This almost makes me want to support the Covenant.
What is totally unacceptable about the US Episcopalian bishops is the fact that they are extremely revisionist and post-Christian (even, when they seek to justify abortion, evil) – not the fact that they are, many of them, female. Certainly here in the UK there are female clergy who are orthodox and also even Evangelical. The assumption that women are necessarily revisionist is incorrect – however, there was a survey done here some years ago suggesting that “liberal” views were generally held in greater in proportions, among female clergy as opposed to males. Femaleness, and women bishops, are separate issues from revisionism/orthodoxy.
They are indeed separate issues. Could you give us a bit of an idea of why it’s such a huge issue in the UK? Is it because many people are against any women being ordained to any position, and conscreating women is just one step too far for them?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with women deacons or presbyters. Bishops I’m not so sure about – mainly because if the bishops are all men, then the ‘headship’ issue isn’t a problem, because the head of the church will be a male bishop. (That puts me at a disagreement with our current ‘moderator’ – why we don’t call him an archbishop I don’t know, but never mind that for now).