|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/725
Fulcrum Subject: Women Bishops Other articles by Jody Stowell are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 113 comments on this article Fulcrum Perspectives: Women Bishops legislationby Jody Stowell
I think that there are two main problems with the particular amendment (Clause 5) that has caused concern. The first is that it seems to place in law, that which would have remained as a matter of grace, courtesy and wisdom, strongly held in the Code of Practice. This would ensure that discrimination against women was something that could be enforced by law, rather than understood as a matter of conscience which can be freely offered alternative arrangements in generosity and grace. This not only puts women in the position of having to accept their orders being called into question, sometimes on a fairly regular basis, but it also suggests that women are not able to be those who behave well about it. This is actually quite a blow. Secondly, there is the issue of process. To begin with, the Group of Six who decided these amendments were not ‘substantial’ was comprised of two who made the amendments in the first place. This meant that out of those left three quarters would have to vote against accepting the amendments. This seems to indicate that it was almost a fait accompli. But more significantly, the amendments were made to legislation that was overwhelmingly approved by Diocesan Synods, formed in the crucible of a Revision Committee: all these contained women. It is felt very deeply that an all-male group could not leave this alone. This is not considered inconsequential. Ordained women have felt the brunt of this kind of process before: in particular the women who waited and were told to remain silent in Synod in 1992. Too often has that command to be silent followed women into their ministries. Women are expected to accept disdain and to keep silent. It is unsurprising that the stories of these women are now being owned by those of us who, in one sense, have been blessed by the decision to ordain women, but who have not had to bear the pain in the same way. Our ministries are born through their labour pain and I do not wish to see our growth stunted. I face the vote in July with sadness now, because the last thing I want is for us to vote ‘No’ to Women Bishops now. But I do not think, in light of our history with the Act of Synod, that I could feel the joy that a ‘Yes’ vote may otherwise have brought. The amendments may have been offered as a clarification, but as one of my colleagues commented: what could have been a line in the sand over which we could see each other, has now become the Berlin Wall. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 22 June 2012 - 11:27am Thank you for that DavidR. Let's hope this appeal is successful. Good for Bishops Nicholas and Graham. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 21 June 2012 - 03:03pm Salisbury Diocesan Synod made space for an emergency motion at their meeting a few days ago. "This Synod calls upon the House of Bishops to withdraw its amendment to Clause 5 of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure". It was passed overwhelmingly. Earlier, in his Presidential Address, Bishop Nicholas Holtam said "the Bishops have destabilised the compromise agreed by 42 of the 44 Dioceses". Both he and Bishop Graham Kings voted for and welcomed the motion. Posted by: DavidR Monday 18 June 2012 - 01:19pm Bowman, thank you for drawing attention to empirical studies on men women and 'growth'. You rightly point out they are dated. But there are other limitations. One is the issue of where in what ministerial capacity women are being deployed compared to men. There has been more variation in this than for men - and for a variety of reasons. More women are likely to be part time or non stipendiary for example. These are also measures taken from still relatively early days in the availability of women alongside men in church job interviews. There is evidence ( I need to track the source) that in the early decades of women being appointable to local church leadership they were more likley to be appointed to smaller churches and/or in more socially mixed areas. Larger and more resourced churches were not yet appointing them. Has that proportion changed? My concern is that these stats may be applied with the same subtlety as school league tables and have the capacity to sustain the same kind of prejudices and even more to measure and judge ministry by unrealistic expectations. Posted by: Phil Almond Monday 18 June 2012 - 12:16pm Bowman My reply to your 17 June 2012 - 07:37pm post: As I have tried to say before, whether a person is a Christian or not is an objective fact known to God. Those who are Christians as an objective fact are those who, having been predestined to life before the foundation of the world have been regenerated by an act of God and justified in the blood and resurrection of Christ by a verdict of God, and, (an addition to what I have said before arising from thinking about our exchanges on East/West atonement) have been adopted as sons and united with Christ in his death, resurrection, ascension, and heavenly reign (I am not prejudging further discussion about theosis etc.). Such Christians are called to a life-long obedience to God in Christ in the power of the Spirit as God conforms them to the image of his Son, as they grow in grace and know God more and more; to a life-long mortification of indwelling sin; to a lifelong repentance for sins committed; to a life-long chastening; to a life-long meditation on the things written by God for our learning by the inspired Prophets and Apostles. God’s predestinating love guarantees that this process (maybe through many ups and downs etc.) will be successfully completed. In that process we may fall into sin intellectually (so to speak) as well as morally and come to wrong conclusions about what the Bible says and means. If we end up believing that something is not a sin which in fact is a sin in God’s sight, or that something is a sin which is not a sin in God’s sight, I don’t see how that belief can avoid being a sin in God’s sight. If we are persuaded/convicted of our sin, we have to repent of that and change our beliefs and behaviour. This is often traumatic. I realise that if any women who have been ordained come to the view that it was against God’s will, that trauma would be extreme in many ways. So it behoves us all to conduct these debates in fear and trembling. Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 18 June 2012 - 10:58am Mark - nice words...... But what are you willing to offer to opponents of WO? Anything more than a code they don't think protects them? Posted by: DavidW Monday 18 June 2012 - 09:46am JonathonDavid, I dont see any scriptural support that the disciples felt it inappropriate to approach Jesus at the well (John 4:27) nor where they might have learned from Him not to interrupt whilst He was speaking with women. The claim "The interactions where they learned to be wary of interrupting Jesus have not been included in Scripture." is very interesting. Alternatively it would not be mentioned in scripture that this is fantasy. You said "Jesus said that 'true worshippers, worship Him in Spirit and truth, that such people are the people The Father seeks. (John 4:23) " This is true and of course He said that to a woman. So women can worship in Spirit and truth just like men; provided of course it is in the Spirit and in the truth...and the nature of that might be serving under the authority of men. Posted by: Jonathondavid Monday 18 June 2012 - 01:30am Hi Angela, If the disciples felt it inappropriate to approach Jesus at the well (John 4;27) it would have been because they had learned from Him not to interrupt whilst He was speaking with women. It cannot be anything to do with the prior teachings of the Old Testament because women were not held in high enough regard to prevent men interrupting. The interactions where they learned to be wary of interrupting Jesus have not been included in Scripture. Maybe they were considered insignificant discourse, but they must have happened. Jesus was not an advocate of oppressing women. He advocated releasing them into a place where they could sit alongside the men to hear Him speak. He did not want them in the background if they could ‘choose’ to be with the men. Remember, He said that Mary had chosen the better part (Luke 10;42) Therefore, there should be a compulsion within women to ‘choose’ the better part. Curtailing to anything less than hearing their call is tantamount to disagreeing with Jesus. Whether or not it has been a sin to perpetuate the cultural values that Jesus Himself stood against is up to the church to decide, but there is no question that 'cultural' values have been perpetuated in a continuous spiral of self justification. Jesus said that 'true worshippers, worship Him in Spirit and truth, that such people are the people The Father seeks. (John 4:23) Posted by: Bowman Sunday 17 June 2012 - 11:32pm Some of the arguments being made on this issue lend themselves to empirical scrutiny, and given the stakes, I'm sure we all want to avail ourselves of the evidence available. On membership decline, Nersen has challenged the value of women's ordination for church growth, and in fact both sides have made predictions about the inevitable numerical decline of the other. Given that the 42 mainland dioceses in England have apparently adopted different stances on the ordination of women, how has that affected their rates of core membership decline? In 2006, the Empirical Theology Unit in Bangor published an analysis of just that question using data from 1994 to 2000, and reached the two conclusions below. I leave the interpretation of these results to those better acquainted with the several dioceses. The researchers themselves concluded that, "dioceses which have apparently encouraged the ordination of women have overall experienced neither greater nor lesser decline in terms of membership statistics than dioceses which have apparently discouraged the ordination of women." Using published data, the researchers identified the dioceses with the highest and lowest average proportions of ordained women (1994-2000)-- Most (top quartile)-- Southwark (17 per cent), Southwell (16 per cent), St Albans (16 per cent), Lincoln (16 per cent), Ripon and Leeds (15 per cent), Hereford (15 per cent), Oxford (15 per cent), Liverpool (14 per cent), Birmingham (14 per cent), Ely (14 per cent), and Bristol (14 per cent). Least (bottom quartile)-- Chichester (2 per cent), Truro (4 per cent), Blackburn (5 per cent), Exeter (5 per cent), Winchester (6 per cent), Chester (7 per cent), Portsmouth (8 per cent), Norwich (8 per cent), Canterbury (8 per cent), Carlisle (8 per cent), and Bradford (8 per cent). Speaking of these two groups, they write-- ...Individual dioceses have embraced the appointment of women clergy to stipendiary positions to noticeably different degrees... Clearly the balance between the two integrities in the Church of England remains to some extent a lottery of geographical location. They then used independent t-tests to compare these two groups on seven measures of church membership decline, each of which has its quirks. Since the p-values vary from .989 (Confirmations) to .204 (Easter communicants) none of them are close to the conventional alpha = .05, and hence none of the differences has a better than one in twenty chance of having simply happened by chance alone. Thus the researchers conclude that the data (n = 42) do not support the conclusion that there is a statistically significant difference in the membership decline associated with a diocese's chosen "integrity." In their own words-- ...Different policies among the dioceses regarding the deployment of women priests are irrelevant to the major issue of decline in membership statistics. No statistically significant differences were found between those dioceses which promote the ordination of women and those dioceses which do not promote the ordination of women in terms of core membership (electoral roll and usual Sunday attendance), in terms of wider outreach at major festivals (Easter communicants and Christmas communicants), and in terms of new members (baptisms and confirmations). Whatever it is that is leading the decline in the membership statistics routinely collected by the Church of England, the ordination of women to the priesthood does not seem to be a major factor. At the same time, whatever it is that is standing in the way of even greater decline in the membership statistics routinely collected by the Church of England, the ordination of women to the priesthood does not appear to be a major factor either. Here is a Church that supports two integrities, but experiences one pattern of decline. Though originally published by Sage, this analysis was not written in the standard scientific report format, and so it omits the usual discussion of the limitations of the research design and the next steps for further research. The most obvious limitation is that the data are 12 years old. My guess is that most villagers would be interested in a two-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) that used recent parish-level data for a much larger n and coded parishes as evangelical, catholic, liberal, or other. Interested villagers can find this study, either here or else in their libraries-- Carol Roberts, Mandy Robbins, Leslie J. Francis, Peter Hills (2006) "The Ordination of Women and the Church of England Today: Two Integrities, but One Pattern of Decline in Membership Statistics" Journal of Anglican Studies, 4 (2) 201-18. DOI: 10.1177/1740355306070680 Posted by: Bowman Sunday 17 June 2012 - 07:37pm Please forgive my incomprehension, but in this, as in some other discussions, I am not able to follow the inference from "A is mistaken about God's will" to "A is a 'sinner' who must repent." Has it been shown that a person cannot be both mistaken in an opinion and right with God? What, given the case of a "sinner" who methodically follows a rule of "obey scripture" to a mistaken opinion, would constitute repentance for her or him? How might an evangelical evaluate this proposed repentance? Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Sunday 17 June 2012 - 07:11pm @Jonathon David What is this "The Word" - with two capital letters. I presume you mean the Bible or the New Testament or some other portion of Scripture. But The Word? No - that all rather elevates it too much - The Word was in the beginning and became flesh - that is who The Word is, not any book, however important. Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 17 June 2012 - 06:35pm 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. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 17 June 2012 - 04:30pm Jonathon David I read your first paragraph, and i agree with you about learned behaviour, and as there is no written record of Jesus teaching the disciples to speak in front of women, do you think that that learned behaviour, came from a much earlier period. I would suggest it was more likely to have come from the deutro times, when the laws were made and the Ten Commandments given. What i think happened was that in the real human anxiety of the religious leaders of the time, they were fearful of "falling short of the glory of God" The response was to as with the muslims and with the Jews in the temple to split with the men on one side and women on the other or even outside, or possibly not in attendance at all. This of course is still going on there are the beduin villages in Egypt where the rules about only seeing the spouce once for half an hour before marriage and then covering themselves in the viel after that. All of the issues surrounding women in ministry sort of come from that..But of course as we know Muslims are more Moderate as are all of the "religious communities" Learned behaviour of a negative and oppressive kind is always much more difficult to modify as it is accompanied by so much fear on all sides. Jesus worked alongside women often, and God even in old teastament times used women to promote the kingdom, to the point wherethe mother who carried Jesus arrived at nazareth at the stable on a donkey , and the paralell was jesus being hailed on a donkey, in one we have the Birth of a baby boy who would become recognised as the "sent one" in the other we have the "sent one" giving spiritual birth to the world as the two worlds merge for a short while in the ascention. The example of humility and Power of Love and the ability to endure Loss in this World to gain in Spirit. The learned behaviour from Jesus would have been to bare suffering with dignity and to carry on loving and worshipping. Yet again we all learn we are slow at learning the Saving Grace, the grace that says "i am not afraid" to allow the change that is required to enhance the gospel for all. It is scary, for the men who believe it is wrong it is scary.But Jesus came to show us all a new way. Angela Posted by: Iconoclast Sunday 17 June 2012 - 01:47pm Jonathandavid wrote There is evidence, in The Word, that the disciples were reticent to speak with Jesus sometimes whilst He was in the presence of women. Could you tell us where in the NT that evidence is please? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 17 June 2012 - 08:33am So, in summary, regardless of Romans 14, some are willing to see people Once Again leave the cofE on this issue..... The attitude of Watch seems to be using nice words to say 'Good riddance'? JClatworthy says 'opponents of women bishops are probably right to fear that unless there is legally required provision, eventually they will die out'....... Really? Like the RCs who have more attending in England than the cofE? Or like revisionists in the cofE who attract so few and fewer each week despite being perfectly in line with The Garudian? Just who is dying out in the cofE? Have a look at the US.... In the whole State of New Hampshire, only around 10k attending.....in a whole state.. Maybe it should be more liberal??! That must be where it's going wrong.... Posted by: Jonathondavid Sunday 17 June 2012 - 12:56am Phil, There is evidence, in The Word, that the disciples were reticent to speak with Jesus sometimes whilst He was in the presence of women. Such action is learned behaviour; it does not come out of thin air. It is in itself evidence of prior teaching from Jesus on the matter. Why do we not have a more in-depth record of Jesus' ministry amongst women? Jesus was of the nature that he would have said outright if woman were not to serve Him. He was a man of clarity, and although He spoke in parables, He was not ambiguous when He wanted us to know something of such great importance. Women have not been included in decision making in matters of the priesthood in the past. Therefore, surely this is enough evidence to reflect ‘the sum of the regard’ men have held for women in God’s kingdom. The ‘sum’, after 2,000+ years, still does not add up to the ‘sum of the regard’ Jesus had for women in His short ministry. All the decisions men have been making for the last 2,000 years, both in the congregation and amongst the priesthood, are a reflection of the content of their souls. Women have not been included in that decision making, their soul’s have not been counted as worthy to (by men, not by God). Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 16 June 2012 - 09:54pm John Martin I was talking about now. Surely that is obvious? Phil Almond Posted by: John Martin Saturday 16 June 2012 - 09:11pm Phil: in fact there was a time in the history of the church when men (priests no doubt) debated if women could be saved. Same thing as being in the Kingdom. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 16 June 2012 - 07:31pm Jonathondavid Have you any evidence that there are any priests at all, anywhere, “who believe that women are not part of God's kingdom”? This is a total misrepresentation of the views of those opposed to the ordination and consecration of women. Phil Almond Posted by: Jonathondavid Saturday 16 June 2012 - 04:06pm Carl, We have a whole country filled with families who have no idea what-so-ever what a father is. They watch adverts and soap operas which reinforce the image of women who are running the country, businesses, hospitals, homes, headship of schools, performing heart surgery and so on. If our single parent families are spearheaded by women who are raising the family, working and keeping home; what today’s generation see are dynamic and multitasking women at the head of their households. Such families may not see, understand or want the concept of 'father'. This generation today are not going to go into a church and be convinced that suddenly a woman’s role dwindles into insignificance. It’s an insult to everything they know, love and trust, they will simply walk out of the church. But, they may allow God fearing women to feed them with God’s Word, which will ultimately reveal to them who ‘Father’ is, as defined by Scripture. This will create a desire in younger men to want to imitate Jesus and thus call them into church leadership. Posted by: Jonathan Clatworthy Saturday 16 June 2012 - 03:37pm Just to say I think Stephen Kuhrt's article is superb. The opponents of women bishops are probably right to fear that unless there is legally required provision, eventually they will die out. However this is not a good argument in favour of legislation to preserve them. I suspect that it seems like a good argument if you think the Church ought not to change. But of course it changes all the time, and traditional ideas die out. I can remember the fuss when alternatives to the 1662 Prayer Book were brought in. People complained that the Church would never be the same; but this was well before 1993 and the idea of alternative episcopal oversight hadn't been invented. Another big change (a bit earlier? 1950s?) was when they pooled all the endowment income, thus benefiting poorer parishes at the expense of richer ones. The change to the Declaration of Assent came a bit later. In each case opponents had to accept that the Church was changing. It was one thing to ask for provision for objectors for a period of time, but to ask for permanent alternative provision to be enshrined in law is to repudiate altogether the Church-as-it-will-be: Forward in Faith make it quite clear that they want legal safeguards because they will refuse to accept the episcopacy of the new bishops. If we really are going to legislate to accommodate people who completely reject the authority structure of the Church, what a shame we didn't think of this centuries ago and legislate for alternative authority structures so that the Presbyterians and Congregationalists could stay with us, and perhaps also alternative Creeds for the Arians and Unitarians. Posted by: Mark Bennet Saturday 16 June 2012 - 03:21pm 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 Posted by: Jonathondavid Saturday 16 June 2012 - 03:21pm " Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?”(NIV John 4:27) "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "[It was intended] that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. (NIV John 12:7) The thing is, Jesus' love, admiration and reverence for women was so evident that Jesus silenced His own disciples in their defense, without even saying a word. The disciples didn't get to the point that they wouldn't interrupt Jesus whilst he was talking to a woman unless there had been an interaction where He had instructed them not to (which for some reason was not included in The Cannon of Scripture ???? ) When those priests who believe that women are not part of God's kingdom stand in-front of His Holy table with their back towards the congregation, they need to be 100% certain that they have it right. If men persist in the pursuit of believing that the Holy Spirit is somehow divided they are going to find themselves down under looking up toward heaven. Jesus will be where the women are, of that I am sure. 
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 16 June 2012 - 03:06pm
Carl I hardly think that Father is to Mother is the same as Father is to Fish! When we are discussing essential difference between male and female - something which I think is greatly overrated, it would do well to recognise that Men and Women are a) the same species and b) far more similar to each other than they are different. I do happen to think that God revealed as Father was something that was rooted in a particular culture. I continue to call God, Father, but I am also happy to call God Mother as God is often spoken of as motherly in Scripture. However, I think that Jesus named God as Father, so that I see this as more of a name than something which defines characteristics strictly and is certainly not defined by our characteristics. We absolutely project our cultural understanding of 'father' onto God, I think that to say otherwise is simply naiive. Our job is to get to know God better so that our understanding of fatherhood grows, but to take what we understand a father to be, based on our culture, and then assume that 'this is what God is like' with no critique, is going to lend itself to all kinds of dangers. Often we can say what we 'don't mean' when we say God is Father, better than say what it is we 'do' mean. Because we are getting to know God better and better, I hope, and our understanding will develop. Jody Posted by: carl Saturday 16 June 2012 - 02:54pm Simon Morden I am genuinely surprised that you would think to reduce the whole of the role of father to "who goes to work on monday morning." I was referring to a father's authority, and difference between how a father interacts with his childlren as opposed to how a mother interacts. You can no more be a mother than you can be a fish. On a greater level. I was referring to the paternal image of God as revealed in Scripture. He created the office of father to reveal something about Himself. In so doing, He tacitly rejects the understanding that calling himself 'Mother' could reveal those self-same characteristics. He didn't just look around the pre-modern world and say "Oh, they will understand 'father' so that's how I will describe myself." That stands the imagery on its head. carl Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 16 June 2012 - 02:22pm Simon Morden I am not an Anglican and I don’t agree with all of Article 21. But I do agree with its general sentiment that General Councils (let alone the General Synod of the CofE) “may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God” and its pointing us to holy Scripture. So, contra your post, “arguing about the jots and tittles” (“careful and rigorous exegesis” is how I would put it) is the very thing we should continue to do, especially on Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Corinthians 11, Genesis 1-3 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Phil Almond Posted by: Simon Morden Saturday 16 June 2012 - 12:40pm Phil - I genuinely appreciate the difficulty. This is not, however, a simply matter of theology: you could argue for double-predestination, I could be a staunch Arminian, and it wouldn't affect our praxis substantially. You could be a paedobaptist, and I could be strongly for adult baptism by total immersion: it would affect how we welcome children into our fellowship, and might even require one or other of us to be re/baptised - it may even exclude someone who hasn't had the 'believer's baptism' from ministry, but this would be something they could change. Women cannot change from being women. They are therefore permanently excluded. So while this is theology, it is also institutionalised sexism. Now, you believe that this is the way God wants to order His church. I disagree. If we transported ourselves back two hundred years, and we had a conversation which suggested that I, in all good conscience, could own slaves on my plantation in Jamaica, and you, the abolitionist, said that you opposed me because of your conscience, it would all be very gentlemenly and polite - but I would have been wrong, and needing to repent. So there is a right and a wrong here. How do we discern which is which? If, in good conscience, we can both use scripture to support our positions, then I'm going to suggest arguing about the jots and tittles is going to be of very little use. (Yes - for the record, I am saying there are times when scripture is less than helpful and we have to resort to other methods of determining God's will.) I could even argue that by proposing such a tactic, you are creating a space in which change is impossible. The governing body of our church, for better or worse, is the instrument by which we order ourselves. The diocese are of the overwhelming opinion that we should have women bishops on an equal standing with male bishops - so that there is one title of bishop, and there is no confusion as to their responsibilities. Those opposed have, again rightly or wrongly, lost the argument, and have lost it again and again over two decades. It behoves you to either make a better argument, or to stop blocking the clear will of the church. Posted by: Phil Almond Friday 15 June 2012 - 09:26pm Simon Morden and User 4763 Just to try to explain what I mean when I say ‘It is a matter of conscience’. Let’s assume it is common ground that the Bible is a revelation from God whose purpose is to tell us who God and Christ are and what they are like, what they have said and done, are saying and doing, will say and do, and to instruct us what we should believe and do, and not believe and not do, to know (objectively and experientially) God in Christ and to be obedient to him. Given this assumption we all have convictions about what we should believe and do, and not believe and not do, convictions which are the result of the impact on our consciences of what we understand the Bible to be saying. As we all know, there is deep disagreement about what the Bible says and means on certain issues, like this one. There are those like yourselves who are convinced that the Bible permits, perhaps commands, that both men and women may, perhaps should, carry out all the ministry roles. There are those like me who are convinced that, while the Bible emphatically encourages the ministry of women, it says that not all the ministry roles can be obediently carried out by women. You are trying to persuade me that I am wrong and that I need to repent of my convictions and I am trying to persuade you that you are wrong and need to repent of your convictions. Until one of us is so persuaded, ‘it’ (our present conviction) is a matter of conscience for all of us. To further this persuasion my aim and wish is to see the strongest exegetical arguments from all sides openly and rigorously debated, as on various Fulcrum threads, e.g. Women's Ministry and Homosexuality: Questioning the Connections, without attributing motives other than the common wish to rightly understand and obey what God says in his word. Phil Almond Posted by: Mark Bennet Friday 15 June 2012 - 08:39pm 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? Posted by: Simon Morden Friday 15 June 2012 - 08:32pm carl - "It is a collossal non-sequitor to suggest that complementarity of function defaces the Image of God. It would demand among other things that father and mother become interchangeable roles when they clearly are not. It would require a gender-neutral concept of authority in marriage when there clearly is no such thing. This assertion is simply not Scripturally sustainable." Clearly, as I've been the primary care-giver to my two children for the last 14 years, I've been doing it wrong. Whilst I'm still the kid's father in a biological sense, my role is that of Mother. Feel free to have a sit down in a darkened room while you recover from the shock. Bowman (I always think of 2001 when I see your name - he was, of course, another Dave...) - yes. As usual your point is well made. I am glad we've reached the point in my church's life when it ordains women, and is on the brink of making some of them bishops. Lots of other churches have already passed that hurdle, and the sky didn't fall down for them - which is an encouraging sign. II hope what I feel is more relief at a wrong righted than triumphalism. The church - after a long campaign - decided that keeping slaves was simply wrong and against scripture. Former slave owners (which included the Church itself) were left with carl's two choices or my third. They could grit their teeth and bear it, they could leave, or they could repent. Only they couldn't keep slaves any more. No accommodation was made for them, nor should it have been. Likewise, churches in South Africa that were split along racial lines were faced with the same stark choices. No accommodation there either. Tradition is overturned. Doing it wrong for decades, centuries or millenia means the injustice is greater, not less. And for our small patch of the church, it's time to change, even if it is painful. Posted by: DavidR Friday 15 June 2012 - 08:26pm Carl You write - 'the cohort of women from whom female bishops will be appointed is generally progressive as well. This will pull the leadership of the CoE farther to the left as each new woman is appointed and make the progressive agenda more realizable' So women bishops will be part of the inexorable drift of the CofE into liberalism? Where do you get this? You have actual evidence? You know their names and have examined their theological centre of gravity? (well no one else does). This is a mean generalisation that dishonours all concerned. It is very offensive to the women and men I know who long for the full inclusion of women in the leadership of the church on biblical grounds and out of biblical conviction as to the rightness and gift of this. Posted by: Bowman Friday 15 June 2012 - 07:27pm Simon Morden-- Your honesty about the third option gets us nearer to the problem, but perhaps not yet to the solution. If the no-WO position is grievously sinful, then the whole Church was also grievously sinful from soon after the Resurrection until... a few years from now. Something seems odd in a church's majority saying to a minority of its faithful members-- We the victors have decided that we have all been wrong, and that this error of twenty centuries must be fixed immediately and at any cost. You, the losers, are going to pay for our collective sin because, being losers, you are also especially sinful and therefore expendable. Ha ha, ha! Power wins, and we have it all! Whilst nobody actually says this, it is not hard to hear odd things in some comments below. Now I am no more arrested by the claims of individuals following private speculations than you are. But that is not what someone like Phil or Carl is actually defending. Rather they are defending whole congregations who continue to believe that what the church has previously taught is revealed by God, and who do not as yet believe that the Church has been teaching sin since the earliest centuries. So far as they can see, their mother wants to slap them for doing as they were told. Even disagreeing with them on the underlying matter, it is hard to ignore their plight. You might look at the links in the media thread that concern The Falls Church in Falls Church, Virginia for a glimpse of their future. Is the majority being honest with itself when it speaks of the glorious future of WO to itself, but speaks of the grievous sins of male-only ordinations to the minority, as though to scapegoat them for a shared past? What does the majority in the Church owe to the minority that was once the unanimity? What is the change of mind that is actually possible for those of minority views, given their several positions today? Is it realistic to suppose that they can ever trust a church that has changed its mind? If not, should they be assisted in finding another communion that they can trust? And what trade-off should be made between haste and justice? Kindly note that none of these questions assume that the majority is wrong about the ordination of women. They just assume that being right does not free the majority of all obligations to the rest of the church. It may be that the debate is just beginning, and that there is no need to rush to a final vote until some of this is considered. That would be a disappointment to those keen on this one issue. But I think that this disappointment could be avoided by considering the minority to be something more honourable than a losing faction or an ignorant mob. It is relatively easy to bear our obligations if we accept them in Christ. Posted by: carl Friday 15 June 2012 - 07:16pm Simon Morden [T]hose who've denied full imago dei to various groups of people always been wrong. It is a collossal non-sequitor to suggest that complementarity of function defaces the Image of God. It would demand among other things that father and mother become interchangeable roles when they clearly are not. It would require a gender-neutral concept of authority in marriage when there clearly is no such thing. This assertion is simply not Scripturally sustainable. It's the clear will of the dioceses that we have women bishops, and on an equal basis to men. Why don't we do that thing, rather than the other, less just option? It depends on the level of temporal consequence you are willing to absorb. Certain outcomes will inevitably proceed from enacting this legislation. Some people will simply leave and form a the beginnings of a competing Anglican Free church. Others will depart for non-Anglican venues. This will change the ideological balance of the CoE and move the church in a progressive direction. In addition, the cohort of women from whom female bishops will be appointed is generally progressive as well. This will pull the leadership of the CoE farther to the left as each new woman is appointed and make the progressive agenda more realizable. These two forces will re-inforce each other and cause more conservatives to depart. An increasingly liberal leadership makes life intolerable for conservatives. As more conservatives depart, the liberal leadership becomes more entrenched and purses its agenda with increased vigor. You will end up with a monochromatic liberal church. This is exactly the dynamic that killed TEC dead. And make no mistake. TEC is dead. Do you wish to follow in its footsteps? The problem with liberal religion is that there is no base of people who care enough about it to pay for it. Liberal religion is a collection of generals in search of an army. It's a group of social activists with collars trying desparately to find some laity with open checkbooks. Except there is no such laity. It's hard to run a church when there is no one giving money to keep the lights on. This is what TEC is going to find out over the next 10-20 years. Be wary of following the same trail to the same location. carl Posted by: DavidR Friday 15 June 2012 - 05:51pm Stephen, thank you for a very helpful application of scripture to the present context. Posted by: Iconoclast Friday 15 June 2012 - 04:35pm Stephen Kurht, I do understand the point you are making, However it seems to me that none of the perspectives offered with perhaps the exception of Simon Cawdell’s and Andrew Goddard’s really addresses the real fear of traditionalists that the proposed legislation without the amendments is designed to ensure the eventual eradiation of opponents of the WO from the Cof E. You seem to gloss over the code of practice as being perfectly adequate for their needs but the reaction of groups like WATCH see very clearly that the amendments provide strong impetus for the Cof E to continue to ordain traditionalist opponents of WO and not to allow them to die a natural death. So when Elaine Storkey in her 3rd paragraph writes The present clause will mean we must maintain a pool of both Catholic and Conservative Evangelical opponents to women within the church, from which we can select those who will offer alternative episcopal oversight. Precisely. So is she implying here, that the original intention was that the pool should in time diminish and become extinct as opponent of WO will not be accepted of be offered preferment because of their theological convictions? Is she happy to see traditional views of WO flourish by the continued maintenance of those she profoundly disagrees with on this issue and the pool replenished? Simon Cawdell referred to the thread discussion as been one of the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ yet in reality it is the hermeneutics of realpolitik that is being discussed here. I think that the traditionalists see all too clearly that the un-amended legislation is really a form of gerrymandering that will drive them out one way or the other. As it stands the amended form at least gives them (however thin) some assurance that their continuance is guaranteed. Now it may well be that if the code of practice minus amendments is all that is offered and what ultimately gets voted through, and to start with, everybody will be nice and generous to each other which I think is what you hope will happen. But it is naive in the extreme to think that such arrangements will last. Once the proponents of WO gain the ascendancy then in time (especially if they are liberals) they will use their influence to aggressively restrict and limit any new preferment’s which support the traditionalist line on WO. So the question I would like to ask you Stephen, is whether the you see the ultimate objective that the view that women should not exercised Episcopal ministry in the Cof E be expunged from the C of E in due course? They are not going to survive purely on the basis of people being nice and generous to them. And if that is the case, is it not better to be upfront about it instead of all this dissembling? Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 15 June 2012 - 04:17pm Thanks Stephen - I think the bishops have been trying to go the extra mile, in line with Romans 14..... People left the Cofe in the past on this issue, it'd be a shame to see the cofE further reduced ......although some groups would say, 'Good riddance!'. I'm glad you wouldn't...... But why not be more generous to your brothers and sisters who disagree on this disputable matter? There are at least 2 churches in the cofE already.. Not acknowledging that reality by forcing rules which lead to more departures doesn't make it go away..... Another David, Romans 14 has to be read in the context of the whole of Romans and he whole NT and the whole bible .....it's not calling for no judgment re what scripture calls sinful but deals with disputable matters. On WO, it's sad that some evangelicals seem willing to split from others unless they accept WO and extending it..... Glad that Stephen and others want a code ... Can't see why it can't be a tad stronger ..... A bit more generous to those who want to stay in line with what the CofE (and RC) have taught for centuries re scripture . As the bishops suggest, more generosity would be good...... They're not Anti WO....far from it..... But they're being generous .....that's good... And I'm line with Romans 14 
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Friday 15 June 2012 - 02:32pm
Nersen raises Romans 14:13-23 and I think it is interesting to think through the differences between Romans and Galatians in their response to diversity. In Galatians, Paul is adamant that the establishment of a two tier church (one for Jews and another for Gentiles) will be a fundamental denial of the heart of the gospel that the one God had one plan of salvation for establishing one people. In Romans he is equally concerned with unity but with the emphasis (particularly in chapters 12-14) on the loving concessions that believers should make to one another's consciences. So once the principle of complete equality ('neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus') is established, those within these groups are encouraged to make loving concessions to one another. And in a nutshell it is because of Romans 14 that I completely support a code of practice to look after opponents of women bishops and because of Galatians that I completely oppose a legal solution that will establish two parallel churches, sets of bishops etc.
Posted by: Jody
Friday 15 June 2012 - 02:17pm
Hi Nersen I'm not sure how it doesn't? Jody Posted by: Another David Friday 15 June 2012 - 02:16pm Nersen, Rom 14 is an interesting and relevant passage. I'm not sure if you are wanting to draw attention to the 'not passing judgement' in v13 or the '[pursuit of] what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding' in v19. I think we would need to see where we are in this passage. Am I passing judgement on 'weaker brothers? Or am I such a weaker brother with a tender conscience who has a problem with behaviour which is actually OK (not unclean)? There is some action X which is OK. However, the key point is that if I do X, this may cause a brother or sister to stumble. Also, it is of no real consequence for me if I do not do X. So, what is X? And what is the stumbling which could be done by those who have an issue with X? And what are the consequences of not doing X? I'm also intrigued as to how this might be applied to the issue of the Southwark trust fund and the judgement on others as 'fase teachers'? Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 15 June 2012 - 01:00pm Stephen, Elaine, Jody..... How do your views fit with the attitude commended in Romans 14:13-23? Posted by: Neil Friday 15 June 2012 - 10:47am Elaine Storkey describes the 1992 legislation as saying: ".....the Church selects and ordains women for the priesthood, officially and fully, but recognizes that those who have theological objections to the church’s practice on this may hold those objections ‘with integrity.’" I'm grateful to User 4762 for the comment about the proposed legislation. I'd be interested in further responses to the part of my post of 02.08pm on 12th June when I was wondering whether the core problem at the moment is that the unamended proposals do not actually do what 1992 did? That is why Synod is so divided and why evangelicals are divided. Could Fulcrum folk unite with others around the cause of ensuring the new legislation/proposals achieve what 1992 did - and accept some delay in order to reach that point?... Posted by: Simon Morden Friday 15 June 2012 - 08:34am carl - those who've denied full imago dei to various groups of people always been wrong. Doing it to half the human race doesn't make it somehow more right. The CofE was wrong to allow no-go areas for women priests in the first place, for both organisational and theological reasons: it simply hasn't worked - the AngloCatholics have their Ordinariate, the conservative evangelicals have their GAFCON/FCA/Co-Mission/Southwark Diocese Trust/irregular ordinations/cross-border church plants/uncle Tom Cobbly and all. It's the clear will of the dioceses that we have women bishops, and on an equal basis to men. Why don't we do that thing, rather than the other, less just option? Posted by: carl Friday 15 June 2012 - 05:02am Simon Morden Let me suggest a third: repentance. That would be the "Change your mind and agree with us" option. And since repentence implies sin, it would have to be preceded by the "Acknowledge your sinful attitude" admission. This is the point where opponents need to be reminded that the CoE is going to find an accommodation for 'as long as opponents need it' so that oppoennts can 'flourish.' Sure it will. And the check is in the mail. And my driver's license is in my other pants. And my dog ate my homework. Unfortunately, this option is untenable because those people who oppose women's ordination aren't wrong. They are right. Which makes repentence kind of difficult. carl Posted by: Jonathondavid Friday 15 June 2012 - 01:03am 4762 User 4762, A woman's menstrual cycle is more likely to help her be empathetic towards the needs of others. In this day and age, in some countries, women are being killed because when they get infections due to lack of sanitary ware their partners think that they have been unfaithful. This lack of basic need, in a technological world, keeps whole families in poverty because girls/women and their daughters miss education, work and social time away from their communities. Because of this they cannot start businesses, hold down jobs and are not very pleasant to be near. However, this is England, not the Third World. Women have been released from this physical block to priesthood which was evident in early Christianity. Theoretically, the relentless pursuit of equality is not really synonymous with a role of servitude. This may present any God fearing panel of Bishops with a problem; they might find themselves focusing on the pursuit rather than the equality issue and Christ's description of God as 'Spirit', not as male or female. It's a very real problem and defines career verses calling. In both sexes there are people who climb ladders relentlessly, especially where they perceive power will bring fulfilment, and therefore it is such women who might engage in a desperate pursuit. This might be the reason for the remark from the Orthodox Archbishop who has philosophically observed the predicament. (Bowman 12 June 2012 - 04:12pm) The situation leaves tension between his heart and caution which can only be resolved once the right women is in place. It’s a dreadful situation, because, in truth, which woman who understands the tension would want to step into that position? So, the change ought to be coming from the stirring and conviction within men’s souls through the call of God's Holy Spirit; through the continual prayer and action of people who believe that God’s Holy Spirit works equally through both men and women. In truth, whether someone will allow a woman to give them Communion or not is an issue of Psychology rather than Theology. It may be dressed in Theological arguments, but it is actually about a psychological exchange between the individual, culture, their perception of who Christ is, The Holy Spirit and the role of the ordained Minister/Priest. A true and desperate need for God strips away the individual's understanding of who a minister of God should be. That is true even of a man who might have taken an extremely masculine role in their life. I give the example of those men who fall to their knees crying out for Mary, or men who are facing their death with a female nurse/doctor or female carer at their side. A parallel can be found in the medical field, a woman surgeon was unthinkable just a few decades ago; but now how many men refuse to have a life saving operation carried out by a woman? Posted by: User 4763 Thursday 14 June 2012 - 08:05pm I feel moved to protest!!!!!! - whenever I hear opposition to the full emancipation of women in the church as a mater of 'conscience' I want to cry. What part of the inclusivity of God don't you understand????? Of course, this comment came from a man - albeit a well meaning chap who I am sure has women's best interets at heart (not the men folk who feel they are far better at it than women.....or 'called to it' ..... of course....). l am reminded of the wonderful story of Apollos in Acts 18. Bless Apollos. I am sure it was a matter of 'conscience' for him - but with humility and love, because they knew he had the right heart, Pricilla (female) and Aquilla took him to one side and explained the way of God accurately. Maybe this is our job now? I personally believe anyone who claims to have 'all the answers' actually hasn't. I also worry about anyone who says its all a matter of 'conscience' - I can hold lots of things that are a 'matter of conscience' - but does that make them right in the whole scheme of things? Women too have a 'conscience'... (or do they?????? Maybe that is a reason for them not progressing to Bishop????). In any case, they are entitled to share how they are let down and held back due to the 'conscience' of others. remember Pilot had a 'conscience' - his 'conscience' was clear - but he crucified our Lord - Who are you crucifying????? I would not be surprised that those against the inclusion of women (into senior the leadership of the CofE of course -(we all know everyone has a ministry... asper previous post........) don't view Jesus as white, with blonde hair and blue eyes! Am I being silly????? Pot calling kettle me thinks. What about the archaeological evidence where carvings have had the female breasts of Bishops carved away to hide their true gender! Please - can we all get a grip! I am so tired of reading posts which are so academic I fear even God would struggle. I certainley do! I have 2 degrees and an MA - (but dropped out of my PhD - perhaps that was because I was a woman and my brain may not cope... or maybe it was because I have 3 children and 3 churches and not enough hours in the day to care and love everybody all the time). BUT - I will ALWAYS remember - 'knowledge is overated because we put knowledge where our hearts should be'. Remember the mutterings of the Pharisees - wow, I can hear the muttering even now. Remember it was Jesus who told Martha that it was better that Mary was in the debate and discussion... than washing the dishes - OR PERHAPS SHE HAD HER OWN MINISTRY TO OCCUPY HER TIME - LIKE SUNDAY SCHOOL OR DOING THE DISHES OR IRONING HER HUSBANDS CLERICAL COLLAR...) Recently I was at a conference where a chap (bless him) stated that he was firmly against women in leadership because of their mensrual cycle! What about post-menopausal women was the reply!!!! - there was OF COURSE no answer. I feel God's heart greaves over all these 'matters of conscience'.... What do we want to achieve? Surely, a world where Christ Jesus is hailed as Lord and Saviour and where people are healed and churches united in the body. Pathetic (and I do not mean that word lightly) PREJUDICE (however it is being covered up) is not the key. Why does the church as an institution collude with what would be seen as clear bulling in all other aspects of life? As a Methodist I feel I am free to share these thought - while many of my Anglican friends cower over the thought of being truly radical. For those who have not hear the true insights of how women have been repressed (due to PREDJUDICE not CONSCIENCE) please read Mary Grey, Rosemary Radford-Ruether or even.... dare I say it.... Jesus! PS I am even more glad I am a Methodist! remember - when in doubt - John Wesley asked his MOTHER! Posted by: Simon Morden Thursday 14 June 2012 - 11:18am Phil - "I surmise (I know I am generalising) that the majority of evangelicals who are opposed are emphatic supporters of the ministry of women, but they are persuaded that the Bible teaches that not all the ministry roles can obediently be carried out by women. It is a matter of conscience." Saying "it's a matter of conscience" is not a trump card that allows you leap free of the consequences of your actions. That's why we differentiate between "prisoners of conscience" - who are oppressed by the state for practicing reasonable free speech and a fair expression of their religious beliefs - and other prisoners who have violated decency in either or both. So - discriminating against women is part of your religious practice. You belive that God wants it that way, so you shouldn't get upset when other people name it for what it is. A while back carl posited two possible reactions to women bishops: 1. Submit and violate his conscience. 2. Leave. Let me suggest a third: repentance. You're simply wrong about this - the church was wrong about slavery. Repentance was required. Parts of the church were wrong about racism. Repentance was required. Now we're on the brink of enshrining misogyny into the laws of the Church of England. It won't do. Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 13 June 2012 - 09:20pm Under the present system, what is the most authoritative sort of verbal statement that the Church of England could make that the "taint theory" is not a doctrine revealed by God, and that the sex of a minister does not hinder the effect of the sacraments? It seems that letting people infer the Church's doctrine from the disputed significance of its practise is confusing and perhaps embittering the issue. If the doctrine were clearer, then might the options be more easily sorted on all sides? Posted by: Linz Wednesday 13 June 2012 - 09:17pm Neil, The Manchester Report of 2008 summarised the key issue as this: How shall we appoint women as bishops in a way that - maintains the traditional understanding and role of bishops leaves space for those who in conscience cannot accept women as priests or bishops avoids any flavour of discrimination or half-heartedness by the Church towards women priests and bishops? The Church of England has accepted the importance of creating space for those who in conscience cannot accept women as priests or Bishops, but the other two key issues are just as vital. This is why the Legislation has been so carefully scrutinised and intensely debated over such a long time, so that these three key issues are kept in healthy balance. I acknowledge the fact that the legislation amended or unamended does not create the kind of space opponents demanded. In fairness, neither does it fully satisfy the other two issues particularly the need to avoid discrimination and half heartedness by the church towards women priests and bishops. If the CofE wishes one of its marks of mission ' to challenge the unjust structures of society' then it really does have to put its own house in order first. The legislation the Dioceses voted upon was in keeping with the spirit of the Act of Synod, but further provision within the measure itself, rather than the code of practice, such as the amendment to clause 5, will go far beyond it and create something that our predecessors wished to avoid. In 1993 during Synod debates about the Act of Synod the then Bishop of Birmingham Mark Santer said ‘ we must not build walls or dig ditches that people find they cannot cross’ John Hapgood then Archbishop of York also said that ‘what we seek to provide are opportunities and safeguards which we hope will be used in a pastoral rather than a legalistic way so that none of us is trapped in unnecessarily rigid divisions...’ and Archbishop Carey in 1993 debates made it clear that there was no intent to set up parallel episcopal jurisdiction stating that the provision was designed to provide appropriate pastoral care ‘working with and through diocesan bishops’ ‘without undermining the authority of diocesan bishops’. Lord Runcie saw the special provision even then as ‘symptoms of an illness which relaces trust andgood will with the flawed logic of two integrities’. That's not a path that I wish the Church of England travel further down. If the legislation can be returned to the House of Bishops, and if the House of Bishops are willing to remove the amendment to Clause 5 and let the GS vote on the original legislation that had been approved by the Dioceses, all well and good. If not, I hope the GS has the courage to vote it down. I'd prefer to wait 5 years than endure decades of dysfunction. Posted by: Phil Almond Wednesday 13 June 2012 - 01:53pm User 4763 Whenever I read posts or articles such as yours which say or imply that opposition to the ordination and consecration of women is due to prejudice I feel moved to protest. I surmise (I know I am generalising) that the majority of evangelicals who are opposed are emphatic supporters of the ministry of women, but they are persuaded that the Bible teaches that not all the ministry roles can obediently be carried out by women. It is a matter of conscience. Phil Almond Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 13 June 2012 - 09:04am Amendment 5 looks ok to me making provision for all BUT point 6 is the problem. The issue of Review, To say that this will be reviewed every 5 years say so that the Women concerned still reach the stated standard of criteria?? Unless of course this clause is introduced for ALL clergy, BUT this is already part of the status of clergy anyway, if a clergy person does not fulfill their obligations to the church there are already processes in place to deal with that. However the closed shop mentality makes it difficult to implement. Unite have dealth with several cases recently where disagreements in the employment status have created problems, with the bishops concerned concentrating on the "calling" God is not an employer. However the Church who are the representatives of God are an employer. These are the areas where reviews cause problems, for if a woman finds herself being bullied and harassed as a Bishop there will be no redress in Law as a recent case in wales has just proved. This decision cannot be up for review, under no circumstance should the criteria for women being ordained be under review, the procedure by which people male or female enter into the ministry may be put under review, but the specifics should not just be about women. What should be under review is the amount of time, that it takes to move from one position to another, the needs of the people we serve are fast moving and stability in the church is not the same as stagnation. The question is will anyone hear that or will they say "we are not here to discuss that" knowing full well that that is the hurdle women bishops will face in relation to reviews. Angela Posted by: User 4763 Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 09:06pm Hi everyone. I am interested in this debate as I have seen so many Anglican sisters (I am a Methodist Minister) experience such terrible prejudice. One of my friends had almost half a congregation one Sunday refuse to take HC from her - another, the Organist walked out when she presided BUT would take it from me (a Methodist - because I am not 'proper') when playing at my church. How amazingly ridiculous is that! My question is this. Do women really want to be radical???? What would happen if all the female clergy on mass left (or went on strike) - or to be even more controversial - had some form of suffragget movement that did more than caught a few eyes? I do not think anyone should be throwing themselves under horse carriages - but seriously - where are we going with this? Is this really about political power, theological insight or simply penis envy. The historical evidence and archiological evidence.... and EVEN biblical evidence (praise be) is clearly FOR women in leadership. It is about time those at the top stopped playing pathetic power games and followed the humility, compassion and inclusivity of Christ. This is not (dare I say it again... penis envy) - it is about what is right for the church. A church made up of BOTH men AND women. Ultimately whenever I read of such incidents in the Anglican Church - I thank God that I am a Methodist. Not that women in the Methodist Church dont experience sexism.... but no where near on the scale of within the Anglican church. Mind you - we don't have Bishope either...but thats another story...... Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 06:58pm Stephen, Elaine, Jody..... How do your views fit with the attitude commended in Romans 14:13-23? Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 04:12pm When I hear the opponents of the ordination of women, I think to myself, "This is so distorted and wrong, we must do this [ordain women] at once!" But then I hear the advocates for the ordination of women, and again think to myself, "No, they really don't get it; this will never do." So we wait for arguments in Christ that neither distort scripture and tradition nor ignore them. --an Eastern Orthodox archbishop discussing the ordination of women over dinner. Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 03:57pm Typically lucid and wise. Thank you. Coming from one of the most senior and respected Synod members this needs taking very seriously. Surely this needs urgent rethinking Posted by: Neil Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 02:08pm Elaine says:"In fact the 1992 Measure allows no such dichotomy. It says the Church selects and ordains women for the priesthood, officially and fully, but recognizes that those who have theological objections to the church’s practice on this may hold those objections ‘with integrity.’" If Elaine is correct, then the right way of maintaining unity in the new world of women bishops is surely to check whether the current legislation - without the new amendments - still "recognizes that those who have theological objections to the church’s practice on this may hold those objections ‘with integrity.’" And Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals say the current legislation, unamended, doesn't - and they have been saying this at every level, parish, deanery, diocesan synod during this long process. At the moment, without the amendments, those who hold theological objections feel either marginalised or even that they are simply being allowed to take their objections to the grave (after which they can be erased from Church of England history). So how can the current legislation now be made to achieve what Elaine says the 1992 Measure did, ie "recognises the objections" properly? To ensure that the current legislation achieved that, I think requires real grace and generosity and Fulcrum could lead the way in initiating that. Despite what Elaine says about how long the process has taken - and despite the many attempts that have been made to make "concessions", the legislation just still does not allow the objector to feel secure in their position because those concessions remain either inadequate or temporary. Are we now in a situation where the whole legislation could fall in its entirety over this? Might a delay of some sort now almost be inevitable, to most peoples' frustration and probably the media's disbelief. Yet a short delay - to enable proper consideration of amendments that can allow the church to remain united because theological objections are properly recognised and honoured - is, surely, way better than a long delay of many years when everything starts from scratch. Will Fulcrum be the courageous catalyst to that short delay?.... Posted by: Jonathondavid Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 01:55pm God never underestimates the position of women and the power of their work for His Kingdom. He led men to the feet of one of the most powerful women of all time (Judges 4). It's only men who understimate God's will for women, that is to be 'one' in Him. God is Spirit, there are not 2 Holy Spirit's............ only 'One'. If men desire to be with one with Chirst, then they have to overcome their desire to be spiritually distinct from women, they have no choice. http://www.paintingall.com/images/P/Jacopo-Amigoni-Jael-and-Sisera-Oil-Painting.jpg Sisera should have been more careful who he asked to stand in the doorway of the tent, when he could not stay alert any longer he earned himself a bit of a headache. (Judges 4:21) Painting by Jacopo Amigoni (1682-1752) Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 12:24pm @Nersen:"Romans 14:13-23 would teach us to have a generous attitude to those with whom we disagree on disputable matters, would it not? Seems relevant to this debate" I completely agree and I wish people would adopt the same attitude for the other debate! Posted by: Charles Read Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 10:11am Nersen - I am confused. Romans (and elsewhere) does encourage generosity towards those with whom we disagree but I can't quite see where it says it is OK to split the church in order to do so.
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 07:59am
Dear Friends we add to our debate one more 'Perspective'. Elaine Storkey blessings, Jody Posted by: MikeP Tuesday 12 June 2012 - 12:14am Simon & Roger ( and others), I am told that urgent discussions are underway to remove the bishops' ammendments. This, it seems, is best done by a motion to adjourn the debate - which presumably can be moved at any point in the debate. If passed it must then return, possibly utilising the provision for a November Synod 'if required'. Meanwhile, the House of Bishops will have been urged to listen to synod, to the vast majority of dioceses and show some real leadership by removing the ammendments, [I am appalled by the lack of leadership shown by the HoB in this matter. If there was ever an illustration for radical change there this is it.] I think this is preferable to the nuclear option of motions of no confidence in the House of Bishops from the convocations and laity. Mike Posted by: pete hobson Monday 11 June 2012 - 11:48pm Go away from a thread for a few days... So many pointsd to comment on - so little time. I think the way this discussion has devleoped provides ample evidence of the truth of Jody's assertion, in response to me a long way down-thread, that A+B may not = C in practice (was that how you put it, Jody?). I have no problem at all agreeing with that - the applicaiton of emotional intelligence to our thinking, speaking and doing is at least as important and probably considerably more powerful than the intellectual sort. I'm definitley not looking to put the two agaist each other - just to argue that each has its place. And when it comes to debating a piece of detailed legislation, it's at least as important to be clear what it actually says as what messages we feel it may be carrying - whether of reassurance or alarm. I am worried that in this case the latter approach is totally overtaking the former. And I think Stephen Khurt's piece, excellent in parts as it is, falls into the same trap. The assault on the suspected motives (conscious or unconscious) of the current House of Bishops seems to me both overblown and potentially naive. Overblown because it's all too easy to accuse people in power of hidden motives when they do what we didn't want them to do. Naive if it implies (as it almost does) that a HoB with women in it would somehow be immune to hidden motives. Or at least, the female half of it would be. I would have thought a proper understanding of equality includes the fact that men and women are equally sinful and equally capable of abuse of position and power. What we really need is a better critique of the exercise of power in the church at all levels - whether exercised by males or females, hierarchically, synodically or democratically. But that is, perhaps, a different matter. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 11 June 2012 - 10:21pm Romans 14:13-23 would teach us to have a generous attitude to those with whom we disagree on disputable matters, would it not? Seems relevant to this debate
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Monday 11 June 2012 - 07:38pm
In response to Peter's point I am not trying to make out that male leadership is moribund (I am a male myself) but that it when men and women are both playing their full role in church and other places that the full image of God is represented and the new creation wonderfully anticipated in our worship and church life. When areas of life become one sided gender wise they do, I believe, become rapidly dysfunctional and the all-male House of Bishops and its considerable oddities is, I believe, a very obvious example of this. It can happen the other way around as well - Infant and Junior School staffs can often be rather dysfunctional by being overwhelmingly female rather than having a balance of genders amongst their staff. At the church of which I am vicar, I deliberately seek to have a woman preaching and a man leading (or vice versa) at every one of our four Sunday services and the result is an atmosphere that is fabulously enriched by both male and female gifts being so strong represented and endorsed. One of my favourite moments was when my eight year old daughter said that when she was older she might become a vicar and in talking to her about this comment it became very clear that it wasn't the example of her dad but seeing our two brilliant women curates in action that had made her think that this was a perfect natural aspiration for her to have. One of my disappointments with the whole debate at the moment is that women bishops is being treated as a problem to be solved. Many of us can't wait for it because we know that it will fabulously enrich the church when women are able to express their gifts just as fully as men. I believe it is going to make a huge difference to the effectiveness of our mission and ministry. Posted by: Swithun Monday 11 June 2012 - 05:26pm Simon, does that mean that the bishops are actually *relying* on members of General Synod not understanding these mechanisms? That really would be as shocking as the amendments themselves. I am very grateful for the response of Stephen Kuhrt over this debacle. 
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Monday 11 June 2012 - 02:35pm
Roger, that is what Synod members are pondering at present. There are two routes by which it can be changed back, firstly if one of the Convocations rejects in on the Friday debate in July, and the second is if a proceedural motion is put and passed during the Final Approval debate to send it back to the House of Bishops. Neither is entirely straightforward as many people will not quite understnad what is going on and why, ater receiving such a majority in the dioceses the legislation is being delayed. Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 11 June 2012 - 01:37pm Thank you Stephen for your heartfelt piece. I agree with every word of it. Is there no way that this obstructive Clause 5 can still be amended or, better, cancelled?
Posted by: Jody
Monday 11 June 2012 - 10:45am
Dear Friends we have two further 'Fulcrum Perspectives' for you to ponder. Stephen Kuhrt Andrew Goddard Please continue to use this thread for your discussions. blessings, Jody Posted by: DavidR Monday 11 June 2012 - 09:17am Carl Thank you for responding to my query and helping me to understand your position a little better. Can I ask a further question of you? Do you accept in principle that a Christian church, seeking the way of Christ, rooted in the Word and guided by the Spirit, may at times in its history, come to believe that an aspect of its life, ordering or goverance needs to change in the light that Word and under what it believes to be the impulse of the Spirit? In principle. One further reflection. I observe that on other Fulcrum threads the CofE is being roundly condemned for accomodating 'minority' viewpoints that go against its own 'majority' consensus regarding the teaching of scripture on certain issues. The CofE is being urged, instead, on the basis of Scripture, to require such people to leave. Now this thread is exploring the journey of the CofE towards towards a conviction concerning the full partnership of women and men together in its life ministry and leadership . (The modern debate actually began nearly 100 years ago - at the time when women in this country were still campaigning for the vote - democracy in this country is still quite recent. No one can accuse this process of being hasty!). It has been careful and slowly debated. Indeed it continues to go to extraordinary lengths to listen to welcome with those opposed to it. But the CofE has declared its mind on this - repeatedly in recent decades and by clear majority votes. But at this point it is being strongly argued that the 'minority' who cannot accept this should be allowed to be a church within a church, or offered freefloating semi-independent province. Evangelical Protestant churches have not usually been so generous towards those who in conscience cannot agree with the expressed convictions of the majority. The truth is the wider Evangelical tradition has its own deep unresolved tensions in its understanding of authority and belonging, not least as to the limits of autonomous individual conscience in relation to the declared belief of the whole community of the church. And parts of this debate illustrate this very clearly. Posted by: carl Monday 11 June 2012 - 05:08am Simon Cawdell In case I have created an incorrect impression, let me state that I am an American. I have mentioned this on Fulcrum in the past. I have commented on British weblogs for a number of years, and after a while you just assume that people know. carl
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Monday 11 June 2012 - 02:29am
Carl, Surely the point is that Synod is attempting to reach a compromise on how we enable those conscientiously opposed to womens' ordination to find a place where they can receive their oversight from men. Whilst obviously I disagree with your view on this the object of the code is to ensure that you will have that option should you wish it, and that the option will continue for as long as it is required. This has been the case since 1994, and the present legislation is attempting to continue that. I confess I have serious reservations about the method it has chosen to go down, not least as it now will place an inequality upon women who are choosen as bishops, and I think that is a problem unless there is an equivalent provision for those who don't want the ministration of a traditionalist male bishop, but we are where we are. Nonetheless I do not expect you to go against your conscience, and I think the code provides a route by which you will not have to. For note it is one of the odd proceedures of the church that these things take so long to clear all the hurdles that this present Synod has never had the chance to amend this legislation in a way the last did. We are operating with what we have been bequeathed, and that is not entirely satisfactory. Posted by: carl Sunday 10 June 2012 - 11:46pm DavidR There must be separate jurisdictions. A disagreement over WO is not the same as a disagreement over (say) Eschatology. If you are an Historic Premillenialist, and I am an Amillenialist, that disagreement imposes no burden on either of us because the disagreement remains in the private square. We can agree to disagree. However, a disagreement over WO imposes practical consequences on how we relate to each other as Christians in the public square of the church. It directly impacts the public organization of the church in which we both exist. We can't agree to disagree because one side or the other must inevitably be compelled to act against conscience. That's the core of the problem. There is no solution for it within a unitary organization. The solution then is parallel jurisdictions. If you create separate authority structures, then no one will be forced to compromise. I don't have to worry about illegitimate authority. You don't have to worry about taint. We both have our non-negotiable positions satisfied. You might say "Won't this produce a church within a church?" Yes, at some level it will. But there are two things you should consider. 1. That is a natural consequence of Anglicanism's theological incoherence. If you are willing to compromise on theology, why are you not willing to compromise on organization? 2. It's going to happen one way or the other. If separate jurisdictions aren't provided, then they will be taken. No one knows exactly how, but no one should doubt the inevitablity. There is some thought that opponents are bluffing - that they will concede defeat and simply learn to live with the new orthodoxy. That is the one outcome that will not happen. When people are pushed into a corner on a matter of conscience, they will ultimately act in defense of that conscience - even at great cost to themselves. This is such a simple and obvious solution, I don't understand why it creates such resistance. carl Posted by: DavidR Sunday 10 June 2012 - 08:37pm Carl Would you share what for you would be a gospel and honourable way forward to the present situation? Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 10 June 2012 - 10:18am Peter it is good you do not see that it is you personally that will be an outcast, I thought you were representing the traditionalist view and therefore that you personally were a traditionalist. So thus the two could not be separated. But i am not sure about what you are saying i have witnessed what you are saying in different ways, an example might be the elderly being shoved out of churches through lack of care to make way for the youth, and of course it does not have to be like that, there are ways of making room for all. Accessibility is an issue. So you are right when you say that the traditionalist voice may not get heard as loudly and therefore it may be difficult to maintain a status quo, but at the moment Women do not have a voice at all as equals. The change is about balancing that. Balance is what steadies people faith and emotions and from there peace is established. I am not sure why you think the common participation in communion will be destroyed, when it is about the sharing of emotion and faith. So maybe you could clarify for me , i will tell you what i think it is, I think that the common participation in communion is about each individual coming to Christ ,on equal terms to rededicate their lives to him, with the recognition of previous failures ,and repentance and an earnest desire to work to the common good of all people, in order that peace may be accomplished amongst individuals, groups and nations. This is achieved by sharing and with sharing comes understanding. In Romans we are instructed that the strong shall care for the weak, and this tells me that the strong put the right things and people in place at the right time in order that the weaker among us can understand and respond to the gospel. Now "the weak and the strong" is all of us according to the present circumstance. Faith and emotion crosses all social and gender barriers, even God has emotion! I am still trying to work out whether faith and hope are the same thing or whether hope is more generic. So rather than destroying common participation, surely it will enahance it. It is perhaps important to see that it will be the disagreements that will destroy it, and i hear your argument that Women being Bishops and bringing forth their agenda is what has caused the disagreement, but i dont think it is, it is, the obstruction of enabling the gospel to be given and shared by all. People usually obstruct when they feel, a particular community will be worse off if things change, but this is not the case with women bishops. Peace be with you Angela
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Sunday 10 June 2012 - 08:45am
Peter, with regard to the destruction of communion your argument is a double edged sword. Should the legislation not pass there will be many women and others who will suggest that opponents of women's ordination are those that have been destructive of communion given the mind of the Holy Spirit through the Church seems to be that this is something we should be doing, and I would assert that comfortably looking at the majorities by which it passed in the dioceses overall. What Synod has to do, and is attempting to do with considerable integrity is to guage the right balance with the competing majority and minority views, and I have to tell you it is not a comfortable place to be as we try and do that. My own take is that the legislation plus the HoB clause 8 amendment seemed about right provided the statutory code was robust, and there is every indication it will be, but that the HoB clause 5 amendment is an error for all the reasons I have previously given. How we deal with that is something being worked out between now and July. I also think that Reform and the Catholic Group have shot themselves in the foot somewhat by saying it isn't good enough. Had they welcomed it I think the Clause 5 amendment might have been allowed to stand (and it still just might), but the fact they have said it doesn't make any difference to them has whipped up quite a storm amongst those who are suggesting that since it was done to help them, if they say it makes no difference then it needs to be taken out. Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 9 June 2012 - 08:49pm Peter are you sure that Jody and James would have you an outcaste and branded evil and racist? I am impartial to a certain extent and i do not read them like that. I think they simply would like myself like to see all the disagreements end, and see people without predudice enabled to preach the gospel on equal terms. I genuinely understand where you are coming from, but the "fear" that church will be destroyed if women become bishops, is simply that it is an unfounded fear. However there is self fulfilling prophesy now take heart i am not critisizing you, i am simply trying to share a view, in my experience , what will destroy the church will be breakaway movements because they cannot adapt to change. This is different from say a movement begun after being inspired by the gospel and the holy spirit to fill a gap. One is saying we only want growth in the church on our terms, the other is saying we want to open the doors and give the opportunity for Gods spirit to work. Ekklisia/Church the gathering of "people with the intention of worship" People come in different genders shapes sizes and colours, with their own unique opportunities to hear and respond to god. None of us understand "your ways are not my ways". we are not meant to, we are meant to worship in faith, in the hope of things to come. It may help if thinking goes along the lines of the person only having authority because God gives it, in such states male or female are simply the casings of the spirit which is inspired by the person who holds on to the spirit untill such a time as god wishes it to be heard. I know thats very deep , but it does go part of the way to seeing people as God sees them, ie intruments in mission, that all may know him. Angela Posted by: James Mercer Saturday 9 June 2012 - 07:18pm Peter - I do not believe that there is any integrity in legally endorsing a compromised authority to potential women bishops. That does not mean grace should not be extended to those, who in conscience, cannot accept the ministry or authority of women as priests or bishops. The Clause 5 amendment would seem to be about control (by men) and lacks both grace and trust. Posted by: Mark Bennet Saturday 9 June 2012 - 05:29pm Peter I don't understand your argument for the amendment made by the bishops. Mark Posted by: carl Saturday 9 June 2012 - 05:28pm Simon Cawdell You seek evidence. 1. You mean besides those conservative parishes that said "If this becomes law, then we will have to re-direct funds to helping ordinands find churches outside the Anglican church." 2. You means besides the fact that opponents have been demanding statuatory protection from the beginning for precisely this reason. (I didn't invent the metaphor of "Hospice Care", after all. I first heard it two years ago from an AC speaker.) 3. You mean besides the fact that opponents already claim similar assurances given 20 years ago have been discarded. 4. You mean besides the long and detailed documentation of TECs descent into liberalism. 5. You mean besides the fact that the denizens of Thinking Anglicans can hardly find sufficient soapboxes from which to proclaim their desire to see the death of the traditional viewpoint as soon as practicable, and all in the name of justice. I say it because you are postulating an oxymoron. Your hypothetical successful candidate for ordination would have to be a man who rejects the spiritual authority of women and yet would willingly place himself under the very authority he says he rejects. His opposition must therefore be entirely theoretical. Where would you find such a creature? He would have to assert "I submit to this authority even though I consider it an illegitimate authority because it denies the Word of God." There is no integrity in that position. If a candidate says "I will never accept the authority of a woman placed over me" he would disqualify himself from consideration. How can you bring into an hierarchical organization those who reject the authority of the hierarchy? But that is the only consistent position that can be held by those who reject WO. New accessions will thus stop. Without new accessions, the doctrine ceases to exist in the organization by attrition. That's the not-so-hidden plan. That's why this amendment is so controversial. Assuming someone would actually enforce it (chuckle, guffaw) the amendment would require those new accessions. carl
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Saturday 9 June 2012 - 02:08pm
Carl, I completely disagree with your assumption that the church will not ordain people from a traditional viewpoint on this issue. The evidence of the last twenty years since the ordination of women to the priesthood is that they will, and have done so on a regular basis. I also assume you are not implying that you think there will be no candidates of episcopal qualities amongst opponents either. I am sure there will be, so I think you need to back up your rather sweeping statement with evidence. I think the evidence suggests you are quite wrong. Posted by: carl Saturday 9 June 2012 - 01:11pm Simon Cawdell "I do think the provision that is to be made needs to be one in which they can flourish and continue on a long term basis." And how do you propose to achieve this objective when the mechanism you are setting in place will within one generation eradicate from leadership all those opposed to WO? This is the problem the amendment was trying to address - continued access to sympathetic leadership. And yet it has produced a reaction that threatens the very legislation itself. The fact that supporters are ready to vote down this legislation over this amendment says everything anyone needs to know about their ultimate intentions. carl Posted by: Mark Bennet Saturday 9 June 2012 - 12:48pm Peter How is "a semantic tweak of no practical consequence" justified other than by the alleged consequence that the amended Measure is more likely to pass in General Synod (a "practical consequence" surely)? If there is supposed to be no practical consequence, let's go back to the previous text, rather than having this as an untested hostage to fortune. From your point of view, that would make no difference, surely? From mine, it would make me more confident that the Measure was right, rather than having to rely on assertions of "no practical consequence". If people believed the assertion, no-one would change their vote. The plan to get the legislation through depends on the right set of marginal voters not believing the assertion. The others have to be kept on board. ie it depends on the text being unclear, and being understood differently by different people. Such a text is surely a danger in the hands of the lawyers.
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Saturday 9 June 2012 - 09:37am
It does concern me greatly that the dominent hermeneutic on the thread sems to be that of suspicion. When I say I respect that position of my traditionalist Catholic and conservative evangelical colleagues it may surprise you to know I actually mean it. I disagree with them on this particular issue, but on little else. Furthermore I do thik the provision that is to be made needs to be one in which they can flourish and continue on a long term basis. I think that is workable under the statutory code of practice, and I would wish to address the issue raised by some that a code can be easily altered by a simple majority in Synod, by proposing an amendment (if nobody else gets in first) that the Code would require a 2/3rds majority in order to be amended. That way defects that emerge obvious to all when it is put into practice can be dealt with quickly, but any attempt to force a party line in any direction will fail. There is a doctrinal issue which must be grasped, which is that we shouldn't create bishops in a way which implies their authority is compromised, and whilst myself I thnk the draft legislation with the clause 8 amendment achieved that the clause 5 amendment causes difficulties for the future which we will long regret. The particuar point here is that there is some thought that the phrase which permits a parish to request a bishops of their on theological viewpoint might go beyond simply expressing a disire for a bishop who will not ordain women. It may permit the unAnglican doctrine of 'taint' to be promulgated as it is in a few places at present. This is in strict contravention of Article XXVI and as such hold not be permitted as an expression of faith within the church. (For those unfamiliar with the term it is a view that once a bishops has ordained a woman, [or if you take a traditional view 'purported to ordain a woman', since you don't believe it is possible], then any subsequent ordinations are exceptionally doubtful as to their efficacy. [Some might use the term invalid.]) Posted by: Bowman Saturday 9 June 2012 - 08:55am We are not working in the realms of A+B=C, and it may only be when we know C, that we will be able to determine what A and B really were. True. Posted by: carl Saturday 9 June 2012 - 06:16am The problem with a statement like this ... I believe that we are a church that needs to be generous in the theological traditions it embraces. I genuinely value the input of my conservative evangelical and Catholic colleagues. ... is that the key words in the sentence (i.e. 'generous' and 'value') have no definition. The speaker can thus express a heartfelt sentiment without actually having to comitment to any specific action. Which is what Fulcrum has been doing for months - stating how important it is to be 'generous' to opponentswithout providing any tangible means to achieve this objective. And of course there is a reason for that. There isn't any way to do it. The non-negotiable position for supporters is submission to women in authority. The non-negotiable position for opponents is no submission to women in authority. There is no way to square the circle, and so people are reduced to mouthing meaningless platitudes like "I greatly value their input" ... even as they totally ignore it, and plot its demise. The 'generous' accommodation for opponents thus becomes conditioned on complete surrender. The provision offered is always some form of "You submit and she will promise not to exercise that authority over you ... for a while." In the meantime, opponents are supposed to be comforted by how much they are valued by their opponents. How is that value to be realized - other than via the collection plate? There is only one meaningful question that opponents should ask: "Where in 20 years will my doctrinal position hold sway within the church?" The answer will return "No where." It will of course be quickly followed by protestations of how much opponents are valued, and respected. Said protestations can't change the stark facts. At that point an opponent would have but two choices. 1. Submit and violate his conscience. 2. Leave. Once this proposal approving Women Bishops is approved, the reality of that choice becomes the inevitable outcome. The center of gravity will have risen about the center of bouyancy and it becomes a matter of physics. The end becomes pre-determined and nothing will be able to stop it. carl Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 8 June 2012 - 08:53pm Another David, notice that I mentioned scripture? Tolerance for those who have not deviated from the historical church understanding of scripture (and most the church catholic today) is hardly the same as tolerance for those who teach what's incompatible with scripture is it? Posted by: Another David Friday 8 June 2012 - 04:11pm I'm inclined to say "the measure you give will be the measure you receive". Those who expect to receive toleration and look for an acceptance of diversity should demonstrate those attributes themselves, I feel. Also, am I alone in feeling that it is ironical for those who would identify as Protestant to appeal to "historical" and "tranditional" practice. Where would we be if the same appeal had been made at the time of the Reformation? Posted by: Iconoclast Friday 8 June 2012 - 02:58pm It does seem to me that the articles that have been written implicitly assume the eventual eradication of the traditionalist view on WO in the Cof E. The amendments by the Bishops afford some form of protection for traditionalists by stipulating a male Bishop in sympathy with their views. WATCH and others see clearly that this would arrest the decline of traditionalists in the Cof E. Their original intention was only to provide as Carl puts it, ‘hospice care’ to the remaining ones. At least James Mercer is a little more honest in asserting the myth of two integrities. It is clear to me that he thinks that the Traditionalist position really has no intrinsic integrity at all. The problem is that the two views are essentially irreconcilable. One of them has to win. So Simon Cawdell for the record, can you tell us if you think that Traditionalists should remain in the CofE and be allowed to grow and flourish in their views of WO and not be subjected to what amounts to a ‘theological cleansing’ of their views? Are you quite happy to see them decline over a period of time by marginalising and restricting their preferment and progression? And lets be honest, this was really the original intention of the leglislation wasn’t it? Posted by: WATERANGEL Friday 8 June 2012 - 02:37pm Well Peter We do have Banana Splits two integrities is possible i think, if a singular integrity causes harm. I am thinking of Pauls words "putting others before yourself" In this Paul holds onto his own integrity , whilst sharing the views of others. Another example of this is the covering of heads do you recall Paul changed the word to suit the needs of those he was preaching to. If we paralell that to Women Bishops or Women in the Clergy , it is possible to work alongside Women and receive Communion from women in the knowledge that it is The blood of /or representation of the blood of Christ we are receiving through the Ministry of The Bishop of the Woman. I think you are right that sometimes, in a bid to be diplomatic people do not say clearly enough where they sit in opinion, but having said that even if they do, it needs to be rather than has to be shared in order to be balanced. It is very frustrating i guess to people who see things in black and white or for or against terms, it is really not so clear cut as that. It is a matter of are the right questions being asked? The question i hear is "by whose authority" The answer I understand is by the authority of the spirit of Jesus ? Angela Posted by: Charles Read Friday 8 June 2012 - 02:22pm The legislation to ordain women as priests does not speak of two integrities but rather of the integrity of the position of those who dissent from the rightness of ordaining women and the integrity of the position of those who assent to this. This is subtly different from two integrities - and may be what was meant. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 8 June 2012 - 06:27am Simon, I'm astonished by the lack of 'tolerance' and openness to 'diversity' on WO from some....... Where are any positive proposals for 'weaker brothers' who want to stay in line with the historical position re scripture of the cofE and the church catholic? For example, why not have a non-geographic diocese to be generous to those who cannot go against their consciences. We've already lost people on this issue..... Some didn't seem to care about their departure.
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Thursday 7 June 2012 - 09:36pm
Nersen, I am astonished by your comment. I do not think that any of our articles are expressing a view that we shouldn't make space within the Church of England for those oposed to the ordination of women. I certainly have not said that in any way at all. What I do say is that we have to find a way of doing it which does not compromise the place of the women whom we are so clearly discerning shold be entitled to be called if the Holy Spirit is so guiding us when each individual appointment is considered in turn. You must surely agree that our doctrine clearly has a Bishop being a Bishop. You cannot have half a bishop, or a second class bishop. The whole issue around this legislation is not about failing to make space, or how we honour the properly discerned role for women in the episcopate that we see, but that there needs to be a mutually honouring place within the church. The issue for many people is that the subtleties of the HoB clause 5 amendment has swung the pendulum too far, and dishonours the women who will be placed in episcopal orders. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 7 June 2012 - 07:07pm It's amazing that some evangelicals say we must not allow space for those who cannot agree with WO....and also argue that we must make space for and even pay for people who teach what they say they believe is incompatible with scripture...... No space for other evangelicals on WO but tolerance and even subsidies for revisionists? Posted by: WATERANGEL Thursday 7 June 2012 - 06:29pm J dont think Robbie Jex has lost the plot when he likens this to women being persecuted in pakistan. I recall several female clergy being attacked spiritually, mentally and in some instances physically, one woman you will recall had to flee her church because some idiot set it on fire, or was it the vicarage they set on fire i am sure you will find it if you look. Many women were pushed to breakdown point, they were ignored by members of the church and other members of the clergy. The mental cruelty some of these men are capable of is shameful. It is not an over reaction at all, it is something that needs to be dealt with it is bullying of the worst kind. No one anywhere else would have legalized abuse in this way. Because of the "family" aspect of church it amounts to domestic violence and should on all occassions be treated as such. Our beautiful fellowship when it becomes church has a sometimes almost demonic presense. I have not forgot the rudeness of WestMinster Abbey to me at New Year after i had travelled 300 miles to be there. There are other strands to these ammendments that should be thought about for instance the business side, do people want to do business with a church that has a cruel streak towards women and does nothing about it. Why fund churches that clearly pick and choose who they want to enter their buildings as equals. YES the church could learn a lot from Prince Williams public example, of supporting and enabling women to be on equal terms. The fact that some women want to support the rejection of ammendments to allow Women to be Bishops smacks of the stepford wives complex, because they are doing it from the wrong motivation. If they are happy to serve at a different level thats fine but the minute they start putting women down because they do not want to is simply a way of keeping women in a vulnerable state like sitting ducks waiting to be abused. Angela Posted by: Charles Read Thursday 7 June 2012 - 02:16pm MattS and others seem to know what WATCH has said but if you look at our statements (i'm a member of the WATCH exec) we deliberately do not say that people shoulkd vote against the Measure - notr do we say people should vote for it. The effect of the Bishops' amendments is to cause confusion. Mark Benett has explained much of why this is. As a GS member I am not at all sure how I will vote in July. The fact that I might even consider voting against a measure to make women bishops indicates what a mess the bishops have caused. And pace those who think we are driving people out, again I think you will struggle to find that in any WATCH statement. Generally speaking, I have not heard that view expressed in any WATCH meeting I've been at.
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 7 June 2012 - 12:57pm
The reason that I haven't responded to Pete is for the very reasons that I stated in my Perspective piece. It is my perspective, I see why people disagree (including Pete), and part of the issue - which is why we didn't release a 'Fulcrum Statement' - is that we can all see that this is an exercise in fortune-telling to an extent. We know - logically - what the amendments 'say', but we knew that in 1993, and we knew what the Archbishops said and what the Act of Synod was 'for'. But it didn't quite turn out like that and often women bore the brunt. Although others say that some Anglo Catholic brothers felt that it also segregated them too much. The point is that you can logically set out how you see the legislation, and work it through the way you think it will work through. But it can also be argued differently, or even imagined differently. We are not working in the realms of A+B=C, and it may only be when we know C, that we will be able to determine what A and B really were. In terms of the process - it's not in question that the HoB were allowed to make the amendments, just whether they had to in light of the process so far and that they are an all male group. Pete's perspective may be sewn up and neat in its logic, but it may not work out like that, nevertheless.... Posted by: MattS Thursday 7 June 2012 - 11:39am I notice that nobody who objects to theese amendments has yet responded to Pete Hobson and explained the logic of their position. These amendments actually look quite helpful. They clarify the intention of this legislation by closing a legal loophole. They also seem to make the legislation less sexist, imo. Just allowing people to ask for a man is sexist by definition. But there is now clear recognition that there are also theological issues at stake. Why the outrage from WATCH then, I ask myself? Were they hoping that their sympathisers would exploit this loophole at a later stage in order to appoint men who oppose the theology of FiF to be their bishops? Did they actually want the legislation to remain more explicitly sexist in order to remove it more easily at a later date? After all, the heart of the WATCH position is that the opponents are being sinful. A code of practice to look after those who are perpetuating sin has to ultimately be abolished as well, surely? If this fails now in July, no doubt WATCH will blame the bishops for adding these amendments. In my view though, the irrationality of their reponse has probably put this in most danger. I would originally have liked something more robust in place like an additional diocese (also less sexist than what's been proposed now, imo). However, I think this now needs to pass. We need to start talking about other things. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 7 June 2012 - 09:37am Pete Hobson Thank you for your post which I think is a practical and wise response in difficult and anxious times. More generally I am puzzled there is not at least more hesitation about use of legal porcess for doing church business in the light of the teaching of Jesus and Paul. Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 7 June 2012 - 09:08am One problem we have with these changes to the proposed Measure (which, if passed, becomes part of our national law, not just Church rules) is that the Bishops have told us what they hope and think they have done. But this is law, and the ultimate arbiters of disputes about meaning will be lawyers, not bishops. We have seen no legal analysis of how the Bishops' words achieve the Bishops' intentions. Nor, indeed, have we had a revision committee considering the words in detail, and their likely consequences both intended and unintended. We knew where we were with the draft Measure we had, and now we do not. Hence the uncertain tone of many responses, and the uncertain feelings people express in response. All sorts of people assert the effect of these proposals - but the work to achieve understanding has simply not yet been done. Indeed the Bishops have almost delegated this to commentators in apparent hope that the truth will emerge. There will be no real opportunity to debate the merits of these amendments in General Synod, as every other significant proposal has been discussed and voted on, so the matter cannot be thrashed out in that forum. Personally, the more I think about this, the more I think that using the phrase "practice of ministry" in this legislation is a hostage to fortune on almost every front. I find it extremely hard to see how this is properly compatible with Canon A4 or Article XXVI. Posted by: Robbie Jex Thursday 7 June 2012 - 06:24am also the quote you put down for me of: If the Church continues to walk in ways which control lives, discriminate and exclude then it risks being like the clerics in Pakistan who are going to execute 6 people because women mixed with men and danced at a party was a weird rehash of what I wrote. Posted by: Robbie Jex Thursday 7 June 2012 - 06:23am Sorry if it was not plain... the point is that the extremeism seen in other faiths can often be attributed to the traditionalist views held. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 7 June 2012 - 03:31am This diocese (Massachusetts) has an African-American woman bishop who was proposed by an elected search committee, nominated by the diocesan synod, then approved by the standing committees of the other dioceses and the House of Bishops of TEC. Over dinner tonight, parishioners who served on the search committee that put her name to the diocesan synod were expressing their pride in the work that she has done. She has strengths and weaknesses as we all do, but the reservoir of good will for her here is broad and deep and well-earned. So far as pastoral ministry depends on trust between pastor and people, "bishops by ballot" seems to work here, as it did in the Church's first centuries. I am, of course, unfamiliar with the benefits of the Church of England's system of centralised appointments. However, the several theads in this forum that have concerned appointments to the episcopate are building the impression that something about that system embitters divisions of opinion to a degree that would be strange in this country. Below, persons whose opinions I have good reason to respect are deeply divided among themselves over the appearance of the precise legal status of an accommodation to traditionalists that was going to be made anyway. Legal distinctions matter, of course, but this seems an overreaction, prompted by the memory that Jody and Roger have mentioned. Having other memories of women entering historic ministries, my first impression of the amendment was to admire its characteristically English wisdom in seeing that change in a Church of human beings is an organic and evolutionary thing, not an ideological and revolutionary process. Since it seems that men who ordain women as well as women would be affected by it, it did not seem to be an affront to equality. With faith rather than factionalism, it seemed to trust to God the question what role would be played in the future by the Church's "old believers." Some might, on reflection, be proud of it. Posted by: Iconoclast Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 11:13pm Robbie Jex wrote If the Church continues to walk in ways which control lives, discriminate and exclude then it risks being like the clerics in Pakistan who are going to execute 6 people because women mixed with men and danced at a party, Are you really trying to suggest that if traditionalists get their way then we will see women priests being put to death by Forward in Faith types for perfoming priestly functions in the Cof E? To you really think this is a valid comparison to make? Is it possible that you may have lost the plot just a a tad here? Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 11:11pm I am preparing to lead an ordination retreat in a few weeks time, as I do most years around the country. I always find it a profound honour and deeply moving to journey with women and men as they approach such holy promises to God and the church. I always offer personal time for any that would find it helpful. It means that each year, almost without fail, I will sit with an ordinand as they weep a mix of pain and anger over the cost of the commitment they are about to make - because they are a woman and the church they are called to faithfully serve will welcome them, expect them to flourish, continue to openly debate their right to exist and will make all kinds of provision so that others can legally discriminate against them in employment practice purely because of their gender. Some face making the oath of allegiance to a bishop who will expect their loyalty and hard work while choosing not actually touch them with his hands because he wants to keep 'in touch' with those who disagree with their ordination. Now, at this 11th hour, after debates, prayers and votes over long decades, our (male) House of Bishops is proposing to perpetuate this situation indefinitely in law, instead of giving a positive lead forward it desparately needs. This is not just a failure of nerve and of leadership. It is failure of fundamental human awareness. It is quite clear that as a result many who support women at every level of leadership in the church may feel they must vote against this legislation. The cost is too high and the theology of 'taint' behind it is just too offensive. At the February General Synod the Archbishop of York declared that he had people in his diocese who could not accept his ministry because he ordained women. But, he said, it was not a problem to him. He just got on with his ministry. He seems to think that everyone else should just get on with theirs too. But the parallel is inexact of course. What if his ministry was being rejected because of the colour of his skin or because of the race of the person who had ordained him in the first place ....? And what if the CofE was proposing to write that in law - thereby perpetuating the situation indefinitely. I am grateful Fulcrum have opened up this debate. (Indeed I wish they had given it the kind of resourcing they have chosen to give many other topics). But grateful as I am this remains a discussion forum heavily and loudly populated by men and my own experience of journeying with women in ministry continually reminds me that we men find it very, very hard to begin to imagine just what this feels like or what it costs. And nor, on the face of it, do the House of Bishops. Posted by: Robbie Jex Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 07:45pm If the Church is going to be all that God planned for it in this current age and time.... it must be as relevant and up to date with what God is saying for this age and this time. If Peter had not have shared his vision of the forbidden foods, Christians today might well find themselves still avoiding pork etc. If the Church continues to walk in ways which control lives, discriminate and exclude then it risks being like the clerics in Pakistan who are going to execute 6 people because women mixed with men and danced at a party (http://gulfnews.com/news/world/pakistan/pakistan-clerics-issue-death-decree-over-wedding-video-police-1.1028948#.T8O3c4z0vJc.). I find it sad that tradition stomps all over the current voice of God. Those who struggle with moving on are like Nicodemus coming to Jesus and night and struggling with the new concept of being born again. I pity them and traditionalists in their narrow view, and I pray for a Church who seeks for, hears Gods voice and obeys it - even when it means laying tradition aside! Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 05:12pm Thank you Jody, James and Simon for your thought-provoking responses to Clause 5. It is such a pity, after all these years of a protracted debate on women and the episcopacy, that this eleventh-hour clause firms up a law which potentially hampers the ministry of women bishops. How sad to erect this substantial barrier at the last minute, seemingly showing a lack of trust in our women colleagues. I remember vividly at a pastoral theology conference in Manchester in the mid-1980s the deep frustration of women deacons concerning the interminable delay in their ordination to the priesthood. It is regrettable that, once more, a brake is put on their open-handed admission to the episcopacy. Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 08:05am All three articles allude to a sadness that means that even if this amendment goes through, the true joy will not be able to be felt, because of the price paid. It put me in mind of a couple of things. The first thing was that it is sad that the church has unfortunately put itself in the position of letting the government lead the way on equality. When Christ teaching was that the Church should lead the way. Christ turned the tables in the synagogue because of the way the leaders were using it, not caring for the poor and needy, and excluding access to them. The instruction was "feed my sheep" and "go forth and tell" Jesus often shared with women on a one to one, he received their ministry and care, yet what we have, are leaders who are trying to prevent women from mission and preaching the word, or going to "go forth and tell" The second thing was that this is the closest to the sentiment of the crucifixion as you will get, remember the sadness that Jesus felt when he said forgive them for they know not what they do. Jesus had tried to lead the way and they crucified them for it. It is not the rejection of religion that is the problem in our country, but the rejection of the disagreements between government and church. Should we really be waiting for the government to create legislation to force the hands of church leaders, to open the doors to ministry to and from all? Having said all that, i understand wholeheartedly the difficulty that the opposer's have, if you liken it to say being forced to worship what may be believed to be a false god, we are all results of our training and the relationship built with God according to how we are taught to relate, the comfort the status quo is difficult to let go of, but more so when deep within the belief is that to alter the way in which we give and receive the message of God may in someway discredit it. But from deep within me and from a heartfelt place that I do not even understand myself, i see these clear parallels, i look from the outside and see Jesus guiding and putting everything in place, to give the greatest opportunity for all to receive him. Jesus left us his spirit, it was the spirit that said let them come, let them hear. It was a spirit that said do not hinder. In this instance Jesus has used Christian Politicians, to use the parallel of the turning of tables only they will use legislation, to overturn the misuse of our churches which seek to prevent equal ministry and worship. So the sadness is about the fact that as Christians we want to see the church as leading the way in doing the right thing, we want it black and white the church is good the government is bad, but things are such that we cannot say that. There are many grey areas. Angela Posted by: carl Wednesday 6 June 2012 - 01:30am The two sides in this argument are working towards fundamentally different objectives. Opponents of women bishops see accommodation as a means to maintain their theological presence in the CoE. They are seeking to sustain the future life of their theological position. They want to know that it will still be possible to find a church with a vicar who teaches and practices the traditional view into the indefinite future. Proponents thus see accommodation as primarily serving the future needs of laity and clergy. Proponents of women bishops on the other hand see accommodation as existing only in the present. It is for them a way to facilitate a 'peaceful death' of the traditional position regarding women in the ministry. Proponent are primarily concerned to address the present needs of clergy who were ordained under the old rules, as well as the present needs of the laity they serve. Proponents think it unjust to coerce the conscience of such people and so proponents would grant traditionalists a small space for a time with the understanding that traditionalist leadership would not be replaced. Proponents thus deliberately make no provision for either future clergy or future laity who oppose women's ordination. To do so would require a sustained supply of clergy who hold to the traditional view. This is precisely what proponents are zealous to prevent. They seek to win by attrition. They envision a leadership that consists only of proponents. Recalcitrant laity would face a leadership that uniformly rejects the traditional understanding. In such an environment, proponents can be confident that the laity would be conformed. Some would acquiesce. Others would depart. Either way, the end state is a CoE in which all opposiiton to women in the ministry is expunged. This is why it would be folly for traditionalists to trust "grace, courtesy and wisdom, strongly held in the Code of Practice." That "grace, courtesy and wisdom" is only intended to make the dying easier. It is not intended to prevent death. It is the "grace, courtesy, and wisdom" of the hospice. Proponents do not envision any long-term place for traditionalists. There might yet be some traditional laity here and there, but they will find no place in the CoE where their beliefs are reflected in the doctrine and practice and leadership of the church. Of course, it would be folly to trust this amendment as well. It will exist only until the legislation can be revised. And it will protect only to the extent it will be enforced. How difficult will it be for a bishop to convince a sympathetic judge that he did 'take regard' but decided to act otherwise for the greater good? Clever lawyers are paid large amounts of money to find legal ways of avoiding the intent of the law. The best strategy for traditionalists is to defeat the measure and delay. It isn't much but it's all they have. carl Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 10:38pm From a broader, outside, perspective, the Church of England has become theologically overstretched and is unsure what to do about it. The wriggle room looked for is not there, and if it is more honest about matters then the equivalent (say) is to be honest about the racism that exists and so it could be embedded into some measures of apartheid. No one would do that, but this is the effect of the legislation plus amendments regarding the theologies of equality. The problem further comes that there are varieties and extents of opposing theological arguments that ought to be met, so rather than one diocesan bishop 'delegating' one oversight bishop, there could be many other bishops in one diocese - each meeting the theological arguments of parishes - and becomes something like 'pick a bishop'. The amendments and press release were so strange and verbose that they have the potential for all sorts of unintended outcomes. The wriggleroomers have basically not taken on board what the dioceses indicated and pushed the matter far on the basis that it then becomes all this or nothing. It resembles people playing poker. They learnt nothing from the Covenant and demonstrably so. The effect of this legislation will be more (and once unforseen) problems from conservative evangelicals as well as a longer death scene from traditionalist Catholics in the Church of England. If the legislation is passed, the whole area will have to be revisited. Unlike on the Covenant, I can get no conclusion on this, simply because it's bad if passed and bad if not passed. Perhaps it is better to pass it, get some female diocesan bishops in situ, and then in twenty years come back and clean up the mess. I think it is another case of the disaster of the present and retiring Archbishop - yes he was stopped on the Covenant but had his own special intervention spot on this that others cannot reverse. Posted by: Iconoclast Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 09:56pm None of the writers of these articles seem to acknowledge that the intention of the leglislation is to bring about the eventual extinction of traditionalist views on WO in the Church of England. That is its purpose. The so called 'generous provision' is only a kindness for those who oppose WO until they eventually pass on or retire. New traditionalists will not be allowed to flourish and will be prevented or removed from ordination. The Cof E will thus be cleansed of them. The Bishop's amendments seem to tacitly recognise this and are providing some form of protection. It would be far more honest if proponents of women Bishops explicily stated that what they are trying to do is to run traditionalist opponents of WO out of the Cof E. That is the main objective of organisations like WATCH. In their eyes there is only one integrity, not two. Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 07:33pm I thought i'd posted on this but my comuter may have eaten it, so here's a hsorter version... Objections to the clause 5 amendement seem to me to be misplaced, and if i'm right there's a real risk of jeapordising the whole Mrasure through misrepresentation of what's been done. 1. Putting provision into the Measure, and not simply the Code, provision that a bishop deciding how to offer alternative episcipal oversight should 'have reagrd to' the theological objections of the parish concerned does NOT 'enshrine discrimination in law' any more than the Measure already does. Only a single clause Measure would avoid that charge - and it was agreed some time ago not to go down that route. I wonder if all the objections we are now hearing are in fact simply last minute anxieties that we have the wrong sort of Measure. Maybe we do - but if so let's be honest that's the problem, not simply moving pastoral provision form one leaglly challengeable place to another. 2. What has happened is not abuse of Synodical process - it's simply use of it. Article 7 & 8 business has additional provisoons in place, and w'eve seen them in action. You can argue that ought not to be so - but if it is, it's hard to argue it hsould be wilfully disregarded. 3. The more poeple say this has badly damaged the Measure, or taken it a bridge too far, the more likely it is it will fail. Some may wish that, for all sorts of reasons. I dont. I think that would be tragedy. And yes, i'm male, and ordained (though not a bishop!). Posted by: Erasmus Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 07:03pm Dear Jody, I was saddened to see that, despite the huge victory of women's ordination in the CofE, all three reflections so far do not focus on the huge step forward but on the splinter in the eye of the bishops' clarifications. This inability to be generous towards traditionalists, reflects our nation's current culture of hostility towards those who are "wrong", rather than the Christian teaching of mutual respect and accommodation. IF we really want to show generosity towards traditionalists, as you protest, THEN we should have no problem with tolerating this minor irritation in the light of the huge victory. E. ps I, and many traditionalists I expect, worry that some of the shrieks of "imposition" on the majority, at what is actually just "protection" for the traditionalist minority, are in some cases expressions of anger - rather than hurt - from (nasty) liberals who were hoping to use arguments and obfusion over what is adequate in order to goad the intolerably sexist traditionalists to conform or leave. pps Anyone who has listened to traditionalists knows that this is a huge issue for them - just look at the effort that the Anglo-Catholic movement went to in the last 100+ years-or-so to ensure that Bishops were definitely consecrated into the apostolic succession. Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 06:33pm I'm trying hard, but finding it difficult to understand the logic, although not the depth of feeling, behind the positions voiced so far by all three of the Fulcrum leadership team on the women bishop's legislation as it now stands, and whilst it may well be simply that I am missing a fundamental point here, I am anxious that those who now find the legislation as amended so unpalatable that there is a real risk it may be voted down may also be missing something important. So here goes with my reflections on it. i write as a former Synod member, but not one who has to vote on it this July. The two main planks of opposition to, or at least deep sorrow at, the amemdment to clause 5 seem to be that a] it enshrines a disciriminatory position about women bishops in law b] it represents an abuse of due Synodical process I think both are mistaken in logic, but recognising the depth of feeling that lies behind these views, I write in caution, fully expecting to be told I'm mistaken. But if so I'd like my logic to be challenged not simply my conclusions. a] Enshrining discrimination in law. The way this is usually expressed, and Jody does so in her piece, is that what was formerly to be dealt with by means of the Code of Practice is now on the face of the Measure - and so legally enforcable. I think this is a mistaken analysis. The Measure is already intrinsically discriminatory - the only non-discriminatory way would have been a single-clause Measure, which was a battle fought and lost some time ago. The mechanics of how parishes ask for alternative male epsicopal oversight, who decides, and what male bishop they get are all secondary to the fact that they can. So I think those protesting protest too much - or too late. Or, perhaps, want to rewrite the Measure in a fundamental way - that might indeed be called at least a writing off of the synodical process we have enagaged in over the past 10 years or more. Moreover, a failure to adhere to the Code is subject to judicial review. People can say that is less likely to happen than whatever might happen if the provision is in the Measure (presumably direct challenge in a civil court, or perhaps action under the Clergy Discipline Measure), but that doesn't make it any less a legal prcoess. And one has to ask the question: if keeping the provision in the Code is viewed as making it less 'legal' then does that not imply there is seen merit in making it more likely it can be ignored? And where does that leave all the talk of grace and pastoral practice? b] Abuse of due process Again there seems to be lack of knowledge of what the process is. Any Article 7 or 8 business such as this is always subject to potential revision at this stage in the House of Bishops. By our system of government, that is part of their job. It not isn't relevant how long it's already been debated at every other level - it;s because these key matters are liable to be extremely sensitive that this is written into the process. you can argue it shouldn't be - but that's quite a different point. As is the provision that a decision as to whether or not any changes are 'significant' be remitted to the particular group of key leaders in the synodical process. Those six are, by definition, going to have been intimately involved in all the prior processes. And it's hard to see what other body could be thought up to take a view on that question (whether or not a change is 'significant') that wasn't more susceptible to challenge as inappropriate. And finally, what actually is the substance of the amendment, which is already being frequently portrayed as 'giving parishes the right to choose their own bishop'. It does no such thing. If it had, it would have been as unacceptable in the Code as it is now said to be in the Measure. It simply requires the diocesan bishop, in making her provision of alternative epsicopal oversight, to have regard, amongst other things, to the specific theological reasons why a parish had requested it. 'Having regard to the reasons' is, as has been frequently said, what we'd already expected the Code to ask the Diocesan to do, and what we're being told any sensible and pastoral bishop would do in any case - and is in all sense and logic a long way from 'mandating her to a particular sort of choice' let alone 'requiring her to give them any bishop they ask for'. So I think those objecting do in fact protest too much. And the reason that worries me is because although at least those here on Fulcrum are not quite saying it means they would vote against the legislaiton as it now stands, that is at least the way the argument is running - and the more firmly it's put forward the more likely it does make it that at least some people will. Every vote is going to count - and Synod members, to my sure observation, are often swayed as much by loud protest from outside the chamber as by a cool reading of what is in front of them inside it. If the Measure is voted down in July because of what I am rguing are misplaced readings of this amendment it will undoubtedly put back by some considerbale time the moment when the church can receive the full ministry of women as well as men. That, I believe, would be the real tragedy. And the more people misrepresent what has happened, the more I can see it happening. As I interpret it.... Others will doubtless not agree. Posted by: Jonathan Clatworthy Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 05:53pm Well said Jody. One can understand why those busy denying that women can be bishops are reluctant to depend on the goodwill of women bishops but that is no reason for legislating to leave the bishops with no choice. When you become a diocesan bishop you'll have one PCC demanding a bishop who is a man, another demanding a man who has never ordained a woman, another demanding a man who was neither ordained nor consecrated by a woman, and goodness knows what else. You'll be scouring the world looking for suitable candidates. Eventually you'll have to give in and agree to the consecration of someone who wouldn't otherwise have been considered a suitable candidate for the episcopacy at all.
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 5 June 2012 - 05:26pm
Dear Friends As you can imagine, we have had many conversations as the Fulcrum Leadership Team regarding the amendments to the Women Bishops Legislation that the House of Bishops made before the July General Synod. I don't think that any of the groups are clear as to what exactly the clarification is or what the consequences will be and Fulcrum are no exception. So we have decided that we would write our own perspectives and offer them to you. Across the Fulcrum Team, we have different opinions as to where we might go from here and thought that it is good to let you hear our thoughts. We publish first thoughts from Simon Cawdell, James Mercer, and myself. please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
In light of the amendments that have been made to the Women Bishops legislation by the House of Bishops, I now find that in many ways I am deeply ambivalent about the vote that will be taken in July. As a young(ish) woman, only ordained as Deacon last July, I find that my thoughts travel instinctively to the perspectives of those women, in particular, who sat in wait for the Priesthood vote twenty years ago and have lived with the story since that historic moment. My perspective is fundamentally formed by their perspective. I believe that theirs is the voice that must be listened to.