Bowman - your response raises a number of questions. I think, perhaps, that "negotiation" over "law" is a dead end - all we seem so far to have proved is that the law kills - maybe we need to throw ourselves on the risk of the lifegiving Spirit. If you look over on Thinking Anglicans at the discussion on the Bishop of Whitby issue, you'll see I have written a little more extensively, relating this to the catholicity of the church.

But even if we are going to continue with negotiation, we need to be accurate in our use of words. A clear majority of the Church of England is in favour of having women as bishops - it is a "fact on the ground" that the central/middle view is that this should go ahead - following all the recent voting, it is no longer arguable that "women bishops" is the unnecessary obsession of a marginal pressure group or two.

The potential for negotiation is well away from that centre - and I think that the strength and extent of that centre has been one of the things which recent events have uncovered - and it is uncomfortable for everyone, because it upsets some of the assumptions on which negotiations have previously been based.

So my main issue was with the use of the word "centre" which gives a misleading impression of where we are.

I think it is misleading to talk about the "reconciling centre" in a case like this where it is not the centre ground which is being contested (to use the dominant metaphor indicated for the thread, which may also not be very helpful). Those in favour of the consecration of women might see themselves as amenable to a solution on the centre ground, but not to a solution on the contested edge. In fact that could be a description of the whole debate so far.

I think it wholly misleading and unhelpful to refer to the contested ground as the centre - it isn't.

I am sure that the language of revisionism is one of the things which adds to the mutual respect of the various parties involved.

Carl

You were wrong because you were trying to attribute the issue of authority to me and to those who, like me, want women to be bishops in the Church. In your response you have indicated that it is your own issue and not mine. I don't have an issue with authority. But just to be clear where we stand it might help if you could answer the following question, which arises from your comments:

Would you say that "authority" is a charism of a "bishop", or can you give an example of a circumstance where it is possible to designate a person who does not have special authority within the church a "bishop"?

Mark

Carl

You are simply wrong. The argument I am making is framed around women being equally bishops with men (and therefore female bishops having the same jurisdiction and authority as male bishops) - it is not about the enforceability of their authority, but about the fact that they will have same authority as men currently do (which can, under the measure, be delegated - a concept very different from enforcement).

Mark

Another David - my comment was to see whether those people who suggest that a code won't do because it isn't  enforceable can justify the implicit assumption that enforceability is a good thing.

[Note that there are remedies for breaches of the Code, but these are alleged to be ineffective - my question is NOT about that part of the debate].

On 'canonical obedience' - I have voluntarily assented to this, so the dynamic is rather different. The Canons include Canon A4, which says that those ordained priest and bishop by the church are priests and deacons and that this should not be denied - I think that this means that the church can accommodate dissent, but cannot legislate for denial - everyone who is part of the Church of England is part of a church which does ordain women.

Where in the Bible does it suggest that Christians should order their lives by creating rules which are enforceable against each other?

Carl

Your take on the relationship between the Code of Practice and the legislative package is unclear - it would help if you could explain it further.

I would be interested to see some examples of "howls of righteous indignation" which illustrate the fact that they are howls and also the sense of indignation. For those which do express indignation, it would help if you could identify who the author is indignant with.

For myself, I do not share your analysis of "one concern". My concerns include that women should be treated fairly, properly and equally by the church.

I would like to have a constructive thread on the issues you raise, and I am inviting you to be clearer and more specific to that end.

Mark

Nersen

I wonder what you make of Paul's collection for a Jerusalem Church dangerously associated with circumcision as a necessary part of the Christian faith ... ?

Nersen

You wrote "The attitude of Watch seems to be using nice words to say 'Good riddance'?"

Quite the contrary, in fact. I am part of WATCH, and I desperately want us to remain one church rather than two churches pretending to be one. That is why I am so strongly against legal separation - which will give us the same dynamic whice created the Ordinariate - and strongly in favour of pastoral provision, which has a much better prospect of keeping those of us who differ in a working relationship.

The question I have is whether you want to be in a working relationship with me for the Gospel, and whether (and why) this depends on whether women become bishops or not.

God as Father is not the only way in which God is revealed in scripture. God is treated by theologians across traditions and time as having no essential gender, and this is compatible with scripture (eg Genesis 1.27). The revelation of God's "fatherhood" is therefore not a revelation of God's essential being as male, but rather a way of relating God's being to our (imperfect) human understanding.

The notion of fatherhood has differed from age to age and from society to society. In relating to God, it is clearly not physical fatherhood which is meant, so the terminology is metaphorical

Carl

I wonder if you could let us know how much, or how little, you believe gender complementarity to be reflected in the inner being or outward action or proper human understanding of the reality of God?