Before the last Synod in May 2008 an important letter was sent to the House of Bishops and General Synod was signed by 1276 women clergy. A further 1012 male clergy and 1916 laity signed online petitions in support. Among other things the letter stated:

'We believe that it should be possible for women to be consecrated as bishops, but not at any price. The price of legal “safeguards” for those opposed is simply too high, diminishing not just the women concerned, but the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole'.  

The message was very infleuntial in the debate that followed.  It was so impressively generous and sacrifical in spirit – saying that despite waiting and campaigning for so long, ordained women would rather not have women bishops at all at the price of dividing the church up  in this way.

The majority of Synod agreed and asked the Revision Committee to begin work on draft legislation accordingly. As earlier links on this thread made clear, the Committee has since announced it has decided to work for precisely what Synod democratically voted against – taking to itself quite unprecedented authority to disregard the stated will of Synod.

WATCH has now sent out an important press release in response.

see  http://womenandthechurch.org/campaign.htm

Networks supporting ordained women are now circulating a further letter and inviting their supporters to sign it. The letter speaks of  ….

'Frustration that the Church, which we love, seems unable to welcome and celebrate God’s calling of women to leadership, and incredulity that the committee would signal its abandonment of a principle expressed by the vote of General Synod, and in so doing, disregard what we believe to be the will of the Church of England: that women should be consecrated as bishops in the Church of God without discrimination.'

The Revision Committee is meeting again on the 3^rd November and needs to hear the strength of feeling on this issue. They need to be challenged as to why they have gone against the wishes of Synod and to hear the strength of support that exists for  the consecration of women as bishops in the church without discrimination

The chair is:

The Ven Clive N R Mansell 3 The Ridings   Blackhurst Lane

Tunbridge Wells  TN2 4RU  Tel: 01892-520-660

Email: archdeacon.tonbridge@rochester.anglican.org

We are also urged to write to our Diocesan Bishop expressing concern at the actions of the Revision Committee and urging him, especially in the light of the offer from Rome, to press for the simplest legislation that sustains a single episcopate not divided in its functions by gender.

The overall impression is that those who oppose ordination and consecration of women have been much more effective in recent months at getting their message out there. This is the time to speak up and be counted.

er Nersen ... never shy of the definitive opinion - but how do you know?

(and how many BNP sympathisers actually watch Question Time anyway?)

Sorry guys but all too typically this is a very male led and male focussed debate. And meanwhile 30% of the present hardworking ordained workforce of the CofE (and 50% of those in training) - there remember by very long, careful process and two thirds majority decision - are expected to flourish and be faithful in the only organisation in the country legally allowed to discriminate against them on grounds of gender - and while threads like this discuss solutions to the 'problems' they have caused.

The issues are real and painful on all sides - but we need to find more honouring ways of talking together about it.

Phil,

'Luke 15:4  like a good shepherd, He will search for each of His lost sheep "until he finds it"'

Yes - and the universalist says yes - he goes on searching until he finds .... at whatever the cost none will be lost.

Once again I find your choice of texts eccentric.

But one reason is that I think you have not grasped that univeralism (at least in the form that I respect me) does not by pass the need for the cross, for evangelism, for costly challenges to repentance and above all for the harrowing and transforming journey into consecration of life in Christ.

It is God's love that may in the end be harder to endure and receive than his judgement. To be loved as he chooses to love us - what in all the universe prepares us for this?

Who can stand?

Phil

Passing on this one. You have asked me this question several times before on these threads over the months and I have responded before. But it is getting rather boring and I feel I have offered enough of my thoughts on faith and scripture for our discussions to proceed on the basis of trust and not to be subjected to what feels like further tests of what I precisely 'really' mean in your own vocabulary. That may not be your intention and if so perhaps it helps to know that is how is comes across.

Junius,

Inflammable writing is always likely to catch fire. As for me - neither 'fired off' or 'incendiary' - I just got the joke straight away. Amazed no one else did.

Junius (or it is Genius?!!) - brave, forward thinking, inspirational ... it took me back to the scriptures and sure enough - has anyone noticed? - there are no children in the Bible before the Fall! Well that explains it all - the chaos, the noise, biscuit crumbs trodden into the carpets, nappies left in the unisex loos  .... where do you find that in Gen1?  In God's original plan Adam and Eve arrive on the scene as full blown adults - as does Jesus (more or less). And so should we.

But be encouraged Junius, the tide is flowing your way. Over half the churches in the Midlands have no children in church at all on Sundays and an even higher proportion have a larger budget for church flowers than for their entire children and youth work!

Phil

We share a love for scripture and a belief in its centrality. We also share a concern for its faithful interpretation. But we often differ greatly in where this task leads us and the conclusions we draw.

Thank you for allowing that I may not have time to engage fully. However frustrating that is realistic for all of us. But you chide me for making sweeping assertions. That is not entirely fair. In practice - and we have debated quite a lot on different threads if you look back -  I have tried to pick up one or two points from your lists, as I did with the text on Judas. But when you simply print out up to 30 texts, from all corners of scripture, with minimal or no exegetical comment, context or theology, presenting them 'proof' of your view and ask the rest of us to respond 'in detail' to show how this is true or false  - well that feels just as much like a 'sweeping assertion' to me.

Over the last year or so I have at times tried to respond in detail to you on a variety of threads. But you keep coming back to the same questions. Whether I or anyone else believe these are, for example, the exact, literal words spoken by Jesus or by God in the Garden of Eden. It is always laid down as a challenge to the rest of us. You imly suspicion on those who do not come out and say what they think. But it feels like an exegetical cul de sac to be honest. And even where I have tried to respond I still have little sense that you understand where I am coming from even if you don't agree me. Can you understand that?

And as to this issue of 'conclusive proof'. Where do you get this from? I thought Christian discipleship was a way of faith. That is the basis of our life in Christ. The Bible is not one big 'conclusive proof text' for those who read it 'correctly'. (There has always been significant diversity among even conservative bible expositors about texts and interpretations). When I respond to the words of Jesus - mediated to me initially through oral memory of various witnesses, later written down and translated successively from Aramaic (?) Greek, Latin and generations of English (including your beloved AV) ... I receive these words on trust. I apply them by faith. I find it, again and again, to be inspired - God breathed - as the scripture claim. But to be breathed upon by God is not to receive 'proof' is it? My faith in Christ is constant act of trusting faith and obedience, continuing testing and careful study, shared testimony of fellow travellers, the teaching of the Church - and the witness of the Spirit.  It is a cumulative and evolving journey of faith and relationship. I find the claim to 'proof' utterly foreign and completely unhelpful to describe our relationship with Scripture or with Christ.

Maybe we just need to agree to differ.

wggrace  - thank you for staying with this discussion. I hear clearly about the downplaying of the seriousness of sexual sin in our age and the passion with which you argue it.

My point is this: here is a story about a woman publically accused (presumably with witness evidence) of adultery. The law is clear. Jesus is expected to uphold strong judgment and take this sin very seriously. But instead of pointing the finger in judgement he sits down in silence and writes in the sand. The adulterer actually goes home uncondemned by both Jesus and her accusers without even being required to publically repent. No public statement is made by Jesus lest this story be misunderstood and we think sexual sin is not really serious. Jesus does seems to be willing at times to leave things far more ambiguous than we feel he should.

I have a concern that the more we write about the sexual excesses of our age and the need to address this and condemn it for what it is the more this story actually begins to judge us too.

A picture comes to mind ....

You and I and the Godly and concerned of the Christian church are gathered around Jesus. A figure is pulled into his presence. This careless and rather indifferent creature represents adultery, trivialising of sex, lust, indifference and sensualised self interest. According the teaching of Scripture and the Church this figure should be uncomprisingly judged and condemned.

But Jesus stays silent, and writes with his finger in the sand .....

Nersen - I am not trying to avoid anything.  This discussion began when I responded to your use of the rich ruler and the woman in adultery to illustrate how Jesus is direct and uncomprising in calling people to repent of sin.

I suggested neither story does this with the directness you are looking for. Jesus does do this elsewhere - quite uncompromisingly. I have no aversion to the word repentance - I just think that in these two stories it is not the most helpful word to use and to use this word here actually distorts the pastoral subtlety of what these stories teach.

To repent means 'to turn' - from and towards. Agreed. But I understood you to be using it specifically as repentance from sin. Of course no one was told that 'all will be well and all will be well etc etc'. The text says the opposite and I never said or implied anything of the sort. (And just for the record you are quoting Julian of Norwich out of context here.)

The young ruler is called to a radical and costly turning. But I do not hear this as flowing from a judgement on sin (though it will surely clearly require very tough self examination). Rather the gospel notes how much Jesus is compassionate towards him.

There are times when Jesus calls us to new and costly 'turnings' in our lives that are not helpfully called 'a call to repentance' don't you think? The first disciples on the lakeside turned away from fishing and family and followed - do you call this a call to repentance? And is Mary's response to the message from the angel an act of  'repentance'?

I hope you can see the point I am making.

wggrace - thank you for your response.

I totally agree with you about the destructiveness and sinfulness of adultery in any age and culture. But it seems to me if you want a pasage that underlines that in the teaching of Jesus you have to look elsewhere than Jn 8.  Jesus simply does not make that point and by refusing to go with the law and require her stoning he, if anything, is open to looking as if he is down playing its seriousness.

Jesus is responding to a quite different agenda.

The story makes clear he has been set up (and that makes me wonder if the woman wasn't set up too). The issue is not adultery and the law - it is a power struggle between Jesus and the authorities. That ,for John, is part of the discussion about the true Kingship of Jesus. So a chapter that begins with an attempt to stone a woman for adultery closes with an attempt to stone Jesus himself.

Jesus makes clear he does not treat sexual sin with any greater gravity than the sin of hypocrisy. Something very contemporary about that challenge. The tendency to treat some sins as more serious than others - especially sexual ones - remains a Christian failing and this story judges us for it. He does not down grade the seriousness of adultery, he upgrades all other sins to the same level as it.

He only addresses the woman when everyone else has left. So he makes no public point about adultery or repentance at all.

'Go and sin no more' may refer to her more general way of life than to sexual sin particulary. We know nothing about her actual circumstances.

Finally the point needs to be underlined that, as so often in human society, the power and initiative lies with men. Women were not regarded as having a choice in such matters - but were nevertheless blamed mercilessly if found breaking the law. A whole social system stands judged here for its hypocrisy.

That is not simplifying the issue at all. It suddenly gets a whole lot more complex.

Dear Phil,

I suggested you tend to respond to people's views by quoting large lists of texts as if they are self evident in the interpretation of your viewpoint. They rarely are.

And you respond by - well - quoting another 15 or so texts .... OK.

But your testimony of the compelling love of Christ is moving - thank you.

As to Judas  - you add Matthew 26:24 to the list and claim it is absolutely clear that Judas was not saved - even by the cross of Christ!

But the Matthew vs says nothing whatsoever about the eternal destiny of Judas does it? We just don't know. It makes the self evident point that his actions on earth will be so horrifically wrong that it would be better if he were not born in the first place.

And has the cross of Christ no message of hope for people like that?

Nersen

'Do you really want to try to argue that the rich man is told that he should sell all his posessions because Christ thought his problem was something other than his attachment to his wealth i.e.greed?'

Yes it could be. My position is this. The word repentance is not used here. Nor is the word greed. The challenge seems to me to be to make space for the radical commitment that leads to real life in Christ that somewhere this man clearly yearns for. Attachment is not in itself sinful or greedy is it? - though of course it will be flawed because we are fallen creatures. My original point remains - it is not a good story for illustrating Jesus being uncompromising in condemning sin.

As to the story of the woman - you completely ignore my response to you about where the real focus of the story lies.