Thread: Purgatory: CofE alternative provision ... Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000913
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
... for those of us who wanted the vote for women bishops to go through and were already fairly disenchanted by the same sex marriage (SSM) statements what are our options now?
I can get as far as the RC isn't an option on either SSM or women priests, but was wondering what other options anyone could suggest.
[ 28. January 2013, 23:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
The URC...?
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
I think there are two principal options.
1) Emigration. New Zealand, perhaps.
2) Prayer.
Or, if you aren't bothered about the apostolic succession, the Methodists or the URC might well be comfortable homes for you.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The Methodists would be fairly close in some ways
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Local URC / Methodist minister is YECcie - not an option.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
When parishes and whole dioceses in the Episcopal Church in the US got pissed off about gay bishops, they left and affiliated themselves with churches in Africa, and no one in power in England or at the international level seemed to have any problem with it. So I suggest that you write to Canterbury and say you are going to affiliate yourself with one of the provinces of the Anglican Communion that already has female bishops. Parishes here lost their buildings when they did that, but look at it this way -- you'll no longer have to pay for those buildings that are too old and too big for you anyway.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
I heard of a Methodist minister who threatened to put up a banner outside her church 'Women welcomed at all levels in this church'. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Stay where you are and honour the promises that were made by revisiting the legislation that enabled those promises to be kept instead of the faulty legislation that was rightly voted down.
The pro- lobby took no heed of the suggestions from the two archbishops (so much for an episcopally-led church - if they ignore archbishops, what's the point of having bishops, male or female?) and seemed hell-bent on forcing 'traditionalists' out of the church in the name of 'inclusive church'.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
As a supporter of women's Bishops, I'd say that now isn't the time to run away. Our church doesn't always do the things that we want, but that doesn't negate its worth.
It's just a matter of time.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
May I suggest: take a long view. So far the duration of this wrangle is small beer in the light of some of the Church's great historic arguments.
If you/I decide this is not actually an issue we would be willing to die in a ditch for, defending the 'way of Christ', then we're free to get on with loving our neighbour, forgiving those who trespass against us, seeking holiness, and hopefully being a source of joy and hope to others.
If institutional 'Christianity' in the form of the C of E (or any other denomination) lumbers on in the midst of division, fear, and loathing so be it. We're a motley crew (rather like the Ship actually).
Perhaps, in very many cases, it is the quality and manner of our disagreeing that matters more than who is right or wrong.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Stay where you are and honour the promises that were made by revisiting the legislation that enabled those promises to be kept instead of the faulty legislation that was rightly voted down.
The pro- lobby took no heed of the suggestions from the two archbishops (so much for an episcopally-led church - if they ignore archbishops, what's the point of having bishops, male or female?) and seemed hell-bent on forcing 'traditionalists' out of the church in the name of 'inclusive church'.
That's a remarkably expedient reading of a measure that was simply trying to preserve the integrity of the episcopacy. It is not damaged by gender; prejudice seems to be having a very good go.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Take a page out of the conservative playbook and form your own province affiliated with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. If you are lucky, Scotland and New Zealand might also recognize you. Canterbury won't let you take any of your money or property with you. The Dead Horses were important to conservatives in North America. Are they as important to liberals in England?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
The problem with taking the long view, saying it's just a matter of time, is that the longer it takes for the CofE to pull its head out of its ass, the more people will reject the church as irrelevant.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
people will reject the church as irrelevant.
Lost cause. Let it go.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Stop contributing to the costs of your parish/diocese (the bishops and the CofE generally haven't objected when evnagelical parishes do this) and redirect the money to appropriate charities.
John
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Has any ecclesial community in the entire world ever become more relevant for taking liberal positions on the Dead Horses? I can't think of a single one. At best, the liberals who don't attend church will think slightly more of you than they do conservatives. You'll be the place they would go if they ever decided to attend church which most of them will never do.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Has any ecclesial community in the entire world ever become more relevant for taking liberal positions on the Dead Horses? I can't think of a single one.
I can -- we got a big and lasting bump up in my parish when Gene Robinson was consecrated. In addition to the gay and lesbian people who showed up and stayed, we got a bunch of mostly young straight people, some of whom said they wanted a church that wouldn't teach their children that gays were bad, and some of whom said, "If you'll take the gays, you'll take anyone -- including me." That last one was the surprise; people who had thought the church would judge them negatively gave us a chance to show them otherwise because of Gene Robinson.
[ 20. November 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Beeswax Altar, I am a liberal and was a very active member of my local church since I moved to this area. That would be most of the last 15 years here, but I was equally active in the previous church I attended as an adult. I am no longer. This vote has pretty much ensured I will not return now. So yes, this vote is affecting liberals and the number of people attending churches. This and SSM are two of a number of reasons for making the decision that attendance is no longer for me.
This thread was asking if there was anywhere to go instead, or I was going to become part of the 90% unchurched in the UK.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The ecclesial community is TEC. TEC, as a whole, has lost members since 2004. Many of them left because of Gene Robinson's election.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
If enough ordinary congregation members started to go elsewhere, perhaps the message would get through.
Cell churches in people's houses are quite popular once they get going, as long as they're run by someone sensible and theologically trained.
What you do will depend upon what you want from your organised church. Integrity? Equality? Love of others as yourself, male or female? Facilitation of calling, male or female? Candles, gowns, windows?
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The pro- lobby took no heed of the suggestions from the two archbishops (so much for an episcopally-led church - if they ignore archbishops, what's the point of having bishops, male or female?) and seemed hell-bent on forcing 'traditionalists' out of the church in the name of 'inclusive church'.
It is the "traditionalists" who have gone firmly against the authority of the bishops (who voted 44 to 3, with 2 abstentions, in favor of the measure).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The ecclesial community is TEC.
Sez you.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The ecclesial community is TEC.
Sez you.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If enough ordinary congregation members started to go elsewhere, perhaps the message would get through.
Cell churches in people's houses are quite popular once they get going, as long as they're run by someone sensible and theologically trained.
What you do will depend upon what you want from your organised church. Integrity? Equality? Love of others as yourself, male or female? Facilitation of calling, male or female? Candles, gowns, windows?
I'm guessing the problem arises because many members of the CofE actually think that the eucharist, celebrated by a community led by an episcopally ordained priest is a matter of importance, not just a bit of window dressing that's nice to have if you can get it.
ANd the pity is, even if alternative episcopal oversight were available to supporters of the ordination of women, which it is not, that won't help those who support the principle of the ordination of women as bishops.
Those of us in the Anglican church who benefit from the ministry of female bishops -- and I see one has just been consecrated in southern Africa -- can only look on with despair at what the House of Laity of the CofE has done. And, short of sending missionary bishops to England to start a branch of the ACC -- which is not going to happen -- I can think of nothing that will help individuals who have been alienated from the CofE but also want access to the sacramental ministry they want and are, IMO, entitled to.
John
[ 20. November 2012, 19:55: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Howabout just holding out until the next General Synod? I mean, if the conservatives leave because of women priests, and the liberals leave because of women bishops, who the hell will be left? Who is going to start having faith in the Church as the heir to the promises of Jesus Christ?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How about the Quakers, CK?
They tend to be pretty liberal.
And they don't talk an awful lot either so there's very little there to fall out over ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
people will reject the church as irrelevant.
Lost cause. Let it go.
This. Wed the Spirit of this Age and you'll find yourself a widow(er) in the next. People aren't interested in "liberal" religion because it doesn't offer them anything that they can't get (and usually more satisfactorily) in the secular world.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Because this one has been sitting unresolved for 25 years. It now has another 5 years before it could go back to the next General Synod, which under current rules it has to. (Spawn said in Dead Horses that it could possibly go back to this one.)
I am not saying that this is the only reason I would leave, but that it is the final straw that means I cannot go back, in all conscience, having already drifted away over the past few months. And that drift was a mixture of burn out and a number of other issues. Since I drifted there have been two major decisions that mean I do not feel I can go back.
So, what alternatives are there currently available if the CofE is not an option?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The pro-lobby took no heed of the suggestions from the two archbishops (so much for an episcopally-led church - if they ignore archbishops, what's the point of having bishops, male or female?) and seemed hell-bent on forcing 'traditionalists' out of the church in the name of 'inclusive church'.
Wow, leo. You are a truly liberal liberal. And I can respect that a great deal.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
what alternatives are there currently available if the CofE is not an option?
Quite a lot, but I suspect that an awful lot of them are ruled out by unexpressed issues... I mean, Quakers would give you both SSM and the priesthood of all believers, but I'm kind of doubting that you'd jump?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So, what alternatives are there currently available if the CofE is not an option?
Stay Anglican but act like a presbyterian for the time being. It's the only way forward that I can see.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Most evangelical Anglicans seem to act like presbyterians already, daronmedway.
So I'm hardly surprised that you're suggesting it as an option.
Are there any liberal, MoR or other non-evangelical Anglicans who act like presbyterians?
Or is it just the evos?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Most evangelical Anglicans seem to act like presbyterians already, daronmedway.
Yes, and the solution to that particular aberration lies with the episcopate, not their representatives. When so many bishops fail to exercise proper apostolic ministry too many presbyters will fail to operate under their authority.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
people will reject the church as irrelevant.
Lost cause. Let it go.
This. Wed the Spirit of this Age and you'll find yourself a widow(er) in the next. People aren't interested in "liberal" religion because it doesn't offer them anything that they can't get (and usually more satisfactorily) in the secular world.
Except as John Holding wisely points out: quote:
I'm guessing the problem arises because many members of the CofE actually think that the eucharist, celebrated by a community led by an episcopally ordained priest is a matter of importance, not just a bit of window dressing that's nice to have if you can get it.
If we didn't believe in all that religion and sacramental rubbish we'd be quite happy outside the church.
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Wed the Spirit of this Age and you'll find yourself a widow(er) in the next. People aren't interested in "liberal" religion because it doesn't offer them anything that they can't get (and usually more satisfactorily) in the secular world.
To prevent women joining the episcopate is the action of a church wedded to the spirit of a previous age. And this issue, along with SSM, is one reason why it is widowed from many in society. Are people really avoiding the church because it isn't "conservative" enough? How many non-churchgoers will be inspired by the women bishops refusal?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I would seriously consider seeking alternative episcopal oversight from somewhere like USA or Canada. If it were offered, I would bite their hand off.
In the meantime, as a gesture of my disgust, I will do the little I can. No robes. No participation in deanery or diocesan events or activities. Let the bishop do what he dares. I no longer care.
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Local URC / Methodist minister is YECcie - not an option.
What's a YECcie?
I'm with you. Stunningly frustrated. To keep waiting from Synod to Synod in the vain hope that something might happen (and oh look, it didn't, oh well there's always the next one in another five years) doesn't seem like a particularly good option right now. Looking towards both the Methodists and the Quakers. And, as someone said upthread, removing my money from the institutional CofE.
As ever the challenge is I love my local shack.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If it were offered, I would bite their hand off.
In that case, we aren't offering! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Sheesh
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
YECcie - Young Earth Creationist
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
What a night!
Neither this nor Middle East cease-fire *
*that was all day promised in the overseas media and locally from 1700; spozed to be being announced at 2100 (ours) and by 2050 there weren't even chairs set out for the Big Press Conference
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How about the Quakers, CK?
They tend to be pretty liberal.
And they don't talk an awful lot either so there's very little there to fall out over ...
How little you know us! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Seriously, I started the move to Quakers because the then debate on the ordination of women made me painfully aware of the fact that "the priesthood of all believers" was not something the CofE had signed up for, as I had previously supposed. I still (occasionally) miss the Eucharist. There are Friends in dual membership, as I originally intended to be, but Quakerism is not a good wholesale alternative for people who actually want priests, male or female.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
Local URC / Methodist minister is YECcie - not an option.
Oh, how awful. The thought of having anything to do with someone whose view of the origin of life is different from yours. What ghastly contagion!
Good luck in your search for a church where everybody thinks exactly like you.
(Funny, but I didn't think that was the point of the Church.)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was teasing, QLib ...
Actually, thinking about it ... the thing that would prevent my becoming a Quaker would be the eucharist.
@daronmedway - point taken, but what, in your view, constitutes proper apostolic ministry on the part of the CofE episcopate? Something that approximates to your own 'take' on it?
I've only met a small number of charismatic evangelical Anglican bishops and I can't say I've been that impressed ...
I won't name names.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...
Local URC / Methodist minister is YECcie - not an option.
Oh, how awful. The thought of having anything to do with someone whose view of the origin of life is different from yours. What ghastly contagion!
Good luck in your search for a church where everybody thinks exactly like you.
(Funny, but I didn't think that was the point of the Church.)
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who are not prepared to engage with ideas not covered by the Bible or remove my God given brains at the door.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... EE ...
I'm not sure that's what Curiosity Killed is saying. I happen to know that she spent a good many years in a church where there was a diversity of views and many YEC-ies (although not in leadership).
I can understand why she wouldn't want to be in a church where the leader held such views.
You know my views on the charismatic evangelical scene - as someone who is sort of post-evangelical/post-charismatic to an extent.
Would it be sensible for me to start attending a Pentecostal church, say, or some kind of independent charismatic evangelical fellowship given my previous experience in those kind of settings - for good or ill?
The same applies with Curiosity Killed and YEC-ie types. I don't blame her for wanting a break from such people.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Haven't we got more important things to do? TOGETHER? Rather than being liberal or traditional?
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What you do will depend upon what you want from your organised church. Integrity? Equality? Love of others as yourself, male or female? Facilitation of calling, male or female? Candles, gowns, windows?
I think Raptor Eye has a point, Ck; if you can set out what are your non-negotiables we might be in a better position to suggest alternatives. For example, is having an episcopally-ordained Ministry a factor for you? Would being part of a small denomination put you off? What is your willingness to travel to worship? What do you think of your local options, etc?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, cross-posted with EE.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Just back from the pub. We're all gutted. Six votes in the House of Laity. But keep the faith. It will happen. Just not quickly enough. So sorry for all our supporters. A very sad day.
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Local URC / Methodist minister is YECcie - not an option.
As a Methodist presbyteral minister, I would love to know what "YECcie" means. It is a term with which I am entirely unfamiliar, and cannot even guess at!
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Thank you Manipled Mutineer, but I'm already convinced I don't want to be a part of any church. This thread was started partly in hope that someone might suggest something that made sense and suspecting I wouldn't be the only person thinking that this was it, time to go.
As I have said a few times, this is only one of several issues that have made me walk away. SSM and Women Bishops are some way down a list I made, but are final straws that make me feel that I cannot go back in conscience.
[ 20. November 2012, 21:59: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If we didn't believe in all that religion and sacramental rubbish we'd be quite happy outside the church.
Religious belief isn't dependent upon any particular organised church.
Whether the validity of the sacraments rests upon special men, upon God, or upon both is a matter of theological interpretation.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I heard of a Methodist minister who threatened to put up a banner outside her church 'Women welcomed at all levels in this church'.
Very tempted to tweet, facebook and banner - "We've been ordaining women since the 1920's"
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Just a thought .... Why wasn't it put to the opinion of everyone who is on the electoral roll of CofE churches? Why is a pretty unrepresentative group of the so called laity making the decision?
It can't be beyond the realms of the CofE's organisational ability to get a ballot paper in the hands of everyone on the roll.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Hi Exclamation Mark,
That's being discussed on the Women Bishops thread in Dead Horses right now. Can people remember that's where the main discussion should go?
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Local URC / Methodist minister is YECcie - not an option.
Really? Gosh! Well, he must be a very lonely man, because that's hardly a common theological position in either of those two denominations.
The Baptist Union's website says that women should be in leadership at all levels in their denomination:
http://www.baptist.org.uk/archives/286-women-in-leadership-.html
However, if the Methodists in your area are YECcies, then I fear that your local Baptists could well be hellfire and brimstone fundamentalists! The Baptists are usually the most theologically conservative of these three denominations - though it would be interesting to know how they compare in terms of female clergy.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
Local URC / Methodist minister is YECcie - not an option.
Oh, how awful. The thought of having anything to do with someone whose view of the origin of life is different from yours. What ghastly contagion!
Good luck in your search for a church where everybody thinks exactly like you.
(Funny, but I didn't think that was the point of the Church.)
I don't expect everyone in a church to think exactly like me. There are many points of view. But i don't include documentably false fiction as a legitimate point of view worth a serious debate.
(BTw there are Pentecostals who are not YECers)
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Maybe the wives of the Anglican hierarchy should withdraw from the marriage bed until their husbands have a change of heart and support the appointment of women as bishops. Sex is a very strong persuader.
[ 21. November 2012, 05:53: Message edited by: bib ]
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe the wives of the Anglican hierarchy should withdraw from the marriage bed until their husbands have a change of heart and support the appointment of women as bishops. Sex is a very strong persuader.
The Lysistrata approach is always worth considering, but I don't think it will work here, alas. The opposition was (a) not generally from the hierarchy and (b) in no small part from women...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I'd like to see a gradual approach from now on in, where increasing numbers of women priests are made Archdeacons, Canons and Deans. And to do a quietly good and impressive job of it. Then they will be ideally placed in 5 years time for those extra 6 (or 60) votes.
I reckon women could blow it if they overreact or leave now.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe the wives of the Anglican hierarchy should withdraw from the marriage bed until their husbands have a change of heart and support the appointment of women as bishops. Sex is a very strong persuader.
The Lysistrata approach is always worth considering, but I don't think it will work here, alas. The opposition was (a) not generally from the hierarchy and (b) in no small part from women...
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'd like to see a gradual approach from now on in, where increasing numbers of women priests are made Archdeacons, Canons and Deans. And to do a quietly good and impressive job of it. Then they will be ideally placed in 5 years time for those extra 6 (or 60) votes.
I reckon women could blow it if they overreact or leave now.
So - basically what they have already been doing for the past decade?
I'm sorry, but "business as usual" is NOT the required response here. There needs to be a long, loud and unmistakable protest made. This is not something to just shrug off as "another of life's little disappointments".
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'd like to see a gradual approach from now on in, where increasing numbers of women priests are made Archdeacons, Canons and Deans. And to do a quietly good and impressive job of it. Then they will be ideally placed in 5 years time for those extra 6 (or 60) votes.
I reckon women could blow it if they overreact or leave now.
It was the house of LAITY that declined to accept the inadequate mess of pottage being offered to give legitimacy to those who continue to reject women's ordination, despite it being proclaimed that it is a legitimate position. The laity have almost no contact with such hierarchs, means the move is probably irrelevant. However at worst the prejudiced appointment of more women to such ranks, rather than the including, as promised in 1992, the opponents, will be further convinced that they can't trust the institution's stated intentions. So, overall, probably not a good move...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
But as there are so few opponents, there will be plenty of places for them as well.
The more of the Laity who get used to seeing women around in our cathedrals and important Diocesan services, and see them doing a good job, the more they are likely to accept this is the future of the church (as happened with women priests).
Like a mighty tortoise moves the church of God - it would seem that 20 years was a little too much of a rush for the old beast. Maybe 25 years will give it enough time.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ Louise's post above
I'm pretty exercised over this issue personally and it's not surprising it gave rise to a rash of threads yesterday.
A considered review this morning suggests that although this Purg "what do we do now" thread is not primarily about the rights and wrongs of the decision, it is still, probably, a Dead Horse under the "any aspect" rule in DH guideline 1.
But I'm taking that view to the Host Board first before taking any action. Meanwhile, the discussion may continue here.
B62, Purg Host
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Haven't we got more important things to do? TOGETHER? Rather than being liberal or traditional?
Yes, but then the difficulty is that people have different ideas about what it means to do things together. And the answer to that is to just do what needs doing with whoever will do them with you, and let the ideas sort themselves out.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
But as there are so few opponents, there will be plenty of places for them as well.
Well - given that it hasn't happened so far, it seems optimistic that it will start to happen now.
The CofE has largely demonstrated that it can't be trusted to obey the Act of Synod that was passed to protect the RIGHTS of those who were legitimately opposed to the OoW. Now you're proposing unlawfully discriminating against men to make a political point. Then you expect the opponents to trust a 'Code of Practice'. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
Baptists vary greatly (though with a higher proportion con eve). The baptist church closest to me has a strong liberal tradition. The number of women in pastorate is growing.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Well - given that it hasn't happened so far, it seems optimistic that it will start to happen now.
The CofE has largely demonstrated that it can't be trusted to obey the Act of Synod that was passed to protect the RIGHTS of those who were legitimately opposed to the OoW. Now you're proposing unlawfully discriminating against men to make a political point. Then you expect the opponents to trust a 'Code of Practice'.
Actually, I think your opinion sounds rather paranoid. But YMMV.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
If in the UK someone wants women Bishops that are better Episcopally ordained than the Anglicans then the obvious answer is the Moravians. However I suspect that they will be asking hard questions if a sudden increase in interest.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Like a mighty dinosaur
Lumbers the church of God
Brothers we are treading
Where no sane man has trod
We are not divided
Oh no honestly
One in truth and doctrine
Just see us at Drumcree
Onward Christian soldiers
Spoiling for a fight
With the Cross of Jesus
Kept well out of sight.
I'm too incandescent with anger about this and lots of other things at the moment to post in Purg. A Hell thread may emerge when I've marshalled my thoughts.
[ 21. November 2012, 08:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@daronmedway - point taken, but what, in your view, constitutes proper apostolic ministry on the part of the CofE episcopate? Something that approximates to your own 'take' on it?
Yes, something like that. Would that be wrong?
Happy to discuss this with you on another thread, but I'm pretty sure I know how it would play out:
D - "I think this"
G - "I thought you'd say that because you're a charismatic evangelical and you haven't thought the issue through as much as me."
D - "Thanks. Bye."
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Hmmm ... EE ...
I'm not sure that's what Curiosity Killed is saying. I happen to know that she spent a good many years in a church where there was a diversity of views and many YEC-ies (although not in leadership).
I can understand why she wouldn't want to be in a church where the leader held such views.
'Fraid I can't.
I personally rather like the idea of being in a church where the leader believes that each member of his or her congregation has been created by God in His image. This feels like a pretty good basis for ministry, don't you think?
If by 'YEC' we mean someone who refuses to think critically, then that is a prejudice based on the assumption that the whole question of origins has been comprehensively proven with irrefutable evidence. It has not (and I have had enough debates in my time to know that even atheists admit that, apart from the few delusional types who throw around the word 'fact' with reckless and ignorant abandon). Anyway, can't say any more about that as it's a DH subject.
But anyway, I think it's a very sad day when the fundamental requirement for Christian ministry is regarded as adherence to the naturalistic theory of origins! Have we really sunk that far?
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'd like to see a gradual approach from now on in, where increasing numbers of women priests are made Archdeacons, Canons and Deans. And to do a quietly good and impressive job of it. Then they will be ideally placed in 5 years time for those extra 6 (or 60) votes.
I reckon women could blow it if they overreact or leave now.
That was my thought last night. I'm still very dismayed though and am seriously considering looking elsewhere. But as someone else says, where?
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I personally rather like the idea of being in a church where the leader believes that each member of his or her congregation has been created by God in His image. This feels like a pretty good basis for ministry, don't you think?
Do you really think that only by believing the earth is just a few thousand years old we can believe that people are made in God's image?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
EtymologicalEvangelical - so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
<dead horses tangent>YECcie - Young Earth Creationist, believes God made the world in 6 days as per Genesis 1-2:1 account, 6,000 years ago and there is no such thing as evolution, also Noah's Ark existed.</dead horses tangent>
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
EtymologicalEvangelical - so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
<dead horses tangent>YECcie - Young Earth Creationist, believes God made the world in 6 days as per Genesis 1-2:1 account, 6,000 years ago and there is no such thing as evolution, also Noah's Ark existed.</dead horses tangent>
And not only that, but also being told how your theology is defective, how Christianity doesn't work properly if you don't "believe what the Bible says", how you're in bed with Satanically deceived and deceiving scientists and so forth? I've been in a university CU with a YEC leadership and it wasn't pretty.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The issue of limits to tolerance - and how you behave if you stay "within" - is a good one, somewhat tangential to this thread, and maybe it deserves a thread in its own right which could I suspect steer clear from the DH much more easily. Worth thinking about that one, Shipmates.
B62, Purg Host
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@EE - Curiosity is saying that she couldn't be in a church like that, not that other people shouldn't.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
She is not saying that the YEC-ie minister shouldn't be a minister - just that she doesn't want to be under their ministry if he/she is a YEC-ie.
Neither would I.
Or at least, if I were then life would be pretty difficult for both of us ...
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who...don't agree with me cause they're stupid
Fixed that for you.
Others have argued that since the Church hasn't voted the 'Right' way, you should leave, stop giving financially, break away your affiliation, etc. Is Church a club where you need to agree with everything, and everyone, or you don't want any part of it - or is it a hodgepodge community of diverse, sometimes diametrically different people, all trying to get on with each other in the peace and love of Christ?
I strongly believe in women's ministry, and think that preventing women from holding a posisiton in the church because of their gender is terrible. But I belong to a free church congregation which doesn't even allow women elders, let alone anything higher. I considered a few years ago whether I should leave this church that had been so welcoming to me, that was full of my friends, and brothers and sisters in Christ. I decided it would be petty, and destructive to do so, cutting off my nose to spite my face.
For me, I decided the community is more important than the politics. When there is an opportunity to do so, I will argue the case for women's ministry within my church and attempt to change it's decision on this issue. When there is no opportunity, I will still support the church as best as I can, with my time, money, prayers, and fellowship.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@daronmedway.
You asked a reasonable question. Would it be wrong to expect bishops to exercise an apostolic ministry in the way that you understand it. Well, no, of course not. That's fair enough. Provided you also realised that there might be things they expected from you that might not exactly 'fit' what you think.
I suspect you'll have encountered that already and either come to terms with it or turned a blind-eye - depending on what the issue is. And that would be the same, of course, for Anglo-Catholics, MoR clergy, conservative evangelicals or charismatic ones ... and other stripes and shades of opinion besides.
So, fair enough.
As for the following:
D - "I think this"
G - "I thought you'd say that because you're a charismatic evangelical and you haven't thought the issue through as much as me."
D - "Thanks. Bye."
Well, yes, I am delighted to see the level of self-awareness you are displaying in your posts ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Seriously, we could have a new thread on that but we'd probably end up in a scrap. Inevitably, I would have thought.
The further I get away from charismatic evangelicalism the more manipulative it looks - although there are shades between outright manipulation and bullying and subtle persuasion.
It's very hard for me to remain objective about that and whilst I fully accept that there are 'thinking' charismatics about - and you would clearly be among them - there's something about it that means that I can't go back to it - however modified a form it takes.
Arguably, though, I am channelling my own 'charismatic' propensities into an increasingly sacramental/mystical approach (mystical in the traditional, Christian sense not a woolly, airy-fairy whishty-whishty way). I don't think I've lost any sense of the immanence of God - which I still consider to be the charismatic scene's best feature.
I'm sure we could end up with an objective and sensible discussion, but perhaps I ought to let a bit more water pass under the bridge. I've been undergoing a fairly painful transition from full-on charismatic certainties to whatever it is I'm morphing into ... it's still work in progress.
I will agree that there is a temptation to diss or poke the tongue out at people who are at a different stage - as it were - if I can say that without implying that I'm at a more 'developed' stage than you are. That's not what I mean at all.
But just as a YEC approach would be accompanied by certain unpalatable features, so, to my mind, would a full-on charismatic approach. As indeed would some forms of sacramental approach too ...
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Well - given that it hasn't happened so far, it seems optimistic that it will start to happen now.
The CofE has largely demonstrated that it can't be trusted to obey the Act of Synod that was passed to protect the RIGHTS of those who were legitimately opposed to the OoW. Now you're proposing unlawfully discriminating against men to make a political point. Then you expect the opponents to trust a 'Code of Practice'.
Actually, I think your opinion sounds rather paranoid. But YMMV.
Paranoia suggests that there is no evidence for what I'm arguing. However given that almost no opponents of OoW have risen in the hierarchy since 1992, certainly not a number consistent with the numbers that they've demonstrated in votes, and the CofE itself has admitted to its failure to consecrate more than ONE conservative Evangelicals in recent years, I feel it's you that not engaging with the real world.
And I stand by my point about ILLEGALLY appointing women in preference to men. That's really going to encourage a belief that the CofE can be expected to do what it's supposed to do.
We're in a horrible hole. This has been largely caused by the decision to force through the legislation in 1992 by giving too many hostages to fortune. AFAICS the only moral thing to do is to declare that they made a horrible mistake in 1992 by making those promises, and FULLY COMPENSATE all those who were stupid enough to trust those promises. That means that opponent clergy would need to be offered a full stipend and housing for the rest of their lives, as they are the ones mainly in the firing line as far as loss for this is concerned. It can be argued that laity who contributed to capital costs of projects in the church from which they are now being expelled might also have grounds for demanding a refund... Or we can do the 'Third Province' approach, which to me is a far more satisfactory solution all round. Or we can admit that we are a totally dishonourable church, whose promises are worthless, in which case nobody in their right minds should believe us when we talk about spiritual things.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hawk - I can appreciate what you're saying. I think many of us have found ourselves in analogous situations.
In your case, though, as in a similar situation my wife and I found ourselves in some years ago, there are militating factors - friendships and so on - that obviate or alleviate your sense of frustration.
Might it not be in Curiosity's case that those factors do not apply? None of us can read her mind, still less come out with value judgements on whether her decision is the right or wrong one. We are not in her shoes.
For all any of us know, she might not have the level of friendships you describe in her church and this wouldn't provide the anchor it does in your case.
In my own case, my wife and I stuck it out in a very unconducive church situation for years and years because we had loads of friends there and because we'd been blinkered to a certain extent that its way was THE way to do things. When we finally left it was truly gutting and painful.
However, we soon found that the sky didn't fall in and that plenty of other churches had other ways of doing things.
There can be something very claustrophobic about churches with a particular agenda or emphasis - and that applies right across the board, not just to charismatic evangelical or conservative evangelical independent fellowships.
There's got to be some wiggle-room somewhere.
It's easy to pick up on comments such as those Curiosity has made in order to imply that she wants everything just as she wants it ... 'She thinks she's ever so superior to that YEC chap ...'
Or, in daronmedway's case, 'Gamaliel thinks he's ever so superior and has thought these things through more than I have ...'
It is genuinely difficult to articulate these things without sounding like 'I'm at Stage 4 or 5 on Fowler, you're only at Stage 2 or 3 so you can take a running jump ...'
But that's not what I'm trying to say - nor, I submit, is it what Curiosity would be trying to say.
Speaking personally, I'd love to see Curiosity settled somewhere - the Quakers perhaps? But I'm not Curiosity Killed and it ain't my place to say what is or isn't right for her.
By the same token, it would be wrong of me to suggest that you look elsewhere for fellowship or suggest that daronmedway tones down his charismaticness a bit ... on second thoughts ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Enders:
quote:
It can be argued that laity who contributed to capital costs of projects in the church from which they are now being expelled might also have grounds for demanding a refund...
This is utter nonsense. People give to the church on a charitable and voluntary basis for the ministry of the church. If you go down this route you would have to give a refund every time members of your pcc vote on something and someone doesn't like the way the vote went. The church changes, and anyone who thinks that it can be a monolith standing for all time, ever the same is frankly deluded and has little understanding of what the church is. There will always be things that people disagree on and there ill always be a group of people who have to swallow the bitter pill - it's just the way it is. This particular pill is cruelly bitter, not only for the sheer time and energy put into the whole thing, but also because of the botched 1992 affair and the fact that the vote has highlighted a fatal flaw in the mechanism of the synod.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
@Hawk, Barnabas62 and I are discussing whether to start another thread on what makes people move on.
I want to reiterate, there are a number of reasons I've gone already, initially for a break to recover from burn out from doing to much and to give others the space to take over or become used to it not being done. What I wondering now is whether I should return at all, not when. This isn't the only issue that has pushed me out, it's another reason that's making me think I cannot return.
I am not saying I have to agree with everything and I think being challenged is good. I do however think that deep theological differences can be a breaking point.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Sorry CK, I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread. I guess that even sleeping on it the emotiveness of the issue is still there.
In response to your question there are a number of things to consider, acknowledging too that a break can be good to get your head around things and to recover; although a long break can make it difficult to return.
I think that if the issues that are driving you away are no longer open to change and discussion then maybe it is time to walk away from it and shake the dust from your feet. On the other hand, if it is something that is important to you and there is still the possibility of further discussion and the possibility of change then it's worth hanging on - even when it means hanging on in a community that is difficult and messy. Too many good people walk away in frustration, leaving a community of which they were a vital and important part. It's bad for the person who walks away, but it's also bad for the community they leave. In so many cases I have seen people leave without ever realising who they inspire and support and encourage, and it's deeply sad.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who...don't agree with me cause they're stupid
Fixed that for you.
Don't do that kind of fixing again, even as a pointed joke. Its generally reckoned to be a bit of a C3 linecross to muck about with Shipmates' quotes to make a point. And in this case it's clearly a personal dig anyway, not a comment on a post. Take it to Hell if you want, but leave it out here.
Here's the original quote, to save Shipmates looking it up.
quote:
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who are not prepared to engage with ideas not covered by the Bible or remove my God given brains at the door.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Curiosity Killed
quote:
I'm pretty sure this was from one of your posts: So, what alternatives are there currently available if the CofE is not an option?
Reading through this thread with much interest as always, I'm waving arms in the air to attract attention!!
My suggestion is that you could perhaps drop in on a Humanist Group meeting somewhere. If they're anything like the group I belong to, they would not in any way try to criticise your faith, especially as many have been in the CofE themselves. I think you would find them with a lively, positive, and understanding alternative viewpoint.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...Speaking personally, I'd love to see Curiosity settled somewhere - the Quakers perhaps? But I'm not Curiosity Killed and it ain't my place to say what is or isn't right for her.
I was going to suggest the Quakers too.
A quakery anglican or anglicany quaker.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This thread was asking if there was anywhere to go instead, or I was going to become part of the 90% unchurched in the UK.
Curiosity Killed, please don't. Your contention is with the House of Laity not with Jesus Christ. Walking out on him because you are disgusted with some of his servants is spiritually very dangerous indeed.
Please console your self with the following, platitudinous though they might seem in the wrath of the moment.
1. Nothing is actually different from where it was yesterday morning. It's just that a change you earnestly desired hasn't happened.
2. Neither Synod, not the House of Laity are the church.
3. The House of Laity had less representative credibility than the pre-1832 House of Commons before. Alas, that also has not changed. Nor, unless its electoral system is reconstructed will any future House of Laity have any credibility either.
4. If some of the proponents of women bishops had not said they would vote against the previous version of the resolution with the original version of the bishops' amendment in it, and behaved like De Valera and the Treaty, that version might have got through.
5. If Christ has called you, he has called you to serve him inside his church, not outside it.
6. If eventually you feel that you must join another ecclesial community, don't make the move until you find the one you feel you are actually being called to go to.
7. There is wisdom in what Leo and Hawk have said.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
from Enders Shadow And I stand by my point about ILLEGALLY appointing women in preference to men. That's really going to encourage a belief that the CofE can be expected to do what it's supposed to do. We're in a horrible hole. This has been largely caused by the decision to force through the legislation in 1992 by giving too many hostages to fortune. AFAICS the only moral thing to do is to declare that they made a horrible mistake in 1992 by making those promises, and FULLY COMPENSATE all those who were stupid enough to trust those promises. That means that opponent clergy would need to be offered a full stipend and housing for the rest of their lives, as they are the ones mainly in the firing line as far as loss for this is concerned. It can be argued that laity who contributed to capital costs of projects in the church from which they are now being expelled might also have grounds for demanding a refund... Or we can do the 'Third Province' approach, which to me is a far more satisfactory solution all round. Or we can admit that we are a totally dishonourable church, whose promises are worthless, in which case nobody in their right minds should believe us when we talk about spiritual things.
Gosh, that's told us!
I'm sorry to tell you that this sounds remarkably like the arguments one hears from vengeful soon-to-be-ex wives in the divorce courts... and do the rest of us really WANT someone who's likely to argue about who bought the toaster?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I rather suspect, Enoch, that CK's current disillusionment is rather wider than the immediate issue of yesterday's vote and has been brewing for rather a lot longer ...
What she's said is that this might be the final straw - it is one of many, just the latest in a long litany of issues.
We can all make suggestions - I've made one myself - but ultimately it's up to CK. It ain't for any of us to say that she 'should' do this or 'ought' to do that or to marshal the usual Bible verses and what-not to suggest that she sticks with it regardless of how she feels.
Of course, as people of faith and people who belong or are involved with particular faith-groups and expressions of that faith we are bound to come out with recommendations and suggestions - and indeed CK has invited us to do so.
But ultimately whether she stays, goes, abandons faith entirely or converts to Scientology or the worship of the Green Fuzzy-Felt Monster from The Planet Zog is up to her.
I know that's obvious but I just thought it was worth saying. Ignore me if you disagree.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
The focus of my concern (following my real frustration and sadness of yesterday's news) is the synodical process. That seems to be the area in need of dire reform. The current system has left us with a decision the upsets and/or displeased the majority of the church. I suspect that a look at how the make-up of the house laity may have changed (or perhaps was even engineered) in the past few years, might help shed some light on this dark time.
I think we'll pull through...
K.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Curiosity Killed, please don't. Your contention is with the House of Laity not with Jesus Christ. Walking out on him because you are disgusted with some of his servants is spiritually very dangerous indeed.
When I stopped believing a long time ago I found it gave me a complete wholeness in terms of spirituality, so I wonder how you feel it is a 'dangerous' move. And that's a genuinely interested question, which I ask because I don't know the answer.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This thread was asking if there was anywhere to go instead, or I was going to become part of the 90% unchurched in the UK.
Curiosity Killed, please don't. Your contention is with the House of Laity not with Jesus Christ. Walking out on him because you are disgusted with some of his servants is spiritually very dangerous indeed.
Not that CK was suggesting doing any such thing.
quote:
Please console your self with the following, platitudinous though they might seem in the wrath of the moment.
1. Nothing is actually different from where it was yesterday morning. It's just that a change you earnestly desired hasn't happened.
No. Something has changed. The church has effectively said "No, women can't be bishops". It's positively announced its sexism to the world, rather than not having yet said otherwise.
quote:
5. If Christ has called you, he has called you to serve him inside his church, not outside it.
This rather presupposes a higher level of identity between the organised church and the actual Body of Christ than I, for one, feel inclined to accept.
quote:
6. If eventually you feel that you must join another ecclesial community, don't make the move until you find the one you feel you are actually being called to go to.
Sometimes nowhere is better than a bad somewhere that we haven't found a somewhere else to.
quote:
7. There is wisdom in what Leo and Hawk have said.
Yeah, but it doesn't always apply. I don't, for example, know what I'd be doing at the moment if my local gaff was the only show in town; it was certainly making the baptismal promises I made at my kids' baptisms to encourage them in public worship and ultimately bring themselves to confirmation extremely difficult as every service took them further away from that point.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The focus of my concern (following my real frustration and sadness of yesterday's news) is the synodical process. That seems to be the area in need of dire reform. The current system has left us with a decision the upsets and/or displeased the majority of the church. I suspect that a look at how the make-up of the house laity may have changed (or perhaps was even engineered) in the past few years, might help shed some light on this dark time.
I think we'll pull through...
K.
Hmm - while it's always attractive to shoot the messenger, are you really sure that the vote isn't an accurate reflection of the view of the people in the pews? That something like 37% of the people in the pews are of opposed to women bishops seems possible... Given the average age of a CofE member is way above that of the population, I think it may well be accurate. BUT WE DON'T KNOW. And to assume that it's just a few diehard conservatives who've blocked this against the will of 90+% is dangerous.
And if it was an accurate reflection of the views in the pews, then what? Would you accept that - or tell them that they are suffering from a 'false consciousness' and force it through regardless?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The focus of my concern (following my real frustration and sadness of yesterday's news) is the synodical process. That seems to be the area in need of dire reform. The current system has left us with a decision the upsets and/or displeased the majority of the church. I suspect that a look at how the make-up of the house laity may have changed (or perhaps was even engineered) in the past few years, might help shed some light on this dark time.
I think we'll pull through...
K.
Hmm - while it's always attractive to shoot the messenger, are you really sure that the vote isn't an accurate reflection of the view of the people in the pews? That something like 37% of the people in the pews are of opposed to women bishops seems possible... Given the average age of a CofE member is way above that of the population, I think it may well be accurate. BUT WE DON'T KNOW. And to assume that it's just a few diehard conservatives who've blocked this against the will of 90+% is dangerous.
And if it was an accurate reflection of the views in the pews, then what? Would you accept that - or tell them that they are suffering from a 'false consciousness' and force it through regardless?
I don't know.
K.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
If in the UK someone wants women Bishops that are better Episcopally ordained than the Anglicans then the obvious answer is the Moravians. However I suspect that they will be asking hard questions if a sudden increase in interest.
Jengie
There you go. The Moravians are a group that deserve to grow. Nobody does Christmas as well as the Moravians.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE] Hmm - while it's always attractive to shoot the messenger, are you really sure that the vote isn't an accurate reflection of the view of the people in the pews? That something like 37% of the people in the pews are of opposed to women bishops seems possible... Given the average age of a CofE member is way above that of the population, I think it may well be accurate. BUT WE DON'T KNOW. And to assume that it's just a few diehard conservatives who've blocked this against the will of 90+% is dangerous.
And if it was an accurate reflection of the views in the pews, then what? Would you accept that - or tell them that they are suffering from a 'false consciousness' and force it through regardless?
Joking aside--I don't think the latter is as crazy as you seem to make it. Given the chance, the UK public would bring back the noose; however, people who know better, know better. It's a tricky business, I agree.
K.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, fair enough.
As for the following:
D - "I think this"
G - "I thought you'd say that because you're a charismatic evangelical and you haven't thought the issue through as much as me."
D - "Thanks. Bye."
Well, yes, I am delighted to see the level of self-awareness you are displaying in your posts ...
You would have found a way to work the word "binary" in there somehow.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
What are you blithering on about?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who...don't agree with me cause they're stupid
Fixed that for you.
Don't do that kind of fixing again, even as a pointed joke. Its generally reckoned to be a bit of a C3 linecross to muck about with Shipmates' quotes to make a point. And in this case it's clearly a personal dig anyway, not a comment on a post. Take it to Hell if you want, but leave it out here.
Here's the original quote, to save Shipmates looking it up.
quote:
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who are not prepared to engage with ideas not covered by the Bible or remove my God given brains at the door.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Apologies to Curiosity killed and the hosts. It was intended as a joke, but I understand if it crossed the line.
Sorry. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I am increasingly coming to believe that giving the laity a vote is a bad idea.
Before we get all heated up about that, I am NOT saying that clergy have a more direct line to God than laity. But at least clergy are educated and know what the basic doctrines of the faith are- well, they are more likely to know anyway. They might have been lying through their teeth, but at least the clergy have sworn to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church. What are the qualifications for being a lay delegate besides getting elected? I would be surprised if most lay delegates could list the 10 commandments.
So I suppose I oughtter say that there should be much higher standards for who can be a lay delegate. Then again, whinging about catechetical standards is so old hat these days...
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
What are you blithering on about?
It's common practice in secular business to oust people who won't get with a programme of change. You seem to you want the church to operate that way, even if the people are bound by conscience out of regard to the scriptures to object to the changes being advocated.
[ 21. November 2012, 14:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Beeswax Altar, the word 'binary' would undoubtedly have come up in the putative new thread In Which Gamaliel And Daronmedway Share a Pipe.
It would probably feature in the first paragraph of my opening post.
Along with the term 'over-egged.'
The use of both terms would be highly appropriate, if irritating for the reader.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That might very well be the case both in secular business and in churches too - I've certainly seen both.
I'd suggest that such things aren't the province of any one tradition or emphasis, though. The liberals are capable of such things, certainly - but so are the evangelicals.
You've only got to hear what happened to Chorister's choir down in Cream-Tea Land when an evangelical charismatic incumbent arrived and decided that surpliced choirs and choral music wasn't what the Almighty wanted to hear on a Sunday morning ...
These things cut all ways round and from what I can see evangelicals and charismatics are no less immune to behaving like this than liberals, catholics and anyone else we might care to mention.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Beeswax Altar, the word 'binary' would undoubtedly have come up in the putative new thread In Which Gamaliel And Daronmedway Share a Pipe.
It would probably feature in the first paragraph of my opening post.
Along with the term 'over-egged.'
The use of both terms would be highly appropriate, if irritating for the reader.
And I would most likely respond with accusations of skeptical intransigence and presumptuous misconstruction.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That might very well be the case both in secular business and in churches too - I've certainly seen both.
I'd suggest that such things aren't the province of any one tradition or emphasis, though. The liberals are capable of such things, certainly - but so are the evangelicals.
You've only got to hear what happened to Chorister's choir down in Cream-Tea Land when an evangelical charismatic incumbent arrived and decided that surpliced choirs and choral music wasn't what the Almighty wanted to hear on a Sunday morning ...
These things cut all ways round and from what I can see evangelicals and charismatics are no less immune to behaving like this than liberals, catholics and anyone else we might care to mention.
My gawd, I agree with Gamaliel. I'm going to go lay down for a bit.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
What are you blithering on about?
It's common practice in secular business to oust people who won't get with a programme of change. You seem to you want the church to operate that way, even if the people are bound by conscience out of regard to the scriptures to object to the changes being advocated.
Erm no. I'm making an observation, not advocating anyone should take any particular course of action.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Actually, I was observing that generally people go to the church in the next parish along if they can't cope with the theology being promoted in the pulpit of their local gaff, rather than thinking about swimming of Tibers or any other available rivers. I've done it myself when the unyielding evangelicalism of one vicar just became too much.
[ 21. November 2012, 15:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Please bear in mind that I ask because I don't know, not because I'm scoring a point. I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives. For a conservative anglo-catholic the criteria have to do with sacramental validity; without the sacraments to act as one's test, and indeed to necessitate the various forms of accommodation which have been made, what does one use?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Please bear in mind that I ask because I don't know, not because I'm scoring a point. I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives. For a conservative anglo-catholic the criteria have to do with sacramental validity; without the sacraments to act as one's test, and indeed to necessitate the various forms of accommodation which have been made, what does one use?
My experience - and it is only that - is that evangelicals tend not to be particularly denominationally minded and will generally attend any "bible believing" church that they are a fit for in terms of what house groups, other meetings and whatnots it provides. But that might just be the little corner of evangelicalism I'm familiar with. But it wasn't specifically finding another denomination that I had in mind.
[ 21. November 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
A decade ago, it was predicted that the Church of England would have women bishops by 2008. And so it would have had, had not the equal opportunities squad turned a deeply held theological and ecclesiological objection into an issue of rights and equality. Although ++ Rowan must feel devastated to end his incumbancy on this note, in his speeches and proposals to the General Synod over the last few years, he has understood that a structural solution must be found for dissenters. ++ Sentamu has, today, commented that proper provision for opponents was what was lacking in the proposed legislation, and that it's the answer to success in the future.
It doesn't matter whether it's just a beefing up of the Act of Synod to accommodate the reality of women in the House of Bishops, or if you call it a Third Province, it needs to be structural, and legal, as FiF has said all along. The Church in Wales found itself in a similar position, and now it is preparing two bits of legislation, one which provides for women bishops and the other, linked, which makes proper provision for opponents. The C of E will now have to go back to the drawing board, think this through, and come up with something which honours the promises made in the 90's about the time honoured place of loyal Anglicans. Then it will get the women bishops which the majority of its members want.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
[I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives.
In theory they would be looking for orthodox, Bible-based, inspiring, preaching; and an unambiguous commitment to sound doctrine. In practice, like most others, many would want somewhere they felt at home and comfortable, and it would often be more likely to be personal relationships than doctrines that attracted them to a church. They would want a church where they can receive both teaching and encouragement.
And, seriously, lots of evangelicals would pray about it and ask God to lead them to a church where they can be of some use.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience - and it is only that - is that evangelicals tend not to be particularly denominationally minded and will generally attend any "bible believing" church that they are a fit for in terms of what house groups, other meetings and whatnots it provides.
Seems true enough to my experience as well.
Infant Baptism might be an issue for some, in both directions, but in practice a lot of evangelical churches manage to work round differences over that. In the 1970 & 80s and maybe even 90s arguments over "gifts of the spirit" were a church-breaking issue for many, and once upon a time disputes about Calvinism vs. Arminianism would have been important.
But as others said even those sorts of issues are an influence on choice of church, not choice of denomination.
The idea thatr notions like "valid sacraments" or "apostolic succession" might be important for choosing which church to go to would simply never occur to most evangelicals, whether theologically conservative or not.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the promises made in the 90's about the time honoured place of loyal Anglicans.
I hope you're not suggesting that those of us who are pro-OoW are disloyal Anglicans.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hope you're not suggesting that those of us who are pro-OoW are disloyal Anglicans.
Not in the least! The term "both integrities" was once used to describe loyal Anglicans, and it still applies.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
Can anyone shed any light on why only the one proposal could be put to the synod ? Other options with different sorts of provision could have been put together which those not believing in women bishops would have accepted. Of course these might have been voted down by supporters of women bishops but it seems very wrong not to verify if there was any proposal which would have passed by the necessary majority.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Thanks Paul! I didn't really think you were suggesting that, I was just being pedantic.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hope you're not suggesting that those of us who are pro-OoW are disloyal Anglicans.
Not in the least! The term "both integrities" was once used to describe loyal Anglicans, and it still applies.
There always was a huge problem in this term, and this is what has come to tear massive chunks out of the ecclesial posterior. You can't have two wholenesses in one whole, it simply won't fit. Particularly if either of them is going to be utterly scrupulous about their wholeness, as in the "tainted hands" argument. It is just about possible in one generation to take that kind of logic forward (N.B. personally I absolutely abhor it, but it is a favoured logic of FiF and friends, AIUI), but once you get into multiple generations and multiple strands of episcopacy, it rapidly becomes an impossible mess, if it wasn't one already.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I'm not entirely sure that my experience of church choirs in evangelical churches is particularly relevant to this thread (although I appreciate Gamaliel's kindness in thinking of me).
Regarding women in senior roles in the church, I think that what people want to see is a mixture of men and women in those roles, not whether a certain quota of those men have fixed ideas on OOW. Most men have found that in actually working with women in senior roles that their former fears have been overcome. How else to have had so many bishops and clergy in favour during the vote?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
daronmedway: Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Please bear in mind that I ask because I don't know, not because I'm scoring a point. I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives. For a conservative anglo-catholic the criteria have to do with sacramental validity; without the sacraments to act as one's test, and indeed to necessitate the various forms of accommodation which have been made, what does one use?
Continuing Anglicans? certainly there's a group locally or was last time I looked. It's aligned with GAFCON
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Can anyone shed any light on why only the one proposal could be put to the synod ? Other options with different sorts of provision could have been put together which those not believing in women bishops would have accepted. Of course these might have been voted down by supporters of women bishops but it seems very wrong not to verify if there was any proposal which would have passed by the necessary majority.
Forgive the double posting, (ETA - it was a double posting when I started writing it) but my answer to this question of follows seamlessly from my last remarks. I'm not sure, but it would surprise me if the reason for this isn't precisely what was learned from the "two integrities" cul-de-sac created by the OoW measure. We need a way of bringing about the consecration of women as bishops without creating a huge, unwieldy framework or a set of weasel words which can be used by those thus minded to hold the rest of the church to ransom in perpetuity. Some level of grace and provision is needed, but it must be seen and accepted by all that the consecration of bishops regardless of gender is the settled will of the church as a body. Those who dissent should be dealt with graciously, but reproducing that mess would be disastrous.
[ 21. November 2012, 16:10: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
You can't have two wholenesses in one whole, it simply won't fit.
Somewhat tangential, but there seems to be an irony in that this a large part of the basis of Christianity. OK, the monophysites might not agree, but still...
[ 21. November 2012, 16:13: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Can anyone shed any light on why only the one proposal could be put to the synod ? Other options with different sorts of provision could have been put together which those not believing in women bishops would have accepted. Of course these might have been voted down by supporters of women bishops but it seems very wrong not to verify if there was any proposal which would have passed by the necessary majority.
Lots of different proposals have come before synod over the past few years. Every one has been voted down. Each new proposal seems less generous that the previous one. they should have seen this coming.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
My own experience of con evo tallies with what Karl and Ken say. I became a Christian at St Helen's Bishpsgate, and almost all of my friends there were very relaxed about denomination, often more comfortable attending a Baptist or Methodist church when on holiday rather than Anglican. Baptist churches were particularly popular when moving on to a local church. (I'm just saying this for info, I'm not suggesting they should leave). Not all con evo are the same though.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
Fool of the Ship, I understand the argument you are making but shouldn't that be the synod's choice ? Whether to go for something complicated that would have passed now I mean.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[ots of different proposals have come before synod over the past few years. Every one has been voted down. Each new proposal seems less generous that the previous one. they should have seen this coming.
Exactly. The anti-women party has been refusing to interact in real way and has campaigned against every proposal no matter how tolerant. So they have manouvred the majority into apparently less tolerant proposals. And their refusal is really frustrating for those of us who want to find a way to allow them to stay.
Its really unclear whether this was the plan all the time - block, block, block for as long as possible then run away to Rome - or whether they have over-stretched themselves, tried one political manouvre too many, and shot themselves iun the foot.
Either way, the blame for this doesn't lie with either feminists or evangelicals. Its the "foward in faith" and similar refuseniks all the way.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I suspect there are as many Reform refuseniks as there are those from FiF.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not so convinced that there's a big Reform rump at work here. They can be a vocal minority but they are a minority. My guess would be that the weight of the objection is coming from the FiF types, but I don't know why I think that ... it's just a hunch ...
Or else it might be an example of scepticism and deliberate misconstruction on my part ...
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
You've got outfits like the FoCA and the AMiE but, frankly, they won't amount to anything with the likes of Nazir-Ali involved. These conservative ecclesio-political experiments will never be able to provide decent pastoral care to presbyters working at a parochial level. And they won't be offering - because they really aren't interested in offering - genuinely apostolic episcopal leadership to normal, theological conservative Anglican churches. They're just interested in keeping their con-evo flagships sailing in leafy white suburbs and making sure that the filthy liberals don't get any of their parish share.
Frankly, conservatively minded parish churches and the ministers of those churches are being doubly shafted in this whole mess. The leading lights of these con-evo pity parties all come from posh churches with inflated corporate egos and emotionally stunted public schoolboy leaders, and the bible-dodging progressives are exploit every ecclesial structure and canonical loophole in order to push the imaginations of their own hearts regardless of anyone who holds biblical convictions to the contrary. The whole she-bang is a shameful, ridiculous travesty.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience - and it is only that - is that evangelicals tend not to be particularly denominationally minded and will generally attend any "bible believing" church that they are a fit for in terms of what house groups, other meetings and whatnots it provides. But that might just be the little corner of evangelicalism I'm familiar with.
I'm an outsider, and probably hopelessly confused, but if English Anglican evangelicals are, like most other evangelicals in this country, fairly congregationalist in outlook, then why would they try to influence the entire denomination? It might make sense if the whole of the CofE generally evangelical, but if that's not the case then any attempt to 'take over' on a particular issue would appear to undermine their congregationalist impulses.
There must be a certain class of Anglican evangelical who's hopelessly torn between the idea of evangelicalism as chosen by the 'true believer' or the 'gathered church', and the idea of an evangelicalism that has to be imposed on the majority as a diktat from 'above' (however that's defined). Or maybe these two evangelical perspectives rarely ever come into contact with each other?
I apologise for my lack of understanding.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Because Conservative Evangelicals take their ordination vows seriously. They believe that the vow of canonical obedience to their bishop actually means something.
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[ots of different proposals have come before synod over the past few years. Every one has been voted down. Each new proposal seems less generous that the previous one. they should have seen this coming.
Exactly. The anti-women party has been refusing to interact in real way and has campaigned against every proposal no matter how tolerant. So they have manouvred the majority into apparently less tolerant proposals. And their refusal is really frustrating for those of us who want to find a way to allow them to stay.
Its really unclear whether this was the plan all the time - block, block, block for as long as possible then run away to Rome - or whether they have over-stretched themselves, tried one political manouvre too many, and shot themselves iun the foot.
Either way, the blame for this doesn't lie with either feminists or evangelicals. Its the "foward in faith" and similar refuseniks all the way.
I'm sorry Ken. That's completely untrue. And I say that as someone who has a far from universally positive view of FiF.
It was not the FiF lot who voted down the Archbishops' Amendment, for example.
If we discount separate province as unrealistic from the start, there were models for separate dioceses and for TEA (Transferred Episcopal Arrangements) put to Synod in 2008. Again, it was NOT the FiF lot who voted this down.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Like QLib, the reason I'm now with the Quakers is the arguments raised over the initial ordination of women. I miss the singing as much as the Eucharist, which I always found less satisfying than the Communion in the Congregationalists (I liked partaking simultaneously as a sign of being one in Christ). I won't go into the particular arguments that drove me out, but I'm hearing the echoes now.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because Conservative Evangelicals take their ordination vows seriously. They believe that the vow of canonical obedience to their bishop actually means something.
Well, do they really? If their bishop told them that, for example, God wanted them to favour people under 50 (or over that age, or dark-haired, or over 6 feet tall) would they obey? There must be some points on which any priest, Conservative Evangelical or otherwise, might decide they cannot follow what their bishop wants. The precise points just differ from priest to priest, that's all; no?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Canonical obedience.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Canonical obedience.
Okay, I don't what that means precisely but how about if a bishop told their priests to favour certain groups of people for lay leadership positions like, I don't know, children and youth stuff, music stuff, caretaking stuff. Wouldn't any of that qualify as 'canonical obedience'?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Canonical obedience.
Okay, I don't what that means precisely but how about if a bishop told their priests to favour certain groups of people for lay leadership positions like, I don't know, children and youth stuff, music stuff, caretaking stuff. Wouldn't any of that qualify as 'canonical obedience'?
Canonical obedience is more about the protection of the clergy than it is about the power of the bishop. It basically means that clergy don't have the baptise cats just because their bishop says so. It's about the right of the clergy to be under biblically orthodox apostolic oversight.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
I'm sorry Ken. That's completely untrue. And I say that as someone who has a far from universally positive view of FiF.
It was not the FiF lot who voted down the Archbishops' Amendment, for example.
If we discount separate province as unrealistic from the start, there were models for separate dioceses and for TEA (Transferred Episcopal Arrangements) put to Synod in 2008. Again, it was NOT the FiF lot who voted this down.
The Archbishops' Amendment was a poorly constructed, last minute offering. Voting it down was not an attack on FiF et al, but the only sane thing to do. It may have been well-meant but it was hopelessly vague and would have been a hostage to all sorts of fortune.
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense. The tragedy is that Fif leaders pinned their hopes on this as their preferred solution, in the face of all common sense. As a result, they have held out against any other serious solution being offered. Their "Holy Grail" is complete isolation from the rest of the C of E. By holding out for the impossible, they have never seriously engaged with the possible. I'm not sure whether they have done so out of stupidity or just a determination to cause as much trouble before jumping ship. I can see no other possible explanation for what has gone on.
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Canonical obedience is more about the protection of the clergy than it is about the power of the bishop. It basically means that clergy don't have the baptise cats just because their bishop says so. It's about the right of the clergy to be under biblically orthodox apostolic oversight.
Not sure that helps me much, sorry! What one priest considers to be biblically orthodox apostolic oversight, another might consider dangerous heresy. Isn't that kinda what the whole female clergy / bishops thing is about?
And even with an issue which my two imaginary priests agree on, one might consider it a matter of canonical obedience (and thus feel obliged to obey) while the other might consider it to be an issue of secondary importance. Or is rather that if the bishop considers a certain matter to be one of biblically orthodox apostolic oversight, then he would expect canonical obedience from his priests?
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
I am in complete agreement with daronmedway. For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. Newfrontiers? As un-liturgical as you can get, and suspiciously dodgy governance (see NF threads passim). And despite what Ken posted about evangelical choice of churches, BUGB are fully in favour of women in all positions of leadership, and so are the Pentecostals; URCs and Methodists ordain women, and the Methodists aren’t evangelical either. FIEC are non-liturgical. In the event of women bishops being imposed with no other provision, we’re homeless.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect there are as many Reform refuseniks as there are those from FiF.
I don’t know how many members of Reform are also members of General Synod, but their total membership is quoted on their website as 1500, with 500 of that number being clergy. I don’t know how big the membership of FiF is, and AFAICT it doesn’t appear on their website.
P.S. And thanks to The Man With a Stick for calling ‘foul’ on the pile of misrepresentative bollocks that Ken posted about the voting down of previous proposals.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. Newfrontiers? As un-liturgical as you can get, and suspiciously dodgy governance (see NF threads passim).
Good grief, and you call yourselves Protestants? Schism is the way to go. In the US we have the Continuing Anglican movement.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I am in complete agreement with daronmedway. For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. Newfrontiers? As un-liturgical as you can get, and suspiciously dodgy governance (see NF threads passim). And despite what Ken posted about evangelical choice of churches, BUGB are fully in favour of women in all positions of leadership, and so are the Pentecostals; URCs and Methodists ordain women, and the Methodists aren’t evangelical either. FIEC are non-liturgical. In the event of women bishops being imposed with no other provision, we’re homeless.
This, I suppose, is the root of the problem. Liberal catholics are equally devoid of other homes. Looks like we're stuck with each other.
[edited for coding fuck-up]
[ 21. November 2012, 18:37: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
[QUOTE] For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. We’re homeless.
I'll give you the same answer I gave my father in law. Now's the time to call the removals people in.
1. Ask your synod reps how they voted - and if they voted against your view and the view of the diocese make sure they know how disappointed you are, in the strongest terms. You may like to suggest that the individual concerned resigns as he/she is putting self above representation.
2. Hand the keys of the (expensive to run) parish church back to the bishop and meet in a school or something appropriate in size and location for your congregation.
3.Offer a rent to the said diocese for the vicarage and pay your own clergy direct, if you really need them.
4. Find like minded churches who are doing the same and covenant together to share resources. You'll already know who they are.
5. Make a public statement (? Press Release to the local paper), explaining your actions and the reasons for them. Local papers love local interest in national stories - word even has a template for press releases so you make their work easier.
If enough of the (larger) churches consider 2. then you are bringing pressure to bear of a different kind whether wittingly or unwittingly. As with all circumstances, money talks.
[ 21. November 2012, 18:49: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The leading lights of these con-evo pity parties all come from posh churches with inflated corporate egos and emotionally stunted public schoolboy leaders, and the bible-dodging progressives are exploit every ecclesial structure and canonical loophole in order to push the imaginations of their own hearts regardless of anyone who holds biblical convictions to the contrary. The whole she-bang is a shameful, ridiculous travesty.
I like the cut of your jib on this Daron!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Again, my experience cannot be considered normative, but the evangelical CofE churches I have known have gone out of their way to be as non-liturgical as it's possible to be without breaking the rules completely.
Hence, again, IME, their services are almost identical to those of any other evangelical churches.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Assuming that, despite their differences, conservative evangelical Anglicans and liberal catholic Anglicans have something in common - their Anglicanism (however they understand that) then A. Pilgrim and t'other poster who commented on this issue is right - they are both stuck with each other.
It might be different for the laity - particularly if they are evangelicals as evangelicals tend to go to their most conducive evangelical church regardless of denomination - but I suspect most evangelical Anglican and liberal catholic Anglican clergy (whether we call them priests or presbyters) are Anglican for a reason and Anglican by persuasion.
Otherwise most of the conservative evangelical Anglicans would have jumped ship back in 1966 when Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones issued his public 'come out of them and be ye separate' call - to be met by a strong rebuff from John Stott.
There are evangelical Anglican clergy around who I think would almost certainly be happier in Baptist or other Free Church settings. Our vicar for one. I sometimes wonder whether there is anything distinctively 'Anglican' about him at all ... we had a bit of a teasing barney about the Lectionary the other day for instance (he doesn't use it).
I must admit, I'm not a big fan of the Reform types and I prefer liberal catholics to the FiF types - only I wish they were less 'liberal' at times ...
But I reckon something would be lost if either or both were to take flight and settle elsewhere.
My wife could happily be a Baptist but I think my less sacramental days are o'er ... much as I have a lot of time for the BUGB folks ...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect there are as many Reform refuseniks as there are those from FiF.
I doubt it. There are fewer of them to start with, at least some of them don't entirely object to women clergy, and they don't have a doctrine of taint so won't feel forced to leave to avoid the danger of taking communion alsongside a man who has had female hands laid on him in ordination, the way some FiF say they will.
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
If we discount separate province as unrealistic from the start, there were models for separate dioceses and for TEA (Transferred Episcopal Arrangements) put to Synod in 2008. Again, it was NOT the FiF lot who voted this down.
One or other of the proposals could have passed had they agreed to it, been willing to discuss it, and voted for it. But they stayed in their corner saying "we want it all".
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The tragedy is that Fif leaders pinned their hopes on this as their preferred solution, in the face of all common sense. As a result, they have held out against any other serious solution being offered. Their "Holy Grail" is complete isolation from the rest of the C of E. By holding out for the impossible, they have never seriously engaged with the possible. I'm not sure whether they have done so out of stupidity or just a determination to cause as much trouble before jumping ship. I can see no other possible explanation for what has gone on.
That's exactly how it seems to me.
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
[ And despite what Ken posted about evangelical choice of churches, BUGB are fully in favour of women in all positions of leadership, and so are the Pentecostals; URCs and Methodists ordain women...
So? Most evangelicals in this country support the ordained ministry of women.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Otherwise most of the conservative evangelical Anglicans would have jumped ship back in 1966...
Or 1866, or 1766, or 1666
Where else did all those Baptists and Methodists and so on come from?
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I am in complete agreement with daronmedway. For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women?
Sorry - what other church? Surely conservative evangelical Anglicans have noticed that they are currently part of a church that is evangelical, has liturgical worship and does ordain women?
anne
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
What anne said. ConEvos have been in that church for 20 years. Are you telling me they haven't noticed? Even (even!) the preferred vicar schools have been admitting women for training, so for the last two decades, all the shiny new ConEvo clergy (those that haven't been irregularly ordained, of course) have trained next to women.
Or did they think they were men with moobs?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Again, my experience cannot be considered normative, but the evangelical CofE churches I have known have gone out of their way to be as non-liturgical as it's possible to be without breaking the rules completely.
Hence, again, IME, their services are almost identical to those of any other evangelical churches.
That's my experience too.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
What Anne and Doc Tor said.
But as well as already having female priests/presbyters, they also already have female bishops. As has been pointed out, there are female bishops in several Anglican churches with whom the Church of England is in full communion . While they -- for the time being -- require a license to function as bishops in England, they are, nonetheless bishops: they participated fully at the last Lambeth, for example. As an aside, as that license is granted (or not) by the ABC, I wouldn't be surprised to see female bishops soon being granted such licenses -- yea, even wearing mitres instead of carrying them.
But more than that, many of the Lutheran churches in the Porvoo agreement have female bishops. And that state of full intercommunion isn't an historical accident -- it's a spcific, deliberate act of the CHurch of England.
(And, just to throw some fuel on the fire of a dead horse, some of those Porvoo partners already preside or bless same-sex marriages and ordain people in same-sex relationships.)
One of the problems is that people in the CofE like to look only inwards -- they really don't want to know and don't really care about what's happening elsewhere. I've observed on the Ship and elsewhere that CofE con-evo's really really hate to be told that what they are fighting in the CofE has already happened either in the CofE itself (that would, for example, be a certain bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions in churches in his episcopal area) or in its full partners.
THat is, they don't want to know or care unless it feeds an existing anti-US or anti-"liberal" bias. Liberal is in quotes because I don't know the liberalism that people like ES seem to be so familiar with and to fear/hate so vehemently. Neither I nor the other liberals I know would, as he seems to allege with alarming frequently and inaccuracy, deny the incarnation, or the bodily resurrection or any of the other key tenets of the faith.
John
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Again, my experience cannot be considered normative, but the evangelical CofE churches I have known have gone out of their way to be as non-liturgical as it's possible to be without breaking the rules completely.
Hence, again, IME, their services are almost identical to those of any other evangelical churches.
True - I went to one such on Sunday and it was pretty similar to my usual baptist service.
But, to be fair, some of the more extreme high church fif types are pushing "the rules" in the other direction in using non authorised "Roman" rites. Again, there's a group of three doing "it" like that here.
[There was a thread back along discussing the Bishop of London's letter warning parishes not to use unauthorised materials - aimed at the liturgical A-C's and FinF types].
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
What Anne and Doc Tor said.Neither I nor the other liberals I know would, as he seems to allege with alarming frequently and inaccuracy, deny the incarnation, or the bodily resurrection or any of the other key tenets of the faith.
John
In fairness, I'm willing to put my hand up to being unsure of the bodily resurrection and saying that Jesus being alive today is more important than the exact mode of his being so. Sorry.
Actual denial would however be a dogmatic step too far for me.
[ 22. November 2012, 06:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
they don't have a doctrine of taint
Forward in Faith does not have a doctrine of taint.
quote:
One or other of the proposals could have passed had they agreed to it, been willing to discuss it, and voted for it. But they stayed in their corner saying "we want it all".
ken, I'm afraid you're wrong. Here are the various amendments proposed at the July 2008 Synod. The Catholic Group on General Synod engaged, agreed, and voted for several of these amendments. It was horrible (I was in the gallery). Again and again, "traditionalists" stood up and called on Synod to pass the amendments that offer provision; again and again, "traditionalists" voted for things. Again and again, Synod told them to piss off.
Thurible
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
But as well as already having female priests/presbyters, they also already have female bishops. As has been pointed out, there are female bishops in several Anglican churches with whom the Church of England is in full communion . While they -- for the time being -- require a license to function as bishops in England, they are, nonetheless bishops: they participated fully at the last Lambeth, for example. As an aside, as that license is granted (or not) by the ABC, I wouldn't be surprised to see female bishops soon being granted such licenses -- yea, even wearing mitres instead of carrying them.
But more than that, many of the Lutheran churches in the Porvoo agreement have female bishops. And that state of full intercommunion isn't an historical accident -- it's a spcific, deliberate act of the CHurch of England.
(And, just to throw some fuel on the fire of a dead horse, some of those Porvoo partners already preside or bless same-sex marriages and ordain people in same-sex relationships.)
One of the problems is that people in the CofE like to look only inwards -- they really don't want to know and don't really care about what's happening elsewhere. I've observed on the Ship and elsewhere that CofE con-evo's really really hate to be told that what they are fighting in the CofE has already happened either in the CofE itself (that would, for example, be a certain bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions in churches in his episcopal area) or in its full partners.
THat is, they don't want to know or care unless it feeds an existing anti-US or anti-"liberal" bias. Liberal is in quotes because I don't know the liberalism that people like ES seem to be so familiar with and to fear/hate so vehemently. Neither I nor the other liberals I know would, as he seems to allege with alarming frequently and inaccuracy, deny the incarnation, or the bodily resurrection or any of the other key tenets of the faith.
John
The problem is that you're not getting the ConEvo world view. Based on our survival through the years when we were a disdained minority in the CofE who operated our network of parishes, theological colleges and para-church organisations with virtually no support from the CofE, we developed an indifference to the rest of the church's shenanigans, whilst making, because there was no need for it, no financial contribution to the wider church either. The CofE was thus a loose franchise, with a substantial and growing overseas presence. Bishops tended to keep a low profile, or conformed to the expectations of the host parish when present there.
During the past sixty years, 4 things have happened:
1) The value of the historic endowments of the church have been poleaxed by inflation / the cost of clergy has risen. This has meant that instead of benefiting from central funds or endowments, many parishes have moved to making a contribution. When you are merely receiving, you tend not to worry too much about the source. When you are being expected voluntarily to give to a fundamentally flawed institution, you get a bit more sniffy.
2) The institutional structures of the CofE were reactivated (I hesitate to say 'revivified' as that implies I might think something worthwhile has occurred). Dioceses started to play a massively larger role in the life of the church. Missioners / youth officers / training officers suddenly appeared. More bishops were appointed and archdeacons were made full time, giving the means for dioceses to be actively involved in parishes, rather than being there for little more than to pick up the pieces when things went wrong.
3) The collapse in attendances and the decline in the number of clergy made the unification of parishes inevitable. This brought churches of differing traditions into the same parish, usually resulting in a harmless middle way emerging to replace the aligned parties of the past
4) Evangelicals moved from being a small minority within the clergy to nominally being the majority of the flow of ordinands. However in practice most of those who went down this road tended to surrender on many of the most conservative shiboleths, such as remarriage of divorcees, let alone teetotalism and sabbatarianism. Then of course there are the 'dead horses' issues.
There is a strong theology in Evangelical circles that argues that since the bible isn't interested in any organisation of the church apart from the most local, the parish is the only unit that actually matters. Of course this is classical congregationalism - but since vast swathes of the church have no compunction in being 'Catholic', the suggestion that it is therefore illegitimate is somewhat incoherent. The Articles offer a justification for such 'congregationalism' - but I'll resist extending this post any further by offering that defence.
So what do ConEvos want? Really just to be left alone. They have grown some impressive churches over the past 50 years, and when permitted, have planted from those to bring new life to otherwise derelict buildings. This of course leaves the rest of the church either frustrated or guilty at their own failures and general experience of decline, however politely managed.
The game changer however is the finance issue. Once upon a time it wasn't an issue; the endowments meant that the bishops were self financing. Since that has ceased to be the case, and the need for perpetual subsidies has emerged, the Evangelical in general has to ask whether their giving of their people should be sent to a central institution in which they have minimal confidence. Because quota is 'voluntary', and Evangelicals take words seriously, it is a real question. Given the failure of the CofE to prefer any ConEvos to the hierarchy - Wallace Benn excepted - it's clear that it doesn't want anything from them except their money. This is not sustainable!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Ken - yes, of course I am aware of where all the Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians, Methodists - and Plymouth Brethren come to that - all came from.
I was restricting my comments to contemporary Anglican evangelicals.
Things have shifted a lot since 1966 and the evangelical constituency in the CofE has more clout than it did back then. I don't have an issue with Anglican evangelicalism in theory - in practice, though, as I've said many times before on these boards, I find the reality of it rather disappointing. I'm sure there are exceptions.
Welby strikes me as someone from that background with an immense amount to offer.
@EE - I've moved into the CofE from a Baptist setting and can see strong parallels. On balance, I think the Baptists 'do' evangelicalism somewhat 'better' than their Anglican counterparts - not because there is something intrinsically flawed in the Anglican evangelical model - it's just that they're trying too hard. Unfortunately, IMHO, I feel that many Anglican evangelicals are neglecting the riches of their own tradition (in its evangelical forms too) for a mess of dumbed-down revivalist pottage.
But don't get me started ...
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Please accept my apologies in advance if I have misunderstood someone’s post, or missed a joke in it, and the post should have been taken as humorous.
However, someone made a post above that said that the decision was wrong, and clearly so, so that the right to vote should be taken away from the House of Laity and it be replaced by a small committee of right-thinking people who could be relied upon to act in the right-way for the good of the whole.
This kind of thinking makes me nervous. Rolling back democracy – leaving aside the issue of 2/3rds majorities – is never a good thing. It leads to nepotism, suppression of opposing views, closed deal making, and in the extreme, countries with "Democratic" and "Peoples" in their names, which never or democratic or for the people.
I am sorry if I have misrepresented the posters position, and it may be a straw-man I’m setting up, and I acknowledge that, but as I say, I do get nervous when this kind of talk is bandied about.
Democracies and democratic institutions do throw up results people don’t like sometimes. I spent the 80’s and most of the 90’s on the winning side in UK General Election, and then spent thirteen years under a Government I personally despised. I had to tolerate it because I am an Englishman, who want to live in England, and the only alternative would have been to emigrate. I did consider it, but I couldn’t stomach not living in my homeland.
So I had to live with it, and work from the inside supporting my party and working towards getting it elected so we could implement our policies. In my opinion, that is the right way to go about things. Time goes too slowly when we are on the losing side, but it does keep rolling on.
Lest anyone should think I’m inherently evil – and I’m sure that some, realising I am a Tory, will instinctively take that position – I agree with David Cameron and the whole of the Conservative Party’s leadership, that the decision on Tuesday was simply wrong. Never mind the merits or otherwise of the actual policy, I support the ordination of women bishops, and the CofE missed an opportunity.
However, what I think we should be doing is working form the inside to ensure that next time the democratic system will return a decision that is more palatable. I’m sure there are things that could be done; from lobbying MP’s to bring forward a private member bill to force the issue, to replacing those members of the House of Laity that have voted down the proposal. This is the right way to do things.
The 2/3rds majority is annoying – I think democracy is 50% plus one in simple decisions like this – but when the Ordination Bill is finally passed, at least the mandate will be absolute. At the moment, those members of the laity who have resisted the change are in a minority without a mandate, and that is quite an uncomfortable position for them to be in. I’m sure when they take their seats in the pews on Sunday, they will look to their left and right and know that statistically both the people seated there are implacably opposed to them.
The OP needs to decide for herself whether she’s happier outside any church, in another church, or whether she is actually happiest inside a flawed Church of England. It’s like the emigration decision I faced. I made my decision to stay in the country of my birth because that is where I am happiest. I’m sure the OP will find out her decision given time, space and prayer.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
A couple of comments:
Firstly, I think my brother, a lecturer at Spurgeon's, would be very surprised to learn he's not an evangelical.
Secondly,
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So what do ConEvos want? Really just to be left alone.
Pfft. No, no they don't. And I went to a ConEvo church for 20 years, so you don't get to pull the "he doesn't know what he's talking about" thing.
ConEvos want to run everything. And they expect to run everything. That they don't run everything is a source of constant frustration to them, but it doesn't stop them from telling the rest of us how to run everything, from Reform, to the infamous Statement, to FoCA, and the rest of it. The reason you don't have bishops is because you don't play well with the rest of the class.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So what do ConEvos want? Really just to be left alone.
Pfft. No, no they don't. And I went to a ConEvo church for 20 years, so you don't get to pull the "he doesn't know what he's talking about" thing.
ConEvos want to run everything. And they expect to run everything. That they don't run everything is a source of constant frustration to them, but it doesn't stop them from telling the rest of us how to run everything, from Reform, to the infamous Statement, to FoCA, and the rest of it. The reason you don't have bishops is because you don't play well with the rest of the class.
Hmm - ok - like every out of power party, ConEvos are convinced they are right and if they were in charge everything would be infinitely better. But they'll more happily settle for being left alone than Catholics whose theology demands that they get heavily involved in the wider church.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
On balance, we're going to leave the thread here. The OP intention was not, primarily, about DH topics, but it would seem very difficult to discuss the prime focus without mentioning DH reasons for seeking other options for worship and membership.
Do remember the various DH threads on women bishops, inerrancy, homosexuality etc, should you wish to explore reasons for moving on (rather than where-to options) in depth.
The wider question of tolerance limits, which also factors in to this discussion, is also available in Purg.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense.
Apologies for rewinding the thread but I want to have a bit of a kick at this.
The fact is that the Church of England claims to be part of the One Holy Etc Church, yet is plainly not in communion with the vast majority of those we consider to be a part of said One Church. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces, since from the only possible Catholic Anglican point of view they exist already with the presence of (R) Catholic and Orthodox Bishops in England*. I'm not sure whether you had something else in mind theologically speaking.
* Actually there are two possible alternative Catholic Anglican points of view but I haven't met anyone who holds them. The first is that the Anglican Communion is the One Church and the (R) Catholics and Orthodox are heretics and outside the One Church. The second is that only Anglican Bishops have any legitimate authority here and Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists are thus illicit.
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
How far do you take this though? I consider myself to be evangelical, but our bishop is not. Can I pick one who is better suited to my needs? Or should I just ignore him where necessary, as evangelicals are not supposed to be very interested in church hierarchy?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
How far do you take this though? I consider myself to be evangelical, but our bishop is not. Can I pick one who is better suited to my needs? Or should I just ignore him where necessary, as evangelicals are not supposed to be very interested in church hierarchy?
Well, that's exactly what my old shack does. They've ignored their diocesan for the better part of 20 years, and have their own imported non-Communion bishops from South Africa - who do the confirmations, and ordinations too.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense.
Apologies for rewinding the thread but I want to have a bit of a kick at this.
The fact is that the Church of England claims to be part of the One Holy Etc Church, yet is plainly not in communion with the vast majority of those we consider to be a part of said One Church. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces, since from the only possible Catholic Anglican point of view they exist already with the presence of (R) Catholic and Orthodox Bishops in England*. I'm not sure whether you had something else in mind theologically speaking.
* Actually there are two possible alternative Catholic Anglican points of view but I haven't met anyone who holds them. The first is that the Anglican Communion is the One Church and the (R) Catholics and Orthodox are heretics and outside the One Church. The second is that only Anglican Bishops have any legitimate authority here and Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists are thus illicit.
In Iberia there are Diocese of Europe churches alongside the Spanish and Portuguese indigenous Anglican churches. And of course given the existence of parallel jurisdiction within the Roman hegemony, (Greek Catholic, Maronites and Melkites) that boat has long since sailed. So there is no FUNDAMENTAL objection to it.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense.
Apologies for rewinding the thread but I want to have a bit of a kick at this.
The fact is that the Church of England claims to be part of the One Holy Etc Church, yet is plainly not in communion with the vast majority of those we consider to be a part of said One Church. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces, since from the only possible Catholic Anglican point of view they exist already with the presence of (R) Catholic and Orthodox Bishops in England*. I'm not sure whether you had something else in mind theologically speaking.
* Actually there are two possible alternative Catholic Anglican points of view but I haven't met anyone who holds them. The first is that the Anglican Communion is the One Church and the (R) Catholics and Orthodox are heretics and outside the One Church. The second is that only Anglican Bishops have any legitimate authority here and Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists are thus illicit.
In Iberia there are Diocese of Europe churches alongside the Spanish and Portuguese indigenous Anglican churches. And of course given the existence of parallel jurisdiction within the Roman hegemony, (Greek Catholic, Maronites and Melkites) that boat has long since sailed. So there is no FUNDAMENTAL objection to it.
It was a principled objection by many Tractarians to the notion of Catholic Bishops in England (and even to the presence of priests) until the Jerusalem Bishopric rather pulled the rug out from underneath their feet. It surfaced again with the re-establishment of a Catholic hierarchy but with less intellectual coherence and more bluster.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[ConEvos will] more happily settle for being left alone than Catholics whose theology demands that they get heavily involved in the wider church.
That wouldn't be true about most generations of conservative Anglo-Catholics. They've been quite happy to 'settle for being left alone' to get along with living in their parallel universe. As recently as the 1950s some parishes were 'under a ban', and had to rely on rebel bishops from overseas. As Eric Mascall put it: 'the bishop will not visit me or take my confirmations/ Colonial prelates I employ from far-off mission stations.'
This, just as much as PEVs, conflicts with Catholic theology of course. But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
PS: I replied to this before reading Doc Tor's post. So con-evos have taken the same stance as con-a-cs! Interesting.
[ 23. November 2012, 10:42: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[ConEvos will] more happily settle for being left alone than Catholics whose theology demands that they get heavily involved in the wider church.
That wouldn't be true about most generations of conservative Anglo-Catholics. They've been quite happy to 'settle for being left alone' to get along with living in their parallel universe. As recently as the 1950s some parishes were 'under a ban', and had to rely on rebel bishops from overseas. As Eric Mascall put it: 'the bishop will not visit me or take my confirmations/ Colonial prelates I employ from far-off mission stations.'
This, just as much as PEVs, conflicts with Catholic theology of course. But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
PS: I replied to this before reading Doc Tor's post. So con-evos have taken the same stance as con-a-cs! Interesting.
Thanks for an interesting insight into A-C history. Truly a crazy situation. I guess the answer as to why ConEvos make the effort to oppose the legislation is for the same reason that you tell an alcoholic not to have another drink: not in the expectation that it will actually achieve anything, but because it's the right thing to do, though of course the oath of obedience to a woman bishop might cause a problem for incoming incumbents, but probably not 'canonical obedience' does give silly amounts of wriggle room.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
. I fail completely to see then what particular remnant of sense in Anglican ecclesiology would be violated by having parallel provinces...
The Third Province thing wasn't going to happen and the reason it wasn't is practical, not doctrinal. It involves transfer of property, and money, from the existing Church of England parishes and dioceses to new ones. It involves setting up new bishoprics. And unfortunately for the Church of England, we are an established church and that sort of thing needs legislation. And no imaginable Parliament is going to pass it.
First, because the government and most MPs don't care enough about the CofE to want to even talk about it. They'd rather we go and play by ourselves in the corner and don't bother the grown-ups.
Secondly because almost no MPs would be willing to vote in favour of what they and their constituents see as an excuse to preserve old-fashioned bigotry. The opponents of ordaining women claim (falsely) that the debate so far has been driven by a secular agenda for "modernisation", or "liberalism", or "feminism". That really hasn't been true within the CofE, whatever they say. But when it gets outside the Church it will be exactly that. And very few MPs, not even Tory ones, will vote to make a safe space for sexism.
Thirdly because most people in England don't really care one way or the other. But the small minority that do care, care very deeply indeed. So any politician who gets involved, on either side, will piss off some of their voters for no benefit. And no-one likes to do that.
Fourthly because the tiny number of MPs who do have some personal attachment to Protestant religion - and there still are a few and not all of them are from Scotland or Northern Ireland - are going to scream like mad at what looks to them like an Evil Plot to take the property of the Church of England away from the people pf England and hand it over to Rome. Yet another argument no-one wants to have.
If we were fully disestablished there might be a change of this. But that's not on the cards yet either. Sooner or later the CofE will be entirely disestablished. But probably later, and piece by piece, rather than sooner and all at once. Not because the government cares about Establishment, but precisely because they don't care - they don't care enough to waste Parliamentary time on it. So we repatriate a little bit of our autonomy every few years and one day we'll have most of it. But not yet. And until then the Forward in Faith party have to keep the argument in Synod and out of Parliament if they are to have any chance at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Forward in Faith does not have a doctrine of taint.
We've been through that about twenty times on here in the last few years. And what they describe as "not a doctrine of taint" is exactly what everyone else means by "doctrine of taint". Its blatant, its clear, and there is no use pretending.
Most of them refuse to accept as priests men ordained by a man who also ordains women. All of them would refuse to accept a man ordained by a man ordained by a woman. Even one women involved the process invalidates the whole in their eyes. That's the taint. QED.
Evangelical opponents of women's ordination on "headship" or "complementarian" grounds by and large do not have those problems. All they want is not to have a woman placed over them in their local church. Some of them are OK with ordained women in subordinate roles in their parish. Almost all of them will allow women to preach, and some have no objection to women presiding at Communion. Some would be OK with men ordained by women bishops. As ES just said probably most of them would in practice find ways to work with, work round, or ignore, women bishops in their own diocese. Just as they do now with women archdeacons. So for them the mere presence of ordained women in some parts of the Church of England doesn't spoil the whole of it, or at least no more than it is already spoiled, in their view. So no theory of taint. Also QED.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
The vast majority aren't.
Just in case anyone's interested, here's Tom Wright's take on it
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
First, because the government and most MPs don't care enough about the CofE to want to even talk about it. They'd rather we go and play by ourselves in the corner and don't bother the grown-ups.
Are you currently on another planet, or just not following the news? The day before your post there was all sorts of huffing and puffing in parliament about the CofE, the charge being led by the Tory freemason (men only) member of the (men-only) Garrick Club, Sir Tony Baldry. The CofE came up in PMQs on Wednesday. How is that not caring enough about the CofE? As an RC onlooker the issue that is most worrying about all this is just how much parliament is interested in deciding what should happen to the Church.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As an RC onlooker the issue that is most worrying about all this is just how much parliament is interested in deciding what should happen to the Church.
Well, someone's got to stand up for what's right. If the church won't do it then why not parliament?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Forward in Faith does not have a doctrine of taint.
We've been through that about twenty times on here in the last few years. And what they describe as "not a doctrine of taint" is exactly what everyone else means by "doctrine of taint". Its blatant, its clear, and there is no use pretending.
Most of them refuse to accept as priests men ordained by a man who also ordains women. All of them would refuse to accept a man ordained by a man ordained by a woman. Even one women involved the process invalidates the whole in their eyes. That's the taint. QED.
We have, indeed, been round the houses on this issue and you are still wrong.
It is true that they would have reservations about whether or not "a man ordained by a man ordained by a woman" was a priest. (I say 'reservations' because there are those within FiF who are not impossibilists.)
As for "Most of them refuse to accept as priests men ordained by a man who also ordains women," you are wronger than a wrong thing there. I have never met or spoken to a member of Forward in Faith who believes that. If they abide by the Forward in Faith Communion Statement (and there are some who do whereas, to be honest, I think most don't), they would not receive Holy Communion from such priests but they would certainly not deny the validity of his orders. In a similar way, they accept the validity of the orders of, say, Triple Tiara but wouldn't receive Holy Communion at his hands because of the lack of full communion between them.
Thurible
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
First, because the government and most MPs don't care enough about the CofE to want to even talk about it. They'd rather we go and play by ourselves in the corner and don't bother the grown-ups.
Are you currently on another planet, or just not following the news? The day before your post there was all sorts of huffing and puffing in parliament about the CofE....
Yes, but, really, would they ever have made FiF's 3rd province for them? Of course not. That was the question! Nor would they be likely to waste time passing disestablishment bills.
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
...If they abide by the Forward in Faith Communion Statement (and there are some who do whereas, to be honest, I think most don't), they would not receive Holy Communion from such priests ....
And that sounds pretty tainted to me.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Well, that's because you're hearing what you want to hear.
I'd appreciate it, though, if you would accept that you are wrong on the issue of whether or not we accept the orders of those ordained by women-ordaining bishops.
Thurible
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'd appreciate it, though, if you would accept that you are wrong on the issue of whether or not we accept the orders of those ordained by women-ordaining bishops.
e
If you will not have those people as ministers in your churches and you will not accept communion when they preside what can it possibly mean to say that you do accept them as priests?
[ 23. November 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
That we believe them to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of the living and the dead and that they can absolve in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
Thurible
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
So what do you people mean by the word "taint" then? It might help some of us on the sidelines to follow if we understand what you mean. My OED has loads of potential meanings. And yes, I have seen the term used by a former FiF member of these boards, thanks for reminding me.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But if Evangelicals see the local, parish church, as being the basic unit why are they so worried about the beliefs, sexuality or gender of the bishop?
The vast majority aren't.
I know that of course Ken. Apologies for not qualifying Evangelicals with the word conservative. (or extremely conservative, if you prefer: I guess many who are con-evo in most other respects are happy enough with ordained women.
Though they might have more problems with gay bishops, or 'unbelieving' ones, as they might describe extreme liberalism.)
[ 23. November 2012, 17:36: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That we believe them to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of the living and the dead and that they can absolve in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
So you essentially consider them priests in the Church of God with whom you are in impaired/disrupted communion as a result of their unrepented schismatic action?
I think you could argue "taint" either way, if this is the case.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As an RC onlooker the issue that is most worrying about all this is just how much parliament is interested in deciding what should happen to the Church.
Worrying to me too, as a C of E insider.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That we believe them to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of the living and the dead and that they can absolve in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
I've now completely lost the thread. FinF believe all these things but yet will not receive Communion from them? Can anyone explain this in a way I can find credible?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So what do you people mean by the word "taint" then? It might help some of us on the sidelines to follow if we understand what you mean. My OED has loads of potential meanings. And yes, I have seen the term used by a former FiF member of these boards, thanks for reminding me.
I used to be more or less where Thurible is now, I believe. And Thurible is correct, and ken wrong.
ken might be right about taint if it were true - and in no case I encountered as an anglo-catholic was it - that the involvement of a woman at any stage caused FiFers (for example) to refuse to accept the orders of a man. So if, in the case in which a man is ordained by male bishop which bishop himself had previously ordained women, a FiFer refused to accept those male priests as having been validly ordained precisely because the bishop had laid hands on a women to the same effect. That would indicate a theory of taint. But no-one I have ever met believed that, pace ken.
So I would consider proof that someone held a taint theory when that person thought that the sacramental validity of an ordination or a celebration of the Eucharist were affected merely because the minister in question had been involved in ordaining or concelebrating with a women.
Why is believing that there is doubt about the orders of man ordained by a female bishop or by a bishop himself ordained/consecrated by a female bishop not in itself evidence of a taint theory? Because it is possible to believe that a woman is not capable of being validly consecrated without believing that anyone who has anything to do with her ministry is thereby "tainted" to the extent that their own ministry much be rejected as invalid or irremediably impaired. That's not a theory of "taint" - it's a theory of sacramental economy/efficacy.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Thanks, CB. As I hope was clear, I was wondering whether people are actually talking about the same thing when mentioning "taint" as it does seem to crop up with some regularity.
I'm completely out of the loop on this one - I've never heard the concept advanced IRL except on certain internet sites (of which this is one), either as a proposition, or an accusation either. And yet we did have the idea mentioned by a former FiF shipmate not that long ago. Unfortunately I can't remember the context, and the ship's search facility (never it's strongest point) seems to go haywire if you search for "taint".
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
Aren't the majority of CofE Bishops 'tainted' (in some way I am not clear about), despite being male, otherwise why have PEVs?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Curiosity Killed, please don't. Your contention is with the House of Laity not with Jesus Christ. Walking out on him because you are disgusted with some of his servants is spiritually very dangerous indeed.
When I stopped believing a long time ago I found it gave me a complete wholeness in terms of spirituality, so I wonder how you feel it is a 'dangerous' move. And that's a genuinely interested question, which I ask because I don't know the answer.
I've felt very chary of replying to this question, because the standard answer is very uncomfortable. I am not quite sure how to respond without being either upsetting or dishonest, but I can't get away from the feeling that the way you have asked me, obliges me to try.
The classic Christian understanding is that 'walking out on Jesus Christ' is saying no to his invitation, declining all that he offers, that is to say, apostasy. It is more dangerous to have believed and given up doing, than never to have believed at all. One places oneself with those who have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and crucify the Son of God on their own account. (see Heb 6:5-6). If having received the truth, we decide to reject it, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. All that is left is the fearful prospect of judgement (see Heb 10:27).
If we go off in a huff because we're fed up with the House of Laity, is our contention with the House of Laity or with Jesus himself? If the former, it's hardly fair and rather dangerous to blame Jesus because we think some of his followers aren't listening to him. If the latter, the risk is that rather than working through our contention with Christ and trying to repair the relationship, we will just remain stuck there, cut off until it is too late. Just as there are all too many examples of ordinary family rows which entrench themselves and are never repaired, this can happen with our relationship with Christ. But with him the consequences are not just for this life but for the age to come.
What I have tried to set out is what I understand to be the classic, traditional answer to your question. There are undoubtedly others with the pastoral training to have done this better. Some also may feel that discretion should have restrained me, that I should not have said this. Or there may be shipmates who have a more profound spiritual understanding than mine and can give a different answer.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
"Taint" is female ordination Dead-Horse territory and has always been. If you want to develop the tangent further, then please take it to Dead Horses.
[Sorry about this; it's the problem with "on balance" decisions on threads which nudge up on boundaries.)
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
My apologies Barnabas62 - in fact I was thinking the concept stretched well beyond that, but given the context ISWYM.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I don't want to start yet another thread on the Synod's decision, and implications of it, and I hope this is a sufficiently similar thought to tack on to this one.
Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish?
I've asked our clergy team (there are faaaaaaaaaahsends of 'em, as we say in Essex) whether the issue of women in authority, ordination, the sacramental role and all the things discussed here & in DH could be addressed in a discussion type meeting at church if it's not appropriate to be looked at within a sermon. Like KLB's experience, we're one of those evangelical-ish places which has almost dispensed with the liturgy, so a question & answer type discussion within a service isn't entirely without the realms of possibility.
Just wondering if anyone else has done likewise, or thinks it's a good idea? I have a feeling the clergy might think I'm one of those awful people who spend too much time on the internet...
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There are several petitions available, saying the General Synod decision was "not in our name" for people to sign.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
... Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish? ...
Wouldn't it be rather odd to leave the CofE over an issue where apart from a freak majority in the House of Laity, the general impression is that most of the CofE's members agree with you?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Jemima the 9th asked quote:
Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish?
Yes, but only informally. Opinions vary but the majority view seems to be that it's another cockup by all concerned, whoever "they" are.
To be honest, that's close to my own POV right now, and I'm more keen to talk to people who think differently, so have been watching most threads here and intend to visit a couple of other parishes for other viewpoints.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
... Being another person pondering leaving the CofE, I was wondering, is anyone else having discussions about the decision within their own parish? ...
Wouldn't it be rather odd to leave the CofE over an issue where apart from a freak majority in the House of Laity, the general impression is that most of the CofE's members agree with you?
Precisely what I've been thinking.
[ 26. November 2012, 17:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
Apologies, I was typing in a hurry before I went out. Silly.
I should have explained that, similar to CK, I've been thinking of leaving for years. I've been having an ongoing reappraisal of whether I believe any of it & whether I want to carry on in church for about 5 years, none of which is sufficiently interesting or relevant to bore you all with.
Whilst I take the point that the majority of the CofE's members agree with me, or so it seems, I'm sufficiently grumpy with the "whoever they are" to want to go. One of the troubles for me is what I perceive to be a big disconnect between the local place and the powers that be in the House of Laity, I appreciate this is being discussed in the reforming synod thread.
Perhaps it's just an exercise in frustrated foot-stamping on my part, but it seemed odd that an issue of importance isn't being discussed at local level. And speaking of frustrated foot-stamping, it did feel like the last straw for me & church, last week. (I know, waaaaaah, grow up & get over it, etc).
Cheers for the link, CK.
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on
:
Our Vicar tackled the issue head on in the Sermon yesterday. He was very fair and explained the different objections and supporting views of women bishops. His own 'pro' view from an Open Evangelical stand point did come through but he left space for people to come to their own conclusions. I was most impressed.
One of my own sentiments is that this is my Church and just because there are minorities who disagree with me does not mean I walk out the door.
I don't intend this to be a harsh comment to anyone, but I feel strongly that 'walking out' just gives this thing called Church that we've spent much time, effort and prayer in building up to the very people who we disagree with.
I'm not leaving because some people have it wrong. A way forward can be found, even if the Church works in centuries. This is my Church.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
One of my own sentiments is that this is my Church and just because there are minorities who disagree with me does not mean I walk out the door.
Yes, it's a feeling I have too. Ultimately I doubt I will leave. Also, I feel that if I did leave I'd be somehow announcing that I am a better person than those who disagree with me, and wonderful as I am I doubt that that's the case.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
What ken said - I heard on the radio a week back, can't find it.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I don't think I'm a better person than others who decide to remain with the C of E. I have the greatest respect for the women clergy, and the male clergy who support them, who belong to that particular organisation. Thing is, I don't have as much of my life invested in the organisation as they do - and I prefer to find a place of worship that isn't going to wind me up into fury.
In the end, I think it's God that matters, and not the specific human organisation you join in order to find out about God.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What ken said - I heard on the radio a week back, can't find it.
er - sorry, Penny S - which of ken's posts are you referring to? (trying to keep up)
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't it be rather odd to leave the CofE over an issue where apart from a freak majority in the House of Laity, the general impression is that most of the CofE's members agree with you?
Just to point out that the House of Laity did not have a majority against the measure. If six people had voted the other way, the required two-thirds majority in favour would have been reached. The actual numbers were 132 'For', 74 'Against', no abstentions, and 5 members not present.
Some of those voting against are in favour of women as bishops, but considered the protections for the dissenters insufficient.
Posted by brackenrigg (# 9408) on
:
The Muslim faith has a possible workable solution that St Paul might have approved of.
They can have a woman Iman, so long as they only preach to women.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
So make them all wear veils and lock themselves away in women-only rooms and you will never risk having to set eyes on one again.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
The Muslim faith has a possible workable solution that St Paul might have approved of.
They can have a woman Iman, so long as they only preach to women.
That is, as I understand it, the attitude among certain ConEvos as well, so not uncommon within the Diocese of Sydney.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What ken said - I heard on the radio a week back, can't find it.
er - sorry, Penny S - which of ken's posts are you referring to? (trying to keep up)
Actually, it was one which has been criticised, so I was being deliberately obscure. Criticised not only for expressing something which no-one else had come across, but also for being an expired equine - so I was not as explicit as I might have been, while wanting to back him up. It was that people wishing to be kept away from any contact with ordained women would wish not only to be served by male priests, or male priests not ordained by a woman bishop, but also not by a male priest ordained by a male bishop who had ordained a woman.
Seemed weird to me, but then I was brought up in a tradition with a founding belief in not having bishops at all. (Moved to the CofE when said church took against my mother, moved out again when I realised how some people felt about women back before the women priests vote.) Not having grown up in the bubbles which the Anglo-Catholics or the other end inhabit, and having a scientific background, I don't really understand a style of thinking which seems a bit magical to me.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0