|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/544
Fulcrum Subject: Women Bishops Other articles by Fulcrum Leadership Team are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 31 comments on this article Fulcrum Press StatementWOMEN BISHOPS AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLANDStatement by the Fulcrum Leadership Team3 July 2010(read the Commentary on this Statement here)
We recognise that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are loyal Anglicans. Those who oppose this development need a space and a future in the Church of England. We believe this would be best served by appending a Code of Pastoral Practice to the Measure, not permanent legislation. We believe the new legislation must not be framed to create what might be deemed to be a second class of bishops based on gender or a “Church within a Church”. For these reasons we believe the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee provides the best framework for a practical way forward. Comment on the relationship between the work of the Revision Committee and the alternatives suggested by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is posted on the Fulcrum Website Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 7 February 2012 - 09:30am Thanks for re-publishing this very helpful statement - but is there a way we can continue this debate on one thread and not two? Posted by: John Watson Tuesday 7 February 2012 - 08:09am Dear Friends Fulcrum is republishing this commentary in the light of the important decisions being made on Wednesday 8th February 2012 at General Synod. John Watson Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 17 July 2010 - 10:45pm Please dont post this onsite before people have the chance to read the Link put on by Simon Cawdell, but i have read the link, cant help but feel like a deflated balloon. 2014 for the finalisation of all this, is this when they seriously intend Ordaining the first female as a bishop, or will they be ordained and only recognised in some churches sooner.? I mean I know i am never going to be a Bishop, but its about the movement of people towards God and Gods true church of believers, its about knowing that we are truly a family of God living by example. In my world its about all the little things that make people feel safer because they know that people are not trying to outdo or harm anyone, and that no-one is working in a fearful environment being laughed at. Welcome to my world, God said take your brother or sister aside and settle concerns, thats what i am doing, i dont want to read or hear the tears of female clergy or men because they have been bullied or read that they have been chased out of their parishes. Jesus loves us all now equally up untill and in eternity, imagine that, imagine being wanted and having no fear for all eternity, not even fear of a woman or a man etc. Peace be with us all truly said sincerly meant. Waterangel 
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Saturday 17 July 2010 - 09:06am
Graham has asked me to add this as a useful link to answer the question: http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/12/synod-anglicans-women-bishops-vote Posted by: pete hobson Thursday 15 July 2010 - 10:43pm Dave Graham may be a busy Bishop at the moment, but to try and answer your questions (much asked and answered all over the place!). There's a general guide to the process here http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/legislation/measures/process.html As this is Article 7 and 8 business it also has to be referred to the dioceses, between Revision Stage and Final Approval, as follows. - All 43 dioceses will have to vote to accept it, as it is. It must be approved in all three houses (Bishop(s), Clergy and Laity) to pass, and more than 50% of dioceses must pass it, or else it lapses - that is back to the drawing board. In which case a new go at it can't be reintroduced until a new Synod is elected in 2015. This stage is likely to take at least 18 months. Dioceses can't, obviously, amend the Measure (or it would come back in 43 versions), but can pass following motions which Synod would be obliged to take into account. - it then goes to the House of Bishops, to pass back to Synod in a form for Final Approval. This may include drafting changes, but Synod can/t have another go at any major changes. This might be in February, or perhaps July, 2012 - the approved Measure is then sent to Parliament, where the Ecclesiastical Committee have to deem it 'expedient' (they can refer it back for redrafting if they so choose), and if they forward it, it then has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, on a straight Yes/No vote. These stages can be as long, or as short, as Parliamentary processes permit. So say all of that might take another year. - then if approved the relevant Canon has to receive royal assent (a signature on a piece of paper) and then to be Promulged ('activated') by the Archbishops. - then women could become bishops. When the first appointment of a woman bishop might take place after that, of course, is another matter. There'd have to be a vacancy, and a suitable candidate, and a process of choosing. Hope that helps. Posted by: Dave Tuesday 13 July 2010 - 09:06am Graham, So what is the roadmap to women bishops? Are there still some potential barriers? When could the first woman bishop be appointed and when is this likely to happen? The Today program had two interesting items. John Broadhurst explained why traditionalists are not happy at 7.09 and Tom Butler expressed confidence in local dissusions at 7.48. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8813000/8813205.stm David 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 12 July 2010 - 08:10pm
The Revision Committee's Measure passed in General Synod this afternoon at 4.25pm. It will now be discussed in Diocesan Synods and return to General Synod in 18 months time. Only four amendments were passed and these were all agreed by the steering committee of the revision committee. This is wonderful news! For live reporting, see Thinking Anglicans site here. For the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech this morning, click here. For General Synod's official report on the morning session, see here and for the afternoon session, see here. For audio file of session part 1, click here, and for part 2, click here. Press reports so far include: Riazat Butt, 'Archbishop warns against delay over women bishops', The Guardian online, 12 July 2010 Press Association, 'Women bishops bid passes key hurdle', Press Association, 12 July 2010 BBC, 'Women bishops can be created, Church of England rules', BBC site, 12 July 2010 The reports for the Living Church from York by John Martin, Fulcrum media secretary, are as follows: 'Synod Prepares for Grueling Debate' The Living Church, 9 July 2010 'A Narrow Loss for the Archbishops', The Living Church, 10 July 2010 'Understated Critiques Ensue at Synod', The Living Church, 11 July 2010 'Synod Approves Plan for Women Bishops', The Living Church, 12 July 2010 Posted by: WATERANGEL Monday 12 July 2010 - 03:12pm Graham ad Tony You both state that these amendments were an attempt at justifying the law in Poetry and that the ambiguity of poetry meant it would not be lawful to use it as the amendments of law have to be in prose. Of course i have to now ask about the relevance of the bibles poetical books, for if the bible is used as defence for upholding or disregarding laws surely you cant say only some of the books can be used as a defence. As the issue of women bishops is largely coming under the umbrella of biblical interpretation, the psalms are the very books that the communication to an individual put in place and consecrated by God may use. Of course i am referring to Rowans knowledge of poetical language allegories, analagies, and the real communicaton to him through that, after all Moses gave us the law from the inscription in stone in mount Sinai, which is where the first exodus began.Poetry may be ambiguous with the true meaning known only to the writer, which is why we have an interpreter like in the use of tongues for instance. I will just hold on to my dream, that one day all will understand that the true church in its true form is a fellowship of believers who love and care for one another on equal terms and seek to serve their saviour the Lord Jesus Christ in their community in much the same way. There should be no fear or condemnation in that. Also on a note of awareness and concern, the references to shotguns, makes me ask you , to check that any distressed clergy are safe. Seriously. We all know what can happen if the wrong stress comes at the wrong time. Angela Posted by: pete hobson Monday 12 July 2010 - 03:01pm I knew someone would say that, Graham. Problem of writing at haste and not elaborating on every point. Personally I think the amendment was indeed couched in clear and precise prose. But it's intent was poetic in the terms I meant it. Hope that's prosaic enough. Posted by: DavidR Monday 12 July 2010 - 11:28am Pete, thanks for a long and careful think through complex issues. You know my own position on this but I respect yours and the evident integrity with which you approach it all. Just one response if I may ... I seriously struggle with one part of your argument. Firstly you claim to not find a 'boss-bishop' model that the Synod continues to take as default in history or in practice in the church. This is not self evident to me. Perhaps you can point to evidence for your views on this. I am curious. But it is clearly the assumption on which the present system works, as you accept. But are you asking us to have supported to the ++'s ammendment on the basis of the possibility of a different vision for episcopacy that is not actually part of the present debate? You then say, 'I had hoped women in ministry might move us on from what, at it's worst, could seem just another form of male-dominant power thinking.' Well forgive me if I am misunderstanding you but this feels unrealistic at all sorts of levels. Frankly this feels a like a further unrealistic burden on women ordained into ministry in a church that continues to ask them to be faithful and flourish while allowing huge amounts of time and support and legal protection for those who do not even think they should exist. Your hope had been (and clearly you think 'they' have failed) - that even while they wait for the church to finallly and umambiguously welcome them, they would (in their spare time?) transform the theology and practice of the episcopal ministry. I have no doubt that a full and rich partnership of men and women in ministry will enable a renewing of ministry and leadership but it will take time. And it will certainly need men to mature into a more Godly critique of how they work perhaps even more than women at this stage. Thanks again
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 12 July 2010 - 10:20am
Thanks, Pete, for your very thoughtful and thought provoking comment. You state: ...it called to my mind the words with which the chair of the Revision Committee concluded his introduction of the Measure. "We have to legislate in prose. It would be much better if we could do it in poetry." I think this was a brave attempt to legislate in poetry. That seems to me to be the heart of the issue. The law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Church of England's canon law, has to be drafted in clear and precise prose. Legislating in poetry really does not work and would cause chaos. The law has to be clear and the Archbishops' amendment was not clear as the Fulcrum commentary on it pointed out. Posted by: pete hobson Monday 12 July 2010 - 12:56am I'm sure I'm not the only Fulcrum supporter who has been at General Synod this time around, but I'm not aware of other voting Synod members who use the Forum, so thought I'd have a go at reflecting on Saturday's debate and voting on the Archbishops' amendment - which as we know Fulcrum Leadership Team had come out against in advance, as had numbers of other groups. And it went down - just, in the House of Clergy - so they should be relieved. But I voted for it, and although I accept the result I'm not happy with some of the reasons given by those opposing it, and wanted a place to say why. We'd already clearly defeated two more 'extreme' amendments - one for separate dioceses, and one for clearly transferred authority, but this was the big one. The Archbishops said they were offering us something that squared the circle, giving opponents of women bishops just enough space to breathe and flourish in a church which contains them, whilst not detracting anything from the role or status of a women bishop in itself. It could just, said Rowan, be a situation 'where nobody loses'. Sadly (to me), not enough people were persuaded to give it a try. Well, that's practical politics for you - but my sadness was not just in the result, not even in the closeness of it (and had it been a count of the whole Synod, rather than by Houses, it would have succeeded), but for what I saw as the inadequacy of the arguments advanced against it. Just before I do that, let me explain why I voted for it, and why I am sad it fell. Thos not on Synod have the luxury of making their minds up on what it decides in advance, and according to whatever presuppositions they may adopt, without necessarily being able to pay close attention to the detail. Those of us currently on Synod ought not to do that. At the least we ought ought to pay attention to what's in front of us - and what's said in its favour or against it. I came to the debate wanting to do just that. My conclusion, at the end, was that the amendment - which really was relatively modest, in that it would only have removed 4 words, and added 4 lines to a very wordy piece of legislation - would, we were told, have made all the difference to many traditional Catholics, and classic evangelicals, and would not, as far as I could judge, concede anything more significant than the unamended draft already did. In other words, I was persuaded it could, indeed, have given us a win-win. Let's start with what was, to be fair, the strongest argument against it. That by introducing this new idea of 'co-ordinated episcopal ministry' it was open to an ambiguity, which in the event of a hard case could prove fatal. It's 'the buck has to stop somewhere' argument - and that's what Fulcrum advanced in the article that has given rise to this thread. In a slightly weaker form, this was advanced as "we're not clear what this would mean, and so we can't support it, in case it proves unworkable". But to work, this is based on the premise that always, at all times, we have to have one 'boss bishop' in each place (formal word - mono-episcopacy). This seems to me to fall down both historically and in practical reality. The idea that the present form of Anglican diocesan episcopal supremacy is intrinsic even to Anglicanism, let alone to the esse of the church, I find totally unpersuasive. I had hoped women in ministry might move us on from what, at it's worst, could seem just another form of male-dominant power thinking. And, to give just one example, as Sentamu pointed out - he is the Primate of England, and Rowan the Primate of All England. Those who know and understand this strange co-ordinate language have never until now suggested it is so fatally flawed as to bring the CofE tumbling to its knees. (Those who don't know of this will have to take my word for it for now.) So to a second line of argument, advanced with great force by numbers of speakers. That the amendment would "enshrine inequality in the legislation", sometimes simply stated as self-evident, but by one or two further expounded as "because it would REQUIRE a woman bishop to share her authority when a parish asked for it". Well excuse me, but this is where reading the actual words might help. The amendment left out the 4 words " (by) way of delegation to" and replaced that with the 4 lines that made it clear that this was to be, essentially, shared authority (my word, making explicit what is implicit in the amendment). So yes, the idea of delegation would have been replaced by that of sharing. But the parochial actions that would lead to that being requested, and granted, were not touched by the amendment AT ALL. If this sharing was now "required by the legislation" , then so is the delegation that is already in the draft. And both are in the Measure, which is, by definition, the legislation. So being "enshrined in the legislation" applies already. To use a simple analogy: the bullet may have been changed, but either way the gun was loaded and the trigger wasn't changed. Now given that, in advance of the debate, a lot of pressure groups, not least WATCH, made great play of how the current draft was as far as proponents of the Measure could go, and anything more would "enshrine inequality in the legislation", I am not surprised that the argument was also used in Synod. But that doesn't make it - to my mind - any more persuasive, or indeed, logical. Logic would say if you want non-discriminatory legislation, go for a single clause Measure. Anything more is ipso facto discriminatory, in that it allows - by Measure - parishes that are opposed to a woman bishop to ask for special treatment, so as not to experience her ministry/authority. Conversely, if you are prepared (however reluctantly - and for good caring reason) to allow such a request, then you've already stepped off the absolutist ground, and it's simply a question of how far you will go. Not 'separate dioceses'; not transferred authority. But why not wording why explicitly says this "shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions"? Which brings me to a third point. The words "his or her" in the amendment make it clear that there may also be male bishops who are found to be unacceptable. At first sight opponents make scorn of this - so you're allowing parishes to choose bishops on what they believe now, are you? they say. Well, it was said. But a moment's thought shows it's not that at all. For example (to take the most obvious case) a male bishop consecrated only by women bishops is not a Bishop to a traditional Catholic - any more than a woman Bishop can be a bishop to them. It's not the gender, but the theology that makes this so. And so whilst the unamended Measure is at risk of looking as though it is only on grounds of gender that a parish asks for this (because under it they have to be provided with "a male bishop", the amendment would have been slightly more even-handed as regards gender. Irony, or what? And the final, less than logical, reason that people voted against the amendment? It's the 'zero sum argument' and I would have just deduced this from some speeches, but in fact it was said to me explicitly by one person (no, I'm not naming names to anyone). The argument goes that even if we they don't really understand all that the amendment would have meant, if it made things more acceptable for those opposed, it must mean it would be less acceptable to those in favour. So they voted against it. The zero sum argument says If you gain ground, I lose ground, and so believes it's not possible to have a win-win. You can't square that circle. Well, logically, perhaps that's so but it called to my mind the words with which the chair of the Revision Committee concluded his introduction of the Measure. "We have to legislate in prose. It would be much better if we could do it in poetry." I think this was a brave attempt to legislate in poetry. And not poor doggerel, but fluent, rhythmic lines (Rowan is a poet, amongst other things). And I think it was defeated not in fact by logical argumentation but by impulses of a different sort. In the hearts of at least some of those longing for the day when women can be bishops in the CofE on equal terms with men (a group which as a whole includes my heart by the way), there was at this moment found no room for the thought that this might be a gesture of generosity that need not, in the end, cost any more than had already been agreed. The politics had won. For so long people had said to themselves "we've gone just as far as we can go" that an idea that might have worked was rejected not because it was unworkable, but because it was impossible that it be entertained. And I know I've not gone into the arguments that "the Archbishops shouldn't have tabled an amendment at this stage". But I've commented on that elsewhere. I know many who read this will disagree - possibly quite strongly. I'm only telling it like it seemed to me, being there. The arguments against didn't add up to me, compared with the arguments for. The voting, actually, didn't add up either - until voting by houses came into play. So be it - them's the rules, for all of us. What actually worries me, as someone who wants this all to go through, is that now it could be at more risk of not doing - because it makes provision for those opposed that most of those opposed have said is no provision. So, assuming nothing cataclysmic happens when we return to revision later today, it all comes down to the Code. But the task the Code has to deal with just got an awful lot tougher. I think. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 July 2010 - 03:10pm just want to clarify i am aware it was God prior to Jesus birth that led the followers in the darkness, i didnt make that clear not that it matters, if everything you know and remember comes out in the wrong order if it is all good it does not matter, just goodness in a different format, like women in the ministry (oops not supposed to say that). Also if you follow the logic of the shadow, which is your own and then think of the words "surely goodness and mercy will follow me" we get to i'm ok your ok Now that is to truly live under the shadow of his wings. Waterangel Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 11 July 2010 - 01:18pm Maybe this is good.....more people unable to pretend all is well and compromise....so they leave......"open evangelicals" can be like TEC's 'communion partners', Dr John can be given his divine right to be a bishop..... and we might get to TECusa's nos of 1 in 400 attending on a Sunday..... it will not matter in the long run if that happens....just one organisation slowly winding up. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 July 2010 - 12:39pm Carl 6-16am on 11Th July post Welcome to the world of catch 22, like a grand master of chess, check mate. Whilst all the players on this board stare each other out and refuse to move boiling with pumped up spiritual indignation, The world of the church who subscribe to this will stand still. whilst it stands still, along will come the alternatives the NEW church that will grow in number and it will become so strong that the players on the board will be dwarfed by many boards, the boards will have new players, but they will get to the same place, for what is encouraging now will become stuck as the players maneuverer across the board bypassing some and knocking others out. In the knocking out and bypassing indignation will grow, will it grow in anger or will it grow in love Jesus was bypassed on the road, and he has been bypassed in this decision, but his love grew and has his love grew so did our faith and as our faith grew in the spiritual world so did our compassion and our desire to make things good , peaceful etc But we were bypassed, alongside Jesus we were bypassed, so Jesus said walk with me go another way in Isaiah he told them i will lead you in and through the darkness, remember he gave them food and they did not all eat what they had and it went rotten, but they kept on following, in the darkness. As they completed and they had been led safely the brightness left shadows now the shadow is always larger than the self the actual self. This will be the saving grace, the shadow that comes out of the darkness will swallow them up but the shadow that comes out of the light will give more light and in the meantime our friends will still be at checkmate on the board cogitating what to do. yes in my fathers house their are many mansions, and in our walk with Jesus we walk in many others shoes. Waterangel Posted by: carl Sunday 11 July 2010 - 06:16am The one non-negotiable boundary defended by those who support Women Bishops is authority. True authority is proven by the enforced compliance of those who reject that authority. This is what those who support Women Bishops fear will be sacrified by any scheme the frees the dissidents from acknowledging the authority of women bishops - that their authority will only extend to those who accept them as bishops. If those who reject their authority are not brought to heel, then their authority will be tainted. All the schemes presented by those who support Women bishops to accommodate the dissidents demand as a precondition that the dissidents unconditionally acknowledge the authority of a woman bishop placed over them. In return for this unconditional acknowledgement, the woman bishop will at her pleasure extend some flexibility for a period of time. But it must be accepted and understood that this flexibility proceeds not from obligation but from grace. She has the right to extend it at will, and she has the right to withdraw it at will. At such time as she thinks it either unnecessary or overcome by events, she may terminate it at will. In the end, everything proceeds from her authority, and there is no appeal against it. This is the ultimate logic of the code of practice. It is also why the problem is intractible. The one non-negotiable boundary that traditionalists must defend is that they not acknowledge the authority of a woman bishop. If you try and force that acknowledgement, you simply guarantee their departure. The CoE presently sits with a shotgun stuck in its mouth, the hammer cocked, and its finger on the trigger. It reamins only to pull the trigger and blow the back of its head all over the living room wall. The folks over at Thinking Anglicans are delighted, and who can blame them. Should the traditionalists find themselves compelled to depart, the orhtodox ballast that restrains the CoE will rapidly dissappear. The theology found in the comments of Thinking Anglicans will quickly become the dominant theology of the CoE, and the 26 people who read and post at TA will soon enough constitute the whole of the laity in the CoE. If that is the future you want, then by all means, go ahead and pull the trigger. carl Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 July 2010 - 12:00am What i want to know and i am serious about this very serious what is going to happen about the bullying in the workplace and possible domestic violence of the female clergy at the mercy of these objectors. The days of joan of ark are gone then emotional spiritual cruelty a much more acceptable fete apparently. How disgusting that any of you should make a women or anybody beg to be treated equally. Am i ashamed yes I am ashamed that you could do this, the women involved mostly far too dignified to shed tears to you, the suffering and hurt with no less impact though. Maybe if these men were more secure in their own status and sexuality they would realize there was nothing to fear but the fear itself that they will lose some kind of percieved control. Dont try telling me it has nothing to do with it and that it is basically bible based or that some objectors are stepford clergy women because i dont care, i care that the church is not working as a team with equal status and respect to all who attend and serve in it, I care that children will be bought up in this environment, i care that the gap between the men and women of the church and the secular world will widen. i care that good honest hard working people fear for their lives and careers in an environment that is supposed to spearhead world peace. Apart from that have a nice day.. Waterangel
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 10 July 2010 - 05:39pm
General Synod voted at 5.07pm today against the Archbishops' amendment on women in the episcopate. The vote against the amendment is in line with Fulcrum's statement and commentary. The following is cited from Thinking Anglicans: 3.45 pm Synod resumed. The archbishop of York then moved the amendment 514, which (with 531) would set up co-ordinate jurisdiction, proposed by him and the archbishop of Canterbury. The steering committee resisted the amendment, but more than 40 members stood so the debate proceeded. 5.07 pm Synod voted to close the debate and proceed to a vote. A call for a vote by houses was successful. The amendment was defeated, because it was lost in one house (House of Clergy). Voting figures for against abstentions bishops 25 15 0 clergy 85 90 5 laity 106 86 4 Further amendments are currently being debated and eventually there will be a vote on the main motion, which - at least it seems to me now the above amendment was defeated - is likely to be passed. For live web page update, click on the Thinking Anglicans page here. For live audio feed, click on the Premier Christian Radio page here. Posted by: Dave Saturday 10 July 2010 - 08:32am Nersenpaul, Perhaps I am misreading you posts. I had assumed that we are talking about the consecration of women bishops.Synod has already made it mind clear on this issue. The only issue remaining is how the church can best respect its members who do not agree with this. The thing I find depressing is the thought of some kind of rear guard action by conservative extremists which will bring the gospel into disrepute. David Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 9 July 2010 - 09:38am "We are talking of a group of individuals forming a new church." - are "we", ? Sentamu and Williams have some understanding of what will happen to the CofE if they allow it to follow the step-by-step changes taken in TECusa in the last 30 years......that organisation today gets 0.26% of the US population in church on a Sunday for all its pride in democratic decision-making in a liberal direction. The ABC and Sentamu know that something can be forced in the synod, controversial bishops can be appointed, rules can be changed, votes can be taken to justify deviating from the church catholic, the scripture and 2000 years of tradition..... but people, especially those with thriving churches in the CofE, do not have to lump it if they do not like it. Those who attract few people every week and live off subsidies from CofE coffers might have disproportionate representation in synods etc, but they ain't going anywhere because nobody else will pay them for doing whatever they do.... but not all CofE churches are small and weak - some have real choices and biblical principles they will not compromise. Posted by: Dave Wednesday 7 July 2010 - 12:21pm Nersenpaul, The thing which depresses me is the thought of the small collection of churches which will have seen fit to leave the CofE. It is incorrect to talk of a church leaving the CofE. We are talking of a group of individuals forming a new church. You will loose members along the way. Your explanation of your new identity will detract from you witness. Will you become Congregationalists or will there be further cross boarder interventions. All very messy. Is it really worth it? David Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 7 July 2010 - 12:19pm Well for me the really depressing thing in all this is the continued anxious inability to welcome, accept, honour and celebrate the gift of women alongside men in the life and ministry of the church. The enormous energy that goes into resisting this is wearying, de-spiriting and does no one any credit. - huge amounts of time and energy going into debating ways of protecting from ordained/consecrated women the significant minority who can't accept it. The NT has strong things to say about Christians who go to law to try and settle disputes - except when protection from women is needed? - the strange notion that the present system, based on actual legal discrimination against women, honours both 'integrities' equally. - the frankly cynical assertions that women bishops (and their colleagues) cannot be trusted to honour or work with those who oppose them on their patch (and will therefore be part of a church that purges dissenting voices and vocations). In other parts of the world this has worked well and honourably and it is matter of regret that the Revision Committee did not consult those provinces that have been working with this for some time and with some success. - sloppy assumptions that consecration of women is part of a wider liberal revisionst agenda and that therefore must be resisted. It isn't - any more than consecrating men is actually. A great number of evangelicals completely support women as bishops on scripture grounds. And they need no other agenda to back the present proposals. Just what exactly is so dangerous about women? What are we so afraid of? Please. It's time to move forward. I have been ordained for 30 years now in the CofE. Some of the richest ministry partnerships, some of the most illuminating scriptural teachers, some of the wisest leaders and some of the most profound spiritual guides have been women. I am so very grateful and long for their full unambiguous honouring in the church and the healing of this ancient, fearful split. (and I write as someone with valued friends among those who are unable to accept this). Like many posters on these threads there are other aspects to the life of the wider church that I find worrying and that concern me deeply. But this issue is not one of them and it deserves careful debate in its own right. It is totally misleading and actually rather lazy to lump WO/WBs in with the 'rest' as yet another symptom of some toxic malaise of the church today. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 6 July 2010 - 05:39pm Hi Pete It is all a bit depressing, isn't it? Who in their right mind wants to spend hours in church politics because 'anarchosyndicalists' have captured so many of the structures and we have to fight just to have the scriptures and the 39 articles respected? Is it not tragic that we have to worry about who might be the next bishop Durham or Rochester...not to mention other places? There are more important things to do.....and I know many are getting on with that most important work. It is not christian unity which I called a potential idol but "instituional unity".... it is that form of unity that asks for compromise on principles and respect to be given to some who do reject parts of scripture or the 39 articles...going down that route was never recommended to the apostles (wolves in the clothes of sheep were part of a warning) and the apostles never taught the early church to coexist with false teaching..... but we no better? It's the Anglican way, some say. I don't want us to be loyal to the club in return for the influence and impact of the "communion partners " in TECusa i.e. zero influence. Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 6 July 2010 - 01:24pm Nersen and Carl - you sound resigned and depressed about the CoE as it is, albeit hopeful about what might be instead. But of course every division and schism in history has followed the same emotional track. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong - just worth examining the dynamics. Christian unity may well be an aspiration we can only do our best to work towards/maintain - but is it really an idol? How does that square with John 17 - indeed most of the New Testament? The only separation I find there is form those judged not to be Christian. If that's where you feel we've got to then you'd better go, and quickly. If not - it's a bit more tricky. If your view were a majority then there'd be no need to worry - so it's only when you're in a minority that you face the option of 'If I can't presuade them I have to leave them'. Where would that get us, in terms of ever multiplying numbers of ever decreasing churches? Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 5 July 2010 - 09:57am CofE politics, posturing and positioning........ are we all wasting our precious time on things which ultimately do not matter i.e. a flawed instituion ? Perhaps institutional unity is an idol from which we should flee, given its too often required compromises of biblical principles? Who has a calling to compromise for the sake of the institution? Perhaps it is best if "conservatives" and "traditionalists" leave and do not have to compromise with a bureaucracy which has disproportionate representation from the dead and dying parts of the CofE which the Great British public so avidly avoid Sunday by Sunday........ Maybe conservatives should free themselves of the bureaucracy and compromises, put biblical principles first even if it means giving up buildings, and invest all their time, energy and money in serving and growing their churches in new, more suitable, modern buildings, and wish 'open' evangelicals success in being the equivalent of the "communion partners" in TECusa. In an hundred years, I am sure conservatives would have no regrets. Posted by: carl Sunday 4 July 2010 - 03:53pm For all the talk of 'two integrities', there has not been much discussion of the critical unstated assumption behind this proposal - that the current generation of leadership that opposes WO will be the last generation of leadership that opposes WO. How does this proposal secure the future of both 'integrities' in perpetuity? It doesn't. It's not intended to do so. It's intended to allow the current generation to serve in good conscience until such time as it can be replaced. There will be no more bishops who oppose WO. Those who oppose WO will find it impossible to be ordained. Who then will defend and teach the doctrines in ten or twenty years time? They will all be gone. The reality of attrition will have worked its inevitable work, and the conflict will disappear. It is not sufficient to provide a temporary shelter of properly vetted male-only clergy if all those clergy support WO. Were I a liberal, I would jump at the opportunity to support this compromise. It vests all effective power in the hands of the diocean bishop - who is guaranteed to have institutional support in the face of 'obsolete, reactionary thinking.' The diocean bishop writes the plan. The diocean bishop selects the alternate. The diocean bishop can change the plan at will. Who is there to punish her if she decides to ignore the CoP? How will she be compelled? Will there even be a will to compell her? Write whatever protections into the CoP you like. They are only as powerful as the will to enforce them. If she decides to exert her authority in order to demonstrate the reality of her authority (and it is certain that she will) who will stop her? Only a fool would accept this plan on the assumption that it will protect those who oppose WO. It will protect some of those currently in place at the expense of those who would follow. It trades the blessing for a bowl of soup and for the same reason. carl Posted by: pete hobson Saturday 3 July 2010 - 10:56pm (continued) 7 & 8 are also basically the same point made twice ie is this TEA revisited? I guess if we aren't able to embrace the subtlety of it then yes it probably is and will go the same way. But given that delegated authority is no solution for those opposed, and this might be - doesn't that mean supporting the Draft Measure unamended means going back on any serious effort to bring people with us? I sense irresistible (majority) force meeting immovable (conscientious) object looming. Why is it so impossible to make concessions that actually work to those we think are (honestly) mistaken? If it won't work, it won't work. But it's we who have to make it work - or not. I sense a lack of both imagination and of magnanimity at work in some of the opposition to it. Posted by: pete hobson Saturday 3 July 2010 - 10:44pm Thanks for the Statement and Commentary. Here's some thoughts on the latter: 1. The logic of this seems to be that no-one should propose any amendments, because the Revision Committee have by virtue of the time spent come up with the best possible proposals. Or is it, perhaps, that Archbishops can't propose amendments? 2. Yes, of course it can do so. Does that mean it always must create problems? If so, say so. And to be fair this is hardly last minute in terms of how long before anything can become law! 3. I think the essence of this is what is outlined in 4, 5 and 6, which are not really different points but the same one explicated in three ways. It is probably the key point at which the amendment is open to challenge, but perhaps slightly undermined by the fact that we don't have a draft Code on any of the workings of the Measure in any case yet. 4-5-6. The question of how co-ordinate jurisdiction would work in practice is indeed crucial, and it's true, much as in a marriage, that if both claims to 'authority' are equal - and are simultaneously pressed - it makes it hard to resolve disputes, if disputes emerge. Perhaps, sadly, that is the key question. But does it all have to revolve around clear answers to worst case scenarios? Sometimes when Jesus was asked clear either-or questions he gave sideways answers. Is it lawful to pay taxes - yes or no? Is he your bishop or is she - yes or no? Pay taxes - yes or no? Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 3 July 2010 - 05:17pm Yes ! More Tea? This might suggest that no-one really wants to discuss it in any meaningful way. It i perhaps just too painful for some to make what they see as a comprimise. Points 5 and 6 do contradict one another. Either one "loves ones neighbour" even a female Bishop or one does not. Either as in accordance with church and employment law the best person for the designated area is in place or they are not. In the caring professions it is deemed more appropriate to have a female to care for a female and a male for a male with regards to personal care of an intimate nature, other staff involved in their care may however be male or female accordingly. This is a good working model for clergy, if a persons thoughts are concentrated on God and Spiritual things when for instance taking communion whats the problem, but if a man wants to talk to a man and woman to woman in a personal way that can be accomadated without affecting the eucharist. It just seems to me that the issue of pastoral care apart from say "care in the partaking of communion" are different issues and require different approaches. As i have stated before and will reiterate when serving our God and Our saviour the Lord Jesus Christ when this is the focus "the body represented or actual in communion according to tradition is what we recieve at such times we are in communion with the Lord not the presiding Bishop the mere vessel God uses. Of course i accept that that person needs to be chosen by God and their actions consecrated by God and God does that for all that ask. I do not believe that clergy of any description should be allowed to opt out of serving with anyone that God places alongside them. Unless that person is offensive and abusive. Just being a female does not qualify as that. Waterangel I must be off my rocker even commenting why should i care? the answer because God cares. This issue needs to be resolved to stop stupid divisions which are not nessesary, and are keeping God from those who need him. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 3 July 2010 - 02:41pm The Bible does not support the view that all the ministry roles can be obediently carried out by women. Phil Almond 
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 3 July 2010 - 02:24pm
Dear Friends we have just published 'Fulcrum Press Statement: Women Bishops and the Church of England'. there is also a commentary on the statement, which can be read here. please use this thread for discussion. Every blessing, Jody |
LATEST
|
The Bible supports ending restrictions on the ministry of women by making women bishops and the mission challenges of our times require it. It is vital that the General Synod debate later this month does not produce a stalemate. We need to move forward now toward women bishops in the life of the Church of England and we need them serving from 2014 and not 2018 or 2025.